Violence and the Faith: What John Eldridge Wouldn’t Understand
Wild at heart but a peacemaker. I believe this is what Christ has called us to. And I’d like to see what you guys think of this paper I wrote for my Bioethics class, which deals with this topic (sorta, in not-so-religious terms). I’ll post it under the “comments” section, since I’m basically computer illiterate and don’t know what else to do.
Tuesday, 5. December 2006 15:55
A Seamless Garment
by Jeremiah Moorhead
The throng of ethics today, like our politics, is neatly and conveniently divided into issues dubbed either as left or right. Yet truth is not directional. Neither the liberal nor the conservative may claim the monopoly on moral precision. In fact, in the contemporary political arena resides a plethora of ethical inconsistencies in both camps. If the conservative position typically claims that abortion is wrong, then why does it too often promote war, which also takes the lives of innocents? And if the liberal standpoint is to be generally more on the side of peace and aid for the helpless, why does it so readily accept euthanasia and embryo-destroying research? Stepping out of ideological complacency has allowed some to notice such incongruities as problematic; and a growing number of people are adhering to what has come to be known as the “consistent life ethic.†This approach to the controversial issues of life and peace is the only method that can bring us to the middle and amalgamate—instead of continuing to polarize—the populace by pushing us to opposite fringes.
The consistent life ethic (CLE) is an ecumenical effort to advance the movement for social justice. Frequently, concerns regarding social justice are deemed liberal matters, i.e. racism; poverty; fair trade; civil, human, and labor rights; nonviolence, etc.; whereas conservative concerns usually deal with “life†issues such as abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stemcell research, cloning, and the like. What proponents of the CLE attempt to reveal, however, is that life issues are issues of social justice, and vice versa. Such proponents include Peace Nobelists Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, and the Dalai Lama (Consistent Life). It also reflects the attitudes of the late Mahatmas Gandhi, writer Wendell Berry, and actor Martin Sheen. The basic premise of the CLE is “that ‘all human life is sacred’, and that this calls for ‘a coherent social policy which seeks to protect the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable in our society, the unborn, the infirm, the refugee, the homeless, and the poor’†(“Consistent Life Ethicâ€).
Taking the best from the left and right, the CLE was begun in the United States by peace, pro-life, and feminist activist Juli Loesch within her organization Prolifers for Survival (“Juli Loeschâ€). The movement then saw advanced formal organizion with the creation of The Seamless Garment Network, now known as Consistent Life. With Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae addressing the evils of war, abortion, poverty, euthanasia, class struggles, capital punishment, and harm to the environment, many have come to see this “seamless garment†approach as the official stance of the Church—falling comfortably in line with the Catholic Social Doctrine. Additionally, the activist groups Democrats for Life, Environmentalists for Life, and Feminists for Life also subscribe to this comprehensive ethic.
Opponents of such pro-life progressivism come in two varieties: the same typical two types that are involved in the general abortion fight. First are staunch pro-choice liberals who see the CLE as infringing the rights of people on the issue of ending the lives of fetuses and the infirm. Second are adamant pro-life conservatives who perceive issues such as war and the death penalty as necessary evils and who do not recognize the effects of their fiscal policies as working against their pro-life stance. Both sides fail to see the inseparability of these matters. For the former, the CLE’s weakness is its reliability upon the “sanctity of life†argument. For the latter, it is the inability to see how and why one should apply such an argument across the board, making it relevant even to prisoners and economic issues.
(While addressing the opposition, it should be noted that this is by no means meant to be a complete defense but rather a general overview of the topic at hand; the subject matter is too inclusive to treat satisfactorily here. As a result, this writer will only briefly attend to some of the most common objections and use abortion as the primary point of contention.)
The pro-lifers’ typical argument is the attempt to persuade by making an appeal to the “sanctity†of human life. The CLE is no different, since that is the foundational assumption by which the rest of their case resides. So the person wanting to find good reason to support abortion or euthanasia must first attack this premise. In his article “The Sanctity of Life,†Jonathon Glover tries to do just that. He claims that such a stance is usually only applied to human life, which leaves us guilty of speciesism:
[T]he objection to taking human life should not rest on what is sometimes called ‘speceisism’: human life being treated as having a special priority over animal life simply because it is human. The analogy is with racism, in its purest form, according to which people of certain race ought to be treated differently simply because of their membership to that race, without any argument referring to special features of that race being given (271).
One wonders if this same ethic is also applied to plant species. Paradoxically, it is this similar reasoning that has led some abortion opponents to take the stance they have and that renders Glover’s “racist†analogy empty. In reference to early pro-lifers, Jeff Taylor explains their views as a commitment to populist pacifism:
In addition to being founded on a belief in
nonviolence, their opposition to abortion was
also tied to a belief that it was being
promoted as a classist and racist tool by
wealthy population controllers disinterested in
supplying deeper and more just solutions to the
problems of poverty and inequality. (“Paul
Wellstoneâ€)
These policymakers of peacefulness recognized the priority in defending the lives of humans, born and unborn. In fact, it was not the pro-lifers who made selective claims of superiority but the other side:
There is a socioeconomic class aspect to the
abortion debate. The abortion rights movement
emerged in the 1960s out of the upper-class-
dominated eugenics/population control movement.
Roe v. Wade was not created by democratic
consensus, the downtrodden, or grassroots
feminists; it was handed down by seven
unelected, highly privileged men. The
Population Council, American Medical
Association, and American Bar Association
played key roles in legalization. Opinion polls
indicate that the pro-choice position is far
more popular with wealthy individuals and
corporate managers than is the pro-life
position. Opposition to abortion is strongest
among working-class and lower-income Americans
(“Deleted Scenesâ€).
This leads us to the opposition from the right. Pro-life conservatives—while wanting abortions, cloning, and other potential life-destroying actions banned—rarely consider how their own presumptions in other realms may endanger the lives they wish to save. A traditional link between American conservatism and corporate capitalism has created a situation that is conducive to abortion:
Opposition to national health care funding and
paid maternity leave programs leaves many women
no choice but to end their pregnancy with a
less costly abortion instead of carrying the
child to term…Welfare reform and the reduction
of aid to families with dependent children
encourages women to end their pregnancy instead
of bringing their child into the world with no
means of financial support…Opposition to higher
minimum wage laws hurts women, who represent
the majority of minimum wage earners. This
leaves low wage earners no choice but to abort
their child…[and] [c]onservative-supported
corporate downsizing causes wage earners to
lose the ability to support their families,
thus encouraging more abortions (Democrats for
Life).
And what of the casualties of war and prisoners on death row? Does the sanctity of life not apply to these populations? Many conservatives have decided that one of the things worth conserving is killing the bad guy, not merely in self-defense but in the retributive sense.
So the freethinking folks who feel violated if not allowed to kill and the conventional conservatives who are blind to their own participating in these deaths and even promote further ones remain separated. Only a populist movement of the kind all-encompassing enough to include the Greens on the left and the Constitutionalists on the right will succeed in progressing our society out of this culture of death. To be sure, many issues still need addressed: When does life begin? When should it end? What about cases of rape? What about birth control? But the fact that such barbaric practices as abortion and euthanasia still exist and are protected—by those deemed liberals, no less—stuns the one concerned with life. Also, as long as conservatives, especially those of the religious right, continue to seek the death of their enemies and their own limitless material gain, the world will only see them as hypocrites. Irony pervades. And as the world continues to push for policies of nonviolence and peace, some find the old ways hard to lose.
Works Cited
“Consistent Life Ethic.†Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 06 Nov. 2006. 04 Dec. 2006.
Consistent Life: Voices for Peace and Life. 2006. 04 Dec. 2006.Â
Democrats for Life. 04 Dec. 2006.
Glover, Jonathon. “The Sanctity of Life.†Bioethics: An Anthology. Ed. Helga Kuhse and
Peter Singer. Blackwell, 2006. 266-275.
“Juli Loesch.†Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 14 Nov. 2006. 04 Dec. 2006.
Taylor, Jeff. “Paul Wellstone: Gunboat Diplomacy, Gay Marriage, & Broken Promises.†Counterpunch. August 2002. 04 Dec. 2006.
Taylor, Jeff. “Deleted Scenes.†(5:98). PopCorn78 – Where Did the Party Go? 2006. 04 Dec.. 2006.
Wednesday, 6. December 2006 21:19
Jeremiah,
I’m about 1/2 way through and I like it very much.
Hopefully I’ll be able to finish it tonight and share whatever thoughts come to me.
Thanks for sharing.
Wednesday, 6. December 2006 21:42
No problem. I’d love to hear what you may have to say.
Thursday, 7. December 2006 19:58
Ok.
I love the form of your argument as a whole but am finding the specific argument against war and the death penalty unpersuasive. Did not Aquinas argue that there is a just time for war? And is it not clear in the God’s law that many things warrant the death penalty, such as adultery and murder?
That’s not to say that I agree with the War in Iraq or many cases in which the death penalty is used, but I’m not against All wars and All death penalty verdicts.
Thursday, 7. December 2006 21:58
First, let me say that this argument needs much more work, I know. It was a hurried job.
Second, Christians can accept the Just War theory, sure. In fact, as Aquinas adopted it from Aristotle (as he did almost everything else he taught) and filtered it through Augustine, it quickly became the most popular view on war.
But note: it was merely the most popular view, not the only view. From the beginning of the Church there has always been a pacifistic tradition. The Franciscans are a medieval example.
And although this teaching–as well as the entire canon of Aquinas–became the “official” teaching of the Church, the Church never negated the possibility of a pacifistic stance. At Vatican II it clarified that pacifism is indeed not contradictory to the Church’s teachings and that anyone whose conscience leads them in that direction may feel free to follow it there.
I believe that whether one accepts Just War or pacifism as their universal guide must still come to similar conclusions regarding modern warfare: it can never be just (what with its weapons of mass destruction endangering the lives of innocents). Thus, we must all be relative pacifists. Some of us may have fought when the Franciscans wouldn’t, but none of us can now. Accept for one acception.
This acception is the concept of tension reduction. Basically, it is morally lawful for us to take up arms to defend our land. But ideally this is not done by professional military but by citizen-soldiers. As Chesterton said, “The only defensible war is a war of defense.” I think in terms of the Second Vermont Republic and its militia defending its borders, not the War in Iraq. Of course, a strict pacifist will never accept even this.
And lastly, yes, the Scriptures lay out examples when war and the death penalty were to be carried out. It also tells us how and when to sacrifice sheep. Point is, I’m not a Reconstructionist, so I don’t accept many of the things in the Old Testament as binding on the conscience of believers today. In fact, we could debate as to whether it would actually be sinful to do so. Killing someone for adultery? I mean, it hurt when my ex-wife cheated on me and I don’t care to see the bitch’s face ever again, but I don’t wish to see her executed either.
Monday, 11. December 2006 17:52
Jeremiah, thanks for clarifying up the Church’s view. That was helpful.
“it can never be just (what with its weapons of mass destruction endangering the lives of innocents).”
This is a good point. Have you seen the black comedy “Dr. Strangelove”? After seeing it recently I was reminded of the vast difference in talking about modern warfare and historic warfare.
“Point is, I’m not a Reconstructionist, so I don’t accept many of the things in the Old Testament as binding on the conscience of believers today.”
Neither do reconstructionists.
“In fact, we could debate as to whether it would actually be sinful to do so. Killing someone for adultery? I mean, it hurt when my ex-wife cheated on me and I don’t care to see the bitch’s face ever again, but I don’t wish to see her executed either.”
Sorry, bad example.
My point though is that there is still a place for the death penalty(DP), which I guess you agree with since you said “And lastly, yes, the Scriptures lay out examples when war and the death penalty were to be carried out.”
Whether you are a reconstructionist or not I don’t see how a Christian could argue that something that was clearly a sin in OT meriting the DP would not also be so in the NT absent a command to the otherwise. Has God’s economy and law changed so drastically? One may have an argument that the modern state is a secular entity and not wise enough to make these decisions but that wouldn’t negate the principle.
Monday, 11. December 2006 19:27
Many of the theonomists (if I may use this term synonomously for “reconstructionists”) I’ve read seem to argue that the OT laws–except the dietary and sacrificial ones–still apply to today. And there may be varying degrees of this from thinker to thinker, but I believe this is the basic gist.
But, no, I do not believe the death penalty should be used today. This comes out of the “consistent life” logic but is also the teaching of the Church (the only hypothetical exception is if a person is such a danger to society that incarcaration doesn’t even prevent him from doing harm). I remember when I was going through RCIA and first learned they taught this: I thought, “What a bunch of liberal mumbo-jumbo. There’s no way the Church actually teaches this; this must just be the ignorant ramblings of these dumbass teachers.”
Nope, I was wrong.
So does the Scripture teach that there are cases when to apply the death penalty? Yes. Do those principles apply for today. I don’t think so. “Has God’s economy and law changed so drastically?” Apparently. And if this isn’t true, then why is adultery a bad example?
Monday, 11. December 2006 19:50
Uh, “bad example” because you’ve been through it once before. I didn’t mean for personal experiences to color our discussion.
I do think that adultery merits the DP when the case matches the OT example. This is based on my thenomic presuppositions, which clearly is not at all in vogue in all but the most extremist circles. Never-the-less, I have not yet found reason to abandon them.
It seems odd to me that your “consistent life” ethic did not hold true in the OT. Why the inconsistency? It seems quite clear in the NT that Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.
Monday, 11. December 2006 20:00
“It seems quite clear in the NT that Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.”
Christ said this himself, it’s true. But what are the consequences of such a fulfillment? “Not destroying” doesn’t necessarily mean “keeping the same.”
Monday, 11. December 2006 20:33
““Not destroying†doesn’t necessarily mean “keeping the same.—
True. The question then has to do with the hermeneutical assumptions we bring to the text. What does it mean for Christ to “fulfill” the law? If it means the destruction (abandonment) of OT law, then why the previous statement about not coming to destroy the law?
Notice that as a theonomist I do not deny that much of the law has changed from the OT to the NT. My assumption though is that ONLY the laws not explicitly repealed in the NT or repealed through deduction would remain in the NT. One would deduce these laws via the fact that Christ has come, His people are all people and not just the Israelites, and, thus, many of the OT laws make no sense in the NT economy. Examples are the sacrifices (Christ has been sacrificed), Israeli garb and food practices (No reason for Israel to be set aside anymore), etc.
Monday, 11. December 2006 21:13
The paradox is this: Christ said he did not come to destroy the law. However, we know he did do away with part of it when he said, “You’ve heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you repay evil with kindness, turn the other cheek, resist not an evil person, etc.” (Moorhead paraphrase).
Under the new covenant, many old ways are done away with, as you pointed out, because many of them no longer make sense. I think this kind of “Sermon on the Mount” Christianity is where we learn what he meant by fulfilling the law.
So what does “not destroying the law” mean? Well, you can’t fulfill what’s been destroyed. And only He, as God, has the power to do either. He chose the former. And the consequences have been evident ever since: From the church’s very beginnings there have been Christian pacifists, rejecting both war and the state.
The pessimists keep telling me that the world is getting worse and worse. And in many repsects that may be true. But for the first time in existence have we seen such a worldwide push for policies of both nonviolence and nonresistence–ideas which find their origins in the teachings from the Mount of Olives.