Yesterday (What’s Social About Justice?) I ended with an assertion that may have raised an eyebrow or two.
Social justice issues are “pro-life.”
Jesus said life was His whole purpose.
“I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (John 10:10)
In my view, anyone who attempts to follow Jesus must be pro-life. But in our society there’s a huge difference between pro-life and “PRO-LIFE,” right?
Pro-life means promoting the abundant, eternal life Jesus talked about. Pro-life means enough food, clean water, health care, freedom, education, safety, peace, equal opportunity, and care for the helpless and oppressed.
I’m pro-life. I seek common ground with others who support those causes.
“PRO-LIFE” is a divisive, single-issue political stance filled with discordant rhetoric. “PRO-LIFE” draws a line and casts those on the other side of the line as the evil enemy. Anyone who isn’t “PRO-LIFE”—meaning anyone who doesn’t subscribe to a particular political position—is automatically an outsider, an enemy to be vilified and crushed.
You don’t listen to an enemy. You don’t actively advance an enemy’s best interests. You don’t seek common ground with an enemy. At best you establish an uncertain standoff based on power and control.
You attack an enemy’s position, forcing further entrenchment, an active, vigorous defense, and inevitable counterattacks. The lines become more intensely fortified with opponents peering suspiciously from behind reinforced battlements.
If you manage to win, you’ve created a defeated, resentful enemy. You haven’t changed a heart.
That’s the world’s way. Power, control, political maneuvering, us-versus-them, winners and losers—the end justifies the means, and we do whatever’s necessary to get the desired result. If Jesus thought those were the proper tools for world-changers He’d probably have used them.
He didn’t.
Inconveniently, He loves the folks on the other side of the line. He told us to love them, too. I think He’d like us to erase the line.
“PRO-LIFE” hijacks genuine public discourse, replacing collaborative problem-solving with angry rhetoric. Single-issue quarrels substitute divisive anger for authentic passion and exploits legitimate concern for self-centered personal gain while doing little to address social justice issues. “PRO-LIFE” is really about creating a power base focused on opposition.
I want to be known for what I stand for, not for what I oppose.
I’m pro-life. I believe we ought to advocate for social justice.
Pro-life is impractical. It’s as impractical as a young family traveling to a dangerous country as missionaries. It’s as impractical as believing it’s worth it to ride a bike 1500 miles to provide food for a few hundred hungry kids.
Those are crazy choices, by the world’s standards. As someone told me this week, the long road to “amazing” often begins at “crazy.”
Your thoughts?
Please leave a comment here.
Want to receive free updates?
Click below to get Bouncing Back
delivered directly to your inbox.
