Presumption, presumption, presumption

Cover of True Women

Presumption is generally seen as a bad thing, but in truth we all presume something to a certain extent. And presumption on its own is certainly not bad, it’s only bad if it’s incorrect.

So Andrew Wilson has acknowledged that he has presumptions when it comes to his view on women as elders (i.e. that women shouldn’t be elders). But he’s then laid his presumptions out for all to see, critique and comment. They’re available over here, where a little conversation has started, but here they are in summary form:

1. We should presume the Bible is true for everyone until it’s proven it’s only true for some (e.g. ‘fetch the parchments’ 2 Tim 4:13).
2. We should presume that 2,000 years of history is more correct than 20 years of societal change until proven otherwise.
3. We should presume that specific teaching in the Bible is of great importance.
4. We should presume that teaching in the Bible is compatible, however incompatible it may seem.
5. We should presume that if two Christians hold different positions from the same Bible passage, the most counter-cultural is the best.

Obviously he unpacks it all in his original post but hopefully that should give you a flavour.

Wright on female bishops

One of the most read posts on this blog was one a bit ago about female bishops…

So it caught my eye when Tom Wright (who I think is great) announced that despite the fact he’s in favour of female bishops he doesn’t think the Church of England should do it:

http://www.gazette.ireland.anglican.org/2010/051110/bishopwrightintereview051110.html

Discuss.

Man without woman is nothing

How did you read it?

Man, without woman, is nothing.

or

Man: without, woman is nothing.

It’s not what you say, it’s what they hear. Often you don’t know what’s been heard until it’s too late – let’s take care that what’s heard is what’s meant, and let’s lighten up a bit and not take everything the wrong way!

Female bishops

I read a story in the newspapers recently that the Church of England had started the process of potentially enabling ladies to serve as bishops. Of course there are two sides to the debate – one side didn’t ever want ladies to become vicars so will vote against this move (and likely lose), the other side believes in equal rights.

Now, I don’t want to start a massive argument here but I would like to genuinely ask a question of those in favour of female bishops & church leaders. Jesus appointed leaders over the early church in the form of his twelve disciples, all of whom were male.

My question is: why did he choose only men if he wanted us to have both men and women leading? Whenever I’ve asked this question before I’ve been answered in only one way, which is that men were leaders in the culture at that time…but the last time I checked Jesus wasn’t the biggest fan of conforming to society!

Genuinely, I’d like an answer – thanks