The Case for Co-Belligerency

Collaboration without Compromise

As the fight for life continues across cultural and political battlegrounds, an old but increasingly relevant question keeps returning: can Evangelicals collaborate with those of different beliefs in the battle against abortion? For many Evangelicals, the answer lies in an approach known as “co-belligerency”.

Coined and championed by 20th-century Evangelical thinker Dr. Francis Schaeffer, co-belligerency acknowledges that while Evangelicals may not share theological convictions with all who oppose abortion, they can still stand together in resisting shared moral threats.  

The Origins of “Co-Belligerency”

Historically, Evangelicals in the UK were pathetically slow to enter the anti-abortion arena. It was Roman Catholics, particularly in the mid-20th century, who stood courageously against the tide of secular humanism that underpinned abortion law reform.  By the 1970s, Evangelical groups and individuals would join the resistance, but it became plain quickly that achieve any significant cultural or political progress, cooperation would be required.

This collaboration sparked theological debate. Could Evangelicals work with Roman Catholics without compromising on critical doctrinal issues such as the message of the Gospel? For some, it felt uncomfortably close to the danger of ecumenical reductionism; unity obsessed and doctrinally thin. Yet thinkers like Schaeffer offered a more thoughtful strategy: co-belligerency. Co-belligerency is a term drawn from military usage which refers to those fighting a common enemy for different reasons.[i]

In today’s anti-abortion cause, that means Evangelicals can work alongside others not as allies in all things, but as co-belligerents in one thing: defending life. Allies share foundational beliefs and long-term goals. Co-belligerents do not - but they agree on a single-issue worth fighting for. That distinction allows for cooperation without confusion. Pastor and author Douglas Wilson’s analogy captures this well:

‘if five people from five different faiths grab fire extinguishers and douse a blaze together, is the Christian compromising his beliefs by helping? Of course not. They are not building a theological alliance; they are putting out a fire. In the same way, standing side by side at an anti-abortion march does not mean standing side by side at the Communion table.’[ii]

The Principle of Clarity

Of course, co-belligerency is not without risk, Evangelicals must be vigilant not to lose their theological footing. The temptation to soften doctrine for the sake of unity is real and dangerous. This is why clarity is critical, as Professor and Author Albert Mohler Jr argues, “confusion harms all concerned, and clarity is never to be feared.”[iii] Evangelicals must not be unashamed of their differences, even while working side-by-side with others.

Ultimately, the Christian mission remains unchanged: to proclaim Christ, even while doing good in the public square. Co-belligerency is not a replacement for evangelism - it’s a strategy for justice alongside it. Joseph served Pharaoh, Daniel advised Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah urged exiles to seek the good of Babylon.

Conclusion: Together and Apart

Abortion is legal up to full-term in both Australia and the UK. Christians must not retreat into isolation. The cause is too urgent, the stakes too high, especially for the unborn. Yet we must always remember: our deepest loyalty is not to any cultural cause, but to Christ Himself. As we lock arms with co-belligerents in the fight to protect for the unborn, Evangelicals must do so both with conviction and discernment.

[i] Grant, John P. & J. Craig Baker. Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law: Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 102

[ii] Blog & Mablog. “Allies, Co-Belligerents, and Strange Bedfellows Doug Wilson”. YouTube. Accessed 3 April, 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zaDRaylfQI&ab_channel=Blog%26Mablog

[iii] Mohlar Jr, R. Albert. “Standing Together, Standing Apart: Cultural Co-belligerence Without Theological Compromise.” The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Accessed 5 December 2022, https://cdn.sbts.edu/documents/sbjt/sbjt_2001winter2.pdf