Going about our business

An issue that has been plaguing me for some time now is, What should the strategy of the pro-life movement be to achieve its objectives? The answer to that question will doubtless vary depending upon which segment of the overall movement one sees oneself as occupying. But as I look at the various publications, blogs, videos, and pronouncements, I think that more sophisticated strategic planning is in order.

The phenomenon that stands out the most clearly to me is that the vast majority of participants in the pro-life movement seem to believe that moral and theological statements must buttress most of what we do and say. Now this is understandable to some extent because churches by and large, with Roman Catholic churches being the major exception, do little or no preaching/teaching along these lines.

I live in what passes for the Bible belt in British Columbia (which says very little for the rest of the province), and I find no particular urgency on the part of the local churches to do anything hard-hitting as far as the sanctity of life is concerned. There are certain token efforts (e.g., some parishioners holding a sign on a street corner for an hour a year), but nothing substantial. Three pastors have told me that pro-life issues are not on the church agenda. One called the movement just another special interest group like Love Abbotsford, a nice group of people who go around the town from time to time washing people's cars and tending seniors' gardens.

I'm a business ethicist, and I've pretty much given up on expecting preachers to have anything useful to say about economic life. Apparently it's not on the church agenda either, despite the fact that the vast majority of us participate in it, that the business world is the country's greatest creator of wealth and jobs, that business leaders have a significant impact on government legislation, and that many of the great environmental and ethical dilemmas arise from its ranks. If the churches can ignore this, then paying mere lip service to the sanctity of life should not be surprising.

What it leaves us with, however, is a generation of illiterates on life issues. St. Peter felt that we needed to be prepared to give a reasoned account for our convictions when asked: But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence. I wish that we would heed his words on more public issues than we do today.

Conclusion number one is, therefore, that we have to make up for deficiencies in churches' preaching/teaching agenda by trumpeting the theology ourselves. I wouldn't argue against this being an important and useful exercise provided that it occupies an appropriate place in the broader mandate of the movement.

What we haven't grasped nearly enough, however, is that theological and even religiously-based moral arguments don't go down very well in our pluralistic and post-modern societies. Despite their vacuous arguments, many pro-abortion activists have won a following by skillfully employing concepts and ideologies that people across belief systems will accept; e.g., women's rights, choice, reproductive freedom. Look at the nonsense spouted in the Canadian Parliament these days about Bill C-484 Unborn Victims of Crime Act. The paucity of intelligence in these pronouncements may boggle the mind, but they tend to carry the day in many circles because they appeal to today's platitudes and verities. What is our strategy for speaking to a pluralistic public?

Another observation is that many participants see political answers as the route to go, particularly in the U.S. Pro-life people often align themselves with political parties, and urge support for so-called pro-life politicians who are simultaneously libertarian, pro-capital punishment, pro-gun, and inclined to militaristic action as the best way to do foreign policy. Face it folks, George W. has not turned out to be the best thing short of the Second Coming. Whatever regard he claims to have for unborn babies (or at least American unborn babies--I'm not sure what his opinion is of the Iraqi ones), he has not distinguished himself in other aspects of the dignity of life.

In fact, the pro-life movement as a general rule has defined 'sanctity' pretty narrowly. We're all for saving the fetuses from extinction, but not nearly as concerned for dealing with the circumstances into which too many of them are born. There are wonderful exceptions to this, of course, but not nearly enough.

Conclusion number two, then, is that political processes are seen as an important avenue for securing pro-life objectives. Again, I wouldn't discourage the idea of a political element to what we do (I speak as a 21 year veteran of municipal politics), but as the Bible warns, Don't put your trust in princes, each a son of man in whom there is no help.

I'm particularly concerned that the perceived best political answer is simply to make abortions illegal. In the short- and intermediate-run, that's not going to happen (I won't speculate on the long-run). I'm equally convinced that it would do as much damage as good. We must become vastly more sophisticated in dealing with government, and in understanding the limits on what politicians can accomplish.

[Believe it or not, some pro-life people are criticizing M.P. Ken Epp for the outstanding work he is doing in Ottawa on sanctity of life issues. We have to answer the challenge posed to me by a pro-life British Columbia cabinet minster: "Sometimes my biggest problem with pro-life issues is the pro-lifers."]

A third observation is that the media and the courts are seen as principalities of darkness and evil who await another opportunity to denounce and defame the pro-lifers (or anti-choicers as they seem to prefer). There is plenty of ammunition to support this observation.

But I try to put myself in the shoes of the typical reporter. She or he has little or no time to do proper research on most things that they cover. They live under the tyranny of deadlines and their editors. They also have to write at about a grade five level and to keep things precise. Therefore they fall back on stereotypes and politically correct ways of analysis as a shortcut. It saves time and gets them in far less trouble. Their jobs and their careers are dependent not on the tender sensibilities of what their publishers tell them are marginal groups, but on whether they keep the boss happy.

Our media strategy, which is by and large to snipe from the sidelines, is wanting. We don't know how to understand and use the media the way the Joyce Arthurs of the world do.

[As an aside, while I don't like a good deal of what the National Post publishes in their editorials, they have transformed the newspaper world, as far as I am concerned, in the way they explore issues in their various series. I have to assume on the basis of their format that papers like the Toronto Star have a much lower view of the intelligence of their readerships.]

Much more could be said. But I would like to see a lot more work done in these three areas: effective communication; how to best achieve objectives; and how to relate to the media.

The related issue that must be addressed simultaneously is measuring progress. The best indication of the effectiveness of a strategy is that it works! If our strategy is simply to make abortion illegal, then measurement is easy. But given the fact that this objective is not going to be achieved any time soon, how would we measure progress?

Stay tuned.