Theologian Gets It Wrong On Abortion
Well-known New Testament theologian NT Wright has confused the pro-life issue, and it needs to be corrected.
I’m not sure if you’ve heard of New Testament theologian NT Wright. He’s a prominent theologian. N.T. Wright has held a variety of both academic and chaplaincy posts at Oxford, Cambridge, and McGill University, Montreal. He was Canon of Westminster in 2000, before serving as Bishop of Durham between 2003-2010. He is currently Research Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary’s College in the University of St Andrews and Senior Research Fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford.
He’s authored so many great books including “Simply Christian: Why Christianity”, “Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven”, “Bread and Wine: Readings for Lent”, “Paul: A Biography”, and many more
Apparently his most popular one is “The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians.”
But in his latest podcast, he has confused the pro-life issue, and it needs to be clarified.
According to the podcast explainer, it says
This week on the Ask NT Wright Anything, Tom Wright and Mike Bird address challenging theological and ethical questions. They discuss the Christian approach to abortion, emphasizing compassion, nuance, and the sanctity of life.
So let’s have a listen to the question.
I would immediately raise a red flag and go back for clarification on the question.
When they say about exceptions for rape and incest, here’s the simple response.
“Ok – so if we allow for abortions for rape and for incest, you’ll support outlawing all other abortions? Yeah?”
Of course the response to that is very revealing. For pro-abortion people, the answer is no.
They want abortion – at any time, for any reason. A woman’s right. Reproductive freedom. The right to choose.
The rape and incest issue which accounts for about zero point two % of all abortions is simply a manipulation of the debate by elevating the exceptional and more difficult scenarios.
And having interviewed people who have been the result of rape but are pro life as can be shows just how disingenuous that argument is when being used by pro-abortionist.
There’s also the hint in the question line that maybe abortion is bad – but only late term abortion – and a woman who is only 4-7 weeks pregnant isn’t actually carrying a human life.
But let’s give the benefit of the doubt. Here is a pro life person struggling with the difficult scenarios.
So on to the response of theologian NT Wright
OK this is not going at all well
Political hot potato, ethical hot potato, particularly in America
No - it’s been a biblical issue since the beginning of time. Thou shalt not murder. A human life.
It’s not about a reaction to the sexual revolution? It’s a biblical truth of the sanctity of life. The sexual revolution simply exacerbated the threat to the unborn child.
When its presented as you’re killing you’re murdering an unborn child….
Um, what’s the nice safe way to explain it?
Let’s continue
So the threat to the unborn child was based on a perceived threat which never eventuated - and the child lived a normal healthy life. But could have been killed in the womb.
And it was all about the “mental health” of the mother. Does this theologian understand that mental health was used as a reason on abortion-on-demand in New Zealand, for example? Does post natal depression qualify for end the life of the child?
And that’s the good example you’re giving? Really?
I’m also very wary of the justification of going contrary to Scriptural truth that starts “I’ve had personal experience” or “I know someone”
We are all sinners – saved by the grace of God – but knowing people who have committed sin and struggled with it is not a licence to justify that sin. That is in fact why many churches have lost their way, and the deconstruction movement has flourished.
Digging deeper, it’s a rejection of biblical Truth
Once again, there are major flaws here. In cases where the life of the mother is at risk, my understanding is that every jurisdiction would prioritise the life of the mother in those situations – unless fake news CNN has told you otherwise.
And then “With sorrow because we do not want to do this in principle but with sorrow and a bit of shame, the best thing to do as soon as possible to terminate this pregnancy.”
We do not want to do this
With sorrow
With shame
Do you know why? Because killing a life gives you that. Rightly so. The admission that it is wrong is in the attempt to justify it. It’s quite astounding.
Let’s see if this gets any better. And it does. He reverts to a traditional and biblical understanding of the humanity of the unborn child.
Phew. We’re back to a biblical understanding.
Unfortunately he then trips over
So it is a human being that should be cherished – but because of the circumstances of their conception, we should end their life – as soon as possible, because that will make our conscience a little better? We won’t be able to see the ultrasound which will scream the existence of their humanity in a very physical way that can’t be denied.
We’re back to a biblical understanding again.
Unfortunately it then goes downhill badly. You can only speak up for the protection of the most vulnerable – if you’re woman. And you definitely can’t if you’re celebate. Or unmarried and Catholic. That’s just bullying – apparently.
Please note I’m not Catholic but I do greatly respect their very strong stance on the sanctity of life which some other denominations are weak on – to the point where sometimes they even champion abortion, and the abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and as many church leaders who supported Kamala Harris in the presidential election last year did. It was shocking. And grotesque.
By the way, if a man can’t speak up against killing the unborn child because he can’t get pregnant, does that mean that you can’t speak up against slavery unless you’ve owned a slave?
Saying that a man can’t speak against murder is simply a way that the radical abortion lobby tries to shut down debate and opposition to their warped thinking.
It’s very sad when our side buys into that argument.
Well, he could have been using that same line of reasoning around any controversial moral issue – homosexuality, gender confusion, euthanasia, surrogacy,
On the positive, NT Wright only advocates for exceptional circumstances. He expresses appropriate pastoral concern for women who have been a victim of rape or incest. He acknowledges that any viable human being should not be aborted – but then says he’s not medically qualified enough to know when to draw the line.
It’s actually a question we asked Jacinda Ardern during the abortion debate. And she refused to answer.
It was an open letter signed by women who had had abortions. They asked “When does life begin?”
Because if we can’t answer that question, we may be unintentionally ending a human life.
But pro abortionists don’t want to answer that question because it shows the folly of their argument.
When Jacinda Ardern’s radical abortion bill went through Parliament in 2020, we specifically tackled these tough questions that NT Wright attempted to answer in our submission guide against the radical and extreme bill.
• ‘What about cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or where there are foetal abnormalities?’
Extreme violence has been committed against any woman pregnant from rape or incest. They deserve to be treated with the deepest compassion and given enormous support and care. However, the circumstances of the baby’s conception change nothing about the baby herself, or the violent nature of abortion. So often when this issue is raised, people refer to the unborn child as if she is an extension of the rapist, or his vile act, completely forgetting that in actual fact the child is her own unique person quite independently of the tragic circumstances of her conception. The child is just as much an extension of the mother. Adding abortion after rape simply adds violence to violence, creating a second victim of the rapist: the unborn child.
Many women who have kept a child conceived in rape tell a common story of finding a silver lining of love in an otherwise very dark situation. Women who keep their babies also avoid the serious psychological risks associated with abortion, which, according to some experts, could be amplified even further when added to the already horrific trauma of sexual assault.
• ‘What about cases of foetal abnormalities?’
Aborting a child because of possible abnormality is nothing less than blatant discrimination against people with disabilities. When reflecting on this argument we need to tear aside the veil of prejudice that drives the notion that it is somehow kinder to kill a person with a disability or a disease before she is born than to let her ‘live in that condition.’ Shockingly, the types of disabilities included by pro-abortionists in the list of purportedly ‘good reasons’ for an abortion range from the truly severe to relatively minor; the latter part of the list grows lengthier every year. Abortion is becoming a search-and-destroy method for eliminating less-than-perfect people.
In jurisdictions which have decriminalised abortion – China, Vietnam, Canada and two states in Australia – gestational time limits for disability-selective abortions have been removed and abortion for babies with disabilities is available right up to birth. The report on Iceland and its near 100% elimination of Down syndrome by abortion has led to global controversy regarding equality and nondiscrimination for people with disabilities.
This is where NT Wright should have started and finished.
And then I would show the testimonies of these two amazing women – from NZ – who formed part of our campaign against radical abortion laws.
I’m hoping NT Wright just had a bad day when he recorded that podcast.
What’s noticeably absent for a biblical scholar is any reference to Scripture.
Psalm 139 – “you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.”
Jeremiah 1:5 - "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you”
Proverbs 6 – “hands that shed innocent blood”
Exodus 20 - “You shall not murder."
Luke 1 – “when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, her baby leaped in her womb.”
We believe every human being, even the child in the womb, has the right to life. The unborn child has a fundamental human right and should be legally protected. We love both the mother and her unborn child.
Let’s work together to make abortion “unthinkable” for the majority of New Zealanders.