Female Bishops?

[jasoncran]

ok, well then if something isnt cultural then. why do then allow 13 year old boys to be taught by women? my church doesnt have women in that age group leading it. if woman arent to teach then should they not be less educated then men on the bible?ie no seminary. and since jeff mentioned this. in orthodox jewry. a woman may not be a rabbi and isnt taught much on the torah. the basics and thats it. they dont know alot.

 

[Grazer]

ok, well then if something isnt cultural then. why do then allow 13 year old boys to be taught by women? my church doesnt have women in that age group leading it. if woman arent to teach then should they not be less educated then men on the bible?ie no seminary. and since jeff mentioned this. in orthodox jewry. a woman may not be a rabbi and isnt taught much on the torah. the basics and thats it. they dont know alot.

I have no issues with women teaching kids. My fiance is currently studying to be a youth worker/pastor. If someone has a gift, they should use it no matter the gender. I really don't think God is really that bothered

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Grazer]

2 N.T. Wright videos on the subject;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaVVXleoAdU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwj287xr0uQ

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Aardverk]

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?

I could be wrong but as I understand it, she is the 'Head' of the Church of England and 'Defender of The Faith' (Anglican Protestantism). I don't think English monarchs have interfered since Henry VIII although there is still a rule of some sort that there can not be a Catholic English monarch.

I doubt the royal family take it very seriously. Prince Charles has already said that he does not intend to be 'Defender of THE Faith' but is happy to be 'a defender of faith' - somewhat different!

 

[stovebolts]

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.

Clauyda,
A woman is very special and deserves to be treated differently than a man. Women give birth to children, that's something no man will every be able to do. Every person on this earth has a mother who carried them in her womb. Your right, you didn't work at being a woman, you simply are.

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?

Relax a bit, I'm speaking of traditional roles of women and men and I am not saying that stay at home Dad's are bad. Listen, I have a good friend who is a stay at home Dad, and I can tell you that he's all man. While he is a loving father, he does not have the nurturing nature of his wife. This is easily observational.

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.

As far as being way to positive about womankind, my wife would disagree with you. Typically I'm an unthoughtfull self centered oof, but I'm working on it... have been for some time now. But as far as the over generalization, scripture states what scripture states. Nowhere will you find anything in scriptures that commands a woman to love her husband. Likewise, nowhere will you find a passage that tells a man to respect his wife. Why is that? On the contrary, Scripture commands a man to love his wife and for a wife to respect her husband. Don't you find it odd that even Scripture does not treat men and women equally in this regard?

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.

Ever heard the saying that respect is earned, not given? This is how most men think and this is why men are commanded to love their wives even when their wives are not lovable, and it's why women are commanded to respect their husbands, even when their husbands are not respectable. Likewise, I have seen the wrath of a woman and there is nothing loving about it either. A woman scorn is a woman every man needs to stay away from. But on the other hand, I've never seen a woman who would die for her husband. Do you recall the Batman theatre masacre? How many women sheltered their men? No, it was the man who died for his girlfriend. It's in our nature to protect to the point where we would die for you and while that may currently sound like something you'd see in a hollywood movie, we have recently seen it happen in real life when Batman opened.

In this regard, men 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.

It is more complex than following some dichotomous variable. Men and women are different in more ways than simply physical. It's deeper than that.

 

[stovebolts]

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.

While I know you were speaking to Reba, how do you omit Paul's link to the creation account since that goes right back to creation and how man and woman are created which is not a cultural issue You have put up some good arguments, but neither yourself or Grazer will engage scripture where scripture is clear. I have an idea why Grazer won't because he believe Genesis to be a simple myth. Do you also believe Genesis is a myth?

 

[Grazer]

While I know you were speaking to Reba, how do you omit Paul's link to the creation account since that goes right back to creation and how man and woman are created which is not a cultural issue You have put up some good arguments, but neither yourself or Grazer will engage scripture where scripture is clear. I have an idea why Grazer won't because he believe Genesis to be a simple myth. Do you also believe Genesis is a myth?

I've never called genesis a simple myth.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[stovebolts]

I've never called genesis a simple myth.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

So how do you take Pauls words in 1st Timothy when he points back to Eve. Was Eve a literal person or was she part of an ancient myth to be used figuratively?

 

[Grazer]

So how do you take Pauls words in 1st Timothy when he points back to Eve. Was Eve a literal person or was she part of an ancient myth to be used figuratively?

At the moment I think Eve is part of the mythical story that is Genesis. I accept Paul probably doesn't see it that way but referring to her doesn't mean she was real or that Paul believed that she was.

I think N.T. Wright maybe onto something regarding women being women

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[stovebolts]

At the moment I think Eve is part of the mythical story that is Genesis. I accept Paul probably doesn't see it that way but referring to her doesn't mean she was real or that Paul believed that she was.

I think N.T. Wright maybe onto something regarding women being women

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Bad theology creates bad doctrines and I have read the "Paul" series by NT. Wright. Most of it was very good by the way. I also have his Theology on Romans. Another excellent work. However, both Paul and Peter believed in a literal Eve and neither would say that it was in any way mythical. That being said, Paul's theology is what is driving Paul's doctrine, but at least you admitted that you believe Genesis is Myth.

 

[stovebolts]

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;

Grazer, what were the promises made to the patriarchs as it relates to what Paul is writing? While your at it, can you tell me what purpose Israel was to play in that role? Please provide scripture. Thanks That should set the stage for the song of Moses below. This will also help you better understand what Paul wrote in Romans 15:1-2.

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

First off, if you go to verse 36, we see "The Lord will vindicate his people and relent concerning his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free".

So we know that it is the Lord who is doing the work. So then, in verse 40, is it Moses or is it the Lord lifting his hand to heaven? It is the Lord. Who then are the enemies? We find that in verse 28 They are a nation without sense, there is no discernment in them.

And what have they done? 32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah. Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness. 33 Their wine is the venom of serpents, the deadly poison of cobras.

Now then, let us look at what Paul quotes: "Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people."

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.

This should not be difficult to discern. That being said, do you believe all men will be saved?

 

[Grazer]

do you believe all men will be saved? - No

 

[stovebolts]

do you believe all men will be saved? - No

Is it wrong then to find comfort knowing that those who have become hardened and have caused blatant and great harm to you and your loved ones, will one day be held accountable for their wrongs?

I believe the passage above is saying that God's people should focus on their task (being a light) knowing that God will take care of the rest of it because the reality is simply that there are bad people in this world who desire to do bad things. God's got out back, so we can focus on what's truly important because it is God's desire that all men be saved. We are his Body, and that is our task... one soul at a time.

 

[bhayes]

If its in the bible how can it be wrong?

 

[jasoncran]

I have no issues with women teaching kids. My fiance is currently studying to be a youth worker/pastor. If someone has a gift, they should use it no matter the gender. I really don't think God is really that bothered

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

well i ask, why then does the YHWH portray himself as male? he uses male features and masculinity to make his point then ordains only males to do the service in the temple. yes in jewry women did teach but that is really rare. so rare that is only once mentioned. to jeff look up the sages. one of them is a female. about the time of hillel. interesting read. that said. he could have used the torah to change that. he didnt.

look i have been under a woman pastor but from expercience. im better at reaching nathan and understand him then his mother because I understand him. His momma babies him.if i had my way. He would be driving my ranger at 12. she said no.

that is off topic that said.i can go either way but i prefer male leadership.

 

[Grazer]

well i ask, why then does the YHWH portray himself as male? he uses male features and masculinity to make his point then ordains only males to do the service in the temple. yes in jewry women did teach but that is really rare. so rare that is only once mentioned. to jeff look up the sages. one of them is a female. about the time of hillel. interesting read. that said. he could have used the torah to change that. he didnt.

look i have been under a woman pastor but from expercience. im better at reaching nathan and understand him then his mother because I understand him. His momma babies him.if i had my way. He would be driving my ranger at 12. she said no.

that is off topic that said.i can go either way but i prefer male leadership.

I've been under men and women pastorship and I prefer both.

If I've understood N.T. Wright correctly, women were ordained in the early church.

I'm sure Paul and I will have several interesting discussions when I meet him

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Grazer]

Another N.T. Wright video which touches on this subject

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaVVXleoAdU

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Claudya]

I'm sure Paul and I will have several interesting discussions when I meet him

I'd sure like to watch that discussion.

 

[jasoncran]

nt wright? no thanks. paul was a pharisee and would know of the sage that i mentioned since he likely either met her or knew of her.

nt wright, believes that the YHWH of the ot is somehow meaner then the YHWH or jesus of today. YHWH is well assiocated with grace and mercy. hmm and well Jesus also judges and warns of server punishment. epic fail.

the problem i have with that is that you would have to allow for a woman to be over the man in a marriage. that is kind a hard and ignore this verse
if a man desires to be a bishop then he must be a man of one wife.

a bishop cant be a polygamist nor can he be a woman in that context. its clear rendering doenst allow it. my church allows female pastors but no female bishops

 

[Grazer]

I don't have to allow for a woman to rule over a man in marriage just to allow female bishops.

As for N.T. Wright, I'm assuming then you haven't watched the videos and missed his point about women being mentioned as church leaders by Paul in Romans?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2