 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 I presented a motion that could have helped... |
patrickballington |
On a thread previous to the assembly I indicated that I presented a motion that had this issue at the core but it was overshadowed by another issue that was unavoidably linked.
I suggest the Executive Council be comprised of all "Ordained Ministers AND Ordained Bishops" (all credentialed minister above the rank of Exhorters which is now called "Licensed"). Theis would give our young ministers a voice and participation AND opportunities for mentoring in the GA process and preparation for higher offices while restricting their eligibility to serve on the Council of 18, or Executive Committee, or even as State/Regional Overseers. It would also promote and provide for greater participation from international ministers who are granted visas as "ordained ministers" to travel from their countries to the US for the assembly (which was the whole reason we changed our nomenclature a few assemblies ago).
One problem it seems: This motion would allow WOMEN (God forbid) on the floor and give them a voice as well (OH NO!)
If we made the change I suggest, "Licensed" (Exhorters) ministers would be permitted to pastor, teach, preach, etc. ; "Ordained" ministers would have the added privilege of speaking and voting in the General Council and serve on boards in states/regions where a sufficient number of Ordained Bishops are not available; and "Ordained Bishops" would have the added privilege of serving as Overseers, Council of 18, Executive Committee and all other positions currently restricted to Ordained Bishops. This would also ensure that women and young ministers continue to be "under the covering" of older, more experienced, MALE leadership.
Most young ministers (and women) don't care about titles; they just want to participate and been heard. The only way that happens at the assembly is through the General Council. Let's face it - the General Assembly portion is rushed, limited to 2.5 hours of a week long meeting, and get steamrolled by limiting the length and number of speeches or calls for previous question by members of the EXecutive Council who have already done the majority of the work and are tired of talking about it. We (executive council and ordained bishops) neuter the General Assembly every time.
Keep the age and years of experience required for Ordained Bishops as they are - better yet, make it consistent 8 yrs experience regardless of age. Keep the restriction of not allowing women to be Ordained Bishops and serve in the highest levels of leadership. BUT LET'S GIVE THEM A VOICE to speak into our future since they are ALREADY SHAPING IT and we are dependent upon them to create it. |
Friendly Face
Posts: 116
7/30/12 8:59 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: Maybe... |
Tracy S Hamilton |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Tracy S Hamilton wrote: |
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.
Tracy |
And with that you've just recreated exactly what is is place in the COG presently. |
Guess I'm out of touch.... lol.... we could take that age to 25...... I think at the moment of ordination they should be able to vote, whether that age is 18 or whatever.
Again, I would be for one level of ordination for all ministers as opposed to the levels we have now. If someone meets the requirements and we are going to allow them to pastor churches, then they should immediately be able to vote, whether that be 18 or 50.... to serve in certain positions that might still need to be discussed. I was not able to attend the Assembly this year in that I was out of the country so I might be mis-understanding the measure. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo
Posts: 2714
7/30/12 9:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| An observation |
Poimen |
Every man (or woman for that matter), whatever his COG credential, who is set in, appointed, or elected as pastor is effectively ordained to the office of bishop. To appoint, elect, and ordain carried the same weight, biblically. And to pastor is to "bishop" (to verbify a perfectly good noun) biblically as well.
Therefore, ministers who are not biblically qualified (for lack of a better term)to serve as bishops in council (based on Scriptural qualifications) are neither qualified to serve as pastors of local churches. It would seem to be true the other way around as well. If a person is not qualified to serve as a pastor then neither are they qualified to sit in council as and/or with other bishops ... especially if council service hinges on being designated "ordained" and/or "bishop".
I don't think the "council of bishops" itself to be an unbiblical body. We find such a body present in the Jerusalem council (see Acts 15, etc.) under the designation "elders" and "apostles". We also find them togther with the larger constituency (aka the "assembly") of the "brethren" or "whole church". However, a bishop is a bishop is a bishop. Why shouldn't all bishops be recognized as such, and be allowed to fulfill any biblical (or for that matter ecclesiatical) function assigned them?
As one looking from the outside, it seems to me if you guys would reassess and identify the biblical role and function of bishops, seeking to apply that to your credentialing process and polity, that a lot of this would work itself out on it's own.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
7/30/12 9:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
PastorJackson |
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| PastorJackson wrote: | I have solution lets drop bishop and pastor and go by other title, angel of the house  |
Giving honor to the angel of the house... |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
7/31/12 12:37 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: An observation |
Poimen |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | | Poimen wrote: | Every man (or woman for that matter), whatever his COG credential, who is set in, appointed, or elected as pastor is effectively ordained to the office of bishop. To appoint, elect, and ordain carried the same weight, biblically. And to pastor is to "bishop" (to verbify a perfectly good noun) biblically as well.
Therefore, ministers who are not biblically qualified (for lack of a better term)to serve as bishops in council (based on Scriptural qualifications) are neither qualified to serve as pastors of local churches. It would seem to be true the other way around as well. If a person is not qualified to serve as a pastor then neither are they qualified to sit in council as and/or with other bishops ... especially if council service hinges on being designated "ordained" and/or "bishop".
I don't think the "council of bishops" itself to be an unbiblical body. We find such a body present in the Jerusalem council (see Acts 15, etc.) under the designation "elders" and "apostles". We also find them togther with the larger constituency (aka the "assembly") of the "brethren" or "whole church". However, a bishop is a bishop is a bishop. Why shouldn't all bishops be recognized as such, and be allowed to fulfill any biblical (or for that matter ecclesiatical) function assigned them?
As one looking from the outside, it seems to me if you guys would reassess and identify the biblical role and function of bishops, seeking to apply that to your credentialing process and polity, that a lot of this would work itself out on it's own. |
nomenclature... |
Yes, and then some. Nomenclature is important in this case because biblical terms, like bishop, have intended meanings and applications. Meaning is more than the mere act, or process, or instance of naming. And it becomes problematic, even confusing, when a name or title is taken and used outside of it's intended meaning. A bishop is a bishop is a bishop. And bishops are to bishop. That's all there is to it. Can't make them more. Can't make them less.
I submit that if you get the nomenclature more biblically centered much of the wrangling over function and requirements will resolve itself.
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
7/31/12 1:20 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Jason Moore |
| Clint Wills wrote: | | 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". |
Could this be that lay people in the church really desire someone with experience and wisdom to lead our denomination?
_________________
Christian love, either towards God or towards man, is an affair of the will.
-C.S. Lewis
The only good race pace is suicide pace--and today looks like a good day to die.
-Steve Prefontaine |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 720
7/31/12 7:27 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Patrick |
J David Smith |
| I like your motion a lot! I second that motion! |
Friendly Face
Posts: 486
7/31/12 7:35 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
