Church Of England Says NO To Female Bishops

[ActionJackson]

For now ... the Church of England voted NO on allowing female Bishops. The vote was very close, however, and the debate will continue:

http://www.mail.com/news/world/17130...age-subhero1-1

Based on the following passage of God's Word, how might you vote on the issue?:

1 Timothy 3:2-7, "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."

[Rett]

Originally Posted by ActionJackson

For now ... the Church of England voted NO on allowing female Bishops. The vote was very close, however, and the debate will continue:

http://www.mail.com/news/world/17130...age-subhero1-1

Based on the following passage of God's Word, how might you vote on the issue?:

1 Timothy 3:2-7, "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."

The Anglican church has been overrun by lefty feminists that care nothing for the Word of God.
It is only a matter of time before it falls over in a heap. It's a gutted shell already.
The survivors will most likey join the Catholic Church for authentic Christianity.

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by Rett

The Anglican church has been overrun by lefty feminists that care nothing for the Word of God.
It is only a matter of time before it falls over in a heap. It's a gutted shell already.
The survivors will most likey join the Catholic Church for authentic Christianity.

I'm not a Catholic and I disagree with some of the RCC's traditions but I must give it credit for standing strong on certain issues. I can see why it would appeal to parishioners of the various denominations that are falling like dominoes in the face of political correctness. Fortunately, there are a handful of denominations that still stand up for biblical principles.

[Paradox]

The whole Idea of a national religion is what Jesus came to abolish IMHO.
There is no more I'm engllish so I am a christian default position. Each of us is accountable for their own salvation individually. That's why He is a personal saviour, not a national one. So the whole viewpoint from that aspect to me is plain wrong, accompanied by the fact that ALL believers are priests and kings under the headship of Jesus and accompanied by the scriptural " there is no male nor female " etc.


I do not however disagree that disenchanted anglicans are likely to join the RCC.
The apostasia is nigh.

[Smudge]

Despite the vote, several bishops noted that a woman, Queen Elizabeth II, is the church's supreme governor. It has been 36 years since the General Synod declared it had no fundamental objection to ordaining women as priests, and 18 years since the first women were ordained. But that change never won universal acceptance in the church, with a determined minority arguing that that the move was contrary to the Bible.

Makes it sound more like a Mens Club than a Church tbh, it reminded me of this

al bundy starts a church PART 1 - YouTube

[Cachook]

At least it got this one right.

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by Smudge

Makes it sound more like a Mens Club than a Church tbh, it reminded me of this

al bundy starts a church PART 1 - YouTube

Many churches today are little more than social clubs of one sort or fashion. But thanks for the distraction and attempt to change topic. Appreciated!

[tobkis]

Keep the women in the kitchen or the bedroom. Someone screwed up letting them vote and drive.

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by Paradox

The whole Idea of a national religion is what Jesus came to abolish IMHO.
There is no more I'm engllish so I am a christian default position. Each of us is accountable for their own salvation individually. That's why He is a personal saviour, not a national one. So the whole viewpoint from that aspect to me is plain wrong, accompanied by the fact that ALL believers are priests and kings under the headship of Jesus and accompanied by the scriptural " there is no male nor female " etc.


I do not however disagree that disenchanted anglicans are likely to join the RCC.
The apostasia is nigh.

Would you have anything against women as overseers of smaller, community type churches? I guess I'm just trying to get a feel for how people view Paul's description or qualifications for filling the office of a Bishop. Was he speaking for his time only or for the Christian Church for all time?

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by ActionJackson

But thanks for the distraction and attempt to change topic. Appreciated!

I do apologise, they voted the motion has been carried. We can have female clergy but they'll not be allowed to rise within the CoE beyond vicar. Whats to discuss?

We can pretty much guess how the majority of people on these boards would have voted, at least I can

However consider me chastised and I'll not offend by posting again in this thread

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by ActionJackson

Would you have anything against women as overseers of smaller, community type churches? I guess I'm just trying to get a feel for how people view Paul's description or qualifications for filling the office of a Bishop. Was he speaking for his time only or for the Christian Church for all time?

A good question fairly raised.
can you define what you mean by overseer AJ
I have no problem acknowledging women as equals in God's sight and a good few are far more intelligent than I am.
However I don't believe that they should have spiritual authority over men, because they ( IMHO ) are more susceptible to spiritual influences, good or bad than men. Whereas men are thicker spiritually speaking, and less likely to be misled so long as they are listening to Jesus.

I think a lot of the bible is taken out of context etc and twisted by people to make it mean what they want it too. Paul's words stand for all time.
But that's just MHO.

[survivalminister]

This isn't a surprising decision given the state of the Anglican Communion. This was as much a political as theological decision. It will be interesting in another 20 years (if the Communion is still intact) when younger (and more progressive clergy from the more conservative African/Central/South American countries rise to power.

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by survivalminister

This isn't a surprising decision given the state of the Anglican Communion. This was as much a political as theological decision. It will be interesting in another 20 years (if the Communion is still intact) when younger (and more progressive clergy from the more conservative African/Central/South American countries rise to power.

Progressive liberalism is the key to the church's future. I agree with you that the modern church will fall away from traditional wisdom, exegesis, and biblical doctrine in trade for modernism, ecumenism, and political correctness. You and I finally agree on something.

However, there will always be a remnant of believers who remain true to the written Word.

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by Paradox

A good question fairly raised.
can you define what you mean by overseer AJ
I have no problem acknowledging women as equals in God's sight and a good few are far more intelligent than I am.
However I don't believe that they should have spiritual authority over men, because they ( IMHO ) are more susceptible to spiritual influences, good or bad than men. Whereas men are thicker spiritually speaking, and less likely to be misled so long as they are listening to Jesus.

I think a lot of the bible is taken out of context etc and twisted by people to make it mean what they want it too. Paul's words stand for all time.
But that's just MHO.

I think the word "Bishop" and "overseer" are synonymous.

I hold women in high regard. I believe they fill a role that only a woman can. Their roles compliment the man's role in life. Together, they become one. I treasure God's feminine creatures and am sometimes in awe of a mother holding her child. There's nothing like it. However, I still feel that a separation between the masculine and the feminine should remain for true balance between the sexes to occur.

The vast majority of biblical leaders (spiritual, political, and military) were male. There are a couple of exceptions but the precedence has been set by the Bible, itself. All the major Prophets, and Old Testament Kings & Patriarchs were men. All the Apostles were men. God is referred to in the masculine. Jesus Christ was male as are all the angels (good and evil ones).

I'm reminded of this passage:

Ephesians 5:22-31, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."

Strong's Word #G1985, "Bishop" or "episkopē":

1) investigation, inspection, visitation
a) that act by which God looks into and searches out the ways, deeds character, of men, in order to adjudge them their lot accordingly, whether joyous or sad
b) oversight
1) overseership, office, charge, the office of an elder
2) the overseer or presiding officers of a Christian church

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G1984&t=KJV

[Bazooka Joe]

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."

Whew, thank goodness if my neighbor is a female, I can covert all of her goods. Thank you for bringing this textual information to my attention. Obviously, God didn't mean to include any females when His writers used generic masculine pronoun forms. I must seek out all of the other places that don't explicitly say "his or her" or "he and she" to make sure that I am not expecting more adherence to Biblical law from females than was intended.

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by Bazooka Joe

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."

Whew, thank goodness if my neighbor is a female, I can covert all of her goods. Thank you for bringing this textual information to my attention. Obviously, God didn't mean to include any females when His writers used generic masculine pronoun forms. I must seek out all of the other places that don't explicitly say "his or her" or "he and she" to make sure that I am not expecting more adherence to Biblical law from females than was intended.

So you're saying that Isaiah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Paul, Peter, John, Jesus, Nehemiah, Ezra, Job, Noah, Lot, Matthew, Benjamin, Judah, Joseph, and the rest aren't significant?

[Bazooka Joe]

Originally Posted by ActionJackson

So you're saying that Isaiah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Paul, Peter, John, Jesus, Nehemiah, Ezra, Job, Noah, Lot, Matthew, Benjamin, Judah, Joseph, and the rest aren't significant?

No. I'm just saying be careful when you decide that particular uses of a masculine pronoun exclude women, but that other such uses include women.

[Caneman]

like it or not women, the Bible says you are equal with men but you are not fit to lead... just my imo by reading scripture hate if you want! God seems to have made men and women to have different functions, and it is part of God's economy, appreciate it or not...

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by Bazooka Joe

No. I'm just saying be careful when you decide that particular uses of a masculine pronoun exclude women, but that other such uses include women.

So you're saying that a woman can be a husband to one wife?

1 Timothy 3:2-7, "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;