Recently the church of England appointed its first lady Bishop. It was heralded as a sign of the Churches progress. Similar ground breaking acts of its history were cited for example the break from Rome which although was done primarily because Henry VIII couldn't get a divorce from his first wife it did pave the way for the reformation in England, although Henry himself was not a Lutheran.
I was wondering how other Christians felt about the appointment in view of the Bibles clear and unequivocal stance that only males are to be considered for positions of authority for it appears to me that they must have a kind of crisis of conscience, either to obey the word of God or to dispense with it in favour of something else. Now I am not calling into question the ladies ability to serve in that capacity, nor her qualifications as i am sure she is more than adequately qualified to serve in that capacity. I am attempting to question how one goes about justifying a stance that is clearly anti-Biblical.
The types of arguments that I have read so far are kind of like this, 'Her Christ-centered life, calmness and clear determination to serve the church and the community make her a wonderful choice'.
Which is fine but no one is disputing the lady's qualities.
or 'He's got the right to protest but the contrast was between a lone voice protesting and a sea of voices affirming' - said of a dissenting minister/priest by an unknown source.
Again this is simply an argumentum ad populum - many people affirm it therefore it must be good.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Recently the church of England appointed its first lady Bishop. It was heralded as a sign of the Churches progress. Similar ground breaking acts of its history were cited for example the break from Rome which although was done primarily because Henry VIII couldn't get a divorce from his first wife it did pave the way for the reformation in England, ...[text shortened]... Again this is simply an argumentum ad populum - many people affirm it therefore it must be good.
What this shows is that the bible is clearly wrong in its teaching.
Originally posted by deenny What this shows is that the bible is clearly wrong in its teaching.
It is what the Bible teaches and it therefore leaves the Christian with a crisis of conscience, either to dispense with the book which forms the basis of their faith and simply establish their own criteria or adhere to the Biblical teaching.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Recently the church of England appointed its first lady Bishop. It was heralded as a sign of the Churches progress. Similar ground breaking acts of its history were cited for example the break from Rome which although was done primarily because Henry VIII couldn't get a divorce from his first wife it did pave the way for the reformation in England, ...[text shortened]... Again this is simply an argumentum ad populum - many people affirm it therefore it must be good.
it wasn't the word of god that said women shouldn't teach. it was paul. just to appeal to a patriarchal roman society.
although the (patriarchal) gospels don't specifically say,we know women had an important role in early christianity just by reading between the lines. mary was revered and still is today but she constantly was near jesus, she often acted as intermediary and she is the one who encouraged jesus to do his first miracle. mary magdalene wrote a gospel of her own.
besides paul, nowhere does it say that women shouldn't teach.
not to mention that, again, we tend to move on from christian teachings that are no longer valid. because we evolve.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I was wondering how other Christians felt about the appointment in view of the Bibles clear and unequivocal stance that only males are to be considered for positions of authority for it appears to me that they must have a kind of crisis of conscience, either to obey the word of God or to dispense with it in favour of something else.
I am attempting to question how one goes about justifying a stance that is clearly anti-Biblical.
It is because some people grow up and start using their own brain*. You not being one of them.
*to a certain extent... for they still believe in the Magic Fairy Man. One step at a time, I suppose.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi it wasn't the word of god that said women shouldn't teach. it was paul. just to appeal to a patriarchal roman society.
although the (patriarchal) gospels don't specifically say,we know women had an important role in early christianity just by reading between the lines. mary was revered and still is today but she constantly was near jesus, she often act ...[text shortened]... again, we tend to move on from christian teachings that are no longer valid. because we evolve.
Robbie seems to think the bible is clear and unequivocal on this matter.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi it wasn't the word of god that said women shouldn't teach. it was paul. just to appeal to a patriarchal roman society.
although the (patriarchal) gospels don't specifically say,we know women had an important role in early christianity just by reading between the lines. mary was revered and still is today but she constantly was near jesus, she often act ...[text shortened]... again, we tend to move on from christian teachings that are no longer valid. because we evolve.
So your reason amounts to, because Paul said it we can simply dismiss it. I don't think that's either a very valid or convincing argument at all. The fact that no one else makes reference to it again is not legitimate argument, its an argument of omission and is logically fallacious.
Moved on from Christian teachings? What you appear to be saying is that the Bible itself is no longer valid or only valid until we feel the necessity to dismiss its teachings. Our teachings are based on something else. How else are we to understand your words, they make no sense otherwise.
Originally posted by deenny Robbie seems to think the bible is clear and unequivocal on this matter.
Are you saying that its not? Where is your evidence. I can certainly provide evidence that its clear and unequivocal, can you provide evidence to the contrary?
Originally posted by twhitehead But mention eating pork, stoning women for adultery, or slavery and he will suddenly be less sure about how unequivocal the Bible can be.
Actually i can provide evidence that the Bible is rather clear on these matters that you mention, but then again, eating pork, stoning for adultery or slavery is not the topic of this thread, is it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie So your reason amounts to, because Paul said it we can simply dismiss it. I don't think that's either a very valid or convincing argument at all. The fact that no one else makes reference to it again is not legitimate argument, its an argument of omission and is logically fallacious.
Moved on from Christian teachings? What you appear to be sayi ...[text shortened]... based on something else. How else are we to understand your words, they make no sense otherwise.
"So your reason amounts to, because Paul said it we can simply dismiss it."
my argument is nothing of the sorts.
all i am doing here is dismantling your position that anything in the bible is divine mandate and we must adhere to it. forever.
god himself gave one set of laws that got dismissed later by jesus. if divine laws can be dismissed, how about laws given by a mere man. one who wasn't even that mysoginistic to begin with. one who realized he must sell christianity to a certain customer, the roman empire. he made a sale pitch.
today we don't have to sell christianity to patriarchs. today we recognize that a woman is just as intelligent as a man, that she can be just as spiritual as a man. god does not ignore women. why do you?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie So your reason amounts to, because Paul said it we can simply dismiss it. I don't think that's either a very valid or convincing argument at all. The fact that no one else makes reference to it again is not legitimate argument, its an argument of omission and is logically fallacious.
Moved on from Christian teachings? What you appear to be sayi ...[text shortened]... based on something else. How else are we to understand your words, they make no sense otherwise.
"What you appear to be saying is that the Bible itself is no longer valid or only valid until we feel the necessity to dismiss its teachings."
parts of it are still valid. others? no, they are not.
women can teach. women can lead. women can create. women can have opinions. period. everyone who says differently is wrong. period. i can debate which chocolate is better, twix or snickers. this is not debatable.
Originally posted by twhitehead Except you won't, will you?
sure I can provide Biblical evidence. Perhaps if you stopped assuming so much you wouldn't make such silly accusations.
Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but she is to remain silent. - 1 Timothy 2:12
So tell us how you are going to provide evidence against this.
Lady Bishops
28 Jan '15 09:304 edits
Back to Top