Female Bishops?

[stovebolts]

And yet, I merely didn't want to seem like I was challenging your reply in any way since I AGREE with it.

Might I humbly request, that is, if it is not too much to ask, that we not bunny hop to conclusions and bring out the dreaded T-word so easily?

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Please forgive me.
I've been on this forum for a few years, and I've seen people come on to this forum just to get in on the fray... create conflict. I'm not a mind reader and I can only read what you write. When you replied, it seemed to me that you were just adding to the fray with your remark about divorce. Without any confirmation on your perspective of my post, I took your remark as trolling. It's all about communication. Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate it.

Thanks.

 

[reba]

Agreed graz

 

[stovebolts]

Yes, I see now that it can be read as a cheap shot. I apologize.

As Kaliani has indicated, your 'tactic' of referring to trolling can also be seen as a cheap shot so we are both rightly reprimanded.

I will keep quiet now as there is a really interesting discussion going on. :seehearspeak

I'm really starting to feel the love ;) ha ha, just kidding.
Eh, a little reprimand once in awhile does us all a little good!

 

[stovebolts]

But Wright's argument is more general - he makes the case that men and women are equally qualified to serve in any position of leadership.

I understand Wright's position as you have stated. I also know that Wright said that at least 1/3 of his theology is incorrect, and that he is not sure which part it is. I actually heard him say that in his Lecture in Grand Rapids on Romans.

But lets talk about these verses... if that's ok with you.

1 Timothy 2:13-15 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Yet she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with propriety.

What is you take on these words as it pertains to Paul's writing to Timothy. Don't worry about how long it is, I'll read it. But I won't be back online until tomorrow afternoon.

Take care.

 

[Asyncritus]

So surely treating it respectfully involves studying it for all its worth, not just memorizing what it says?

You never spoke a truer word, Grazer.

Now how about studying 1 Tim. 2. 1-9 for all it's worth and letting us hear your conclusions? With reasons, of course.

 

[Grazer]

You never spoke a truer word, Grazer.

Now how about studying 1 Tim. 2. 1-9 for all it's worth and letting us hear your conclusions? With reasons, of course.

Initial thoughts; The women seem to get a mention as an aside, almost put in there as an after thought and that they shouldn't stand out. Its all about the men which doesn't surprise me since in his account of Jesus's appearances the women are no where to be found.

 

[Asyncritus]

10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I have to ask some questions about these verses. Here are the translations:

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. ESV

11 A woman should learn in silence with full submission.
12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. YHCSB

11 I don’t let women take over and tell the men what to do.
12 They should study to be quiet and obedient along with everyone else. MSG

11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.
12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.NKJV

11 A woman should learn quietly and humbly.
12 Personally, I don’t allow women to teach, nor do I ever put them in authority over men — I believe they should be quiet.JBP

11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. RSV

11 A woman should quietly learn from others with entire submissiveness.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man, but she must remain silent.WEY

11 Let a woman in quietness learn in all subjection,
12 and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness, YLT

What do you deduce from all that?

First, in the church

Second, in the home.

 

[Kaliani]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Please forgive me.
I've been on this forum for a few years, and I've seen people come on to this forum just to get in on the fray... create conflict. I'm not a mind reader and I can only read what you write.

And the award for Most Classy Post on this thread goes, hands down, to Jeff aka StoveBolts!!!

Congratulations and thank you.

I will keep your words in mind.

 

[Kaliani]

I also recall Alice in Wonderland saying that words mean whatever she wanted them to mean...

According to Jesus, God had Alice's attitude.

It IS His right. He may be exercising it today, regarding female bishops.

It's hard to argue that Paul didn't really meant it, or if he did, then it doesn't matter anyway.

Yet Jesus argued exactly that regarding Moses.

He had to 'turn scripture inside out'. Why don't we?

 

[jasoncran]

i recall an irksome prophet teaching this.

<sup class="versenum">28 </sup>And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

<sup class="versenum">29 </sup>And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

well the word prophecy can mean to teach or forewarn.

 

[Free]

[If there is so much doubt, as he is suggesting, then his argument is worthless, one way or the other, and should be disregarded].

And yet you approved of a post by another member, in another thread, when he appealed to the disagreement of a certain passage's translation. How is it only worthless when it disagrees with your position?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

But serious scholars disagree on the actual meaning, as the key Greek words occur nowhere else.

Just to site a key point here, there is only one Greek word at issue that is not repeated anywhere else in New Testament writings. Authenteo is translated (in the NASB) as "exercise authority over" and quite obviously serves as the root for our English word "authentic." The meaning of the word is clear, precise, unequivocal and beyond debate. Quite simply, it means "one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, an absolute master; to govern, exercise dominion over one." It may not be used in the New Testament, but it was used in Koine Greek writings of an extra-biblical nature during the same time period in which Paul wrote. It referred primarily to the equivalent of today's Border Patrol or Commerce Department, who were authorized to stop tradesmen at international borders and inspect their goods and even bar some of those goods from entering their country. This was generally done to prevent foreign products from undercutting local production items.

It applies perfectly to the circumstance. These "ancient border patrolmen" were not really authorized by their government to act in the way they commonly acted. They were acting on their own authority. They claimed to be "authentic" even though they had no writ from a king or a governor empowering them to act in such a fashion. So Paul described a woman who attempted to teach or have authority over men in the church. He was saying specifically she has no authority from God to do so. A woman who acts under the authority of her pastor, either in the first century or now, or under the authority of her believing husband, either in the first century or now, is acting under proper authority. A woman, therefore, can hold any church office except senior pastor, since that authority comes directly from God through the church deacons/elders who call a pastor. That is because the deception of Eve disqualifies all women from holding that office.

 

[lw9]

It looks like all the relevant passages have already been posted regarding men and women's roles in the church. As a woman, I reject women ordained into any and all leadership positions. The Bible is extremely clear on who can lead. The role of women pastors was not created or ordained by God. Instead, it's a false position created by popular culture, liberalism and rebellion towards God. Culture, time, place, and tradition does not dictate to God who He can and cannot choose for leadership. Not being able to be a church leader doesn't make me 'less than'. We are called to be content, and that includes being content in everything God has, or has not, ordained.

This issue is critical on several levels. First, it's a clear chipping away of the foundation of truth and a turning away from God. Second, it opens the door to any and all other trespasses. Sex outside of marriage? Sure. Homosexuality? Why not.The church won't have a leg to stand on when it comes to Biblical integrity after that. Third, sin hurts the church, period. The sin of rebellion WILL have it's effect on the churches choosing to follow this path.

For anyone doubting Paul's authority:

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:TargetScreenSize>800x600</o:TargetScreenSize> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--> 2 Pet 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

It absolutely boggles the mind how these clear instructions have been twisted around to suit personal preferences, opinions and agendas in the world today. Sad, very sad.

 

[Grazer]

Apologies for the bluntness of this but I really don't care if you're a man, woman, gay, result of a CIA experiment; we are all children of God called to him. I listen to a few women apologists, I've been to churches with women pastors, I've been in alpha courses with women leading them and I've learned a lot from them. Some women have a calling to teach and that should absolutely be embraced and encouraged.

I look at not just what Jesus said but who he said it to and how he went about things. He didn't seem to care who you were but the Pharisee certainly did and Jesus rebuked them time and again.

Contrary to what many think, you can't seperate the church and the world, the church is the world. We are here to help the world, to set an example and the example being set by denying women becoming bishops is "women aren't good enough to lead" In any walk of life that would be considered unacceptable. We may not be of this world but we are in it and I think some have forgotten the "in" part. The world may have forgotten God but God hasn't forgotten the world. He came down and made himself part of it.

People have cited biology as an example of the differing roles men and women have. I look at that and see men and women working together, you can't make a baby without both. People talk about children needing a mother AND a father. If a woman is great at teaching, why get in the way of that? Let her teach, let people learn. Let her work alongside and with men. I've learned a lot from my fiance and I'm grateful to God for giving her to me. I think she's going to do amazing work for God helping and teaching young people. You really think God cares that a woman is teaching and not a man?

All this does mean that I seem to have issues with what Paul is saying. I see it as more having issues with a reading that takes it as an express command to be universally applied, which is a human theological stance. I may be more liberal in my approach but I've yet to see how that's wrong and liberal is a relative term anyway.

Allowing women bishops doesn't suddenly open the doors to anything else. Everything needs to be weighed on its own merits.

So there you have it. That's why, in a nutshell, I'm in favor of women bishops among other things.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Kaliani]

it opens the door to any and all other trespasses. Sex outside of marriage? Sure. Homosexuality? Why not.

Actually, these have already been major issues inside the church for quite some time now. Where you been? ;)

 

[Aardverk]

Authenteo is translated (in the NASB) as "exercise authority over" and quite obviously serves as the root for our English word "authentic." The meaning of the word is clear, precise, unequivocal and beyond debate. Quite simply, it means "one who acts on his own authority, autocratic, an absolute master; to govern, exercise dominion over one." .

There is little doubt that the origin of 'authentic' is the greek 'authentikos' and the latin 'authenticus'.

Given the different origins of our very similar words 'authentic' and 'authority', I think we can see that 'authenteo' is likely to be the root of 'authority' but probably not 'authentic'. Having said that, the common element leading to our word 'author' may well indicate a common 'original' origin if you follow my reasoning and silent pun.

To say, "The meaning of the word is clear, precise, unequivocal and beyond debate" is demonstrable wrong. viz. there is an ongoing debate here and in the real world. It has been debated for centuries - thus it must be 'debatable'.

 

[kb5462]

As an Anglican, and as an Anglican female, I trust my leadership. I prayed for godly leaders of our church, and I got them. I trust their judgement. I trust them to make the right decision. Ultimately, I think they will.

 

[Drew]

I understand Wright's position as you have stated. I also know that Wright said that at least 1/3 of his theology is incorrect, and that he is not sure which part it is. I actually heard him say that in his Lecture in Grand Rapids on Romans.

True enough, but I know you are smart enough to realize that this should not be an excuse to not engage the actual content of his argument. And I am not suggesting that you are trying to engage in such a strategy of evasion.

1 Timothy 2:13-15 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Yet she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with propriety.

What is you take on these words as it pertains to Paul's writing to Timothy. Don't worry about how long it is, I'll read it. But I won't be back online until tomorrow afternoon.

I have only thought about the text you provide (above) for about 30 seconds. Having said that, I see the text above as "working" with the following set of assertions, that I see as Biblically defensible:

1. Eve (and all women) pay the price for her transgression - women experience pain in childbirth and are placed in a kind of "subservient" role in relation to men. But the latter is an artefact of the fall.

2. When Jesus does what He does on the cross, the fall is "reversed" and women are restored to an appropriate "horizontal" (vs "vertical") relationship with men.

 

[Drew]

It looks like all the relevant passages have already been posted regarding men and women's roles in the church. As a woman, I reject women ordained into any and all leadership positions. The Bible is extremely clear on who can lead. The role of women pastors was not created or ordained by God. Instead, it's a false position created by popular culture, liberalism and rebellion towards God.

Please explain to us exactly how it is you know that, as of the Cross, women, who were previously (i.e. as a result of the fall) in a vertical power relationship with men are not now restored to the appropriate horizontal relationship wherein they are just as qualified as men to serve in positions of leadership.

Yes, there are New Testament texts that at least appear to countenance the notion that women cannot be "leaders". But the fact that Paul says there is neither male nor female in Christ should cause us to consider whether things might not be quite as they appear.

I suggest that there is a rather clear theme in the New Testament - the bringing together of all things under Christ. The following distinctions have been dissolved:

(1) Jew and Gentile;
(2) free man and slave;
(3) male and female.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Let me be clear: Although it would be nice if we could do so, many issues can never be settled with "a verse" - Scripture is more complicated than that. I sugget that the entire trajectory of the plan of redemption is such that what Jesus does at the cross reverses one of the principal consequences of the fall: the introduction of a distorted power relation between male and female.

We miss the point if we think that this has not happened, and that women and men continue to be bound by the chains of the fall.

 

[Grazer]

I love your use of the word trajectory Drew. I've heard several people talk about the trajectory of scripture and its something I'm trying to look for in scripture.

Completely agree with everything you've put

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2