Skip to main content

Our Greatest Evil

Occasionally I write posts that are highly critical of the ethics of conservative evangelicalism. It could come across as picking on them a bit. Even using the word "them" implies some sort of distancing of myself. Yes I definitely am not a conservative evangelical, and it is questionable whether or not I am an evangelical of any stripe, even though I do go to an evangelical church that's not overly conservative or overly "liberal." I use quotes around liberal because liberal evangelicals are not very liberal when set in the wider church. There are certain elements of evangelicalism that I really appreciate and there are certain stances that conservatives within the movement in particular have taken that I find to be both bold and on the right track. Today I want to highlight the biggest ethical issue I think conservative evangelicals are on the right side on while at the same time arguing the case in my own way and maybe ruffling the feathers of some of my comrades.

I believe that the greatest moral evil that is sanctioned today is abortion. However, I feel that much of the opposition to it is missing something. It's a symptom of a far greater problem with our society, especially in the allegedly free west. While I honestly believe that it is blatantly obvious that abortion is wrong, it can't be tackled in isolation from other issues. Abortion is condoned because it is the logical outcome of an individualistic, consumerist, capitalist system. It is the reductio ad absurdum argument against western style capitalism, and somehow a majority of our population doesn't see that. I realize that abortion is neither a purely modern nor a purely western issue. However, in a society that values women more highly than any of its competitors, it is strangely more natural and at home. The weaknesses of capitalism are also present in other economic models as well, they're just not as endemic. To the degree that they are will, I believe, be the degree to which the horror of abortion is permitted in society.

As Foucault has reminded us, there are power dynamics in every relationship. I believe that ethics, at its core is about proper use of power, about using your power to serve others. Individualistic, consumerist capitalism has the opposite goal, pursuing your own self-interest ahead of all other goals. Yes, cooperation is necessary for the individual to succeed, but we know what each individual's goal is. Our consumption patterns are where this is most obvious.

Technological advancement has been accelerating like a car on a drag strip for decades. Yet even as productivity soars, there's no sign of reduction of labor hours and increase of health and leisure. Why? Consumerism. Corporations are out to convince us that we need to consume more products. Their goal, through marketing, is to convince us that we need to buy their product or service. While there's nothing wrong with many of the products on the market, and many of them are beneficial in many ways, don't think that these corporations have anything but their own best interests at heart in their attempts to sell you stuff. Their goal is to maximize profit. This is done by trying to achieve low costs so they can sell at an enticing price. What has the result been? Oppression, oppression, and more oppression. We've grown a love to consume at the lowest price possible and don't really care how the prices are kept low. The corporations under such pressure employ unethical business practices from factory farming, to employing workers in sweatshops, to building polluting factories that disproportionately affect the poor. Since consumers only see the end product they don't really care what happened along the way to get the rolled back price. As long as the behavior isn't beyond a certain level of unseemliness, the government doesn't step in. Those being oppressed don't have much of a voice. The cows certainly can't protest. How much can those working for pennies in Vietnam really do? Even your average American worker isn't treated great, but what can you do? You don't want to be labelled a malcontent.

What I hope you've seen is that without strong oversight, this kind of oppression of the defenseless is the obvious outcome of our economic system. Is not, then, abortion the reductio ad absurdum of western capitalism? It's the ultimate of do whatever is "best" for you regardless of who you hurt. Kids don't fit into your patterns of consumption? Abortion. You can't "afford" a handicapped child? Abortion. You truly are in poverty because of the oppression and selfishness and consumption patterns of others? Abortion. After all, they can't defend themselves.

Our economic and moral system needs to change. Rather than championing individual freedom and pursuing the American dream we need to promote regard for the other. Rather than hording our resources and stepping over others so that we can succeed we need to eliminate poverty. We need to empower the oppressed to speak and look to see who our actions might hurt. Yes, the laws concerning abortion need to be changed, but so do the patterns of society that cause it. We need a holistic approach that eliminates poverty and injustice everywhere. Only then will abortion cease. Only when people realize that what's right is not what's "best" for yourself but self-sacrifice for another who is weaker will the vacuousness of the arguments in favor of abortion be seen.

Comments

  1. Most conservative evangelicals I know would agree with everything you say here. I'm not sure why you expect it to ruffle feathers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know some, including some close friends/'family who I think would be upset a bit. They could view aspects of my argument as "communist."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat...

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc...

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5...