Female Bishops?

[Drew]

- The passage doesn't define an age limit.
- The passage clearly states we are all sons of God.
- Therefore if I choose to interpret the passage as referring to ordination, I can safely conclude that all within the church can and should be pastors.

I believe this is incorrect reasoning.

This text is not a statement in a vacuum. It is made in the very specific Jewish context of a belief system including, among other things, believing that the Jews are God's special people (to the exclusion of Gentiles) and that men in some sense are "over" women.

So Paul is saying that these beliefs are now outdated. The Jews never believed that children, or people with big noses for that matter were not on equal footing.

That is why these other groups are not mentioned.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

And what makes you think that I'm not? Simply because I disagree with Paul? You think God stops moving/inspiring words and thought after Paul? That he only gives words and images that are in the bible and only direct applications of it?

I'm not saying I am but it's interesting that people automatically assume that God isn't driving me on this. As I said, a direct application of Paul is a human theology.

Paul was specifically called by God as the master builder, to lay the foundations for the ecclesia.
If God was driving you, then you would be agreeing with Paul as inspired by God.

Neither you nor any man/woman has the authority to change what God has said.

Luke 6:46 "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?

Luke 6:47 Everyone who comes to Me, and hears My words and does them, I will show you to whom he is like:
Luke 6:48 He is like a man building a house, who dug and went deep and laid a foundation on the rock. And when a flood occurred, the stream burst upon that house, and could not shake it, for it was founded on the rock.
Luke 6:49 But he who hears and does not do is like a man building a house on the ground without a foundation, against which the stream burst upon; and immediately it fell. And the breaking of that house was great."

 

[Dustoftheearth]

I think things are not this simple. And, in fact, our failure to understand Paul and his culture have led many in the reformed tradition to radically misunderstand him. I suggest that we do indeed need to understand that Paul was a first century Palestinian Jew, not a 21st century westerner.

It is clearly not plausible to suggest that Paul somehow transcended his culture and wrote as if he was "outside" the constraints and limitations of culture. Paul's message, like all communications is necessarily committed to the cultural terms in which it was written. Words do not "float free" of context and culture, as much as it simplify things if they did.

Paul may have been a 1st century Jew but God isn't, and Paul did not lay the foundations as according to man's tradition, but as led and inspired by God.

When God had called and chose certain people in the OT to do a work for God, they had to acutely follow very specific details given by God.

Let me illustrate one area where this simplification has tripped people up: the use of "end of the world" imagery in the Bible (e.g. Jesus talking about the stars falling to earth and the moon turning blood red, etc., etc.). I will not get into the details here, but it was common practice in the Hebrew culture to use such cosmic imagery to refer to socio-political transformation. We make a massive blunder when we take this language literally. So it is indeed critical to interpret scripture - including the words of Paul - in light of knowledge of the relevant culture.

 

[reba]

God picked the time of Christ... God knew the what when and why of Scriptures. He knew the culture... God built the Israelite culture.... God also knew the culture of today... God's Word is how He wants it....

 

[stovebolts]

I don't understand your point. Please clarify.


Again, I do not understand your point. My argument is that of the cross, the relationship between men and women is restored to a "horizontal" one. As you will know if you read all my posts, NT Wright asserts that the 1 Timothy text - often used to countenance the denial of church leadership positions to women, is controversial as its exact meaning. I do not have the time to independently confirm his opinion on this. I trust him and will take his word that the 1 Timothy text does not work against the general argument that men and women are now "egual"

Drew,
While good theology is always the foundation of good doctrine, let us be clear that we are talking about doctrines here, not theology. As far as your theology, it comes from NT Write and his perceived Pauline theology. NT Write has a very narrow lens in which he stuffs every verse into. If you have ever read his entire series called, "Paul for everyone" as I have, it becomes very apparent. I'm afraid too much of a good thing can spoil the appetite.

Nature itself shows that Men and Women are not equal, and that's not a sexist remark. If Men and women were equal as you state, then why doesn't Paul command women to love their husbands? And why are Men not commanded to respect their wives? On the contrary, you will find that Men are commanded to love their wives and wives are commanded to respect their husbands. If Men and Women are equal as your asserting, why does Paul and Peter command different commandment to each sex?

What I'm driving at Drew is our theology has to be in line with the real world. We can't get so high and mighty in our glass castles that we loose touch with reality.

 

[Drew]

Paul may have been a 1st century Jew but God isn't, and Paul did not lay the foundations as according to man's tradition, but as led and inspired by God.

When God had called and chose certain people in the OT to do a work for God, they had to acutely follow very specific details given by God.

You are not addressing what I said. I simply have pointed out that Paul wrote within a particular culture, and therefore used words and ideas as they would have been understood in that culture.

Do you deny this?

 

[reba]

You are not addressing what I said. I simply have pointed out that Paul wrote within a particular culture, and therefore used words and ideas as they would have been understood in that culture.

Do you deny this?

IMO God's Word transcends time and mans cultures

 

[Grazer]

IMO God's Word transcends time and mans cultures

That's very different to saying we should apply literally word for word though. Also, if it transcends cultures, that applies to Pauls culture so I don't see how we're in a different position now than then

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I think it's a great idea that women become bishops.
men have secularized the church.
maybe women will get it right.
God can raise up whomever he wants.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

You are not addressing what I said. I simply have pointed out that Paul wrote within a particular culture, and therefore used words and ideas as they would have been understood in that culture.

Do you deny this?

Paul inspired by God, wrote, worked and built according to the heavenly vision and the Holy Spirit, not some earthly time and culture.

We have zero, zilch, authority to change what God has said and ordained to be.

Being in Christ is to keep His word. If we love Him, we will keep His words.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

I think it's a great idea that women become bishops.

I don't think it is a bad idea, but God said it is not to be.

men have secularized the church.

And by making female bishops will secularize it even more.

maybe women will get it right.
God can raise up whomever he wants.

Jesus said that He will build His Church.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

thank you dust of the earth for your response.
i don't think that we could ever prove that junias ever had any authority over the church, or that she was even a woman.
but in Luke 19;40, "if they keep quiet (the disciples), then the stones would cry out".
certainly God would use a woman before he would use a stone.

here's something that i believe:

if men were spiritually strong enough, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[iLOVE]

Women were very special to Jesus. He appeared to women first after His resurrection.
1. His first appearance was to Mary Magdalene, on that early Sunday morning. (Mark 16:9; John 20:10-18).
2. Jesus appeared to the women returning from the tomb. (Matthew 28:9-10).

Genesis 3:15 - God said to Satin, "You used woman to bring down the human race, and I will use the woman as an instrument to bring the Redeermer into the world, Who will save the human race".

 

[Carolyn]

We live in a very corrupt culture which says there is no right or wrong, just shades of gray. So it discounts or simply disagrees with what the
Bible plainly states. I am really upset by churches rejecting God's Word because Paul wrote it or because they simply disagree with it. In reality their arguement is with God. And guess who loses that arguement!. If Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers, I wonder what He thinks about the liberal "church" which twists God's clearly stated Word to justify its rebellion or to manipulate others to follow it. Satan was good at that, too.
During the period of the judges people did what was right in their own eyes because they no longer had the written Word to direct them.
The churches today don't have any excuse. Some just reject God's Word and do what is right in their own eyes!

 

[lw9]

I think it's a great idea that women become bishops.

Two points:
1. "I THINK..." - huge problem right there. Your personal opinion is not above God's word and has no bearing on this subject.
2. Disobeying God is never a great idea. Never.

maybe women will get it right.

Flat out impossible. Being in rebellion to God's word will only end very badly, for both the individual and the church supporting the individual.

 

[Grazer]

I think Jesus would be rather happy with some of the more supposedly liberal churches. He was a radical liberal himself when he was on this earth. He frequently clashed with those more interested in the letter of the law and turned a lot of the rules on their head (eating with sinners, love your enemy etc)

It's interesting people talk about being moved by the spirit then follow the letter. It's like they think the spirit stopped moving after Paul or anything that contradicts the letter can't be of the spirit. Well Jesus did and you wouldn't say he wasn't of the spirit. Ironically the people who essentially accused him of that were the Pharisees, the ones who just followed the letter. Now I'm not saying I'm the second coming or anything like that, just suggesting that because something isn't strictly to the letter, doesn't mean that its automatically wrong.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[wayseer]

Australia has another Anglican bishop - female.

 

[lw9]

Grazer: I think Jesus would be rather happy with some of the more supposedly liberal churches

Personal opinion.

It's interesting people talk about being moved by the spirit then follow the letter. It's like they think the spirit stopped moving after Paul or anything that contradicts the letter can't be of the spirit.

Anything that contradicts God's word CANNOT be of His spirit. He made that very clear. Father, Son, Holy Spirit are ONE, that means the Spirit will never contradict the Father and Son, and He will never contradict God's word. If a spirit does contradict, then it's not the Spirit of God.

Jn 16:13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His own; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come."

1 Jn 5:6 This is the one who came by water and blood - Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Jn 14:26 "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Eph 4:3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to one hope when you were called – 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

The truth has already been revealed IN FULL.

 

[Grazer]

The statement that he would be angry is personal opinion. That the bible is to solely taken literally and at face value is personal opinion. The statement of the truth has been revealed in full is personal opinion. We all come at the bible and God from different angles and starting places. We all bring an element of ourselves to the table, you think Paul was immune to that? That's another personal opinion.

I don't think we have the full truth since Jesus has yet to return and God has yet to bring in the new heaven and the new earth. Personal opinion.

I think you can see the point I'm making. Just because you disagree with a point or interpretation doesn't mean its not of the spirit but we all have our views and we are all different as God made us that way

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aardverk]

The statement that he would be angry is personal opinion. That the bible is to solely taken literally and at face value is personal opinion. The statement of the truth has been revealed in full is personal opinion. We all come at the bible and God from different angles and starting places. We all bring an element of ourselves to the table, you think Paul was immune to that? That's another personal opinion.

I don't think we have the full truth since Jesus has yet to return and God has yet to bring in the new heaven and the new earth.......

Such wise words - well said sir.