N.T. Wright on Women in Ministry 5

[Pilgrim1411]

He does not advocate full participation. He only allows for minor (not teaching) positions.

[TheFunkyTheist]

As one who is not quick to support women's ordination, I must say that there is nothing in scripture which forbids it. The prime argument people use is that Christ, the example of the priest, is not a women, and thus women cannot be ordained as priests (or bishops). But that argument fails terribly because Christ is the example to everyone, not just men. Should women then not seek to be like Christ? Nay, of course they SHOULD seek to be like Christ.

Women's ordination is not forbidden by God.

[98nafets]

Wright really didn't address the women keeping silent in the church passage. He just says it shouldn't be applied to leadership in worship. But what about pastoral leadership?

I am inclined to say that women should have the same rights to leadership in a church, but the Bible makes pretty clear statements on the issue.

[AegeanKing]

I like n.t. wright, but this is where him and I part ways.

[flash91214]

Part of the problem is people who don't want to acknowledge the New Testament because it calls clearly to faith in Christ, will use sexiism/slavery arguements to say they can ingore the Bible. The more you study the Bible it's clearly based on love and justice. Initially Paul centered on grace and faith messages to all people but in Roman's you can tell how instrumental he viewed women as working for the Lord isn all facets. Speak the truth in love....

[theaubes]

Remember to who Paul was speaking to and why.Timothy,charged and gifted to be a minister.He needed encouragement and instruction to fullfil the call of God. The word given to Timothy by Paul was so that he may know how he shuold conduct himself in the House of God, which is the church of the living God(1TIM3,15 These instructions are not just for the church in Ephesus and they are not culteral they are routed in creation. And given by the Spirit to all churches.

[PronagePow]

i am always amazed at how clearly this guy thinks and speaks...my brain is such a ball of wires that i absolutely admire n.t wright's fabulous communication...

[Hufflewaffle]

Yes beware. If you base your life on the writings of people who lived thousands of years ago who advocated things like torture, child sacrifice, oppression of women, slavery etc. you might come up against 'progressive' people these days who actually think these practices are bad.

[jtschoch]

@Hufflewaffle ,

You have misunderstood the Bible. It advocates the opposite of everything you have laid out. The book Slave's Women and Homosexuals by Bill Webb might help. If the opposite of what you have said is actually true it might have profound implications for you. Grace and Peace - j

[mcgoodle]

People beware! N.T. Wright is a brilliant Greek scholar, but he is a bishop in the Church of England. Anglicanism is a tradition with a cultural agenda; it always moves in a "progressive" (i.e. liberal) direction. I Timothy chapter 2 very clearly says that overseers, elders, and deacons are to be "the husband of one wife", which presupposes that if they are ordained they must be men. Wright has to ransack Romans 16 to find a cheesy "exception" to the clarity of I Timothy. Bad theology!

[Chrissiela]

That’s in Ch 3 but if you look at v1 in the Greek you will see that Paul doesn’t start our being gender specific (ei tis = “if any”) & after he speaks of Bishops being the husband of one wife he mentions WOMEN (v11). The KJV renders it “their wives” but there is no “their” in the Greek and others render it “Women must likewise….” And since we know that Pheobe was A WOMAN and A DEACON, according to this same Paul, perhaps there is more to the passage in chapter 2 than meets the eye?

[Chrissiela]

In 1 Tim 2, Paul is not talking about women but he who is considered “a woman” spiritually (“a babe” who is still LEARNING).  Check Isa 3. You will see that woman/children/babes refer to one’s SPIRITUAL MATRURITY not their gender. Paul’s reference to Eve is about THE CHURCH who is “saved in childbearing, if THEY continue in faith”. Even Paul (MALE) had to be “delivered of the child” just as Jesus told all of his disciples (MEN) that they would have to be. (John 16:19-21; 1 Cor 13:11)

[proseandpromise1]

@mcgoodle Then what do you do with Phoebe being called a Deacon? Don't you see the problem with universalizing the culture patriarchy of Paul's day?

[Hkepfer]

I much respect Dr. Wright.

But at the last supper, women made the meal, set the table and most assuredly cleaned up after the meal but not participated in the meal; not His Most Holy Mother who was at the Pentecost nor St. Mary M, nor any other women. Yes there were deaconess but women were never part of the "elders" nor "the over seers". Dr. Wright made a biblical case but neglected, tradition, catholicity & orthodoxy.

[daughterofeve7]

@Hkepfer Where in the Bible does it say that the women cooked and cleaned after the last supper? My Bible does not say that, on the contrary from Luke 22:7-13 one can think that Peter and John did the cooking.

[watfordssermons]

I just saw N.T. Wright in an Evangelical Theological Society conference. While I don't agree with all his theology, I'm learning more and more to appreciate this brilliant and humorous man. I do agree with this video about women in ministry. Thanks for the upload.

[jvsears]

beautiful

[TheFaithHunter]

Thumbs up

[wjsmartin2]

Postmodern and existentialist expression of Christianity suitable to Bibliolatry. Anglicanism receives Truth as traditioned through the Church. The Church then both receives, interprets and conveys Truth. Searching through the New Testament for bits and pieces that might support a post-modern secular position is going at the Bible backwards. We go at the Bible through the Body of Christ, and find unanimous conformity on the issue until our most recent and unpleasant times.

[jcncnc]

@wjsmartin2 EXCELLENT comments WJSmartin. 

[wjsmartin2]

Postmodern and existentialist expression of Christianity suitable to Bibliolatry. Anglicanism receives Truth as traditioned through the Church. The Church then both receives, interprets and conveys Truth. Searching through the New Testament for bits and pieces that might support a post-modern secular position is going at the Bible backwards. We go at the Bible through the Body of Christ, and find unanimous conformity on the issue until our most recent and unpleasant times. 

[MenechemShaul]

What about Prisca/Priscilla in Acts 15 (Romans 16) and Phoebe (Romans 16 as well as others)? The prohibitions were because the women were coming from Pagan forms of Leadership and before they could become Apostles, Bishop's, Elders or Deacons they had to have private instruction like us men. Still Good video though! I am a Conservative Christian, yes but, I am for women in Ministry (as long as they Stick to the Bible).

[vint7107]

At least one good thing from NT Wright is that he makes us reevaluate and ask questions, but I think with this one he's raised more questions that he has to answer rather than his critics. Simply put, I find his argument to be so incredibly weak (which is uncharacteristic of him) that I have to wonder if this argument is the result of his New Testament and historical research, or whether it's the political climate of the Anglican church that's fueling it.

[vint7107]

And his attempt to use Jn 20 in his argument is absolutely mind-boggling! How does one go from Christ's appearance to Mary Magdalene to "full participation of women" (aka women priestesses)? I can accept the significance of Jesus appearing to Mary as being something counterintuitive and radical, further showing important implications and credibility for the Resurrection, but to go from that to "full participation of women" is quite the jump, one that doesn't land you back on your feet.

[vint7107]

His treatment of 1 Cor 14 is so poor that I have to seriously wonder what his motivation for arguing for "full participation of women" is (aka his roundabout politically correct way of saying women priestesses). Paul clearly puts out a case where women cannot function in the same way as men in the life of the church and Wright unsuccessfully tries to sidestep by trying to hold up 1 Cor 11:5 as something that cancels out 14:34-5, which would make Paul schizophrenic and inconsistent with himself.

[charmmingmom]

@vint7107 for the real answers if you are truly ready to hear them can be found at god'swordtowomen website or watch on youtube marcus stead Women in the church. Can women teach and preach to men in the church?

[rrusco]

@vint7107 Paul isn't talking about women at all in these chapters. Elaine Pagels has a analysis on Paul. Proof of what Paul is really talking about is in chapter 1 - true and false wisdom.The entire book is based on uniting 2 sects: pneumatic and psychics. Earthly wisdom (Sophia) - Jewish texts associate this with WOMEN. (Ex- Luke 11:33,49). The chapters before and after 11 are about communion. Paul stays on topic with the gender analogy.veil - alluding to the veil of Moses (removed by Christ)

[vint7107]

His argument dealing with 1 Cor 14 is quite astonishing to say the least. Paul's restriction on women in v.34-5 on keeping silent in public worship, while one can argue that it was not absolute since women could lawfully pray and prophesy in liturgical assembly (11:5) and even teach in other circumstances, is a clear cut contrary example "full participation of women." Paul is prohibiting women from instructing the congregation in the official capacity of an ordained pastor or homilist.

[vint7107]

But even if you want to grant that Junias was a woman and that Paul was saying she actually was an apostle, it still doesn't equate Junias as an ordained minister as the word apostles was also used by Paul in a very broad sense of the word as a messenger (Phil 2:25; 2 Cor 8:23).

[vint7107]

His argument for the case of Junias is shaky at best as well because although Junias is a well known female name as he noted, it could also be the shortened form of the Latin 'Junianus' and thus refer to a man. His treatment of "among the apostles" in 16:7 is also something that isn't as clear as he would like to make it either. There are reputable scholars who understand that the passage could mean that they were apostles, or esteemed by the original apostles

[rrusco]

@vint7107 How many names in the NT are 'shortened' forms of other names? If you can site other names, you may have a point. Anyway, don't forget Philippians 4:2 - Euodia and Syntyche. These were authority that worked closely with Paul and Clement. The bottom line is that both men and women are equal and created in God's image so what's the big deal?

[vint7107]

And according to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, deaconesses are counted among the laity, not ordained clergy (can. 19). So to use Phoebe as an example of Wright's politically correct phrase of "full participation of women" (aka women being ordained to the priesthood) doesn't fly well.

[rrusco]

@vint7107 This is the 4th century. Long after Paul's writings. Who says they were correct?

[vint7107]

Not to mention, the debate over Romans 16 is far from conclusive. I think Wright is grossly misrepresenting the debate. In regards to Phoebe, she's called 'diakonos' which can refer to an ordained minister of the Church (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8) or to a "servant" or "assistant" more generally (13:4; 15:8). Women in the early church had the function of the latter such as assisting with the baptism of women and similar tasks.

[vint7107]

It's his argument that he makes in his attempt to address homosexuality that actually works against what he's saying in this video.

[vint7107]

I wish NT Wright would just come out and say the ordination of women to the priesthood instead of the ambiguous "full participation of women" because then it would force him to go into greater detail of a theology of the priesthood because that is where the real debate lies. He already admits a distinction between heaven and earth, man and woman, the head and the body, and the bridegroom and the bride in his comments on homosexuality and its theological significance...

[TheProfessorEnglish]

It's not about hatred of women. There's plenty of hatred of men to go around too. It's simply about wanting to do what Jesus said, and Paul said etc.

This dear man has sold out to the modern sweep of female power. His case is so very weak. Imagine Paul lifting up women as leaders when he says elsewhere he does not allow them to teach or have authority over men. Back to the book, bro.

[FaithfulSpot]

@TheProfessorEnglish Hmm... perhaps you might look at it a mite deeper. There's way more evidence for women in ministry. He's right, he's only going over this very quickly, but word studies show how we're understanding these verses wrong.

[TheProfessorEnglish]

@FaithfulSpot Looked at it very deeply, friend. Wish I could find a loophole. It causes me a lot of problems! He simply offers no evidence. The fact that we are trying to re-study Paul after these many centuries is telling to me. What's happened is the world has started another trend, and the church dutifully follows suit. But, even with that said, I still step aside for the Lord of the Harvest to do ANYTHING he pleases in his church! Traffic cops trump traffic signs.

[rrusco]

@TheProfessorEnglish 1 Tim 2 (not by Paul) is specifically talking about the women of Ephesus that worshiped Artemis. They taught that Eve came before Adam. This is the context. The writer of Timothy directly quotes Caesar Augustus - "women shall be saved through child-bearing." geared towards the Artemis myth. It's not known by Paul to quote Roman Emperors but Galatians 3:28 fits the pattern of Paul - ... no male or female; for you are all one person in Christ Jesus.

[shanemason789]

@rrusco interesting

[rocha333]

Mary telling the Apostles about the Resurrection has nothing to do with ministry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What kinf of scholars are these? thats rediclious

[rocha333]

Hey Mr Wright, you are just trying to go along with the Church of England wave that Women can minister like men. Im sure you know Jesus never called any woman to be part of the 12 apostles. Why not? why would Paul write against the tradition of the church? That text you read, Paul was simply saying that they were known by the apostles or among the apostles which would mean the same. Stop licking the boot of the church and peach the word correctly or you will be in trouble with the Lord

[Zipster0007]

@rocha333 Well, thank you for saying that you're understanding of the Bible is better than an ancient historian, scholar, and theologians without actually refuting any of his claims.

[trevorrobert1234]

As for the debate on Homosexuality: Simply put Jesus affirms the tradition view of Marriage that is why he says in Matt 19: 4-6 But In the church we have come up with all kinds of ways of centering out homosexuals, transgender, Lesbians and bisexual people. The way we who call ourselves Christians treat the non- believers. Jesus said it best when he said in Matt 7:1-2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

[oboylebeast]

First Timothy chapter two 11-15

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

[rrusco]

@oboylebeast This is completely contextual to the women in Ephesus that worshiped Artemis - a goddess. They put Eve before Adam. Verse 15 was originally quoted by Caesar Augustus (google it). This pertained to the Artemis (woman of fertility) myth.

[DeJay17Revolution]

well if we men werent so stupid sometimes then they wouldnt have a problem with the scriptures treat women with respect and be men who love there wives

[turtle4aires]

t seems as he may think women should play bigger rolls in the church have plaied bigger rolles in the church but With all said you have to look at this part of the bible verses.

You take 1 Timothy 2:11-13 out of the bible and I will say women should be able to preach in the churches. Verse 11 Let the women learn in silance. Verse 12 But I suffer a women not to teach, but be slient in the church. Verse 13 Adam was first formed and then Eve. When they drop this from the bible let me know.

[DDAambassador]

One thing that is interesting when it comes to all religions is the hatred of women. I wonder why the devil has worked so hard to steal their freedom and extinguish their voice. Jesus demonstrated how to walk as a man and it wasn't by following "man's" rules or by dominating others. He taught that a real man is to be a servant.

[DDAambassador]

Us "men" forget about this and we point our finger at scriptures like this while forcing women to submit, but this is not what it means to be a man. According to Jesus, to be the "man of the house" you must serve your woman and put her above yourself. This will never be "dropped from the Bible" and it is coherent and in agreement with Jesus' simple message of love.

[Hkepfer]

@DDAambassador G-D made men so the would "agape" [love] each other & the Devil made religion do men would kill each other.

[Jugglable]

@DDAambassador "I wonder why the devil has worked so hard to steal their freedom and extinguish their voice. Jesus demonstrated how to walk as a man and it wasn't by following "man's" rules "

I wonder why Jesus broke every social barrier in his time but still didn't ordain women...

[CLANTISBANT]

@Jugglable When the Bible says that Mary "sat at Jesus' feet," it doesn't mean that she literally sat on the floor, in stary-eyed amazement of Jesus. She wasn't just picking up some neat information – she was being a STUDENT in order to take on the role of a teacher or rabbi herself. See Acts 22:3, where Paul uses this exact phrase to refer to a type of training. This is why Martha is so upset. Mary has entered the male part of the house. Jesus affirms her action. I'd call that an ordination.

[Jugglable]

@CLANTISBANT I'm afraid you're reading your agenda into the text rather than letting it speak for itself. That's a very obscure reading and a definition of ordination not found anywhere in scripture. Are you a Christian? If so, I'm curious: Why do you think that all the prophets God spoke through referred to God as a "he," why do you think God became a man as opposed to a woman, and why did Jesus teach us to call God father? Sexual symbolism is important.

[commentacious]

@Jugglable actually women were the very first to be ordained by the risen Christ. what a privilege!

[Jugglable]

@commentacious Jesus said to his all-male aposltes, that whoever heard them, heard him. Women are told to spread the good news. We're all called to do that. But we are not all ordained.

[rrusco]

@Jugglable Women were authority figures in Jesus' day. The term 'widows' and 'mothers' were authority titles. Here are some women of authority: Anna (Luke 2), Phoebe, Junia, Euodia, Syntyche, etc

[biggelove09]

Why do you have 7 thumbs down for the truth?

[rrusco]

@turtle4aires Please see my post on this passage's actual context - the women of Ephesus who worshiped Artemis (they put Eve before Adam) ....