Since the overturning of Roe vs. Wade I’ve come across multiple opinion pieces pointing to early Christian sources which unequivocally support a contemporary pro-life position– at least, this is how the story goes. At one end of the scale blogs such as “Church Fathers” and “Alliance Freedom” simply list texts from the first few centuries without an account of the source’s broader context. (1) Cited thus, pithy phrases by Tertullian and Augustine are used to confirm that the pro-life position has the weight of tradition behind it. At the other end, expert scholars discuss the phrases in greater depth. The result of the latter approach is a decisive and authoritative interpretation of the text as “pro-life”–as found in “Abortion and the Early Church: What Did the Early Church Fathers Teach about This Important Moral Issue?” by Michael J. Gorman. (2) Neither approach recognizes the complexity of using the texts to further the pro-life cause nor do they communicate that early Christian thought on women’s reproductive health was probably as diverse and complex as it is today. As it happens, very few Christian texts in circulation in the first two centuries refer to abortion explicitly, added to which the New Testament is silent on abortion. 

Responsible interpreters will recognize the challenges of using early Christian sources in contemporary discussions on abortion, but on skimming through various blogs, one might assume that every early church father would have sacrificed women’s lives for the sake of an unborn foetus without deliberation. This grieves me because I am a professor of early Christianity, a woman, and a priest. I am passionate about these texts and aim to empower my students to study them and find inspiration in them, seeking treasures to bless the life of the Church today. However, the interpretation of texts is not as simple as many of us would like it to be, but if we pause to recognize the complexities, those who support women’s reproductive justice will have a space in which to delve into early Christian writings enthusiastically. 

According to some who celebrate the criminalization of abortion, fewer than twenty words from an early Christian source can settle the question: “you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide.” (3) This command comes from the Didache (2.2)– I’ll touch on its translation shortly. The title means “teaching” and it’s most likely written by second generation Christians who received letters from the apostle Paul. The Didache is a fascinating little text and contains information that does not appear in contemporary Christian texts, including the New Testament. It presents the Christian life through two ways: the way of death which believers are to avoid and the way of life, which they are to follow. The Didache has caused no small amount of controversy. Some Protestant scholars have argued that it is a forgery because it stipulates fasting on particular days as a means of living in God’s favour. Added to this, its date of composition is much debated. Some commentators opt for a later date (300 CE) because it describes Eucharistic practices that likely did not exist in the first- or second-century church, while others argue for as early as 100 CE. (4)

“You shall not abort a child or commit infanticide” is found in the second chapter which begins with, “you will not murder” (the rules in the Didache are modelled after the Ten Commandments). It serves as an example of the choices we make when doing the work of translation. The phrase could be translated very literally as “you shall not murder a child in destruction (en phthora) nor shall you kill infants.” A translator choosing to use “abort” wants to bring to the fore that the text includes “en phthora” (in destruction) which relates to a contemporary Greek word used for abortionists (phthoreus). While it is likely that the Didache does speak of abortion, this command is given in the context of the Roman practice of infanticide, which entailed leaving unwanted babies exposed to die on hillsides– a practice that is not easily translated to life today in the USA. In either case the text does not explain when the foetus is considered a child, leaving this very important point open to interpretation. Nor does it declare that the foetus should be regarded above the pregnant woman if the lives of both are endangered. In short, many of the questions relevant to 21st century abortions are simply unanswered by the Didache. 

The Didache was not addressing national debates about women’s reproductive health, but was written for Christians in the process of forming communities. It comes with the assumption that these communities will love and support one another, caring for the poor amongst them, including infants whom might be otherwise left on the hillside. There is no expectation that those outside the community will live in the same way. Thus the text simply does not advocate blanket criminalization of abortion. It’s problematic, then, to claim, as one blog does, that “[the Didache] speaks against killing children therefore all early Christians taught that abortion is against the will of the Lord” (5) – and, by implication, contemporary Christian should support the criminalization of abortion. 

Interpreting sources like the Didache responsibly cannot be done quickly. The ancient Christians depict a very different kind of lived experience, and if we overlook this, we risk losing in translation some important points, or making connections that an early Christian writer was not making. The Didache also speaks at length of how to discern false prophets, and provides strict bi-weekly fasting rules (7.4) and a ritual of praying the Lord’s Prayer three times daily (8.3). While this text is cited as an authority on abortion, it is usually without any acknowledgement of the other rules. If you are going to treat the Didache as morally authoritative on abortion, then you have no justification to ignore its teachings on, for example, fasting rules. 

Early Christian texts can be a source of joy and point us to great wisdom from the past, but it is important to recognize the broader context in which each text was written. Public theologians and Christian leaders have a responsibility to take care how we disseminate these treasures. By taking a moment to contextualize them we invite readers into an on-going conversation and hopefully inspire them in their own theological reflection. What, then, might the Didache say to us in these days? Later in the second chapter, the Didache picks up on Christ’s teaching: “You will not hate any person” (2.7), before moving on to urge Christians to pray for their enemies. Many of us have been taught to focus on questions such as “who is my neighbour and how do I love them?” These are important and often result in the good work of reconciliation. The Didache prompts us to ask a further question, “Who is my enemy?” Is it the person with whom I disagree over what constitutes justice for women’s reproductive health? If so, how might I love and pray for them? These are challenging questions for challenging times.

1. https://www.churchfathers.org/abortion; https://adflegal.org/blog/what-did-early-christians-think-about-abortion

2. https://store.ancientfaith.com/abortion-and-the-early-church-by-michael-j-gorman/

3. Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers in English. 3rd edition (Baker Academic, 2006).

4. For an accessible and insightful assessment on dating and other matters see Thomas O’Loughlin, The Didache: A Window on the Earliest Christians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2010).

5. https://heidelblog.net/2016/10/notes-from-the-didache-on-the-early-christian-view-of-abortion/