The Path of Life
It is well known that Christianity has had a long history in advocating the dignity of the human person. In the Didache, for example, we can read early pronouncements against abortion. But it speaks about more than abortion. It says that there are two paths, the way of death and the way of life, and Christians are called to follow the path of life:
There are two ways, one of life and one of death; but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, your neighbour as yourself; and all things whatsoever you would should not occur to you, do not also do to another. And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you. For what reward is there, if you love those who love you? Do not also the Gentiles do the same? But love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy.[1]
Christians are to promote the way of life, and the way of life is the way of love. It is to look beyond the friend/foe distinction, but rather, to look even at one’s enemies as one who is to be loved. Even if they threaten you, even if they persecute you, even if they are willing to kill you, the Christian response can only be the response of love. This is what it takes to be pro-life: it is to be pro-love. It is not just a desire to eliminate abortion, but rather, it is a desire to preserve all life and to help everyone achieve human dignity and respect.
This, of course, is why the death penalty smacks as running contrary to Christian teaching. This is why war can never be said to be Christian. They might seem to make perfect “worldly” sense, but neither can be seen as promoting life. Both seek to turn the enemy into an object to be eliminated, not as a subject capable of being transformed by the grace of God. It is the rejection of grace; in either case, they demonstrate a lack of faith in God. The Christian, of course, must put their faith in God, faith in the ability of God to transform even the vilest of criminals into great saints. The way of life is not an easy path. It requires vulnerability. It requires a willingness to live out that love, even if it requires self-sacrifice. All the responses which try to somehow claim to be pro-life but show not this call to love fails to be anything more than an attempt at worldly control, to find a way to manipulate others for one’s own hidden agenda. It is impossible to promote life if one does not promote the dignity and respect which can only be had out of love. People are not fools. They can see when someone really is pro-life, who really respects life, and when someone just claims to promote life for political gain. Life is not an issue of politics, of political gain, and indeed, true promotion of life is more likely to cost someone political gain than to achieve it. Who in the time of war, for example, is willing to admit their enemies need to be shown love? And yet this is exactly the Christian demand.
St John Chrysostom gives us the example of St David, showing us just how far we must go in order to prove ourselves as a people dedicated to the promotion of life. David, when he had Saul in his hands, could have taken his life. However, David showed mercy and was not willing to kill him, even though Saul has sought David’s life. The result is that David was found worthy of praise because he followed with the path of life. David earned many rewards for this good deed; we too, will earn rewards if we follow the path of life and the love which is expected of us:
Give thought to this, then, when you have in your power the one who harmed you, that sparing is much more worthwhile and advantageous than killing; the one who kills will in many cases also condemn himself and have a bad conscience, each day and each hour haunted by that sin, whereas the one who spares and bears up for a short time will later rejoice and exult, expecting realisation of their hopes and looking forward to reward for forbearance from God. Should such people ever fall foul of trouble, they will with great confidence look to God for recompense, just as likewise this man also enjoyed all this, eventually receiving generous and remarkable rewards from God for looking after this enemy of his.[2]
In this way, though we must not expect worldly success because of our actions, it is not that such success is impossible. Indeed, many people who act out of love have turned enemies into close, dear friends. This is indeed success. Many who have shown the path of love have been revered for their love. This, again, is success. But it is not the reason why we follow the way of life. We follow the way of life because we have encountered the Lord of Life. We know no other path leads to beatitude than the path of life. An eye for an eye is the way of the world, while the way of Christ is to love those who persecute us, to forgive them because they know not what they do. This is not an easy path to follow, which is why it is narrow rarely traversed. Concupiscence leads us to want revenge. But, if we are to fight the powers that be, the fallen powers which seek to consume the world in death, we must overcome their influence over ourselves. Christians must once again become a people who promotes life. We must be a people of love. This is how they will know we are Christians, this is how they will know we are pro-life: if we respond with forgiveness, if we respond with love.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
Amen. Beautifully stated and truth beyond any possibility of refutation. Thank you!
You are welcome.
The path of life calls us to cultivate the spirit at all times, to look beyond the surface and see the spiritual dimensions of our actions. You have an enemy, you fight, one of you wins and one of you loses, and that’s all there is to it: that is what fighting means to the world. If we follow the path of life, we may fight if we have to, but our aim is not defeat for our opponents, but conversion. We are called to the task – far more difficult than simple pacifism – of finding ways to love our enemies even as we fight them.
The question, I think, is not whether they are to be treated as subjects or objects, but what kind of subjects and what kind of objects. All people are both subjects and objects: subjects who are constantly choosing good or evil, and objects of the love of God and the love, hate, or indifference, as the case may be, of their fellow man. There is good and bad objectification. If someone does evil, the only way to love them is to prescind from their actions – that is, their subjectivity – and remember that God loves them objectively, and we may not hate anything that God loves. A person must never be treated as an object to be removed, but the evil a person can be. At the same time, we must never forget to treat an enemy as a subject insofar as he is capable of doing good and grace has no limits.
Once this realization is made, the apparent self-contradiction within Christian warfare is resolved. A certain tension does remain, because no matter how well we know the distinction in theory, it is difficult for us as human beings not to confuse the sinner and the sin when we are actually dealing with the sinner – trying to limit their harm – in the world. But if, even while we fight a battle that needs to be fought, we pray for our enemies and never fail to treat them as fellow human beings and not as slugs to be trampled on, we are following the path of the Gospel of Life.
So, when I kill my brother (only in order to convert him), the essential thing I must remember to do is cry “I love you!” as I pull the trigger, rather than “Die, maggot!” and the angels will rejoice as they prepare my heavenly reward. My goodness! that IS an easy yoke!
I think if you read my comment very, very carefully, you’ll see that’s not exactly what I said.
“But if, even while we fight a battle that needs to be fought, we pray for our enemies and never fail to treat them as fellow human beings and not as slugs to be trampled on, we are following the path of the Gospel of Life.”
As my bumper sticker says, “When Jesus said love your enemies, I don’t think he meant kill them.” Too naive, perhaps, for the “real” world, but much closer to the Gospel of Life.
How confident are you in your bumper sticker’s idea of what love means? Love is seeking the good of the other – the holistic good, not the world’s materialistic idea of good. Death is not the greatest evil that can befall a person. I am not saying, note, that we should kill people for their spiritual good, only that killing someone should not be confused with telling them to burn in hell – which really is incompatible with love of any kind. Then, too, it is an act of love to defend innocent people or holy things against aggression, even by force, which the cleansing of the temple should be enough to show you. Jesus certainly did not kill anyone, but neither did he say that the love ceases to be legitimate if the force reaches the point of causing an aggressor’s death. Nor do I see any reason (again, from a non-materialist perspective) to conclude that.
“Death is not the greatest evil that can befall a person.”
No, but it really is right up there.
I am not really confident I know what love means, except for what we are told in Scripture: “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.” (1 John 4:10-11) I hesitate to call myself a pacifist (there is a post in the works on that) but I generally remain unconvinced by attempts to defend righteous violence.
Your argument “neither did [Jesus] say that the love ceases to be legitimate if the force reaches the point of causing an aggressor’s death” is an argument from silence, one difficult to reconcile with much of the Sermon on the Mount.
No, but it really is right up there.
Well, that depends on your point of view. Many of the saints and martyrs considered death one of the greatest blessings. This, of course, referred to their own death, not that of someone else, especially not artificially induced. But the central point is of universal application: although death is an evil and a curse, Jesus redeemed it and made it the doorway to eternal life. This is so close to the center of the Gospel that it is impossible to address questions of life and death from the perspective of faith if it is neglected. That’s why I can’t accept an argument that involves the assumption that death is simply too great an evil to be compatible with love.
Pachyderminator:
So killing someone who we know to be saved is an act of love?
I apologize in advance for so clearly mis-stating your point, but it’s mis-stated in the same way you mis-stated David’s point. He was speaking not of death in and of itself (or the death of a martyr) but of killing another and claiming that purposefully causing the death of another was a righteous act.
Jesus’ defeat of death gives us the confidence that it is, as you say, “the doorway to eternal life.” Pushing someone else through that door is another matter entirely.
I am reminded of the last stanza of Leonard Cohen’s great song, “The Story of Isaac”:
And if you call me brother now,
forgive me if I inquire,
“Just according to whose plan?”
When it all comes down to dust
I will kill you if I must,
I will help you if I can.
When it all comes down to dust
I will help you if I must,
I will kill you if I can.
And mercy on our uniform,
man of peace or man of war,
the peacock spreads his fan.