Women Bishop

[The Matt]

I believe these scriptures pertained to the time period they were written in. It was a time when men were one thing, and women were another, and there was no in betweens. We don't live in those times anymore. There are now women who work, and men who are stay at home dads. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it at the time forbidden for women to speak in a church? We don't go by that anymore, do we? It was simply customs of the times, and we are living in a world where women aren't as...uh what's the word...subjectified maybe? as they used to be.

[houston]

I'm not exactly sure, Matt. Paul's argument is that Eve was deceived...

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by houston

I'm not exactly sure, Matt. Paul's argument is that Eve was deceived...

Exactly.

[Titus2woman]

What I find in my studies is that bible history is so rich and there are so many nuances that can slip right by us. It is not always easy to know what someone meant just by what they said. One of the best and worst things that ever happened to the bible was the 'arrangement' of it for study. It is not chronologic or even put together by subjects but many of the books are simply put in the order of longest to shortest. Chapters and sentences are numbered. Teaching is often done by picking a sentence from here and one from there and using them to prove a point that was determined before the bible was ever consulted.

The history of biblical times was as complicated as our own. We can not compare the social customs of an amazon rainforest tribe to those of a middle class family in the US. In Jesus time there were Jews, Roman, Greeks and others living in cities. Their interactions were complicated and there cultural norms varried. Also most history is about the elite, the bible is one of the very few texts that gives us a glimpse into common life.

What I look at in trying to decide Jesus' or Pauls feelings about women ministers/teachers/preachers is how they acted toward women engaged in these activities. I find that both accepted and even encouraged women in ministeral roles. Jesus accepted women ministering to him personally. Paul called them his fellow laborers as if they were equals.

Now that we see preachers and bishops as positions of power rather than as servants of the flock we feel that these positions should go to men as most postions of power traditionally do in our society. When we again view those who are preachers/pastors/bishops as servents to those around them, as not only the strong but also those who have a tender heart senstive to God's leading, we will see that women are equally equipped to serve in these roles.

You can take all the 'verses' you want to and stack that up against those facts but it really won't change them.

Peace.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

Completely lame.

Get a better bible translation for starters.

This argument is laughable considering how much of the Apostolic movement was built on the works of women preachers. Every Oneness org. still ordains women. God has moved mightily in churches pastored by women and great preachers (men) were raised up from those churches.

Explain that...

Which bible translation is acceptable to you?

The problem is with folks picking and choosing from the bible, explaining away scripture that's a plain as day. The bible says a Bishop must be the husband of one wife. Now, if folks want "husband" to = a male, then women cannot be Bishops. End of story.

[trialedbyfire]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

1 Tim 3
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

I believe the emboldened supports the idea that the role of a church overseer should be male. Apparently, one that has a family is what Paul is SUGGESTING because having experience in leading his home would aid him in leading the church.

But we also know that women CAN and DO prophesy
1 Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

So would prophesying NOT include teaching in the assembly of believers?

Absolutely.

Again I'm not saying women can't preach or teach. From my understanding COOLJC does have a problem with that, correct me if I'm wrong TGBTG. I'm PAW and I know and have listen to many women preachers and teachers. However I'm uncomfortable with the prospect of women PASTORS because from what I see in the scriptures a key requirement for a Pastor is that they must be able to oversee a good home. We know according to the scripture the man is the head of the household in the same way the pastor is the head of the church. I would therefore assume that it is perferred men take the role of head of the church.

[trialedbyfire]

Originally Posted by The Matt

I believe these scriptures pertained to the time period they were written in. It was a time when men were one thing, and women were another, and there was no in betweens. We don't live in those times anymore. There are now women who work, and men who are stay at home dads. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it at the time forbidden for women to speak in a church? We don't go by that anymore, do we? It was simply customs of the times, and we are living in a world where women aren't as...uh what's the word...subjectified maybe? as they used to be.

There still is a standard in the home however. Society may have changed when it comes to the education of women which I understand... and that's a perfect argument for women preachers. THERE WAS a time when women couldn't preach and teach in the church, but most women at that time were uneducated. That's not the case in this day and age, and I don't see a problem with women preaching.

However, when it comes to the role of the pastor, it is compared to the role of the father in the home.

1 Tim 3:4-5
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

When we are look for an individual who is qualified to be a Pastor through God's eyes we are looking for someone who rules their house well. Then the reasoning is given if a man can't rule his home how can he take care of the house of God?


My question is, society has changed in regards to women's education, rights, etc, but has God's gender roles changed in the home? Are men still the head of the home? (I believe so). If so shouldn't then men be perferred in positions of leadership in the church? (I believe so).

[The Matt]

Originally Posted by trialedbyfire

There still is a standard in the home however. Society may have changed when it comes to the education of women which I understand... and that's a perfect argument for women preachers. THERE WAS a time when women couldn't preach and teach in the church, but most women at that time were uneducated. That's not the case in this day and age, and I don't see a problem with women preaching.

However, when it comes to the role of the pastor, it is compared to the role of the father in the home.



When we are look for an individual who is qualified to be a Pastor through God's eyes we are looking for someone who rules their house well. Then the reasoning is given if a man can't rule his home how can he take care of the house of God?


My question is, society has changed in regards to women's education, rights, etc, but has God's gender roles changed in the home? Are men still the head of the home? (I believe so). If so shouldn't then men be perferred in positions of leadership in the church? (I believe so).

I still say that has to do with the times and customs. Take a single mother for example, something I'm sure wouldn't have been done in those times. Though emotions may be different, when put in that position some women make wonderful heads of the household.

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Which bible translation is acceptable to you?

The problem is with folks picking and choosing from the bible, explaining away scripture that's a plain as day. The bible says a Bishop must be the husband of one wife. Now, if folks want "husband" to = a male, then women cannot be Bishops. End of story.

One that was not written with the intent of supressing the laity or in making women appear the downfall of man. Try The Christian Bible maybe... but I am sure there are some others.


Literalism and Legalism are joyless

“The letter kills, it is the spirit that gives life” (2Cor. 3:6)

[The Matt]

Originally Posted by Titus2woman

One that was not written with the intent of supressing the laity or in making women appear the downfall of man. Try The Christian Bible maybe... but I am sure there are some others.

But then who are we supposed to blame for all our troubles?