Anglican Theologies of Reproductive Choice: Guest Editor’s Introduction

This special issue of the ATR seeks to launch a conversation within Anglican circles about theologies of reproductive choice. This work is timely for two reasons: First, the overturn of Roe v. Wade has renewed the public spotlight on abortion, raising important questions about its ethics and theology. Second, Anglican and Episcopal leaders who seek resources on the topic will find limited ones within the tradition. A more robust theological discussion is therefore not only justified but necessary for faith leaders and members of the Communion alike.

The Anglican Communion is wide in breadth and depth, and interest in the theological dimension of abortion likely varies throughout it. In the United States, in particular, abortion has become a lightning rod political issue, the dynamics of which are intricately linked to theology, as both the pro-life/anti-abortion and pro-choice/abortion permissive discourses have been heavily shaped by Christian leaders. For instance, Roman Catholic priests and bishops have vocally enjoined members of that church to mourn aborted embryos and fetuses and pursue the rollback of legalized abortion over the past fifty years, though the Roman Catholic Church also has a history of permitting abortion prior to quickening. ¹ Pro-choice leaders like Presbyterian ethicist Rebecca Todd Peters, in contrast, have argued for a Christian theological grounding to abortion rights rooted in the argument that women deserve to be trusted as moral agents who can discern an ethical relationship with the prenate. ² Such differences on the ethics and theology of abortion therefore emerge from divergent views on other thorny theological issues ranging from when life begins to what kind of knowledge is revelatory, how to interpret texts from the tradition, what the role of individual discernment is, and who is capable of being a moral agent.

Those who lead in the Anglican Communion will find little in the way of substantive theological discussions on this topic. No books on the matter have been published from a distinctly Anglican or Episcopal perspective, and as of this writing, articles are scant. Moreover, authoritative voices throughout the Communion have issued conflicting statements on the matter over the past hundred years. Lambeth has passed only one resolution on abortion—back in 1930, as part of a wider resolution on birth control within marriage, the Conference voted 193-67 that not only was abstinence preferable to birth control within marriage to prevent procreation but that, in addition, “The Conference further records its abhorrence of the sinful practice of abortion.” ³ The Church of England, meanwhile, has issued a number of consistent statements about its view of abortion, framing it as a “tragedy” due to the fact that, “the foetus is a human life with the potential to develop relationships, think, pray, choose and love.” The Church of England has also explicitly opposed abortion in cases of disability and gender selection but has allowed for some exceptions, as summarized by the 2017 General Synod, which stated that the Church of England combined “principled opposition to abortion with a recognition that there can be strictly limited conditions under which it may be morally preferable to any available alternative,” though the conditions of what those “strictly limited conditions” are is not stated. ⁴

Meanwhile, in the United States, after the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Presiding Bishop Michael Curry issued a statement in which he grieved the Supreme Court’s decision because of the negative impact it would have on the lives of women, especially those from marginalized communities. ⁵ He, like Rebecca Todd Peters, framed abortion as an assault on women’s agency and their right to make their own healthcare decisions, citing two General Convention resolutions—namely 2018-D032 and 1994-A054—which asserted, “opposition to any legislation on the part of the national or state governments which would abridge or deny the right of individuals to reach informed decisions.” ⁶ But even as Curry referred to those resolutions, he did not cite others, such as the one passed by General Convention in 1988, which describes abortion in terms not entirely unlike those used by Roman Catholics. That resolution states that life begins at conception, encourages members of the church, especially clergy, to increase their knowledge of crisis pregnancy centers (which deter women from having abortions), and asserts that abortion should only be used in “extreme situations” because the procedure is fundamentally “tragic.” ⁷ Likewise, Curry did not take into account the resolution from General Convention 2000 (2000-D083), which enjoined parish leaders to become familiar with symptoms of postabortion stress and ultimately, as Lauren F. Winner (Duke Divinity School) explains in her article in this issue, resulted in the creation of the Enriching Our Worship liturgy that includes A Rite of Repentance and Reconciliation for an Abortion. Such statements and resolutions illustrate how inconsistent the church has been when speaking authoritatively about abortion. Hence, there is a particular need for a journal issue like this one, which might offer leaders in the Communion resources to deepen their theological understanding of the matter.

Much has already been written to justify or admonish against abortion through either pro-life (i.e. the fetus as person) or pro-choice (i.e. a woman’s right to choose) claims. However, these are not the only two ways to think theologically about abortion, as the writers in this edition of the Anglican Theological Review demonstrate. In the major articles section, Jennifer Leith and Karen O’Donnell (both of the University of Cambridge, UK) consider the question of who has the moral authority to decide when a pregnancy should be carried out—is it the pregnant individual or an external moral voice, such as a doctor or legislator? Drawing upon insights from Rowan Williams and Catherine Keller, Leith and O’Donnell emphasize the importance of valuing the direct wisdom of the person carrying the pregnancy while also recognizing that relational models—such as one rooted in conversation—are important modes of moral discernment that can be applied.

Keun-joo Christine Pae (Dennison University) utilizes the lens of reproductive justice to develop a theo-ethics of abortion. She applies this lens to explore how and why is it impossible to understand abortion without reference to other discourses related to justice in any given society. By focusing on the reality of racial injustice and how abortion affects racially marginalized populations, she explains how and why the lens of reproductive justice is not only relevant but also essential to a theo-ethics of abortion. Another author in this issue—Shannon Craigo-Snell (Louisville Seminary)—also considers how racial injustice and abortion beliefs are interdependent upon each other in her article, “The Theological Anthropology of Dobbs.” Here Craigo-Snell considers how the Dobbs decision issued by the 2022 American Supreme Court not only forwards a theological anthropology that defines women as less than fully human, but it also enables the perpetuation of white supremacy.

Lauren Winner turns to liturgy—one of the most valued loci of Anglican theology—and presents a historical overview of the Enriching Our Worship services about abortion. By offering a theological analysis of these liturgies, she observes that they possess the only authorized rite of reconciliation for a specific event in The Episcopal Church and considers the theological implications of how they frame abortion as essentially negative or tragic—per the Church of England’s statements. Emma Percy (University of Oxford, UK) also considers the accuracy of this negative essentialist framing of abortion in her article, which develops a pastoral theology of abortion, specifically focusing upon unintended pregnancies. She analyses the pastoral implications of exceptionalist positions on abortion through analyses of topics including the overall cost of pregnancy and the relationship between abortion and another kind of early pregnancy ending—miscarriage.

In the practice section, Walter Brownridge (General Theological Seminary) synthesizes the work of Stanley Hauerwas, William Stringfellow, and Bishop Walter D. Dennis to develop a theological praxis of law that may be applied to the issue of abortion. Zachary Paul—writing under a pseudonym due to safety concerns—reflects upon the experience of being a faithful, committed Christian while also working as a volunteer escort in an abortion clinic, and Sylvia Sweeney (Diocese of Los Angeles) draws upon the Gospel of John and the personal experience of working in a teen parenting center and family planning clinic to develop an Anglican ethic of “life in its fullness.”

According to the World Health Organization, approximately 71 million abortions occur globally each year. Of these, 61% are the result of unintended pregnancies; approximately 45% happen in unsafe conditions that can precipitate a number of health complications for women, including death. ⁸ Recent studies also show that 99% of women feel their decision to abort was the right one, with relief being the most common emotion experienced; few show any indication of abortion regret. ⁹ Given the breadth of these numbers and the strong feelings individuals have about abortion, it is fitting that the church should consider its own stance on this medical procedure.

Put differently, abortion raises theological and ethical questions related to discernment, autonomy, and the nature and purpose of life. The authors in this issue tackle such topics head on, recognizing that there is much at stake beyond the binary pro-choice and pro-life discourses that have dominated the public conversation in the United States. By producing a journal issue on abortion, the Anglican Theological Review has taken an opportunity to enrich a hitherto undeveloped Anglican theology of a matter that affects millions of individuals worldwide.

DANIELLE TUMMINIO HANSEN Emory University