What do you think?
Rate this book
The Sacredness of Human Life: Why an Ancient Biblical Vision Is Key to the World's Future
In The Sacredness of Human Life, Christian ethicist David P. Gushee invites us to truly embrace the immeasurable value of a single human life — an ancient biblical concept which, in our violent world, may be the key to the future of all creation.
Tracing the concept of the sacredness of human life from Scripture through church history to the present day, Gushee argues that viewing human life as sacred is one of the most precious legacies of biblical faith — albeit one that the church has too often failed to uphold. His discussion includes many of the current ethical challenges that will impact the survival and flourishing of human life, including biotechnology, the death penalty, abortion, human rights, nuclear weapons, just war theory, women's rights, and creation care. Gushee's Sacredness of Human Life is a game-changing book that will set the standard for all future discussions of this key ethical concept.
Tracing the concept of the sacredness of human life from Scripture through church history to the present day, Gushee argues that viewing human life as sacred is one of the most precious legacies of biblical faith — albeit one that the church has too often failed to uphold. His discussion includes many of the current ethical challenges that will impact the survival and flourishing of human life, including biotechnology, the death penalty, abortion, human rights, nuclear weapons, just war theory, women's rights, and creation care. Gushee's Sacredness of Human Life is a game-changing book that will set the standard for all future discussions of this key ethical concept.
477 pages, Hardcover
First published December 30, 2012
10 people are currently reading
106 people want to read
About the author
David P. Gushee
65 books139 followersRev. Prof. Dr. David P. Gushee is Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, Chair of Christian Social Ethics at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and Senior Research Fellow, International Baptist Theological Study Centre. He is also the elected past-president of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Christian Ethics. Dr. Gushee is the author, co-author, or editor of 28 books, including the bestsellers Kingdom Ethics and Changing Our Mind. His other most notable works are After Evangelicalism, Righteous Gentiles of the Holocaust, Introducing Christian Ethics, and The Sacredness of Human Life. He is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading Christian moral thinkers. Gushee and his wife, Jeanie, live in Atlanta, Georgia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 23, 2017
(Originally reviewed in July, 2015)
This book got an intriguing review by Stanley Hauerwas (co-author of Resident Aliens) in Christian Century (in the Spring 2013 book issue). The next year, the author received the Georgia Author of the Year Award in the inspirational-religious category for this book; I saw the blurb in my local paper. That award confirmed my desire to read it. So I started out with a very positive orientation toward this book. Reading it extended over six months. But it didn't turn out to be what I thought it was going to be: a scholarly look at scripture and history.
If you look at the one quote I've put up, a footnote from p. 59 of the hardback, you'll see it does appear he knows point of view impacts conclusions. But the book turns out to be a combination of scholarship and piety, with the latter influencing what he finds--what he must find. The book therefore has a labored feel, an apologetic feel, as he works to make everything fit the way he wants and needs it to.
I am not saying he's intentionally distorting the material. By no means is he doing that. He's convincing himself first. He's working with the story he has at hand and tweaking it with an eye toward (I think) improving its ethics and applicability. I will look at some of the difficulties with the approach and will also look at the remarkable aspects he achieves despite it.
David Gushee is a Christian ethicist and professor at McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University. He writes that he converted from Catholicism to being a Baptist and that he considers himself an evangelical Protestant, and he is a member of a local church I'm quite familiar with as it's often a venue for author talks, especially those expected to draw large crowds. I value that he says who he is.
The author does acknowledge that some people who aren't Christian may read his book. This quote also addresses his aim in writing the book.
Of the seven reviews on Amazon, five are 5-star reviews; two reviewers gave one star. They are all by Christians. That gives a clue that this book reflects an internal argument among Christians, and, more likely, among those of a more evangelical or conservative bent. A further aim of the book is to rescue the sacredness of human life from its excess politicization in the U.S.. There are only two Goodreads reviews so far (one of which is a duplicate of one of the Amazon 5-star reviews).
The problem in part is not that people shouldn't be treated ethically, but, rather, how he establishes that life is sacred. For him, it's there in scripture. He cites passages to "prove" it from the Christian Old and New Testament both. But his logic is circular. He says his religious narrative enshrines life as sacred, then, as proof, points to scriptural selections from which that very narrative is woven. Further, he argues that sacredness of human life is not inherent. Rather, we get it by revelation. Having it be inherent wouldn't accomplish the desired goals, so we must have it by revelation.
I am not arguing against the sacredness of life or offering an alternative grounding for it but considering the author's logic.
Here's a passage from Walter Benjamin's Critique of Violence, just to show there are other views:
The above quote suggests that the concept of the sacredness of human life has been developed in modernity, a hypothesis supported by Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature. We must also consider the difference between what is and what should be the case. Our ideals don't necessarily exist in nature, so that it becomes the duty of human institutions to establish them. "The facts on the ground" aren't necessarily the normative state as we think it should exist.
For the author, however, a lot of ideals (of which recognition of the sacredness of human life is one) were operative at the beginning of Christianity. He is at pains to show that deviations from those ideals were due to undesired changes from that original status.
Crediting Christianity as the origin for most of the positive ideas of civilization as he does, the author unquestioningly accepts as historical fact a traditional Christian narrative that Jesus and his disciples stood up to an unjust society and that's why Jesus died. In other words, his looking to an idyllic original state of being requires writing the break with the earlier tradition into his story. But, having done so, he spends most of the rest of the book lauding Judaism as the older sibling of Christianity.
His next focus is on the merging of Christianity with state power: the emergence of Christendom.
He articulates the split in modern Christian thinking such that some members of society praise Western society and its foundation in Christendom while others deplore it.
He does not turn away from looking at the workings of power that resulted in the Crusades, anti-Semitism (in his spelling), and colonialism. That I think is the moral center of this book. I do think there is some vacillation about whether Christendom is in fact Christianity, but he does not sweep it under the rug as is sometimes done.
When talking about the unjust society he believes Jesus and the early church stood up against, he does not recognize a division such as he does between what he might call true Christianity and, on the other hand, Christendom. You could say he puts on another set of glasses for the latter case.
Also, for each of those unjust circumstances in history he is at pains to site a historical figure who represented the "real" Christian during those ages, e.g., Saint Francis during the Crusades.
His acknowledgement that Christianity fell short of perfection at its inception, given what he terms anti-Semitism, is a major admission. What, then, does that acknowledgement do to the hypothetical perfection at the origin? Can perfection be just a little bit imperfect?
Another major acknowledgement is that he regards the New Testament not as representing eye-witness history but as being itself--its own writing--a historical event that took later circumstances and conflicts, describing them as though they were occurring in Jesus' time. That is not something you hear every day!
From this point the author launches into a study of Enlightenment values and figures. He examines the change from natural right--the divine order--to natural rights--the rights of the individual and the rule of law. He chooses Locke over Hobbes through whom to elucidate his ideas because, I think, he finds Hobbes too dark. He prefers Locke's view of natural man to Hobbes' view of the state of nature. The former better meets the needs of his argument, but, typically, he does not explore whether Hobbes' views might be more accurate than Locke's. Next comes Kant. The gist of this discussion seems to be that Kant and other Enlightenment figures do reflect Christian values even though they denied it, having absorbed those values through their societies and their rearing. Thus, while claiming the opposite, it's possible he co-opts Enlightenment values for Christianity.
The author cites references who support the directionality of his claims. The claims are hard for me to evaluate, except they seem awfully convenient.
As to the Enlightenment, though, the author says that Christianity's power to rule was taken because of the sins that occurred on its watch. He is meaning the Crusades, anti-Semitism, imperialism, and later wars and violence. The extent of that acknowledgement should not be minimized. Such words are very unusual, and hearing them is strange.
I've never heard them before, in fact.
Next comes a section on Nietzsche and from there to the Nazis. I think the point is that without the guidance of Christianity, bad things will happen. But the problem for his argument is that bad things sometimes happen with or without it (or other religion). I disagree with the polemic that religion is responsible for all our problems, but neither does this book convince us that religion is the solution.
Finally comes a section in which the author explores all the usual issues of American social conservatism that come with the sacredness-of-life political territory. This section was really slow going. The author has an organizational structure under which he's talked about everything he wanted to discuss--one which seems designed primarily for the purpose of letting him talk about everything.
The wrap-up chapter includes a "summary of major discoveries," but "discoveries," I think, is the wrong word. He means the major points he wants the reader to concede.
I think the author is well meaning. I think the book will be studied primarily in conservative seminaries. I think that in congregations people want to feel better, not feel contrite. People, after all, are trying to cope. All too often, that entails feeling "better than."
Paradoxically, the author, for all his contrition, clings to being on the right path, having the right tradition. It's hard to be right without somebody else being wrong. Then comes the necessity to balance on the knife edge of treating well people whom one believes are wrong. Under those circumstances there are going to be lapses.
As to the Christendom versus Christianity distinction and the greater supposed perfection at the beginning, I think a group's behavior is dependent on whether the particular group under consideration has power or not. If they don't, they have to make nice. If they do have the power, they will throw it around. That, basically, is Robert Wright's hypothesis from The Evolution of God, and it carries some weight with me.
Why can't people simply follow their precepts and prophets without targeting some presumably evil people who are going their own way? I think a lot of it is evolution. We've evolved in groups, and, so far, at least, the "common enemy" approach works. If we want to get beyond it, we'll just have to evolve further.
And, who knows, maybe religion will help us do that! Nassim Nicholas Taleb, writing in The Black Swan, credits religion with the idea that dominant males should not keep all the available wombs to themselves (i.e., no more harems)--an idea whose actualization has greatly increased the peace. There is nothing natural about that idea. And even Mr. Anti-Religion himself, Steven Pinker, says religion defied nature in taking a stand against infanticide, even though it could prevail only in the fullness of time.
Addendum, August 22, 2017
I reread this review since I have an update, and on rereading, I wondered if I had been too harsh. I was critical but also gave some praise. In fact, I was amazed at some of what the author had to say as at the time I'd never heard such concessions. Currently I'd say the book is a noble effort. The author struggled and did the best he could on the basis of what he could envision at the time. That's why my rating is three stars, and not the one or two stars I have doled out for authors whom I believe used others or dealt in misinformation where it was useful to their causes. This author is most definitely not in that category, so I wish to make that clear, since in the eyes of some readers, three stars means the review is a bad one. I am moved to make this statement since the author and his church have come out with a very positive and, to me, moving statement in the wake of Charlottesville and the antisemitism that still exists in our culture. That antisemitism was a subject that was not mentioned in mainstream society but--and this is the good part of what has been going on--is now no longer unmentionable.
Here is the new statement. At this point I'm going to add a link from the church, which is the First Baptist Church of Decatur (and their statement is all the more remarkable considering that from 1902 to 1932, Decatur, Georgia [a suburb of Atlanta] held their weekends on Sundays and Mondays and their school weeks from Tuesday through Saturday, so as to discourage any of the influx of immigrant Jews of that time from settling in Decatur).
But I did not first see this statement on the church's site; they paid to publish it on p. 2 of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Saturday, August 19, 2017. (I'll try to reproduce version as an image as a comment below.)
http://www.fbcdecatur.com/newsandeven...
I'm happy to give this laudable statement by the Rev. Gushee and the First Baptist Church of Decatur a little more attention.
This book got an intriguing review by Stanley Hauerwas (co-author of Resident Aliens) in Christian Century (in the Spring 2013 book issue). The next year, the author received the Georgia Author of the Year Award in the inspirational-religious category for this book; I saw the blurb in my local paper. That award confirmed my desire to read it. So I started out with a very positive orientation toward this book. Reading it extended over six months. But it didn't turn out to be what I thought it was going to be: a scholarly look at scripture and history.
If you look at the one quote I've put up, a footnote from p. 59 of the hardback, you'll see it does appear he knows point of view impacts conclusions. But the book turns out to be a combination of scholarship and piety, with the latter influencing what he finds--what he must find. The book therefore has a labored feel, an apologetic feel, as he works to make everything fit the way he wants and needs it to.
I am not saying he's intentionally distorting the material. By no means is he doing that. He's convincing himself first. He's working with the story he has at hand and tweaking it with an eye toward (I think) improving its ethics and applicability. I will look at some of the difficulties with the approach and will also look at the remarkable aspects he achieves despite it.
David Gushee is a Christian ethicist and professor at McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University. He writes that he converted from Catholicism to being a Baptist and that he considers himself an evangelical Protestant, and he is a member of a local church I'm quite familiar with as it's often a venue for author talks, especially those expected to draw large crowds. I value that he says who he is.
The author does acknowledge that some people who aren't Christian may read his book. This quote also addresses his aim in writing the book.
I am proposing that, rightly understood, a moral norm called the sacredness of life should be central to the moral vision and practice of followers of Christ. I am offering a constructive account of that norm. If you are a Christian, I want your assent to the proposition that every life's sacredness is an important moral norm for followers of Christ--and your decision to practice that ethic more fully. If you are not a Christian, I invite you to consider the relevance of this ethic to your own vision and practice of life.
Of the seven reviews on Amazon, five are 5-star reviews; two reviewers gave one star. They are all by Christians. That gives a clue that this book reflects an internal argument among Christians, and, more likely, among those of a more evangelical or conservative bent. A further aim of the book is to rescue the sacredness of human life from its excess politicization in the U.S.. There are only two Goodreads reviews so far (one of which is a duplicate of one of the Amazon 5-star reviews).
The problem in part is not that people shouldn't be treated ethically, but, rather, how he establishes that life is sacred. For him, it's there in scripture. He cites passages to "prove" it from the Christian Old and New Testament both. But his logic is circular. He says his religious narrative enshrines life as sacred, then, as proof, points to scriptural selections from which that very narrative is woven. Further, he argues that sacredness of human life is not inherent. Rather, we get it by revelation. Having it be inherent wouldn't accomplish the desired goals, so we must have it by revelation.
I am not arguing against the sacredness of life or offering an alternative grounding for it but considering the author's logic.
Here's a passage from Walter Benjamin's Critique of Violence, just to show there are other views:
It might be well worth while to track down the origin of the sacredness of life. Perhaps, indeed probably, it is relatively recent, the last mistaken attempt of the weakened Western tradition to seek the saint it has lost in cosmological impenetrability. (The antiquity of all religious commandments against murder is no counterargument, because these are based on other ideas than the modern theorem.)
The above quote suggests that the concept of the sacredness of human life has been developed in modernity, a hypothesis supported by Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature. We must also consider the difference between what is and what should be the case. Our ideals don't necessarily exist in nature, so that it becomes the duty of human institutions to establish them. "The facts on the ground" aren't necessarily the normative state as we think it should exist.
For the author, however, a lot of ideals (of which recognition of the sacredness of human life is one) were operative at the beginning of Christianity. He is at pains to show that deviations from those ideals were due to undesired changes from that original status.
Crediting Christianity as the origin for most of the positive ideas of civilization as he does, the author unquestioningly accepts as historical fact a traditional Christian narrative that Jesus and his disciples stood up to an unjust society and that's why Jesus died. In other words, his looking to an idyllic original state of being requires writing the break with the earlier tradition into his story. But, having done so, he spends most of the rest of the book lauding Judaism as the older sibling of Christianity.
His next focus is on the merging of Christianity with state power: the emergence of Christendom.
He articulates the split in modern Christian thinking such that some members of society praise Western society and its foundation in Christendom while others deplore it.
He does not turn away from looking at the workings of power that resulted in the Crusades, anti-Semitism (in his spelling), and colonialism. That I think is the moral center of this book. I do think there is some vacillation about whether Christendom is in fact Christianity, but he does not sweep it under the rug as is sometimes done.
When talking about the unjust society he believes Jesus and the early church stood up against, he does not recognize a division such as he does between what he might call true Christianity and, on the other hand, Christendom. You could say he puts on another set of glasses for the latter case.
Also, for each of those unjust circumstances in history he is at pains to site a historical figure who represented the "real" Christian during those ages, e.g., Saint Francis during the Crusades.
His acknowledgement that Christianity fell short of perfection at its inception, given what he terms anti-Semitism, is a major admission. What, then, does that acknowledgement do to the hypothetical perfection at the origin? Can perfection be just a little bit imperfect?
Another major acknowledgement is that he regards the New Testament not as representing eye-witness history but as being itself--its own writing--a historical event that took later circumstances and conflicts, describing them as though they were occurring in Jesus' time. That is not something you hear every day!
From this point the author launches into a study of Enlightenment values and figures. He examines the change from natural right--the divine order--to natural rights--the rights of the individual and the rule of law. He chooses Locke over Hobbes through whom to elucidate his ideas because, I think, he finds Hobbes too dark. He prefers Locke's view of natural man to Hobbes' view of the state of nature. The former better meets the needs of his argument, but, typically, he does not explore whether Hobbes' views might be more accurate than Locke's. Next comes Kant. The gist of this discussion seems to be that Kant and other Enlightenment figures do reflect Christian values even though they denied it, having absorbed those values through their societies and their rearing. Thus, while claiming the opposite, it's possible he co-opts Enlightenment values for Christianity.
The author cites references who support the directionality of his claims. The claims are hard for me to evaluate, except they seem awfully convenient.
As to the Enlightenment, though, the author says that Christianity's power to rule was taken because of the sins that occurred on its watch. He is meaning the Crusades, anti-Semitism, imperialism, and later wars and violence. The extent of that acknowledgement should not be minimized. Such words are very unusual, and hearing them is strange.
I've never heard them before, in fact.
Next comes a section on Nietzsche and from there to the Nazis. I think the point is that without the guidance of Christianity, bad things will happen. But the problem for his argument is that bad things sometimes happen with or without it (or other religion). I disagree with the polemic that religion is responsible for all our problems, but neither does this book convince us that religion is the solution.
Finally comes a section in which the author explores all the usual issues of American social conservatism that come with the sacredness-of-life political territory. This section was really slow going. The author has an organizational structure under which he's talked about everything he wanted to discuss--one which seems designed primarily for the purpose of letting him talk about everything.
The wrap-up chapter includes a "summary of major discoveries," but "discoveries," I think, is the wrong word. He means the major points he wants the reader to concede.
I think the author is well meaning. I think the book will be studied primarily in conservative seminaries. I think that in congregations people want to feel better, not feel contrite. People, after all, are trying to cope. All too often, that entails feeling "better than."
Paradoxically, the author, for all his contrition, clings to being on the right path, having the right tradition. It's hard to be right without somebody else being wrong. Then comes the necessity to balance on the knife edge of treating well people whom one believes are wrong. Under those circumstances there are going to be lapses.
As to the Christendom versus Christianity distinction and the greater supposed perfection at the beginning, I think a group's behavior is dependent on whether the particular group under consideration has power or not. If they don't, they have to make nice. If they do have the power, they will throw it around. That, basically, is Robert Wright's hypothesis from The Evolution of God, and it carries some weight with me.
Why can't people simply follow their precepts and prophets without targeting some presumably evil people who are going their own way? I think a lot of it is evolution. We've evolved in groups, and, so far, at least, the "common enemy" approach works. If we want to get beyond it, we'll just have to evolve further.
And, who knows, maybe religion will help us do that! Nassim Nicholas Taleb, writing in The Black Swan, credits religion with the idea that dominant males should not keep all the available wombs to themselves (i.e., no more harems)--an idea whose actualization has greatly increased the peace. There is nothing natural about that idea. And even Mr. Anti-Religion himself, Steven Pinker, says religion defied nature in taking a stand against infanticide, even though it could prevail only in the fullness of time.
Addendum, August 22, 2017
I reread this review since I have an update, and on rereading, I wondered if I had been too harsh. I was critical but also gave some praise. In fact, I was amazed at some of what the author had to say as at the time I'd never heard such concessions. Currently I'd say the book is a noble effort. The author struggled and did the best he could on the basis of what he could envision at the time. That's why my rating is three stars, and not the one or two stars I have doled out for authors whom I believe used others or dealt in misinformation where it was useful to their causes. This author is most definitely not in that category, so I wish to make that clear, since in the eyes of some readers, three stars means the review is a bad one. I am moved to make this statement since the author and his church have come out with a very positive and, to me, moving statement in the wake of Charlottesville and the antisemitism that still exists in our culture. That antisemitism was a subject that was not mentioned in mainstream society but--and this is the good part of what has been going on--is now no longer unmentionable.
Here is the new statement. At this point I'm going to add a link from the church, which is the First Baptist Church of Decatur (and their statement is all the more remarkable considering that from 1902 to 1932, Decatur, Georgia [a suburb of Atlanta] held their weekends on Sundays and Mondays and their school weeks from Tuesday through Saturday, so as to discourage any of the influx of immigrant Jews of that time from settling in Decatur).
But I did not first see this statement on the church's site; they paid to publish it on p. 2 of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Saturday, August 19, 2017. (I'll try to reproduce version as an image as a comment below.)
http://www.fbcdecatur.com/newsandeven...
I'm happy to give this laudable statement by the Rev. Gushee and the First Baptist Church of Decatur a little more attention.
May 5, 2016
Is human life sacred? That is the question David Gushee asks and responds to in this powerful book. His answer to the question is yes, it is. It is sacred because God has deemed human life to be sacred. But not only that, but God has deemed all life to be sacred in its own way -- thus we have a call as human beings to be attentive to the created order, for we have been called to be its stewards.
A book like this, carrying a title like this, may be presumed to deal with abortion. It is true, Gushee does deal with abortion. He's pro-life, but in a way that includes not only that issue, but the full gamut from women's rights to the environment. He deals with capital punishment and bio-ethics. He does so by tracing the conversation from the Hebrew Bible down through history to the Enlightenment and to the present. He lifts up the challenges of the 20th and 21st centuries, and invites us to ponder the question of how we will honor that which God has deemed sacred. It's not just human rights (though that's included) or human dignity (though that's included), but sacred worth.
Take and read -- no matter your position on the issues (and I'm more ambivalent about abortion and aspects of bioethics than is he) -- for you will benefit, as have I.
For full review check my blog: http://www.bobcornwall.com/2013/05/th...
A book like this, carrying a title like this, may be presumed to deal with abortion. It is true, Gushee does deal with abortion. He's pro-life, but in a way that includes not only that issue, but the full gamut from women's rights to the environment. He deals with capital punishment and bio-ethics. He does so by tracing the conversation from the Hebrew Bible down through history to the Enlightenment and to the present. He lifts up the challenges of the 20th and 21st centuries, and invites us to ponder the question of how we will honor that which God has deemed sacred. It's not just human rights (though that's included) or human dignity (though that's included), but sacred worth.
Take and read -- no matter your position on the issues (and I'm more ambivalent about abortion and aspects of bioethics than is he) -- for you will benefit, as have I.
For full review check my blog: http://www.bobcornwall.com/2013/05/th...
June 13, 2013
David P. Gushee, The Sacredness of Human Life: Why an Ancient Biblical Vision Is Key to the World’s Future (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013). $35.00, 478 pages.
Many American churches (including my fellowship, the Assemblies of God) designate the third Sunday of January as Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. President Ronald Reagan established this tradition by executive proclamation in January 1984. It falls on the third Sunday of January, because that day is the closest to the January 22nd date of the Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which legalized abortion in all 50 states. Reagan’s proclamation encouraged Americans “to give thanks for the gift of life, and to reaffirm our commitment to the dignity of every human being and the sanctity of each human life,” which is a broad commitment. However, its preceding paragraphs dealt solely with abortion. Unsurprisingly, then, the day has been affirmed by pro-life presidents (Reagan and both Bushes) but ignored by pro-choice presidents (Clinton and Obama).
The use of “sanctity of life” terminology by pro-lifers creates a dilemma for “social justice”—i.e., progressive—Christians. On the one hand, they too are anti-abortion. On the other hand, they believe that “sanctity of life”—i.e., conservative—evangelicals, who are uniformly anti-abortion, are insufficiently pro-life on other issues, such as the death penalty, health and welfare, nuclear weapons, torture, war, and women’s rights. Using “sanctity of life” terminology seems to align “social justice” Christians with conservative evangelical politics and thus to alienate them from other progressives, both of which outcomes are undesirable to them. Hence, “social justice” Christians have tended to shy away from “sanctity of life” terminology.
David P. Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics and director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University in Atlanta, Georgia, as well as a progressive evangelical from the Baptist tradition. In The Sacredness of Human Life, Gushee diffuses the progressives’ dilemma by outlining the history and applicability of a “sacredness of life” ethic. By exchanging the word sacredness for sanctity, Gushee offers a theological ground for a progressive Christian ethic of life that distinguishes it from conservative Christian politics.
Framing Gushee’s book in terms of this dilemma does not detract from its value for all Christian readers, however—including conservative evangelicals. What Gushee offers in this book is not, first and foremost, a brief for progressive Christian ethics, although it includes that too (chapter 10, especially). It is, rather, the archaeological excavation of an idea—the sacredness of human life—through various layers of Christian history.
In successive chapters, Gushee shows how Christians built a sacredness-of-life ethic on the foundations of Jewish and Christian Scriptures (chapters 2 and 3, respectively). In early Christianity, this “moral vision” included opposition to war, abortion, infanticide, torture, and the Roman arena; as well as affirmation of peace, piety, impartiality, and help for the poor (chapter 4). The conversion of Constantine to Christianity in A.D. 312, which symbolized the cooption of the Church by the State, blurred this moral vision (chapter 5). This resulted in a “Christendom divided against itself,” which Gushee illustrates through three vignettes: Francis of Assisi vs. the Crusades, Bartolome de Las Casas vs. La Conquista, and Baptist Richard Overton’s advocacy of religious freedom vs. Christendom’s systematic persecution of Jews (chapter 6). As the Enlightenment dawned, philosophers such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant retained much of the substance of this Christian ethic, even as they shifted the grounding of that ethic from biblical revelation to autonomous reason (chapter 7). But as Friedrich Nietzsche argued, “When one gives up Christian belief one therefore deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality.” Gushee outlines Nietzsche’s systematic deconstruction of Christian morality, especially its emphasis on the sacredness of life (chapter 8). The costs of the loss of that Christian moral vision were staggering. Chapter 9 uses the Nazis as an example of the catastrophic consequences of—quoting J. A. S. Greenville—“a contempt for the sacredness of life” (chapter 9).
Only after completing this archaeological excavation does Gushee outline the progressive implications of a sacredness-of-life ethic: anti-abortion, worried about biotechnological innovations, anti-death penalty, pro-human rights, anti-nuclear weapons, and pro-women’s rights (chapter 10). Had this chapter been earlier in the book, I—a politically conservative evangelical—might have dismissed it as a progressive Christian talking the standard progressive line. By placing it near the end of the book, however, Gushee forced me to look again at these issues, but in a brighter historical light. Given the misuse of political power, the depredations of war, and the abuse of capital punishment—especially in the twentieth century, but also during the era of Christendom—Christians need to cast a far more critical eye on the state’s power to kill. This doesn’t commit Christians to pacifism, however. Gushee does not seem to be on; I certainly am not.
Moreover, Gushee is quite right that “life” issues need to encompass the quality of life. Though his discussion of women’s rights occupies a mere five pages of the book (pages 382-387), Gushee argues persuasively (to my mind, anyway) that “the sacredness of life in the twenty-first century requires full engagement with global women’s rights issues. Citing Half the Sky by husband-and-wife team Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, Gushee highlights “three primary areas”: “sex trafficking/forced prostitution, gender-based violence against women, and maternal mortality.” One of the difficulties for conservative evangelical readers is that talk of women’s rights is usually associated with a pro-choice position on abortion. To this, I can only second Gushee’s plea: “Surely Christians can demonstrate the intelligence to separate issues that are intrinsically distinct from one another.” I certainly hope so.
As in all books of this length and depth of learning, readers will find themselves disagreeing with this or that factual assertion, biblical interpretation, or ethical conclusion. I certainly did. You will too. But I agree with and was profoundly challenged by its fundamental insight that “God has consecrated each and every human being—without exception and in all circumstances—as a unique, incalculably precious being of elevated status and dignity.” This “moral reality” entails the “moral task” of “adopting a posture of reverence” and “accepting responsibility for the sacred gift that is a human life.”
Next Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, keep both the reality and the task in mind, not only regarding the child in the womb, but also regarding your neighbor…and even your enemy.
P.S. If you found my review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
Many American churches (including my fellowship, the Assemblies of God) designate the third Sunday of January as Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. President Ronald Reagan established this tradition by executive proclamation in January 1984. It falls on the third Sunday of January, because that day is the closest to the January 22nd date of the Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which legalized abortion in all 50 states. Reagan’s proclamation encouraged Americans “to give thanks for the gift of life, and to reaffirm our commitment to the dignity of every human being and the sanctity of each human life,” which is a broad commitment. However, its preceding paragraphs dealt solely with abortion. Unsurprisingly, then, the day has been affirmed by pro-life presidents (Reagan and both Bushes) but ignored by pro-choice presidents (Clinton and Obama).
The use of “sanctity of life” terminology by pro-lifers creates a dilemma for “social justice”—i.e., progressive—Christians. On the one hand, they too are anti-abortion. On the other hand, they believe that “sanctity of life”—i.e., conservative—evangelicals, who are uniformly anti-abortion, are insufficiently pro-life on other issues, such as the death penalty, health and welfare, nuclear weapons, torture, war, and women’s rights. Using “sanctity of life” terminology seems to align “social justice” Christians with conservative evangelical politics and thus to alienate them from other progressives, both of which outcomes are undesirable to them. Hence, “social justice” Christians have tended to shy away from “sanctity of life” terminology.
David P. Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics and director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University in Atlanta, Georgia, as well as a progressive evangelical from the Baptist tradition. In The Sacredness of Human Life, Gushee diffuses the progressives’ dilemma by outlining the history and applicability of a “sacredness of life” ethic. By exchanging the word sacredness for sanctity, Gushee offers a theological ground for a progressive Christian ethic of life that distinguishes it from conservative Christian politics.
Framing Gushee’s book in terms of this dilemma does not detract from its value for all Christian readers, however—including conservative evangelicals. What Gushee offers in this book is not, first and foremost, a brief for progressive Christian ethics, although it includes that too (chapter 10, especially). It is, rather, the archaeological excavation of an idea—the sacredness of human life—through various layers of Christian history.
In successive chapters, Gushee shows how Christians built a sacredness-of-life ethic on the foundations of Jewish and Christian Scriptures (chapters 2 and 3, respectively). In early Christianity, this “moral vision” included opposition to war, abortion, infanticide, torture, and the Roman arena; as well as affirmation of peace, piety, impartiality, and help for the poor (chapter 4). The conversion of Constantine to Christianity in A.D. 312, which symbolized the cooption of the Church by the State, blurred this moral vision (chapter 5). This resulted in a “Christendom divided against itself,” which Gushee illustrates through three vignettes: Francis of Assisi vs. the Crusades, Bartolome de Las Casas vs. La Conquista, and Baptist Richard Overton’s advocacy of religious freedom vs. Christendom’s systematic persecution of Jews (chapter 6). As the Enlightenment dawned, philosophers such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant retained much of the substance of this Christian ethic, even as they shifted the grounding of that ethic from biblical revelation to autonomous reason (chapter 7). But as Friedrich Nietzsche argued, “When one gives up Christian belief one therefore deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality.” Gushee outlines Nietzsche’s systematic deconstruction of Christian morality, especially its emphasis on the sacredness of life (chapter 8). The costs of the loss of that Christian moral vision were staggering. Chapter 9 uses the Nazis as an example of the catastrophic consequences of—quoting J. A. S. Greenville—“a contempt for the sacredness of life” (chapter 9).
Only after completing this archaeological excavation does Gushee outline the progressive implications of a sacredness-of-life ethic: anti-abortion, worried about biotechnological innovations, anti-death penalty, pro-human rights, anti-nuclear weapons, and pro-women’s rights (chapter 10). Had this chapter been earlier in the book, I—a politically conservative evangelical—might have dismissed it as a progressive Christian talking the standard progressive line. By placing it near the end of the book, however, Gushee forced me to look again at these issues, but in a brighter historical light. Given the misuse of political power, the depredations of war, and the abuse of capital punishment—especially in the twentieth century, but also during the era of Christendom—Christians need to cast a far more critical eye on the state’s power to kill. This doesn’t commit Christians to pacifism, however. Gushee does not seem to be on; I certainly am not.
Moreover, Gushee is quite right that “life” issues need to encompass the quality of life. Though his discussion of women’s rights occupies a mere five pages of the book (pages 382-387), Gushee argues persuasively (to my mind, anyway) that “the sacredness of life in the twenty-first century requires full engagement with global women’s rights issues. Citing Half the Sky by husband-and-wife team Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, Gushee highlights “three primary areas”: “sex trafficking/forced prostitution, gender-based violence against women, and maternal mortality.” One of the difficulties for conservative evangelical readers is that talk of women’s rights is usually associated with a pro-choice position on abortion. To this, I can only second Gushee’s plea: “Surely Christians can demonstrate the intelligence to separate issues that are intrinsically distinct from one another.” I certainly hope so.
As in all books of this length and depth of learning, readers will find themselves disagreeing with this or that factual assertion, biblical interpretation, or ethical conclusion. I certainly did. You will too. But I agree with and was profoundly challenged by its fundamental insight that “God has consecrated each and every human being—without exception and in all circumstances—as a unique, incalculably precious being of elevated status and dignity.” This “moral reality” entails the “moral task” of “adopting a posture of reverence” and “accepting responsibility for the sacred gift that is a human life.”
Next Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, keep both the reality and the task in mind, not only regarding the child in the womb, but also regarding your neighbor…and even your enemy.
P.S. If you found my review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews