With Women’s History Month ending last week and this week being Holy Week, the week leading up to Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday, for Christians, I thought it would be great to reflect on the meaning of “pro-life.” That might sound odd, but I hope that just means you will stick around long enough to understand how relevant and important it is. 

You have probably heard the phrase “pro-life” anytime a discussion about abortion rights or a Woman’s right to choose – “pro-choice” – comes up. The “pro-life” side is against women having abortions because they claim to believe in the sanctity of all life. The “pro-choice” side is for women having autonomy over their own bodies and being able to make medical decisions for their own welfare and that of their families. Regardless of which side you are on, the general understanding was that the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade settled the matter for all time. In other words, Women would have the legal right to an abortion all throughout the United States. On June 24th of last year, however, in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization the Supreme Court reversed the decision of Roe v. Wade and a 1992 court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This was declared a victory for the “pro-life” movement, especially among some Christians who make up a substantial portion of that movement. 

That declaration just never sat right with me though. Let me explain to you why. 

Many in this so-called “pro-life” movement tend to also be what we often refer to as more “conservative.” That’s not always the case, but it overwhelmingly trends that way. Conservatism, in addition to restricting or banning abortion (“pro-life”), is associated with being for the death penalty, guns, limited government (except when it comes to women and their bodies apparently), defunding government assistance programs (i.e., welfare, food stamps, etc.) and public education, boosting the military budget, and more policing. They are also without a doubt typically capitalist with a capital “C.”

They tend to be opposed to efforts to hold police accountable for killing of unarmed Black Women, Men, and children. They tend to be opposed to universal healthcare, government assistance programs, and gun regulation. They tend to be opposed to any cuts to the ballooning United States military budget in favor of public education or those government assistance programs they don’t like. They tend to be opposed to any regulations that would require businesses and citizens to act in a more sustainable (for the earth) way as it relates to energy usage, water, and even the types of cars made and driven. They tend to be opposed to any government efforts to help put an end to poverty in the U.S. because of the belief, as misguided as it may be, that everyone has the same opportunity and access to become a “success.”

It’s hard to claim that you’re “pro-life” if you can see body after body beaten, brutalized, lifeless in the street and not think that some overhaul is needed in the entire system of policing in the country. It’s hard to claim that you’re “pro-life” if you’re okay with people not being able to go to church, grocery shopping, the movies, the mall, college, or, if you’re a kid, to school without having to worry about the possibilities of being gunned down. It’s hard to claim that you’re “pro-life” if you ignore the homeless (unhoused) crisis that gets worse and worse. It’s hard to claim that you’re “pro-life” if you can see that 1 in 7 children in America (U.S.) are living in poverty and not see a societal moral failing. It’s hard to claim that you’re “pro-life” if you are okay with innocent people being executed by the government in various states. It’s hard to claim that you’re “pro-life” if you’re not angered into action as people are not able to afford medicine and medical operations that would save their lives. It’s hard to claim that you’re “pro-life” if you are more concerned about your own perceived comfort than potential climate change and pollution/waste solutions that could save God’s creation which includes you. It’s hard to claim that you’re “pro-life” if you believe poverty and the death thereof that exists is a problem for “those people” or indicative of a lack of hard work. 

There appears to be a disconnect between the affirmation of “pro-life” as it relates to Women and girls choosing to have abortions (for whatever reason) and these other ways life is so easily and avoidably taken from this world. The designation “pro-life” is great marketing on their part, but I think a more appropriate term would be “pro-birth.” They are for the birth of people in this world, but I think it is safe to say that that is where their care or concern for their life ends.

We can’t only care about life before birth and then, once a person is born, abandon any care or concern for them. Jesus the Christ of Nazareth who we acknowledge, during this Holy Week, was wrongly convicted and received the death penalty that many who claim to be “pro-life” support today. While we recognize it as an eventual celebration, it was anything but that one Thursday night and Friday. It was an injustice that took the life of the exemplar human being from this earth. This Holy Week I’m reclaiming the phrase “Pro-Life” from those who seem to only care about life being formed in the womb. I encourage each one of us to really be pro-life in our rhetoric, the way we treat others, the way we vote, what we advocate for, and the types of activities we’re involved in.

Huh?

I was so confused and went to delete the email, but my curiosity and righteous indignation took over. My initial thought was, “The audacity!” But, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this was some deep analysis that detailed how what we call social justice failed to live up to the life-giving justice described in the Biblical scriptures. Wrong! What I came across was anything but that.

I have not nor will I ever read the book, however, in doing research on this particular author, I stumbled upon an article on the book and an interview with the author. From the interview, he is quoted as saying social justice is an “ideology” that has come into the “Bible-believing or evangelical church.” This means that he identifies with what is commonly referred to as an “evangelical.” I say what is commonly referred to as “evangelical” because what we commonly refer to as “evangelical” is a particular group of people all over the United States, but particularly in the Bible Belt states (combination of southeastern, southwestern, and some midwest states), that have a particular theology of the Bible and share a very conservative (and republican) political ideology. This is a perversion of what it means to be “evangelical,” which is not about a certain theological and political viewpoint upheld by the interests of an overwhelmingly white and conservative republican movement.

There was one line, however, that really prompted me to write a response to this uninspired, morally reprehensible, gaslighting of a book. It was when Allen says, “What I wanted to do in the book is not just critique social justice. I wanted people to understand it clearly as I could convey. This is not an academic book, it’s for lay Christians who are trying to get their heads around this. It’s so prominent in the culture. I tried to lay out what this worldview of social justice is but wanted to do it by comparing to biblical understandings of justice. I believe what you are dealing with here is a counterfeit justice.”

Y’all, I can’t make this stuff up!
Let’s dive into it…’

One of the things that is so backwards about the author’s logic begins with his definition of “justice” itself. The author, who is honestly representing the sentiments of the “white evangelical” world (generally speaking), expresses an ignorance about the Bible and justice. He takes the term social justice and uses it to create a false divide. First things first, all justice is social.

There is no such thing as justice outside of community. There would be no need for it. It wouldn’t exist. The sin that is injustice can’t be done in isolation. We don’t sin in abstract ways. We sin by going against the will of God but the effects are experienced by others as well as ourselves.

In the interview the author says, “Social justice comes out of a school of thought that is largely theistic, it comes out of idealism. It’s a school of thought that arose in the 1700s. People are probably familiar with Hegel and Nietzsche and some of these folks. So, it has starting points from that. But biblical justice I define this way, its “conformity to God’s moral standard as revealed in the 10 commandments, in the royal law in the New Testament which says love your neighbor as yourself.” Social justice has to do with deconstructing traditional systems and structures that are deemed to be oppressive and redistributing power and resources from oppressors to their victims in the pursuit of an equality of outcome. You can see from those two simple definitions how different these two concepts are even though they use the same word: justice.” He is basically arguing that what we know as social justice comes from a decidedly non-God or even anti-God perspective. This author and “evangelical” perspectives like his never address what the prophets of the Old Testament were called by God to preach to the people. Some examples of this are below:

Micah 6:8, “He has told you human one, what is good and what the Lord requires from you: to do justice, embrace faithful love, and walk humbly with your God.” (CEB)

Isaiah 1:17, “… learn to do good. Seek justice: help the oppressed; defend the orphan; plead for the widow.” (CEB)

Amos 5:24, “But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (CEB)

Jeremiah 22:3, “The Lord proclaims: Do what is just and right; rescue the oppressed from the power of the oppressor. Don’t exploit or mistreat the refugee, the orphan, and the widow. Don’t spill the blood of the innocent in this place.” (CEB)

I’m not trying to cherrypick scripture either. The truth is that these are just a few examples, but the scripture passages in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and many of the other prophets are too much to just write in one blog post. And, I encourage you, as is a practice of mine, to read what comes before and what comes after to fully understand what is being said in these singular verses. Nevertheless, each of these verses comes after the prophets share God’s disgust with the centers of power and the people’s performance of religion and faithfulness to “Him.” The festivals and offerings do not please God when the oppression of the most vulnerable people in society (i.e. widows, orphans, refugees, etc.) or the outright disregard for them as human beings is the norm.

This is an excerpt from a blog post that originally appeared in “In My Ancestors’ Dreams”.