N.T. Wright’s “Surprised by Scripture” Ch. 4: Should Women be Ordained?

Should women be ordained as ministers? Should women have leadership positions in the church? Generally speaking, your answer to that question pretty much pigeon-holes you into one of two political camps: if you say “no,” then you clearly are a conservative; if you say “yes,” then you clearly are a liberal. This is a good example, though, of just how too political we have let our Christian faith (especially in America) become. When Christianity is identified more with the political right or political left, than it is with what is actually said in the New Testament, that becomes a big problem—welcome to the American brand of Christianity in the 21^st Century.

N.T. Wright, though, is not only British, he’s also a New Testament scholar, so when he tackles this thorny issue of “women in leadership positions in the church,” perhaps we should consider what he says. As with the previous three issues in his book, Surprised by Scripture, Wright goes rather in depth on this issue as well. The thing is though that he never directly answers the question regarding the ordination of women—but by the end of the chapter, it’s pretty clear what his view is: there is no biblical case against having women leaders in the church. But before we get to that conclusion, let’s look at what Wright brings up in his chapter.

Galatians 3:28
Wright’s first point is that the early Christian community made it abundantly clear that women are a part of the family of God in Christ, and were not, as was the case in the pagan and Jewish worlds, regulated to second-class citizens. He then points to what Paul says in Galatians 3:28: “Neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no ‘male and female.’” Wright points out that many translations wrongly keep the same construct, and have “neither male nor female,” but in the actual Greek it reads, “no ‘male and female.’” Wright argues that the reason Paul does this is because he is purposely quoting Genesis 1:27.

Why does he do that? Because he actually responding to the synagogue prayer that Jewish men often prayed, which thanked God for not making him a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. Paul was a theologian of the new creation, and his point is that in the re-created people of God in Christ, everyone enjoys equal status. The Jews of his day often referred to Genesis 1 to justify their own male privilege. Wright points out that Paul’s response was “No…none of that counts when it comes to membership in the renewed people of Abraham.”

Other Areas in the Bible
Wright’s second point is that when you read the Bible, women play a prominent role, and were, in fact, leaders in the early church. Even though Jesus chose twelve men to be the apostles, it was Mary Magdalene and the other women who were “apostles to the apostles” when they brought news of the resurrection. Also, in Romans 16:7, there is the husband and wife team of Andronicus and Junia, who are “great among the apostles.” Then there’s the famous story of Mary and Martha, in which Mary, instead of doing the women’s work with Martha in the kitchen, was sitting at the feet of Jesus in the male part of the house, listening to and learning from Jesus as a student and disciple. Jesus clearly makes it known that Mary has every right to do so—and in that culture, that was quite scandalous. Finally, in Acts, we find that when Saul was out to catch and imprison the ringleaders of the new sect of Christians, he targeted both men and women alike.

At the very least, it is clear that in the early church, women enjoyed privilege, equality, and in some capacity were leaders.

I Corinthians 14:34-35
Wright then turns to other passages. We’ll summarize them quickly. First there is I Corinthians 14:34-35, which clearly says women are to remain silent in the churches. Another NT scholar, Gordon Fee has argued that these verses were not part of the original letter—I personally find it a very convincing argument, as does Wright. But he also says that the focus of the entire passage was on church order, not about requirements for leadership. And in that culture, apparently, women would often ask their husbands during the service about certain things, and it was causing a disturbance. Therefore, the point was 14:34-35 really was simply saying, “Don’t ask questions during the service—there’s a time a place for that.”

Wright then addresses the odd passage in I Corinthians 11 regarding head coverings. Without going into all the details, Wright argues that Paul’s point is that when worshipping, both men and women should maintain gender distinctions, and, as those being renewed in God’s image, they should celebrate the genders that God has given them. In addition, the only women in Corinth who probably didn’t wear any kind of head coverings were prostitutes. So what Paul was essentially saying was, “Don’t dress like a prostitute, and celebrate the gender you are.” So no, I doubt Paul would be impressed with Bruce Jenner, or a society that celebrates that sort of thing.

I Timothy 2:8-15
Wright finally addresses I Timothy 2:8-15, possibly the most seemingly-obvious “women-hater” passage in the New Testament. Wright points out a number of things though: (1) the passage does, in fact, state that women should be allowed to study (hurrah for the 1^st century women’s liberation movement!); (2) the talk of “being in full submission” is actually about being in full submission to God and the gospel, not to men.

Wright makes a particular point in regards to 2:12, though. Whereas it is mostly translated as, “I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man,” Wright argues that it should be translated as, “I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women.” Why would Paul say this? Well, in Ephesus, where Timothy was, the pagan cult of Artemis had women priests who exercised authority over men worshippers of Artemis.

So basically, Paul was encouraging women to learn and study, just like men, but he wanted to point out that the purpose of allowing Christian women to study was not to be like the cult of Artemis—he wasn’t trying to have women “rule the show” as men had usually done. The Christian proclamation was one of full equality between men and women.

What about the reference to Adam and Eve, though, in 2:13? Wright argues that Paul says this as a way of encouraging women to study and learn: after all, Eve was deceived! Women need to learn just as much as men do.

Conclusion
As you can see, Wright makes a convincing argument that women have every right to learn and study just as much as men; and he also makes convincing argument that women were in positions of authority in the early church. But as for the specific question, “Should women be ordained?” He never comes right out and says it, but it seems clear he has no problem with it. Historically and biblically, he makes a good case.

I personally think the entire debate is misguided, though. Back in the first century, they didn’t have seminaries—however you were gifted, you had a place in the Church to use your gift. Therefore, today, as it was back then, if your gift is teaching, whether you were a man or a woman, you should be allowed to use your gift. Within the Church, women and men are equal before God.

As an Orthodox Christian, I asked an Orthodox priest why only men were priests. His answer made sense to me. He said that the liturgy is essentially a re-enactment of the Last Supper, and the priest plays the part of Jesus. Since Jesus was a man, the priest is a man. That doesn’t mean the priest is more holy or better than women; it just means when it comes to the specific task in the Church regarding communion, that role has to be played by a man.

Besides, I think there is something wrong with this obsession some have over “authority” in the church. Should or should not women be allowed to have that position of “primary authority” in a church? My response would be, “Is that even a Christian mindset?”

In any case, my personal position is probably close to Wright’s. Women have every right to use their gifts in the Church, and have every right to have pastoral/leadership positions. It’s biblical. As an Orthodox Christian, I also support the Orthodox reasoning for male priests.

So what are your opinions, thoughts, questions, regarding the role of women in the church?