How Ladies can be a Bishop?

[Lovely Lane]

Oh, I see. Women are not called into clergy but the men are.
Women are only called for other things, like being the mother of God and so forth.

 

[Ringo84]

The priesthood and the episcopate are callings, not church jobs. Scripture is clear that God gives each of us different gifts and roles to play. This is likened, in the New Testament, to the body with hands, heart, etc. all working together but each doing something different from what the others do. And we have the example of the gifts of the Holy Spirits which we are told are given to some, but not necessarily all of them to every last person, and that this is according to God's will. There is plenty enough in Scripture to indicate that whom he calls into the ordained ministry is not according to "equal opportunity hiring." And we have specific information that only males can meet the qualifications.

Why can only males meet the qualifications, and who says that women aren't called to be pastors, priests, etc?
Ringo

 

[TheDag]

There is no double standard. If you think what I write is in 'direct conflict' with my stated beliefs, you obviously got confused somewhere along the line.

perhaps you could read your post #88 again. You clearly indicate there is no problem with women reading scripture during liturgy. How is that women keeping silent in church which is the instruction in one of the passages used to support your argument? Answer is it isn't and therefore is a double standard. You have changed the rules to suit yourself. Women simply can not teach sunday school or read the bible if they are to remain silent in church. Simple as that. Yet you are happy for them to have those roles. Please either change your previous posts or admit it is a double standard. unless you are going to deny that children are part of the church and that reading scripture during liturgy is actually at home. Good luck if you try to argue that.

 

[TheDag]

(Assuming, of course, that Adam and Eve were real people) It's also not true that Adam was not deceived. Adam was deceived - both of them were convinced by the serpent to partake of the fruit.

That's supported by the scripture that says God cursed both Adam and Eve equally - not one more than the other. So to say that "only" Eve was deceived misreads the entire story.

See I read it a bit differently to you. I read it as Adam was not deceived but rather just outright disobediant. When I read the account of sin entering the world I see that Adam was there. he therefore did nothing to stop Eve from eating the fruit (some leader hey!) and he knew where the fruit was from. If read another way then yeah Adam was deceived as well. However I believe Adam was there at the time. So as long as you are just outright disobediant it is fine!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm not "speaking for myself", I gave the LCMS statement on the issue. This is the view of the entire denomination.

There are of coarse Churches with women clergy but they are in direct disobedience to God's Word.

lol Like I said, speak for yourself. Your opinion is simply an opinion. I don't know what LCMS believe, nor care what it considers biblical.

I'm not speaking for myself only this is the belief of my denomination. Go back to post #33 where I posted the LCMS belief.

Such is indeed the position of not only the LCMS, but of Lutheran Church Canada, and ALL of the Confessional Lutheran Synods world wide; as it is in the RCC and the Orthodox Churches as well.

The Church is in the world, not of the world. The traditional Churches I listed above, continue to maintain the Apostolic practice of the Church from the 1st. Cent. regarding this issue, and shall continue to do so. Not only does this practice not conflictwith Holy Scripture, but as many others have posted, is supported by it.

Recent innovations which have resulted in female ordination, female governance, the acceptance of homosexual marriage etc. are a result of various Churches deviating from Apostolic tradition and authority given to the Church at Pentecost.

As a genuine question then how does

“As in all the churches of the saints, the women should
keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to
speak,but should be subordinate,as even the law says …what
I am writing to you is a command of the Lord” (1 Cor.
14:33–34,37).
“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I
permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she
is to keep silent”(1 Tim.2:11–12).

tie in to
'There are many ways for women to serve as full-time church workers in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod,including service, as teachers, directors of Christian education, directors of Christian outreach, deaconesses and parish nurses.'

If one is to take what Paul wrote literally then it seems a blanket ban - he doesn't qualify to say i only mean ordained ministers. I've always been confused in that aspect in terms of missionaries too, who often in effect are the only Christian leaders and teachers in a place - and in many cases are women. Are they only allowed to teach women?

In the service of the Church, these duties that women fulfil in the Church and not done unilaterally by these women; rather they are fulfilling these duties under direct supervision and oversight and direction of the Pastors, Elders, Deacons, (both Lay and Consecrated/Ordained depending on the Practice of the particular communion) Synod Presidents, Bishops etc. All offices held by only males, called to the service of the various Communions.

I'm sorry if this offends the "liberals", but it is as it was, as it is, and as it shall continue to be.

Liberals are lucky here in North America, as there are so many reformed protestant Congregations and Churches that one can always find one that is willing to accommodate one's personal opinion.

Truth is, world-wide, those Churches which maintain the orthodox, Apostolic practice constitute a huge majority of Christians; whereas, female ordination is practised, endorsed and held by a very small minority of Christians, and only very recently at that.

Through "Free Will", yes, one could say it's our personal opinion; however, what is personal opinion among us individual members just happens to be in concord with the official teachings of our Churches and Synods and councils; in concord with the Apostolic tradition given to the Church by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

As it was, is now and ever shall be.

 

[Jupiter Drops]

I say, no.

I am a woman, and I don't approve of women becoming the head church pastors, ministers, etc.

I used to approve it years ago with anger and stress, until I realized that what I was doing was useless. It wasn't about power and/or dominance within the church in negative light, although many people seem to see it that way.

We are all equal in God's eyes, but God chose the function of the church symbolically and physically.

A woman can teach children, teens, and other women, but in church, she should not try to teach a man. She can take her husband outside and advise him and ask him to advise others, but she should not be vocal in the church.

What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men 1 Timothy 2:11-15 | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I say, no.

I am a woman, and I don't approve of women becoming the head church pastors, ministers, etc.

I used to approve it years ago with anger and stress, until I realized that what I was doing was useless. It wasn't about power and/or dominance within the church in negative light, although many people seem to see it that way.

We are all equal in God's eyes, but God chose the function of the church symbolically and physically.

A woman can teach children, teens, and other women, but in church, she should not try to teach a man. She can take her husband outside and advise him and ask him to advise others, but she should not be vocal in the church.

What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men 1 Timothy 2:11-15 | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

Thanks, this is very well stated.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Such is indeed the position of not only the LCMS, but of Lutheran Church Canada, and ALL of the Confessional Lutheran Synods world wide; as it is in the RCC and the Orthodox Churches as well.

The Church is in the world, not of the world. The traditional Churches I listed above, continue to maintain the Apostolic practice of the Church from the 1st. Cent. regarding this issue, and shall continue to do so. Not only does this practice not conflictwith Holy Scripture, but as many others have posted, is supported by it.

Recent innovations which have resulted in female ordination, female governance, the acceptance of homosexual marriage etc. are a result of various Churches deviating from Apostolic tradition and authority given to the Church at Pentecost.




In the service of the Church, these duties that women fulfil in the Church and not done unilaterally by these women; rather they are fulfilling these duties under direct supervision and oversight and direction of the Pastors, Elders, Deacons, (both Lay and Consecrated/Ordained depending on the Practice of the particular communion) Synod Presidents, Bishops etc. All offices held by only males, called to the service of the various Communions.

I'm sorry if this offends the "liberals", but it is as it was, as it is, and as it shall continue to be.

Liberals are lucky here in North America, as there are so many reformed protestant Congregations and Churches that one can always find one that is willing to accommodate one's personal opinion.

Truth is, world-wide, those Churches which maintain the orthodox, Apostolic practice constitute a huge majority of Christians; whereas, female ordination is practised, endorsed and held by a very small minority of Christians, and only very recently at that.

Through "Free Will", yes, one could say it's our personal opinion; however, what is personal opinion among us individual members just happens to be in concord with the official teachings of our Churches and Synods and councils; in concord with the Apostolic tradition given to the Church by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

As it was, is now and ever shall be.

no, I'm not offended. my opinion is as good as yours. I just find it humorous when Apostolic succession is claimed by Protestants.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

no, I'm not offended. my opinion is as good as yours. I just find it humorous when Apostolic succession is claimed by Protestants.

I'm glad you found humour in my post; very "Catholic" of you to call confessional Lutheran's "protestants". We are Evangelical Catholics.

Please re-read my post; nowhere did I use the word "succession". I did use the word Apostolic with "practice" and "teaching" though. The "practices" and "teachings" given to the Church by the "Apostles".

"Apostolic Succession" was not even inferred in my post, and is something else all together. While some Lutheran Synods do, in fact, have what the RCC and EOC define as "Apostolic Succession"; neither mine, nor the LCMS do. Apostolic Succession, as far as we're concerned is "Adiaphora" (a matter of indifference, neither endorsed by, nor forbidden by Scripture).

What we do do however, is maintain "practices" and "teachings" consistent with those of the Apostles in this matter, and, we believe, in all of our teachings; as revealed in Scripture by the Apostles and maintained through Apostolic tradition (not succession); which is why we continue to confess the three ecumenical Creeds and through Scripture know that we are part of the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church".

I hope that this helps you discern the difference.

BTW; I will be attending Mass this morning, and receiving the very body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist; as Christ commanded and taught us to do through the same inspired writings of the Apostles; administered by my "male" Pastor. Protestants do not do this, nor do they believe in the Apostolic teaching of the real presence, do they?

 

[Lovely Lane]

I'm glad you found humour in my post; very "Catholic" of you to call confessional Lutheran's "protestants". We are Evangelical Catholics.

Please re-read my post; nowhere did I use the word "succession". I did use the word Apostolic with "practice" and "teaching" though. The "practices" and "teachings" given to the Church by the "Apostles".

"Apostolic Succession" was not even inferred in my post, and is something else all together. While some Lutheran Synods do, in fact, have what the RCC and EOC define as "Apostolic Succession"; neither mine, nor the LCMS do. Apostolic Succession, as far as we're concerned is "Adiaphora" (a matter of indifference, neither endorsed by, nor forbidden by Scripture).

What we do do however, is maintain "practices" and "teachings" consistent with those of the Apostles in this matter, and, we believe, in all of our teachings; as revealed in Scripture by the Apostles and maintained through Apostolic tradition (not succession); which is why we continue to confess the three ecumenical Creeds and through Scripture know that we are part of the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church".

I hope that this helps you discern the difference.

BTW; I will be attending Mass this morning, and receiving the very body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist; as Christ commanded and taught us to do through the same inspired writings of the Apostles; administered by my "male" Pastor. Protestants do not do this, nor do they believe in the Apostolic teaching of the real presence, do they?

Good for you, enjoy, bon appetit!

So you are catholic but haven't apostolic succession, ok, got it, thanks.

 

[Albion]

perhaps you could read your post #88 again. You clearly indicate there is no problem with women reading scripture during liturgy. How is that women keeping silent in church which is the instruction in one of the passages used to support your argument?

Try paying attention in the future.

MY position--a very standard one--is that women are not to be clergy, but that they may be leaders in any number of other ways. Several other posters here have relied upon the "women keep silent" view as the basis of their opposition to women being either clergy or leaders serving in other roles.

Get it? My view. Their view. Two different views.

 

[Lovely Lane]

I heard that in the world of Anglicans no women clergy allowed, but gay clergy is ok. I bet that causes a stir in the ranks.

 

[TheDag]

Try paying attention in the future.

MY position--a very standard one--is that women are not to be clergy, but that they may be leaders in any number of other ways. Several other posters here have relied upon the "women keep silent" view as the basis of their opposition to women being either clergy or leaders serving in other roles.

Get it? My view. Their view. Two different views.

ok so on what do you base your view that women are not to be clergy then? What parts of the bible are you claiming people must ignore if they agree with ordination of women?

I did agree there was no controversy but that is the problem. There should be.

 

[TheDag]

Such is indeed the position of not only the LCMS, but of Lutheran Church Canada, and ALL of the Confessional Lutheran Synods world wide; as it is in the RCC and the Orthodox Churches as well. The traditional Churches I listed above, continue to maintain the Apostolic practice of the Church from the 1st. Cent. regarding this issue, and shall continue to do so.

Please define confessional lutheran synods worldwide for me. See your statement is kinda misleading. While it is true technically speaking in that women are not ordained anywhere there are certainly Confessional Lutheran Synods that are looking at ordination of women. So there is not actually agreement just common practice which some seem to want to change.

In the service of the Church, these duties that women fulfil in the Church and not done unilaterally by these women; rather they are fulfilling these duties under direct supervision and oversight and direction of the Pastors, Elders, Deacons, (both Lay and Consecrated/Ordained depending on the Practice of the particular communion) Synod Presidents, Bishops etc. All offices held by only males, called to the service of the various Communions.

Yet the instruction is for women to remain silent. They can not remain silent and teach sunday school or stay silent and read scripture. So while claimingto follow biblical instruction you are happy to ignore part of the instruction because why? It suits you is my guess. Remember sunday school programs are a part of church. it is not a case of this is church and now we kick all the kids out of church because kids are not welcome. No rather sunday school is a part of church and if women are to be silent in church they must be silent in sunday school.

I'm sorry if this offends the "liberals", but it is as it was, as it is, and as it shall continue to be.

Sorry if the above offends you but it is double standards. Double standards that not one person here has responded to. They all dance around the fact that women are instructed to keep silent yet are happy for women not to keep silent.

Truth is, world-wide, those Churches which maintain the orthodox, Apostolic practice constitute a huge majority of Christians; whereas, female ordination is practised, endorsed and held by a very small minority of Christians, and only very recently at that.

Wow it is only a recent thing??? Well of course it is. once upon a time slavery was very common including in countries like the UK, USA and Australia. Then the idea formed that slavery was wrong. It was only a new idea yet now we wonder how people could have ever thought the bible endorsed slavery. So it doesn't matter if it is a new idea or not. What matters is what is the truth. I understand that you believe you know the truth on this matter just that it is only a recent idea argument is a very poor one.

 

[TheDag]

A woman can teach children, teens, and other women, but in church, she should not try to teach a man. She can take her husband outside and advise him and ask him to advise others, but she should not be vocal in the church.

If one interprets the instruction in the way you do it is not clever to then take the next sentence and not apply to same interpretation method to it. You simply can not ignore the instruction for women to be silent and say oh it is ok for them to teach children or teens. That is nothing but holding a belief which is a double standard. if it was in a completly different part of the bible then sure there is room for a different interpretation method. However when sentences are adjoining like in this case you simply can not do that and call it good hermeneutics.

 

[Albion]

ok so on what do you base your view that women are not to be clergy then? What parts of the bible are you claiming people must ignore if they agree with ordination of women?

I am not claiming that people must ignore any of the Bible in order to take notice of the various verses in it which outline the requirements for a person to be made a deacon and/or a presbyter/bishop. Both speak in exclusively male terms. Then too, there were no women deacons or presbyters in early church history. And Christ--who had close women friends--only chose men to be the Twelve and to whom he explicitly entrusted the spread of his message to the world. There is plenty of evidence from scripture to support my position. And on the other side? It's almost totally emotional and/or based upon contemporary social norms

 

[TheDag]

I am not claiming that people must ignore any of the Bible in order to take notice of the various verses in it which outline the requirements for a person to be made a deacon and/or a presbyter/bishop. Both speak in exclusively male terms. Then too, there were no women deacons or presbyters in early church history. And Christ--who had close women friends--only chose men to be the Twelve and to whom he explicitly entrusted the spread of his message to the world. There is plenty of evidence from scripture to support my position. And on the other side? It's almost totally emotional and/or based upon contemporary social norms

Almost hey? So what is the part that is not based on that for which you have an explanation?

No women apostles is open to debate. There is sufficient evidence that suggests various groups change a name from female form to male form that means I personally can not make it a firm belief. How have you dealt with that evidence and why do you believe it is not correct? I am assuming you would have looked at it to arrive at your belief as I am assuming you would have researched it well before making a firm belief like that.

 

[Albion]

No women apostles is open to debate. There is sufficient evidence that suggests various groups change a name from female form to male form that means I personally can not make it a firm belief.

No there isn't. That's a far-fetched and groundless theory. I rank it with the "Holy Grail, Holy Blood" theorists who have come up with John the Beloved having been a woman in men's clothing or Jesus having NOT actually ascended into heaven but escaping to marry Mary Magdalene and sire a race of kings who became...well, you know.

Not to be taken seriously.

 

[Ringo84]

But why can women teach teens and children but not men? What is the reason for that - are men so sensitive that they can't handle female instruction?
Ringo

 

[revanneosl]

But why can women teach teens and children but not men? What is the reason for that - are men so sensitive that they can't handle female instruction?
Ringo

Yes. That's exactly why. It is one of a thousand ways in which women are expected to alter their behavior in order to assuage and coddle psychological shortcomings of men. Like how men's inability to control their imaginations means women have to change the way they dress, and how men's general laziness when it comes to house work and child care means women have to change the intensity with which they pursue their careers.

Propping you guys up is basically women's half-time unpaid job.