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

My issue with the Bishop/age situation
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  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 Clint Wills
We have protective protocols for immature people. No matter their age, every minister has to be recommended by their pastor and district overseer, right? So, an immature pastor shouldn't be able to get licensed whether they are 25 or 50. It's not as if EVERY 25 year old in the COG would get their OB license. Why don't we place more trust in the pastors and district overseers to know who is and is not mature enough to have a bishop's license?

There is absolutely a case to be made that 25 years old is not old enough, and not every 25 year old should be a bishop, but some should. Some are more than qualified! Let's not hold those men back because of their age.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5163
7/30/12 11:26 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Lee Roy Lee Roy Brown
KevinWallace wrote:
I like to agree with people. Many times I have agreed with you. But this last post reeks. "Shape up young men?" Are you serious? I have a feeling they dont care why you voted against it. The fact is, we can talk about all of the psychological and sociological reasons why we shouldn't have voted for this, but we can't talk about the scriptural reasons why we shouldn't have voted for this...because there aren't any.

There are 24 year old men who are more qualified than some 50 year olds. Obviously that is not the norm. But when you make hard and fast rules that exclude sons who have wisdom beyond their years and abilities that are God-given, we keep them out of the decision making processes of our church. We will regret this one day if the Lord tarries.


I’ll stick by my post even though being rebuked by an executive council member feels pretty cool. With some of the responses and whining that these young men have done about this I think it was in order to tell them to shape up. They are only making the argument easier. If they want to change it then do it the right way through the proper channels. We have seen in the past that things can get changed over years.

If this motion failing has a dramatic effect on us then there is something seriously wrong with that picture. I could see if we refused them to pastor, I could see if we refused them any ministerial rights all we did was say wait a little bit. I have no problem with it and have an issue seeing what all the fuss is about.

I think I have some right to speak to this with being younger myself. You might be right that no one really cares what I think. Of course you don’t know who I am so people might very well care what I think.
Friendly Face
Posts: 426
7/30/12 12:14 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Lee Roy Clint Wills
Lee Roy Brown wrote:
KevinWallace wrote:
I like to agree with people. Many times I have agreed with you. But this last post reeks. "Shape up young men?" Are you serious? I have a feeling they dont care why you voted against it. The fact is, we can talk about all of the psychological and sociological reasons why we shouldn't have voted for this, but we can't talk about the scriptural reasons why we shouldn't have voted for this...because there aren't any.

There are 24 year old men who are more qualified than some 50 year olds. Obviously that is not the norm. But when you make hard and fast rules that exclude sons who have wisdom beyond their years and abilities that are God-given, we keep them out of the decision making processes of our church. We will regret this one day if the Lord tarries.


I’ll stick by my post even though being rebuked by an executive council member feels pretty cool. With some of the responses and whining that these young men have done about this I think it was in order to tell them to shape up. They are only making the argument easier. If they want to change it then do it the right way through the proper channels. We have seen in the past that things can get changed over years.

If this motion failing has a dramatic effect on us then there is something seriously wrong with that picture. I could see if we refused them to pastor, I could see if we refused them any ministerial rights all we did was say wait a little bit. I have no problem with it and have an issue seeing what all the fuss is about.

I think I have some right to speak to this with being younger myself. You might be right that no one really cares what I think. Of course you don’t know who I am so people might very well care what I think.


If you have some right to speak about this because you're 33, then I guess Kevin certainly does at 32, and I do also at 33. Wink

I think your arguments could go either way. "

If this motions failing has a dramatic effect on us, then there is something seriously wrong with that picture"

Can't the same, then, be said about the converse of that statement? If this motion being passed (as it was by the GC) has a dramatic effect on us, then something is seriously wrong.

I don't think this motion SHOULD have a dramatic effect on the COG either way. My thing is that it really wouldn't have *hurt* anything to change that language. It's not as if the COG would be irrevocably damaged. However, there is a chance that passing the motion would give some of the younger ministers more ownership in the movement AND thereby more vested interest in seeing it succeed. As the discipleship pastor at my church my main goal is to find ways for everybody to buy into the discipleship process. The process itself seems to be succeeding better than I could have hoped, but getting people to want to participate is the hard part. Here we are talking about ministers that WANT to be more involved, and we're telling them that they can't.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5163
7/30/12 12:22 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Lee Roy Lee Roy Brown
Clint Wills wrote:
Lee Roy Brown wrote:
KevinWallace wrote:
I like to agree with people. Many times I have agreed with you. But this last post reeks. "Shape up young men?" Are you serious? I have a feeling they dont care why you voted against it. The fact is, we can talk about all of the psychological and sociological reasons why we shouldn't have voted for this, but we can't talk about the scriptural reasons why we shouldn't have voted for this...because there aren't any.

There are 24 year old men who are more qualified than some 50 year olds. Obviously that is not the norm. But when you make hard and fast rules that exclude sons who have wisdom beyond their years and abilities that are God-given, we keep them out of the decision making processes of our church. We will regret this one day if the Lord tarries.


I’ll stick by my post even though being rebuked by an executive council member feels pretty cool. With some of the responses and whining that these young men have done about this I think it was in order to tell them to shape up. They are only making the argument easier. If they want to change it then do it the right way through the proper channels. We have seen in the past that things can get changed over years.

If this motion failing has a dramatic effect on us then there is something seriously wrong with that picture. I could see if we refused them to pastor, I could see if we refused them any ministerial rights all we did was say wait a little bit. I have no problem with it and have an issue seeing what all the fuss is about.

I think I have some right to speak to this with being younger myself. You might be right that no one really cares what I think. Of course you don’t know who I am so people might very well care what I think.


If you have some right to speak about this because you're 33, then I guess Kevin certainly does at 32, and I do also at 33. Wink

I think your arguments could go either way. "

If this motions failing has a dramatic effect on us, then there is something seriously wrong with that picture"

Can't the same, then, be said about the converse of that statement? If this motion being passed (as it was by the GC) has a dramatic effect on us, then something is seriously wrong.

I don't think this motion SHOULD have a dramatic effect on the COG either way. My thing is that it really wouldn't have *hurt* anything to change that language. It's not as if the COG would be irrevocably damaged. However, there is a chance that passing the motion would give some of the younger ministers more ownership in the movement AND thereby more vested interest in seeing it succeed. As the discipleship pastor at my church my main goal is to find ways for everybody to buy into the discipleship process. The process itself seems to be succeeding better than I could have hoped, but getting people to want to participate is the hard part. Here we are talking about ministers that WANT to be more involved, and we're telling them that they can't.


Here is something to think about either we value the General Assembly or we do not. When financial reports aren't giving we demand that the General Assembly the highest ruling body in the Church of God has stated we should get them. Whenever the highest body in the Church of God speaks and votes down something we get an attitude about it. Either we value it all together or we value it not at all.

The majority has spoken. There were some issues that the GA voted against what I wanted but they have spoken. It’s time for me to go back and pastor my church and do what God has called me to do. I hate all the whining and belly aching that happens after the General Assembly. So yes I can say get over it because I have and you should to.
Friendly Face
Posts: 426
7/30/12 12:27 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Agree With Lee Roy Brown Jason Isaacs
Tom Sterbens wrote:

It's about faith that has been tested by life and is more than theory.
It's about wisdom, and knowledge is not wisdom.
Yes, I realize you can argue the other side, and there are no doubt plenty of Ordained Bishops that would provide the evidence for that. But our culture is so much about entitlement and instant gratification that we interpret the term "wait" as an insult.


I'm surprised to hear you didn't vote for it. My question to you is why 30? Is it because that's the age that's currently on the books? Is wisdom and faith tested and tried by 30?

I was one of the leading voices on twitter vocalizing my complaints, 50% in humor 50% in frustration. I feel it's nearly impossible for someone on the inside to understand the frustration of someone on the outside, especially when they are voting to keep them out.

For all the great things that happened at this assembly our voting body let it be known that we did not want the inclusion of young ministers, and the restoration of homosexuals. and our response to both of those issues was applause.

I'm just not sure why the arbitrary age numbers. Do you feel that the same testing and trying of wisdom and faith is more needed to vote than to shepherd? Why can we do one and not the other?
Friendly Face
Posts: 388
7/30/12 12:30 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Jason Isaacs
J David Smith wrote:


The motion was spun to be about age. Insinuations and outright accusations were that the failure of the motion shut out our young ministers. This is not true! It borders on dishonesty to imply that this motion was solely an age issue. It was not! It was an issue of maturity and experience


It was an age issue because an age was put in the motion. No one thinks the Church of God wants to kick out young ministers, but this vote did send the message that you want us as part of your family you just don't want us as part of the deciding body. I can go to lunch with you I just have to sit at a different table.

It is hurtful to those of us on the outside looking in. I can keep pastoring my church and raising my voice no doubt, but anytime a group decides by voting that I am not welcome to join them it sends a message and it does hurt.
Friendly Face
Posts: 388
7/30/12 12:36 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Clint Wills
So we're not allowed to discuss our displeasure with decisions that we disagree with?

I wonder how some of us feel about Obamacare (or Obama in general). Are we allowed to say that we wish we had a different president??
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5163
7/30/12 12:41 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Lee Roy Brown
Clint Wills wrote:
So we're not allowed to discuss our displeasure with decisions that we disagree with?

I wonder how some of us feel about Obamacare (or Obama in general). Are we allowed to say that we wish we had a different president??


It just seems like a double standard to me. We hold it up when it works well for us and trash it when we don't like it. There is a difference in saying I don't agree with that decision and will work to change it then all the junk I have seen on social media about it.

Also the irony that the General Council who is made up of Bishop's to whom the young members are trying to get the right to be a part of voted for the motion. Then the General Assembly to whom those young ministers already have the right to set in on voted against them. Anyone see the irony?
Friendly Face
Posts: 426
7/30/12 12:53 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Clint Wills
Lee Roy Brown wrote:
Clint Wills wrote:
So we're not allowed to discuss our displeasure with decisions that we disagree with?

I wonder how some of us feel about Obamacare (or Obama in general). Are we allowed to say that we wish we had a different president??


It just seems like a double standard to me. We hold it up when it works well for us and trash it when we don't like it. There is a difference in saying I don't agree with that decision and will work to change it then all the junk I have seen on social media about it.

Also the irony that the General Council who is made up of Bishop's to whom the young members are trying to get the right to be a part of voted for the motion. Then the General Assembly to whom those young ministers already have the right to set in on voted against them. Anyone see the irony?


The irony I see is that the people who are already a part of the GC want younger ministers, while the people who aren't in there don't want younger ministers - which makes no sense at all.

I will say, I think the system is broken to some extent. The bishops sit and debate for 3+ days on these issues only to have that overturned in the matter of 2 1/2 hours on Friday. In one breath we say, "we have leaders, lets let them lead" and on the other hand we say "we think the OBs are wrong".
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5163
7/30/12 1:11 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Sterbens KevinWallace
That is as close to sounding like Thurman as you have ever sounded. Geesh
_________________
Once I thought was wrong, but...I was mistaken
Friendly Face
Posts: 450
7/30/12 1:15 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Lee Roy Brown
Also I’m not trying to stir the pot but I’m not sure it was voted down. The ancient way they counted the vote at the GA stopped people for calling for a division of the house. They really need to get keypads for the General Assembly. I say get enough keypads so we can have one round of voting at the GC which will give us much more time to talk about issues on the floor and will also give the Assembly more time to discuss issues. If you have to save money other places then do it but this is one place where money should be spent. I know at least once that the Moderator thought the vote was one way but when it went to keypads it was another way. Friendly Face
Posts: 426
7/30/12 1:29 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post PastorJackson
Jason Isaacs wrote:
J David Smith wrote:


The motion was spun to be about age. Insinuations and outright accusations were that the failure of the motion shut out our young ministers. This is not true! It borders on dishonesty to imply that this motion was solely an age issue. It was not! It was an issue of maturity and experience


It was an age issue because an age was put in the motion. No one thinks the Church of God wants to kick out young ministers, but this vote did send the message that you want us as part of your family you just don't want us as part of the deciding body. I can go to lunch with you I just have to sit at a different table.

It is hurtful to those of us on the outside looking in. I can keep pastoring my church and raising my voice no doubt, but anytime a group decides by voting that I am not welcome to join them it sends a message and it does hurt.
That seems to prove the point that if a minister is so hurt as having to sit at different table then they should not be in the governing body. I saw the twitter and I saw many inappropriate things written. Some sounded like spoiled children not getting their way, just like when a similar issue was voted down last time. I was not their but I probably would have voted against it. If I remember correctly going back to Jewish history 30 was the age of adulthood. Jesus took his ministry at 30. But regardless 25 at this day and age is too young. I started ministry at 23 but I was Ordained a Bishop at 45. I wanted to be ready as it is important and not just a title as some on here seem to think.I find it interesting since the whole changing bishop for woman failed that now there is a swell to change the titles, hmm. It is really simple, the bible tells us that we should not be novices. What that means to different people means different things, but we are doing a disservice if we allow a person who is not ready to be in that position of leadership to move in it because they want it. I wanted to drive at 14 but the law said I had to wait till 16 so I waited. If this is a stumbling block because they cant have a title then there is a deeper issue. To me the title Pastor is the highest one can have, it means God has trusted you to lead HIS flock. But that is my opinion. One last point, the battles that happen gets really personal, that is why the cheering happens, I do not agree with spiking the ball as we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.
_________________
Are the things you are living for, worth Christ dying for?
http://www.jacksonplant.org/
http://jacksonplant.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/jackson.plant
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4750
7/30/12 1:45 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post J David Smith
Jason Isaacs wrote:
J David Smith wrote:


The motion was spun to be about age. Insinuations and outright accusations were that the failure of the motion shut out our young ministers. This is not true! It borders on dishonesty to imply that this motion was solely an age issue. It was not! It was an issue of maturity and experience


It was an age issue because an age was put in the motion. No one thinks the Church of God wants to kick out young ministers, but this vote did send the message that you want us as part of your family you just don't want us as part of the deciding body. I can go to lunch with you I just have to sit at a different table.

It is hurtful to those of us on the outside looking in. I can keep pastoring my church and raising my voice no doubt, but anytime a group decides by voting that I am not welcome to join them it sends a message and it does hurt.


Jason,

My sentiments in an earlier thread regarding Wallace could be said about you as well. I have known you since you were just a teenager, and I have observed God's hand upon your life throughout your life. You are destined to be, and already are, a leading voice in this movement.

The motion was not about age, because our current rules allow a 25 year old to be ordained. The motion did not propose a change of the age requirement. It proposed a change to the time requirement. As I have already expounded in other posts, I have been in the same place that you are now. I can understand the anxious desire to complete the process. However, I have learned that time is always our friend. I have publicly expressed my disdain at those who clapped an cheered when the motion failed. That response was inappropriate, as was the twitter melodrama that followed. There was immaturity exposed on both sides of the issue by old and young.

I am also interested in where we got the age of 30 from. I do know that Judaism teaches that the age of 30 is when a man reaches the level of "wisdom and power." Under the law, a Levite could not begin his temple duties until he reached the age of 30. The book of Ezekiel was not to be read by anyone under the age of 30. Ezekiel was 30 years old when he began his ministry, as was Jesus. I am sure that this is probably where the age of 30 came from.

Don't grow weary in doing good! God has His hand on you now! This motion does not limit your ability in any way to share the Gospel and fulfill the great commission in your city.
Friendly Face
Posts: 490
7/30/12 3:54 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Clint Wills
J David Smith wrote:
Jason Isaacs wrote:
J David Smith wrote:


The motion was spun to be about age. Insinuations and outright accusations were that the failure of the motion shut out our young ministers. This is not true! It borders on dishonesty to imply that this motion was solely an age issue. It was not! It was an issue of maturity and experience


It was an age issue because an age was put in the motion. No one thinks the Church of God wants to kick out young ministers, but this vote did send the message that you want us as part of your family you just don't want us as part of the deciding body. I can go to lunch with you I just have to sit at a different table.

It is hurtful to those of us on the outside looking in. I can keep pastoring my church and raising my voice no doubt, but anytime a group decides by voting that I am not welcome to join them it sends a message and it does hurt.


Jason,

My sentiments in an earlier thread regarding Wallace could be said about you as well. I have known you since you were just a teenager, and I have observed God's hand upon your life throughout your life. You are destined to be, and already are, a leading voice in this movement.

The motion was not about age, because our current rules allow a 25 year old to be ordained. The motion did not propose a change of the age requirement. It proposed a change to the time requirement. As I have already expounded in other posts, I have been in the same place that you are now. I can understand the anxious desire to complete the process. However, I have learned that time is always our friend. I have publicly expressed my disdain at those who clapped an cheered when the motion failed. That response was inappropriate, as was the twitter melodrama that followed. There was immaturity exposed on both sides of the issue by old and young.

I am also interested in where we got the age of 30 from. I do know that Judaism teaches that the age of 30 is when a man reaches the level of "wisdom and power." Under the law, a Levite could not begin his temple duties until he reached the age of 30. The book of Ezekiel was not to be read by anyone under the age of 30. Ezekiel was 30 years old when he began his ministry, as was Jesus. I am sure that this is probably where the age of 30 came from.

Don't grow weary in doing good! God has His hand on you now! This motion does not limit your ability in any way to share the Gospel and fulfill the great commission in your city.


Maybe 25 and 30 are from the secular government. You must be 25 to be a representative and 30 to be a senator. Wink
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5163
7/30/12 4:16 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Quote:
Maybe 25 and 30 are from the secular government. You must be 25 to be a representative and 30 to be a senator. Wink


Which maybe came from older religious (and non-religious) traditions. Wink
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/30/12 4:58 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Nature Boy Florida
Charles Conn - Executive Council at 32, Executive Committee at 42, General Overseer 46.

Kevin Wallace - Executive Council 32....
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16599
7/30/12 5:49 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Maybe... Tracy S Hamilton
Maybe until younger guys can become Ordained Bishops they should not be required to send in the TOT....... I'll bet if that was a rule they would allow younger guys to be ordained in a more timely fashion.

I am not one of the younger guys anymore (I think I am though) as I have reached the 50 mark. I do think it is a little disingenuous to ask guys to support programs, support financially and everything else that comes with being in ministry, especially if they are pastoring, but then not give them a seat at the table.

Just my opinion.

Tracy
Golf Cart Mafia Capo
Posts: 2716
7/30/12 6:30 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
Where does 1 Timothy 3:6 fit into this discussion? How do you define a "novice?" (KJV) Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
7/30/12 6:41 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Maybe... PastorJackson
I feel there is responsibility when you are Ordained, you represent the COG to the world and I don't know if I would feel comfortable for a 18 year old potentially elected to the General Overseer. And you really do have a issue of Novices being in positions of leadership there not ready for.
Tom Sterbens wrote:
Tracy S Hamilton wrote:
Maybe until younger guys can become Ordained Bishops they should not be required to send in the TOT....... I'll bet if that was a rule they would allow younger guys to be ordained in a more timely fashion.

I am not one of the younger guys anymore (I think I am though) as I have reached the 50 mark. I do think it is a little disingenuous to ask guys to support programs, support financially and everything else that comes with being in ministry, especially if they are pastoring, but then not give them a seat at the table.

Just my opinion.

Tracy

Then why don't we by pass all of it and just have one single ordination credential and be done with it? That way a guy who is ordained when he is 18 years old can serve anywhere at all, at any level of engagement?

Thoughts??????

_________________
Are the things you are living for, worth Christ dying for?
http://www.jacksonplant.org/
http://jacksonplant.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/jackson.plant
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4750
7/30/12 7:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: Maybe... Tracy S Hamilton
Tom Sterbens wrote:
Tracy S Hamilton wrote:
Maybe until younger guys can become Ordained Bishops they should not be required to send in the TOT....... I'll bet if that was a rule they would allow younger guys to be ordained in a more timely fashion.

I am not one of the younger guys anymore (I think I am though) as I have reached the 50 mark. I do think it is a little disingenuous to ask guys to support programs, support financially and everything else that comes with being in ministry, especially if they are pastoring, but then not give them a seat at the table.

Just my opinion.

Tracy

Then why don't we by pass all of it and just have one single ordination credential and be done with it? That way a guy who is ordained when he is 18 years old can serve anywhere at all, at any level of engagement?

Thoughts??????


I would say that having one single ordination might not be a bad thing. I think voting and being eligible to serve in certain capacities might be two different things in my opinion.

I think a single ordination could be done at a certain age. How that age is determined might be up for question, but if young men are going to be allowed to pastor a church, then I don't have a problem with those young men being ordained and being able to vote and have a voice in the church (COG) they are supporting in so many different ways.

In terms of being eligible to serve in major capacities such as Executive Positions, ie. Executive Council, Council of Eighteen or other major appointed positions, then I wouldn't have a problem with that age being 30. I would argue that at the local state level, they be eligible to serve at the time of ordination. The chances that an 18 year old would get voted on in any position at the state level is slim and none.

Voting is the main point. Again, voting and being eligible to serve are two different things.

Tracy
Golf Cart Mafia Capo
Posts: 2716
7/30/12 7:40 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 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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
Contact the Administrator.


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