By Angus Harley

It was quite a number of years ago that J. I. Packer- who was considered at the time a staunch defender of Protestant orthodoxy- came out of the cupboard to support Evangelicals and Catholics Together. N. T. Wright later came out with his New Perspective on Paul. Now Wright finds himself in the crosshairs again for his view on abortion.[1]

The reader will expect me to jump into Wright’s position on abortion. However, there is a huge factor that modern conservative Evangelicals are missing when critiquing Wright on abortion. It is, to me, no surprise whatever that Wright has come out with his views, because they reflect the current position of the Anglican Church. Did you know that Packer was an Anglican and that the Anglican Church of his day also supported rapprochement with the Roman Catholic Church? For those of you who are theologians, you will know, too, that the Anglican Church has for centuries now been divided into high church (Roman Catholic-ish) and low church (Evangelical-ish). Yet, it is still a ‘united’ church. This means that common ground must be made, sworn to, and defended publicly. It is inevitable in that setting that some theologian or other would come up with a hybrid of Roman Catholic, Evangelical, and Liberal theologies to create a novel view of justification- a common ground theology. The menace of denominational conformity and allegiance is very, very real, ladies and gentlemen.

But it is far more than this: the Anglican Church is a national church. It is reflective of the English nation. It has obligations to the crown and to the government. The king of England is the head of the Anglican Church, the supreme governor, and the church itself is under the oversight of the English parliament, for it must scrutinize and approve of any ecclesiological laws put forward by the Church.

Ring any bells? This great nation of ours was borne out of a revolution, one against the tyranny of a united church and state- an English state and an Anglican church. Thus, it was that many an Anglican in those revolutionary days was pro-crown and anti-patriot.

It wasn’t, therefore, just the lack of any biblical references in Wright’s position on abortion that was infuriating, but it was that he was parroting the Anglican line, which itself was compromised by national opinion. What other reason could there be for Wright’s argument that the mental health of the mother is a key determining factor in abortion? Wright, like Anglicanism, makes zero attempt to explain himself here. What constitutes a mother’s mental anguish? Is it mere hysteria at the thought of having a child? Is it an overwhelming sense of dread at having to feed and care for a child for the rest of its life? Is it perhaps some childhood trauma in which they were treated abysmally as a child? There are infinite possible reasons for abortion in this way of looking at things. Similarly, what possible justification can Wright muster to defend his position that a severely deformed child can be aborted? What constitutes severe deformity? I would like you to tell me, Prof. Wright. I’ll settle even for some word of explanation from the Anglican Church. Is deformity perhaps having no eyes? Or is it autism? Wright the Sage (‘Ask NT Wright Anything’) is apparently unaware that it is only in recent years in mankind’s history that we have known about the sex of a child, never mind whether it is deformed or not!

Back in 2013, Anglicanism opposed euthanasia, yet, 61% of Anglican worshippers supported a change in Anglican law on euthanasia, so said my former professor, Paul Badham.[2] How long will it be before Anglicanism capitulates to the pressure from society, or from the government’s own legislation that allows ‘assisted dying’?[3] How long will it take Anglicanism to catch up with society concerning its view on abortion? Why does the current Anglican Church’s statement on abortion say, “the foetus is a human life”?[4] What happened to ‘child’ or ‘baby in the womb’?

What takes the biscuit, in my opinion, is Wright’s claim that his view represents traditional Christianity. Since when did the ancients allow abortion for the mental anguish of the mother, or over some physical deformity in the baby? When and where were these ever ‘exceptions’? And which Christian tradition on abortion referred to a ‘foetus’, or was scared to speak of a ‘baby’? Certainly, these things are not discovered in the bible- which, of course, the Sage does not interact with in talking about abortion!

[1]Premier Unbelievable, “Is abortion ever justified? Can Lucifer be forgiven? NT Wright answers your questions,” YouTube, June1, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CYZ2FdYcYg&list=PL2Ds_nyh5gM9zk45BlRydSRw4k_SiSGoE&ab_channel=PremierUnbelievable%3F.

[2] Paul Badham, “Why Anglicans should support the legalization of Assisted Dying,” Anglicanism.org, August 2013, https://anglicanism.org/why-anglicans-should-support-the-legalization-of-assisted-dying.

[3] UK Parliament, “The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-25,” House of Commons Library, November 22, 2024, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10123/.

[4] Church of England, “Response to open letter on abortion,” The Church of England, November, 29, 2019, https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/response-open-letter-abortion.