I believe that church law develops sometimes after years of experience with an issue and what we read in the Minutes is a distillation of that experience in just a few words. For example, the judgment of James in Acts 15 illustrates this regarding how the Gentiles were to be received into the church. The indication is that there was quite a lengthy debate about the issue.
There is no scriptural basis to deny restoration to homosexuals nor any to deny past sinners from getting credentials once they have be saved. Its ludicrous. Paul was a murderer.
He didn’t commit the murder himself but set it up where Bathsheba husband Uriah would be put on front , the most dangerous place in war. Where he knew he would get killed. But one thing about David. He was always quick to repent. Even through his mistakes , you can tell he had a heart for God. Because the Bible says He was a man after Gods Own Heart. I’m sorry some where I thought you were talking about David. I don’t know how I figured that. It was when I read about Apostles. I realized you were talking about Paul. I’m sorry. I think I get my mind on more than one thing at a time. But I apologize. I’m sorry I didn’t have my mind on the same subject.
That is a blatant attack on every one who does not bow down to the alter of political correctness in the church! This tone is reason I never see this idea passing because it is un Christian in tone and content.
I’m so shocked to see so little in our agenda. In an era of “gender confusion,” transgenderism, etc I would have thought we might deal with current issues we are facing on front lines. This short agenda should make the motions committee items a sure thing…wonder what will be brought to the floor then. Im more interested in how to minister to certain people who are in situations thst are new to culture.
For instance a woman who once was a man attended our church and a Unitarian Church. He/she was torn because he/she realized the mistake and wanted acceptance and victory over the consequential depression. We ministered to this person and made he/she feel welcome and not awkward. How does this person repent and is there a pathway to ministry for this person?
Another time we had a 7 year old girl who thought she should be a boy. Her liberal parents supported this, allowed her to dress like a boy and we’re in beginning phase of hormone therapy research. Additionally they had no problem at all if this girl grew up to become lesbian. I shared that this was incompatible with being a member and minister. I recommended Christian counseling so she could get to the root and embrace the person that God created her to be.
As far as bathrooms – a transgender person who truly looks the part likely has already been using restroom of choice. Now predators have governmental permission to join in.
These are issues that as a movement we are largely quiet about, have zero resolutions on, and no supporting symposiums or materials to help us in the field. Hence I think it’s s missed opportunity to clarify not only our stance but practical practices of ministry.
Can we debate without name-calling or rancor? I don’t know. But I pray that both men and women focus on our calling to GO and not be caught up in church politics. There is a world to be won. The fulfillment of Joel 2:28 and on pretty much answers the question of what God wants to do through His Spirit. Men, women, old and young. The New Testament is clear that the walls of separation are removed by the Gospel. It seems only right that women at the assembly should not be regulated to “the court of women.” Personally, I think the larger question should be – how can there be more participation by the lay delegates – we basically have one afternoon to pass or deny the resolutions, etc., and even then the bishops who have debated during the week take time away in that final afternoon to repeat their arguments. So- women in leadership? Yes. Women as bishops? Is this decided on an ecclesiastical standpoint or cultural? Can it be both? Looking forward to the debate – hoping for a reasoned debate.
I sincerely question the character of whoever is responsible for this article. It is obviously intended to be inflammatory and deceptive in order to stir controversy and bias rather be misrepresenting the motion and the rationale. It is playing to the fears of some of and seeking to create greater division than already exists and should be categorized as “tabloid journalism”.
AS THE AUTHOR of the motion and rationale IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM (it was amended slightly but the motions committee by adding the age qualification) I am amused, and frusrated, at those who are arguing my intent to be something other than it is.
Let me state as clearly as a I can: This motion is an effort to bring women ministers and young ministers into the forum where matters are debated and ratified for recommendation to the General Assembly while RESPECTING AND HONORING the Scriptural viewpoint that women are to serve in ministry under a male covering.
Since this motion IN PART (women ministers are not the ONLY ones included in the motion) attempts to reconcile both sides of the “women in ministry” debate by giving women greater participation in our organizational process, it seems to me that those who are against women being allowed to advance to the rank of ‘bishop’ or allowed to serve in the highest offices of leadership are now only left to argue for women in ministry to ‘REMAIN SILENT IN THE CHURCH’ since this motion only seeks to give them a voice in deliberation and not office of authority that some consider to be scripturally restricted to men.
The debate over this motion should not be about ministerial rank or position AT ALL since those concerns and restrictions have been addressed by the motion. The debate over this motion should over giving women ministers a voice or not. The Scripture(s) I foresee us debating or deliberating over when considering this motion pertain to women ‘remaining silent’ in the church. And we have definitively decided that issue long ago. Therefore NOT passing this motion based on that argument would be regressive.
Amen. Grace is the power to set us free from sin not a license to sin.
If we are going to talk about more destructive sin, does anyone believe homosexuality has destroyed more than adultery? Used to be an abomination
I believe that church law develops sometimes after years of experience with an issue and what we read in the Minutes is a distillation of that experience in just a few words. For example, the judgment of James in Acts 15 illustrates this regarding how the Gentiles were to be received into the church. The indication is that there was quite a lengthy debate about the issue.
There is no scriptural basis to deny restoration to homosexuals nor any to deny past sinners from getting credentials once they have be saved. Its ludicrous. Paul was a murderer.
He didn’t commit the murder himself but set it up where Bathsheba husband Uriah would be put on front , the most dangerous place in war. Where he knew he would get killed. But one thing about David. He was always quick to repent. Even through his mistakes , you can tell he had a heart for God. Because the Bible says He was a man after Gods Own Heart. I’m sorry some where I thought you were talking about David. I don’t know how I figured that. It was when I read about Apostles. I realized you were talking about Paul. I’m sorry. I think I get my mind on more than one thing at a time. But I apologize. I’m sorry I didn’t have my mind on the same subject.
Ordaining Women Bishops to the Ministry: Discussion on Church … https://t.co/QHalphMFFM #nash16 #ourcog … https://t.co/89Uu9MU7RD
That is a blatant attack on every one who does not bow down to the alter of political correctness in the church! This tone is reason I never see this idea passing because it is un Christian in tone and content.
I’m so shocked to see so little in our agenda. In an era of “gender confusion,” transgenderism, etc I would have thought we might deal with current issues we are facing on front lines. This short agenda should make the motions committee items a sure thing…wonder what will be brought to the floor then. Im more interested in how to minister to certain people who are in situations thst are new to culture.
For instance a woman who once was a man attended our church and a Unitarian Church. He/she was torn because he/she realized the mistake and wanted acceptance and victory over the consequential depression. We ministered to this person and made he/she feel welcome and not awkward. How does this person repent and is there a pathway to ministry for this person?
Another time we had a 7 year old girl who thought she should be a boy. Her liberal parents supported this, allowed her to dress like a boy and we’re in beginning phase of hormone therapy research. Additionally they had no problem at all if this girl grew up to become lesbian. I shared that this was incompatible with being a member and minister. I recommended Christian counseling so she could get to the root and embrace the person that God created her to be.
As far as bathrooms – a transgender person who truly looks the part likely has already been using restroom of choice. Now predators have governmental permission to join in.
These are issues that as a movement we are largely quiet about, have zero resolutions on, and no supporting symposiums or materials to help us in the field. Hence I think it’s s missed opportunity to clarify not only our stance but practical practices of ministry.
Faye Cox liked this on Facebook.
#ourcog Ordaining Women Bishops to the Ministry: Discussion on Church … https://t.co/g0xOvsrbac #nash16 … https://t.co/lELToHSEur
Not very much.When a judge orders you to do something, then by law you are obligated to do it. Read Romans 13________________
#ourcog Instructions to Ministers – Marriage and Same-Sex R … https://t.co/yjCDqvJYmz #nash16 h … https://t.co/dK5w0Zu7q8
RT @nash16_com: Instructions to Ministers – Marriage and Same-Sex R … https://t.co/swvhUy9T9h #nash16 #ourcog h … https://t.co/Z4ZYS4h7…
Instructions to Ministers – Marriage and Same-Sex R … https://t.co/swvhUy9T9h #nash16 #ourcog h … https://t.co/Z4ZYS4h7sL
Faye Cox liked this on Facebook.
Can we debate without name-calling or rancor? I don’t know. But I pray that both men and women focus on our calling to GO and not be caught up in church politics. There is a world to be won. The fulfillment of Joel 2:28 and on pretty much answers the question of what God wants to do through His Spirit. Men, women, old and young. The New Testament is clear that the walls of separation are removed by the Gospel. It seems only right that women at the assembly should not be regulated to “the court of women.” Personally, I think the larger question should be – how can there be more participation by the lay delegates – we basically have one afternoon to pass or deny the resolutions, etc., and even then the bishops who have debated during the week take time away in that final afternoon to repeat their arguments. So- women in leadership? Yes. Women as bishops? Is this decided on an ecclesiastical standpoint or cultural? Can it be both? Looking forward to the debate – hoping for a reasoned debate.
I sincerely question the character of whoever is responsible for this article. It is obviously intended to be inflammatory and deceptive in order to stir controversy and bias rather be misrepresenting the motion and the rationale. It is playing to the fears of some of and seeking to create greater division than already exists and should be categorized as “tabloid journalism”.
AS THE AUTHOR of the motion and rationale IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM (it was amended slightly but the motions committee by adding the age qualification) I am amused, and frusrated, at those who are arguing my intent to be something other than it is.
Let me state as clearly as a I can: This motion is an effort to bring women ministers and young ministers into the forum where matters are debated and ratified for recommendation to the General Assembly while RESPECTING AND HONORING the Scriptural viewpoint that women are to serve in ministry under a male covering.
Since this motion IN PART (women ministers are not the ONLY ones included in the motion) attempts to reconcile both sides of the “women in ministry” debate by giving women greater participation in our organizational process, it seems to me that those who are against women being allowed to advance to the rank of ‘bishop’ or allowed to serve in the highest offices of leadership are now only left to argue for women in ministry to ‘REMAIN SILENT IN THE CHURCH’ since this motion only seeks to give them a voice in deliberation and not office of authority that some consider to be scripturally restricted to men.
The debate over this motion should not be about ministerial rank or position AT ALL since those concerns and restrictions have been addressed by the motion. The debate over this motion should over giving women ministers a voice or not. The Scripture(s) I foresee us debating or deliberating over when considering this motion pertain to women ‘remaining silent’ in the church. And we have definitively decided that issue long ago. Therefore NOT passing this motion based on that argument would be regressive.