Female Bishops?

[Rollo Tamasi]

Romans 16:7 - greet Andronicus and Junias (Junia, a lady), my relatives who have been in prison with me. they are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before i was.

here is a women that is worthy of being mentioned among the apostles. i can't think of a higher honor for anyone to receive.

 

[Nick]

grazer ignores that my pastor and demonation allows female pastors.i will ask on how that can be.

We allow female pastors as well, but they only pastorthe women. And we would never have a female bishop.

 

[Eugene]

I just posted a thread "Woman's Official Place" in Bible Study personal blogs for any interested in a further study of this subject.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=47891

 

[jasoncran]

We allow female pastors as well, but they only pastorthe women. And we would never have a female bishop.

thanks you reminded me. we do allow them over the flock. both sexes. the only i know of is an evangelist

 

[Grazer]

I've been in churches with women priests, vicars, pastors; all ministering to both sexes. Having female bishops is simply the next step.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Nick]

I've been in churches with women priests, vicars, pastors; all ministering to both sexes. Having female bishops is simply the next step.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

The next step in what? Straying from Biblical roles?

 

[Grazer]

The next step in what? Straying from Biblical roles?

Are we straying from biblical roles though? There's plenty of doubt over what Paul meant in Timothy, women were in high positions in the early church as Paul alludes to, the first people to spread the gospel were women. If women can be pastors, they can be bishops.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Kaliani]

Those who are anti-female bishops will quote the scripture where women are not suffered to teach.

Those who are pro-female bishops will quote the scripture that in Christ there is no male or female.

Can the two sides ever be reconciled by the Bible when both claim, no, boast Biblical support?

Is this not the Animal Farm situation where all (scriptures) are equal but some are more equal than others?

If scriptures don't seem to agree, how then can Christians

 

[Aardverk]

Those who are anti-female bishops will quote the scripture where women are not suffered to teach.

Those who are pro-female bishops will quote the scripture that in Christ there is no male or female.

Can the two sides ever be reconciled by the Bible when both claim, no, boast Biblical support?

Is this not the Animal Farm situation where all (scriptures) are equal but some are more equal than others?

If scriptures don't seem to agree, how then can Christians

You are one bright lady!

I do hope someone takes up your challenge Kaliani :yes Come on someone - challenge her ;)

 

[stovebolts]

Those who are anti-female bishops will quote the scripture where women are not suffered to teach.

Those who are pro-female bishops will quote the scripture that in Christ there is no male or female.

Can the two sides ever be reconciled by the Bible when both claim, no, boast Biblical support?

Is this not the Animal Farm situation where all (scriptures) are equal but some are more equal than others?

If scriptures don't seem to agree, how then can Christians

There is a precedence in scripture where one command outweighs another. Does one circumcise on the Sabbath? Each scripture has it's place in the whole and calls for discernment. Another example is when Satan tried to tempt Jesus. Please note how even Satan uses scripture.

Matthew 4:6-7 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Again, it's about discernment. Something we seem to be lacking at times. We want things to be clear... Black and White until we decide we don't want to submit, and in turn we try and wiggle our way out by scriptural manipulation to fit our desires.

Submitting to God's will can be difficult. It means putting off the influences of this world, and submitting to how God created us to live.

 

[Aardverk]

....... and calls for discernment. ........ Again, it's about discernment......... Something we seem to be lacking at times. .......

The problem is, one man's discernment is the next man's delusion. I've lost track of the number of times I have heard people seek to justify their opinion as 'discernment'.

 

[Drew]

I believe that it is probably a good thing to have women bishops. And I think such a position is scriptural.

From NT Wright (I add emphasis)

So what is the real argument? The other lie to nail is that people who “believe in the Bible†or who “take it literally†will oppose women’s ordination. Rubbish. Yes, I Timothy ii is usually taken as refusing to allow women to teach men. But serious scholars disagree on the actual meaning, as the key Greek words occur nowhere else. That, in any case, is not where to start.

All Christian ministry begins with the announcement that Jesus has been raised from the dead. And Jesus entrusted that task, first of all, not to Peter, James, or John, but to Mary Magdalene. Part of the point of the new creation launched at Easter was the transformation of roles and vocations: from Jews-only to worldwide, from monoglot to multilingual (think of Pentecost), and from male-only leadership to male and female together.

Within a few decades, Paul was sending greetings to friends including an “apostle†called Junia (Romans xvi, 7). He entrusted that letter to a “deacon†called Phoebe whose work was taking her to Rome. The letter-bearer would normally be the one to read it out to the recipients and explain its contents. The first expositor of Paul’s greatest letter was an ordained travelling businesswoman.

The resurrection of Jesus is the only Christian guide to the question of where history is going. Unlike the ambiguous “progress†of the Enlightenment, it is full of promise — especially the promise of transformed gender roles.

The promise of new creation, symbolised by the role of Mary Magdalene in the Easter stories, is the reality.

I politely suggest that as long as we fail to scripture as the story of an evolving, transformative project of redemption, we will continue to fall into the trap of imagining that the Bible is a collection of timeless truths. Its not that simple, even though many stumble over this issue, making errors like the following:

1. Believing the Law of Moses is still in force;

2. Believing that ethnic Israel is still somehow a "special" people, set apart unto God;

3. Believing that since God countenanced war in the Old Testament, its acceptable for us to do likewise now.

 

[Kaliani]

Before Jesus arrived on the scene, God apparently had grudgingly bent the rules of divorce in order to accommodate the Israelites' hardness of heart.

If the word of God could actually temporarily accommodate people's stiff necks regarding divorce, really, why would it not likewise temporarily accommodate people's stiff necks regarding the role of women?

 

[farouk]

K:

So you're claiming that those who lead in the church can convincingly say: 'You must believe me when I say I have bent what God said, because of my hardness of heart" ?

 

[stovebolts]

Before Jesus arrived on the scene, God apparently had grudgingly bent the rules of divorce in order to accommodate the Israelites' hardness of heart.

If the word of God could actually temporarily accommodate people's stiff necks regarding divorce, really, why would it not likewise temporarily accommodate people's stiff necks regarding the role of women?

Why do "non-christian" always try to pile up the arguments? I mean, why add in divorce... Will be talking about slavery next? Perhaps it's because I've been on this forum for so long that I take your bunny hoping around the matter in conjunction with not specifically replying to my original response as a means of trolling.

 

[stovebolts]

K:

So you're claiming that those who lead in the church can convincingly say: 'You must believe me when I say I have bent what God said, because of my hardness of heart" ?

farouk,
What does that have to do with the topic at hand?....

 

[stovebolts]

The problem is, one man's discernment is the next man's delusion. I've lost track of the number of times I have heard people seek to justify their opinion as 'discernment'.

Sure, and that's because they base their morality on feelings and opinions. While I understand your point, can you please tell me where I've failed to discern the matter in my last post? Was the content of my last post clear and articulate? Do more examples need to be expressed? Do you disagree with the examples or content in my last post?

Thanks!

 

[stovebolts]

I believe that it is probably a good thing to have women bishops. And I think such a position is scriptural.

From NT Wright (I add emphasis)

So what is the real argument? The other lie to nail is that people who “believe in the Bible” or who “take it literally” will oppose women’s ordination. Rubbish. Yes, I Timothy ii is usually taken as refusing to allow women to teach men. But serious scholars disagree on the actual meaning, as the key Greek words occur nowhere else. That, in any case, is not where to start.

All Christian ministry begins with the announcement that Jesus has been raised from the dead. And Jesus entrusted that task, first of all, not to Peter, James, or John, but to Mary Magdalene. Part of the point of the new creation launched at Easter was the transformation of roles and vocations: from Jews-only to worldwide, from monoglot to multilingual (think of Pentecost), and from male-only leadership to male and female together.

Within a few decades, Paul was sending greetings to friends including an “apostle” called Junia (Romans xvi, 7). He entrusted that letter to a “deacon” called Phoebe whose work was taking her to Rome. The letter-bearer would normally be the one to read it out to the recipients and explain its contents. The first expositor of Paul’s greatest letter was an ordained travelling businesswoman.

The resurrection of Jesus is the only Christian guide to the question of where history is going. Unlike the ambiguous “progress” of the Enlightenment, it is full of promise — especially the promise of transformed gender roles.

The promise of new creation, symbolised by the role of Mary Magdalene in the Easter stories, is the reality.

I politely suggest that as long as we fail to scripture as the story of an evolving, transformative project of redemption, we will continue to fall into the trap of imagining that the Bible is a collection of timeless truths. Its not that simple, even though many stumble over this issue, making errors like the following:

1. Believing the Law of Moses is still in force;

2. Believing that ethnic Israel is still somehow a "special" people, set apart unto God;

3. Believing that since God countenanced war in the Old Testament, its acceptable for us to do likewise now.

Drew,
This is not simply about allowing a woman to teach a man. It is about the role of the man in a leadership role as Bishop within the church. Nobody said a woman can't teach... Actually, I can show a handful of passages that show women teaching.

 

[wayseer]

K:

So you're claiming that those who lead in the church can convincingly say: 'You must believe me when I say I have bent what God said, because of my hardness of heart" ?

Exactly - the Church has done this consistently over two millennia.

The first law abolished was to do away with the prohibition against remarriage.

So Yes, the lesser of two evils is probably better.

Whatever theological arguments that can be asserted against women become bishops pales in light of 21st century social imperatives.

Do you really expect to be taken seriously if you advocated for the reintroduction of slavery?

 

[farouk]

Exactly - the Church has done this consistently over two millennia.

The first law abolished was to do away with the prohibition against remarriage.

So Yes, the lesser of two evils is probably better.

Whatever theological arguments that can be asserted against women become bishops pales in light of 21st century social imperatives.

Do you really expect to be taken seriously if you advocated for the reintroduction of slavery?

So what you're advocating is eisegesis rather than exegesis of what the New Testament says about the matter.

Re. your last sentence: Apples and oranges.