Actscelerate.com

The difference between ....

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 **8/4/16 1:01 pm**

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

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

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

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

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

Mat

Clint,

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/4/16 3:47 pm**

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

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/4/16 3:56 pm**

Issue needs to be dealt with?

Friendly Face Posts: 312 **8/4/16 5:31 pm**

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

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/4/16 5:59 pm**

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/4/16 6:05 pm**

Mat and Ed,

Friendly Face Posts: 144 **8/4/16 8:10 pm**

Mat,

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

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

Ed,

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

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

Re: Mat and Ed,

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 **8/4/16 8:57 pm**

Friendly Face Posts: 120 **8/4/16 9:22 pm**

Dr. Archer absolutely meant to compare this situation to the harsh treatment of African Americans during the civil rights movement. He doubled down on the argument with me on Facebook. There were many women who felt like they were being treated as second-class citizens, but I felt he went way too far in his comparison. Suffrage is a more appropriate argument. Especially since not a single woman left that general council session in fear of their lives.

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/5/16 7:28 am**

Re: Mat and Ed,

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 **8/5/16 7:39 am**

my opinion

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1274 **8/5/16 7:41 am**

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

They are going by what they feel - can't fault them for that.

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/5/16 8:30 am**

Wayne, thanks for your description of what you saw from actually being there.
I suspect the voting results were not swayed much one way or another by the speeches; I suspect most bishops had already decided which way to vote.
The two speakers immediately prior to Kenneth Archer's speech had spoken against the measure using the typical prooftext of 1 Timothy 2. In fact, one of the bishops who spoke prior to Kenneth Archer said "There are more, clearer teachings about men, qualified males, being in leadership position in administrative and doctrinal roles than the teaching of initial evidence...."

Mat,

Friendly Face Posts: 144 **8/5/16 7:27 pm**

Thanks for these thoughts. I enjoyed reading your insights.

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

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

Implicitly, at least, the COG believes the same since it affirms some kind of order in the home predicated on sex but allows women to pastor churches.

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/5/16 8:46 pm**

If equality in ministerial rank ...

Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 **8/6/16 7:55 am**

Bonnie,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mat

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/6/16 8:43 am**

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 **8/6/16 9:04 am**

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

Re: Mat and Ed,

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 12817 **8/6/16 9:08 am**

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **8/6/16 10:30 am**