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+ 

Why was the phrase "back of the bus" booed on the General Council floor?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Why was the phrase "back of the bus" booed on the General Council floor? bonnie knox
In listening to the livestream of the General Council debate, I noticed that the following statement was booed:
"It is time to let ordained female ministers to move from the assigned seating at the back of the bus to move to the front and help us drive this bus, the International Church of God."
What made this objectionable? Was it seen as disrespectful to the Civil Rights Movement? Was the idea of letting the women help drive objectionable? What was the reason this was booed?
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/3/16 9:35 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
I was not able to attend GA this year. I watched it on Livestream. Others who were physically present might be able to give a more accurate assessment, but it seemed to me the faction that opposed Dr. Archer's comments had reached a virtual boiling point in his speech. Personally, I loved his speech, even though female equality was not exactly what the item was about. I heard from several that the reason they were against the item was because they were opposed to reducing the age of eligibility of ministers on the General Council from 30 to 25, so that may have been one reason why they felt the need to boo him. Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 12278
8/3/16 9:47 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Christopher Stephenson
Perhaps some people did not appreciate their sexism being compared to racism. Friendly Face
Posts: 144
8/3/16 10:45 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Why was the phrase "back of the bus" booed on the General Council floor? spartanfan
bonnie knox wrote:
In listening to the livestream of the General Council debate, I noticed that the following statement was booed:
"It is time to let ordained female ministers to move from the assigned seating at the back of the bus to move to the front and help us drive this bus, the International Church of God."
What made this objectionable? Was it seen as disrespectful to the Civil Rights Movement? Was the idea of letting the women help drive objectionable? What was the reason this was booed?


Here's the reason why I think he was booed - his speech accused Ordained Bishops of something they are not guilty of. The back of the bus issue is a reference to the awful way our fellow human beings were treated because of racism and prejudice. We know the awful stories of the 19th and most of the 20th centuries and how basic human rights were denied to our brothers and sisters. And to insinuate that those who are complementarian in their view of the role of women in ministry are abusive and devaluing the souls of women ministers is just wrong - it's a false accusation. He carried it too far.

Fact: the Ordained Bishops have not relegated ordained women ministers to the back of the bus. They are more like in the middle of the bus. The Exhorters are in the back! So he painted a false picture with his accusation. Smile
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3559
8/3/16 10:51 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Christopher Stephenson wrote:
Perhaps some people did not appreciate their sexism being compared to racism.


It certainly seems likely.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/3/16 10:58 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Using the word "some" is probably appropriate.... spartanfan
Christopher Stephenson wrote:
Perhaps some people did not appreciate their sexism being compared to racism.


I'm glad you didn't lump everyone who was disappointed in hearing the extreme comment that was definitely distorting reality to make a dig at others with a different view of the Scriptures into one large group that demeans, debases and degrades the "finer, more valuable, more costly, delicate and weaker sex".

In a group that large I'm sure there may have been some "sexists" as well as a lot of people with other problems and some of those sexists may have been involved in the groaning (or as the question said "booing" - but what I heard was more of a groan of disappointment). But also involved in the groaning with disappointment were many who love and appreciate our lady ministers but in their sincere desire for the church to remain faithful to the Scriptures do have a complementarian view in regard to the different roles of men and women, as our official adopted resolution on Transgender Restrooms states.

So "some" may have booed with a sexist attitude (who can tell what is in ones heart) while many groaned in disappointment that the speaker carried things so far as to include the Ordained Bishops in the Church of God holding to the complementarian view with the awful racists that devalued human beings and brought a reproach upon our nation because of their sin. The statement just went too far - so the "groan" of disappointment and disapproval "erupted" from the Ordained Bishops floor.


Last edited by spartanfan on 8/4/16 7:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3559
8/4/16 6:52 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Why was the phrase "back of the bus" booed on the General Council floor? skinnybishop
bonnie knox wrote:
In listening to the livestream of the General Council debate, I noticed that the following statement was booed:
"It is time to let ordained female ministers to move from the assigned seating at the back of the bus to move to the front and help us drive this bus, the International Church of God."
What made this objectionable? Was it seen as disrespectful to the Civil Rights Movement? Was the idea of letting the women help drive objectionable? What was the reason this was booed?


Perhaps because it was a ridiculous and inaccurate comparison.
_________________
Eddie Wiggins
Acts-celerater
Posts: 949
8/4/16 7:10 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
So "some" may have booed with a sexist attitude (who can tell what is in ones heart) while many groaned in disappointment that the speaker carried things so far as to include the Ordained Bishops in the Church of God holding to the complementarian view with the awful racists that devalued human beings and brought a reproach upon our nation because of their sin.


The idiom "back of the bus" is in common use to describe when someone or a group is treated unfairly or with less than full privileges of the rest of the group. In fact, women may not obtain the highest level of credentialing in the Church of God.


Last edited by bonnie knox on 8/4/16 11:17 am; edited 1 time in total
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/4/16 7:31 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Why was the phrase "back of the bus" booed on the General Council floor? bonnie knox
Am I to infer that you think it was a ridiculous and inaccurate comparison?

skinnybishop wrote:
bonnie knox wrote:
In listening to the livestream of the General Council debate, I noticed that the following statement was booed:
"It is time to let ordained female ministers to move from the assigned seating at the back of the bus to move to the front and help us drive this bus, the International Church of God."
What made this objectionable? Was it seen as disrespectful to the Civil Rights Movement? Was the idea of letting the women help drive objectionable? What was the reason this was booed?


Perhaps because it was a ridiculous and inaccurate comparison.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/4/16 7:33 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Eduardo Nieves
Personally, I liked the analogy. I don't think Dr. Archer was saying that women don't have opportunities. I interpreted or compared it to the seating arrangement at the general assembly. Ordained bishops ride in the front of bus while the women sit in the back. What I find aggravating is that before the issue is discussed, someone jumped up and attempted to limit speeches to three minutes. How can you discuss an issue this important with such restrictions. We need to be able to discuss the issue with respect regardless of where you stand. We cause great damage to not only our female audience, but our international audience as well.
_________________
Romanos 8:37
37 Sin embargo, en todo esto somos más que vencedores por medio de aquel que nos amó.

"A Church Without Walls, A Place for All People"
El Nuevo Mana
Eduardo Nieves
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3157
8/4/16 8:09 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Why was the phrase "back of the bus" booed on the General Council floor? skinnybishop
bonnie knox wrote:
Am I to infer that you think it was a ridiculous and inaccurate comparison?

skinnybishop wrote:
bonnie knox wrote:
In listening to the livestream of the General Council debate, I noticed that the following statement was booed:
"It is time to let ordained female ministers to move from the assigned seating at the back of the bus to move to the front and help us drive this bus, the International Church of God."
What made this objectionable? Was it seen as disrespectful to the Civil Rights Movement? Was the idea of letting the women help drive objectionable? What was the reason this was booed?


Perhaps because it was a ridiculous and inaccurate comparison.


Yes you may infer that. I believe that was the reason for the reaction
_________________
Eddie Wiggins
Acts-celerater
Posts: 949
8/4/16 8:18 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
I think the attitudes are so strongly held that no amount of debating from the floor will make a significant difference. The conversation will have to take place in other venues.
But there does need to be conversation.

Eduardo Nieves wrote:
Personally, I liked the analogy. I don't think Dr. Archer was saying that women don't have opportunities. I interpreted or compared it to the seating arrangement at the general assembly. Ordained bishops ride in the front of bus while the women sit in the back. What I find aggravating is that before the issue is discussed, someone jumped up and attempted to limit speeches to three minutes. How can you discuss an issue this important with such restrictions. We need to be able to discuss the issue with respect regardless of where you stand. We cause great damage to not only our female audience, but our international audience as well.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/4/16 8:22 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Eduardo Nieves
I agree that conversation needs to take place in other venues. However, this issue must be resolved on the international general council floor. The process can't be circumvented.

bonnie knox wrote:
I think the attitudes are so strongly held that no amount of debating from the floor will make a significant difference. The conversation will have to take place in other venues.
But there does need to be conversation.

Eduardo Nieves wrote:
Personally, I liked the analogy. I don't think Dr. Archer was saying that women don't have opportunities. I interpreted or compared it to the seating arrangement at the general assembly. Ordained bishops ride in the front of bus while the women sit in the back. What I find aggravating is that before the issue is discussed, someone jumped up and attempted to limit speeches to three minutes. How can you discuss an issue this important with such restrictions. We need to be able to discuss the issue with respect regardless of where you stand. We cause great damage to not only our female audience, but our international audience as well.

_________________
Romanos 8:37
37 Sin embargo, en todo esto somos más que vencedores por medio de aquel que nos amó.

"A Church Without Walls, A Place for All People"
El Nuevo Mana
Eduardo Nieves
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3157
8/4/16 8:29 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post skinnybishop
Christopher Stephenson wrote:
Perhaps some people did not appreciate their sexism being compared to racism.


Let me ask a question


Do you believe those who are against female ministers becoming bishops, or against them participating in General Council are sexist?
_________________
Eddie Wiggins
Acts-celerater
Posts: 949
8/4/16 8:30 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
I agree that conversation needs to take place in other venues. However, this issue must be resolved on the international general council floor. The process can't be circumvented.


Certainly. I hope I didn't imply otherwise.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/4/16 8:33 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Brandon Bohannon
Eduardo Nieves wrote:
Personally, I liked the analogy. I don't think Dr. Archer was saying that women don't have opportunities. I interpreted or compared it to the seating arrangement at the general assembly. Ordained bishops ride in the front of bus while the women sit in the back. What I find aggravating is that before the issue is discussed, someone jumped up and attempted to limit speeches to three minutes. How can you discuss an issue this important with such restrictions. We need to be able to discuss the issue with respect regardless of where you stand. We cause great damage to not only our female audience, but our international audience as well.
I am sorry that I aggravated you Eduardo. I was the one that tried unsuccessfully to limit debate to 3 minutes in the General Assembly. I did learn from the parliamentarian what I need to do next time. Very Happy My intent to limit was due to the fact that the same man that made his point in the General Council about "why this would be detrimental" stood this time with a 10 minute clock to make the exact same speech against, again.

I am in support of ordained women being on the General Council floor and having the ability to discuss and vote on agenda items that return to the General Assembly for final approval. I am in support of not calling our third level of credential, "Bishop", in order to maintain unity with brothers and sisters whom may feel quite strongly that it would violate their understanding of Scripture. All things are lawful but not all things are expedient. We don't all understand or interpret every passage the same and even in individuals those understandings and interpretations can vary over a lifetime. We should love one another! Don't lower the bar. Change the title, unless one is serving as General, State or District, and keep the requirement that a minister must pass a three tests to sit on the floor to vote.

I moved to limit because I am tired of listening to degrading and sometimes "ignorant" statements made from members of the XY party about the YY party. Especially when the YY party can't even "defend" themselves. As a pastor(s), we defend the defenseless as well as the Word of God. If not, we aren't the Samaritan. I am tired of watching and hearing faithful servants, who happen to by from the YY party, cry- quite literally, as they hear these same degrading, sometimes "ignorant" statements made about why they are good enough to sing, read the Scripture, pray out loud, be on a local pastor's council, be on a state music committee or youth and discipleship board, plant a church, pastor a church, etc. BUT we apply these Scriptures to why they can't sit with us, discuss and vote on the general direction of our church family and movement. Why can't we see how very inconsistent and confusing that this is? I wanted debate time limited so that these ladies that bothered to show up wouldn't have to endure these comments for long and be grieved all over again. I wanted it limited so that the Holy Ghost wouldn't be grieved all over again.

I respect the complimentarian view. I don't think that it is sinful to believe it and to live it. I know some very strong complimentarian marriages that are loving, affirming, safe and beautiful examples of Christian love and hospitality. I respect the egalitarian view. I don't think that it is sinful to believe it and to live it. I know some very strong egalitarian marriages that are loving, affirming, safe and beautiful examples of Christian love and hospitality. Today I consider myself a complegalitarian. Very Happy I do find it offensive to our ordained, SPIRIT-FILLED YY Party members to compare their womanhood to homosexuality. One is created in the image of IAM and the other is living in reprobate sin. Both should be loved but only one is a sin. That is offensive to me and I am neither.

There has to be a way that we can unify and respect the different understandings of Scripture.
_________________
Proverbs 3:5-6; John 13:34-35; Acts 1:8
Acts-celerater
Posts: 526
8/4/16 8:52 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Eduardo Nieves
Brandon,
Thank you for sharing your rationale and I respect the intent and the fact that you took ownership! I pray that our denomination can find a way to discuss the issue without causing more damage to our women ministers. We have to find a way to move together for the sake of unity. We shouldn't encourage ministers to leave our movement if they are unhappy. I feel grieved when we lose good people, because they are pushed out. We should not leave if the results don't go our way. Also, those in the minority should not be told to go somewhere else if they are not happy. Blessings to you.
Eduardo

[quote="Brandon Bohannon"]
Eduardo Nieves wrote:
Personally, I liked the analogy. I don't think Dr. Archer was saying that women don't have opportunities. I interpreted or compared it to the seating arrangement at the general assembly. Ordained bishops ride in the front of bus while the women sit in the back. What I find aggravating is that before the issue is discussed, someone jumped up and attempted to limit speeches to three minutes. How can you discuss an issue this important with such restrictions. We need to be able to discuss the issue with respect regardless of where you stand. We cause great damage to not only our female audience, but our international audience as well.
I am sorry that I aggravated you Eduardo. I was the one that tried unsuccessfully to limit debate to 3 minutes in the General Assembly. I did learn from the parliamentarian what I need to do next time. Very Happy My intent to limit was due to the fact that the same man that made his point in the General Council about "why this would be detrimental" stood this time with a 10 minute clock to make the exact same speech against, again.
_________________
Romanos 8:37
37 Sin embargo, en todo esto somos más que vencedores por medio de aquel que nos amó.

"A Church Without Walls, A Place for All People"
El Nuevo Mana
Eduardo Nieves
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3157
8/4/16 10:54 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Christopher Stephenson
[quote="skinnybishop"]Do you believe those who are against female ministers becoming bishops, or against them participating in General Council are sexist?[/quote]

I believe that some of them may be, at least implicitly or unknowingly. By "sexism" I mean the belief that one sex is inherently inferior to the other (in this case, women to men).
Friendly Face
Posts: 144
8/4/16 11:56 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
I doubt very many people, regardless of how much they are willing to discriminate against women, want to own the label "sexist."

I also expect that a lot of people who think women should be kept subordinate to men just because they are women would not want to say that is a sexist way to look at things.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/4/16 12:15 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Maybe we should ask a black woman Clint Wills
Find out if she views the civil rights movement as equal to women not being allowed on the General Council floor. Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5145
8/4/16 12:29 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Feature Presentations This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can 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.