As I have reflected on the topic of sanctity of life, I have to admit that my views on the issue were not as clear cut as I had expected them to be. I know how I feel about abortion, euthanasia, murder, war, and the death penalty from both legal and moral perspectives. I know that the topics are difficult and should be discussed with humility. And I know that it is important to have an opinion. But what I didn’t know that I didn’t know was that boiling this down to the concept of sanctity of life would be so problematic.
Sanctity of life presupposes that there is such a thing as sanctity which necessitates a belief in God (or at least some greater good). This presupposition negates the need for much of the debate surrounding the concept of sanctity of life and moves the debate to one of pragmatic interpretation of scripture rather than a philosophical debate on the nature of life itself. Once the debate moves that direction it becomes one of doctrine alone which allows no room for the evolution of thought. That includes an evolution within the realm of religion. So it is important not to simply make this conversation one of exegeses. However, as believers it is important to position ourselves within the constructs of sanctity and move on from there. Because this is only a blog entry and there is more to cover, this is a brief overview of sanctity of life in scripture.
From a Christian perspective (and there are other faith perspectives that compliment this perspective as well), the sanctity of life clearly implies that life is sacred because it is from God. Beginning in the beginning with a prohibition of murder in Genesis 9:6, the belief that life is sacred is intricately tied to the belief that man is made in the image of God. Throughout scripture there is an argument, albeit poetic argument, that God values this sacred relationship before the first breathe is taken as evidenced in Jeremiah 1:5 and throughout Job. The sinful nature of man is even attributed to pre-birth with David arguing that he was sinful from the moment of conception. And probably the most well known reference, Psalm 139 which reads, “created my inmost being … [and] knit me together in my mother's womb”. This would all argue that the soul, something which is uniquely human, begins in the womb. Even in the New Testament this idea is carried through when presenting the conception of Jesus.
Despite this clear biblical perspective on the sanctity of life, Christians disagree on what that looks like in the real world. Many will pull from Old Testament laws such as found in Numbers 35 and its implied justification for execution to argue for justice when defending the death penalty, protection of family when defending gun laws and war, and debate the moment of life when debating abortion. But these views are typically rooted in political and cultural values rather than true exegetical exploration. And many Christians will hold firmly to the sanctity of life until it directly interferes with more immediate values. It is at these times that even the most ardent Evangelical will adopt a looser definition of when life actually begins and ends.
Unfortunately, deeper understanding about the nature of life isn’t what is motivating the situational ambiguity of when is life sacred, but rather what is convenient. However, the debate does allow us to engage in a new conversation. What we believe to be sacred should be what directs our ethical response to various beliefs about the nature of life. What we see clearly when we are typically just justifying other values is that the nature of life is much more ambiguous than we previously thought. It is in the ambiguity that we experience a new conversation of ethics and the nature of life. What typically emerges in theological debates at this point is formal versus material image of God debates and sanctification versus justification debates on the nature of what is sacred within humanity. These are valuable debates, but typically follow doctrinal lines rather than true discourse.
However, from a true exploration of truth perspective, what we can see is that what constitutes life is a debate between nature and nurture. Is life, and therefore the sanctity of life, about the presence of vital signs or something more? If one believes that life is about more than vital signs than there is justification for euthanasia. If it is only about vital signs than you have to break from parallel doctrinal lines and oppose abortion. The argument of sanctity of life then must first engage in another conversation, quality of quantity of life. Is the sanctity of life built on the premise that life is sacred because it is a reflection of God and therefore should be protected at all costs (even martyrdom)? Or is the sanctity of life built on the premise that life is sacred because it reflects the nature of God in us and therefore allows for dignity in death and protection of righteousness? We simply cannot debate abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, gun laws, and war in vacuums. They are all built on one of these two arguments and shape what we believe sanctity of life means.
What would typically emerge at this point from one who has opposing views is that it depends on the context. While I agree that ethical conversations should incorporate contextual information, they should avoid teleological ethics where the ends justify the means. Likewise, I oppose virtue ethics which allow no room for obedience to the will of God. However, I contend that most who would debate me in “calling out” inconsistencies regarding the premises of sanctity of life are more concentrated on defending their position than debating the underlying question: Is life a reflection of God because it is a blessing of God or because of it reflects the nature of God? While I would agree that is surely both, only one can be a premise for a sanctity of life position. Either life should be protected at all costs or the nature of God within us should be protected at all costs.
Sanctity of life presupposes that there is such a thing as sanctity which necessitates a belief in God (or at least some greater good). This presupposition negates the need for much of the debate surrounding the concept of sanctity of life and moves the debate to one of pragmatic interpretation of scripture rather than a philosophical debate on the nature of life itself. Once the debate moves that direction it becomes one of doctrine alone which allows no room for the evolution of thought. That includes an evolution within the realm of religion. So it is important not to simply make this conversation one of exegeses. However, as believers it is important to position ourselves within the constructs of sanctity and move on from there. Because this is only a blog entry and there is more to cover, this is a brief overview of sanctity of life in scripture.
From a Christian perspective (and there are other faith perspectives that compliment this perspective as well), the sanctity of life clearly implies that life is sacred because it is from God. Beginning in the beginning with a prohibition of murder in Genesis 9:6, the belief that life is sacred is intricately tied to the belief that man is made in the image of God. Throughout scripture there is an argument, albeit poetic argument, that God values this sacred relationship before the first breathe is taken as evidenced in Jeremiah 1:5 and throughout Job. The sinful nature of man is even attributed to pre-birth with David arguing that he was sinful from the moment of conception. And probably the most well known reference, Psalm 139 which reads, “created my inmost being … [and] knit me together in my mother's womb”. This would all argue that the soul, something which is uniquely human, begins in the womb. Even in the New Testament this idea is carried through when presenting the conception of Jesus.
Despite this clear biblical perspective on the sanctity of life, Christians disagree on what that looks like in the real world. Many will pull from Old Testament laws such as found in Numbers 35 and its implied justification for execution to argue for justice when defending the death penalty, protection of family when defending gun laws and war, and debate the moment of life when debating abortion. But these views are typically rooted in political and cultural values rather than true exegetical exploration. And many Christians will hold firmly to the sanctity of life until it directly interferes with more immediate values. It is at these times that even the most ardent Evangelical will adopt a looser definition of when life actually begins and ends.
Unfortunately, deeper understanding about the nature of life isn’t what is motivating the situational ambiguity of when is life sacred, but rather what is convenient. However, the debate does allow us to engage in a new conversation. What we believe to be sacred should be what directs our ethical response to various beliefs about the nature of life. What we see clearly when we are typically just justifying other values is that the nature of life is much more ambiguous than we previously thought. It is in the ambiguity that we experience a new conversation of ethics and the nature of life. What typically emerges in theological debates at this point is formal versus material image of God debates and sanctification versus justification debates on the nature of what is sacred within humanity. These are valuable debates, but typically follow doctrinal lines rather than true discourse.
However, from a true exploration of truth perspective, what we can see is that what constitutes life is a debate between nature and nurture. Is life, and therefore the sanctity of life, about the presence of vital signs or something more? If one believes that life is about more than vital signs than there is justification for euthanasia. If it is only about vital signs than you have to break from parallel doctrinal lines and oppose abortion. The argument of sanctity of life then must first engage in another conversation, quality of quantity of life. Is the sanctity of life built on the premise that life is sacred because it is a reflection of God and therefore should be protected at all costs (even martyrdom)? Or is the sanctity of life built on the premise that life is sacred because it reflects the nature of God in us and therefore allows for dignity in death and protection of righteousness? We simply cannot debate abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, gun laws, and war in vacuums. They are all built on one of these two arguments and shape what we believe sanctity of life means.
What would typically emerge at this point from one who has opposing views is that it depends on the context. While I agree that ethical conversations should incorporate contextual information, they should avoid teleological ethics where the ends justify the means. Likewise, I oppose virtue ethics which allow no room for obedience to the will of God. However, I contend that most who would debate me in “calling out” inconsistencies regarding the premises of sanctity of life are more concentrated on defending their position than debating the underlying question: Is life a reflection of God because it is a blessing of God or because of it reflects the nature of God? While I would agree that is surely both, only one can be a premise for a sanctity of life position. Either life should be protected at all costs or the nature of God within us should be protected at all costs.
