Text: John 10:1-10
Imagine with me, if you will, three people:
First there is Frank. Frank is 68-years-old, sitting beside a hospital bed where his wife of 47 years lies unconscious, connected to life support. Doctors have given her no chance of recovery. She has no advance directive. Frank is faced with a choice. . .a choice between life and death.
Next, meet Paula. Paula is 48-years-old and has been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis for a few years now. Each year her symptoms worsen. She reads about the potential for stem cell research in helping her and perhaps thousands of other people, but wonders if stem cell research is ethical.
Finally, meet Allison, a 32-year-old professional. She and her husband have just learned that the child she carries inside her will be born with severe heart, liver, kidney and brain defects, and will likely live only hours if not minutes outside the womb. She never imagined she would ever consider abortion. . .
Three people all facing three incredibly difficult situations of life and quality of life. . .of death and unbirth. And in the middle of these real-life situations faced by our neighbors every day, we ask the question, “Is God Pro-Life?”
Let me calm some anxiety: I’m not going to tell anyone what they should think about the issue of legalized abortion. I don’t have nearly enough tenure to go there. So breathe easy.
What I want to do for the next few moments is to broaden the question, and open it up to be a much bigger question than simply the issue of abortion. The term “pro-life” in popular discourse seems to be limited to the abortion debate, but you and I both know that LIFE extends well past the womb. So the question “Is God Pro-Life?” should deal with LIFE from womb to tomb. The question “Is God Pro-Life” lingers around the hospital room where Frank prays for wisdom; it hovers in the quite den where Paula finds hope in reading the latest stem cell research news; it inhabits each tear on Allison’s cheek.
One of my favorite passages in all of scripture is from the book of John, chapter 10. Let’s read it together . . .
Jesus tells his followers here that his very purpose for taking on flesh and coming to earth is so that people might have LIFE. . .LIFE to the full. I think it’s safe to say that at least Jesus was a big fan of LIFE.
To join with Christ is to become a co-laborer with Christ in creating a world that would offer ABUNDANT LIFE for all people, from womb to tomb. If you believe this to be true, you likely have a difficult time fitting into either of the popular political camps. Let’s look at why.
Meet Cathy Conservative. She is pro-life when it comes to abortion, suggesting that a fetus is a human and to abort that fetus is akin to murder. But she is anti-life when it comes to the death penalty, suggesting that society has the right to take the life of a person if that person has committed crimes severe enough to warrant it.
Now meet Larry Liberal. Larry, unlike Cathy Conservative, is pro-choice when it comes to abortion, suggesting that women should have a choice when it comes to their bodies. But Larry is anti-choice when it comes to the death penalty, suggesting that society should not be given the choice to take the life any person despite, perhaps, heinous crimes against society.
The problem with both of these popular stances is that they are both terribly inconsistent. So in the middle of these inconsistencies with both popular camps when it comes to LIFE and CHOICE, let’s try and figure out if there’s a word from the Lord for ALL of us.
ALTERNATIVE 1: SANCTITY OF LIFE/CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE
Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, the Archbishop of Chicago until his death in 1996, witnessed polarity and division within his own Catholic Church as well as the inconsistencies held on both sides of this debate. He began to promulgate what he called the “consistent ethic of life,” a philosophy based on the “sanctity of life” idea. It holds that issues such as abortion, capital punishment, militarism, euthanasia, social injustice and economic injustice all demand a consistent application of moral principles that value the sacredness of human life. Pope John Paul II’s The Gospel of Life echoes this sentiment and is the preeminent piece touting the sanctity of life.
There is consistency in this approach. A lot of the criticism the pro-life movement receives is that “pro-lifers” are often just “pro-birthers” with little or no concern for life outside the womb. Like the example of a pregnant woman on crack. Some “pro-lifers” might fight for legislation banning abortion for the mother on crack, while simultaneously opposing legislation that would hold society responsible for that crack baby’s welfare. Pro-birth, but not really pro-life.
The “consistent ethic of life” approach cannot be accused of such hypocrisy. In fact, Bernardin said over and over again that “If one contends, as we do, that the right of every unborn child should be protected by civil law . . . then our moral, political, and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth! We must defend that right to life of the weakest among us: we must also be supportive of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, working mothers and single parents, the sick, the disabled, and the dying.”[1] A “consistent ethic of life” calls “us to respect the life in the womb, the life of a criminal, the life on welfare, the life of the dying.”[2] This approach takes seriously not just birth, but life, and works to alleviate systemic causes of anything that would threaten life from womb to tomb.
ALTERNATIVE 2: RESPECT FOR LIFE
I like the consistency of this approach, but I don’t think it’s perfect. Good Christian thinkers have criticized the “sanctity of life” idea: they warn that this philosophy might be inching up to idolatry, treating human life as a “second God,”[3] they elevate “quality of life,” suggesting that appeals to the sanctity of life beg the question, “that you know what kind of life it is that should be treated as sacred.”[4] they reject authoritarian solutions claiming that “ethics is not primarily about rules and principles; rather it is about how the self must be transformed to see the world truthfully.”[5] Or like our own Tim Meadows simplified that, “Ethics is about people not principles.”
The critics propose that life should be respected, but not deified. They favor situational ethics that respect life rather than authoritarian rules that limit human freedom.
Right, left, sanctity of life, respect for life. . .where’s the word of the Lord for us all?
As I said before, I don’t think it’s my place or even the church’s place to micromanage morality. The role of the church is to draw people to Christ. If you’ve read the Gospels, you know that Jesus emanated a “CONSISTENT ETHIC OF MERCY.” Touching the unclean, forgiving a woman caught in adultery, offering hope to a thief on the cross. Mercy was paramount to law for Christ in story after story we read in the gospels. We can argue about laws and legislation related to life and end-of-life issues. But the word of the Lord for us all tonight is the word “mercy.” The call of Christ is the compassionate life. . .compassion for Frank in the middle of a choice no one should ever have to make. Compassion for Paula who longs for healing. Compassion for Allison as she faces the immanent loss of a child. As you make your own judgments about legislation surrounding issues related to life and death, follow the way of Christ, the way of compassion. By that, God will indeed be honored.
[1] Joseph Bernardin, 1986 New York address.
[2] Kenneth R. Overberg. “A Consistent Ethic of Life.” http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0798.asp
[3] Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. Vol. 3:4, 342.
[4] Stanley Hauerwas, Suffering Presence, p. 92.
[5] Stanley Hauerwas, Peaceable Kingdom, 30, 33.