Actscelerate.com

brotherjames

Bonnie

Acts-celerater Posts: 935 **7/27/17 9:38 am**

the problem is that people have their biases and they read into scripture what they want to see whether or not it is good exegesis or not. With that said, we have actually done this subject many times since I joined onto this board many years ago with no change in anyone's "opinion/bias" I mean theological viewpoint. Some people make the same argument every time, witness Wyatt's snarky, less than subtle digs at the AG not being as women affirming as the Foursquare because although we ordained women in our First General Council in 1914, they couldn't vote until 1920 and couldn't pastor until 1935. The Foursquare was started by Amiee Semple McPherson, a women don't you know, so they affirmed women from the get go. So what? Has the COG let women vote since 1920 or allowed them to pastor at all? Duh.

Doyle's latest comment about denominations declining because somehow when they ordained women they became more liberal and thusly lost congregants is silly. If he changed the word women to homosexuals he might have a point. An on it goes. Which is why I do my best not to get into these threads much anymore - no one will ever cede a point that differs from their pre-conceived idea (bias ) Confused

TTFN

Quiet Wyatt

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12792 **7/27/17 9:56 am**

No snark at all, just simple fact.

Mat

From another thread with a final question added

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1979 **7/27/17 10:18 am**

Growing up in the COGOP I was conditioned by the practice of Ordination of male ministers to the office of Bishop (or Deacon), including the requirements that they be the husband of one wife. At the same time there was a long history of women "Licensed Ministers" in all most every level of ministry. Within my lifetime women did not vote in the local church, conventions or assemblies, but that changed around 1990, as did their authorization to conduct business conferences and administer sacraments. Prior to the change the COGOP tried to separate the business of the church where women would be silent from the ministry of the Word in which they had liberty. It may not have been the best solution, but I think it was a sincere effort to balance scripture.

Before that change (and after), there were women evangelists, camp directors, pastors, state office staff and general appointees. Both A. J. Tomlinson and M. A. Tomlinson appointed women "missionaries" who oversaw works in Caribbean nations and New Zealand as early as 1935. They were appointed at the assembly along with the State/National Overseers. The works they were responsible for had existing churches they "oversaw" for the General Overseer.

Now we have Ordained Women Ministers, along with women deacons (which are now ordained in the local church, it is not a "general" ordination as it was at one time), and women still occupy every level of leadership, even district overseer. However, the stopping point is at State/National Overseer and General Overseer. Women serve on the key assembly committees that bring issues (the agenda) to the floor for discussion and vote, in which women fully participate.

The title "Bishop" is the "stumbling block". I favor the abandonment of that title in regards to what it says on my "ordination". "Ordained Minister" works for me, and I don't mind having the same thing as women ministers. Let them minister as God has called them. If they can get themselves elected to leadership, let them lead with their gifts. If they fail, well guys we know what happens to us when we fail. Equal requirements, equal obedience to go, equal duties when you get there. No excuses, male or female alike. I would like to see in the future, "bishop" only in function not in ordination!

Now as to my COG brothers, I have attended your assembly business (counsel of Bishops?) and watched on the internet. Why not drop the title "Bishop" and let all Ordained Ministers participate in the counsel (the first part) that make recommendations to the General Assembly? Why not let Ordained Ministers be nominated and voted on to see who is on the 18 and the top five?

For those who want to silence women, just vote them into one of those seats on the stage. I don't see much in the way of opinion coming from them during discussions.

Mat

Aaron Scott

A year later???

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6032 **7/27/17 11:21 am**

Folks, it comes up EVERY General Assembly because there are folks in leadership that keep bringing it back up DESPITE the consistent voting down of such proposals.

Why? Because, in a nutshell, the bishops are only right IF they happen to agree with leadership. If they disagree, then it's alright to keep bringing it up until enough of them die off to deliver a victory...AND THEN IT WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER be brought up again. Why? Why, because they finally got their way.

It should be a rule that if a proposal fails, any proposal that is directly or indirectly of the same sort cannot be placed on the agenda or discussed for at least two full Assembly cycles (i.e., if it fails this year, it cannot be brought up two years from now or four years from now, but must wait until the sixth year).

I mean, I know how it feels to be surrounded by people who are DEAD WRONG (SMILE), but if the votes of the bishops are, really, being disregarded and the proposals keep coming back over and over, then let's just vote to do away with the bishops and let the executive level make ALL the decisions...since they clearly know better than the rest of these folks.

Tom Sterbens

Re: A year later???

Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia Posts: 4507 **7/27/17 11:42 am**

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **7/27/17 11:53 am**

Aaron, I was specifically talking about the use of 1 Timothy 2 in this discussion. Doyle brought it up in his post. I went back through the posts to see where it had been discussed before. It struck me as interesting that it was a year ago.
Have you taken a look at what the Greek word "authenteo" means (which is rendered "usurp authority")?
Have you considered what the main issue confronting Ephesus was that Paul was trying to correct in his first letter to Timothy?

bradfreeman

Re: brotherjames,

Acts-dicted Posts: 9027 **7/27/17 2:34 pm**

bonnie knox

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **7/27/17 3:14 pm**

I suspect there is a small contingent of people who haven't really stopped to examine the issues thoroughly who will be enough to swing the pendulum when they actually do take a look at it. Of course, that's just speculation on my part.
And generally, people do tend to get more "sot in their ways" as they get older, so probably among the older generation, there will be less change in attitude.
That's with respect to the Church of God denomination. On the other hand, in the Southern Baptist Convention churches (and seminaries), for example, it seems women are being restricted even more now than in the past and the young people who may be referred to as "young restless reformed" seem to be on board with that as a good thing.

Carolyn Smith

Re: A year later???

Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 5909 **7/27/17 4:02 pm**