Recent Church of England ruiling to allow Woman bishops. (Open Discussion)

Run_to_da_hills

Women as church ministers, Is it Biblical? The recent vote within the Church of England to allow women as Bishops has been attacked by the Roman Catholic Church as an obstacle of reconciliation. Last May, the Vatican issued a decree which vowed to punish attempts in the Roman Catholic Church to ordain women priests with automatic excommunication.

Is it just the Catholic Church that would be opposed to this? There are many Fundamentalist Christian churches throughout the country that would be equally opposed just from reading the following scripture.

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church". 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"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" 1st Timothy 2:11-14,

What is the general opinion on this?

philologos

It's a crucial question, but did Miriam have the authority to be a prophetess and question Moses? Did Priscilla have the right to teach with Acquilla? Did Paul say that women were truly equal to men?

fitz0

I say theye should be allowed and the Vatican is plain worng and narrow-minded to voice any sort of disapproval. They have subjugated women for centuries (though I suppose all religions have done that) Since women are just as devoted ot their god as any man why shouldnt they be allowed to preach the same stuff?

PDN

I have no problem with women in ministry.

philologos

PDN wrote: »

I have no problem with women in ministry.

What do you think Paul meant by those two verses that RTDH has mentioned?

Fanny Cradock

No problems with it myself.

JCB

It's an interesting question, but I can understand why the Catholic Church would oppose the measure and view it as a block to reconciliation.

Are the Bishops in the CoE supposed to have apostolic succession and possess the gifts of the spirit?

Considering that none of Jesus' apostles appointed with these gifts were women then I'm not sure if the Church has authority to pass on does gifts to women without further revelation.

It certainly breaks with the early church tradition and could be seen as a revisionist measure.

I think it is unfair to label the church discriminatory in this fashion, if Jesus had women apostles and the first church had women priests then this wouldn't be an issue.

If CoE bishops are only teachers - with no gifts of succession - then I fail to see what the problem is.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think Paul meant by those two verses that RTDH has mentioned?

The 1 Corinthians quote, I believe, refers to the practice of women being seated on a different side of the church from the men. Since very few women were educated at the time there was a danger they would not understand something in the sermon and so would shout across to their husbands. Paul was telling them to keep quiet and to ask their husbands when they got home. Certainly it cannot be a command for women to keep perfectly silent in church, for in the same letter Paul gives instructions to be followed when a woman prophesies in church.

The second quote, from 1 Timothy, is rooted in Paul's understanding of Genesis - not in culture. Eve was deceived, but Adam deliberately chose to sin, therefore being more culpable. Now, why would it be significant that Adam was created prior to Eve? Certainly being created earlier does not imply authority - for the animals were created before Adam. Could it be that Eve's later creation meant she lacked enough knowledge or life experience to discern the serpent's evil intent? That may equate to Timothy's situation where women lacked education. Therefore, until the status, and education, of women improved it would be dangerous to allow them in leadership or teaching positions. As Christianity improved the status and education of women this temporary state of affairs was rectified.

But of course I may well be totally wrong.

Fanny Cradock

JCB wrote: »

Considering that none of Jesus' apostles appointed with these gifts were women then I'm not sure if the Church has authority to pass on does gifts to women without further revelation.

Just a couple of things. Firstly,there were no Chinese, professional footballers or (presumably) read heads amongst the apostles. My observation is that you are placing too much emphasis on what wasn't found then and not enough on what has been found. Does that make sense? Secondly, surely it is not the churches place nor within their ability to appoint such gifts.

JCB

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Just a couple of things. Firstly,there were no Chinese, professional footballers or (presumably) read heads amongst the apostles. My observation is that you are placing too much emphasis on what wasn't found then and not enough on what has been found. Does that make sense? Secondly, surely it is not the churches place nor within their ability to appoint such gifts.

Are nationalities or professional footballs of human or God's creation, though?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The 1 Corinthians quote, I believe, refers to the practice of women being seated on a different side of the church from the men. Since very few women were educated at the time there was a danger they would not understand something in the sermon and so would shout across to their husbands. Paul was telling them to keep quiet and to ask their husbands when they got home.

Do you really think it's likely that a woman would shout some theological question from one side to the other of a crowded building when a man in a position of authority was speaking?

PDN wrote: »

Certainly it cannot be a command for women to keep perfectly silent in church, for in the same letter Paul gives instructions to be followed when a woman prophesies in church.

A woman prophesying? I can't recall this bit offhand -- where exactly is it?

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Do you really think it's likely that a woman would shout some theological question from one side to the other of a crowded building when a man in a position of authority was speaking?

Well, certainly in some the the moderate to liberal Evangelical traditions it wouldn't at all be uncommon for the audience to shout out interjections. With this in mind, it doesn't seem an impossibility to imagine that 'cruder' utterances went on in a newly established church that was probably a little rough around the edges by our standards. After all, it's not like these early Christians had a friendly local Anglican Minister knocking around to remind them about church etiquette.

JCB wrote: »

Are nationalities or professional footballs of human or God's creation, though?

What about red heads? I understand your point. However I just don't see how your argument (i.e. none of the apostles with spiritual gifts were women...) could be considered anything other than an argument from silence. Still, you are welcome to you opinion.

JCB

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What about red heads? I understand your point. However I just don't see how your argument (i.e. none of the apostles with spiritual gifts were women...) could be considered anything other than an argument from silence. Still, you are welcome to you opinion.

What about them? Unless you hold young earth creationism then it red hair is a evolutionist byproduct, like skin colour. Gender, i'd hope we recognise is more fundamental than that.

All I can say on the matter is that Jesus did not part His gifts onto His women followers, tmk, and if there is a priesthood with gifts parted from Jesus, then they must maintain the fundamental distinction that Jesus made.

Fanny Cradock

Lets not bring evolution into this. If you dismiss read hair because it was a result of evolution I wonder if I could do the same for gender in humans? Really, this line of reasoning leads to madnesssss.

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

Gosh, Robin just became a Christian:D

JCB wrote:

I can say on the matter is that Jesus did not part His gifts onto His women followers, tmk, and if there is a priesthood with gifts parted from Jesus, then they must maintain the fundamental distinction that Jesus made.

Ah, and Mary Magdalen? She appears to be quite important, but would the people of that time accept her if she to received the gifts too. Probably not, so maybe they were passed to her in secret.

I have always felt that one of the biggest obstacle to accepting the authority of bodies like the Catholic Church and their involvement in how I live my life was this issue of women and their right to hold office. It was one of the major deciding factors for me in turning away from Catholicism. Could never understand it. That is why I do have a lot of respect for those branches of Christianity that for go celibacy. At lest they have a more rounded picture of family life and are imo better equipped to deal with the needs of their flock.

JCB

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Lets not bring evolution into this. If you dismiss read hair because it was a result of evolution I wonder if I could do the same for gender in humans? Really, this line of reasoning leads to madnesssss.

Tell me how is red hair a fundamental human attribute?

Having two genders is a fundamental human attribute - otherwise we could not survive as a species as we know it today. Which we believe is how God wanted us to be created.

Hence gender is an important distinction.

By witnessing the importance of genders *in general* - evolution is just one avenue to explore this - then a distinction on gender is more significant than whether someone is a football player or tax collector and so on.

JCB

Asiaprod wrote: »

Ah, and Mary Magdalen? She appears to be quite important, but would the people of that time accept her if she to received the gifts too. Probably not, so maybe they were passed to her in secret.

That's total speculation. Gnostics beleived Jesus revealed things in secret. Maybe Jesus passed on gifts to cats too without telling us?, since that would make His message more acceptable to Egyptians whose ancestors held cats very dearly!

I have always felt that one of the biggest obstacle to accepting the authority of bodies like the Catholic Church and their involvement in how I live my life was this issue of women and their right to hold office. It was one of the major deciding factors for me in turning away from Catholicism. Could never understand it. That is why I do have a lot of respect for those branches of Christianity that for go celibacy. At lest they have a more rounded picture of family life and are imo better equipped to deal with the needs of their flock

Priest's should be looking towards Jesus for direction not what is cultural to their particular flock. Afterall, they received their gifts from Him not those who have lost respect for His message.

I don't mean this to be insulting, but Christians should be more God focused than focused on the forces of public opinion.

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

JCB wrote:

That's total speculation. Gnostics beleived Jesus revealed things in secret. Maybe Jesus passed on gifts to cats too without telling us?, since that would make His message more acceptable to Egyptians whose ancestors held cats very dearly!

I am sure you can do better than that. The RC Church has a history of secrecy, but then again, it is not alone there. That also applies to Buddhist too. But this is not the point I was trying to make. Just because you don't know does not mean it did not happen. The female appears to hold a very special place in the life of Christ, why would he then bar them from holding office?

JCB wrote: »

I don't mean this to be insulting, but Christians should be more God focused than focused on the forces of public opinion.

Not insulted at all. However, I would have thought that one could not get more God-focused than by meeting the changing needs of those that were created by God in the first place.

TheBigLebowski

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church". 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Is this for real? Is this really from the bible? How do people still find this type of thing acceptable in an organisation that is supposed to lead people and show the right way. Unbelievable...

TheBigLebowski

PDN wrote: »

The 1 Corinthians quote, I believe, refers to the practice of women being seated on a different side of the church from the men. Since very few women were educated at the time there was a danger they would not understand something in the sermon and so would shout across to their husbands. Paul was telling them to keep quiet and to ask their husbands when they got home. Certainly it cannot be a command for women to keep perfectly silent in church,

Are you joking here, women weren't allowed to speak because they might not understand and shout across to their husband??? Ha ha. It says "for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive". Is that not clear enough for you? Man, I don't come to this board often but there is some amount of deluded crap spoken here....

JCB

Asiaprod wrote: »

Not insulted at all. However, I would have thought that one could not get more God-focused than by meeting the changing needs of those that were created by God in the first place.

Thank you Asiaprod, sometimes I feel I come across too passionately!

'Meeting the changing needs' - but where do the changing needs come from? They seem to be people-driven rather than God-driven.

The fundamental unchanging needs - for love, (eternal) life, righteousness and so on are provided for by the message of Jesus and the gifts that He bestowed upon humanity.

For physical needs - food, procreation and so on - God created a physical world -if guided properly - which would satisify those needs. Imagine having a permanent sense of hunger (which due to our terrible stewardship still exists) but not having the capability to satisfy it i.e. not having the ability to eat?!!

Without those spritual gifts - which need to be cherished - our longing for God, goes hungry too.

Societies and Cultures can create temporary needs. Take the situation in Ireland now, where both partners in a couple need to work, not just one. Childminding becomes a temporary need - since if there was enough money the need would disappear. Our challenge as Christians is to show the gifts of Jesus to the world in how they transform us to become better people. It is for these reasons, Christian communities took it upon themselves to educate, nurse and feed those -in need-. With the formalisation of this structure in modern democracy, that Christian mission has been somewhat fulfilled. You will often find Christians at the forefront to help with modern crises - homelessness/poverty are a main focus of Church community services at the moment, it is as you call it - 'meeting the changing needs' - of modern society through the timeless gifts of Christ.

Hope this helps!

JCB

Asiaprod wrote: »

I am sure you can do better than that. The RC Church has a history of secrecy

The purpose of the cat anology is to show that the truths of Jesus do not necessary match popular opinion. He could have made cats special in certain ways to make His message more palletable to Egyptians because it was popular to do so. Just like it would have been popular for Christians to worship Jesus and Emperor which was popular at that time. If it is popular now for women to hold the position of priestly sacrifice - then that does not make it the correct thing to do. We can only follow His actions.

Tmk, orthodoxy also holds this view on female clergy but is it also considered secretive?

Just because you don't know does not mean it did not happen.

That is true, but I fail to see how ignoring what we do have as evidence will do the message and gifts of Jesus anything but a disservice.

The female appears to hold a very special place in the life of Christ, why would he then bar them from holding office?

That is also true, but yet He viewed them in a different way to the apostles. I am not going to judge which was better, God's love is God's love.
Every follower has a role to play. I don't think Jesus descriminated on capability. Women followers have always and still do play vital roles in the church. It is a difficult question to resolve and one I don't take lightly.

Run_to_da_hills

Women should be allowed preach because St Pauls letters were not intended for the 21st Century

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Is this for real? Is this really from the bible? How do people still find this type of thing acceptable in an organisation that is supposed to lead people and show the right way. Unbelievable...

People find allot of unacceptable things in the Bible that they don't like and will not put up with, the Bible is the most offensive Book on this planet and many people refuse to come to Christ and be saved because of the Word of God.

Many of the so called Christian Churches will intentionally omit sections of the Bible that would expose themselves if read out from the pulpit. I doubt very much if any of the churches that openly ordain gay ministers would preach any of Leviticus 18:22 or Romans 1:26-27 at a service as it would be an embarrassment to themselves. Likewise would you hear certain sects of the Church of England preach 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

The Bible says that if one has to become a follower of Christ they must take up the narrow road. The true Church is Christ centered while the counterfeit Church suits mankind and is made up of manmade rules and tradition bent around mankind. Christianity is NOT religion! Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which begins with us realizing that we are dirty, rotten, hell-deserving sinners in need of a Savior!

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

JCB wrote: »

Thank you Asiaprod, sometimes I feel I come across too passionately!

Passion can be good.

'Meeting the changing needs' - but where do the changing needs come from? They seem to be people-driven rather than God-driven.

I hear where you are coming from and I am much enjoying this dialogue. Thank you for your candor. I tend to view things from the perspective of evolution. Humanity must evolve or it stagnates. As it evolves its need also change. IMO, for any religion to be viable in this day and age it must also change to meet these new needs. Thats not to say it must change its base ideals, but it must be flexible enough to serve those that subscribe to it in such a way as to take into account these new needs.
I am curious. How would you feel if out of the blue the pope suddenly declared that it was ok for women to hold office. Would your views change?

I will resist from bringing free will into this since I am all out of popcorn:)

Slav

Asiaprod wrote: »

IMO, for any religion to be viable in this day and age it must also change to meet these new needs. Thats not to say it must change its base ideals, but it must be flexible enough to serve those that subscribe to it in such a way as to take into account these new needs.

How do you see those Christians that
1. have a fear that concentrating on the "new needs" might distort "its base ideals" or even replace them eventually,
and
2. don't consider every "new need" or any product of evolution to be necessarily good as they might be caused by our sinful nature?

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

Slav wrote: »

How do you see those Christians that
1. have a fear that concentrating on the "new needs" might distort "its base ideals" or even replace them eventually,
and
2. don't consider every "new need" or any product of evolution to be necessarily good as they might be caused by our sinful nature?

Not sure I understand your question, but will try to answer. Bear in mind I generally leave people or organizations to work out their own issues with their own respective authority figures. I only get involved when these bodies try to enact laws or rules that impact on my freedom to follow my own path, or impact on the world or society in which I live.

How do I see those Christians that have a fear that concentrating on the "new needs" might distort "its base ideals" or even replace them eventually.

I feel they need to address any fears through dialogue with their respective churches and, in particular, within their congregation. It is only natural to be afraid of change, but change is necessary. Thou shall not kill will always be thou shall not kill so I really cannot see that type of base ideal changing radically. Obviously issues like abortion do cut very close, even contradict, some to the base ideals, but contraception and women ministries should not and need to be addressed now in light of where humanity has evolved to and the issues were currently face.

For example:
1. Contraception, today dwindling resources and over population is a very serious issue that affects everyone on this planet. These issues will not go away on their own. One either addresses them, or buries one's head in the sand. If one buries one's head in the sand and takes no active part in finding a solution to these problems, one cannot whine when others do effect change.
2. Women ministries, to deny women an active role is imo tantamount to worshiping a sexist God. The same God who declared that everyone is equal. That just creates a paradox. The woman's place 2,000 years ago and where it is today are very very different. If the christian God is all knowing he would have taken this into account. Did God actually forbid women this role. I don't believe so, for what ever reason, I believe it was man that did. PDN's answer to the segregation of women and men during worship is a good example, even acceptable for the time in which it was written. Would it be acceptable in todays congregation, I don't think so. I know many women who are far smarter than I am. It could, however, be acceptable in a ritualist or traditional sense.

How do I see those Christians who don't consider every "new need" or any product of evolution to be necessarily good as they might be caused by our sinful nature?

I am not an authority on what constitutes a "new need." The faithful can, in line with their beliefs, decide that one for themselves. I certainly question the use of the word "might be." Adopting that approach is just a bottleneck to growth. And who decides on if it might be caused by our sinful nature. Here is an interesting point I often ponder on since I experienced it at the hands of so called holy men myself, If women had been allowed to become priests would we have had to deal with as much sexual abuse of young kids as we did? As to products of evolution, medical, gene-therapy, organ transplants, and the list goes on. All product of mans evolution. All developed for the betterment of mankind.

PDN

Asiaprod wrote: »

Gosh, Robin just became a Christian:D

And you too, Asiaprod. May I be the first to congratulate the both of you on your new status as converts (reverts?) to Christianity.

Asiaprod

Atari Jaguar

PDN wrote: »

And you too, Asiaprod. May I be the first to congratulate the both of you on your new status as converts (reverts?) to Christianity.

Why thank you, I blame Robin:)

robindch

Asiaprod wrote: »

Why thank you, I blame Robin:)

And I blame half a bottle of good Merlot. Thankfully untransubstantiated

Fratton Fred

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

People find allot of unacceptable things in the Bible that they don't like and will not put up with, the Bible is the most offensive Book on this planet and many people refuse to come to Christ and be saved because of the Word of God.

Many of the so called Christian Churches will intentionally omit sections of the Bible that would expose themselves if read out from the pulpit. I doubt very much if any of the churches that openly ordain gay ministers would preach any of Leviticus 18:22 or Romans 1:26-27 at a service as it would be an embarrassment to themselves. Likewise would you hear certain sects of the Church of England preach 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

The Bible says that if one has to become a follower of Christ they must take up the narrow road. The true Church is Christ centered while the counterfeit Church suits mankind and is made up of manmade rules and tradition bent around mankind. Christianity is NOT religion! Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which begins with us realizing that we are dirty, rotten, hell-deserving sinners in need of a Savior!

If we all followed the Bible to the letter, we would be out sacrificing animals left right and centre, not to mention stoning people to death for mowing their lawn on a Sunday. It would kind of justify what the british did to ireland for years as well, as I understand it is acceptable to enslave people from a neighbouring country.

The way we interpret the Bible is key and there are a great many things that we should re-examine as the CoE has done frequently over the last few years.

The two most important commandments in the Bible are these, "you shall lover the lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind" and "you shall love your neighbour as yourself". I fail to see where the CoE is breaking either of these, in fact, it looks to me as if they are following them.

Run_to_da_hills

Women should be allowed preach because St Pauls letters were not intended for the 21st Century

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If we all followed the Bible to the letter, we would be out sacrificing animals left right and centre, not to mention stoning people to death for mowing their lawn on a Sunday. It would kind of justify what the british did to ireland for years as well, as I understand it is acceptable to enslave people from a neighbouring country.

The way we interpret the Bible is key and there are a great many things that we should re-examine as the CoE has done frequently over the last few years.

The two most important commandments in the Bible are these, "you shall lover the lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind" and "you shall love your neighbour as yourself". I fail to see where the CoE is breaking either of these, in fact, it looks to me as if they are following them.

If one followed the Bible Correctly one would not are sacraficing animals, stoning people to death for mowing the lawn on "Sunday", keeping slaves etc. All this was belonged to the "Law" i.e. the Old Testament. When Christ came he fulfilled the law. Christian Churches to_day use the old testiment for reference as if one reads it is linked in with the new testiment. The RC still holds on to many of the traditions taken directly out of the old testiment to this day.