Kristin Du Mez Nuances Abortion Through Ensoulment

Despite scientific advancement, thousands of years of theology regarding the nature of the soul are not discarded. Humans have the capacity to develop embryos within the laboratory and employ the processes of In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) to medically conceive. Medication has been developed so as to not only kill early-stage fetuses but to prevent conception or otherwise prevent implantation. Ultrasounds have enabled us to chart the fetal development from conception to full term, understanding the stages of development of human life. Both good and wicked, these developments do not negate the Christian understanding of the soul, particularly at the creation of the soul, or ensoulment.

However, the understanding of human thought is not unanimous, which is where liberals like Kristin Du Mez manipulate historical discussions to justify modern sins. Woke Preacher Clips circulated a clip in which Du Mez describes the need to discuss the theology of ensoulment, which she argues has been neglected for decades, referring to a Christianity Today article from 1968. She claims this is necessary to discuss how “we view life in a pluralistic society.”

The greater context of the clip comes from The Convocation Unscripted, which is a channel hosted by Robert Jones, an anti-white liberal, in which the two of them with Jamar Tisby discuss politics. The issue of abortion is brought up in which Du Mez argues that because the GOP has forsaken the issue of life, the evangelical voters should consider Harris. Jones, being anti-white, ascribes the GOP as a racist and homogenous party, because he thinks it is immoral for whites to have a party that represents their interests.

Du Mez uses this nuance to suggest that theological discussion on ensoulment has been stifled for a generation, which is silenced by the “conception = ensoulment” standard. In short, she is using the issue of ensoulment as a trojan horse to allow abortion, contraception, IVF, and a host of other sins through the nuance that it is only murder if there is a soul. Thus, she relies on a Christianity Today article from 1968, a time when abortion was becoming mainstream and there was novel science regarding genetics. By brazenly being liberal, she lacks the cunning of the serpent, but nevertheless asks, “Yea, hath God said?”

1968 Christianity Today

The article from Christianity Today, entitled “The Relation of the Soul to the Fetus” was written by Paul Jewett. Jewett is responding to the culture of his day, not necessarily giving leeway to abortion as Du Mez has framed the article in 2024. After describing some of the scientific and philosophical discussions of the day, Jewett describes the trend of legislation while outlining the broad array of views.

To take the life of a child deliberately is murder, but to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of the uterus is considered by many as merely contraception. Between these two extremes are many halfway houses of opinion. Early American law, for example, following the tradition of common law, forbade abortion after quickening, that is, about the sixteenth week of pregnancy, when fetal motion is felt.

Quickening refers to when fetal motion could be felt but is not necessarily grounds for when a soul is formed or whether before quickening, abortion is not murder. Under English Common Law, and through limitations, quickening as a legal standard pertains to the ability to adjudicate guilt under the law. He does not mention that early American laws targeted abortion before quickening through the use of herbal poisons (abortifacients). At that time, quickening was the standard that determined the severity of the punishment.

After describing the issue, he arrives at the conclusion that science has no conclusion on the soul, leaving it in the realm of theology and philosophy.

As Christians, we cannot approach our task from any point of view other than that of a Christian view of man. Man is more than a complex chemical machine; he is, or has, a soul; and presumably, if he is or has a soul from the earliest stages of fetal development, then, as a fetus he is a primordial person whose life cannot be taken with impunity.

Having defined the human fetus as living tissue with a unique genetic makeup, destined to become a fully developed human organism, we must now seek to define soul, the term that is really primary in our investigation. Aristotle said long ago that to obtain knowledge about the soul is the most difficult thing in the world, and time has not altered the situation appreciably. Whether or not the soul exists, what it is and how it is related to the body, are questions that have not yet been answered by scientific investigation, or by rigorous philosophical analysis. Neither has scientific investigation discovered that there is no soul, nor philosophical analysis demonstrated that the term is meaningless.

If nothing else, Christianity Today was better back then, as Jewett clearly states that if a fetus has a soul, then it is a life, but he proceeds to outline the historical thought on the subject. However, the article is not without its own nuances.

Scripture offers no direct teaching on the question of the participation of the fetus in the divine image. The narrative of man’s creation presents as full grown the one made in the image and likeness of God. Since the creation narrative speaks of God’s “breathing into man’s nostrils the breath of life,” it might seem plausible to argue that the soul informs the fetus when the first breath is drawn, that is, at birth. But the ancient Hebrews associated life not only with breath but also with blood: “The blood is the living being” (Deut. 12:23). Therefore the blood of animals was taboo as drink, and whoever shed man’s blood was guilty of a capital offense (Gen. 9:6). To press this teaching about blood as literal science would be to conclude that the human fetus is informed with the soul not at the moment the first breath is drawn but when the blood system develops.

This is a pointless argument as he is conjecting as to what ancient Hebrews believed based on symbolism despite the emphasis on conceiving children found in Genesis. Onan was condemned for wasting his seed, and refusing to conceive with Tamar, so the refusal to bear children in marriage is condemned in Scripture even before the Christological implications of Judah’s line were revealed. Certainly, the use of abortifacients is the female equivalent of Onan’s seed-spilling (at a minimum), and the ancients knew about such plants and their properties. Beyond this incomplete exegesis, the article does not delve into Jewish teachings, contrary to Du Mez’s claim.

Perhaps the nearest thing to a scriptural statement on our problem is found in Psalm 139:13–15…Here the psalmist is principally concerned to confess the divine omniscience…While this gives us no precise information about the relation of the soul to the fetus, it seems that the psalmist did not think of his humanity as uniquely tied to the moment of birth. The events leading up to birth are a kind of primal history of the self.

Psalm 139 is sufficient to declare that the fetus has a soul. The real theological question posed throughout the ages deals with ensoulment, not so much when, but how. He goes into the various historical perspectives like Tertullian, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas relying on Aristotelian distinctions in the soul, which only would condemn abortion as a homicide if there contained a soul (the article does not provide the references).

The article goes on to nuance the life-of-the-mother issue and the distinction between a fetus and a comatose patient, before concluding “It seems that the Christian answer to the control of human reproduction must be found principally in the prevention of conception, rather than in the prevention of birth” while allowing for exceptions pertaining to the mother’s life as a last resort. Christianity Today was certainly better in 1968, but their sophistry leads to more confusion than clarity rather than outright subversion of their current state.

Turretin and The Reformers

There were two schools of thought during the Reformation pertaining to ensoulment: the first being that man is involved via procreation; the second attributes ensoulment to God. The Reformed Tradition should hold to the notion of Creationism as opposed to Propagation, which the Lutherans hold, taking after Tertullian.

Francis Turretin best articulates Creationism regarding ensoulment here:

Second, from the testimony of Scripture, in which God is spoken of as the author and Creator of the soul in a peculiar manner distinct from the body: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” (Ecc. 12:7). Here a manifest difference is marked between the origin of the body and soul. (IET 5.13.4)

Propagation holds to the perspective that the souls of men beget the souls of their children, that through the procreative act, man and woman participate in the creation of the soul. With the modern understanding of DNA, Propagation would most naturally presume that unique DNA pairs with a unique soul.

The notion that this debate is somehow nuanced to justify abortion is not logically consistent with how ensoulment is discussed as the two competing schools are arguing as to the origins of the soul itself, not necessarily the ensoulment of the fetus.

Does Ensoulment Matter?

While theology enthusiasts might find the tertiary concern of ensoulment interesting, the moral quandary of the modern era extends this question to aborted fetuses and frozen embryos. If fertilization is ensoulment, then that means each individual zygote is a unique soul. The same would be asked of early, natural miscarriages or natural reduction which happens biologically with fertilized embryos failing to implant. Under the standard of propagation, this would likely be the case while Creationism (rightly) yields this issue unto God. Nevertheless, the ensoulment is a mystery.

But does it matter? If a frozen embryo is without a soul, does that automatically grant permission to dispose of such embryos without moral consequence? Even if the embryo is without a soul, this would still constitute murder.

Hebrews 13:2 states, “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” While this is an allusion to Genesis 19, the emphasis on hospitality ascribes that one can provide temporal blessings to even angelic beings whose souls are of a different nature than that of Man. Contrary, this would imply that one can sin against an angel, as seen in Genesis 19, that had not the angels stricken the Sodomites with blindness, they would have (literally) sodomized the angels or even killed them, if that were possible. Theoretically, the fact that they would have without miraculous intervention does not exonerate the sins of Sodom simply because the Angels were not Man, that even though they might have murdered their earthly disguise, it would be no less murder though the Angels would not have actually died at the hands of the sodomites. Thus, the sin of murder is irrespective of the soul.

Furthermore, the logical implications of the Creationist argument is that the soul does not die, but returns to God for judgment or glory, so it is not the soul that is murdered, but the flesh.

The murder of 1 million frozen embryos is morally reprehensible regardless of whether they have souls. The grotesque chimeras of human flesh implanted in rats are an abomination regardless of whether there is a soul involved. The same would apply to abortion, contraception, and other human mechanisms that thwart life in the womb or otherwise pervert the process. The contempt of the mother towards this life is tantamount to murder (Matthew 5:22), and so too is the disposal of embryos as medical waste.

There is much mystery outstanding, as to when ensoulment precisely occurs, though certainly it is in the womb (Psalm 139), but there is uncertainty in whether there are souls in naturally reduced embryos, frozen embryos, or those spontaneously aborted (miscarried) before serious development. Ultimately, this is left to the sovereignty of God, who gives the soul. The mystery of ensoulment should not be used to nuance abortion. Kristin Du Mez is a wicked woman for suggesting such as a means to convince evangelicals to vote for Democrat politicians or otherwise support abortion-adjacent policies.