Wright is wrong

Bishop N.T. Wright is one of the most influential scholars of the New Testament alive today, able to write not only for academic audiences but also for popular ones. If I want to gain insight into Second Temple Judaism or the reality and implications of the resurrection of Jesus, Wright is certainly one of the authorities I’d consult first. I don’t always agree with him, but I certainly respect him on issues of Biblical theology. However, when it comes to politics, his opinions would not rank nearly as high. It’s a subject that is outside his bailiwick.

And that is where our story begins. You see, there was a bit of a social media dustup over an interview with the English theologian on the upcoming elections here in America. While I appreciated several of his points, I found some of his comments lacking, and I was far from the only one. As is pretty common among evangelical commentators outside the United States, Wright dinged conservative American Christians for their attitude toward guns. But he also made some comments on abortion and the pro-life movement that I found unexpected and disappointing.

Now, there are a few surface-level problems that are easy to criticize. For one, Wright said that American civilians can readily buy automatic weapons, i.e., machine guns. Maybe it was a slip of the tongue, but that simply isn’t true. Such weapons are pretty much unobtainable for private citizens. For another, Americans bristle at British criticism of our extensive liberties, including those enumerated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Has the United Kingdom been doing well on the fronts of liberty and security? Freedom of speech issues, knifings, and home invasions (in which the biggest and strongest have full advantage, free from the threat of the great equalizer of firearms) certainly come to mind.

More importantly, Wright, like many evangelicals outside of the United States today, dislikes how conservative Christian Americans embrace both gun rights and the pro-life agenda. These issues shouldn’t be bundled together, according to Wright. As progressives in the States like to insist, there’s a contradiction here.

But I don’t think there is, and it mostly boils down to the importance of guilt and innocence. Conservative Protestants in the United States usually hold a high regard for moral responsibility. In the conservative American mind, the potential murderer, rapist, or kidnapper has rendered his life forfeit—lethal self-defense is warranted. And such evildoers are most certainly out there, so gun ownership might not be a bad idea, especially if we’re responsible for the protection of others. An unborn child, on the other hand, is completely innocent—the most helpless of the helpless. Killing a baby in the womb or in vitro is cold-blooded murder. Recognizing this distinction is neither simplistic nor political partisanship. In fact, the gun and pro-life issues share something in common: a desire to protect innocent lives.

Wright’s more troublesome assertion is that opponents of abortion ended up in cahoots with powerful people—particularly men—who simply wanted to “tell women what they could and could not do.” This is the feminist “control women’s bodies” line of argument, perhaps the most tiresome and ill-founded contention of pro-abortion advocates. Is there much historical evidence for this claim? It’s a revisionist fiction embraced by the licentious (and murderously pro-abortion) “women’s liberation” movement. But, of course, no Christian would describe the “liberation” described in that movement’s propaganda as true freedom.

But Wright seems to accept some of this historiography, and he goes on to posit a conflict between two condemnable idolatries: “male violence” (Mars) and fulfilling erotic desires (Venus), no matter the cost.

I agree that both idolatries are horrible, but I fail to see the conflict, particularly on the issue of abortion. After all, this violence is defended by abortion rights activists as a means to ensure material security and sexual license—a cupidity that is in no way a rivalry between Venus and Mars but rather a union between them. Opposition to abortion has little to do with a power trip over controlling women (or men, for that matter—most pro-lifers I know desire mandated child support from fathers). It has everything to do with fighting infanticide and death in the womb. Many pro-life counselors would report that abusive, controlling males in a vulnerable woman’s life quite readily push for abortion. These men have no interest in the provision, care, and flourishing of a family. Can we please talk about the “toxic masculinity” on display in these situations, Bishop Wright?

“Everyone has an opinion,” as my father once said. I typically appreciate hearing the opinions of Bishop Wright. He is much smarter than I am, and his scholarship is formidable—I’ve learned much from him. But I don’t agree with his take on conservative Christians in America and their views on gun rights, and I am troubled by his weird analysis of the pro-life movement.

I guess that, sometimes, Wright is wrong.