In recent days, theologian N.T. Wright—once widely respected for his New Testament scholarship—has made deeply troubling comments concerning both abortion and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. While he has long been appreciated for his academic contributions, Wright’s recent attempts to downplay the moral evil of abortion and to treat the resurrection in abstract, less-than-bodily terms cannot go unchallenged. These are not minor doctrinal quibbles. They strike at the heart of the Christian faith and call for a sober response.
Abortion: The Shedding of Innocent Blood
The Bible is not silent or ambiguous about the value of human life—especially the unborn.
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb… Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me.”
— Psalm 139:13-16
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”
— Jeremiah 1:5
From the earliest pages of Scripture, God is revealed as the Author of life. To destroy that life in the womb is to usurp God’s authority and to deny the image of God in the most helpless among us.
And the Lord is not vague in His condemnation:
“There are six things that the Lord hates… hands that shed innocent blood.”
— Proverbs 6:16-17
Abortion is not healthcare. It is not liberation. It is the shedding of innocent blood—something God hates. That N.T. Wright would seek to blur this moral clarity under the guise of compassion or cultural sensitivity is a betrayal of the Word of God.
The Bodily Resurrection: The Foundation of Our Hope
Even more grave is any wavering on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is not an optional belief—it is the center of Christian faith. The Apostle Paul declares plainly:
“If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”
— 1 Corinthians 15:14
“If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.”
— 1 Corinthians 15:17
“But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.”
— 1 Corinthians 15:20
Wright’s recent tendency to speak of the resurrection in non-physical terms—emphasizing cosmic renewal and kingdom imagery at the expense of Christ’s literal bodily rising—confuses the faithful and aligns disturbingly with liberal theology that empties the cross and tomb of their power.
Jesus himself addressed this clearly:
“See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
— Luke 24:39
The bodily resurrection is the vindication of Christ’s divinity, the validation of His sacrifice, and the assurance of our own resurrection to come. Without it, we are still dead in our sins.
Why Wright Must Be Avoided in Apologetic Circles
It’s time to sound the alarm. While we can appreciate N.T. Wright’s past scholarship, we must not overlook the present dangers. When a teacher begins to drift from the essentials—especially on matters of life and resurrection—they are no longer fit to defend the Gospel.
The Apostle Paul issues a sobering warning:
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”
— Galatians 1:8
In apologetics, clarity is kindness. The next generation does not need confusing teachers—they need courageous truth-tellers. N.T. Wright’s recent comments on abortion and the resurrection disqualify him as a trustworthy voice in defending biblical Christianity.
Let us cling to what is true, proclaim what is clear, and warn against those—even if once respected—who begin to drift.
R-Rated Religion 
Thank you for sharing your thoughts in this post. I do have a gentle concern, and I hope it’s received in the spirit of humility and inquiry. I noticed that specific statements attributed to N.T. Wright weren’t cited or referenced. I’ve learned over the years that when theological discussions intensify, it’s easy for information to be repeated from secondary or even tertiary sources—sometimes with misunderstandings or, in rare cases, misrepresentations creeping in.
I’m not suggesting that’s the case here—please don’t take it that way. I simply believe that in the interest of clarity and integrity, especially when dealing with important doctrinal matters, it’s essential to go back to original sources and verify claims in their full context. “Trust but verify” is wise, but perhaps in theology, it’s even better to “always verify.”
Citing specific sources would really help readers like me follow the argument more carefully and make informed judgments. I think we all benefit when we ground these conversations in direct engagement with the texts in question.
Thanks again for the thoughtful post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
great points, if you read most of my theology based articles I am heavy with citations and sometimes even a bibliography. Most of my commentary opinion editorials do not. I appreciate the suggestion. I recommend a simple google search and you can see what was said, unfortunately I saw this coming in 2019. I have cited NT Wright in many of my writings but I noticed an awkward turn in 2020. I noticed he was heading in this direction but his recent comments on abortion is a bit beyond the pale for me, as a novice theologian. Thank you for following. Godspeed!
LikeLiked by 1 person