How not to Respond to NT Wright on Abortion

NT Wright has gone off on a subject he clearly knows very little about, especially from the perspective of Christian philosophy. This is not new. About a decade ago he was very fond of saying that dualism was not Christian, and then would go on to use or defend a relatively normal Christian substance dualism. Once he was asked what happens to us when we die if dualism is not true. His response was essentially that there is a part of us that continues on after death and is present with the Lord, just as the Apostle Paul (and virtually all Christians, and Jews leading up to Paul, believed) which is an affirmation of something like substance dualism. The problem is that Wright is not what I would call a systematic thinker. He is clearly a brilliant scholar in certain areas, the New Testament in particular, and he has a deeply pastoral heart. 

But substance dualism is something you can get away with being ignorant about in our day because of the general philosophical ignorance that is prevalent in the west. His views on this were only controversial in certain circles, and he basically got away with his philosophical sloppiness, in part because the point he was making back then was ultimately correct: the Christian view of the human person, especially regarding eschatological shalom, is not bifurcated. I doubt that Wright has ever heard the term hylomorphism, but it’s a much more nuanced view of the human person that philosophically integrates the substances of physical and spiritual in a more satisfying way than straight forward substance dualism. Hylomorphism gets much closer to the Biblical idea Wright was trying to defend in that spirit and body are not opposed realities but are supposed to be integrated. This idea comes out most clearly in the Biblical idea of the resurrection. As Wright is fond of saying the good news is really about life after life after death, not just that the soul goes on after we die. The blessed hope of the true Christian faith is not getting to be a “force ghost” in the sky when we die but rather bodily resurrection from death. This truth is even articulated in the great baptismal creed, named after the Apostles, as one of the most basic tenets of the faith. 

Wright was in fact communicating normal and healthy Christianity, just in a very non technical and clumsy way. This time around I believe he is in some sense doing the same thing but on a much more hot button, aka political, issue and with much more actual folly. NT Wright has essentially come out in favor not only of elective abortion as part of pastoral care for women but also pretty much argued that male clergy maintaining a prophetic voice for the cause of the unborn amounts to bullying, and that second part is especially aimed at Roman Catholic priests. To be fair he did a lot of self flagellation, and emphasized how horrible the whole thing is, but ultimately he seems to think that elective abortions can be the wise course of action. 

This issue is going to become a bloody shirt that will probably get waved about over Wright till he dies. I’m assuming the backlash will be so severe that he will probably have to come to grips with it publicly, to my knowledge he’s never committed a Christian error this grievous in public before. I’m not going to waste much ink here berating him. I believe his words, taken literally in context, clearly amount to an endorsement of elective abortion. Election abortions are abortions that are chosen to end the life of the unborn for non medically necessary reasons. That is incompatible with right reason and the consensus of thousands of years of Christian theology. If he really believes this, and isn’t saying it to merely appear to be empathetic to the concerns of pro abortion advocates, then his beliefs on this matter are in error. I’m sure many, MANY, others will spend much time and energy showing why he’s wrong. 

The real reason for this post is to address the mistake another Anglican clergyman has made in response to NT Wright’s mistake. Jamie Franklin (@jamiefranklin on substack, his stack is titled Good Things) broke down Wright’s unfortunate comments in a rather atypical pearl clutching manner while flying solo on his podcast, Irreverend. And in his response he claimed that he does not morally allow for any abortions even in the case of protecting the life of the mother. This is what he said exactly: 

You know, I can understand people arguing that in certain extreme circumstances, when, you know, the mother and the baby will definitely die, that, you know, a termination might be the best, you know, the lesser of two evils. I personally don't, I don't accept that argument. But that's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that for the mental health of the father, a termination, which is the killing of a baby, might be acceptable.

That was copied and pasted from the transcript. Unless I’m wrong the good Reverend here is denying any kind of abortion is morally permissible and seems to be presenting this as the traditional Christian view. If it is the traditional Christian view, well then the tradition is quite simply wrong on this point. But I don’t think it is the traditional Christian view. I think this is, much like YEC (Young Earth Creationism), relatively modern, recent, and reactionary form of fundamentalism. The following is an excerpt from Francis Beckwith’s definitive book on the subject of abortion.

Doesn't a "Life of the Mother" Exception Involve a Contradiction? 

Some argue that if pro-lifers really believe that life is sacred, why do they say that the killing of the unborn child is justified to save the life of the mother? Although I believe that I have sufficiently addressed this elsewhere in the book I will say a few more words here.

First, when pregnancy endangers a mother's life, medical personnel should try to save the lives of both mother and child. Second, if that is not possible, the physician must choose the course of action that best upholds the sanctity of human life. Because it is the mother's body that serves as the environment in which the unborn is nurtured, it is impossible to save the unborn child before viability (20 to 24 weeks after conception). In fact, almost all abortions performed to save the mother's life occur long before viability, for they are usually for an ectopic (or tubal) pregnancy. Consequently, in such cases, the physician must save the mother's life even if it results in the death of the unborn. The physician's intention is not to kill the child but to save the mother. But because salvaging both is impossible, and it is, all things being equal, better that one should live rather than two die, "abortion" to save the mother's life, in this case, is justified.

Third, after viability, when abortion itself is far riskier for the mother than is childbirth, there are very few if any instances in which an "abortion" will save the mother's life. But when such cases do occur, the same principles apply here as prior to viability. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop explains:

“When the woman is pregnant, her obstetrician takes on the care of two patients - the mother-to-be and the unborn baby. If, toward the end of the pregnancy, complications arise that threaten the mother's health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarean section.

His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature and perhaps immature depending on the length of gestation. Because it has suddenly been taken out of the protective womb, it may encounter threats to its survival. The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother's life is in danger.”

This is basically the Christian view of “abortion.” And as far as I can tell it’s been the relatively normal position on “abortion” till recently. Anyone trying to give reactionary theological arguments for denying abortion completely has to deal with the fact that English common law (and I don’t think it was alone on this) recognized that before quickening abortion was legal because until the fetus was known to have moved it was not considered alive or ensouled. The quickening standard was based on almost total medical ignorance regarding fetal development, but once the unborn moved it was anima, animated, and therefore considered alive. In the 19th century the laws changed rapidly in response to new knowledge in this area and the legal standard became protection for the unborn. That legal consensus, especially connected to the application of the 14th amendment, was reversed academically in the lead up to Roe v Wade. After Roe there was a new consensus developed that the academic research that was used to justify Roe was completely inaccurate. Because of this Casey v Planned Parenthood actually upheld Roe while admitting that it had been legally and historically mistaken. Thankfully both those horrendous decisions have been reversed for the time being. 

I think it’s absurd to claim that a Christian perspective means ectopic pregnancies can’t be dealt with medically and that mothers should die rather than receive the correct care. Unless I’m mistaken that is the claim Reverend Franklin is making by disallowing the exception of the life of the mother. I think this sort of misguided opinion is part of what leads people like NT Wright to be “liberal” on an issue like this and claim that male clergy are bullying women. It should be the job of shepherds of the church to not be reactionary and instead be Christian, rational, and loving on an issue like this. Both Wright and Franklin are wrong. Unless I’m mistaken and Franklin’s position is more nuanced and allows for a more loving approach, I hope I’m misinterpreting him. Otherwise I think he’s actually enabling Wright and others who agree that elective abortions are morally permissible.

I regularly listen to Irreverend and consider myself a fan of the show.