The Consistent Ethic of Life

Today's Reading

Read Matthew 25:31-46, the parable of the sheep and the goats: "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'"

Then read James 1:27: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."

Reflection

Here is an uncomfortable question that the church must face honestly: Is it possible to be pro-life on abortion and anti-life everywhere else?

The term "consistent ethic of life" was popularized by Catholic Cardinal Joseph Bernardin in the 1980s, but the concept is far older than his formulation. It grows directly from passages like Matthew 25, where Jesus identifies himself not with the powerful but with the vulnerable — all of the vulnerable. The hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick, the imprisoned. Jesus does not say, "I was an unborn child and you defended me in the legislature but ignored the hungry person at your gate." He presents a seamless garment of concern for human life in all its fragility.

James is equally blunt. Pure religion is not theological correctness or political activism. It is visiting orphans and widows in their affliction. The test of faith is not what you believe about life in the abstract, but what you do for the vulnerable in the concrete.

The political right has been vigorous in defending unborn life, and this is commendable. But it has too often been indifferent — or actively hostile — to government programs that support the poor, provide healthcare for the sick, welcome the immigrant, or reform a criminal justice system that disproportionately harms the vulnerable. If every life matters, then every life must matter consistently.

The political left has been vigorous in defending the poor, the immigrant, and the marginalized, and this too is commendable. But it has too often treated the unborn as an exception to its own principles — as though human rights begin only at birth. If the vulnerable deserve protection, the most vulnerable of all cannot be excluded.

Tim Keller observed that genuine faithfulness means defending truth precisely at the point where it is most under attack — even when that point is being attacked by our own political allies. Bonhoeffer made a similar point from a different angle: we cannot neatly divide sins into categories that conveniently align with our preferred politics. Sin is sin. And indifference to suffering is indifference to suffering, whether the sufferer is an unborn child, a death row inmate, or a refugee family sleeping in a parking lot.

A consistent ethic of life does not mean that every life issue has the same solution. Opposing abortion and opposing the death penalty may require very different policy approaches. But it does mean that the same reverence for God-given human life that drives one conviction must drive the other. Christians who are pro-life only when it aligns with their political party are not pro-life. They are pro-party.

Going Deeper

Take an honest inventory. On which life issues do you feel passionate? On which are you indifferent? Does the pattern of your concern line up with Matthew 25, or does it line up with a political platform? What would it cost you — socially, politically, financially — to become consistently pro-life?