Renowned New Testament scholar N.T. Wright recently voiced support for abortion in certain cases—comments that, while alarming to many evangelicals in the pews, are unlikely to provoke backlash from the evangelical elite.
The comments came during a segment of the “Ask N.T. Wright Anything” podcast, hosted by Michael Bird. When asked whether abortion is ever ethically permissible, Wright stated:
“In principle, this is not something that we should welcome. It is not something we should collude with, at the same time, there may be certain exceptions of which severe deformity might be one, of which certainly incest and rape would be others. And in those cases, I would say, the sooner the better, because at a certain point—and I’m not medically qualified to say at what point I would draw a line—then this is a viable human being that should then be cherished.”
In short, Wright believes abortion is morally acceptable in cases of rape and incest. In other words, the life of an unborn baby may be ended as a consequence of the father’s sins. He justifies this further by referencing the “viability” of the fetus—a term often invoked in pro-abortion arguments. His assertion that abortion should occur “the sooner the better” in these cases further demonstrates his departure from Christian teaching that human life, in all forms and at all stages, is sacred, God-given, and therefore worthy of protection.
These troubling remarks by one of evangelicalism’s most lauded “intellectuals” reveals more than just a personal moral confusion. It exposes a deeper systemic issue in the church: the evangelical establishment’s increasing comfort with moral compromise, provided it aligns with prevailing cultural narratives.
To put it plainly: if a pastor or scholar today were to speak critically about left-wing policies such as mass immigration, gender ideology, or COVID-era overreach, they would risk being ostracised or even disinvited from Christian institutions. (There are still many who wouldn’t dare associate with us for our stance during Covid—despite the fact that we’ve been entirely vindicated!)
Yet someone like N.T. Wright can publicly endorse the killing of unborn children conceived in rape—and do so without any fear of jeopardizing his standing among the evangelical elite. Why? Because his views, while repugnant to many in the pews, are culturally palatable.
Evangelical leaders who lean right politically are often told they’re being “too political” or “divisive.” Some of them have even been criticised for daring to associate with Caldron Pool. But advocates of left-wing positions—even on issues involving life and death—suffer no reputational cost. Wright’s comments will likely be dismissed as “nuanced” or “compassionate,” while no such grace is afforded to those who speak out against, say, White replacement, mass immigration, high taxation, critical race theory, or drag queen story hours. There can be zero tolerance for that sort of “political rhetoric.”
What we must recognise here is that the core issue is no longer merely right versus left—it is good versus evil. And the evangelical elite has too often shown a greater concern with making themselves appear culturally “respectable” than in standing against the evil our culture deems “good.”
The question posed to Wright isn’t a difficult one to answer, at least not for someone unconcerned with cultural approval. So, let’s go ahead and answer it for him: In cases of rape, there are two victims: the woman and the unborn child. Justice demands that both be protected. To propose abortion as a solution is to punish one innocent victim in an effort to make up for the crime committed against another. It does not heal the trauma—it compounds it. The death penalty should be reserved for the rapist, not his second victim.
Moreover, Wright’s appeal to “viability” as a moral line is entirely inconsistent with both medical science and basic morality. Viability is a moving target, so it’s not a meaningful moral measure. Not only does viability change with technology and access to healthcare, but medical science has long affirmed that life begins at conception. This is because all of life exists within a continuous spectrum of human development, where so-called stages naturally overlap and blend into one another. This developmental continuum does not cease until death, whether that occurs in the womb or at one hundred years of age.
At the moment of fertilisation, a genetically distinct human being comes into existence, complete with its own DNA, blood type, and biological trajectory. The embryo, though small and dependent, is not a potential life—it is a life with potential. To claim ignorance about when life begins, and then endorse killing until some undefined stage, is morally incoherent and reckless.
As such, Wright’s comments are not only foolish, they’re dangerous. He effectively signals to millions of Christians that morality can be adjusted to match cultural pressures. Worse, he models, as most evangelical elites do, a form of leadership that values respectability over righteousness.
Of course, Wright’s status in the church will not suffer because the evangelical elite has learned which sins are safe to tolerate. As long as they are sins the culture condones, the church will accommodate. But if a Christian dares to speak unpopular truth—truth that threatens the status quo, they will be shamed, shunned, and silenced.
Ultimately, the controversy over Wright’s abortion remarks reveals the true battle within the church: not one of political alignment, but of moral fidelity. The choice is not between left and right. It is between courage and compromise, between conviction and cowardice. And for too long, the evangelical elite have chosen the latter.
