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 
r/Actscelerate

FARCE ALERT!!! The Church of God Listening Tour About the Title of Bishop, Women in Ministry, Etc.
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post FARCE ALERT!!! The Church of God Listening Tour About the Title of Bishop, Women in Ministry, Etc. Aaron Scott
Has it occurred to anyone else that if Church of God leadership has STEADFASTLY refused to abide by the vote at the General Assembly (i.e., the consistent voting down of woman as bishops, etc.), that any "listening tour" is a farce?

If they were interested in listening, they have had multiple General Assemblies in which the voice of the bishops was made clear by vote. Each time--and under different administrations--Church of God leadership has refused to accept this vote, bringing it back for a vote again and again and again. As best I can tell, they are waiting for the older bishops to die or to become too old to make it to the General Assembly. Then, when the vote finally does pass (as it inevitably must if they bring it up long enough), they likely declare that God's will was done and thank everyone for their vote, etc.

I say SAVE THE CHURCH OF GOD TENS OR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS (in reimbursed travel expenses for our executive-level...AND for the many ministers that will travel to be at these "listening" sessions). Why? Because it is a wasteful farce. If they wish to listen, then consult the votes of the past several General Assemblies.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
2/6/19 1:00 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post So you're saying ... Mat
So you're saying the leadership is "by-passing" the will of the assembly and playing politics? I thought this Global Listening Tour was discussed at the last assembly, so was it approved, or just proposed in the aftermath of the votes?

What would the consequences of leadership doing such an "end-run" around the assembly be (well perhaps around the General Council)? There seems to be many who would welcome these changes, no matter how they were obtained, while others would accept and carry on in the denomination (the "not-my-pay-grade" folks). There will be some who are disillusioned, but would continue going through the motions as they looked forward to retirement. A few might take their ministry elsewhere, but that's a hard thing to do. If the top leadership stays united, I don't see a church split where a dynamic leader says he must leave because of the loss of "Biblical truths." (Anyway he knows the COG would sue the hell out of him.)

While there could be some financial impact resulting from some who have less commitment to COG institutions, the real impact is on the next generation of leaders, the children of those who find themselves on the wrong side of this issue. The rise of the independent church and the desire of young ministers to plant their own churches, perhaps in a city they feel called to or their home town, is growing. If institutional loyalty is damage in the parents, it will be absent in the children.

How an institution handles issues today will shape how the next generation views the institution tomorrow. Or as one man said, "a person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Mat (who some call "the Archangel")
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1972
2/6/19 2:53 pm


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
General Overseer Tim Hill has plainly expressed what the Global Ministry Forums are about. Here is what he posted to his Facebook account a few days ago:

“WHAT THE GLOBAL OPEN MINISTRY FORUMS ARE “NOT”

In a few days, I will travel to California to host the first of twenty-three Global Forums, as mandated by the 77th General Assembly. With a break in the Summer for Camp Meetings and Regional Conventions, the Executive Committee will conclude the final Forum next November. Rather than expect our Church of God constituency to travel to any one place such as Cleveland, Tennessee to communicate ideas about church issues, I’m pleased that representatives from the Executive Committee can travel to twenty-three regions, making discussion and dialogue opportunities more accessible. I will attend and host each of the forums, and to keep travel costs to a minimum, in most locations I will be accompanied by only one Executive Committee Member.

The topics of discussion will focus primarily on the four items designated in the adopted measure of the General Assembly. That measure is as follows:

That open Ministry Forums be conducted globally to provide opportunity for deliberate and meaningful discussion, dialogue, questions/ answers and time for spiritual insight regarding the importance and understanding of ministry ranks, qualifications, and women in ministry with attention upon the meaning and usage of the title “bishop.” Following the forums, appropriate motion(s) be formulated by the International Executive Council specifically addressing the stated issues and brought to the 2020 International General Council.

Again the prescribed discussion items are:
1. Understanding Ministry Ranks
2. Qualifications of Ministry
3. Women in Ministry
4. The meaning and usage of the title, “Bishop.”

To fully understand what the Global Open Forums are, we should begin with an understanding of what the Global Open Forums are not.

First, a Global Open Forum is not a Mini-General Assembly.

No motions concerning any subject will be formulated, nor decisions adopted in these sessions. While I will personally host and direct the sessions, Roberts Rules of Order will not be used. Obviously, time restrictions will need to be imposed on speeches in order to allow for all to have opportunity to address the topics. Of course, Christian and courteous decorum will be expected of all participants. An explanation of our procedure will be given at the beginning of each session to insure everyone’s understanding of protocol.

Second, the Global Ministry Forums are not the Executive Committee’s attempt at persuasion on the topics.

As with any topic of discussion, the members of the Executive Committee have opinions and naturally, in most instances, it’s difficult to speak without those opinions coming forth. However, the Global Open Forums are not the EC’s “traveling road show” for the purpose of promoting an agenda. Rather, the forums are your opportunity to “speak into the process” and assist the Executive Council in studying scripture, praying fervently, and offering insight to some questions that have been a concern to the church for a while. My commitment is to host the conversation in such a way as to be fair and respectful to every individual and opinion.

At the beginning of each session, I will briefly and concisely present an overview of each stated topic in order to establish the subject and hopefully begin healthy conversation among those participating.

Third, the Global Ministry Forums are not a “Cleveland Show and Tell.”

I promise you that beyond necessary opening instructions, all of the time allotted to the forums will be spent in hearing from those in attendance. There will be no department promotions or hallway exhibits. The forums are built to be very focused and arranged for leadership to hear from the hearts of our laity and ministers in each location.

Fourth, the Global Open Forums will not be the Perfect Format.

The Executive Committee has looked at numerous way to carry out the General Assembly-mandated Global Ministry Forums. There is no perfect way to do these and connect with every demographic nuance. None of them will be as long as any of us wish. While we have attempted to provide a broad schedule allowing for maximum participation, we will still miss many who simply can’t adjust their own schedules to attend.

We have discussed everything from room logistics to media and technology. We have wrestled with the best locations, starting and ending time, WiFi availability, traffic issues, you name it.

Bottom line - the forums are what they are. Pardon me, but this “ain’t” Camp Meeting, Catalyst, an ARC gathering, or anything that will look like Elevation or Hillsong. I’m not preaching, the Youth Choir’s not singing, and the Drama Team isn’t dancing. The forums are solely for the purpose of hearing from our people and collecting thoughts, insights and even data that will assist the Executive Council in its preparation of a General Council agenda for 2020.

Finally, the Global Open Forums are not a Waste of Time and Money.

While each forum is designed to last for three hours, if those participating so desire and if merited by strong levels of interest, I will certainly allow for more time for discussion. With twenty-three forums, that’s almost 70 hours of crucial discussion that will be hugely beneficial to the process.

Possibly the most important aspect of the forums is the survey that will be available. Time will be taken in each forum to complete the survey. However the survey is available online (www.globalministryforums.com) and can be completed at any time.

The success of the forums will not be judged by any decisions made at the next General Assembly. The success, or failure, of the forums will be determined twenty-three different times over the next year. If the issues are clearly articulated, if the discussion is free, open and respectful, if iron truly sharpens iron and we walk away not necessarily seeing eye-to-eye, but walking hand-in-hand, then the forums will be successful. If as a host I can insure a “safe” zone of where unhindered and honest dialogue and forward-thinking ideas are welcomed, then the forums will be a success. This is my hope and intent.

The General Assembly believed that this process would be the best way to get participation from the widest cross-section of our church. Hopefully, those who cannot attend will be able to participate in the Internet Livestream Forum planned for April 26.

I hope that you will take time to attend and participate in the forum nearest you. I’m looking forward to seeing you.

God bless,

Tim Hill”
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
2/6/19 3:24 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Mat... Aaron Scott
While I know that the side that wants to open every leadership level to women has less Bible than the other side, I also NO LONGER OPPOSE women in leadership levels. I gave my reasons in a long General Assembly-time FB post. In a nutshell, I realize we are never going to go back to the "classic" Church of God that many of us were raised in. Further, while one side may have more Bible, what we do NOT have is an absolute statement in scripture that women MUST NOT be permitted in leadership. The evidence may lean that way, but it is not a clear statement in scripture, nor should we act like it is. That being the case, I chose to stand-down rather than perhaps hurt feelings over things that are not clear in scripture--besides, I felt the other side had begun to show that they did realize that our side was not just being small-minded, but had sincere scriptural issues.

I believe there is little chance of this creating a major (or even a minor) split. I think most of us know that, absent a solid, clear statement in scripture--and not just the preponderance of the evidence--we are not best served by acting like it is an absolute truth.

HOWEVER, to me that issue is that the Church of God is purposely designed such that the General Council determines what goes to the General Assembly. Over and over, the General Council's will has been ignored by various administrations by bringing the same (or similar) proposals to the General Assembly time after time.

If the General Council's will does not matter, THEN GET RID OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL AND SAVE US ALL A LOT OF NEEDLESS TIME AND ANGST!!!

But if it does matter (as every General Overseer will attest), THEN ABIDE BY THEIR DETERMINATIONS!!!

At a minimum, no dismissed proposal (or one similar to it) should be permitted to appear on a General Assembly agenda for AT LEAST two General Assembly cycles. But in a rush to push through what the General Council has repeatedly turned down, the Executive level has pushed it at virtually every General Assembly. Apparently, they are waiting for enough of the older men to die off so they can get their way. I cannot otherwise imagine WHY they would continue to add this to the agenda when it has been REPEATEDLY turned down.

To me, it shows glaring disrespect for the General Council. I wouldn't doubt there is concern that the newer generation of ministers will take such umbrage that it will hurt the Church of God. That may be the case. Or it may simply be that we elect men to high office who have much different views than we do, but what they DO have is name recognition. If you are very much opposed to women in high office, you will probably not be getting too many invitations to preach camp meetings or conventions, which means you probably won't have the name recognition for high office. If I recall, a number of years ago, a consulting firm cautioned about how the deck can be stacked for or against something.

I simply say abide by the General Council's wishes. If you don't like what they say, then bring it back after a couple of General Assemblies have passed.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
2/6/19 4:11 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Let's see Dunamis007
1. Understanding the rank and file ministers. How about asking them their opinion once in while. Duh.
2. Qualifications of elders/bishops/overseers: Timothy 3
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; note

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; note

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. note

7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

3. Women in ministry; Romans 16
1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: place

2 That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:

4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ. place

6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.

7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

4. Meaning and usage of bishop

Sounds a lot like Catholic, Anglican, et all. A lot like WCC (world council of churches). Would be embarrassed to be called it personally. Titles are passe' anyway. No longer even Sr Pastor, now lead pastor pastor or just "hey you".
Member
Posts: 29
2/6/19 7:29 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dunamis... Aaron Scott
I am for getting rid of "bishop," except for those OVER multiple pastors (e.g., District Overseers, State Overseers, General Overseers, and the such). For that matter, I don't mind if they call retired ministers bishops (after all, anyone who has spent their life in the service of God is someone we could rightly call such, I imagine).

Also, I am FOR women in ministry. I do feel that it is questionable about placing them in the highest levels of leadership, but as I mentioned elsewhere, I am no longer opposing this.

I think my concern is that if we are doing this to match the world's standards of equality, I cannot help but wonder if that same sentiment might lead us down other paths--some of which may be deeply wrong or at least questionable. It's not wrong to want women in leadership, but if the main catalyst is not truly about ministry or the scripture, but is about not looking "backward" to the world, that's a problem.

But while it is a good thing to ask our opinion, the opinion, via vote, has been rendered numerous times at the General Assembly.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
2/6/19 9:01 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
It was mandated at the Assembly to have these forums. So, they are just following what YOU agreed to and voted for. Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
2/7/19 7:45 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Thanks for answering the question ... Mat
Eddie Robbins wrote:
It was mandated at the Assembly to have these forums. So, they are just following what YOU agreed to and voted for.


Thanks for answering the I asked at the beginning of my post.

I was thinking these meetings had their genesis at the last COG assembly. I wish I could observe one of the meetings, just to see how leadership manages it. I would like to hear some of the discussion as well.

Mat
Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1972
2/7/19 8:06 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Eddie... Aaron Scott
Eddie Robbins wrote:
It was mandated at the Assembly to have these forums. So, they are just following what YOU agreed to and voted for.


Yes, it was. But it was also, in my opinion, a cynical maneuver to keep the matter before the General Assembly until the General Council can do the right thing and do exactly what the Executive level wants.

But here's the thing, Eddie: WHY DID THE EXECUTIVES ACCEPT THIS AS THE WILL OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL, YET REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE WILL OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL WHEN THEY VOTED DOWN WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP, ETC.?

Exactly! Because the Executive, I believe, is willing to do precisely what the General Council calls for...SO LONG AS THE EXECUTIVES AGREE WITH IT!

If they truly respected the General Council's voice, this matter would not even have been on the Agenda for discussion, and so would not have morphed into "a listening tour."

WORSE: How many good and noble proposals have been placed in the garbage cans at headquarters to make room for this matter to be brought to the General Assembly time after time? This is another reason a measure that is voted down should not appear for at least a couple of cycles: It gives room for other proposals to appear, etc.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
2/7/19 9:33 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Nature Boy Florida
Sorry Aaron.

Leadership is guiding your followers to accept what is the right thing - before they know it is the right thing. If they only did what the folks following knew to be right already - why have leaders?

While yes the Council voted it down - the same Council has also elected the leaders - who feel they know what is in the best interests of the organization.

Tension.

All leaders face it.

Let's talk about it.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16599
2/7/19 10:56 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post sheepdogandy
Centralized government, ya gotta love it! Laughing
_________________
Charles A. Hutchins
Senior Pastor SPWC
Congregational Church of God

www.spwc.church
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 7294
2/7/19 11:41 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
My sense is that we will drop the “bishop” designation except perhaps for DOs and up.

I disagree that this tour is a farce. It was voted on and passed the GA. To imply that it is a farce implies the GA itself is a farce.

Anyone who has observed the GC sessions knows that that environment is not really conducive to in-depth dialogue, discussion and peaceful mutual understanding. Only the willfully ignorant and bullies reject opportunity for thoughtful and respectful dialogue in the church. I applaud the idea of these sessions, and hope to attend one myself this year.

From what I can tell, one of the reasons we changed OMs to OBs was in order to allow female CoG ministers to serve as military chaplains. Another was the scriptural rationale that since in the New Testament period, bishop/overseer, elder/presbyter and pastor/shepherd were equivalent terms, an ordained pastor was therefore the same thing as a bishop. (The elevation of bishops over several congregations in a region only began to develop in the 2nd century).
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
2/7/19 12:21 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post skinnybishop
I don't really care if women are eligible for the third rank of ministry, or not. Frankly, I'm tired of talking about it.

I do wish we'd get rid of the "Bishop" title, except for Overseers, and the Executive Committee.

I also think we should do away with the General Council. Just let the Executive Council bring recommendations to the General Assembly. That way everybody is included and we only hear one set of debates.
_________________
Eddie Wiggins
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
2/7/19 2:14 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dean Steenburgh
Again the prescribed discussion items are:
1. Understanding Ministry Ranks
2. Qualifications of Ministry
3. Women in Ministry
4. The meaning and usage of the title, “Bishop.”

It doesn't say in these 4 talking points that at the next GA we will be ramming through a motion to amend the minutes to include women into the rank of Ordained Bishop.

Just for the fun of it though:
I do find a lot of humor in the fact that the GC changed the rank of ministers from, "Ordained" as the highest rank in ministry to, "Ordained Bishop" as the highest rank in ministry. But nowadays we allow women to be ordained as ministers but we raised the definition bar so as to not 'have' to include women as Ordained Bishop.
So if we changed the ministry rank & eliminated OB & put us back to the 3 tier rank of Exhorter, Licensed & Ordained ...are we then going to drop women from Ordained Ministers to Licensed Minister?
_________________
"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: 4682
2/7/19 6:34 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt... Aaron Scott
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
My sense is that we will drop the “bishop” designation except perhaps for DOs and up.

I disagree that this tour is a farce. It was voted on and passed the GA. To imply that it is a farce implies the GA itself is a farce.



Consider this QW.... I believe you told us you did not vote for Trump. Let's' say that the person you did vote for actually won the election...but then the powers-that-be said, "No, we have to have a do-over until the person we want elected is elected." I think you'd agree that the election was farce.

I love our leaders. I love the Church of God--and have every day since I knew there was a Church of God. But to bring this matter up again and again until, apparently, it goes the way that leadership wants it to go, is to be dismissive, it seems, of the will of the General Council.








Anyone who has observed the GC sessions knows that that environment is not really conducive to in-depth dialogue, discussion and peaceful mutual understanding. Only the willfully ignorant and bullies reject opportunity for thoughtful and respectful dialogue in the church. I applaud the idea of these sessions, and hope to attend one myself this year.


I recall when we had a similar "listening tour" regarding the changes/liberalization/corrections that some wanted to make to our Practical Commitments. You can be sure that the conservatives showed up in force, resisting any such change. Bro. Cross himself even pointed out that the prohibitions against drinking and tobacco had to be "must nots" rather than just "should nots." And yet the Practical Commitments changed anyway.

Here's the thing, no matter what the listening tour finds, this matter will find itself on the agenda until it passes. Why? Because listening tours are cosmetic--only the vote can put it in the Minutes. I don't think there will be nearly so much indepth discussions as one might wish. Certainly, speakers will not have unlimited time, since others want to speak. In addition, there are multiple issues to be addressed...so that makes for an even briefer discussion.

Social media and the General Council, over the years, have likely discussed this to the point of both. That is, it HAS been discussed and discussed and discussed. So what's missing? The General Council has not yet done what leadership wants done. So we discuss it some more.






From what I can tell, one of the reasons we changed OMs to OBs was in order to allow female CoG ministers to serve as military chaplains. Another was the scriptural rationale that since in the New Testament period, bishop/overseer, elder/presbyter and pastor/shepherd were equivalent terms, an ordained pastor was therefore the same thing as a bishop. (The elevation of bishops over several congregations in a region only began to develop in the 2nd century).


One of the issues I have pondered regarding bishops is that if we decide to use that title only for those who are elected/appointed to leadership, what happens when they don't get another appointment or fail to be elected? Do they remain bishops? Do they revert to another title. I know that wasn't to your point, but I have pondered that.



Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
2/8/19 5:33 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
The Practical Commitments still say “must totally abstain” from tobacco, alcohol, etc.:

“ADDICTION AND ENSLAVEMENT
One of the primary benefits of our liberty in Christ is freedom from the domination of negative forces (John 8:32, 36; Romans 6:14; 8:2). We are counseled not to put ourselves again under bondage (Galatians 5:1). Therefore, a Christian must totally abstain from all alcoholic beverages and other habit-forming and mood-altering chemical substances and refrain from the use of tobacco in any form, marijuana and all other addictive substances, and further, must refrain from any activity (such as gambling or gluttony) which defiles the body as the temple of God or which dominates and enslaves the spirit that has been made free in Christ (Proverbs 20:1; 23:20-35; Isaiah 28:7; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 5:11; 6:10; 2 Corinthians 7:1; James 1:21).”
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
2/8/19 7:19 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
We get do-overs on who’s president every four years, reps every two, and 1/3 of the senate every two. I would think we all would agree that’s a good thing. I hated having Obama as president. And yet I accepted his election as the will of God in the same way God will some day send a strong delusion upon the unbelieving world, because they loved not the truth. I feel similarly about Trump, though I do like some of his policies. I believe God gives nations the government they deserve.

Last edited by Quiet Wyatt on 2/8/19 7:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
2/8/19 7:21 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
When I had people in my congregation who were blatant racists, I certainly wouldn’t have ever said, “Well, that’s their will, I shouldn’t try to change their minds on this. I should just respect their wishes and allow them to chase anyone of color off, use the N word as much as they want, use derogatory language when referring to Hispanics, etc.” No, instead I saw it as my duty to educate, inform, reprove and in some cases rebuke their arrogant racist pridefulness (which is in fact gross sin). The righteous response to moral unjustness in the church or in society is never to just passively accept the status quo as “the will of the people.” What total hogwash and dereliction of duty that would be for the Christian to just let a correctable wrong persist.

Thankfully, great men of God like Wesley, Wilberforce, Finney and Mahan didn’t just accept the will of the people when it came to the practice of slavery, even though many professing Christians adamantly defended the institution as scriptural even.
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
2/8/19 7:29 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post QW... Aaron Scott
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
The Practical Commitments still say “must totally abstain” from tobacco, alcohol, etc.:

“ADDICTION AND ENSLAVEMENT
One of the primary benefits of our liberty in Christ is freedom from the domination of negative forces (John 8:32, 36; Romans 6:14; 8:2). We are counseled not to put ourselves again under bondage (Galatians 5:1). Therefore, a Christian must totally abstain from all alcoholic beverages and other habit-forming and mood-altering chemical substances and refrain from the use of tobacco in any form, marijuana and all other addictive substances, and further, must refrain from any activity (such as gambling or gluttony) which defiles the body as the temple of God or which dominates and enslaves the spirit that has been made free in Christ (Proverbs 20:1; 23:20-35; Isaiah 28:7; 1 Corinthians 3:17; 5:11; 6:10; 2 Corinthians 7:1; James 1:21).”


Yes, the say that. But in the proposed language that was being discussed, this was not the case, as best I remember. Which is why Bro. Cross made a statement similar to the following:

"Long before medical science had anything to say about it, the Church of God opposed the use of tobacco.... This should not be "should not," but MUST NOT use tobacco...."

Again, this is a paraphrase, as this was, I suppose, 30+ years ago.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
2/8/19 7:46 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post QW--I'd be DELIGHTED if they'd wait every four years to bring it up again. Aaron Scott
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
We get do-overs on who’s president every four years, reps every two, and 1/3 of the senate every two. I would think we all would agree that’s a good thing. I hated having Obama as president. And yet I accepted his election as the will of God in the same way God will some day send a strong delusion upon the unbelieving world, because they loved not the truth. I feel similarly about Trump, though I do like some of his policies. I believe God gives nations the government they deserve.


It the fact that it comes up in some shape or fashion every Assembly the bugs me. If there was some sort of limit to how soon a matter could be brought again to the General Assembly--say, a wait of at least two General Assemblies before it can be brought again--I'd support that.

But the fact that it keeps coming back and back and back, often dressed in new clothes, it seems, that seems just, well, disrespectful of the vote that was taken.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6027
2/8/19 7:49 pm


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

 
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
Contact the Administrator.


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