Female Bishops?

[farouk]

Drew: ...but the distinctions of male and female were not created by the Fall. They already existed before the Fall.

(I thought trajectory was a word about bullets ... )

 

[Agape]

The Bible is extremely clear on who can lead. The role of women pastors was not created or ordained by God.

Agreed!

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.

The context of Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that Paul is referring to salvation, not roles in the church.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

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

Paul was writing according to the Holy Spirit and the culture of God.

'and this must surely be taken into account when reading his letters.'

 

[Grazer]

Paul was writing according to the Holy Spirit and the culture of God.

'and this must surely be taken into account when reading his letters.'

And what makes you think that I'm not? Simply because I disagree with Paul? You think God stops moving/inspiring words and thought after Paul? That he only gives words and images that are in the bible and only direct applications of it?

I'm not saying I am but it's interesting that people automatically assume that God isn't driving me on this. As I said, a direct application of Paul is a human theology.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Drew]

Drew: ...but the distinctions of male and female were not created by the Fall. They already existed before the Fall.

(I thought trajectory was a word about bullets ... )

Of course, I realize that the male-female distinction existed before the fall. What I am suggesting, though, is that it was only as a result of the fall that man and woman entered this distorted power relation with men "above" women.

 

[Drew]

The context of Galatians 3:28 makes it clear that Paul is referring to salvation, not roles in the church.

I disagree. Paul is talking about justification, not salvation. Despite widespread misunderstanding, these two terms do not mean the same thing. For Paul, justification is the declaration that one is a member of God's true covenant family. As such, Paul is not simply writing about "going to heaven when you die", he is talking about an entire way of life that covenant family members are to embrace.

And part of that is the dissolution of the old divisions: between Jew and Gentile, between free man and slave, and, yes, between male and female.

 

[Drew]

Paul was writing according to the Holy Spirit and the culture of God.

I think things are not this simple. And, in fact, our failure to understand Paul and his culture have led many in the reformed tradition to radically misunderstand him. I suggest that we do indeed need to understand that Paul was a first century Palestinian Jew, not a 21st century westerner.

It is clearly not plausible to suggest that Paul somehow transcended his culture and wrote as if he was "outside" the constraints and limitations of culture. Paul's message, like all communications is necessarily committed to the cultural terms in which it was written. Words do not "float free" of context and culture, as much as it simplify things if they did.

Let me illustrate one area where this simplification has tripped people up: the use of "end of the world" imagery in the Bible (e.g. Jesus talking about the stars falling to earth and the moon turning blood red, etc., etc.). I will not get into the details here, but it was common practice in the Hebrew culture to use such cosmic imagery to refer to socio-political transformation. We make a massive blunder when we take this language literally. So it is indeed critical to interpret scripture - including the words of Paul - in light of knowledge of the relevant culture.

 

[stovebolts]

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.


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.

Hi Drew,

1. Maybe you could take more than 30 seconds to think about this. As far as I know, women still have pain in childbirth and men still reap thorns wih their hard work. When Paul writes to Timothy, he does this because false teachings have entered the church. As you know through your study in Romans, Paul spirals when he writes. What has Paul already said in the Letter that co-insides with Eve? Your a sharp student, I know you'll get this.

2. Take a look at Genesis 3:15 and see what you think.

From a doctrinal stance, Paul is releasing the stigma of sin associated with women through Eve.

 

[Drew]

As far as I know, women still have pain in childbirth and men still reap thorns wih their hard work.

True, but I politely suggest you are, quite understandibly, making a fundamental error. I suggest it is quite clear that the Scriptures teach that the kingdom of God arrived 2000 years ago and that Jesus is presently a true "political" king over this present material world. Many who do not accept this - even though the Scriptures are quite clear on it - point to the fact that there is still trouble (evil, death, suffering, etc) means that the Kingdom cannot be here now.

Well, in so doing, these people are, whether they realize it or not, assuming that if Jesus is King, all problems will be gone. Not only is that an assumption, it is demonstrably unBiblical - Paul tells us that Jesus must reign until all enemies are defeated. This means, of course, that there will indeed be some undefeated enemies during the reign of Jesus.

Back to women and pain in childbirth (and thorns too): Yes, these things are still with us, but that does not mean that the fall has not been reversed! It takes time for changes that have been achieved in principle to be realized in fact. Did Jesus "defeat the principalities and powers" on the cross? Paul is clear that He did. And yet we still have evil in the world.

The point is this: Yes the consequences of the fall linger, but the fall has been reversed, even though it will take time for this to fully manifest itself.

On the matter of men and women and power relations: When the fall occurred, Genesis tells us that women will, as a result of the fall, be in this kind of sub-servient relation to men:

To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain <SUP class=footnote value='[e]'>[e]</SUP>in childbirth,
In pain you will <SUP class=crossreference value='(Q)'></SUP>bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And <SUP class=crossreference value='(R)'></SUP>he will rule over you.â€

Did or did not Jesus reverse the fall? I am quite confident I can make the case that He did.

In that light, we should expect the consequences of the fall to be "healed" even if, in some cases, it will take time for that to become fully apparent.

We do not have a choice about some consequences of the fall - we still die and there is still evil. But some things we do have a choice about.

We can, as I suggest we should, embrace the reversal of "man ruling over woman" as caused by the fall and elevate women back to their proper horizontal relationship to men - remember the bit about woman coming from man's rib and therefore to be at his side, not under him. Or we can ignore Jesus' accomplishment at the cross and think, erroneously in my view, that the nature of the male-female relationship did not change profoundly at the cross.

I do not understand how the remainder of your post constitutes any kind of counter-argument to this, if that was the intent. Perhaps you can explain.

 

[stovebolts]

True, but I politely suggest you are, quite understandibly, making a fundamental error. I suggest it is quite clear that the Scriptures teach that the kingdom of God arrived 2000 years ago and that Jesus is presently a true "political" king over this present material world. Many who do not accept this - even though the Scriptures are quite clear on it - point to the fact that there is still trouble (evil, death, suffering, etc) means that the Kingdom cannot be here now.

Well, in so doing, these people are, whether they realize it or not, assuming that if Jesus is King, all problems will be gone. Not only is that an assumption, it is demonstrably unBiblical - Paul tells us that Jesus must reign until all enemies are defeated. This means, of course, that there will indeed be some undefeated enemies during the reign of Jesus.

Back to women and pain in childbirth (and thorns too): Yes, these things are still with us, but that does not mean that the fall has not been reversed! It takes time for changes that have been achieved in principle to be realized in fact. Did Jesus "defeat the principalities and powers" on the cross? Paul is clear that He did. And yet we still have evil in the world.

The point is this: Yes the consequences of the fall linger, but the fall has been reversed, even though it will take time for this to fully manifest itself.

Drew,
What you spoke above, I do not disagree with. Having that as the primary theological focus on what Paul is writing I think can be very problematic when trying to address the intent which Paul is trying to convey.

On the matter of men and women and power relations: When the fall occurred, Genesis tells us that women will, as a result of the fall, be in this kind of sub-servient relation to men:

To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain <SUP class=footnote value='[e]'>[e]</SUP>in childbirth,
In pain you will <SUP class=crossreference value='(Q)'></SUP>bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And <SUP class=crossreference value='(R)'></SUP>he will rule over you.”

Did or did not Jesus reverse the fall? I am quite confident I can make the case that He did.

Oh I'm sure you could make that case too Drew. And I'm sure you could give it one heck of a trot. However, I still think you'd be off track simply because it side steps the original intent.

In that light, we should expect the consequences of the fall to be "healed" even if, in some cases, it will take time for that to become fully apparent.

Now your on to something... and it has to do with healing. Healing a stigma that been erroneously assigned to women.

We can, as I suggest we should, embrace the reversal of "man ruling over woman" as caused by the fall and elevate women back to their proper horizontal relationship to men - remember the bit about woman coming from man's rib and therefore to be at his side, not under him. Or we can ignore Jesus' accomplishment at the cross and think, erroneously in my view, that the nature of the male-female relationship did not change profoundly at the cross.

Yet women still desire their husband... and husbands still rule over their wives. I don't think this is the passage Paul was thinking about...

I do not understand how the remainder of your post constitutes any kind of counter-argument to this, if that was the intent. Perhaps you can explain.

You haven't looked at Genesis 3:15 yet and the only counter argument I can give you is I think your going down the wrong theological track.

And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel."

I asked you earlier to apply Paul's writing pattern as he does in Romans. You know what I'm talking about. NT Wright calls it "Spiraling" What has Paul written about earlier in 1st Timothy that ties into what we are talking about?

 

[wayseer]

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.

It wasn't the leadership of the Church that voted against the motion - it was a minority of the laity.

 

[lw9]

Gal 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise

If anyone applies the false logic that women should be ordained because ‘we’re all equal’ from the above types of passage, then why not ordain children who are believers, as well? After all, it says 'male and female', nothing about adults only. Seriously, why not just ordain everyone in the church as pastors so we're all 'equal'?

Funny how this logic always falls apart when you take it to it's natural conclusion.

The whole passage needs to be read, not just part. It’s specifically teaching about the equality of salvation among all believers, no matter what position they hold in life, their sex, or race. It is not a proclamation to go out and ordain women in the church as pastors.

 

[Free]

Gal 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise

If anyone applies the false logic that women should be ordained because ‘we’re all equal’ from the above types of passage, then why not ordain children who are believers, as well? After all, it says 'male and female', nothing about adults only. Seriously, why not just ordain everyone in the church as pastors so we're all 'equal'?

Funny how this logic always falls apart when you take it to it's natural conclusion.

Ordination of children is not a natural conclusion for the same reason that male only ordination does not give grounds for ordination of young boys. Nor would it be a natural conclusion to just ordinate everyone as pastors.

 

[lw9]

Ordination of children is not a natural conclusion for the same reason that male only ordination does not give grounds for ordination of young boys. Nor would it be a natural conclusion to just ordinate everyone as pastors.

Really? Why not. That passage in particular is so often used - and abused - by the pro-female ordination crowd to make their point. Ok, point taken, so let's proceed.

- The passage doesn't define an age limit.
- The passage clearly states we are all sons of God.
- Therefore if I choose to interpret the passage as referring to ordination, I can safely conclude that all within the church can and should be pastors.

Doesn't work out that well for the 'ordination' interpretation, does it. The passage is either -
[A] An all-inclusive call for leadership positions OR
A passage on the equality of salvation.

Pick one because it can't be both.

Now someone could easily counter that the scriptures don't include instructions for or examples of child elders, deacons, pastors within the church, and therefore they are excluded from the 'all-inclusive' statement. Fair enough. By that same logic, neither are there instructions for or examples of female elders, deacons, pastors within the church. Go figure.

 

[wayseer]

- The passage clearly states we are all sons of God.

What - no 'daughters of God'? Poor Paul - free in the Spirit but constrained by patriarchy.

A freudian slip by Paul that should alert us to the power of language.

 

[kb5462]

It wasn't the leadership of the Church that voted against the motion - it was a minority of the laity.

I know. But, with regards to whether women should be bishops or not (not whether the legislation was passed), I trust that my Archbishop, and my future Archbishop, have made the correct decision.

 

[Drew]

Drew,
What you spoke above, I do not disagree with. Having that as the primary theological focus on what Paul is writing I think can be very problematic when trying to address the intent which Paul is trying to convey.

I don't understand your point. Please clarify.

Oh I'm sure you could make that case too Drew. And I'm sure you could give it one heck of a trot. However, I still think you'd be off track simply because it side steps the original intent.

Again, I do not understand your point. My argument is that of the cross, the relationship between men and women is restored to a "horizontal" one. As you will know if you read all my posts, NT Wright asserts that the 1 Timothy text - often used to countenance the denial of church leadership positions to women, is controversial as its exact meaning. I do not have the time to independently confirm his opinion on this. I trust him and will take his word that the 1 Timothy text does not work against the general argument that men and women are now "egual"

 

[Drew]

Now your on to something... and it has to do with healing. Healing a stigma that been erroneously assigned to women.

I do not see what you are getting at. Are you denying that what Jesus did at the cross in a fundamental sense "reversed the curse"? I would not want to try to defend that position. And since the "vertical, man shall rule over woman" position is rather clearly a consequence of the fall, we should probably expect that this has been "undone" as a result of what Jesus does on the cross.

Yet women still desire their husband... and husbands still rule over their wives. I don't think this is the passage Paul was thinking about...

I have already explained why this is not problematic for the position I am arguing for. In fact, this was a central element of my last post.

 

[Drew]

You haven't looked at Genesis 3:15 yet and the only counter argument I can give you is I think your going down the wrong theological track.

I had indeed read Genesis 3:15. How does that text in any sense undermine the notion that the relationship between men and women has been restored to a "horizontal" one. I do not pretend to fully understand that text, but I see it as a prophecy about the future work of Jesus (Eve's ultimate "seed") in defeating evil on the cross. That may be entirely wrong, but I think it behooves you to explain your position on this text,

I asked you earlier to apply Paul's writing pattern as he does in Romans. You know what I'm talking about. NT Wright calls it "Spiraling" What has Paul written about earlier in 1st Timothy that ties into what we are talking about?

Please don't ask me to make your case for you. I agree about "spiralling", but please just give us your case.

 

[Drew]

Gal 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise

If anyone applies the false logic that women should be ordained because ‘we’re all equal’ from the above types of passage, then why not ordain children who are believers, as well? After all, it says 'male and female', nothing about adults only. Seriously, why not just ordain everyone in the church as pastors so we're all 'equal'?

The point is this: It is otherwise clear from Scripture that the fall placed woman "under" man. The fact that that children - with their lack of life experience - are simply never going to qualified to be church leaders has nothing to do with the fall.

The whole passage needs to be read, not just part. It’s specifically teaching about the equality of salvation among all believers, no matter what position they hold in life, their sex, or race. It is not a proclamation to go out and ordain women in the church as pastors.

The word salvation appears nowhere in the text. The subject is justification, not salvation.