climate change pro-life movement

The title of the September 8 USA Today column was a bit misleading.

Author Tom Krattenmaker’s focus was urging pro-life Christians to become involved in the effort to sustain water, the growing scarcity of which, he claimed, is becoming a worldwide problem:

If you care about life - and I know you do, especially if you’re a Christian who believes in the sanctity of life - please pay attention to what is happening with the water….

Lately, because of political controversies and headline-grabbing court cases such as the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision, the public’s view of evangelical reverence for life has been reduced mainly to fetuses and fertilized eggs. In truth, evangelicals are addressing myriad threats to life, from poverty and slavery to genocide. If the life movement can devote itself to fighting these, can’t it also confront the threat to our life-giving water - and compel the small- and large-scale actions that will conserve it for human beings today and tomorrow?

Krattenmaker confused the issue by interchanging the terms ”Christian,” “evangelical,” and “the life movement.”   It is true Christians took on poverty, slavery, and genocide as core issues – a couple thousand years before any other movement came along.

But everyone can’t do everything. Christians comprise a body. See I Corinthians 12. Our body is woven together by people God has brought together who are gifted with different talents and passions. Christians use their God-given talents and passions in various ways to give the Church body life. It’s a beautiful thing.

So there is a subset of Christians whose passion is stopping abortion. (Embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are recent add-ons, as the Culture of Death has expanded its tentacles.)

It’s what this subset focuses on. Why is this so hard to understand? Why are other movements never called to take on the anti-abortion issue? Even in his own article, Krattenmaker participated in that hypocrisy:BabyHumans

One of the environmental movement’s biggest mistakes has been to give the impression that enviros care more about old trees and rare animals than human beings. That problem, thankfully, is being remedied as a new ethos in the movement connects the dots between a healthy environment and the viability of human life.

Krattenmaker did link to a flyer by the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, but I only wish it were true “a new ethos” of environmentalists  had added “save the baby humans” to their plank. But they haven’t.

To that end, I wrote in a comment to the article, “I hope the author is writing a similar column to environmentalists encouraging them to take on the anti-abortion issue?”

Why do you think it is that pro-lifers are singularly targeted with demands to add a myriad of other issues to their work, called hypocrites along the way if they don’t?

Do you think we should?

I suppose one way to look at it is other groups think the pro-life movement does amazing work and are only longing for us to help them, too.

Um, I don’t think that’s it.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...