A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on May 23rd, 2010 in Progressive Faith

Debra Haffner, whom I deeply respect and admire, has written a thoughtful piece at WaPo’s “On Faith” section. The meaty section of it reads:

More than 30 years ago, many religious denominations courageously passed resolutions in support of women’s moral agency and their right to a safe and legal abortion. Despite numerous legal challenges and social, scientific and medical advances, this theological commitment remains: Women must be able to make their own moral decisions, based on conscience and faith. Choosing abortion often means choosing life, especially when making that choice upholds and protects the lives, health and futures of a woman, her partner and her family.

There’s a whole world of theology in that short paragraph. I think an important part of that theology lies in recognizing that many of what we refer to as “mainstream denominations” have continued to support the right of women to have an abortion, should they choose to do so. In other words, even among Christians, there is a diversity of opinion as to the place abortion holds in the world of moral reasoning. It is not, as most anti-abortion advocates would have it, a clear-cut bright line where the Believers are on one side and the Damned are on the other.

The sad part is that Debra has to spend a few hundred words getting to this. The state of the public debate on abortion is such where a clergy member is automatically assumed to want to stop abortion – and anyone who has helped people arrive at decisions with which they can live is automatically assumed to hate religion. Having waded into the waters of public commentary myself, I can understand the need to explain one’s work from attacks on both the right and the left.

Since I’m both a liberal and a Christian, I understand the place where Debra is coming from, even as I lament it. In general, I agree with Debra’s statements. So file the rest of this under “nit-picking.”

Debra writes: “Virtually all faith traditions affirm the sanctity of life.” As someone who deals a lot with political rhetoric, I have to take exception to the term “sanctity of life.” It has entered the public lexicon to an extent that no one ever bothers to think about what it means – and what it’s place in theology might actually be.

Simply put, “sanctity” is the quality of sacredness, or being dedicated to a deity. I believe a blanket statement as to whether or not all life is dedicated to God is going a bit far. One does not have to dig into the Bible very deeply before one finds many an example of life being held as rather mundane. The Old Testament laws demanded forfeiture of life for a whole range of misbehaviors…and endorsed slavery, which has to be considered a loss of life of sorts.

I’ll make a slight digression as a means of trying to shift the focus and then come back. The Nativity – the birth of Jesus in a filthy manger – is often interpreted as showing the humility of God. I think that sells short the wonder of a simple manger. Consider the billions of life-forms that are sustained by dung, not to mention the billions more that go into creating dung. A dung-laden stall is pretty impressive from a basic standpoint. Think of it this way – what has man created that can compare?

If a filthy stable is as worthy of wonder and astonishment as the Taj Mahal (or whatever man-made wonder you want to substitute); then how might God look at life and death? According to basic theology, God exists beyond life and death. In fact, most Christian theologies teach that death functions as a means of bringing us closer to God. Why, then, would life be devoted to God when it, in a sense, stands in the way of coming closer to Him?

I think one way to interpret the teachings of Jesus is, “This life of yours that you hold so precious is really nothing. Only when you lose it will you understand what life really is.” This is often used as justification for following a career in the clergy, but I think that is also short-sighted. If humans can exist after death, then death is but a portal through which we pass to become what we are actually meant to be.

None of this means that we should embrace death or try to move towards it quickly. We each have a bit of time in which we are alive, and we can use it to help take care of each other – which the Bible makes clear is what we should be doing – or we can use it to do whatever we want and squander the gift. The choice is ours.

So, from God’s point of view, is an abortion “squandering the gift” (as I put it) or is it embracing that gift? The same question needs to be asked of any health decision. Organ transplant, for example, often kills the donor. Squandering or embracing? Turning off life support for a person – squandering or embracing? Giving a terminally ill patient enough pain killers to overdose and end their suffering – squandering or embracing?

Answering those questions takes a radical reworking of the theology of death – and therefore the theology of life. It also depends very heavily upon the exact application of that theology. The details matter and no blanket statement as to right and wrong can be offered. By engaging on the idea of the “sanctity of life” and “defending life” and any of the other variations of the right-wing framing of the abortion issue, we give up ground that demands so much more of us as individuals and believers.

In a way, it can be an intellectually lazy way of brushing aside some very difficult questions. It can also be theologically lazy, because it casts God in terms of human public policy. I’ve heard it say that theology seeks to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable – and, in that sense, those who are the surest about what God wants in terms of abortion policy are not that different from those who are the surest about what God wants in terms of foreign policy. It is those who are the surest of their theology who lead the headlong rush into fanaticism – and that isn’t something limited to abortion.

In the end, I believe we are left with the decision that abortion needs to be left in the hands of the women themselves. Some will make bad choices. Some will make morally reprehensible choices. That is the way life is. But, just as Pakistan cannot make people stop joking about Muhammad by banning Facebook, we cannot make a better world by giving people fewer choices. If an eternal God dispenses justice at the end of time – as most fundamentalist Christian doctrines teach – then there is nothing to fear from doing so.

Sphere: Related Content