Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 844 Plough Quarterly • Autumn 2016 What if Christians’ pro-life witness was just as robust today? What if we responded to the church’s marginalization by recapturing our recklessness for life? Imagine the stir if all Christians refused to kill for any reason – why not leave “just war” to secular folks? – and if the church became known for its self-sacrificing love. There are a host of forerunners to show us the way, from Francis of Assisi to Florence Nightingale to Mother Teresa. We need consistency – what Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, in a famous 1983 lecture, called “a consistent ethic of life.” Bernardin, like Pope Francis today, appealed to opponents of abortion to prove their belief in the sacredness of life by also standing up for “the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant, and the unemployed worker.” Critics were quick to charge that Bernardin’s definition of consistency was so broad that it risked downplaying the unique horrors of abortion. It might, they feared, lead to pro- abortion politicians coopting the pro-life label while cherry-picking just those issues they found convenient to support (for example, death penalty abolition, nuclear disarmament, or anti-poverty programs). This fear would prove well-grounded. Yet the real problem isn’t too much con- sistency in defending life, but too little. After all, Bernardin’s words seem cautious and mild compared to the bracing message of Tertullian, Cyprian, the Didache, or the Sermon on the Mount. The early Christians were little inter- ested in nudging public policy this way or that; they were building something both simpler and grander. As Francis Schaeffer remarked in regard to abortion, “We should have in mind not only this important issue as though it stood alone. . . . Christianity provides a unified answer for the whole of life.” What does this unified answer look like? As Erna Albertz’s story illustrates (page 16), it means seeking to live out all of Jesus’ teach- ings, especially those that have been dismissed as impossible and unrealistic. Eberhard Arnold puts it well: Even the killing of unborn life, a Massacre of the Innocents that today is multiplied a thou- sandfold, remains unassailable apart from faith in the kingdom of God. The supposedly high culture of our day will continue to carry out this massacre as long as social disorder and injustice still exist. The murder of unborn children cannot be stopped as long as public and private life are allowed to remain as they are. We can demand neither purity in mar- riage nor the end of infanticide unless we are willing to oppose private property and the lie of unjust social stratification with a realistic alternative: that is, we must prove that a differ- ent way of life is possible. Christian morality cannot be demanded outside the context of a way of life whose name is “the kingdom of God” and “the church of Jesus Christ.” (Innenland, 1936) I hope the articles in this issue will rekindle your zeal and joy in building up such a way of life. The writers don’t all agree on the best ways and means, but each challenges us to consider: isn’t the unadulterated gospel of life an answer whose time has come? Warm greetings, Peter Mommsen Editor “Christianity provides a unified answer for the whole of life.” Francis Schaeffer