Actscelerate.com

Agenda Item 8

Acts-celerater Posts: 684 **7/26/16 12:14 pm**

I was not at the 2016 GA, so I could not vote! (Come on COG, bring the voting process into the 21st century Wink

)

My record is quite clear in championing for the full rights of all biblically qualified, called and confirmed (Acts 13) ministers of the Gospel, whether they are male or female.

However, I wonder if some, who are in favor of ordination for women, voted against Item 8 because they felt it was a "backdoor" approach to ordain women (as opposed to a straight out up-or-down vote).

Please understand I am NOT accusing anyone associated with the Item of ANYTHING underhanded. I do not believe this was an attempt by the powers-that-be to circumvent the process. -- and I would appreciate it if the discussions reflect that mindset! I'm interested in the perception by the GC body, remembering that perception is reality until proven otherwise!

Thoughts?

Please do not rehash the arguments for or against the ordination of women here. This can be done in other posts. This post is concerned with the methodology, not the argument.

Thanks,
Keith
_________________
R. Keith Whitt

[Insert Acts Pun Here] Posts: 14803 **7/26/16 1:18 pm**

Hi Keith, that's an interesting question. I know there were some who made the accusation that it was a backdoor process who were also opposed to the ordination of women as bishops. Of the debate from the floor, only one speech that I can recall mentioned the process. That particular bishop was overwrought about what he seemed to see as a lack of integrity in the process, but he also was opposed to women as bishops.
Someone did post here on Acts (under a pen name) that he was not against women having a vote, but he voted against the measure because of the process (but I've searched to no avail to find that post--maybe he will weigh in).