Episcopalian: Women as Bishops?

[AngelDove06]

Hello everyone. I have a question for Episcopalians. How can you allow your church to have female bishops considering the following verse which says that a bishop is to be the husband of one wife? :confused: I am not saying that your practice is wrong but I am confused by it.

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

[She]

Hello everyone. I have a question for Episcopalians. How can you allow your church to have female bishops considering the following verse which says that a bishop is to be the husband of one wife? :confused: I am not saying that your practice is wrong but I am confused by it.

1 Timothy 3:2 KJV A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Wasn't this written by St Paul? I don't think that he was a great fan of women in general. Some have described him as a misogynist. I'm not sure whether that is true. But it is clear that times have changed during the past 2,000 years and women now have different roles and are more respected in most civilised societies than they were 2,000 years ago.

[Naomi4Christ]

Hello everyone. I have a question for Episcopalians. How can you allow your church to have female bishops considering the following verse which says that a bishop is to be the husband of one wife? :confused: I am not saying that your practice is wrong but I am confused by it.

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

What do you mean by 'allow'?

How can any one person have that decision making power alone?

The church is governed by bishops, an appointed group of clergy, and elected laity. They make the decisions on behalf of their parishioner. It is a representative system.

[bdarien]

why would someone who so easily discounts and marks as irrelevant the writings of Paul bother reading the bible? IF the Word of God is out of date and can be changed depending on the current whims of society then it is useless. Either the Word of God is correct and women are not to be bishops or the word of God is out of date and Paul hated women as some say and therefore the bible should just be ignored as the errored document some seem to percieve it as.

It doesn't make any sense for someone to say the believe the Word of God and then to ignore or dismiss as wrong those part which don't fit into the type of idol they have created for themselves to worship.

[ozbloke]

It doesn't make any sense for someone to say the believe the Word of God and then to ignore or dismiss as wrong those part which don't fit into the type of idol they have created for themselves to worship.

Granted, but at the same time, things *do* change, and you have to look at things carefully. Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly advocating one view over the other, but taking the bible completely literally is also as quick a way to get you into trouble as ignoring the bits you don't like. there are always examples for and against issues such as these - and you have to try to understand both sides of the story first.

Why can the verse stated not be extended to cover "the husband of one wife or the wife of one husband"?

[bdarien]

things change but when you start trying to change scripture to make it fit what you like then you are invalidating it as a source of truth and what has changed since the time of Paul that would make it that woman should be leaders today? There were a number of women leaders at that time outside of the church and even a few trying to be so in side of the church which is what Paul was warning against.

[TheGMan]

Exactly the same criterion is stated for deacons in 1 Timothy 3:12 but we know from Romans 16:1 that a woman held this office.