If you asked me to define the sanctity of life, here it is:

I think this definition covers what most evangelical Christians believe especially when it comes to defending the rights of the unborn. The gruesome videos exposing the horrific practices of Planned Parenthood only emphasize the fact that babies in the womb are not blobs of tissue but human beings with distinct organ systems. Thus the slogan, My body, my choice, breaks down because there are two bodies and two people we are talking about – the mother and the child. Even though the unborn baby is totally dependent upon his mother, this dependence does not cause his personhood to be lost or absorbed into his mother’s. He is his own person.

So let’s fast forward a few years to toddlerhood. This child is still solely dependent upon his parents for his basic needs. He is learning very rudimentary life skills. He cannot contribute to society. His parents bear legal responsibility for him until he is an adult which is years down the road. He is also under his parents’ authority in a biblical sense. Does the sanctity of life apply to a toddler? Is this toddler a person? I can’t imagine anyone thinking otherwise.

I am going to advance the clock and be specific about gender in this case – a married woman. In the eyes of civil law, she has the full rights of any citizen. She is a functioning member of society. In a gender conservative household, there is an element of submission to her husband per Eph. 5:24. However its extent runs quite a gamut as the non-egalitarian side of the fence is not uniform in practice. Nonetheless, does the sanctity of life apply to this woman? Is she a person in the most basic sense of the word as are the toddler and unborn infant?  As in the previous two cases, I can’t imagine anyone thinking otherwise.

So if there is general agreement on the value of all people made in God’s image, then why do churches and Christian organizations cover up child abuse and domestic violence? If there is such a strong commitment to fight for the personhood of the unborn, why are there “crickets” when it comes to defending abuse victims? Abuse at its most basic level is an attempt to rob the personhood of the target by the abuser. Thus the silence seems like a glaring inconsistency, at best, and hypocrisy, at worst. Every time another instance of abuse within Christendom hits the headlines, I rack my brain trying to understand why this is so.

• Are our definitions of domestic and child abuse accurate? Are we willing to learn from even secular experts in the field?
• In the case of abortion, the “culprits” are safely outside church walls. In the case of abuse, they may be sitting in the pews or speaking from the pulpit. Are we gullible and easily deceived or arrogant about our ability to discern wolves in sheep’s clothing?
• Do teachings regarding marriage, family, and gender provide cover for abuse because the personhood of women and children is denied even by implication? How many loopholes are there for the abuser?
• Whose needs take priority? The victim, the perpetrator, or the organization where the abuse took place?
• Is our naive desire for a “happy ending” so great that we gloss over the heinous and criminal nature of abuse? God is able to grant repentance, but that does not necessarily remove the consequences and the need for safeguards to prevent it from happening again.
• Why is it so hard to say, “We were wrong. Please forgive us for failing you. We want to learn and do all we can to make sure this never happens again.”?
• Or are we unable to even consider the possibility that we could be wrong?

My heart was very heavy when I typed out these questions because it breaks for the victims. I humbly submit these questions and pray the church-at-large considers them, if at all possible, before tragedy strikes. May we put our money where our mouth is when it comes to the sanctity of life for all people.