N.T. Wright says the NT clearly backs women preachers
“Wright refers to the stories in John 20 and Romans 16 as “big stories” that should be used to shed light on less clear or difficult passages such as 1 Timothy 2.” - Church Leaders
I watched the video. Pathetic answers from Wright. Strawman. He knows better.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
His paraphrase seems to read a couple of things into John 20, doesn’t it? It also strikes me that even if I mostly agreed with his exegesis in those passages, there are a host of other passages in which headship is an important principle, and where I cannot assent to the notion of egalitarianism because it does too much damage to our doctrines of who God is. For example, you’ve got the prophetic passages where Israel is compared to a fiance/betrothed/wife of God, and the clear imagery conveys that the groom has authority over His bride in these cases.
Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s where I am now. One thing that also comes to mind—somewhat off topic but very important—is that the key reason for complementarianism isn’t because women are any less capable. It’s because God commanded men to take up that burden.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
He’s off track pretty quickly when he basically argues that narrative is clear but direct teaching on the topic in 1 Timothy is not… or so the author of the article understood him:
Wright refers to the stories in John 20 and Romans 16 as “big stories” that should be used to shed light on less clear or difficult passages such as 1 Timothy 2.
This is exactly backwards. You use the didactic to interpret the doctrinal significance of narrative, not the other way around.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
When someone uses words like “probably” and “usually” to interpret scripture that they are basing a doctrinal understanding upon they have lost me already.
Discussion