tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post875078821703125947..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: What Is So Hard About Reading Scripture?A. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-78156638387435515802008-07-30T03:44:00.000-07:002008-07-30T03:44:00.000-07:00Rob, thanks for dropping by my blog. It is always ...Rob, thanks for dropping by my blog. It is always good to get new readers. Please feel free to comment there.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-2154840683485894102008-07-29T19:11:00.000-07:002008-07-29T19:11:00.000-07:00Peter - sorry I haven't read any of your blogging ...Peter - sorry I haven't read any of your blogging until now. I picked out the Charismatic subset of postings and found myself reading many of my own thoughts, many not articulated. I'll pay a little more attention to your Gentle Wisdom blog.<BR/><BR/>Curmudgeon -- thanks for making the reference. Your reading and writing is voluminous, and shared well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-17724961284252255232008-07-29T14:20:00.000-07:002008-07-29T14:20:00.000-07:00Thanks for the clarification. So you would have no...Thanks for the clarification. So you would have no objection to "married" lesbian deacons? Only kidding.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-42125919081165150912008-07-29T12:18:00.000-07:002008-07-29T12:18:00.000-07:00My apologies, Peter Kirk---I had Paul on the brain...My apologies, Peter Kirk---I had Paul on the brain when I wrote my earlier comment, and unlike the posts themselves, I am unable to edit the comments once they are up.<BR/><BR/>Since you do not agree that the passages cited from Titus and 1 Timothy "clearly teach" against homosexual bishops, you also do not see how your argument for women bishops undercuts the point I am making, which is simply that if the Church followed Paul's prescriptions, no one could say that a man who was "married" to another man could ever be a bishop. Rather than see such passages as "obscure," I think they are about as plain as Paul ever gets. <BR/><BR/>That still does not answer your argument about women deacons=>women bishops. The way I reconcile the clear teaching that Phoebe was a deaconess with 1 Timothy 3:12 is simple: I read the latter passage, which follows verse 11 in which Paul talks about the "wives" of deacons, to be talking only about deacons, not deaconesses. (See also the note in the NET Bible text on that interpretation, with which I concur.) Deacons must, like bishops, be "the husbands of one wife"; there is no similar prescriptive passage about deaconesses, or about female elders, so we cannot use those texts to draw any conclusions on that topic. There is no need to think I am attacking your approach; I just prefer one that does not undercut the rest of my argument.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-85644971058094342262008-07-29T10:40:00.000-07:002008-07-29T10:40:00.000-07:00Thanks for the links and the summary of my argumen...Thanks for the links and the summary of my argument - or at least one of the several strands of it. I do recommend that you read it all. It's Peter Kirk, by the way.<BR/><BR/>Let me make it clear that I entirely support your conclusions, that bishops should not be active homosexuals. I do this on the basis of Romans 1 etc which clearly teach that homosexual activity is sinful, and therefore not something which any kind of minister in the church should be indulging in. But I do not find this clearly taught in the Timothy and Titus passages you quote.<BR/><BR/>I strongly dispute your claim that by comparing Scripture with Scripture to decide on its meaning in an obscure context I have "left Paul's fixed moorings and headed out for the open sea". All I have left behind is the fundamentalists' fixed but poorly founded moorings, which are based on selective reading of the Bible, for example their rejection of the clear teaching that Phoebe was a "deacon". A responsible reading of the Bible may lead us from safe moorings into the open sea, but it is only there that we can be moved ahead by the wind of the Holy Spirit.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-64154887721750810022008-07-29T09:47:00.000-07:002008-07-29T09:47:00.000-07:00tupewster - any candidate will have deficiency in ...tupewster - any candidate will have deficiency in one or more areas - but "when we are weak, then we are strong." They are things of which one can repent and with which one can grapple, seeking Christ's help while admitting that they are defects.<BR/><BR/>VGR is just the opposite - he is arguing that his sexual conduct is blessed and above question. And he is leading others into error thereby.<BR/><BR/>And not just to pick on the "left", I would argue that the affluent "health and wealth" preachers on "the right" are unsuitable for church leadership.TLF+https://www.blogger.com/profile/01650010433581488888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-55305060619154026342008-07-29T08:57:00.000-07:002008-07-29T08:57:00.000-07:00Thank you for the encouragement, gentlemen. Pewste...Thank you for the encouragement, gentlemen. Pewster, in the article I give a link to a post (it's actually the fourth in a six-part series, whose links are all <A HREF="http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=57" REL="nofollow">here,</A> written by Paul Kirk, which makes the counter-argument to Paul for women bishops as follows (somewhat simplified; I refer you <A HREF="http://www.qaya.org/blog/?p=55" REL="nofollow">to the original</A>): <BR/><BR/>1. It is true that in Titus 1:7 and 1 Timothy 3:2 Paul says that a bishop must be the "husband of one wife."<BR/><BR/>2. But in 1 Timothy 3:12, Paul says the same thing about deacons---they, too, must be the "husband of one wife."<BR/><BR/>3. We know from Romans 16:1, for example, that women served as deacons in the early Church.<BR/><BR/>4. Therefore, the language of 1 Timothy 3:12 must not be normative for all deacons, so the language of 1 Timothy 3:2 (and by extension, the language of Titus 1:7) must not be normative for all bishops.<BR/><BR/>However, I would like to point out that once you accept this reading, you have left Paul's fixed moorings and headed out for the open sea. If those passages are not normative for all bishops, then they do not prohibit V. Gene Robinson from being a bishop either.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-5205319631203055292008-07-29T07:37:00.000-07:002008-07-29T07:37:00.000-07:00Excellent discussion.These Pastoral epistles are d...Excellent discussion.<BR/><BR/>These Pastoral epistles are difficult for religious leaders to live up to, so it is not surprising that they will try to find wriggle room to justify their own and their friend's "lifestyles." <BR/><BR/>Are the pickings so slim for the priestly class, that no candidates can be found who would live up to Paul's standards? If so, a root cause analysis will lead to the conclusion that errors in teaching, training, selection, discernment, ordination all contribute to the problem. <BR/><BR/>They have to find a way to include women bishops in the Pastoral Epistles. Do the scriptures also apply to women, are they meant to be "one man women?" <BR/><BR/>It is remarkable how many pages it takes to come up with a convoluted rationale for a new interpretation of those passages that are difficult rather than simply facing up to the fact that one is not being faithful to them.<BR/><BR/>The next step in the process is the process of elimination.<BR/>Watch for the references to the Pastoral Epistles to be deleted from or made optional in the next Prayer Book.Undergroundpewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10182191422663119484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-28158259789287468572008-07-29T05:07:00.000-07:002008-07-29T05:07:00.000-07:00Wonderful exegesis. Thanks for your work and for ...Wonderful exegesis. Thanks for your work and for posting it!TLF+https://www.blogger.com/profile/01650010433581488888noreply@blogger.com