Is a Politics of Life possible in a culture of death?

The LORD of Love is the God of Life. God’s Love is shown precisely in healing broken lives, and protecting vulnerable lives, and elevating endangered lives so they find abundant life. The Glory of God is humanity fully alive, and the fullest human life is revealed in God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, who overcame death by the power of his undying Love. And it is Christ who healed and fed and taught so that all might partake in his Life. Therefore it is incumbent upon those of us who claim to serve the God of Love, revealed in the Life of Christ, to actually do what he taught, and live as he lived: By healing and feeding and teaching others his Way of Life. 

This entails a number or commitments personally, ethically, societally, and even politically...

Personally and ethically, I would advise reading the Gospels and putting into practice Jesus’ teachings found there. Start in Matthew chapters 5 to 7 if you are interested. Socially and politically, however, our society is very different from the world of Jesus. The most obvious difference is that we get to vote on those who lead us and implement social policies. And when we vote, I think the social and political expression of Love is found in this principle: What person or policy or program or party can I vote for which will reasonably maximize LIFE for the most people, starting with the most vulnerable and needy?

Why start with the vulnerable and needy? Because that is where Jesus started. The upper and middle classes are generally not starving or homeless or deprived of quality nutrition or housing or medical care or education or shelter or safety. The needy are deprived of all of these things, and deprived to a greater extent than those who have more access to social power and economic resources. And since Jesus started by caring for the needy and vulnerable, so should we. 

So which person or policy or program or party will reasonably maximize their wellbeing? Because we know that if the least among us have a share in health and prosperity, that will “bubble up” to benefit everyone in society. Not just because workers will be healthier and therefore more productive, or because people will have more income to contribute to the economy, but also because God showers favor on societies that care for the needy, as is taught in multiple major religions. And even for the wealthy, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt it is better to have moderate wealth in a land of plenty, than to have extravagant wealth in a land of poverty and disease and disaster. 

So which person or policy or program or party will maximize health, and equality of access to the means of human flourishing, for everyone in society, starting with those on the bottom? In Matthew 25.31-46, Jesus gives us a brief list of perspectives from which to ask this question from. Jesus includes the hungry, the thirsty, the outsider, the homeless, the sick, and the imprisoned. And in Matthew 18, we know Jesus had a special concern for the care of children. 

Knowing that each and every person is made in the image of God, and every single life is sacred, Jesus identified these lives for special attention and care. So, we can start with these perspectives identified by Jesus, and enlarge them and apply them to our culture, and ask how we can maximize life for them. Thus, such a list might look like this:

Which person or policy or program or party will reasonably maximize life...

• From the perspective of vulnerable unborn lives?
• From the perspective of young mothers as well as survivors of sexual abuse?
• From the perspective of children in need of quality healthcare and nutrition and education?
• From the perspective of young adults in need of vocational and professional training to live productive lives and break cycles of poverty?
• From the perspective of families who need social services and protection from abuse and neglect?
• From the perspective of the elderly who can no longer work, but lack resources to live out their days in dignity?
• From the perspective of families who care for chronically ill loved ones?
• From the perspective of those who suffer and die from lack of access to the healthcare system?
• From the perspective of those who suffer and die from abuses of the pharmaceutical industry?
• From the perspective of those who suffer from malnutrition and lack access to affordable food and safe water?
• From the perspective of communities of color disproportionately targeted by policing and court systems?
• From the perspective of groups historically marginalized or excluded or persecuted by the majority in society, such as ethnic minorities as well as gays and lesbians and trans persons?
• From the perspective of laborers whose jobs have been shipped to other countries to be done by impoverished peoples who will do the work for pennies on the dollar?
• From the perspective of migrants and refugees who are seeking safety and opportunity?
• From the perspective of small business entrepreneurs who are trying to compete, and provide a living wage for their employees, in a marketplace dominated by monopolies and oligopolies?
• From the perspective of communities targeted by predatory lending and unjust financial institutions?
• From the perspective of those in the criminal justice system who need training and socialization to help them out of the cycle of crime?
• From the perspective of victims of crime who need social services and effective policing in their communities to effectively reduce crime rates?
• From the perspective of prisoners who are brutalized or tortured or murdered as part of their incarceration?
• From the perspective of those who suffer the most from pollution and climate instability wrought from industrial production and petroleum consumption?
• From the perspective of ecology and ecosystems that are at risk of extinction, and the future generations who may never experience them?
• From the perspective of soldiers, and their families, who bear the brunt of our wars, and often do not receive the care they need for the injuries they received fighting for our country?
• From the perspective of the damage caused around the world from our wars, in terms of harming our nation’s reputation and ability to be a force for good and an agent of liberation in the international community?
• From the perspective of whether our social and economic systems use persons as means to serve property and power, or whether property and power are being used as means to serve persons?
• From the perspective of whether those who benefit the most from our political and economic system are bearing their responsibility for those who depend on them, as well as the consequences of their consumption and the externalized costs of their production?

I am sure there are more perspectives I could mention, or should have mentioned and forgot. But there are some persons and parties who would try to focus our attention to only one or two of these perspectives, and make those the ONLY indicators of whether their policies and programs contribute to enhancing life. In so doing, they try to make us forget that the rest of their policies and programs actually DIMINISH LIFE from several other perspectives. 

But the truth is, no person or party consistently advocates programs and policies that enhance life according to ALL of these perspectives at once. We can try, but may not be possible. But we can support those who, on balance, most consistently support life across the most perspectives. We have to take ALL of these considerations in hand, and weigh the total amount of life affected by EACH of these factors, and then figure out which person or policy or program or party will maximize life for the most people possible, starting with the most vulnerable.