The debate continues

The amendment expanded language to include ANY position with the title Pastor including children's etc. Also, included the term "elder". We believe this, hence we voted for it heavily but to change the constitution is meant to be difficult. AND we have churches who have the terms in practice. If we were so solidly for this we have allowed churches to use the term Pastor for non-senior positions AND there's a question about the term elder. It's enough, has been multiple times now to put a fly in the ointment. Add "intentional difficulty changing a constitution to "female elders" and ALL pastors and you get just enough to have a concern. Also, information was given from the platform concerning opening up a legal issue if it passed, that makes four and with all those concerns the negative only managed to marshal just over a third of present votes. But, it was enough. No female elders? Absolutely NO pastors even over children when we have churches who will have to adjust? potential legal ramifications? Stacked needs of 2/3 which so designed to protect the constitution at all costs? None of these are easily dismissed concerns but still got a LOT of votes in the affirmative. It's not over. Here's the real question, with spending so much effort on this, where are we being distracted from working on something else? Also, when and if it actually happens will we have damaged something that we didn't mean to? Are we doing damage now by continuing to spend time on it? Got me. I'm not sure God has managed the investment. And, I am NOT presenting one side or another-jist speaking as to why, in my opinion, why we are still debating it. 

Pastor Daniel Stevenson Southside Life Station-Director
New Heights Fellowship Baptist-Pastor
amaldaninc.com-Light and fun stuff