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 Previous  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 The difference between .... Mat
The difference between one being "subordinate" and one being "inferior" in terms of Biblical ministry is monumental. In the order of salvation, you can observe Jesus being subordinate to the Father, yet you would be in error saying Jesus was inferior to the Father.

I am a pastor and as such I am subordinate to my state Bishop, but my ministry, especially to me, is not inferior. Rather, the absence of subordinates, like myself, invalidates the "his" claims of authority.

One is called into ministry directly by God, one becomes a subordinate in an organization by willing submission. A "called" individual, male or female, is responsible first of all to the one who called them in fulfilling their ministry, not the one who they willingly chose to submit to.

The line between not being able to speak in Counsel due to age or sex seems arbitrary when all call participated in the Assembly, which is the "highest authority" in the church, unless its not.

Men, if you think its wrong, change it. Ladies, if you think its wrong and it does not change, leave it.

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1607
8/4/16 1:01 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Clint, bonnie knox
Clint, my purpose in asking the question about the reaction was because I wasn't there and couldn't see the people who were booing. Since all I could see on the livestream was the camera honed in on the moderator, I didn't know who was booing or why. I didn't know if it was a group of African Americans who were offended with the analogy or if it was, as has been indicated here, men who thought the analogy was inaccurate or overboard.
I think "back of the bus" has become an idiom in our language. While the idiom obviously originated with what Rosa Parks did by refusing to move to the back of the bus, I didn't get the feeling that Kenneth Archer was trying to equate gaining a voice on the Council floor with everything that was done in the Civil Rights movement. Frankly that coupled with the use of Reagan's "tear down this wall" made me think his goal was soaring rhetoric in speech.
If you were there, what were your impressions?
If you were not there and care to listen to the response and comment, go to the 3:02:35 mark and listen through the 3:08:17 mark.
http://livestream.com/accounts/465017/events/5860061/videos/130370290
If you just want to hear the "bus" statement, start at about 3:06:54.
Let me know what you think.


Clint Wills wrote:
Find out if she views the civil rights movement as equal to women not being allowed on the General Council floor.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/4/16 3:47 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
The difference between one being "subordinate" and one being "inferior" in terms of Biblical ministry is monumental.


However, if one must at all times need be subordinate because of intrinsic characteristic (in this case being female), the subordinate one is by definition inferior.
In your example, you cited being subordinate to your State Bishop. If however, you became a State Bishop, you would no longer be subordinated to a State Bishop. It could change because it is about a position and not about who you are intrinsically. If however, you were subordinate not because the office you occupied (as a pastor) is subordinate to the State Bishop, but because you are a man (something that doesn't change), the subordination is not about the office but about who you are. That is the difference with saying you are in a subordinate office but not inferior and saying that females who must be subordinate because they are females are not inferior.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/4/16 3:56 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Issue needs to be dealt with? Ed Brewer
It has been refreshing to actually return to doing the work of the ministry since the General Assembly. The value of that meeting is hard to overstate, which leads me to make this personal observation. I, for one, am weary of systematically and repetitively spending our precious limited time together continually repackaging matters previously settled. Have we become so carnal as a movement that we consider our individual perceived worth and value as on par with the Great Commission? Repeatedly we have deliberated this issue....ad nauseum....and we HAVE dealt with it definitively. The problem is not that we haven't given it a fair hearing - on the contrary, we have spent more time both directly and indirectly wrestling women in leadership than any other issue. Overtly and covertly, by direct petition and any number of Trojan horses, attempts have been made to advance the cause by any means, seemingly without regard to the ethics of such politically manipulative machinations The finite pool of time available to transact the business of the Body of Christ and strategize the way to work toward the FINISH as a movement has continually been hijacked by self obsessed navel gazing and distractions akin to fighting over who gets to sit in the best seats in the Kingdom. Imagine if we could allot such creative energy and passionate focus to what we have been instructed to do rather than what we think we ought to do. The last straw was when there was a brazen attempt to conflate sincerely held, traditionally orthodox, and scripturally based gender assignments in the kingdom with the abomination of racial prejudice. Passionately advocating for a sincerely held belief is in no shortage, but when that passion causes proponents to denigrate others and what amounts to the sowing of discord in the Body in hopes of another bite at the apple, the motives of all involved must rightly be called into question. Can we not prayerfully lift our eyes from our own reflections long enough to look on the fields white unto the harvest? After all, a self-obsessed Church is no real threat to the Kingdom of darkness. Who wins in that scenario?
_________________
....from Barney Creek to Bountyland through every open door
Friendly Face
Posts: 312
8/4/16 5:31 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
The last straw was when there was a brazen attempt to conflate sincerely held, traditionally orthodox, and scripturally based gender assignments in the kingdom with the abomination of racial prejudice...


...the abomination of racial prejudice, which in times past was also a sincerely held belief that was justified by scripture...
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/4/16 5:59 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
The problem is not that we haven't given it a fair hearing - on the contrary, we have spent more time both directly and indirectly wrestling women in leadership than any other issue.


It takes more than time spent on it to be a fair hearing.

We can spend a lot of time in eisegesis, prooftexting, and ignorant pontificating. That doesn't constitute a fair hearing.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/4/16 6:05 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Mat and Ed, Christopher Stephenson
Mat,

I agree with bonnie's reply and would add only that even your current subordination to your bishop does not restrict you from being a pastor. The case with women is more than subordination; it is restriction. It is not simply submission; it is a prohibition based on an incorrectly perceived inferiority.

Your use of the term "subordination" is ironic. One could argue that is precisely what women ministers in the COG receive: sub-ordination. (I wish that I could take credit for the pun, but it is not original to me.)

Ed,

First, all of your words come much more easily when you are not one of the persons being systematically excluded because of your anatomy.

Second, what issue have we debated repeatedly and dealt with definitively?
Friendly Face
Posts: 144
8/4/16 8:10 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Mat and Ed, Mat
Christopher Stephenson wrote:
Mat,

I agree with bonnie's reply and would add only that even your current subordination to your bishop does not restrict you from being a pastor. The case with women is more than subordination; it is restriction. It is not simply submission; it is a prohibition based on an incorrectly perceived inferiority.

Your use of the term "subordination" is ironic. One could argue that is precisely what women ministers in the COG receive: sub-ordination. (I wish that I could take credit for the pun, but it is not original to me.)

Ed,

First, all of your words come much more easily when you are not one of the persons being systematically excluded because of your anatomy.

Second, what issue have we debated repeatedly and dealt with definitively?


I can see the point, my underlying suggestion is that the General Assembly is "window dressing" for the real power group, the General Counsel. At some point women ministers may have to choose their calling over the denomination. Or maybe they could get a waver for their ministry tithes since their ministry has been discounted. 😏

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1607
8/4/16 8:57 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post CannonMan
Dr. Archer absolutely meant to compare this situation to the harsh treatment of African Americans during the civil rights movement. He doubled down on the argument with me on Facebook. There were many women who felt like they were being treated as second-class citizens, but I felt he went way too far in his comparison. Suffrage is a more appropriate argument. Especially since not a single woman left that general council session in fear of their lives. Friendly Face
Posts: 120
8/4/16 9:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
Suffrage is a more appropriate argument.


Why, if you object to the phrase "back of the bus," would you not also object to comparing it to the suffrage movement? Could it be that you are not aware of what women like Dora Lewis, Lucy Burns, and Alice Paul suffered?


Last edited by bonnie knox on 8/5/16 4:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/5/16 7:28 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Mat and Ed, Mat
Christopher Stephenson wrote:
Mat,

I agree with bonnie's reply and would add only that even your current subordination to your bishop does not restrict you from being a pastor. The case with women is more than subordination; it is restriction. It is not simply submission; it is a prohibition based on an incorrectly perceived inferiority.

Your use of the term "subordination" is ironic. One could argue that is precisely what women ministers in the COG receive: sub-ordination. (I wish that I could take credit for the pun, but it is not original to me.)

Ed,

First, all of your words come much more easily when you are not one of the persons being systematically excluded because of your anatomy.

Second, what issue have we debated repeatedly and dealt with definitively?


Christopher,

As various denominations address the role of women in ministry I can't overlook the "real" Biblical connection to the role of the husband/father in the family. To me there is a continuity of thought that the institution of the Church and the institution of the Family would have parallel structure. Even the vernacular of the New Testament applies marriage and family terminology to relationships and leadership in the church.

I would think that men (and those women also) who struggle with reconciling the two institutions are for the most part committed to their family. So if full institutional participation is achieved for women ministers in roles of leadership, do these men need to reevaluate their understanding of family.

One thing I have learned over the years in my Pastoral duties is, if a wife takes on a family responsible that generally is the husband's, the husband will let her do it. Often the wives will complain they have to do everything around the house. I have never heard a husband complain that his wife does not "let" him help around the house.

Is the process of empowering women ministers in contradiction to the orthodox understanding of the family? As women rise to positions of power will men reevaluate their commitment to their wife, family and ministry.

Much like the military, as we see women become infantry officers, I have come to the point of saying, "fine, let the second lieutenants (male or female) be up front." As I learned in the Corps, we can always get more officers!

Mat

The Two Great Disappointments of Life - Not getting what you want and getting what you want.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1607
8/5/16 7:39 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post my opinion wayne
Bonnie,
I was at the assembly and I believe the measure before the body was to allow ordained ministers on the floor(I don't remember the measure word for word). I personally was ready to vote for the measure as were many others around me.
One of the arguments against these type measures was that some younger ministers are not mature enough and then this fellow stood up and started to speak. I said it very quickly not long after he began to speak that he just shot the measure down. He spoke out of anger and frustration and used very inflammatory wording which offended many of the gentlemen sitting on the floor....it was almost immediate that the lights came on all over that floor against the measure.
I really don't think the majority of these men are sexist but I believe it's like the women wearing pants debate - it's what they were taught and believe deep down. I know women to this day that will not wear a pair of pants and they believe that others who use to hold this belief but now will wear pants are hypocrites. I don't label these women or think harshly of them because I know it's something they believe is right.

They are going by what they feel - can't fault them for that.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1274
8/5/16 7:41 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Wayne, thanks for your description of what you saw from actually being there.
I suspect the voting results were not swayed much one way or another by the speeches; I suspect most bishops had already decided which way to vote.
The two speakers immediately prior to Kenneth Archer's speech had spoken against the measure using the typical prooftext of 1 Timothy 2. In fact, one of the bishops who spoke prior to Kenneth Archer said "There are more, clearer teachings about men, qualified males, being in leadership position in administrative and doctrinal roles than the teaching of initial evidence...."
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/5/16 8:30 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Mat, Christopher Stephenson
Thanks for these thoughts. I enjoyed reading your insights.

Concerning family and church structures, I do not believe that Ephesians 5 teaches male headship in the home in any way that should inform 21st century family dynamics.

But even if I am mistaken about that, I do not think that the husband being the head of the wife would restrict women from any ministerial activity in the church.

Implicitly, at least, the COG believes the same since it affirms some kind of order in the home predicated on sex but allows women to pastor churches.
Friendly Face
Posts: 144
8/5/16 7:27 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
One thing I have learned over the years in my Pastoral duties is, if a wife takes on a family responsible that generally is the husband's, the husband will let her do it. Often the wives will complain they have to do everything around the house. I have never heard a husband complain that his wife does not "let" him help around the house.


Very often, these responsibilities are assigned by tradition. I don't see anything in scripture that says who is to take out the trash, who is to mow the lawn, who is to rotate the car tires, or who is to wash the dishes, or who is to manage the finances. If one person is carrying a heavy load, the other person would be very selfish not to relieve the burden if it is within his/her power.
Some people seem to be very confused as to how it could actually work to have an egalitarian relationship. The best thing I know to say for people who can't wrap their minds around it is to listen to stories of couples who actually have an egalitarian relationship. They usually are made up of 2 mature, responsible adults who do what has to be done.
I know this seems to be getting a wee bit off topic, but I do hear the fear that if a woman is a pastor, somehow there will be a conflict as if either a pastor or a husband is supposed to lord the position over the flock or spouse.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/5/16 8:46 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post If equality in ministerial rank ... Mat
Bonnie,

Let me "set this up" my saying that each denomination will do what they think is God's will on the subject of women and ministry.

So in the COG, let's says you are a well educated and gifted young women who sees the denomination reach "equality" of ordination without regard to sex.

The issues now becomes that of "positions", as in moving up the ecclesiastic latter. How do you do that in the COG? As I understand it, if someone sees your potential you may start out in a youth/ce in a small or medium state (I hope that right). If you do well there you may move "up" the latter of state sizes. Or perhaps you are the senior pastor of a church that goes from little to much and your fellow minister vote you on the 18 where the top 5 can observe you and perhaps you are assigned a small state (is that right?).

Here's my point, there will come a time when you are the one saying to the family, for the sake of my ministry and career, we are going to move across country. You know that you will have this conversation many times if you're going to move up the latter.

What that means is that you will be telling your husband for the sake of the ministry we are moving and you must look for a job in the new state. You will be the one who tells the kids that they we leave family, friends and schools behind for the new position.

In my opinion, women will only obtain true equality and recognition when they walk the same path as the men before them.

The metrics used to advance by must be as equal as the ordination desired.

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1607
8/6/16 7:55 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
Here's my point, there will come a time when you are the one saying to the family, for the sake of my ministry and career, we are going to move across country. You know that you will have this conversation many times if you're going to move up the latter.

What that means is that you will be telling your husband for the sake of the ministry we are moving and you must look for a job in the new state. You will be the one who tells the kids that they we leave family, friends and schools behind for the new position.


If the marriage is egalitarian, the man (or the woman if the opportunities become available in the Church of God), doesn't just order the spouse to pack. They would discuss it together and if both feel it is God's will, then proceed. If they both didn't feel it was God's will, they might both pray more over the decision to come to more clarity, or they might mutually decide that one person would compromise his or her desires. To me it is strange to imagine that the only way to look at this is for the man just to inform his wife of what they are "going to do" (though I'm well aware many people think God has actually endorsed that way of operating).
Without calling out any names, I will say the church seemed quite moved when a particular church leader who apparently would have been happy to accept a certain position decided, in what we must conclude was consultation with his wife, that accepting the position was not in the best interest of his family.
If opportunities open up for women in the future, indeed, family discussions might revolve around whether the wife accepts the position and the subsequent move rather than whether the husband does. If you think it would be bad for a wife to simply tell her husband, "Pack your bags, honey, I got the position, and we're moving," I would agree, but I think that would be bad whether it was the husband or the wife announcing to the other that they were moving.
I often wonder why some people who seem content to use Ephesian 5 as a club over the heads of women have the expectation that something is quite out of order if the husband has to sacrifice for his wife as is mentioned in that same chapter. Is there a list somewhere of which sacrifices are considered manly enough to actually expect a man to do? (Ha, I probably shouldn't ask that because John Piper, Wayne Grudem, or Mark Driscoll might actually have a list!)
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/6/16 8:43 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
My wife and I have what I consider to be an egalitarian marriage. I have never and would never just unilaterally decide a major decision about ministry without first discussing it with her, praying together and separately about it, and waiting until we both were in agreement as to what our decision would be. I love and respect her far too much to just impose my will on her. To my thinking, marriage is ideally a cooperative partnership between man and woman, both of which equally bear the image of the Creator. I'm sure we would all agree that Genesis 1 and 2 is a far better and blessed model to aim for than the sinfulness and curse of Genesis 3. But I know that many sadly prefer to live in Romans 7 instead of Romans 6 and Romans 8 too.

Last edited by Quiet Wyatt on 8/6/16 9:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 12278
8/6/16 9:04 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Mat and Ed, Quiet Wyatt
Mat wrote:

The Two Great Disappointments of Life - Not getting what you want and getting what you want.


Thumb Up
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 12278
8/6/16 9:08 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
I'm sure we would all agree that Genesis 1 and 2 is a far better and blessed model to aim for than the sinfulness and curse of Genesis 3.


Well... Confused

I don't know that Jerry Waters from ENC who stood to speak to agenda item #8 and cited Genesis 3:16 as being the hermeneutical "first mention" of the established divine order would agree. It sure sounded like he thought Genesis 3 was the prototype.
Also, when spartanfan mentioned that one of the COG resolutions adopted referenced some of the distinct roles of men and women ("...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...."), I went back to look and see what he was referencing. Indeed the resolution does state that men and women have distinct "roles," AND it cites Genesis 3:16,17 to back this up! (I made a wry mental note that verse 19 was not included, lol.)
So, I don't know if "we" would all agree that Genesis 1 and 2 shows a better model.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
8/6/16 10:30 am


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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 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.