A case in point is the recent exchange between some pro-life
leaders and the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) over what pro-life
leaders see as a misuse of the term “pro-life.” The latest objection came in response to the
testimony by Rev. Mitch Hescox, President of the EEN, at a congressional
hearing of the Energy & Commerce Committee when he stated:
Biblically, being ‘pro-life’ is far more than being
‘anti-abortion.’ Jesus said that he came to bring life and life in abundance
(John 10:10). We believe that includes spreading the gospel, standing up
against abortion, reaching the lost, helping the least of these, and being good
stewards of God’s creation. In essence, to be ‘pro-life’ is to be ‘pro-whole
gospel.’[i]
Rev. Hescox’s testimony was invited to inform the Energy
& Commerce Committee as they discuss new emission standards for coal and
oil-fired power plants that release mercury and affect fresh water
sources. The proposed “Utility Mercury
and Air Toxics Standards (MACT)” rule would address allowable levels of the
toxic metal in the environment. The
Center for Disease Control estimates that at the time of birth, approximately 1
in 6 children in the United States carry threatening levels of mercury.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill) spoke on behalf of pro-lifers who
object to the more comprehensive definition of “pro-life” expressed above by
Rev. Hescox. According to Shimkus,
Truly pro-life issues are issues of life and death” and “we
in the pro-life community take great offense when an evangelical movement tries
to usurp the meaning of ‘pro-life.’[ii]
 |
| Two notions of what it means to be "pro-life" |
So, who is right? Are
members of the environmental movement unfairly usurping the
anti-abortion/pro-life movement by expanding the meaning to the term
“pro-life?” Or, is there merit in rallying
around a more comprehensive perspective of the sanctity of human life; one that
calls for Christian stewardship of all of life, human and non-human?
Lest I contradict my earlier caution against finding quick
answers for complex issues with a few sound bytes and blogs, I must acknowledge
that this blog posting cannot be the final word. Instead, I hope to lay out some
considerations that will stimulate readers toward further reading, reasoning,
and response.
First, I have an admission to make. In 2000, during the close presidential race
between Al Gore and George W. Bush, I attempted to expand Bush’s concept of
“compassionate conservatism” to include what I called compassionate conservationism.
The main point of my essay published in Christianity Today was as follows:
Moral conservatives are successfully articulating a biblical
worldview regarding sexual abstinence before marriage, sanctity of life, and
the importance of moral teaching in our schools. Consistent with this, they
must also articulate the case for a compassionate conservationism, an
environmental ethic rooted in a biblical worldview. Such an ethic would
redefine “environmentalists” as those
who are concerned about the environment of all
of life. [iii]
My intent, both then and now, was not to gloss over the
serious moral failure of our culture that allows the innocent lives of babies
to be snuffed out by abortion. I would oppose
any individual or group that seeks to gloss over or otherwise diminish the
moral tragedy of abortion by diverting attention from it to environmental
issues such as climate change, habitat destruction, toxic pollution, or environmental
and social justice.
I do not believe Rev. Hescox or the EEN is seeking to
unjustly usurp the “pro-life” movement or diminish the grave importance of
respecting the sanctity of human life. Rather,
I believe they are seeking to challenge us to view it more broadly and
biblically. Before drawing your own conclusions,
let’s consider what legitimate objections there are against an effort to
reconcile the two major notions of what it means to be “pro-life.” Allow me to briefly list and comment on three
possible objections.
First, is the argument of “confused terminology” articulated
by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council when he stated,
The term pro-life
originated historically in the struggle to end abortion on demand and continued
to be used overwhelmingly in that sense.
To ignore that is at best sloppy communication and at worst intentional
deception.[iv]
If we are concerned that the sanctity of human life cause might
be jeopardized if terminology is confused, perhaps it will be necessary to
abandon the more politically correct term “pro-life” in favor of the term
“anti-abortion” or “anti-death.” Clarification
of terms is fundamental to discourse on any issue and should not be cause for
division, at least among those who strive for the same goals.
Let’s call the second objection the argument of “confused theology.”
Hescox and the EEN make a strong case for extension of the sanctity of life
ethic to include “all of life” when Hescox stated last December:
We’re called as Christians to defend the sacredness of
life. As a pro-life community we have a
biblical responsibility to protect the unborn and infants from pollutants that
will prevent them from reaching their full potential. There is no known safe levels of mercury
which cause neurological damage to the unborn.
Jesus tells us to do nothing that would hinder our children. Mercury
poisoning from their mothers eating contaminated fish threaten our children
from such an abundant life.”[v]
On the other hand, I am sympathetic with the concern
articulated by Rep. Shimkus and others who object to the notion that abortion should
be added to a long list of environmental concerns that only indirectly affect human life. After all, the abortionist’s tools directly kill an unborn baby; whereas, it
is proposed that coal-fired power plants that release mercury can only indirectly affect the health of an
unborn child when the child’s mother ingests mercury-contaminated fish.
So, the question becomes, are we ethically responsible to do
all that is reasonably possible to protect the life of the unborn from both direct and indirect threats? In this context, a command from the Torah may
be instructive:
"If men struggle
with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth
prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's
husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there
is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound
for wound, bruise for bruise..... Exodus 21:22-25 (NASB)
Many would interpret this passage as affirming the
personhood and value of the unborn child[vi] If this is true, and we agree that is was
not the intent of the scuffling men to harm the woman let alone her unborn
child, then this Scripture seems to affirm our accountability for indirect
effects upon the unborn.
Returning to the concern about mercury poisoning, the
science of ecology is providing a clearer understanding of indirect effects of
this heavy metal which can move with food, nutrients, and toxic chemicals within
the so-called food web of life. Although
few of us would directly ingest toxic mercury, or commit the act of poisoning
his or her neighbor, the actions of anyone responsible for releasing mercury
into water and poisoning fish or other creatures which are then eaten by his or
her neighbor would seem to be in violation of the command to “love thy neighbor
as thyself” if it is clear that harm or death resulted indirectly from the
action.
Note also that the ecological food web that pictures the
links between polluted water, fish, and mankind makes it harder for us to ignore
our intimate linkage and responsibility to nonhuman creatures. The Judeo-Christian theology that affirms
humankind as the uniquely created image bearers of God does not give us grounds
to treat other parts of God’s creation with disdain or as simply a backdrop in
the human drama. Instead, we are
responsible to use our platform as image bearers to represent the benevolent rule
and character of God to His creation (Genesis 1: 26-28; 2:15). Therefore, poisoning of stream water by mercury from power plant emissions that indirectly
and unintentionally harms both fish and my neighbor who ingests the fish
is a violation of two major biblical commands -- biblical dominion and
stewardship over God’s creatures whom He created for His glory (Revelation
4:11); and, violation of the command to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew
2:39).
A third objection to a more comprehensive pro-life stand may
be called the argument of “murky or confused science.” The argument of the EEN that mercury
poisoning, like abortion, “threatens and impedes life” must be substantiated by
good scientific data. In addition to
Rev. Hescox’s testimony before the Energy & Commerce Committee on behalf of
EEN, the committee heard testimony from Julie Goodman, a toxicologist (Ph.D.
Johns Hopkins University) who stated that, although implementation of MACT
standards for mercury is projected to “reduce the disease burden in America to
such an extent that it will translate to tens of billions of dollars saved, …the
largest benefits from [MACT] are derived not from reducing mercury, but from
reducing fine particulate matter (PM2.5).”[vii] Goodman then added:
Despite the vast array of peer-reviewed scientific literature
on the topic, EPA based its calculations on only two PM2.5 epidemiology studies
that reported statistical associations between PM2.5 reductions and health
benefits and assumed a causal relationship.
I am aware of no rebuttal to this scientifically documented
testimony which cautions against adopting an environmental policy based on an
apparently biased selection of scientific reports, which furthermore, suggest
benefits not from mercury reduction but from reduction in particulate matter. It is still possible that additional
scientific data may provide justification for lowering mercury emissions. Although our technology allows us to detect
minute levels of toxic chemicals, there is also need to identify what the threshold
levels for toxicity in the blood are and whether or not these are being
exceeded under current standards.
In conclusion, the arguments from “terminology” and “theology”
do not provide strong reasons to oppose the EEN’s call to extend the pro-life
boundary to include “… anything that threatens and impedes life, especially
impacts on the unborn and young children.…”[viii]
However, the argument from “science” suggests that the jury still needs further
data and time to decide whether there is indeed a legitimate threat to life
under current standards. Meanwhile, I
believe that Christians who are committed to the sanctity of human life should agree
to respectful discourse with others who seek to raise awareness of
our ethical responsibility toward the health and well being of both humans and the non-human
creation which provides the context of human life and welfare.
[i] Evangelical Environmental Network: http://creationcare.org/view.php?id=513
[ii]
Institute on Religion and Democracy, http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2291
[iii]
Silvius, J. E. 2001. Conservation:
Protecting Bald Eagles and Babies.
[iv] Tony Perkins as quoted in WORLD, February 25, 2012
[v]
The Christian Post, February 21, 2012.
[vi]
Koukl, Greg. “What Exodus 21:22 Says
about Abortion." Solid Ground , Jan./Feb., 2010
[vii] Goodman, Julie L. 1012. EPA's
Assessment of Health Benefits Associated with PM2.5 Reductions for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards. See http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/hhrg-112-if03-wstate-jgoodman-20120208.pdf
