Editor’s Corner: Christianity is a Religion of Love
By Maegan Paul ‘21
Often, Christianity and the term “pro-choice” are not affirmatively connected. Some of the most prominent Christians in the media are anti-choice or, as they are more commonly known, pro-life. There is a widespread perception that being pro-life and pro-choice are mutually exclusive ideologies, but that is simply a divisive understanding of the two terms and of the Christian faith.
Throughout the Bible, Jesus expressed a desire for his followers to be compassionate and show love towards others whose experiences were unfamiliar to their own. One prominent example of Jesus showing compassion to an unexpected individual exists in Mark 5:25-34. In this story, a ceremonially unclean woman who had been living in isolation for twelve years approached Jesus in a crowd, with the hope that he would help her shed her ailment and return to society. Knowing that she likely would not have permission to approach, she touched Jesus with faith that he would heal her. Her faith was affirmed, but Jesus looked back to find the unknown individual who reached for him in the crowd. The woman told him the truth about her religiously unclean condition, but Jesus chose to bless her instead of bringing on a harsh judgement for breaking the religious and social customs of the time.
Most Christians will read the infamous story from Mark’s fifth chapter as a tale of faith and perseverance. Nearly all sermons about this unknown woman are about her desperation for salvation and her complete belief that Jesus would save her with a simple touch. Perhaps that is one lesson to be gleaned from the story, but nothing in the Bible is ever one-dimensional.
Mark 5:25-34 allows readers to see Jesus’ compassion firsthand—for a so-called unclean woman suffering from what modern scholars have determined to be an extended menstruation ailment. Jesus, a man, could have never experienced such a disease, but still chose to bless the woman with the issue of blood, despite an inability to relate and fully understand her predicament.
Like the unclean woman prior to Jesus’ blessing, people who have abortions and support those who do are often made pariahs in their own religious communities. Self-proclaimed pro-life activists physically attack people recieving abortions, expel them from religious institutions and fire them from their jobs for the simple crime of saving their own lives. What can be left is a person living in social and religious isolation, too unclean for their church families to acknowledge.
The faults in those Christians who may have missed some important lessons in the Bible extend beyond the surface of pro-life and pro-choice arguments. Often, Cristians struggle with the belief that their interpretation of the religion is the only correct form and that others must conform to their beliefs. This handicap is noticeably present in the ever unnerving overinvolvement of religious conservatives who question the ethics of allowing the marriage of same-sex couples.
Obergefell v. Hodges, the reknowned Supreme Court Case legalising gay marriage, was decided by a narrow 5-4 vote in favor of allowing same-sex couples to wed in all 50 states. Decades of injustice and a future of compassion teetered in the balance of nine people and relied on the impartiality of one conservative judge.
Many people of faith, from priests to bakers, claimed that their acceptance of a homosexual relationship through a business exchange or anything more would make them sinners by association. However, this prejudice against same-sex couples is primarily based on an improper view of Christian lessons from the Bible.
There is, notably, a great dispute about modern Bible translations of Leviticus 20:13, which is a scripture often used as justification of homophobic sentiments. Because the text has been translated from Ancient Hebrew to Greek and further into hundreds of ever-changing modern languages, it has been challenging to definitively determine the original implications of key words.
One possible translation of Leviticus 20:13 states, “If a man practices [pedophilia], having sex with [a boy] as with a woman, both... have committed a detestable act.” Yet, another translation reads, “if a man practices [homosexuality], having sex with [another man] as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act.” As a result of these translation issues, scholars and religious officials have been unable to discern the meaning of this text, and the verse’s true meaning has consequently been made unclear.
Furthermore, there is an unfortunate deficit in understanding about what one’s role as a Christian should be in the lives of others. God chose not to control the actions of humanity, opting instead to allow them to have free will and learn from their mistakes. The essence of humanity is in fact its autonomous nature. According to different interpretations, one may find themselves damned after death for a variety of reasons or sins, but even God chose not to place premature punishments and judgements on people.
With this observation in mind, I ask, what gives a politician or any citizen who claims to be a devout follower of the Christian faith the prerogative to do what God himself chose not to? It is not the responsibility or place of a Christian to govern what another person is capable of doing on the mere basis of belief, as the Bible states that God created humans in his own image and with the ability to make their own choices.
Instead of weaponizing the Bible and its stories to alienate, isolate and hate people who do not relate to what is socially accepted, Christians should follow Jesus in his expression of Christianity as a religion of love. Jesus was not an all-knowing being without faults; he was a human who found ways to care even for the most unclean woman in a crowd of his supporters. Anyone can show this simple level of compassion, and Christianity implores its followers to listen to others without jumping towards any judgements in favor of loving them first.