The Sanctity of Life, Different Christian Views

As my final exam for my Christian Ethics class this last year, I wrote an essay on different Christian views on the sanctity of life. I thought that many here might find it interesting (I was quite fascinated by some of the information that I found), so I thought that I'd reproduce it in its entirety here. Be warned, however, that it's over 4000 words long, so it's not exactly a quick read.

One of the biggest issues in the Christian world is the question: is the willful and intentional taking of the life of a human being (either another or oneself) ever justified? This issue manifests itself through many controversial topics, such as abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. All of these are believed to be acceptable under certain circumstances by certain Christians. Some Christians may see nothing wrong with any of them, whereas some would say that none are ever justified. Most would say that some of these forms of killing are justified in certain cases, but that others are not. Nearly all Christians agree that straight out murder is wrong. War, however, is sometimes seen as being necessary because it is done in self-defense – if it comes down to kill or be killed, then many Christians would choose kill. The death penalty is sometimes seen as justified because it is a just punishment of the criminal. Euthanasia might be seen as being acceptable because one has the right to do what one wants with one’s own life. Abortion might not be seen as murder because life is not seen as beginning until a certain time – whether that be at conception, at the time the fetus becomes capable of living on its own, or at some other time. Before this, the fetus is not seen as being human, and to kill the fetus is therefore not murder. Not all Christians agree on these justifications, of course. These are difficult issues, and various denominations take very different stances.

The early Christian Church’s (100-311 A.D.) view on the sanctity of life was very clear – killing was wrong, plain and simple. The early Christian church found life to be sacred in any and all cases – the Christian writer Lactantius wrote: "When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men. Thus it is not lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself. Nor is it [lawful] to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred creature." (Robinson Capital) The early Church unequivocally equated both war and the death penalty with murder. The church was openly pacifist, and believed that killing another human being in war or in anything such as the death penalty was never justified. The Church detested violence in any form. They did not fight back when persecuted – as Tertullian said to the Romans, “in our religion it is counted better to be slain than to slay.” (Bercot) The early Church saw the following Messianic prophecy as applying to them: “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” (NIV Bible, Isaiah 2:4) In early Christian history, most other popular religions in the Roman Empire (with the notable exception of Judaism) allowed for, and even encouraged, both abortion and infanticide as means of birth control. Early Christian writers and philosophers equated abortion with infanticide, identifying both as murder. Tertullian said, “it makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth.” (Robinson Abortion) Some teachings allowed for abortion soon after gestation, but later in the pregnancy, abortion was almost universally condemned in Christendom. One of the underlying principles of early Christianity was that the end does not justify the means – therefore, killing other human beings to attain peace, a common justification for war, was not a valid reason for going to war. Likewise, mercy killings and abortion were usually not seen as justified, because they were murder, no matter what the outcome. (Robinson Capital) (Bercot) (Robinson Abortion) (NIV Bible) (Shubin)

It is worth noting that there were varying views in early Christianity, outside of the orthodox view of the Church. Gnostic Christianity, an unorthodox religion that was condemned by the early Church, did not view life as being sacred in the same way that orthodox Christianity did. Gnostics saw the spirit as being important, rather than the body – for Gnostics, the body was not so much a temple as it was a cage. According to certain Gnostic scripture, the body is a “prison that will perish.” (Book of Thomas the Contender, II 143,11) As such, killing the body was not seen as violating the sanctity of life, because it was the spirit that was sacred, and the spirit could not be killed. However, the body was still a means to an end, because it is through the mind that we attain spiritual progress. Gnostic views on specific issues are difficult to be sure of, because many early Gnostic writings have been destroyed or lost. Most Gnostics generally disapproved of war, and of the death penalty as well. In fact, it is likely, although not certain, that most Gnostics were outright pacifists, just as orthodox Christians were. However, on the issues of euthanasia and abortion, Gnostics may very well have been more open. A body without a mind has no special value, and so in a case such as the Terri Schiavo one, Gnostics would have seen no point in keeping the body artificially alive once the mind was gone. Furthermore, Gnostics would likely have been in favour of allowing the terminally ill the right to die when they see fit – since they are going to die soon anyway, there is no reason for them to face unnecessary misery. In regards to abortion, Gnostics would most likely have disapproved of them later in the pregnancy. But early in the development of the fetus, before the brain had formed, Gnostics would have seen nothing wrong with abortion. (Moore) (Robinson Gnosticism)

In the early 4th century AD, persecution of the Christian Church in the Roman Empire, which had been common in earlier centuries ceased. Constantine, the Roman emperor, first issued a decree calling for religious tolerance of those who called themselves Christians, and later made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Once this happened, following God became identified as following the state, and now it became part of Christian service to serve in the Roman military. Church teachings from that time on supported military conscription as a way of serving God. Athanasius, the father of Catholic orthodoxy, circa 350 AD, taught that, although murder is sinful, to kill one’s adversary in war is not only lawful, but praiseworthy. It was Augustine, however, who most effectively defended the right of the Church to go to war. After the defeat and sack of Rome in 409-410 AD, Augustine developed his “just war” theory, in which he formulated four points which, if adhered to, made a war justifiable. Augustine declared that firstly, war must be declared by the state. Secondly, war could only be declared after all peaceful means of accomplishing resolution had been exhausted. Thirdly, the purpose of war must be the punishment of injustice and atrocity. Finally, the war must be directed at the enemy forces, rather than at innocent civilians. This just war theory, or a variant of it, is the philosophy held by most Christians in the present day. (Shubin)

The idea of just war was the idea held by the majority of Christendom until the Reformation. Certain minor sects did adhere to pacifism during this time – for instance, a group called the Albigences formed in Europe some time prior to 1000 AD (when they first appeared in historical records), and rejected many of the teachings of the Catholic Church at the time, including the doctrine of just war. Massive persecution from the Church, beginning in 1120 AD, caused the sect to disintegrate and assimilate into the general population. A group known as the Waldenses, formed by Pierre Waldes, formed in France towards the end of the 12th century. The Waldenses were excommunicated by the pope in 1184. This pacifist group apparently continued on until the Reformation, at which point it assimilated into other denominations. During the Reformation, numerous Christian sects broke off from mainstream Christian doctrine in regards to the use of violence, and became pacifist. However, this was far from the norm. Most church reformers still retained some concept of just war, and as a result, most pacifistic groups were persecuted for this belief, and a number of these groups did not last long – mostly merging into other more successful pacifist denominations. Some of the most notable pacifist denominations that formed during the Reformation including the Mennonites under Menno Simon, the Hutterites under Jacob Hutter, and the Quakers under George Fox. (Shubin)

Various Christian views during this period on the other notable issues pertaining to the sanctity of life are more difficult to find, as they are not as well recorded as the issue of war, which has always been and likely always will be a very divisive issue. On the issue of abortion, Augustine adopted Aristotle’s teaching “delayed ensoulment,” which taught that the fetus did not gain a human soul until forty days after gestation. Augustine claimed that a soul cannot live an unformed body – therefore, abortion early in the pregnancy did not kill a soul, and was therefore not murder. As such, abortion prior to this was allowed. This view was largely adopted by the Church in Western Europe, while the Eastern Church retained its firm anti-abortion stance. In the Catholic Church, this stance remained prevalent throughout most of its early history – St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also considered only the abortion of an “animated” fetus murder. Later in Catholicism, various popes would change laws in regard to abortion. In the 17th century, the idea that an embryo gained a soul at the point of conception began to take hold. This was not made official Church doctrine, however, until 1869, when Pope Pius IX removed the distinction between “fetus animatus” and “fetus inanimatus.” Mercy killings, such as they were, were for the most part condemned by mainstream Christendom until the 19th century. This is largely because until this point, medicine and anesthetics had not developed to the point where euthanasia was largely practical. (Robinson Abortion) (Armstrong)

In modern Christendom, there are four prevailing views on war – the ideas of pacifism, non-resistance, just war, and preventive war. Today, a pacifist refers to one who is opposed to participating in a war in any capacity for any reason. There are numerous reasons for which people choose to be pacifist today, but the primary reason is a belief in the sacredness of life – most pacifists believe that all human beings have a right to life, and that killing them, even in war, denies that right. The prevailing idea among pacifists is that only God has the right to take life, and that human beings never do. The second view, that of non-resistance, is similar to pacifism, but with the important qualifier that one may serve in the military in a non-combatant role. Serving as a Chaplain or a medic, for instance, is permitted. However, engaging in a role which would involve taking life is still forbidden, for most of the same reasons as in pacifism. The difference between the two views is that pacifism views war as evil and despicable to the point where Christians ought separate themselves completely from it by not participating in it, even in a non-combatant role, as this would support the evil that is war. The non-resistant view, however, focuses more on the actual act of taking life, and if a Christian does not violate the sanctity of life by killing, then there is nothing wrong with participating in a war in a non-combatant fashion. The third view, the just war theory, is based largely on the historical teachings of Augustine and other Christian theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas. Actual criteria for what constitutes a just war varies among Christians who adhere to this philosophy, but there are presuppositions that most just war proponents agree to. The primary presupposition is that some evil cannot be avoided – although the concept of just war recognizes the evil of war, it advocates war as a “necessary evil.” Although it should be avoided whenever possible, if war needs to occur to avoid greater evil, then it is justified to participate in this war. One of the main conditions for a just war is that the war must be done in self-defense. This condition is modified in the final prevailing view on war, that of the preventive war – within this view, Christians may go to war to stop an attack on someone else or to correct outrageous injustice. The line between just war and preventive war is often blurred, as is the line between pacifism and non-resistance. There are of course other views on war in modern Christendom, but these four are the most common. The official policy of most Christian churches is that of just war. Many churches are not in complete agreement on this issue. A small minority of denominations have an official doctrine of pacifism or non-resistance, including the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Amish, the Quakers, and the Brethren in Christ. Because both Christians against war and Christians who find war acceptable under certain circumstances have views largely based on historical teachings of Christians, it is difficult to classify either group as being largely conservative or liberal. Most Christian pacifists come from churches which have been pacifist for many centuries, and these churches in turn trace their pacifism back to early Christianity. The same is true of most Christians adhering to just war philosophy. There are pacifists who go against their established church doctrine because of personal conviction in proclaiming their non-violence, and so might be called liberal, but at the same time many of the pacifist Christians denominations are the most conservative – such as the Hutterites or the Amish. In regards to views on war, liberal or conservative is not an accurate generalization for any of the views, nor is left wing or right wing. The four modern Christian views on war are held by Christians with very different political views. (Christian Perspective) (Shubin)

Modern views on the death penalty tend to correlate to views on war – Christians who support preventive war tend to also support the death penalty, whereas pacifists and non-resistants practically never do. Believers in the just war philosophy are split – some are opposed to the death penalty, while some are for it. The most notable denominations and Christian groups in support of the death penalty include the Southern Baptist Church, the Church of Latter-Day Saints, Christian Reconstructionists, and some sects of Lutheranism. Most other mainstream denominations are officially opposed to the death penalty, with Mennonites and Quakers being two of the most historically outspoken. Various reasons are given by those who support of the death penalty, depending largely on the Christian. Some are practical, such as claims of safety (once a murderer is killed, he cannot re-offend), cost (it is more cost-effective to execute a murderer than to keep him in jail for his entire life), and deterrence (giving murderers the death penalty will deter potential murderers). The two main ethical justifications are the need for justice and the Biblical basis for the death penalty. Old Testament law requires the death penalty for certain crimes, including murder. The former justification suggests that certain crimes, such as murder, require retribution, require that justice be done – and that the death penalty is the only way to enact this justice. Christians opposed to the death penalty also offer a variety of reasons. Once again, some are practical – such as claims of the large chance of error in criminal condemnation, and cost (the cost of appeals by criminals on death row often exceed the cost of keeping the criminal in prison for life). Ethical reasons for opposing the death penalty are largely based on the sanctity of life – even if a person is a murderer, their life still has intrinsic value, given to them by God. There are also Biblical bases for this view – in the New Testament, Jesus forbids the stoning of an adulteress, pointing out that all those who would kill her are sinners themselves. Christians who oppose the death penalty tend do so because they do not feel that they can reconcile Jesus’ teachings on forgiveness and grace with the death penalty. (Robinson Capital)

Various Christian views today on the issue of abortion vary. The two main stances held amongst contemporary Christians are the pro-life stance, and the pro-choice stance. The pro-life supporters emphasize the sanctity of life that the fetus has – to most pro-lifers, life is seen as beginning at the moment of conception, and to kill a fetus is to kill a human being. Christians who identify themselves as being pro-choice emphasize the woman’s right to do what she wants with her own body. Pro-choice Christians generally think that life starts later in gestation, or at birth, and that to kill a fetus before it is a human life is not murder, at least not in the same sense that killing a fully grown human being is murder. Whether a denomination is pro-choice or pro-life often correlates strongly with how conservative or liberal the denomination is. Pro-choice denominations in North America include the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Quakers. A very large number of denominations take an official pro-life stance – some of the most prominent include the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination in the world (although the Catholic Church does allow for abortion if the mother’s life is in danger), and the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. Other denominations take viewpoints between these two stances, or borrowing elements of both. The Seventh Day Adventist Church, for instance, while they do not condone abortions under most circumstances, believes that the final decision of whether or not to abort the child should be the choice of the pregnant woman’s. Most individual Christians, while they may identify themselves as being pro-life or pro-choice, hold views combining elements of both viewpoints. As with war, nearly all Christians agree that abortion is not a good thing, and that it should be avoided whenever possible – the point of contention is that some Christians find it justifiable under certain extreme circumstances (such as to save the mother’s life, in the case of rape or incest, or if the baby will suffer from some sort of a defect if it is allowed to be born) while other Christians do not. (Robinson Abortion)

Euthanasia is another point of controversy intrinsically tied with the issue of the sanctity of life. Can mercy killing be justified if a human being has a terminal illness, or is being kept alive only by extraordinary measures? Many Christians believe that killing someone before they die naturally is to “play God,” that only God has the right to dictate when someone will die. Clearly this view brings up questions about the morality of war, the death penalty, and killing in self-defense as well, but it is most commonly thought of in relation to euthanasia. Some Christians feel that human beings should have the right to choose when to end their own life – and that this is different from choosing to end another person’s life. However, many Christians would say that our lives are not our own, but God’s, and that we do not have the right to take our own life anymore than we have the right to take anyone else’s. Another common argument made against euthanasia is that to accept euthanasia may lead to the acceptance that certain lives are worth less than others – in this case, the lives of those who are sick, disabled, brain-dead, or near death. Other Christians see euthanasia as being justified in certain cases because they feel that if someone is in extreme pain, taking their life could be the merciful thing to do. An important distinction in euthanasia is the difference between killing someone directly and choosing not to use extreme measures to keep someone alive. The former involves actively killing a human being, whereas the latter involves letting them die. Some Christians claim that there is no distinction, whereas others say that although actively killing someone is wrong, it can sometimes be ethical to let someone die, if the measures required to keep them alive are extreme enough. Other Christians say that the distinction lies in whether or not someone is brain-dead – that if a human being is at a point where he is merely a vegetable, that taking his life can be justified, because the quality of his life has degraded to such a point where there is no longer any point in him living. There is contention, however, as to when someone is brain-dead enough that euthanasia can be justified. On these specific questions, Christian views vary greatly. Few denominations have official stances on these specific issues in regards to euthanasia – most denominations either take a stance firmly against euthanasia or in support of it (when necessary). The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church states: “2280: Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God Who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for His honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.” (Robinson Euthanasia) Besides the Roman Catholic Church, other prominent denominations generally against euthanasia include the Orthodox Church, the Mennonite Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Salvation Army. Churches in favour of free choice by the individual in regards to euthanasia include the United Church of Christ, the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Presbyterian Church, and the Methodist Church on the United States west coast. As with abortion, conservative Churches generally take a pro-life stance, whereas more liberal churches tend to take a pro-choice stance. Most individual Christians, however, acknowledge that euthanasia is not necessarily an all-or-nothing scenario, and tend to hold views in between the two extremes. (Armstrong) (Euthanasia) (Robinson Euthanasia)

Most Christians agree that life is, in its ideal form and in the ideal situation, a thing to be cherished and not destroyed. Unfortunately, life is rarely in its ideal form or in the ideal situation. We live in a world of sin, and there are times when the taking of human life may be necessary. Even if life is always sacred, there may come a point when we are forced to violate that sanctity for the greater good. Nearly all Christians would say that war is not a good thing – but it may be that under extreme circumstances it has to happen. Likewise, most Christians agree that the death penalty is not desirable – but there may be times when we have no other choice. Christians are generally opposed to abortion – but in certain cases it may be allowable. The majority of Christians see euthanasia as undesirable – but sometimes it may be necessary. It may be, of course, that life is so sacred that we should not destroy it even to bring about a desirable end. The sanctity of life is, and probably always will be, a contentious topic in Christendom. In the end, every Christian needs to decide for him or herself how to reconcile the idea of the sanctity of life with the harsh reality of our world.

Works Cited

“A Christian Perspective on War.” Officer’s Christian Fellowship. http://ocf.gospelcom.net/pubs/perspective.php

Armstrong, Chris. “Not a Mercy But a Sin.” Christianity Today. http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/n...2003/oct31.html

Bercot, David W. “The Early Christian View of War.” Church of God General Conference. http://www.abc-coggc.org/COGGC/gcpublicati...d/JRAD1-3-5.htm

“The Book of Thomas the Contender.” The Nag Hammadi Library. 1990. The Gnosis Archive. James M. Robinson, ed. Harper Collins, San Francisco, CA. http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/bookt.html

“Euthanasia.” The British Broadcasting Corporation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/sanctity_life/

The New Student Bible, New International Version. Doris Rikkers and Sandra Vander Zicht, gen. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation, 1986.

Robinson, Bruce A. “Abortion.” Religious Tolerance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm

Robinson, Bruce A. “Capital Punishment; The Death Penalty.” Religious Tolerance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/execute.htm

Robinson, Bruce A. “Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide.” Religious Tolerance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/euthanas.htm

Shubin, Daniel H. “The Conflict of Ages.” Peace Host. http://www.peacehost.net/christianpacifism/

I just wanted to post that I read it (no really, I did this time) and found it very interesting.

Probably some points I'd want to share with a few of my friends, but I'll comment more in depth later when I have more time.

That was a very interesting read.

I find my interest in Christianity growing.



I especially like the original Christians. Haha, mostly 'cuz they were peace-loving fools. Just like Jesus was.

This post has been edited by Kirtar on Aug 6 2005, 12:27 AM

I'm glad that you both enjoyed it. I find it interesting how so many people never seem to figure out how linked the topics of, for instance, abortion and pacifism are. Or euthanasia and the death penalty. I hear "the sanctity of life" used to refer to both of the former all of the time, but practically never to refer to the latter. And then I see left-wingers raging against war and the death penalty but fully supporting "choice" in the other matters. Granted, anyone's welcome to hold whatever views they like so long as they can justify them... but sometimes I feel like I'm one of the only people, Christian or no, who thinks that the sanctity of life applies in all situations. Not that I'm entirely sure of my stance on, for instance, euthanasia, but so many people don't even make a connection between the various issues, which just seems... strange to me. Although I confess that my main "crusade" tends to be for pacifism, I felt that I really had to look at all issues regarding taking life if I wanted to write about pacifism in the church, and I'm very glad that I did. It was quite enlightening.

Yes, it's very fascinating looking at the early Church, especially when you compare it with the various denominations that we have today.

Well written and definitely interesting. :) I don't know if the issues are up for discussion here or not but I do support war, abortion, and euthanasia when any all are necessary. I find it quite comical that the chatechism of Rome tells us we do not own our lives when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

5 stars :D