Are women allowed to make motions in your business meeting?

Of course. In Christ there is no male nor female. Also most of the best sermons I have heard the last 20 years, in China, in the US and in Europe have been by women.

 

Of course, they are. We even let them vote. :smilewinkgrin:

How are the 2 issues linked except in the mind of one weird ol' boy?

 

Yes. They aren't in a lower standing than men.

 

Yes to make motions and 2nd them as well.

 

About the most ridiculous concept I ever heard. A church member is a church member. I know of no such church, but guarantee you I would not serve in one.

 

they are in ours.
but most prefer to keep silent and let the men do the "running of the business".
smart, too.
if us boys mess up they can always say, "we ain' got none to do with it, did we?"
lol.

 

As far as I know, no ORB churches allow the women to vote. The two that I have been a member of, didn't. But we did/do allow them to vote. Years ago, the Sardis Association had women who served as clerks. I reckon they now only allow males to fill that office. There may be a few hither and yon who have women clerks, but they'd be in the minority.

 

Good grief what is wrong with people?

 

Our church just recently elected a pastor search committee. Two of the members are women.

 

Yes, even serve as committee chairs. Not opposed to woman pastors, so not an issue.

 

No amount of seminary training guarantees common sense.

 

As evidenced by some on BB...

(Not a dig toward SN or RM.)

 

And a lack of seminary trains does not guarantee common sense.

 

Let me explore a bit different thinking and see what the BB might offer.

First lets lay out some tent pegs:

It is clear that the Scriptures teach that the husband is responsible as the leader of the home. That doesn't make him a dictator, but that the ultimate voice in matters concerning the home comes from the husband. Let me assure you that I don't know of any great marriages in which the husband does not consort with the wife in all matters that concern the home. (1 Peter 3:7)

Another peg is that in the marriage, the transfer of "protection" is from the father to the groom. No one asks, "Who gives this groom to be wedded." This is no small mater, for the husband is the umbrella of protection and chief sustainer of the home. The Scriptures even declare that a husband must be the provider for the home (1 Tim 5:8).

A third peg is that the husband is to be THE best example of spiritual authority in the home, and as 1 Tim and Titus were both expressing these are primary qualifications for special leadership in the church.

A fourth peg is that the husband is to be the scout, guide, trail blazer of the home. He is to be the watchman on constant vigil just as Christ is to the church. (Eph 5:22 - 25)

So, here is what in my view may be the BEST when it comes to church politics and voting.

First, No "new item" votes should be acceptable, but all new items should be open for discussion and all discussion should be open to everyone to participate. Voting is to be done at least a week latter.

Secondly, IN THE HOME, privately where the man and woman can consort together about the matter, a mutual decision is made concerning the family vote, and it is with a single voice from the authority of the home that the vote is to be cast.

Third, Each family has one vote.

Fourth, Those who do not have a family and are adult males having moved out of the home and "on their own" may also vote.

Fifth, Females who do not have a family are to be served by the deacons (and elders should the assembly have them), and therefore should consult with them as to the vote, each deacon/elder is to present the vote of those who have come to him as a block of so many for and so many against - careful to never reveal who was for or against.

In this way, I think the church not only honors the Scriptures of the honor and responsibility of the men, but brings greater responsibility to the home and the accountability of the home as the true example of the church.

To support this thinking, I offer the same example as Paul does - the relationship of Christ to the church as exampled by the husband to the wife.

Christ is the head of the church and is the example of how the husband is to be the head of the home. Would ANY believer be so audacious as to actually vote against Christ? By this same example, is it not unreasonable to expect that no wife would cast a vote opposed to the husbands? Is it also not reasonable to expect that the husband and wife will visit together and each have their view known to the other?

I realize that no church conducts business in this manner.

A bit of tragic story on "pulpit" committees and evil:

It came to pass that there was no consensus on the committee.

The women and men of the committee became "encamped" in their opinions. Outside influences and friendships became more and more polarizing so that rumor, innuendo, gossip, and "witch" hunts were the norm.

It was recommended to the church that the pulpit committee offer multiple candidates for pastor - only those whose vetting showed all to be appropriate.

The voting was to be done in this manner. The name of each candidate was to be placed on the underside bottom of a coffee can. The cans would be lined up in no particular order with no identifies indicated what candidate was associated with what can. Each member was to be given a small stone. No one knows which can has what name, but must be impressed by the Holy Spirit to drop a stone into a can or refuse to vote.

The can with the most stones is the new pastor.

Of course, they didn't accept the recommendation, and a few months latter had an enormous church split over who tickled their ears the best.