What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Female Bishops?

A

Aardverk

Guest
Britain is about to vote on whether to have female bishops. Whichever way it goes, it will be divisive for the Church of England.

Here is a picture of the lovely English Reverend Sally Hitchens wearing heavy make-up, jewelery and a short skirt (trust me on that last one).
ReverendSallyHitchens.jpg


I appreciate that you may not agree with having bishops anyway but how would you feel about her being a bishop? Does she and do women generally project the right image? Should women 'know their place'.
 
Absolutely we should have female bishops!!! I'd have no problems with her being a bishop

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
 
Grazer said:
Absolutely we should have female bishops!!! I'd have no problems with her being a bishop

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

1 Timothy 2:9-14 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

I'd say that pretty much rules out women being Bishops.
 
Paul was addressing a specific situation at a specific time. We don't know exactly what that was so I think its a little unwise to take that and universally apply it. Women were the first evangelists, Jesus was all about gender equality...

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
 
Grazer said:
Paul was addressing a specific situation at a specific time. We don't know exactly what that was so I think its a little unwise to take that and universally apply it. Women were the first evangelists, Jesus was all about gender equality...

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Paul was addressing what we consider corporate worship.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

It is not about culture. It is about how woman was formed. Contrary to belief, there is a difference between a man and a woman, and it goes deeper than the physical.

What is one of roles of a Bishop?

apt to teach is what scriptures say. Yet Paul states that a woman cannot teach in a corporate setting. This in NO WAY minimized the role or responsibility a woman has in teaching. Women are charged with a great responsibility in teaching. Just not as Bishop.
 
That's Paul and I disagree with him if that's the point he is making. Paul is a man writing in his culture and this must surely be taken into account when reading his letters.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
 
Grazer said:
That's Paul and I disagree with him if that's the point he is making. Paul is a man writing in his culture and this must surely be taken into account when reading his letters.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

You can disagree with Paul all you want. But Paul states:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Paul here is talking about what we call the Old Testament. The Old testament affirms Paul's writing. Adam was formed first, and then Eve.

I do try to take culture into consideration when I do my studies. Because Paul mentions Adam and Eve, this is not a 1st century cultural issue. Within the Church, Women are not to have authority over men. That is not to oppress the women so please don't read it that way. It is to hold Man to his responsibilities. Heaven knows our mom's made our beds enough and picked up our dirty clothes and dishes enough as a child. There comes a day when a Man should live up to his God given responsibilities and stop being a child.
 
Women bishops NO!

Different places for people does not make one a better place then the other just different.

Nicely said Stove!
 
I know what Paul states but either he's wrong or your interpretation of him is in my view. Let's put it another way. Would Jesus turn round and say "you can't serve me or the church in this capacity because you're a woman?" I seriously doubt he would.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
 
First let's start off with the agreement that Paul is correct in what he writes. Can we agree on this before we proceed?
 
You stated that either my interpretation was wrong, or Paul himself was wrong. I would assert that what Paul writes is correct as it is in agreement with Gods word pre new testament.

This leaves my interpretation of what Paul writes as correct and I suspect you agree. However, you believe Pauls writing to be only for the first century reader and not our current culture. Is that correct?
 
StoveBolts said:
You stated that either my interpretation was wrong, or Paul himself was wrong. I would assert that what Paul writes is correct as it is in agreement with Gods word pre new testament.

This leaves my interpretation of what Paul writes as correct and I suspect you agree. However, you believe Pauls writing to be only for the first century reader and not our current culture. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

I don't believe you can simply take the approach of " Paul says this therefore I will apply it literally" He says, in some versions, "I do not permit" well Paul can deny all he wants its not Paul we follow. That doesn't mean I dismiss Paul but it does lead me to question what is Paul getting at here.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
 
reba said:
The bible is the Word of God. Some folks choose not to believe it is the Word.
Click to expand...

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to roll out this argument. I view the bible as the word of God, that doesn't mean its meant to be taken literalistically. I ask the question again, would Jesus stop someone serving him in a particular way purely because they're a woman?

There is also a human element to the bible. Paul was a 1st century Jew writing a letter to a church.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
 
It's pretty much normal in my denomination (Lutheran) to have female pastors and bishops. So I'm not even wondering about that question any more.
The "boss" (I think it's called "praeses") of the lutheran Evangelical Church in Germany is a lady (who is also a very successfull Green Party politician - some people just seem to have limitless energy) and the praeses before her was female as well.
My church has a female vicar who is doing her job extraordinarily well, although she's only a beginner. I wouldn't dare doubt that our Lord has called her into that work.

It'd be sad if the church of England would split up over that question, because it seems so secondary.

In Paul's days the gender situation was very different, a woman teaching men would have been unthinkable, and allowing women to teach early in church history would have caused even more trouble and disagreement than it does now, after more than 100 years of feminism. Back then, a female teacher would have killed the church, not because she'd been a bad teacher, but because gender roles just didn't allow for that. It would have been just outrageous and would have driven people away from Christ.
Nowadays gender inequality would drive people away from Christ.

However, Make-up, jewelry and short skirts can be too much femaleness. A bishop is not supposed to impress their audience through their appearance, but through their message of God. If that pretty lady's legs distract people from God's message, then she's doing it wrong. However, many women wear business costume skirts in their jobs, and everyone is used seeing that, and she's probably wearing a pastor gown when she's preaching anyway.
 
With all due respect, I just want to understand your perspective.

You are correct, we don't follow Paul, but we do follow Paul's instruction if it is in agreement with Scripture as a whole. I think it is a dangerous prospect to start with the idea that Paul is wrong in what he says. You would be better off saying, "I simply disagree with Paul".

You said earlier,

Grazer said:
Paul was addressing a specific situation at a specific time. We don't know exactly what that was so I think its a little unwise to take that and universally apply it.
Click to expand...

We don't know exactly what what was? The Culture? Actually, we know exactly what situation Paul was writing about because he starts his letter out to Timothy with his purpose.

NIV 1 Timothy 1:3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer
Now then, what filter does Paul use for correct doctrine? He tells us that too.
NIV 1 Timothy 1:11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God,

We see here that all doctrines should conform to the gospel concerning the glory of God.

Obviously there were those who were trying to teach that women could take the role of Bishop. This is contrary to Scripture and Paul is very clear on why and references Creation.

Grazer said:
Women were the first evangelists, Jesus was all about gender equality...
Click to expand...
According to Paul, it was Woman who was first deceived.

We do, however see an example where Aquila and Priscilla both take Apollos aside and teach him about Jesus. But this is not the role of Bishop. Yes, women are to teach and evangelize. Nobody is saying they shouldn't and nobody is saying women shouldn't learn. Paul expressly states, "A woman should learn in quietness" and this is in relation to corporate worship.

Can I ask why you have a problem with what Paul clearly writes? I mean, do you think it belittles a woman? I'm just trying to understand your world view.

Thanks,.
 
reba said:
The bible is the Word of God. Some folks choose not to believe it is the Word.
Click to expand...

Some people chose to believe in it, but not word by word, but by extracting the core message and trying to figure out what God's thought behind it was, and then to apply that idea to our modern and so changed society.
It's not disbelief, it's just a different view of dealing with a millenia old text from a world that was extremely different.
You probably use that method of understanding scripture too when it comes to other questions.
 
Claudia,

There were many successful business women in the Bible. We see Lydia in Acts 16 as an example of a woman who was doing very well as a woman.

That does not negate Scriptures:

1 Corinthians 11:1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

What example does Christ give in this matter?

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Is woman now to be the head of man? According to scripture, it was woman who was deceived, and as for Adam? He gave up his head when he ate that which Eve handed him. That is why Paul writes that woman became the first sinner, but sin and death came through Adam.
 
That passage has to do with what the gospel is, not that women preaching it. Your connection seems to be an assumption that is not based on scripture.

When I hear people say "women cannot be bishops" I hear the voice of the Pharisees. They were big into solid rules and regulations and Jesus ripped them apart and turned a lot of the commands on their head. The bible is a collection of books but the spirit has not stopped working. This maybe taken the wrong way but the bible is not the be all and end all of being a Christian.

Paul references creation as his audience would be familiar with that story but Paul is not always known for being on his best exegetical behaviour. I don't expect Paul to write outside his culture.

But again I ask the question; would Jesus say that someone can't serve him in a particular way because they are a woman?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top