Female Bishops?

[Grazer]

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.

Very well put. To use a phrase I picked up from a podcast, its about trajectory.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[reba]

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

I would think so, Paul and Peter served differently. male and female we have different roles..... different is just that, different...not better or above not any of those kind of words just different..... A dog can not be a cat, a cat cant be a dog they are different.

 

[reba]

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.

Glazer sees this post as "Very well put"

I see it as a devaluing a watering down of God's Word.

Some day we will know and maybe it wont matter.... Salvation is between you/me and the Lord!

 

[stovebolts]

Grazer,
Now were tapping into the root of your beliefs.

You do know that Paul was a Pharisees didn't you? BTW, Festus even understood that Paul was a great man of learning (Acts 26:24). But actually, if you look at the thrust of the Pharisees, you'll find out that they were biblically based on Deuteronomy 28. It's about Blessing and Curses. Simply put, do what God wants, and you'll be blessed. Disobey God, and you'll be cursed. Under Roman occupancy, you could say that Israel was being cursed and the scriptures told why. But to your point, it's not that the Pharisees were wrong, they simply put the focus of the Law on the wrong items. Now then, are you saying that Paul was acting as a Pharisee when he wrote those words to Timothy? Point blank, was Paul wrong in his interpretation of Genesis 3?

I understand that you don't take the Creation account literally, but Paul certainly did and I don't think that show's poor exegetical behavior. Neither does it negate that the narrative clearly states that Eve was deceived.

As far as your question, "would Jesus say that someone can't serve him in a particular way because they are a woman?"

I would say that Jesus would have sided with Torah.

Exodus 19:3. Moses ascended to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, "So shall you say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel,

We know that the Nation of Israel is one nation. So why does God tell Moses to say to the house of Jacob first, then tell the son's of Israel. I'm assuming you understand that Jacob was given the new name Israel.

In Jewish thought, one received the very essence of who they were through their mother. That is why when a Jewish gal and a gentile man marry, the child is considered Jewish. When a gentile gal marries a Jewish man, the child must go through conversion. Why is this? Because the essence of ones soul comes from the woman, while the identity comes from one's father. Also, is a woman from one tribe marries a guy from a different tribe, the child takes on the identity of the Fathers tribe. This is why Jesus can be called the son of man, because his essence came from a woman, but his identity (deity) came from his Father. So you see, the essence was Jacob, yet the identity was with Israel. Are you born again? What is your essence and what is your identity.... wait, don't answer that, we need not start skipping around.

So lets step back to the Exodus verse. The house of Jacob are the women while the sons of Israel are the men. We see here very clearly that women are no way inferior to men. Actually, they are superior in that sense. Why? Because the woman raise the children. By nature, woman are loving and caring and are nurturing. They have a fantastic role in the church because of their very nature as women. Put it this way, Paul even says to Timothy: 2 Timothy 1:5 I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also.

Lets look at this a little closer.

"So shall you say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel,

You say things to women, but you tell the men. If you say something to a man, he will often disregard it. If you tell something to a man, he will remember it. Why? Because it's in our nature.

 

[Claudya]

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.

Yeah, but we're speaking about spiritual leadership, not about earthly success, aren't we?

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.

Note that he's speaking about "traditions"?
No doubt there is a long tradition of gender inequality all throughout mankind's history. No doubt that what Paul said seemed logical and right to him, because he knew nothing else.
He also says it's in our nature to consider long hair on a man a disgrace to him. (1. Cor 11:14) but we know it's not nature, but culture (much of the first part of 1 Cor 11 seems to be like that). Nowadays it's become common for men to have long hair, and it's not a disgrace at all (I rather like it ).
So Paul is speaking his opinion here instead of relaying a direct message from God. He claims something he's used to is nature that is not. It's a mistake people make often. It's Paul's human-ness.
But it's good he did it, because, as I said, equality would have been too revolutionary at that time and would have blown the young church away.

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 is why Paul writes that woman became the first sinner, but sin and death came through Adam.

I'm all for equality: nobody is the head of noone. Everyone is responsible for themselves and for everyone else. A male pastor isn't my head just because he is male or because he is a pastor. And no man should feel like a female pastor is their head.
However, God has given the spirit of leadership to people of both genders. Why would he want half of them to forgo the use of that gift?

As for the Adam and Eve story, no idea what to make of that, because I never understood that to be a literal report. It seems to be much more of a metaphor.
But since both Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they have sinned equally and none of them is more guilty than the other. Maybe if the serpent had found Adam first the story would have been the other way around.
Also, sin is "inherited" by both genders the same way. So which of the two first humans sinned first doesn't matter, because both men and women inherit the whole package of sinfullness.
If there's some flaw in the nature of women that caused Eve to be more susceptible to the serpent's deception than Adam, then God created a flawed being (Eve) in the first place. So was a part of God's earthly creation flawed even before the first sin?

 

[stovebolts]

Claudya,

Yes, Paulis speaking of spirritual leadership... what example of Jesus can you cite where a woman takes the spiritual leadership role? Please know that I am not deminishing the role of women. I am exhalting it.

Eziekeil 18 is clear that we inherit sin. No, we are responsible and accountable for our own sin regardless if we are born into a world rife with sin. And no, adam and eve were not created flawed. God said that all of creation was very good. Note. Good doesn't mean perfect. And yeah, I believe in freewill.

I believe it is numbers 15 that talks about sin. There is sin that occurs because of ignorance and sin that occurs in deffiance. Eve was decieved and the penalty for that is different than sin by way of defiance. Matthew 18 tells us to cast out the man who remains deiant, so is it a surprise that sin and death came through Adam, and adam was ousted from the garden?

Back to Paul. Man is the head of woman. And that does not speak to equality. Should we thinkbourselves equal to Jesus?

 

[stovebolts]

Just want to say I will be gone till tomorrow. Sorry for the above spelling errors as I don't do well posting from my phone.

 

[Carolyn]

I believe that all of the Bible is God inspired using the the personality and gifts of the writer to convey His message. PAUL expressly states when he is voicing his own opinion versus when the Spirit of God is speaking . SO WHILE God has stated that women should not teach or have authority over men, and we should take this very literally, I would not limit God. I KNOW of one situation in which the pastor of a small independent church died and non of the elders was able to take over the pulpit till a permanent replacement could be found. THEY ELECTED TO ASK HIS WIDOW, a Godly woman who was equally trained, to be the interim pastor. SHE ACTED IN THAT CAPACITY for nearly a year. I recall that in the OT God used a woman to be one of Israel's judges when no man could be found. SO I would not want to limit God. BUT this would be the rare exception.
All said, I would not choose to attend a church with a female pastor and definite believe that the Anglican church is defying Gods Word should they choose a female bishop. THERE must be a Godly Bible believing man in all of a church of that size who would be qualified by the Bibles parameters.

 

[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).

 

[stovebolts]

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).

Women are to be exalted. Unfortunately I've heard people use the above passages from Timothy to oppress women. To them, I would say they are in gross error. Women hold a significant role in the Church and they should always be valued and cherished. Women are not second hand citizens in the Church. I would add that while they are not equal to men, that does not elevate man above the woman. It simply means we have different roles.

It's like a modern day stay at home Dad. The mother has a more nurturing nature than the man and that's what a child needs. It's not about equality, it's about how God designed us.

To make my point. Scriptures commands a woman to respect a man, and it commands that a man love his wife. Why doesn't scripture command women to love their husbands? Simple, because you don't have to command something that comes naturally to a woman. In like, men are not commanded to respect their wives because respect is our native tongue. In this regard, mean and women are not equal. We were created differently and as such, we are suited for the appropriate roles.

 

[Claudya]

Glazer sees this post as "Very well put"
I see it as a devaluing a watering down of God's Word.

It's just different way of dealing with it. I would never want to devalue God or his word, NEVER.
But I do see the danger of getting it stuck in a past age, and thereby killing it. That would be the greatest possible devaluation of it.

Some day we will know and maybe it wont matter.... Salvation is between you/me and the Lord!

Geez I soooo hope it won't matter!! If our salvation depends on whether we chose the exact right way of interpreting the Bible most of us will be lost.

 

[loopy]

oooooooooo. hot subject. nice quote. you are right. women were given the first call to evangelize. jesus' whole life was revolutionary for women. once the church was institutionalized under emperor constantine, the body of Christ went backward. i have actually written an entire book about this. while it is for sale, i am not trying to shamelessly plug it, but you can get a lengthy taste of it for free. i point you to it, because you might find it useful! it says everything that is too lengthy to cover here! but if you do like it, let me know, and we can discuss it and i can tell you more! check it out at Link edited by staff. Must have 20 posts to post links. it is called what every woman should know.

 

[Claudya]

Women are to be exalted.

Really? Why?
I wouldn't want any exaltation because of my gender. It's nothing I worked for or so. I just got that by birth (or by conception actually) just like you got yours. So there's no reason for special treatment. It would be a very undeserved special treatment - and undeserved special treatment feels wrong.
There's slightly more male than female humans on earth, but it's only like 5% difference, so no reason to think of women as a rare special case.

It's like a modern day stay at home Dad. The mother has a more nurturing nature than the man and that's what a child needs. It's not about equality, it's about how God designed us.

Hm, so regardless of the personalities, talents, wishes or needs of both parents they should follow some rigid roles, even if it makes both of them unhappy? (And the child will sense if its parents are unhappy.) Because some individual men and women just aren't typical instances of their gender's stereotype.

Or would the parents' unhappiness with the traditional roles be a sign of their distance from God? Or a disobedience?

To make my point. Scriptures commands a woman to respect a man, and it commands that a man love his wife. Why doesn't scripture command women to love their husbands? Simple, because you don't have to command something that comes naturally to a woman.

You think way too positive about womankind.
Also you are doing an overgeneralization.

In like, men are not commanded to respect their wives because respect is our native tongue.

Well that would be great, but I have seen men commit such great disrespect against fellow humans (of both genders) that it just can't be true.
And again it's an overgeneralization.
Maybe you are a very respectful person. Hopefully you are. :yes

In this regard, mean and women are not equal. We were created differently and as such, we are suited for the appropriate roles.

There's not just gender... there's also intelligence, personality, personal interests, spiritual gifts, and many other things. Why would only one variable out of so many determine what roles we are to take? God's thinking should be more complex than just following a dichotomous variable.

 

[Nick]

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

There's a problem with this line of thinking.

I trust we can all agree that Paul is being quite clear in what he is saying. I believe we can all agree that Paul is saying that women must not teach or have authority over a man in a corporate setting.

I gather the difference is whether what Paul is teaching is cultural to that time period and/or that church, or that Paul is teaching all those who will one day read the Bible and treat is as a God-breathed text to which we are to model our lives on.

My point is that the problem with picking the women in the church thing as a cultural thing is how do you decide that is a cultural thing and other things the Apostles or taught are things we can apply to today and therefore are not specific to Biblical times.

You cannot pick and choose what suits. Paul is very clear and provides an argument going back to Genesis.

How about what Paul says in Epheisians about wives and husbands? Is that cultural too, or has the Godl-ordained insitute of marriage changed in the past 2,000 years in the eyes of God?

 

[Grazer]

There's a problem with this line of thinking.

I trust we can all agree that Paul is being quite clear in what he is saying. I believe we can all agree that Paul is saying that women must not teach or have authority over a man in a corporate setting.

I gather the difference is whether what Paul is teaching is cultural to that time period and/or that church, or that Paul is teaching all those who will one day read the Bible and treat is as a God-breathed text to which we are to model our lives on.

My point is that the problem with picking the women in the church thing as a cultural thing is how do you decide that is a cultural thing and other things the Apostles or taught are things we can apply to today and therefore are not specific to Biblical times.

You cannot pick and choose what suits. Paul is very clear and provides an argument going back to Genesis.

How about what Paul says in Epheisians about wives and husbands? Is that cultural too, or has the Godl-ordained insitute of marriage changed in the past 2,000 years in the eyes of God?

I'm not saying its solely a culture issue but it surely must play a part in understanding the text and applying it. I'm assuming you don't endorse slavery yet the bible doesn't condemn it or say it should be abolished. We all pick and choose scripture whether we want to admit it or not.

As I pointed out earlier, Paul was known for using the old testament out of context and changing the meaning of passages (the way he handles Deuteronomy in Romans for example) so he can argue back from genesis doesn't make him right. He also used the old testament to justify violence against Christians before he came to Christ.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Grazer]

The resolution was not passed as the yes vote was short of 6 votes. The majority voted yes but the motion could not be passed due to the rules of their voting. The nos won on a technicality.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20421576

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Nick]

I'm not saying its solely a culture issue but it surely must play a part in understanding the text and applying it. I'm assuming you don't endorse slavery yet the bible doesn't condemn it or say it should be abolished. We all pick and choose scripture whether we want to admit it or not.

I'm not saying I don't pick and choose. I try hard no to. When you see me picking and choosing then please call me out on it.

Your comparision to slavery is misleading and is comparing apples with oranges. True, the Bible does not condem slavery. The NT only mentions how it is to be handled. I never got the impression the Bible had a strong view on slavery at all. In any case, slavery back then is different to "modern day" slavery discourse.

However, what Paul is saying about women's role in a corporate worship settting is very clear.

As I pointed out earlier, Paul was known for using the old testament out of context and changing the meaning of passages (the way he handles Deuteronomy in Romans for example) so he can argue back from genesis doesn't make him right. He also used the old testament to justify violence against Christians before he came to Christ.

Really? I've never heard of that before.

And by whom was he well known for taking passages out of context?

The key is "before he came to Christ. That's right. Before he had the Spirit who guides our understaning of scripture. Before he became an Apostle and wrote Scriptures breathed out by God.

To assert that Paul's writings in the Bible are not correct interpretations of God's Word is to deny the inspiration of God's Word itself.

 

[Grazer]

I'm not saying I don't pick and choose. I try hard no to. When you see me picking and choosing then please call me out on it.

Your comparision to slavery is misleading and is comparing apples with oranges. True, the Bible does not condem slavery. The NT only mentions how it is to be handled. I never got the impression the Bible had a strong view on slavery at all. In any case, slavery back then is different to "modern day" slavery discourse.

However, what Paul is saying about women's role in a corporate worship settting is very clear.


Really? I've never heard of that before.

And by whom was he well known for taking passages out of context?

The key is "before he came to Christ. That's right. Before he had the Spirit who guides our understaning of scripture. Before he became an Apostle and wrote Scriptures breathed out by God.

To assert that Paul's writings in the Bible are not correct interpretations of God's Word is to deny the inspiration of God's Word itself.

No it really isn't. Let me give the example I used;

Romans 15:7-10 NIV

Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed and, moreover, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written:
"Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
I will sing the praises of your name." Again, it says,
"Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people."

The context here is Paul saying Jews and gentiles are equal and it's all peace and love. Verse 10 is taken from Deuteronomy and the passage is below;

Deuteronomy 32:40-43 NIV

I lift my hand to heaven and solemnly swear:
As surely as I live forever, when I sharpen my flashing sword
and my hand grasps it in judgment,
I will take vengeance on my adversaries
and repay those who hate me. I will make my arrows drunk with blood,
while my sword devours flesh:
the blood of the slain and the captives,
the heads of the enemy leaders." Rejoice, you nations, with his people,
for he will avenge the blood of his servants;
he will take vengeance on his enemies
and make atonement for his land and people.

It's about killing enemies in the name of God. Paul has completely changed the context of the passage to make a point. How do we then approach not just the old testament but the new testament including Paul's letters? If Paul can do that, under the guidance of the spirit, why can't we do the same?


Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Grazer]

Not sure how true this is but the supreme governor of the Church is a woman - the Queen apparently.

It won't have women bishops but is happy with this?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mike]

It's pretty much normal in my denomination (Lutheran) to have female pastors and bishops.

I don't mean this to sound "prideful" of my church or to be divisive, and I certainly mean no disrespect. I'm just clarifying. Are you in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America? I'm in the Missouri Synod, and we would not consider this. As far as I know, women in such a position has never even been voted on at a synodical conference.

The rest of this isn't directed at you per sec. There are teachings in scripture that go against our cultural times, and we have to decide if it is more important to follow the Word strictly or look at issues with a wide scriptural lens.

When someone says Paul was writing for his time and place, is it possible that our time and place creates the obstacle rather than Paul's? Could we be influenced by our culture to the point that scripture seems in conflict with the nature of God when it in fact is not?

We can speculate that Jesus wouldn't reject someone for this position in His Church based on gender, but if we believe ALL scripture is God-Breathed we can see it very clearly in scripture that women should not.

This needn't be something that divides the Church, but I believe it's indicative of an overall liberal view of scripture.