Acts20.com

It would have had a much better chance of passing if someone would have suggested amending it by adding the word male to the measure

YOu are probably right in saying 'it would have aided in the passing'. Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/

Was the word women or ladies on the agenda?I didn't see it.I thought it just said Ordained ministers

Question - If the General Assembly is the highest authority, is there a procedure in which they can override the Council?Maybe OTCP can answer this question - In regards to the Council of 18, which is as I understand it the decedent of the 12 Elders that Tomlinson battled with, what is their function? How often do they meet?Here's an observation and a question - It seems the COG makes a great effort in electing the best leaders possible (the 5 and the 18, plus leadership position and assistance, etc), but once they are seated they loss their voice in the business proceeds in perhaps the most important gathering. Why can't they take privilege to speak as James did in the Jerusalem council? Is this an institutionalized reaction to the early influence of Tomlinson? I enjoyed watching the business successions yesterday. Thanks for the access.

hThat was my point. If it would have read male ordained ministers over the age of 25, it would have had a better chance. Because the rank of ordained minister includes both male and female, it automatically became an issue

Re: Question

Yes. The General Assembly, which meets on Friday this week, will vote on whether to ratify the decisions of the General Council. It has happened before that the GA voted down a decision made by the GC. It will be interesting to see what measures come through the motions committee.The General Assembly has voted down measures before

Our ladies vote in the Conference.They can hold every office except one.We do not ordain women because...........................none are the husband of one wife. Charles A. HutchinsSenior Pastor SPWCCongregational Church of Godwww.spwc.church

Nah! I just put a pistol to their head. Works every time. Charles A. HutchinsSenior Pastor SPWCCongregational Church of Godwww.spwc.church

I think you can break it down into a few categories.There are those who have the misguided notion that the scripture prevents women from making decisions that will affect other people.There are those who are very steeped in tradition and are unwilling to examine the basis of their traditions.There are those who do not want to lose control over the decision making process, whether motivated by fear or by ego.And I don't know if I should make a separate category for the folks like the guy from Soddy Daisy, but I suppose you could fit that cringe-worthiness into some of the above categories. If you read some of the comments on the nash16.com website, you will encounter a lot of glorious cringe-worthiness--the hysterical cries of Jezebel spirit, the sanctimonious and incoherent claim that women want to be helpmates rather than a helpmeets, etc. Where do you start a dialogue with those kinds of comments?Then you have the pervasiveness of patriarchal teaching. I noticed that one of the speakers for the General Assembly was Tony Evans. He seems to be popular with a couple of leaders in our church. I checked out part of one of his videos to see where he was coming from on the women issue. Not more than a few minutes into the particular video I chose, Evans was (erroneously, I believe) explaining that 1 Corinthians 11:3was a chain of command that God had set in order. When popular speakers keep drilling it in, it just reinforces it even if it wouldn't hold up to the scrutiny of study.Or maybe your question is rhetorical.