From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over
the man, but to be in silence.

i wonder how they square the above Scripture with a female ArchBishop???



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

In article <Mpz4R.15405$s_zc.12367@fx15.ams1>,
mick falconer <hermeneutika@msn.cpm> wrote:

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over
the man, but to be in silence.

i wonder how they square the above Scripture with a female ArchBishop???

Well, we have Gal 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you
are all one in Christ Jesus.
(NIV Gal 3:28)
--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 29/12/2025 18:05, mick falconer wrote:

i wonder how they square the above Scripture with a female ArchBishop???

In the same way as they square it with women teaching boys in Sunday School.

More concerning is that someone told me - and I have no idea whether the information is accurate or not - that this woman is a lesbian. Whether
or not lesbianism is condemned in the Bible, I do think that church
leaders should be an example to their flocks, which means happy and
stable marriages.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 29/12/2025 18:05, mick falconer wrote:

1Ti 2:12-a But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

i wonder how they square the above Scripture with a female ArchBishop???

There is a lot in scripture that is no longer deemed binding. I consider
that in St Paul's time, women were not of equal status to men, whereas
they are, in our society today.

The consequence of the culture of St Paul's time probably meant that
many women were comparatively uneducated, and therefore reliant on their menfolk to explain things to them. Today, women have proved themselves
to be academically very definitely the equal of men, and often do better.

In the intervening 2,000 years societies, knowledge and understanding
and so on have changed enormously. So there are many things from those
times which we now know are unreasonable, and many things then that were consequences of the type of society they had.

So really, what people believe depends on their understanding of the
nature of the Bible. Personally, I don't sign up to the 'evangelical'
type of statement which says something like, "The Bible is the revealed
Word of God, perfect and without error as originally delivered."

To me, even a casual study of the Bible quickly reveals contradictions
and some errors. That doesn't affect my faith in God, but it does mean
that I cannot accept such a statement as that above.

Consider this: None of the three ancient Creeds upheld today make such a statement. If it was believed at the time the Creeds were formulated,
they would definitely have included it.

Yes, the Bible writers were inspired to write and record their
experiences and understanding of events. But as we see from the four
differing accounts of the Gospel, they were how people remembered and understood things at the time.

We need Scripture, Tradition, AND Reason when taking an holistic
approach to understanding in our vastly different time and culture.

Tim.





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 30/12/2025 06:05, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 29/12/2025 18:05, mick falconer wrote:

i wonder how they square the above Scripture with a female ArchBishop???

In the same way as they square it with women teaching boys in Sunday
School.

More concerning is that someone told me - and I have no idea whether the information is accurate or not - that this woman is a lesbian. Whether
or not lesbianism is condemned in the Bible, I do think that church
leaders should be an example to their flocks, which means happy and
stable marriages.

You are confusing her with the Archbishop of Wales, who is openly gay,
and in a civil partnership, which is allowed in the Church of Wales. One suspects she would be married if the CofW allowed it. Her civil
partnership has lasted longer than some Christian heterosexual
marriages, having so far lasted 30 years.





--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

In article <10j0djj$1o55d$2@dont-email.me>,
John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:

You are confusing her with the Archbishop of Wales, who is openly gay,
and in a civil partnership, which is allowed in the Church of Wales.

Yes, I read that somewhere. Horrifying isn't it/
--
Stuart Winsor

Tools With A Mission
sending tools across the world
http://www.twam.co.uk/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 30/12/2025 11:38, John wrote:

You are confusing her with the Archbishop of Wales, who is openly gay,
and in a civil partnership, which is allowed in the Church of Wales. One suspects she would be married if the CofW allowed it. Her civil
partnership has lasted longer than some Christian heterosexual
marriages, having so far lasted 30 years.

Or rather my informant was confusing her.

I am not sure that length of time validates a relationship which is
condemned by God (and I am not certain that lesbian relationships *are* condemned by God. Certainly they are not mentioned in the Old Testament
and Paul's statement in Romans 1:26 is so vague that it is impossible to determine what he was talking about.)

However I would take issue with your comment regarding "marriage".
Marriage is the union of one man with one woman. Any other relationship
is not a marriage, no matter what society may call it.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 30/12/2025 08:00, Timreason wrote:

There is a lot in scripture that is no longer deemed binding. I consider that in St Paul's time, women were not of equal status to men, whereas
they are, in our society today.

We might consider another of Paul's bits of advice to Timothy, that of
taking a little wine "for your stomach's sake". Wine, and the alcohol it contains, does not do anything beneficial for the stomach and ingesting alcohol can lead to cancer of both stomach and oesophagus. However I can imagine that if Timothy was located somewhere with a dodgy water supply,
it might indeed have been healthier for him to drink wine than water!

In other words, it is very likely that Paul's advice, although good for
those circumstances, was not generally valid.

Likewise we might dismiss Paul's advice for slaves to serve their
masters faithfully and not seek to be free. Good advice for the specific circumstances of his time but not general advice for all situations.

In the same way, Paul's prohibition on women teaching or otherwise
having a leadership role was good advice for his time, but should not be considered as valid for all times and all locations.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 01/01/2026 05:03, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 30/12/2025 11:38, John wrote:

You are confusing her with the Archbishop of Wales, who is openly gay,
and in a civil partnership, which is allowed in the Church of Wales.
One suspects she would be married if the CofW allowed it. Her civil
partnership has lasted longer than some Christian heterosexual
marriages, having so far lasted 30 years.

Or rather my informant was confusing her.

Didn't you think to fact check it before posting? That's precisely what
I did before I replied as I didn't know whether AoC was or wasn't.

I am not sure that length of time validates a relationship which is condemned by God (and I am not certain that lesbian relationships *are* condemned by God. Certainly they are not mentioned in the Old Testament
and Paul's statement in Romans 1:26 is so vague that it is impossible to determine what he was talking about.)

Do you think male homosexuality is condemned in Romans, or even
elsewhere in the NT?

However I would take issue with your comment regarding "marriage".
Marriage is the union of one man with one woman. Any other relationship
is not a marriage, no matter what society may call it.

A civil partnership was an officially recognised legal commitment
between two people, probably not that much different to a registry
office marriage. Define marriage in your eyes.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 01/01/2026 13:08, John wrote:

Didn't you think to fact check it before posting?-a That's precisely what
I did before I replied as I didn't know whether AoC was or wasn't.

Perhaps I should have; I made it clear that I was repeating what I had
been told and that the information might be unreliable.

Do you think male homosexuality is condemned in Romans, or even
elsewhere in the NT?

Yes.

A civil partnership was an officially recognised legal commitment
between two people, probably not that much different to a registry
office marriage.-a Define marriage in your eyes.

I did in my comment.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2