I will leave the church if such a thing happens.
What a travesty. And how silly. To those from both the inside and the outside, this denomination with a founder who says she was “ordained” by God Himself, one who preached to thousands of people. and who was a top administrator using leadership skills, banning women from authorized spiritual leadership looks crazy! Deeply intentional, and discrimination-focused. What a tragedy for this organization! It is essentially dumping the Priesthood of All Believers and Fundamental Belief #14.
And then there is that. I was trying to avoid that specific topic, so brought up a few other noncompliance points. His answers are so obscurantly myopic on anything pertaining to ordination!
Steve, long time ago (2 years?) I joked that #29 would be Male Headship.
Not much of a joke for the crazy Fulcrumites…
My prophetic gift is not that bad after all, uh???
Under Ted Wilson it may well happen… Start packing up buddy!..
" Not much of a joke for the crazy Fulcrumites…"
Who made you judge of people, George?
Seems on this forum you only tear down people who you disagree with.
Does that somehow make you feel superior?
Is that what this forum is all about. I agree with Scott’s comments about this forum on the Des Ford thread.
Judging? If you read what most people write on Fulcrum7 … you will quickly and gladly exonerat me.
Meanwhile, in the real world:
The “Non-inclusiveness of the Denomination” is a hot topic here in Macon.
[I’ve been attending 2 Methodist Bible Study groups with friends at different churches -Monday evening, Thursday evening]
Adam Hamilton [has written 18 books] has had an influence in the Methodist
Church, promotes “inclusiveness” and seems to have somewhat of a solid
following. And they would like to see “inclusiveness” as they have seen it
strengthen churches where this is allowed to occur.
It did for the church 3 blocks down the street from me. In 2005 they had 38
members. Was about to be sold. Had been there for many decades. The new
pastor when interviewed said he would take it only if allowed to be all inclusive.
They said “YES”. Now it has 250 members. Has a number of community out-
reach programs. Even a community garden with grow boxes that can be “rented”.
The “rent” is taking care of which one you ask for. Also have several fruit trees and
grape vines growing. Is also the site for church picnics in the summer. They have
a men’s live-in program for those wanting addiction help. Is a 12-month program.
In their “fellowship hall” they serve breakfast on Sunday to homeless, and have a
short Worship time after at 8am. A little later their Spanish Pastor conducts Spanish
church with a good sized attendance.
Allow AA meetings. Their 2 mottos: “Love God, Love Others, Love Self” and
“ALL means ALL”.
Being “all inclusive” has allowed them to do many wonderfully great things in their
The 4 Baptist churches who are members of the Cooperative Baptist group have found
similar. Has given them freedom to be All-inclusive and to have enrichment programs in
the community would not have under the Southern Baptist Convention.
One could easily add, “God Complex” to the “Judging” on F7…why stop at only one virtue?
Interesting…it appears to be the same voting divides nearly everywhere.
The Fallacy of Cascading Permissions.
Each unit of the Church has its own area of authority that cannont be assumed by another unit.
The Local Church has authority over membership. You cannot be disfellowshipped by a Conference, Union, Division or the GC.
The Conference employs the pastors, and as such recommends to the Union candidates for ordination.
The Union has been given responsibility for ordination. The Conference recommends the candidates but the Union authorises it.
The GC has jurisdiction for doctrine.
Not sure what the Division does but they are a subset of the GC.
In terms of working policy, you may be correct but in terms of these specific authorities there is no cascading permission. The Unions do not need “permission” from the GC to ordain pastors of either gender. As a result ALL three voted propositions were moot from a regulatory persective but had the effect of creating confusion within the Church. Both sides of the issue believe that votes have some kind of effect. In reality they do not change anything. Authority still sits with the Unions and as such they have the power to ordain or not.
This is why in SA/2015 the GC tried that dirty maneuver, trying to get a vote on literally stealing the Unions’ authority to decide on ordination issues by expanding it to the Divisions. The Divisions are basically the GC, so the attempt was to actually transfer the authority from the Unions to the GC. Nice try indeed…
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.