 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Dr. Daniela Augustine References Soddy Daisy Prophet's Gen Assembly Speech |
Old Time Country Preacher |
In a recent presentation, without naming COG Ordained Bishop Robert Randolph, Dr. Daniela Augustine (yep, both Daniela and Jonathan her husband have real docterates), referenced the Soddy Daisy Prophet's 2010 Gen Assembly speech. Followin is a excerpt from her speech taken from Dr. Jonathan's FaceBook page.
The second theological “slippery slope” that I hear some of my brother Bishops asserting in support of banning women from the General Council is that a female is inferior in created essence to a male. Most infamously, this view was propounded by a speaker during a General Council session at the General Assembly of 2010. So crass was that speech that we are wont to write off the theological underpinning of it as isolated to a single Ordained Bishop’s opinion – but that is not so.
Dr. Daniela's presentation was excellent. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15566
7/15/17 2:12 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Soddy Daisy Prophet |
Change Agent |
| I believe that a majority of COG leaders would tell you that women are inferior. If not so why can a woman not get to be a bishop? Why do men not promote women in the ministry like they do men? |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1449
7/15/17 6:47 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Soddy Daisy Prophet |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Change Agent wrote: | | I believe that a majority of COG leaders would tell you that women are inferior. If not so why can a woman not get to be a bishop? Why do men not promote women in the ministry like they do men? |
Nope, I don't believe the majority would say the good womenfolk is inferior. They is still a majority of them who attend Gen Assembly, as seen by the vote, who believe womenfolk should not have equivalent ministerial status at the highest level, but I don't believe its cause they think womenfolk is "inferior" to menfolk. Its cause they struggle with at "womenfolk bein quite in church" passage an at "womenfolk usurpin authority over menfolk" verse. I don't think its cause womenfolk is deemed "inferior." |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15566
7/15/17 8:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Point of Clarification |
John V. Morgan |
| Although the picture that accompanies the article is of Dr. Daniela Augustine making a presentation, the article was not a transcript of her presentation but was a blog post written by her husband, Dr. Jonathan Augustine. |
New Member
Posts: 20
7/16/17 5:43 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| I'm sure ... |
Mat |
I'm sure the Episcopal Church (TEC) would never have such an unlearned and "crass" delegate speak from their General Conference floor, as the Soddy Daisy Prophet (SDP) did. It should be noted that TEC ordains women and women serve in all levels of TEC leadership. No doubt, TEC is well educated and a very wealthy church. Yet, they ordain "sodomites", preform same-sex weddings, embrace the LBGTQ community and have replace the Gospel with social justice. Yep, you won't find any SCP in TEC, and you will be impressed by their leadership credentials, but as some of my Angelical friends tell me, you won't find the Holy Spirit there either. Perhaps we view the SCP as an embarrassing "speed bump" (nobody likes speed bumps) on the road to denominational enlightenment. However, there are times the lowly speed bump saves lives.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1981
7/16/17 7:56 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
The slippery-slope insinuation that is often made against the affirmation of women in ministry, that it must logically lead to the ordination of practicing homosexuals and lesbians, because that is generally how things have developed amongst liberal mainline denominations, misses a very important point that one would think would be rather obvious with regard to Pentecostalism. That is, the Pentecostal movement, very much including the CoG, has affirmed women as missionaries, evangelists, and yes, even as pastors, since the early days of the movement, and in none of these cases (CoG, AG, 4SQ, IPHC, etc), has there been even the slightest movement towards ordaining practicing homosexuals.
This is because of the fact that in Pentecostalism (as well as the Holiness Movement which preceded it), the fundamental reason for affirming women in ministry (besides the rather obvious examples of women being divinely gifted for ministry in the New Testament) has always been about the gifts and callings of God by the Spirit. Never has the basis for affirming women in Pentecostal ministry been anything even remotely similar to the 'women's lib' movement, to say nothing of the gay rights movement. (In the same way, the remarkable unity of Spirit-filled Christians regardless of race at Azusa Street was seen as the work of the Holy Spirit, with "the color-line being washed away in the blood of Jesus," and not at all some kind of political campaign for civil rights or social justice as such). Nevertheless, the anti-women-in-leadership bunch does seem to enjoy mixing these two issues, as if they are identical, when it is manifestly clear from history that they are definitely not identical at all.
If it were true that ordaining ladies to the gospel ministry necessarily would lead to ordaining homosexuals, why then has that not happened in any major Pentecotal denomination, most of which have been ordaining ladies for many decades, even since the early years of the movement? And what of the CoG itself, which has appointed ladies as pastors since early on? Surely after a hundred years of allowing ladies to be credentialed as ministers of the gospel, the CoG would have become quite liberalized and pro ordination of lesbians and gays by now, if there is any truth to the slippery slope argument. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
7/16/17 9:54 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Change Agent |
The COG will always keep women at least one step below men. If church leaders had not wanted to use the Bishop argument they could have labeled the next level Ordained II instead of Bishop. Instead they wanted to call the highest level Bishop where there would be some way to keep women under subjection.
The title Bishop is a short running title in the COG and it is doing its intended purpose. Naming the highest level official was not a God thing. It was a highly calculated men thing. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1449
7/16/17 12:05 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Mat |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | The slippery-slope insinuation that is often made against the affirmation of women in ministry, that it must logically lead to the ordination of practicing homosexuals and lesbians, because that is generally how things have developed amongst liberal mainline denominations, misses a very important point that one would think would be rather obvious with regard to Pentecostalism. That is, the Pentecostal movement, very much including the CoG, has affirmed women as missionaries, evangelists, and yes, even as pastors, since the early days of the movement, and in none of these cases (CoG, AG, 4SQ, IPHC, etc), has there been even the slightest movement towards ordaining practicing homosexuals.
This is because of the fact that in Pentecostalism (as well as the Holiness Movement which preceded it), the fundamental reason for affirming women in ministry (besides the rather obvious examples of women being divinely gifted for ministry in the New Testament) has always been about the gifts and callings of God by the Spirit. Never has the basis for affirming women in Pentecostal ministry been anything even remotely similar to the 'women's lib' movement, to say nothing of the gay rights movement. (In the same way, the remarkable unity of Spirit-filled Christians regardless of race at Azusa Street was seen as the work of the Holy Spirit, with "the color-line being washed away in the blood of Jesus," and not at all some kind of political campaign for civil rights or social justice as such). Nevertheless, the anti-women-in-leadership bunch does seem to enjoy mixing these two issues, as if they are identical, when it is manifestly clear from history that they are definitely not identical at all.
If it were true that ordaining ladies to the gospel ministry necessarily would lead to ordaining homosexuals, why then has that not happened in any major Pentecotal denomination, most of which have been ordaining ladies for many decades, even since the early years of the movement? And what of the CoG itself, which has appointed ladies as pastors since early on? Surely after a hundred years of allowing ladies to be credentialed as ministers of the gospel, the CoG would have become quite liberalized and pro ordination of lesbians and gays by now, if there is any truth to the slippery slope argument. |
My point was more focused on the willingness of a denomination to allow for what is clearly a minority, and perhaps embarrassing, voice such as the SDP. As it (the denomination) movers forward on critical doctrinal issues there must be a recognition that even SDP is "numbered among them" to everyone else chagrin. If I read correctly, this man is/was an ordained Bishop and Pastor in the COG. I would assert that he is a product of the system, in that someone recognized his call to ministry, moved him along in the requirements of the denomination, and over time he was recognized by someone (someone, or several someones in authority) who ordained him.
I recognize that women in ministry and leadership is a hallmark of many Pentecostal denominations and would share my heritage in the COGOP bespeak inclusion of women in leadership at a remarkable level. That said, it is my observation of the COG (of which I have both interest and investment) that the struggles with this issue is not a result of individuals such as SDP. He is a product of the system, not the problem of how to move forward. The issue is the entrenched structure of both leadership and the assembly. As I understand it, the General Assembly (which includes all, men and women) can only vote on issues first passed by the Bishops (who are all men). I would suggest the voice of the many in the General Assembly could overcome the voice of the SDPs among the Bishops. But could that happen?
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1981
7/16/17 3:11 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | The slippery-slope insinuation that is often made against the affirmation of women in ministry, that it must logically lead to the ordination of practicing homosexuals and lesbians, because that is generally how things have developed amongst liberal mainline denominations, misses a very important point that one would think would be rather obvious with regard to Pentecostalism. That is, the Pentecostal movement, very much including the CoG, has affirmed women as missionaries, evangelists, and yes, even as pastors, since the early days of the movement, and in none of these cases (CoG, AG, 4SQ, IPHC, etc), has there been even the slightest movement towards ordaining practicing homosexuals.
This is because of the fact that in Pentecostalism (as well as the Holiness Movement which preceded it), the fundamental reason for affirming women in ministry (besides the rather obvious examples of women being divinely gifted for ministry in the New Testament) has always been about the gifts and callings of God by the Spirit. Never has the basis for affirming women in Pentecostal ministry been anything even remotely similar to the 'women's lib' movement, to say nothing of the gay rights movement. (In the same way, the remarkable unity of Spirit-filled Christians regardless of race at Azusa Street was seen as the work of the Holy Spirit, with "the color-line being washed away in the blood of Jesus," and not at all some kind of political campaign for civil rights or social justice as such). Nevertheless, the anti-women-in-leadership bunch does seem to enjoy mixing these two issues, as if they are identical, when it is manifestly clear from history that they are definitely not identical at all.
If it were true that ordaining ladies to the gospel ministry necessarily would lead to ordaining homosexuals, why then has that not happened in any major Pentecotal denomination, most of which have been ordaining ladies for many decades, even since the early years of the movement? And what of the CoG itself, which has appointed ladies as pastors since early on? Surely after a hundred years of allowing ladies to be credentialed as ministers of the gospel, the CoG would have become quite liberalized and pro ordination of lesbians and gays by now, if there is any truth to the slippery slope argument. |
This is a good point, QW. I've never heard anyone address this before.
What is confusing about this issue to me is that they use the "let the women keep silence in the church" scripture to speak against ordaining women as bishops but give women a license in the first place and allow them to pastor. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to give them a license to preach, don't try to use the argument that they should keep silence or only preach to other women. And I've read that Margaret Gaines served as an overseer until they could find an appropriate male minister to take the position.
I have considered seeking a license in the past but I really consider myself more of a teacher. To me the bishop issue has to do with respecting their commitment to God and to the ministry. None of the female ministers I know would push for this or get out of line about it.
And I've come to believe since being on ACTs that the real issue is that they don't want a woman to become eligible to serve in an administrative capacity. I saw a FB suggestion to allow women bishops but to also include verbiage that they would not be eligible for any elected positions. I imagine it would also be challenged some day, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
Re: some men thinking women are inferior. I was in a gospel group for about a year, and one of the churches we went to had a separate podium on the side of the stage for women to speak at. We were cautioned before service that women were not allowed to even stand behind the main pulpit. I don't think that was a COG and I think it was more of a cultural thing, but I've never forgotten it. It's very demeaning...like we aren't even good enough to stand behind the pulpit to sing!
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5910
7/16/17 10:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Soddy Daisy Prophet |
bonnie knox |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: |
Nope, I don't believe the majority would say the good womenfolk is inferior. They is still a majority of them who attend Gen Assembly, as seen by the vote, who believe womenfolk should not have equivalent ministerial status at the highest level, but I don't believe its cause they think womenfolk is "inferior" to menfolk. Its cause they struggle with at "womenfolk bein quite in church" passage an at "womenfolk usurpin authority over menfolk" verse. I don't think its cause womenfolk is deemed "inferior." |
Ole Timer, I really do wonder if you did a poll of COG ministers, how many would claim on the basis that the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 11:9 that the woman was "created for the man," that the women are to be subordinate to men.
That is what the SDP said. It's also an argument that has been used on this forum:
| Quote: | As 1 Corinthians 11 says, referring to the CREATED state, "man was not made for the woman, but woman for the man". Nevertheless, "neither is the man without the woman".
God saw fit to create an help suitable for man, a complimentary spouse, equal in worth yet subordinate in relationship. And God said it was VERY good. |
It's also a line my pastor uses to argue for a hierarchy in marriage.
Greek philosophers taught that women were inferior to men, and author John Temple Bristow argues that "Greek deprecation of women became solidly infused within Christian theology" by the work of Thomas Aquinas. Lately, though, you will find people protesting that even though women have separate "roles," they are equal to men in "value." It sounds better that way, lol. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/17/17 8:54 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Quiet Wyatt... |
Aaron Scott |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | The slippery-slope insinuation that is often made against the affirmation of women in ministry, that it must logically lead to the ordination of practicing homosexuals and lesbians, because that is generally how things have developed amongst liberal mainline denominations, misses a very important point that one would think would be rather obvious with regard to Pentecostalism. That is, the Pentecostal movement, very much including the CoG, has affirmed women as missionaries, evangelists, and yes, even as pastors, since the early days of the movement, and in none of these cases (CoG, AG, 4SQ, IPHC, etc), has there been even the slightest movement towards ordaining practicing homosexuals.
This is because of the fact that in Pentecostalism (as well as the Holiness Movement which preceded it), the fundamental reason for affirming women in ministry (besides the rather obvious examples of women being divinely gifted for ministry in the New Testament) has always been about the gifts and callings of God by the Spirit. Never has the basis for affirming women in Pentecostal ministry been anything even remotely similar to the 'women's lib' movement, to say nothing of the gay rights movement. (In the same way, the remarkable unity of Spirit-filled Christians regardless of race at Azusa Street was seen as the work of the Holy Spirit, with "the color-line being washed away in the blood of Jesus," and not at all some kind of political campaign for civil rights or social justice as such). Nevertheless, the anti-women-in-leadership bunch does seem to enjoy mixing these two issues, as if they are identical, when it is manifestly clear from history that they are definitely not identical at all.
If it were true that ordaining ladies to the gospel ministry necessarily would lead to ordaining homosexuals, why then has that not happened in any major Pentecotal denomination, most of which have been ordaining ladies for many decades, even since the early years of the movement? And what of the CoG itself, which has appointed ladies as pastors since early on? Surely after a hundred years of allowing ladies to be credentialed as ministers of the gospel, the CoG would have become quite liberalized and pro ordination of lesbians and gays by now, if there is any truth to the slippery slope argument. |
Quiet Wyatt, I think you make a good point, but may I suggest that the reason the Church of God never started on the slippery slope regarding homosexuals is because we have long believed that these other areas are indeed open to women--and have solid Bible for it. However, if we take the next step--i.e., placing women in the highest levels of leadership--we will not have the same scriptural underpinnings that we had for the other positions. In fact, just the opposite. We would be proceeding based on arguments, feelings, cultural understandings, etc., rather on scripture.
As you are well aware, the scriptures do not give us any clear sign of women in leadership in the NT. Despite there being women who were very close to Jesus' ministry, we do not find them in leadership afterwards, etc.
Now, I could be seeing this all wrong, of course. But it is my thinking that we have been safe so long as we have tried to stay within the confines of scriptures. The moment we take the leap to women in leadership (which is not, in my opinion, supported by scripture), it is THEN that we step onto the slippery slope. How? Because now that we have decided it's acceptable to go beyond the clear statements of scripture (based on...whatever), what argument will we use to deny homosexuals (though there are many other issues we could face besides homosexuality) their place in the ecclesiastical hierarchy? We may appeal to the scriptures, but how sad it would be to appeal to the scriptures ONLY when they agreed with our own views, but to ignore them when they were in conflict.
At least that's the way I see it.... |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
7/17/17 11:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Quiet Wyatt... |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | The slippery-slope insinuation that is often made against the affirmation of women in ministry, that it must logically lead to the ordination of practicing homosexuals and lesbians, because that is generally how things have developed amongst liberal mainline denominations, misses a very important point that one would think would be rather obvious with regard to Pentecostalism. That is, the Pentecostal movement, very much including the CoG, has affirmed women as missionaries, evangelists, and yes, even as pastors, since the early days of the movement, and in none of these cases (CoG, AG, 4SQ, IPHC, etc), has there been even the slightest movement towards ordaining practicing homosexuals.
This is because of the fact that in Pentecostalism (as well as the Holiness Movement which preceded it), the fundamental reason for affirming women in ministry (besides the rather obvious examples of women being divinely gifted for ministry in the New Testament) has always been about the gifts and callings of God by the Spirit. Never has the basis for affirming women in Pentecostal ministry been anything even remotely similar to the 'women's lib' movement, to say nothing of the gay rights movement. (In the same way, the remarkable unity of Spirit-filled Christians regardless of race at Azusa Street was seen as the work of the Holy Spirit, with "the color-line being washed away in the blood of Jesus," and not at all some kind of political campaign for civil rights or social justice as such). Nevertheless, the anti-women-in-leadership bunch does seem to enjoy mixing these two issues, as if they are identical, when it is manifestly clear from history that they are definitely not identical at all.
If it were true that ordaining ladies to the gospel ministry necessarily would lead to ordaining homosexuals, why then has that not happened in any major Pentecotal denomination, most of which have been ordaining ladies for many decades, even since the early years of the movement? And what of the CoG itself, which has appointed ladies as pastors since early on? Surely after a hundred years of allowing ladies to be credentialed as ministers of the gospel, the CoG would have become quite liberalized and pro ordination of lesbians and gays by now, if there is any truth to the slippery slope argument. |
Quiet Wyatt, I think you make a good point, but may I suggest that the reason the Church of God never started on the slippery slope regarding homosexuals is because we have long believed that these other areas are indeed open to women--and have solid Bible for it. However, if we take the next step--i.e., placing women in the highest levels of leadership--we will not have the same scriptural underpinnings that we had for the other positions. In fact, just the opposite. We would be proceeding based on arguments, feelings, cultural understandings, etc., rather on scripture. |
I disagree completely with the arrogant and ignorant assumption that the pro-women-in-leadership position, which I argue for, proceeds based on "feelings, cultural understandings, etc., rather than on Scripture." In fact, that accusation is a falsehood, plain and simple, at least as it pertains to how I have always argued this issue. I have always endeavored to present the pro women in leadership viewpoint first and foremost directly from the Scriptures themselves. Always. Every single time. You may of course choose to ignore or dismiss my arguments if you so desire, but it is absolutely not the case that I have ever once argued this issue on the basis of anything other than the Scriptures rightly divided.
| Quote: | | As you are well aware, the scriptures do not give us any clear sign of women in leadership in the NT. |
False. I have posted in the past the numerous examples of women in leadership in the New Testament, but you, like most others on the anti side, take the path of least resistance, and simply choose to ignore such scriptural facts. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
7/17/17 12:35 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Quiet Wyatt |
Aaron Scott |
Would you kindly post the NEW TESTAMENT scriptures that unequivocally place women in the highest tier of church leadership--or provide a link to what you posted earlier? I am confident that there are not any unequivocal verses regarding women in the highest levels of leadership.
The Church of God already abides by any verses that CLEARLY are open to women. The only resistance I know of has been against women being in the highest levels of leadership. That is, we accept women prophesying, pastoring, evangelizing, etc.--all of which we have good Bible for. But while I hate to plow this field again, you did bring it up...so perhaps you'll post a link, etc.?
Thank you. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
7/17/17 1:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
Also, Aaron, do NOT send me another one or your arrogant, snide private messages. I will never read another one you send. l am already regretting my decision to even respond to you here on Acts once again. An utter waste of time and effort.
As to the women in ministry leadership issue, I have engaged with you numerous times over the past 18 years on Actscelerate on that issue. Since you continue to just ignore whatever I post on this issue, and act like there's no real debate on the subject at all, it would be utter folly to respond further to you here or anywhere else. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
7/17/17 2:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Quiet Wyatt...you mean this private message? |
Aaron Scott |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | Also, Aaron, do NOT send me another one or your arrogant, snide private messages. I will never read another one you send. l am already regretting my decision to even respond to you here on Acts once again. An utter waste of time and effort.
As to the women in ministry leadership issue, I have engaged with you numerous times over the past 18 years on Actscelerate on that issue. Since you continue to just ignore whatever I post on this issue, and act like there's no real debate on the subject at all, it would be utter folly to respond further to you here or anywhere else. |
Quiet Wyatt, do you mean this post that I sent you today? See below:
| Quote: |
For some reason, you have been quite hateful toward me the last few times we have conversed. I no doubt have responded in kind, and for that I am sorry. But just in case it matters, I am not intending to write in a way that is arrogant or insulting. If it comes across that way, perhaps this statement will let you know that that is not the intent.
I don't know if this applies, but medication can cause a person to be somewhat harsh or outright hateful at times. Some time back, my wife pointed out that I was being quite snippy. Sure enough, one of the medications I take, it mentioned that it could affect mood.
Please at least check. I'm serious. I don't mean this as a jab. I just cannot imagine that you intend to come across the way you've come across the last few times. Sorry, bro. Telling you privately in order to not make a fuss about it.
Thanks. |
If this is arrogant and snide, then I guess I am indeed arrogant and snide. But I think you will find that something is amiss elsewhere....
Indeed, I did not expect any clear scriptures from you or anyone. Why? Because I am confident that they they do not exist. It is extrapolation based on what one thinks "neither male nor female" (or the such) means. There is not any clear statement or example in the New Testament of women in the highest levels of leadership.
I have to believe that the early church would have included women on the highest council if that had been the intention all along. We can argue that the church does and should evolve (I agree to a great extent). But while that makes a good argument, it does not make a good scriptural argument. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
7/17/17 2:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Yep, nothing more than what I expected from the likes of you. I have numerous times reasoned from the Scriptures on this issue, all to no avail when it comes to close-minded people such as yourself. If only Acts had a block function. I will no longer be wasting one more word responding to you ever. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
7/17/17 2:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Quiet Wyatt |
Aaron Scott |
I was trying to have an honest dialogue. I honestly didn't recall whatever it was you posted before. I'm good if I can remember some things for just a week or two, let alone from over the past 18 years, especially since so much has been discussed.
I seriously do not know why you take such offense at my wanting to discuss this with someone that I think can likely make a great case for the other side.
In any case, if you can't find a "block" button, just don't reply (which doesn't mean that I'm not going to challenge any of your posts--sorry). |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
7/17/17 3:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| check out this article (L) |
bonnie knox |
|
|
| |
|
| IPHC Repents (L) |
Bucky Sitsler |
I posted this link in a comment on the Excellent Ministry FB page and it may be relevant here as well. In 1996, the IPHC held a solemn assembly repenting on a denominational level of 7 sins: a controlling spirit, elder brother syndrome, greed, judgmentalism, male domination, racism, and spiritual pride. Further, in the IPHC, the office of bishop is an elected position and serves as an overseer of churches. Women are allowed to hold this office. Finally, in my personal experience, I cannot see that the Holy Ghost is absent from this denomination. Actually, I see that this denomination is light years ahead of the COG in many ways.
http://iphc.org/gso/archives/solemn-assembly/ |
Hey, DOC
Posts: 88
7/18/17 9:52 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
skinnybishop |
I wish we would just ordain the women and get it over with. I'm sick of hearing about it. It's no skin off my teeth to have women bishops......and it is going to be done, sooner or later anyway.
_________________
Eddie Wiggins |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
7/18/17 2:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
