Should churches move with the times?

doctoremma

Yesterday in the UK, the Church of England voted on whether to introduce female bishops (for info, 1/3 of CofE clergy are female and 1/2 training for ordination are female). 42/44 dioceses voted 'for' the motion. However, the lay house (narrowly) voted 'against' and its weight meant the total vote failed to reach the required majority.

Without particular reference to this specific incident.... Should the rules of a church be immutable? Should the rules of a church be changed/defined by its leaders? Should the rules of a church be changed/defined by its members? Should the rules of a church be changed/defined by an outside body (e.g. government)? Or does reality reflect a combination of all those approaches at different times?

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Yesterday in the UK, the Church of England voted on whether to introduce female bishops (for info, 1/3 of CofE clergy are female and 1/2 training for ordination are female). 42/44 dioceses voted 'for' the motion. However, the lay house (narrowly) voted 'against' and its weight meant the total vote failed to reach the required majority.

Without particular reference to this specific incident.... Should the rules of a church be immutable? Should the rules of a church be changed/defined by its leaders? Should the rules of a church be changed/defined by its members? Should the rules of a church be changed/defined by an outside body (e.g. government)? Or does reality reflect a combination of all those approaches at different times?

Does God change? Or is He the same yesterday, today and forevermore?

There's a debate around on the subject of church headship and what God makes of it, but if we have received the Gospel it can't change for the sake of the world.

If the church was exactly like anything else in the world why would people be a part of it.

reprazant

So what is God's beef with women?

I can't think of any religion that does not discriminate against women.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

Does God change? Or is He the same yesterday, today and forevermore?

There's a debate around on the subject of church headship and what God makes of it, but if we have received the Gospel it can't change for the sake of the world.

If the church was exactly like anything else in the world why would people be a part of it.

Understood.

I read in various reports that female vicars were casting their collars aside as they left Westminster. I can only imagine that such feelings were reflected in the lay community. If a church fails to move with the times, does it not run the risk of losing support? (It should be noted that there was an absolute majority in favour of allowing women bishops, but the weighting attributed to each house led to this quirky result).

Should a church care if people don't want to be part of it?

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Understood.

I read in various reports that female vicars were casting their collars aside as they left Westminster. I can only imagine that such feelings were reflected in the lay community. If a church fails to move with the times, does it not run the risk of losing support? (It should be noted that there was an absolute majority in favour of allowing women bishops, but the weighting attributed to each house led to this quirky result).

Should a church care if people don't want to be part of it?

My response is in light of the general question. I think there's a debate over thus subject to be had. My current church falls on the complementarian side of the argument but I do think there is a debate to be had.

What I've noticed in church trends is that the liberal churches tend to decline in the CofE and Biblically focused ones tend to be doing quite well.

The church should try to be relevant but not by changing God's word as that isn't ours to change.

Benny_Cake

doctoremma wrote: »

Understood.

I read in various reports that female vicars were casting their collars aside as they left Westminster. I can only imagine that such feelings were reflected in the lay community. If a church fails to move with the times, does it not run the risk of losing support? (It should be noted that there was an absolute majority in favour of allowing women bishops, but the weighting attributed to each house led to this quirky result).

Should a church care if people don't want to be part of it?

Actually, from what I read, lay members of the synod tended to be more against the change than the bishops or clergy. Possibly, conservatives tend to get more involved in church politics, I don't know.

Andrew Brown has a good piece about it in the Guardian today (I'm on my phone or I'd add the link). The looks of dejection on the faces of both Rowan Williams and the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby tell a lot. I'm sure they hoped that this would be settled once and for all.

doctoremma

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Actually, from what I read, lay members of the synod tended to be more against the change than the bishops or clergy. Possibly, conservatives tend to get more involved in church politics, I don't know.

Yep. My understanding is that the diocese vote is bishop/clergy-led (hugely 'for') and that the lay house is far more traditional (narrowly 'against'). I suspect recent trends in UK society (gay marriages, female bishops) might have girded the loins of the conservative church goers?

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Andrew Brown has a good piece about it in the Guardian today (I'm on my phone or I'd add the link).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/nov/20/women-bishops-debate-suicide-note

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The looks of dejection on the faces of both Rowan Williams and the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby tell a lot. I'm sure they hoped that this would be settled once and for all.

Agreed. Very interesting for the new leader.

mdebets

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Actually, from what I read, lay members of the synod tended to be more against the change than the bishops or clergy. Possibly, conservatives tend to get more involved in church politics, I don't know.

From what I read (German media only, so not sure how accurate it was), it was only rejected by the lay council, because some thought it wouldn't go far enough, as women Bishops would have been placed under the control of a male Bishop and not on the same level.

Benny_Cake

mdebets wrote: »

From what I read (German media only, so not sure how accurate it was), it was only rejected by the lay council, because some thought it wouldn't go far enough, as women Bishops would have been placed under the control of a male Bishop and not on the same level.

Could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the compromise involved parishes being given an opt-out so that they could be transferred to the authority of a male bishop if they couldn't accept a woman. Aside from that, women bishops would have been equal to their male counterparts. It's possible that some liberals may have voted against the measure because of that provision but it doesn't seem too likely.

neemish

Churches do change with the times, which is why you can participate in Mass in your local vernacular at a Catholic Church near you. And why we read from the Jerusalem Bible as opposed to the King James. And why women are certainly more welcome to partake in ministry than they were years ago. ( I tell people that the only way my mother/grandmother were ever on the Altar was to clean it and now I can lead Morning Prayer!)
Theology has also moved on, and if you read the documents of the Second Vatican Council you will see a radically different theology than Vatican I.

The problem, if you can call it that, is that theology tends to lag behind societal changes rather than being the trend setter. In general, theology is thirty to forty years behind where society is. And not for a bad reason. Rather than jump head first into the latest popular opinion, the Church takes time to reflect, to explore, to synthesise. Changes tend to come from grass roots level so that by the time it becomes sanctioned by the Vatican, it's actually pretty much accepted. For example, Pope Benedicts radical statement in 2010 that condoms could be used in certain cases too stop the spread of disease.

maguffin

reprazant wrote: »

So what is God's beef with women?

I can't think of any religion that does not discriminate against women.

It's all very simple..... FEAR!

Men in frocks, wielding great power (and wealth) feeling threatened by accepting females (who by the way bore them and brought them into this world in the first place) into their 'holy sanctum'.

This 21st century Europe.....not the middle east 2000 years ago!!

Religion in general only pays lip-service to women and allows only 'safe' postions within their ranks.

I think it's a disgrace and a very poor role model for any generation to follow.

georgieporgy

3 good female role models;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Goretti

http://flic.kr/p/862FoA

In the early afternoon on July 5, 1902, an 11-year-old girl, Maria Goretti, was repeatedly stabbed by a 20-year-old man in the course of a frenzied, sexually motivated attack. On June 24, 1950, Pope Pius XII canonised her in the presence of her mother, Assunta, and of the man who murdered her, Alessandro Serenelli.

********************************************************

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla
"If you must choose between me and the baby, no hesitation; choose – and I demand it – the baby. Save her!"
http://guardduty.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/molla2_221.jpg

*****************************************************

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Stein


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Seint_Edith_Stein.jpg/180px-Seint_Edith_Stein.jpg


Edith Stein was born to a Jewish family at Breslau on October 12, 1891. Through her passionate study of philosophy she searched after truth and found it in reading the autobiography of St Teresa of Jesus. In 1922 she was baptised a Catholic and in 1933 she entered the Carmel of Cologne where she took the name Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. She was gassed and cremated at Auschwitz on August 9, 1942, during the Nazi persecution and died a martyr for the Christian faith after having offered her holocaust for the people of Israel. A woman of singular intelligence and learning, she left behind a body of writing notable for its doctrinal richness and profound spirituality. She was beatified by Pope John Paul II at Cologne on May 1, 1987, and canonized at Rome twelve years later
*****************************************************

philologos

neemish wrote: »

Churches do change with the times, which is why you can participate in Mass in your local vernacular at a Catholic Church near you. And why we read from the Jerusalem Bible as opposed to the King James. And why women are certainly more welcome to partake in ministry than they were years ago. ( I tell people that the only way my mother/grandmother were ever on the Altar was to clean it and now I can lead Morning Prayer!)
Theology has also moved on, and if you read the documents of the Second Vatican Council you will see a radically different theology than Vatican I.

The problem, if you can call it that, is that theology tends to lag behind societal changes rather than being the trend setter. In general, theology is thirty to forty years behind where society is. And not for a bad reason. Rather than jump head first into the latest popular opinion, the Church takes time to reflect, to explore, to synthesise. Changes tend to come from grass roots level so that by the time it becomes sanctioned by the Vatican, it's actually pretty much accepted. For example, Pope Benedicts radical statement in 2010 that condoms could be used in certain cases too stop the spread of disease.

Churches might. God doesn't.

It also depends on how you define church. Ecclesia in the Greek means assembly of believers. So I could say the church at Cork meaning the chosen ransomed assembly of God who live to bring Him and His Son Jesus glory. The Bible doesn't use church in an institutional way. Churches still have leaders - shepherds not those who use illegitimate authority or who lord it over others but who put the Gospel of Christ first (1 Peter 5).

There's a huge discussion to be had on what church was in the New Testament and how that differs to now. If anything I think we need to go back to discover it and that is what would be best for the whole Christian church - ecclesia - assembly of believers in the life saving Gospel the most important thing the world needs to hear.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Does God change? Or is He the same yesterday, today and forevermore?

Isn't a common Christian argument that God doesn't change but his rules for humans are context and time dependent based on the nature of the culture at the time.

Or to put it another way, we no longer stone women who are not virgins on their wedding night to death.

Deut 22
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

No one thinks that is a good idea any more, though they obviously did at some point.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

Isn't a common Christian argument that God doesn't change but his rules for humans are context and time dependent based on the nature of the culture at the time.

Or to put it another way, we no longer stone women who are not virgins on their wedding night to death.

Deut 22
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

No one thinks that is a good idea any more, though they obviously did at some point.

Covenant theology has been explained for you on this forum before:

philologos wrote: »

All Scripture is useful (1 Timothy 3:15-16).

Christians however read the Old Testament while considering what Jesus has done in the new. The New Testament has implication for how we read the old.

For example dietary laws are discussed in Leviticus 11. Dietary laws were fulfilled by Jesus Christ in Mark 7. This doesn't mean we ignore Leviticus 11, rather we consider the role that Leviticus 11 had in marking the Jews as distinct from the Gentiles, and we can begin to think about how we as Christians are meant to be distinct from the world (see 1 Peter for a lengthy discussion on that).

Another example, animal sacrifices - Jesus is the all sufficient sacrifice for sin, therefore why would I need to offer a sacrifice? (Hebrews 10).

Another example - death penalty - If Jesus has shown me mercy by His death on the cross, how can I expect death from another person? (See Matthew 18 for a parable concerning this).

There are many many more. Simply put, it is by reading the New Testament that we understand what has been fulfilled. Even the Old Testament tells us of a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and even the Torah implies it when it speaks about the Messiah in Deuteronomy 18 (around vs 18).

Non-believers who argue in the way that you've described are ignoring the fact that this is how Christians have read the Bible from the beginning. Paul shows us this in 2 Corinthians chapter 3.

I can still learn plenty from reading Leviticus or Deuteronomy though, I learn about a gracious and a faithful God who led His people out of slavery into freedom, much as King Jesus led us out of the slavery of sin into freedom through Him. I think the Torah in many ways is exemplary even to Christians in terms of conduct. I think people who go fishing for things out of context are ignoring the broader picture of the Jewish law in the Old Testament. It shows mostly that people aren't bothered to actually read what the Bible says, but need cannonfodder for the debate

doctoremma

Last night, I learned from a friend that she has resigned from her position on her parish council and is considering renouncing her CofE membership over this issue. Now, that's a very clear indication that some feel that church policies (if not rules of faith) should be determined by members?

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Last night, I learned from a friend that she has resigned from her position on her parish council and is considering renouncing her CofE membership over this issue. Now, that's a very clear indication that some feel that church policies (if not rules of faith) should be determined by members?

The problem is that on the face of it it was determined by members. There wasn't a sufficient vote in the laity. There was in bishops and clergy.

I'm very interested to crunch the numbers on this.

I don't believe it is acceptable to refer to people who disagree with women bishops as neanderthals. The theological reasons should be laid on the table because this us about God and not about man.

I'm interested to talk about this with my pastor on Sunday. I'm fairly sure he lies on the complementarian side of the debate (men in leadership, women in other roles). We do have women's workers and people on staff who are women.

The Church of England is complicated to say the least.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

The problem is that on the face of it it was determined by members. There wasn't a sufficient vote in the laity. There was in bishops and clergy.

I'm very interested to crunch the numbers on this.

From the CofE website:
"Under the requirements of the Synod the legislation required a two-thirds majority in each of the three voting houses for final draft approval. Whilst more than two thirds voted for the legislation in both the House of Bishops (44-03) and the House of Clergy (148-45), the vote in favour of the legislation in the House of Laity was less than two-thirds (132-74). The vote in the House of Laity fell short of approval by six votes.

In total 324 members of the General Synod voted to approve the legislation and 122 voted to reject it."

So the voting structure allowed a clear minority vote to triumph.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

From the CofE website:
"Under the requirements of the Synod the legislation required a two-thirds majority in each of the three voting houses for final draft approval. Whilst more than two thirds voted for the legislation in both the House of Bishops (44-03) and the House of Clergy (148-45), the vote in favour of the legislation in the House of Laity was less than two-thirds (132-74). The vote in the House of Laity fell short of approval by six votes.

In total 324 members of the General Synod voted to approve the legislation and 122 voted to reject it."

So the voting structure allowed a clear minority vote to triumph.

To be honest, that's fairly standard in organisations that give their members a voice. A simple majority vote isn't always representative of the wishes of the people (it may reflect more effective lobbying by a group to get their vote to turn out). So it is normal for votes that would involve any major organisational change to require a two thirds majority - thus demonstrating it is the clear will of the people.

In my own denomination a simple majority suffices to elect leaders or to change procedures - but a two thirds majority is necessary if the proposed change affects the denomination's by-laws. Btw, this does not just apply to religious organisations, most democratic organisations follow Roberts' Rules of Order (or some similar code) - which specifies that a two thirds majority should apply to major decisions.

In the CoE's case - if clergy were simply allowed to change the rules then the move for female bishops would have advanced. As it was it fell because the lay people were also asked to share in the decision making process.

As to the separate issue of whether churches should change with the times - that depends on whether we are talking about core doctrines and values - or simply talking about methodology.

The Church should declare the truth - even if that is unpopular according to the fashions of the times. This was the principle that led the likes of Niemoller and Bonhoeffer to set up the Confessing Church in the 1930s - if they had moved with the times then they would have joined in the prevailing German nationalism and anti-semitism, rather than landing up in concentration camps.

But methodology changes all the times, and can be as simple as using electric guitars instead of pipe organs, or can involve root and branch organisational change.

Peregrinus

I move with the times, you are a victim of fashion, he or she betrays the gospel!

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

Covenant theology has been explained for you on this forum before:

This doesn't contradict what Zombrex is saying. Societies used to be vicious, as evidenced by Leviticus. Now they are not because, according to Christianity, people have a more complete understanding of their relationship with God. Similarly, a more inclusive policy might further improve that relationship.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Covenant theology has been explained for you on this forum before:

That doesn't answer the question.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

This doesn't contradict what Zombrex is saying. Societies used to be vicious, as evidenced by Leviticus. Now they are not because, according to Christianity, people have a more complete understanding of their relationship with God. Similarly, a more inclusive policy might further improve that relationship.

The Bible presents the same God, and it is a single revelation from beginning to end. From the very beginnings of creation God intended for Christ to come to redeem the world. From the very beginnings of creation, God intended for the law of Moses to be established amongst the Israelites.

It would be more fruitful to discuss the actual topic rather than talk about covenant theology, which is an issue that has been dealt with numerous times.

The reason why I mentioned that God doesn't change is because the recent debate in the papers seems to have missed this. The Church isn't about us primarily, it is about a holy and a righteous God who has chosen to make Himself known amongst us. We are to live for Him foremost, rather than the world. Most of the media says that the Church is out of touch with the rest of society. The Church is meant to be distinct from the world, it is meant to reflect God's standards.

Most of the commentary claims that the Church ought to reflect society, rather than the society reflecting God.

Now, I believe that there is a debate to be had, but how that debate is structured is important. The debate shouldn't be interested in reflecting secular society, churches want to follow God, and as a result looking to God is the best place to start. Where we come to, should be based on the God of Creation rather than personal whims.

There was a truly excellent letter in the Times yesterday on this subject:

Sir, Amid all the analysis of the General Synod’s vote , the essential division within the Church of England can be missed. At its heart the debate is not about women bishops but about how we understand and apply the teaching of the Bible in the 21st century.
Conservative evangelicals believe that the Bible is the “Word of God” and that the actual text has absolute authority in matters of Christian faith and conduct. Hence, when St Paul writes that women in the Church may not have authority over men, that is a binding instruction for the Church for all time. To ordain women as priests and bishops is to refuse to comply with the plain teaching of the Bible.
Others of us, while accepting the Bible as our primary guide in our faith and conduct, believe that it has to be understood in the culture of its time but applied in the light of the understanding of our time. The risk of doing this is that its teaching is simply moulded to contemporary culture. Traditionally the Church has avoided this in two ways. First, it has distinguished between “things primary and things secondary”. So there is no room for debate over, for example, the incarnation of Jesus Christ and his resurrection, whereas styles and forms of worship can be diverse. Second, the Church has sought to apply the principles of justice and compassion to its own practice and that of society.
However, in recent years, conservative evangelicals have insisted that issues such as women priests and bishops and human sexuality are primary ones. Their stance on them is about being obedient to the teaching of the Bible. Furthermore, the Bible contains all we need to know about justice and compassion and contemporary culture has little of value to say about them. On these there can be no compromise. Those of us who take a different view are wrong and the faithfulness of our Christian discipleship is questionable.
The reality is that the Church of England is a house fundamentally divided with little hope of finding unity of faith and purpose.
The Rev Dr John Searle
Exeter

He's right. There's two modes of thinking in the CofE at present.

1) Understanding the Bible as the inspired word of God.
2) Bible is primary guide, but can shift as society and people will it to.

I think that both positions need to consider the first, because the second is entirely unbiblical and entirely meaningless in terms of discussing God and His will. A useful debate which actually thrashes out the case for and against in Scripture is what is useful in a healthy church. What others outside of Christianity think is irrelevant because this is a church issue.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

This doesn't contradict what Zombrex is saying. Societies used to be vicious, as evidenced by Leviticus. Now they are not because, according to Christianity, people have a more complete understanding of their relationship with God. Similarly, a more inclusive policy might further improve that relationship.

It's not about a more 'inclusive' policy as life moves on generation to generation and knowledge etc. etc. The 'policy' is still the same as it was ever, i.e. a mature faith - The only unchanging thing is God.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

What others outside of Christianity think is irrelevant because this is a church issue.

You don't think a church should try to attract those outside it to join the fold?

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

You don't think a church should try to attract those outside it to join the fold?

Absolutely. It's called evangelism. The Christian church should try to share the Biblical gospel to non-believers. We long for people to know Jesus, repent, believe and follow Him. I really care that people come to know Jesus, and I'm more than happy to tell people about Him and to point people to His words.

The thing is, from my perspective the Church should never compromise the Gospel itself to do so.

I've said clearly on this thread that I believe there is a debate to be had on this subject. I can't help but feel disappointed by how this debate has been handled. Some people are claiming God would want X, Y and Z without looking to His sovereign word. Some people are claiming that the church should conform to the secular world.

This isn't about the secular world, or even what I want God to say. It's about what He has actually said, and about submitting to it.

I believe the debate has been handled wrongly. People should start off with Scripture and start off seeking for God's will, rather than placing empty assumptions on the table.

What's even more tragic is seeing people like Giles Fraser in the Guardian slandering Christians who disagree with Him over this issue.

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

What's even more tragic is seeing people like Giles Fraser in the Guardian slandering Christians who disagree with Him over this issue.

I think it's widely known that a large section of the blocking laity were evangelical Protestants. So it's a caricature of that person, not just 'any old Christian' who disagrees. And anyway, sticks and stones... If pro-choicers have to be caricatured as murderers, and atheists as baby-eaters, I'm sure the target if this column can handle it.

lmaopml

doctoremma wrote: »

I think it's widely known that a large section of the blocking laity were evangelical Protestants. So it's a caricature of that person, not just 'any old Christian' who disagrees. And anyway, sticks and stones... If pro-choicers have to be caricatured as murderers, and atheists as baby-eaters, I'm sure the target if this column can handle it.

Pro Choicers are NOT being characterized, boxed off somewhere..they are just people with an opinion, and so are those who value all life too.

Some seek to be characterized, or to stereotype others.

They are just normal people, just like anybody else who finds life tough, who finds raising a child alone tough but worthwhile, and sees that massive blessing in that tiny life..

Those who find raising a child with special needs tough but worthwhile. I am appalled at the idea that a child with special needs should be considered a high candidate to abort? Why??????

Stephen Hawkins could have been considered a 'hard' case judging by these standards, but only he knows the depths of his mind that was a 'gift', a chance of life granted by consent of his mum and he explores the depths of the universe with his beautiful mind.

It's so sad, the way we look on the 'value' of life, and some kind of notion that 'Might, means right'! One would think that we could learn something.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

I think it's widely known that a large section of the blocking laity were evangelical Protestants. So it's a caricature of that person, not just 'any old Christian' who disagrees. And anyway, sticks and stones... If pro-choicers have to be caricatured as murderers, and atheists as baby-eaters, I'm sure the target if this column can handle it.

Let's try to keep this on topic. If you want to discuss pro-choice stuff you know where to do that.

Yes, a large block were evangelicals. To claim that the CofE should ignore 40% of its own members is a little daft though. The approach that Christians should take to church disputes isn't to moan about them in a national newspaper but to attempt to try and understand the other perspective. It's entirely wrong to mock and ridicule a huge and growing subsection of your church to make a point. The reality is that in the next 20 - 30 years we'll see more evangelical CofE churches, and more evangelical ministers and potentially bishops in the CofE. Not all evangelicals are against women ministers or bishops to point out.

The idea that men should be leading in church and that women serve in other functions is quite common in evangelical Anglican churches and I will give you that. I think what would be more productive than tut tutting at it would be to investigate why they think this is important. Here's an interesting article here.

An interesting quote:

And all of us want to affirm women's ministry. The vast majority agree with ordaining women as deacons for example. A large church in the City of London that was opposed to the measure employs 15 women in senior ministry roles. That is proportionally higher than any other building in the square mile.

lmaopml

philologos wrote: »

Let's try to keep this on topic. If you want to discuss pro-choice stuff you know where to do that.

Yes, a large block were evangelicals. To claim that the CofE should ignore 40% of its own members is a little daft though. The approach that Christians should take to church disputes isn't to moan about them in a national newspaper but to attempt to try and understand the other perspective. It's entirely wrong to mock and ridicule a huge and growing subsection of your church to make a point. The reality is that in the next 20 - 30 years we'll see more evangelical CofE churches, and more evangelical ministers and potentially bishops in the CofE. Not all evangelicals are against women ministers or bishops to point out.

The idea that men should be leading in church and that women serve in other functions is quite common in evangelical Anglican churches and I will give you that. I think what would be more productive than tut tutting at it would be to investigate why they think this is important. Here's an interesting article here.

An interesting quote:

How does this relate to Scripture and Presbyters/Priests? Is there a difference in evangelical circles between a man and a woman's call in Scripture? Or do they both play the same role equally? Or do they play an equal role but differently?

philologos

lmaopml wrote: »

How does this relate to Scripture and Presbyters/Priests? Is there a difference in evangelical circles between a man and a woman's call in Scripture? Or do they both play the same role equally? Or do they play an equal role but differently?

Not all would hold to complementarianism (the idea women and men have different roles in the church) but many would. It is those who do hold to this idea that voted against women bishops at the General Synod.

Many of those churches who do hold to this idea nonetheless value women in ministry very much by having womens workers to relate to the women at a church congregation / childrens workers or by other means.

lmaopml

philologos wrote: »

Not all would hold to complementarianism (the idea women and men have different roles in the church) but many would. It is those who do hold to this idea that voted against women bishops at the General Synod.

Many of those churches who do hold to this idea nonetheless value women in ministry very much by having womens workers to relate to the women at a church congregation / childrens workers or by other means.

Yes, but where do you find this in Scripture? This 'complementarianism' is it to be found in it or no?

philologos

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, but where do you find this in Scripture? This 'complementarianism' is it to be found in it or no?

That's up for discussion. All that I've said so far is that I'm disappointed at the general calibre of discussion. Not enough has been based on Scripture, and far more has been based on what people think of God (without pointing to Scripture) or the idea that the Church of England should conform to secular society or Government expectations of it. What I think should happen is the pro and anti sides need to both show clearly what Scripture they have to back up their arguments.

A lot point to 1 Timothy 2:8-15 as an example.

lmaopml

From the very first time in Scripture that God asked, 'Where are you.?' in Genesis. The first book, he has been asking the same question...

That is a gentle word, 'Where are you in relation to me?'

Adam said the 'Woman' gave him the fruit of the tree, he ate of it, and made excuses about his companion offering it to him, to offer him to eat of it.

Then the woman said very plainly, when asked, 'I was deceived and I ate.' No particular long explanation - very concise!

..because of the woman and her honesty in defeat, God placed enmity between her and the deceiver.

Eve was also a person who was very truthful. I imagine that's why he loved her too?

I think this whole idea of pro and anti, and what is Scriptural, today or tomorrow or whatever, is blurring the idea of the simple Church, of which there have always been, and still are members, the united Body whether one is male or female. The Eucharistic Church.

Symbols sometimes convey more than words can in worship, they convey a supernatural reality, 'the bread of life', and he has his ways to speak to all - but the Eucharist is the concrete expression of the new Covenant -

I don't think it's possible in a Scriptural sense to undo the Eucharist without giving up ones integrity for the Word or for Scripture. For Male and Female whom both play their role - I can 'identify' with Eve, she was gutsy, she just said 'yep' I'm responsible, no excuses Lord

Lantus

neemish wrote: »

The problem, if you can call it that, is that theology tends to lag behind societal changes rather than being the trend setter. In general, theology is thirty to forty years behind where society is. And not for a bad reason. Rather than jump head first into the latest popular opinion, the Church takes time to reflect, to explore, to synthesise. Changes tend to come from grass roots level so that by the time it becomes sanctioned by the Vatican, it's actually pretty much accepted. For example, Pope Benedicts radical statement in 2010 that condoms could be used in certain cases too stop the spread of disease.

The reason for that is because the bible acts like an anchor on christianity. The further we move into the future the harder is tries to pull its believers back.

Christianity like most religions offers no tangible poblem solving that can be applied consistently to social conditions. It needs to refer and infer what the bible may 'intend' rather than apply a scientific method to develop a relevant and applicable solution.

If the pope was really concerned about abortion and sexual disease and wellbeing it would pioneer the most advanced and in depth sexual education that the world had ever seen. Engaging with people across all ages and parents in a concerted effort to bring a level of rational understanding to what is a natural condition. Working with and listening to children and young people and adults in the context of the current environment we life in to make their lives better.

And dont feel too bad, governments fail at this too.

For all the girating hips on tv we still feel awkward and silly talking about it even though we are conditioning a generation of young men and women to act and behave in a certain way.

philologos

Lantus wrote: »

The reason for that is because the bible acts like an anchor on christianity. The further we move into the future the harder is tries to pull its believers back.

The question is why does it act as an anchor? - I'd argue for a very good reason, to ensure that Christians stay focused on Biblical truth rather than falsehood. This is why I believe it to be of fundamental importance that people look to the Bible regularly. I can fall into this trap as much as anyone, but God's word is deserving of daily consideration. If we are to claim that God is guiding us while not looking to His word, then there's something deeply and fundamentally wrong in our Christian walk.

Lantus wrote: »

Christianity like most religions offers no tangible poblem solving that can be applied consistently to social conditions. It needs to refer and infer what the bible may 'intend' rather than apply a scientific method to develop a relevant and applicable solution.

I assume again you're assuming that Christianity and science are incompatible. The reality is there are many Christian scientists who both hold to natural science and believe in the Gospel.

I wish people would stop trotting out this falsehood because it is evidently wrong.

Lantus wrote: »

If the pope was really concerned about abortion and sexual disease and wellbeing it would pioneer the most advanced and in depth sexual education that the world had ever seen. Engaging with people across all ages and parents in a concerted effort to bring a level of rational understanding to what is a natural condition. Working with and listening to children and young people and adults in the context of the current environment we life in to make their lives better.

There is a debate about whether contraception only approaches actually work though. The most effective approach has been to use an ABC approach. Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms. The reality is that sexual behaviour must also change for this to be an effective solution.

I'd need you to define this "rational" understanding. I hope that you will find a means of defining it other than claiming it is atheism, or that atheism somehow as a link with scientific thinking.

Lantus wrote: »

And dont feel too bad, governments fail at this too.

I don't "feel bad". Irrespective of our inadequacies God is at work, and He will bring His people to salvation in Him. All things will be restored and there will be a new creation (Revelation 21:1-27).

Lantus wrote: »

For all the girating hips on tv we still feel awkward and silly talking about it even though we are conditioning a generation of young men and women to act and behave in a certain way.

If anything if one could say the last generation was prudish, I'd say this generation as gone far too far in the opposite direction.

Lantus

philologos wrote: »

There is a debate about whether contraception only approaches actually work though. The most effective approach has been to use an ABC approach. Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms. The reality is that sexual behaviour must also change for this to be an effective solution.

I'd need you to define this "rational" understanding. I hope that you will find a means of defining it other than claiming it is atheism, or that atheism somehow as a link with scientific thinking.

From my perspective I would like to see a comprehensive educational approach through the years that goes into great detail about anatomy and the workings of these organs, detailed discussions about how we relate to each other and the implications of our actions. Get some mums in of various ages to talk about the impact of childcare and lets even have children look after kids for even a few hours to see what it entails. Pregnancy and childbirth and the obvious STD's. The emotional and behavioural aspects also need consideration. Contraception and its pro's and cons. Of course you need people who actually understand this, how to explain it and what it means.

The ABC approach is immediatley flawed from the outset because as humans we are interested in and driven to have sex with people. Its a bit like telling potential drivers that the best way to avoid a driving ticket is to not buy a car.

As part of the above deciding when to best participate in a relationship would need to be discussed. But ultimatley the person decides anyway. Telling them to abstain wont help. It incorrectly states that abstinance is right and sex is bad which from the off creates a social distortion.

PDN

Lantus wrote: »

Telling them to abstain wont help. It incorrectly states that abstinance is right and sex is bad which from the off creates a social distortion.

If you're going to insist on misrepresenting what Christians believe then you will continue to produce tripe like the above.

The ABC approach teaches that sex is a gift from God that is truly wonderful, especially when in the context of a loving monogamous relationship.

mdebets

philologos wrote: »

Lantus wrote:

Christianity like most religions offers no tangible poblem solving that can be applied consistently to social conditions. It needs to refer and infer what the bible may 'intend' rather than apply a scientific method to develop a relevant and applicable solution.

I assume again you're assuming that Christianity and science are incompatible. The reality is there are many Christian scientists who both hold to natural science and believe in the Gospel.

I think you misinterpret Lantus. I don't read his post as Christianity and Science being incompatible, but rather that Christianity is not a science with hard rules, but rather that the rules are open for interpretation.
If Christianity were to be a science, you would know, when you encounter a social condition A, you could open the Bible on page B and get solution C.
But rather with Christianity, you have to first find, which part of the Bible relates to your solution, than interpret it and then come to a solution.

Take 1 Timothy 2:12 as example. If you apply this to women priests and bishops, you have to interpret it and come to a conclusion. Did Paul (inspired by God) wrote this verse, because he really wanted to ban women from taking leadership roles in the church for all time? If that's your interpretation, then women priests and bishops would be against the teaching of the Bible.
Or did he maybe write this verse, because he was writing to an audience of Greco-Roman people, who lived in a society, where the ideal of a woman called for her to be subject to male authority, and where at least by law, all woman had to be under the control of a male relative (father, husband, brother, etc.). Would the idea of women giving orders to men be too much for Paul's audience. They would have seen an independent woman as immoral, as something as a loose woman. If you believe in this interpretation, than women priests and bishops is something that is ok, as we accept independent women today.
Of course, there are several other interpretations that are possible and which would lead to other conclusions.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

The question is why does it act as an anchor? - I'd argue for a very good reason, to ensure that Christians stay focused on Biblical truth rather than falsehood. This is why I believe it to be of fundamental importance that people look to the Bible regularly. I can fall into this trap as much as anyone, but God's word is deserving of daily consideration. If we are to claim that God is guiding us while not looking to His word, then there's something deeply and fundamentally wrong in our Christian walk.

You are some what missing the point, the Bible was written 2,000 years ago for people living in a very different time. God has already demonstrated that he writes for the time, and that future generations are not expected to adhere to specific rules and regulations that previous generations were.

Where in the Bible does it say that the New Testament is that last word on everything and it's specific are to be applied as they are even 2,000,3000,4000,5000 years later? Or is this just what Christians assume? Are Christians really going to be applying the literal specifics of what is in the New Testament 50,000 years from now when we are all consciousness inside computers and the idea of prostitution or fornication are as old as dust?

DanWall

The people follow the Church ie Bible, people do not change the rules because it does not suit them, that is why there is so many religions. Why should there have to be a vote? either it agrees with the Bible or it doesn’t.
Women are not stone today because that was the old Hebrew scripture, The Christine Greek scripture supeceded these. Women are a compliment to man, it is not scriptural for them to rule.

philologos

DanWall wrote: »

The people follow the Church ie Bible, people do not change the rules because it does not suit them, that is why there is so many religions. Why should there have to be a vote? either it agrees with the Bible or it doesn’t.
Women are not stone today because that was the old Hebrew scripture, The Christine Greek scripture supeceded these. Women are a compliment to man, it is not scriptural for them to rule.

Irrespective of how many religions there are, there is only one God. And there is only one Christ.

What I'm saying is, that if there is to be any argument about this in church life, it must be rooted in Scripture rather than in secular opinion.

mdebets

DanWall wrote: »

The people follow the Church ie Bible, people do not change the rules because it does not suit them, that is why there is so many religions. Why should there have to be a vote? either it agrees with the Bible or it doesn’t.
Women are not stone today because that was the old Hebrew scripture, The Christine Greek scripture supeceded these. Women are a compliment to man, it is not scriptural for them to rule.

I presume then in your church, women are not allowed in, unless they have their hair covered (1 Corinthians 11:4) and men are not allowed to grow their hair (1 Corinthians 11:14), while women are required to grow it (1 Corinthians 11:6). How do you handle gold jewellery and pearls? Are women who wear it refused entry at all, or do you have a place, where they store it until the service/mass is over (1 Timothy 2:9)? It's all scriptural.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

You are some what missing the point, the Bible was written 2,000 years ago for people living in a very different time. God has already demonstrated that he writes for the time, and that future generations are not expected to adhere to specific rules and regulations that previous generations were.

It was written for the entire world for all tine according to its authors.

Where in the Bible does it say that the New Testament is that last word on everything and it's specific are to be applied as they are even 2,000,3000,4000,5000 years later? Or is this just what Christians assume? Are Christians really going to be applying the literal specifics of what is in the New Testament 50,000 years from now when we are all consciousness inside computers and the idea of prostitution or fornication are as old as dust?

The Old Testament speaks very clearly of a new covenant being established (Jeremiah 31:31-34). The theme is also plucked up in Isaiah. There is New Testament commentary on the significance of these verses in Hebrews chapter 8.

The Bible is as significant as it has ever been in the world today.