Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook  @actscelerate Google+ 

Calif AB appoints woman as D. O: Violation or progress?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post oldschooler
Shocked Friendly Face
Posts: 280
1/16/11 10:51 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
Quote:
If Steve Darnell wanted to do something he would simply do it with the backing of the powers to be and then move on.

Perhaps I misunderstood. Isn't that exactly what you said he had done?
Quote:
So AB Darnell ran the idea by the EC & they agreed with his decision ...Period!

Could you elaborate on who are "the powers to be"? (I think you meant "the powers that be", but would still like to know who holds the power from your viewpoint.)


Also, to clear something up.
Quote:
...whoever Bro. Bob is...

I used to post under my full name, but did not like it that a google search of my name brought people to this site. Not that I am ashamed of anything I say, although I often wish I could say it nicer. But there are hundreds of people at my church that I don't want to find this place. I never advertise it, because it takes a very mature Christian to deal with what they will learn here about our denomination. It ought not be that way, but as long as it is, I will not encourage anyone to read acts-celerate, or the MINUTES or dig into how we operate. Nothing good can come of it.

The answer to "whoever Bro. Bob is" is Bro Bob is nobody, much.

BB
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3860
1/16/11 11:08 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dean Steenburgh
Bro Bob wrote:
Quote:
The answer to "whoever Bro. Bob is" is Bro Bob is nobody, much.


When I stated "whoever BB is", it was more as a statement/question as to who is this that protest so much? Is he/she a layman, pastor/minister, Lee student ...etc???

I mean, if you're not at least a minister in the CoG, what stake do you have in this claim? As laymen what is the concern involving the violent over throw of aggressive women who are going to charge up Keith Street & storm the doors of the National HQ as soon as they are granted O.B. credentials???

BB, FYI the 'powers to be' term is what I used as a shortcut for the Executive Committee. I think they qualify for a definition in the realm of 'powers to be'. If AB Darnell asked permission from the EC & explained the difficult situation and was granted clearance for the vacancy, who are we to question their decision?

I just think we have many other subjects that the majority of us agree on the subject matter and this event is way too small to involve readers with such high objections. I mean if you want to object to something why don't you ask more questions regarding itemized financial disclosure? Now that would be a subject worth giving an opinon over.

.
_________________
"Empty nest syndrome is for the birds!"

Email me at: SteenburghDean@gmail.com

Church planters are focused on just one thing ...introducing people to Jesus!
What are you focused on?
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4464
1/17/11 2:20 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Omega
Dean Steenburgh wrote:
Tom wrote:
Quote:
As I said before...I applaud the courage exhibited by AB Darnell. Just don't want it to be seen as another bureaucratic end run. This stuff hurts us.


I have spoken with AB Darnell & he is not the 'end run' kind of guy who will try to sneak one past the guards. If Steve Darnell wanted to do something he would simply do it with the backing of the powers to be and then move on.

If you or I were in his shoes what would we do? The district in question is a small district that has limited O.B.'s & according to the AB they have not been able to serve, for various reasons as the D.O.

Dr. Sue Webb was ready to serve as she has served this state in various ways & she isn't the kind of person who would engage in some kind of Tom Foolery (sorry Tom, couldn't pass it up) in order to advance the role of women in the CoG. In fact if you were to tell her that she is the only woman D. O. in the whole nation she would get a big laugh out of it & it would then become a moot point on her behalf. She would be impressed with the honor for about as long as it would take her to laugh off the notion or facts.

It's just not a big deal & with all the factors involved it serves to reason why this came together like it did. The timing after this previous GA is nothing more than coincidence. Let's applaud her appointment & enjoy our own personal appointments which have been ordered by God ...just like her's have. Shocked Shocked Shocked



.


Bias is a strange thing. It will make you turn your head at an issue you agree on, but it will make you angry and stir you up if it's one you disagree. You are the last one to defend what has been done, due to your known stance on this issue. Your bias blinds you and makes you look rediculous. It makes you look like a "yes" man. Let's see down the road as other issues come up if you are so consistant. We are going to be watching and reminding you. Laughing
Friendly Face
Posts: 238
1/17/11 10:56 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
Quote:
BB, FYI the 'powers to be' term is what I used as a shortcut for the Executive Committee. I think they qualify for a definition in the realm of 'powers to be'. If AB Darnell asked permission from the EC & explained the difficult situation and was granted clearance for the vacancy, who are we to question their decision?


I have found the thing that is at the root of this one disagreement, then, Dean.

The IEC is NOT where the power is. Those are servants. They take an oath to submit to the authority of the governing body. The powers that be are the loyal members of the Church of God at the General Assembly. Let me repeat that for emphasis, The powers that be are the loyal members of the Church of God at the General Assembly.

Your AB has tremendous power over you and your family, Dean, but you do not work for him. The IEC has tremendous power over Bro Darnell, but he does not work for them.

And Bro Culpepper has tremendous authority over everything that moves and breathes at HQ, but they do not work for him.

Unless, and until you begin to grasp this fact, there is no chance we can agree on much of anything. Not even Boise St.

Who do you work for, Dean? Who are you in covenant with?

This was the final question my father and my grandfather (nobodys, both of them, mere servants, hirelings, even) asked newly licensed ministers when they served on ministerial licensing boards. I still have men come up to me and tell me of the influence this had on their ministry. You better figure out who you work for.

So to answer your question, "Who are we to question their decision?" We are the body. They work for us, as together we work for the Kingdom. When they come to us asking for our permission to do a thing and we say no, then they go ahead and do it anyway, the question becomes, who are THEY to question OUR decision?

Who are THEY, Dean? They are covenant breakers, and unworthy of honor. They are insubordinate, and our trust in them does not exist, because they have proven it to be misplaced.

And I have news for you, they can be stopped. And sometimes it only takes one man to stand up and challenge the ruling of the chair to change everything. IF the body agrees with and supports that man, THEN even the ToT can become part of the agenda, no matter what the IEC says, and the body can govern. One Stephen can change everything.

BB
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3860
1/17/11 11:19 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Gerald Abreu
Bro Bob wrote:
Quote:
BB, FYI the 'powers to be' term is what I used as a shortcut for the Executive Committee. I think they qualify for a definition in the realm of 'powers to be'. If AB Darnell asked permission from the EC & explained the difficult situation and was granted clearance for the vacancy, who are we to question their decision?


I have found the thing that is at the root of this one disagreement, then, Dean.

The IEC is NOT where the power is. Those are servants. They take an oath to submit to the authority of the governing body. The powers that be are the loyal members of the Church of God at the General Assembly. Let me repeat that for emphasis, The powers that be are the loyal members of the Church of God at the General Assembly.

Your AB has tremendous power over you and your family, Dean, but you do not work for him. The IEC has tremendous power over Bro Darnell, but he does not work for them.

And Bro Culpepper has tremendous authority over everything that moves and breathes at HQ, but they do not work for him.

Unless, and until you begin to grasp this fact, there is no chance we can agree on much of anything. Not even Boise St.

Who do you work for, Dean? Who are you in covenant with?

This was the final question my father and my grandfather (nobodys, both of them, mere servants, hirelings, even) asked newly licensed ministers when they served on ministerial licensing boards. I still have men come up to me and tell me of the influence this had on their ministry. You better figure out who you work for.

So to answer your question, "Who are we to question their decision?" We are the body. They work for us, as together we work for the Kingdom. When they come to us asking for our permission to do a thing and we say no, then they go ahead and do it anyway, the question becomes, who are THEY to question OUR decision?

Who are THEY, Dean? They are covenant breakers, and unworthy of honor. They are insubordinate, and our trust in them does not exist, because they have proven it to be misplaced.

And I have news for you, they can be stopped. And sometimes it only takes one man to stand up and challenge the ruling of the chair to change everything. IF the body agrees with and supports that man, THEN even the ToT can become part of the agenda, no matter what the IEC says, and the body can govern. One Stephen can change everything.

BB


Bro. Bob,

I like you. I really, really do. Thanks for an eloquent rebuttal. We all need to be constantly reminded.
_________________
http://geraldabreu.info

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
Abraham Lincoln

There are two ways to enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.
John Adams
Acts-celerater
Posts: 895
1/17/11 7:38 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dean Steenburgh
Omega:
Quote:
Your bias blinds you and makes you look rediculous. It makes you look like a "yes" man.


To the Omega person, you don't know me ...that is a fact! If you did you would soon see that I am not a 'yes' man. I serve on zero boards or committees and am fulfilled to pastor my church w/out ever looking for ministry approval or affirmation. Those who truly know me can tell you that I carry nobody's brief case. In fact, I suspect that you brought this cheap shot out against me because I mentioned the fact that I spoke with the AB involved. You know, there are a lot of guys on here who act like blow hards when it comes to their opinions, but I'm a blow hard that owns mine. Lot's of guys will state their opinion & run for cover w/out ever lifting a finger to check with the sources, that's why opinions are usually not worth much to the readers. Your opinion of me is also worthless as far as I'm concerned & that's my opinion with a smiley face of course Rolling Eyes

.
_________________
"Empty nest syndrome is for the birds!"

Email me at: SteenburghDean@gmail.com

Church planters are focused on just one thing ...introducing people to Jesus!
What are you focused on?
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4464
1/17/11 8:06 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Dean Steenburgh
I don't like to defend my actions or respond to questions that can have indefinite answers to nameless/faceless people, but I'll do it this time.

BB wrote:
Quote:
I have found the thing that is at the root of this one disagreement, then, Dean.

The IEC is NOT where the power is. Those are servants. They take an oath to submit to the authority of the governing body. The powers that be are the loyal members of the Church of God at the General Assembly. Let me repeat that for emphasis, The powers that be are the loyal members of the Church of God at the General Assembly.

Your AB has tremendous power over you and your family, Dean, but you do not work for him. The IEC has tremendous power over Bro Darnell, but he does not work for them.

And Bro Culpepper has tremendous authority over everything that moves and breathes at HQ, but they do not work for him.

Unless, and until you begin to grasp this fact, there is no chance we can agree on much of anything. Not even Boise St.

Who do you work for, Dean? Who are you in covenant with?


I know you are trying to be technical with your 'IEC' abbreviation, but here in America we only need to use the EC. You are slightly wrong when it comes to the AB role, they are appointed by the Ex. Council which includes the top 5 EC members along with the C18 & therefore they work for the PB & he can fire them, it has been done.

We cannot grasp something together that is not lodged in 'fact' so maybe we should stop there.

If you think every pastor in this CoG is an independent agent free outside the realm of reach in terms of his AB, you & I cannot grasp anything. Most ministers will not go against their AB simply due to the intimidation factor & fear of losing their position. If BB is not one of those ministers then we have nothing to grasp as a fact in terms of understanding the underlying concern of many pastors. Sure, some will respond to this comment with a negative flare but few if any will do so w/out the aid of a pen name. WHY BB??? Because they are afraid to let their 'yes man' cat out of the bag & openly disagree with their AB or the EC.

I have tons of comments on my history here on Acts that I have been asked about, but I never demean the leadership nor do I 2nd guess their abilities to lead. But I do like to ask questions that are shaped like statements ...and I use my real name!

I work for God! He alone orders my steps & He brought me into covenant with the CoG for the last 12 years of which my father, grandfather & great grandfather were ministers within. I'm soon to be 52 & I've been in active ministry since I was 18. I never bent to polish shoes & never carried a brief case. Never graduated from Lee & have zero desire to leave the west coast. But I disagree with you when it comes to the power of the G.A. I know what the bylaws say about the governing body, but let's get real.

If the General Assembly has so much power, then why don't they use it? If the GA doesn't like something & if they are the ruling power, then nobody should get upset when intelligent members of the GA stand up to give audible defense against certain measures. BB, you don't get it. The people who run the HQ with their names on the doors are the ones in charge & they do so as 'reasonable rulers'.

Don't you think we play a pretty good game of democracy?

There will always be things that are decided outside the realm of the minutes & sometimes they will hurt your position. Stick around for awhile because something will happen & the pendulum will swing your way soon.


.
_________________
"Empty nest syndrome is for the birds!"

Email me at: SteenburghDean@gmail.com

Church planters are focused on just one thing ...introducing people to Jesus!
What are you focused on?
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4464
1/17/11 8:43 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post An outsiders view Poimen
After spending some time here with you guys I have frequently given thought, sometimes serious thought, to joining the COG. But I must tell you, having lived through this same kind of power struggle over the stated will of the GA by the presiding leadership at that time in the COGOP of the 90's, along with the devastation and division it produced, I couldn't do it. And after reading Dean's articulation of the same above, I'm glad I haven't.

Should leaders lead? Yes. Should they be willing to speak up, speak out, and work for needed adjustments? Absolutely. But if they can't do that without usurping authority not granted them by the governing body, except perhaps where Scripture itself clearly grants or calls for said action, then they are not fit to lead. They are not trustworthy. Are they???

This is not really about women in leadership. Not as much as it is trustworthy oversight and compliance with assembly governance. Women in leadership is merely the incidental issue, not the principle one. Sorta like slavery and the civil war. I know, I know, you guys get tired of hearing my pro-Southern babble, but (tarry with me in my folly) slavery wasn't the principle cause of the war. It was an incidental cause, but not the principle one. Same kinda thing here for you guys.

It could be women in leadership. It could be lack of mandated financial transparency. It could be the the doctrinal soundness of tithing, or initial evidence, of divorce and remarriage, or the use of jewelry. Whatever it is, it is about trust, integrity, and the proper function of government in your fellowship. THAT is the real issue, at least as I see it.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher

Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay."
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5656
1/18/11 1:30 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Reply with quote
Post Re: An outsiders view Gerald Abreu
Poimen wrote:
After spending some time here with you guys I have frequently given thought, sometimes serious thought, to joining the COG. But I must tell you, having lived through this same kind of power struggle over the stated will of the GA by the presiding leadership at that time in the COGOP of the 90's, along with the devastation and division it produced, I couldn't do it. And after reading Dean's articulation of the same above, I'm glad I haven't.

Should leaders lead? Yes. Should they be willing to speak up, speak out, and work for needed adjustments? Absolutely. But if they can't do that without usurping authority not granted them by the governing body, except perhaps where Scripture itself clearly grants or calls for said action, then they are not fit to lead. They are not trustworthy. Are they???

This is not really about women in leadership. Not as much as it is trustworthy oversight and compliance with assembly governance. Women in leadership is merely the incidental issue, not the principle one. Sorta like slavery and the civil war. I know, I know, you guys get tired of hearing my pro-Southern babble, but (tarry with me in my folly) slavery wasn't the principle cause of the war. It was an incidental cause, but not the principle one. Same kinda thing here for you guys.

It could be women in leadership. It could be lack of mandated financial transparency. It could be the the doctrinal soundness of tithing, or initial evidence, of divorce and remarriage, or the use of jewelry. Whatever it is, it is about trust, integrity, and the proper function of government in your fellowship. THAT is the real issue, at least as I see it.


Thanks Chris for your insight. I agree with your assessment. Whatever the motivation it rubs me the wrong way.
_________________
http://geraldabreu.info

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
Abraham Lincoln

There are two ways to enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.
John Adams
Acts-celerater
Posts: 895
1/18/11 10:45 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Omega
Dean Steenburgh wrote:
Omega:
Quote:
Your bias blinds you and makes you look rediculous. It makes you look like a "yes" man.


To the Omega person, you don't know me ...that is a fact! If you did you would soon see that I am not a 'yes' man. I serve on zero boards or committees and am fulfilled to pastor my church w/out ever looking for ministry approval or affirmation. Those who truly know me can tell you that I carry nobody's brief case. In fact, I suspect that you brought this cheap shot out against me because I mentioned the fact that I spoke with the AB involved. You know, there are a lot of guys on here who act like blow hards when it comes to their opinions, but I'm a blow hard that owns mine. Lot's of guys will state their opinion & run for cover w/out ever lifting a finger to check with the sources, that's why opinions are usually not worth much to the readers. Your opinion of me is also worthless as far as I'm concerned & that's my opinion with a smiley face of course Rolling Eyes

.


I said it makes you "Look' like a Yes man. Not that you are. It just seemed you went out of your way to drop his name as if trying to get points. It's just my opinion.
Also.....read Doyle's thread about the destructivness of this decision and then post your rebuttal if you have one. This issue is not about SW, it is about decisions being made by the GA, that officials are overturning that can effect us in other areas. Either you don't get it, or you're overcome by your "bias" in the matter.
Being your opinion is based solely on you bias, to me it is worthless. Of course with a smiley face Laughing
Friendly Face
Posts: 238
1/18/11 4:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Omega et al Dean Steenburgh
I took the careful time to read Doyle's latest 'War & Peace' novel posting on the new Sticky & I do see the point that he & some of you are making. I may sound like I follow the turnip wagon around trying to hop back on, but really I'm fairly competent to grasp the understanding of the other view point. With that said however, it doesn't change my mind at all. The way I see it is that due to the timing of the most recent GA & the vote we cast to keep women in the dark ages in terms of ministry advancement, it is with a groan in the gut that this decision had to be made. The proverbial 'Red Flag' went up because the issue is still lingering in the hearts of some of us.

Try this: we go to GA & lose the vote to give women their Bishop rights; the airwaves are filled with joy especially in the S/E due to this testosterone victory; 5 months goes by & a position for a D.O. which has been open for several months is finally filled but it happens to be a woman pastor w/a congregation of about 150 members who gets the gig; she doesn't even have the largest church of the 4 on the district of which no other male would accept the position; suddenly people on Acts with both names & avatars are thrown to a frenzy because the minutes have been trampled upon due to the fact that a woman has been appointed to serve as a D.O. (which is merely symbolic in California any more) & the minutes themselves to not require that the position be held by an O.B. minister.

Now, it may not be Dr. Webb that you men have a problem with (supposedly even though you have known her for 40+ years) but you have a problem with a woman in a position of authority. I think this is where the rub comes in. California has long been the red headed buck toothed step child living in the land of liberal indulgences & sin, but now the whole male membership who voted against women at the G.A. is up in arms because a woman in Cali. has a position that basically allows her to meet with other pastors during crisis or make sure the pulpit is filled in case of absence, and that somehow is tantamount to greasing the skids for women to storm the doors of 25th/Keith while demanding equality???

Is that the fear here? I mean I get the whole litany of examples of trampling the minutes but isn't the basis for all this protests based on fear?

AB Darnell didn't act alone, he had the blessing of the EC5 & for all we know this thing could be temporary, but it has caused an uproar because a woman with zero authority has been given a position that has been long held by men and it crossed the gray area in terms of qualifying. You don't have to be male & you don't need a O.B. credential, but if you're a woman you have just crossed the line of temperance when it comes to the male minister ego!

Here is my QueStionS: Why didn't we get a little upset when the Chair at the GA refused Pastor Sterben's request for the EC Commentary on a certain hot topic? Why do we continue to allow our GA to meet every other year w/out a 3rd party line item audit? Where is the working model for a budget for the National HQ & who approves the receipts & expenditures? Since it's been asked already, why do we sit back w/out demanding an investigation as to where the dollars were spent when they were mandated to be spent on church planting? Isn't that called mis-appropriation of funds & isn't that reason for dismissal from one's position of authority? Did we approve a $17 million dollar office building or did we approve a $10 million dollar building? Was their a doubt as to where the extra money was being spent & who got the money? Are there really family members of certain executives who are in the construction business? Do we now offer dual license credentials w/in our movement & if we do is it OK to vote people on to the Council of 18? Ask this next question to fellow ministers please: if you have the right amount of money in the bank will your church be granted the title deed in your churches name & kept in your churches file cabinet? Do you really trust your EC5 & your C18?

You see these are just a sample of the questions I have been asked for years & I have no real legit answers. But when it comes down to a D.O. appointment being a woman, we have postings being made the thickness of cheap novels that go into great detail as to why we're losing control.

If the woman issue & the decision by AB Darnell has you more concerned than the sample of questions I just offered, then our control wasn't lost just because of Dr. Webb's appointment; our control was lost when we became to intimidated to ask the right questions! Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


!
_________________
"Empty nest syndrome is for the birds!"

Email me at: SteenburghDean@gmail.com

Church planters are focused on just one thing ...introducing people to Jesus!
What are you focused on?
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4464
1/18/11 8:11 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
Dean, you keep saying there is nothing in this appointment that violates the MINUTES. In your opinion, is there anything in the MINUTES to keep this EC from appointing Sis. Webb as the AB of a mission state?

If there is, would you make that case, please.


Last edited by Bro Bob on 1/18/11 9:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3860
1/18/11 9:13 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post NPS39
There have also been ladies that have served as state youth directors in years past..what's the problem. Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1458
1/18/11 9:23 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Bro Bob
You don't have to be an Ordained Bishop to be a youth director is what. Same with Evangelism Director. (The MINUTES state this clearly.) Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3860
1/18/11 9:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post ibelieve
This discussion lost it's "stickiness" along time ago. Hey, DOC
Posts: 89
1/18/11 10:06 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Cojak
I'm unordained! and looking at the uproar i have to smile, I have to agree with Dean, there are other points that raise my dander as a 'Member Only' now. That is 'Why isn't our Hq. Paid for?'

Why do we have so many 'at large jobs' for previous overseers.

I would like to make one point, one poster said that Dean dropped Steve's name to impress. I thought it very wise for some one to Call the Overseer who is being questioned on here, to get the information from the 'horses mouth' (sorry Overseer Darnell). And using the name showing that the information came from a 'reputable source'.

I have been reading stuff here on Acts for a long time now, and I cannot count the times someone has challenged, "If you want to know , call the man you are talking about", well evidently Dean did, did anyone else?
Now he is kicked for going to the source.

Being 'just a member now' it would be nice if preachers would demand to know why our HQ buildings are not paid off so the money can be spent on very needy and important projects. If the ones responsible are still in authority, I would like to see them removed. That is just a person opinion.

As to the woman DO? most folks in the pew couldn't care less.
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 22408
1/18/11 10:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dean Steenburgh
Bro Bob wrote:
Dean, you keep saying there is nothing in this appointment that violates the MINUTES. In your opinion, is there anything in the MINUTES to keep this EC from appointing Sis. Webb as the AB of a mission state?

If there is, would you make that case, please.


I never thought of that BB, but now that you mention it maybe we should run that idea past the EC ...what do you think? I'll even tell them you came up with the idea Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


.
_________________
"Empty nest syndrome is for the birds!"

Email me at: SteenburghDean@gmail.com

Church planters are focused on just one thing ...introducing people to Jesus!
What are you focused on?
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4464
1/18/11 11:47 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Just a question skinnybishop
Concerning this post by Major:

"Can you cite for us, please, the section of the Minutes which states that you must be an Ordained Bishop in order to serve as a District Overseer? "

What is the difference between a "Bishop" and an Overseer"?
Acts-celerater
Posts: 959
1/19/11 7:21 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Just a question skinnybishop
[quote="Major B. Trammell"][quote="skinnybishop"]Concerning this post by Major:

"Can you cite for us, please, the section of the Minutes which states that you must be an Ordained Bishop in order to serve as a District Overseer? "

What is the difference between a "Bishop" and an Overseer"?[/quote]

Are you implying that every "Ordained Bishop" in the Church of God is an Overseer? If you're saying there is no difference, then you are, in fact, implying that.

And I'd beg to differ. Just because you possess the ministerial rank of "Ordained Bishop" does not make you an overseer. There are hundreds of men in the Church of God who are "Ordained Bishops" who are not overseers.

The manner in which we use the term "bishop" in the Church of God mostly refers to a title- specifically, the title given to the third and highest rank of credentialed ministry in the COG, the "Ordained Bishop."

How many times did you refer to someone as "Bishop" back when the ministerial ranks were referred to as "Exhorter," "Licensed Minister," and "Ordained Minister?"

While defying logic, the General Council denied women the opportunity to serve in the highest level of credentialed ministry- "Ordained Bishop"- arguing why they should not be allowed to serve in leadership, and afterward confirming their place of service in the highest level of government and decision-making in the COG- the General Assembly (you tell me what sense that makes- it's fairly comical to me- either they're qualified or they're not, pick one).

The claim that has been made in this argument over the District Overseer appointment is that one must first have attained the [i]credentialed ministerial rank[/i] of "Ordained Bishop" before being appointed as a District Overseer. In so doing, the context and the difference is crystal clear. By the way, that claim is inaccurate.[/quote]

I'm implying nothing, stop disagreeing with a stand I never took. I just want to know, what is the difference between an overseer and a bishop.

I never said anything about COG ranks etc. Take it easy.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 959
1/19/11 8:05 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Hot Discussions Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.