I am fully aware that there are straws to split and points to be made that Ellen White had/has no authority in the SDA church, but the reality is very different. She is regularly cited as the final authority in Adventism, she is considered by most Adventists as the defacto founder and author of our church and it's doctrines, she is cited as the final authority in the Church Manual along with the Bible... It seems very inconsistent to hold a woman as the final spiritual authority in the SDA church, yet deny women ordination to authority in the lowest field on the totem pole: the congregation, simply because they are women. This issue is a white elephant in the room and must be addressed in a realistic manner. Denying the authority of Ellen White is burying one's head in the sand. It is fact. It now remains for those who respect her authority but oppose WO, to avoid playing Peter in denying their faith in her, and demonstrate that they are not being inconsistent.
So the question is how can Ellen White have authority if Paul said that women cannot usurp authority over men? I think it has to do with what the word "authority" means. I take what Paul said to have to do with administrative authority, not prophetic authority.So, you do not agree with Uriah Smith?
The issue of the ordination of women has to do with what the woman is being ordained to do, not the ordination itself. Should women be set apart for the work of organizing churches, uniting churches, ordaining elders and deacons, and, presumably, baptizing anywhere without having to first get permission?
The issue of the ordination of women has to do with what the woman is being ordained to do, not the ordination itself. Should women be set apart for the work of organizing churches, uniting churches, ordaining elders and deacons, and, presumably, baptizing anywhere without having to first get permission?
Bretheren, in the last days evil men and seducers will arise who willl attempt to destroy the unity that should exist among God's people and destroy the order that God has established for His Chruch.
In the name of fairness, they will seek to elevate women to a spiritual role that will allow them to baptize without consulting God's established leadership in His church. They will seek to organize on their own congregations where the spiritually weak will come to seek spiritual nurture from those whom God has regelated to a secondary role. They will lay hands upon those whom God has not blessed with the gift of spiritual leadership.
The time will come where in a land far away thousands will flock to their congregations to seek spiritual nurture. The spiritually weak will look to those thousands as evidence that I have given their leaders a role in spiritual leadership. They are decived.
Back at Eden, when the woman whom I had created rejected my leadership, I placed her under the headship and rule of males where were to instruct her in the way of righteousness. Those females who seek spiritual leaderslhilp are not following my plan. They must be rejected. Their continued rebellion will lead to disunity in my church which will bring about a revealing who are wheat and who are tares.
In the end, it will be seen by all that I am in charge and those who are truely following me will spend eternity with me.
So the question is how can Ellen White have authority if Paul said that women cannot usurp authority over men? I think it has to do with what the word "authority" means. I take what Paul said to have to do with administrative authority, not prophetic authority.No, the question is how can a woman have authority over the entire church, as EGW does, yet the men who cite her authority refuse to let other women have a position of very small authority? And she is cited as an equal authority with the Bible in establishing the structure and administration of our church in the church manual. This inconsistency has to be dealt with before the many quotes and theological arguments can be seen as credible.
The issue of the ordination of women has to do with what the woman is being ordained to do, not the ordination itself. Should women be set apart for the work of organizing churches, uniting churches, ordaining elders and deacons, and, presumably, baptizing anywhere without having to first get permission?
I am fully aware that there are straws to split and points to be made that Ellen White had/has no authority in the SDA church, but the reality is very different. She is regularly cited as the final authority in Adventism, she is considered by most Adventists as the defacto founder and author of our church and it's doctrines, she is cited as the final authority in the Church Manual along with the Bible... It seems very inconsistent to hold a woman as the final spiritual authority in the SDA church, yet deny women ordination to authority in the lowest field on the totem pole: the congregation, simply because they are women. This issue is a white elephant in the room and must be addressed in a realistic manner. Denying the authority of Ellen White is burying one's head in the sand. It is fact. It now remains for those who respect her authority but oppose WO, to avoid playing Peter in denying their faith in her, and demonstrate that they are not being inconsistent.
So the question is how can Ellen White have authority if Paul said that women cannot usurp authority over men? I think it has to do with what the word "authority" means. I take what Paul said to have to do with administrative authority, not prophetic authority.No, the question is how can a woman have authority over the entire church, as EGW does, yet the men who cite her authority refuse to let other women have a position of very small authority? And she is cited as an equal authority with the Bible in establishing the structure and administration of our church in the church manual. This inconsistency has to be dealt with before the many quotes and theological arguments can be seen as credible.
The issue of the ordination of women has to do with what the woman is being ordained to do, not the ordination itself. Should women be set apart for the work of organizing churches, uniting churches, ordaining elders and deacons, and, presumably, baptizing anywhere without having to first get permission?
My experience in the church is quite extensive, but that is not the point. I've heard the few arguments that she isn't, and they have no relevance to reality. So getting in with it, how is the inconsistency explained? Either a woman can be an authority or not. We can't have it both ways. And if not, then we have to consider walking away from EGW as an authority.I am fully aware that there are straws to split and points to be made that Ellen White had/has no authority in the SDA church, but the reality is very different. She is regularly cited as the final authority in Adventism, she is considered by most Adventists as the defacto founder and author of our church and it's doctrines, she is cited as the final authority in the Church Manual along with the Bible... It seems very inconsistent to hold a woman as the final spiritual authority in the SDA church, yet deny women ordination to authority in the lowest field on the totem pole: the congregation, simply because they are women. This issue is a white elephant in the room and must be addressed in a realistic manner. Denying the authority of Ellen White is burying one's head in the sand. It is fact. It now remains for those who respect her authority but oppose WO, to avoid playing Peter in denying their faith in her, and demonstrate that they are not being inconsistent.
Mucielago, I'm not sure what experience you might have had with the Seventh-day Adventist church that led you to the belief that "she is considered by most Adventists as the defacto founder and author of our church and it's doctrines", referring to Ellen White.
As EGW is the final word in administrative matters, under the Bible, it makes no sense to disassociate women from administrative matters. Can we disassociate her from the administrative matters of the church, from the local congregation up to the GC?So the question is how can Ellen White have authority if Paul said that women cannot usurp authority over men? I think it has to do with what the word "authority" means. I take what Paul said to have to do with administrative authority, not prophetic authority.No, the question is how can a woman have authority over the entire church, as EGW does, yet the men who cite her authority refuse to let other women have a position of very small authority? And she is cited as an equal authority with the Bible in establishing the structure and administration of our church in the church manual. This inconsistency has to be dealt with before the many quotes and theological arguments can be seen as credible.
The issue of the ordination of women has to do with what the woman is being ordained to do, not the ordination itself. Should women be set apart for the work of organizing churches, uniting churches, ordaining elders and deacons, and, presumably, baptizing anywhere without having to first get permission?
It's the same answer as to how a man could be king of a whole nation, and yet be excluded from doing certain things in that very nation.
(KJV)2 Chronicles 26:18
And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord , but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God.
Either a woman can be an authority or not. We can't have it both ways. And if not, then we have to consider walking away from EGW as an authority.
It seems very inconsistent to hold a woman as the final spiritual authority in the SDA church, yet deny women ordination to authority in the lowest field on the totem pole
Absolutely! I certainly do! I advise looking at the SDA Church Manual.Either a woman can be an authority or not. We can't have it both ways. And if not, then we have to consider walking away from EGW as an authority.
I'm confused. Do you yourself consider Ellen White to be the church authority that you are presenting in your post?
And if not, why are you talking about the topic?
Does ignoring it make it not so?It seems very inconsistent to hold a woman as the final spiritual authority in the SDA church, yet deny women ordination to authority in the lowest field on the totem pole
Saying it over and over doesn't necessarily make it so...
Absolutely! I certainly do! I advise looking at the SDA Church Manual.Either a woman can be an authority or not. We can't have it both ways. And if not, then we have to consider walking away from EGW as an authority.
I'm confused. Do you yourself consider Ellen White to be the church authority that you are presenting in your post?
And if not, why are you talking about the topic?
I certainly do.Absolutely! I certainly do! I advise looking at the SDA Church Manual.Either a woman can be an authority or not. We can't have it both ways. And if not, then we have to consider walking away from EGW as an authority.
I'm confused. Do you yourself consider Ellen White to be the church authority that you are presenting in your post?
And if not, why are you talking about the topic?
I didn't ask what the Church Manual says, I asked if that's what you personally believe.
Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will ofthe body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of indilvidual conscience. Review & Herald, vol. 50 No. 14, p. 106.Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 2005 Edition, Page 2.
Church Aukthority: Many statements have been made in regard to denominational authority. Citations have been made to 9t 26 & 261. Those citations have actually been silmplistic and fail to reflect the denomilnational position in regard to authority.l Here is the position that the denomination has actually taken on this subject:Who gave the GC that authority? The Church Manual cites Ellen White as their authority for it. This logically puts her on a level above the GC. And where does the church go for final authority on interpretation of scripture, Ellen White. Is there any source other than the Bible cited as final authority by the GC in laying out the operation of the church? Yes, only Ellen White. To deny her position in the church is dishonest, at best.QuoteResolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will ofthe body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of indilvidual conscience. Review & Herald, vol. 50 No. 14, p. 106.Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 2005 Edition, Page 2.
So, that position of the SDA Church is that the GC in session is the highest earthly authority unless:
1) The General Conference is acting outside its proper jurisdiction. That charge has been made in the statement that the Unions have th autority to decide who can be ordained and who cannot.
2) the GC is acting outside of Biblical teaching. That is charged by those who support female ordination.
3) The GC violates the rights ofr individual conscience. That is alleged by those who voted Sunday to ordain without respect to gender.
Folks, there is more to this than this. The bottom line is: Those who oppose female ordination raise points that must be considered. They are honest people. But, it is not a slam dunk. Those who favor female ordination also raise points that must be considered. They also are honest people.
Personally, I favor female ordination and do not believe that such violates Biblical teachings.
As Creator, Redeeemer and Sustainer, Lord and King of all creation, God alone is the source and ground of authority for the church. He delegated authority to His prophets and apostles (2 Cor. 10:8). They, therefore, occupied a crucial and unique position inthe transmission of the Word of God and the edification of the chruch (Eph.2:20).
Is EGW considered an authority in the SDA Chruch? My asnwer: Depends upon who you talk to.Good points. My point being that a woman directed and steered much of the beginning of the SDA church, was a major force in molding it into what it is, and still influences, largely from behind the scenes, the operation of the church. She is quoted and used as the highest authority under the Bible among many Adventists, including many of those who oppose women in authority.
My position: God used EGW in a special way to give guidance to the developing SDA Church. We would not be the church that we are today, if it were not for EGW. She gave us a focus on Education, Publishing and Medical work. I do not believe that we would have that focus if it were not for her.
God used EGW to give male leaders advice that they often did not wish to recieve. She advised General Conference Presidents that they were in error. Her own husband sometines had issues with her and she with him.
She was clearly an authority in the developing days of the SDA denomination.
As such, the principles that lay behind the advice she gave in the development of our denomination can serve us well today. However, principles must always be applied. The application of principles can be moderated by time, circumstances and culture. EGW talked about modesty. [NOTE: Modesty as she used the term meant more than female dress or even dress at all.] Modesty differs in Korea from that in India and that in the United States. The application of the principle of modest must be made in specific cultures.
In the time that EGW lived, she was an authority on some levels, to include authority over males. In our time today, she has some authority, which is more than some think and less than others think.
I am fully aware that there are straws to split and points to be made that Ellen White had/has no authority in the SDA church, but the reality is very different. She is regularly cited as the final authority in Adventism, she is considered by most Adventists as the defacto founder and author of our church and it's doctrines, she is cited as the final authority in the Church Manual along with the Bible... It seems very inconsistent to hold a woman as the final spiritual authority in the SDA church, yet deny women ordination to authority in the lowest field on the totem pole: the congregation, simply because they are women. This issue is a white elephant in the room and must be addressed in a realistic manner. Denying the authority of Ellen White is burying one's head in the sand. It is fact. It now remains for those who respect her authority but oppose WO, to avoid playing Peter in denying their faith in her, and demonstrate that they are not being inconsistent.
Church Aukthority: Many statements have been made in regard to denominational authority. Citations have been made to 9t 26 & 261. Those citations have actually been silmplistic and fail to reflect the denomilnational position in regard to authority.l Here is the position that the denomination has actually taken on this subject:QuoteResolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will ofthe body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of indilvidual conscience. Review & Herald, vol. 50 No. 14, p. 106.Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 2005 Edition, Page 2.
So, that position of the SDA Church is that the GC in session is the highest earthly authority unless:
1) The General Conference is acting outside its proper jurisdiction. That charge has been made in the statement that the Unions have th autority to decide who can be ordained and who cannot.
2) the GC is acting outside of Biblical teaching. That is charged by those who support female ordination.
3) The GC violates the rights ofr individual conscience. That is alleged by those who voted Sunday to ordain without respect to gender.
Folks, there is more to this than this. The bottom line is: Those who oppose female ordination raise points that must be considered. They are honest people. But, it is not a slam dunk. Those who favor female ordination also raise points that must be considered. They also are honest people.
Personally, I favor female ordination and do not believe that such violates Biblical teachings.
So the question is how can Ellen White have authority if Paul said that women cannot usurp authority over men? I think it has to do with what the word "authority" means. I take what Paul said to have to do with administrative authority, not prophetic authority.So, you do not agree with Uriah Smith?
The issue of the ordination of women has to do with what the woman is being ordained to do, not the ordination itself. Should women be set apart for the work of organizing churches, uniting churches, ordaining elders and deacons, and, presumably, baptizing anywhere without having to first get permission?
Church Aukthority: Many statements have been made in regard to denominational authority. Citations have been made to 9t 26 & 261. Those citations have actually been silmplistic and fail to reflect the denomilnational position in regard to authority.l Here is the position that the denomination has actually taken on this subject:QuoteResolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will ofthe body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of indilvidual conscience. Review & Herald, vol. 50 No. 14, p. 106.Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 2005 Edition, Page 2.
So, that position of the SDA Church is that the GC in session is the highest earthly authority unless:
1) The General Conference is acting outside its proper jurisdiction. That charge has been made in the statement that the Unions have th autority to decide who can be ordained and who cannot.
2) the GC is acting outside of Biblical teaching. That is charged by those who support female ordination.
3) The GC violates the rights ofr individual conscience. That is alleged by those who voted Sunday to ordain without respect to gender.
Perhaps the actions of the 1882 and the 1883 General Conference has something to say about the permanacency of General Conference Session votes. Perhaps they may tell us that what is is the will of God for us at a specific point in time may not be the will of God for us at a later point in time. It clearly tells us that votes of a General Conference Session may be re-visited at a later time, such as the next year, or the next session.
Thank you Galion for stimulating me to post informationfrom our past that clearly shows us that if a General Conference meeting in Session were to vote not to ordain females, it would be appropriate to re-consider that vote at the next session for as long as peole wished to re-consider it. And in that re-consideration, it would be appropriate to overturnt hat previous vote.l;
Quote from: Notes and Queries in RH March 19, 1861So the question is how can Ellen White have authority if Paul said that women cannot usurp authority over men? I think it has to do with what the word "authority" means. I take what Paul said to have to do with administrative authority, not prophetic authority.So, you do not agree with Uriah Smith?
The issue of the ordination of women has to do with what the woman is being ordained to do, not the ordination itself. Should women be set apart for the work of organizing churches, uniting churches, ordaining elders and deacons, and, presumably, baptizing anywhere without having to first get permission?
Not sure what you mean. Which point by Uriah Smith were you referring to?
Quote from: Notes and Queries in RH March 19, 1861So the question is how can Ellen White have authority if Paul said that women cannot usurp authority over men? I think it has to do with what the word "authority" means. I take what Paul said to have to do with administrative authority, not prophetic authority.So, you do not agree with Uriah Smith?
The issue of the ordination of women has to do with what the woman is being ordained to do, not the ordination itself. Should women be set apart for the work of organizing churches, uniting churches, ordaining elders and deacons, and, presumably, baptizing anywhere without having to first get permission?
Not sure what you mean. Which point by Uriah Smith were you referring to?
Would you also agree that if WO was voted by a GC Session, that it could be reconsidered at later session, and that the previous vote could be overturned?
Or, who is it that has determined that it is the union's jurisdiction to decide who is to be ordained? Who granted the unions that authority? Is it not the GC? And does not the acknowledgement of this point entirely moot the contention that the GC is beyond its jurisdiction in restricting ordination to men?
QuoteOr, who is it that has determined that it is the union's jurisdiction to decide who is to be ordained? Who granted the unions that authority? Is it not the GC? And does not the acknowledgement of this point entirely moot the contention that the GC is beyond its jurisdiction in restricting ordination to men?
There are couple of reasons why the qluestion does not become moot.
1) The rights of the Unions to decide who shall be ordained and who shall not be ordained in established in the Union Constitutions, as I understand it.
2) Those Union Constitutions, may be considered to be approved due to their compliance with the GC Model Constitutions and their history in which the GC did not object to them when they were put in place.
3) Once those Constitutions were put in place, they could only be ammended by a vote of the people in meetings called to ammend them.
4) For those who might disagree with # 3, I would point out that in no case has the GC ever attempted to have such a provision of a Union Constitution removed. IOW, the GC has allowed such to remain.
5) In the United States, the Unions have been established as legal organizations. Under U.S. law, the operating rules which govern the operation of the Unions rest in the Union Constitutions. NOTE: I am well aware that it can be argued as to what authority the U.S. courts would have to intrepret and enforce the Unon Constitutions. Yet I will point out that the U.S. Courts do become involved in property issue in denominations that split and they have ruled on both sides as a matter of interest.
6) The GC has a history of allowing Constitutions to differ from the Model Constiltutions. When I was a mlnister in the Potomac Conference, many years ago, a GC proposal in the form of a change to the Model Constitution came before the Potomac meeting. The people soundly voted to reject that proposal. The only recourse that the GC took was to continue to bring the proposal in future meetings, until the people finally did vote that change in.
B 05 Organizational and Operational Principles of Seventh-day Adventist Church Structure
Organizational life and procedures in the Seventh-day Adventist Church are based upon the following principles:
...
2. Organizational status is granted to a constituency as a trust. Organizational status as a local church, local conference/mission, or union conference/mission is not self-generated, automatic, or perpetual. It is the result of a formal decision by an executive committee or a constituency session at higher levels of denominational organization. Organizational membership and status are entrusted to entities that meet certain qualifications such as faithfulness to Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, compliance with denominational practices and policies, demonstration of adequate leadership and financial capacity, and responsiveness to mission challenges and opportunities. Membership and status can be reviewed, revised, amended, or withdrawn by the level of organization that granted it.
B 10 15 Union Conference/Mission—A specific group of local conferences/missions/fields, within a defined geographic area, that has been granted, by a General Conference Session, official status as a Seventh-day Adventist union conference/mission.
- - - -
Therefore, a union constituency is not completely autonomous. A union constituency has no right to vote an action contrary to the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes unless it can produce a clear cut, unequivocal inspired statement mandating that action.
- - - -
Therefore, a union constituency is not completely autonomous. A union constituency has no right to vote an action contrary to the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes unless it can produce a clear cut, unequivocal inspired statement mandating that action.
I understand that this is just what these unions feel they have, A clear cut unequivocal statement that mandates that action. Has any responsible person from the GC denied this? All I have seen is their appeal for unity.
Who has authorized you to be the authority to define exactly how the wording should be of the required statement? But then it lies in you faulty statement: "Without first getting permission!" Today they can do all of that if they get the permission. Male ordained pastors do not need that to get that permission.- - - -
Therefore, a union constituency is not completely autonomous. A union constituency has no right to vote an action contrary to the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes unless it can produce a clear cut, unequivocal inspired statement mandating that action.
I understand that this is just what these unions feel they have, A clear cut unequivocal statement that mandates that action. Has any responsible person from the GC denied this? All I have seen is their appeal for unity.
No, in actuality they know that they don't have any such statement. If you disagree, then please identify what that statement is and quote it here.
I agree that they feel they have a mandate. But they have no statement that says, "Thou shalt ordain women as gospel ministers that may organize and unite churches, ordain elders and deacons, serve as conference presidents, and baptize and conduct weddings outside their pastoral district without first getting permission."
If they had such a statement, there would be no controversy.
Who has authorized you to be the authority to define exactly how the wording should be of the required statement? But then it lies in you faulty statement: "Without first getting permission!" Today they can do all of that if they get the permission. Male ordained pastors do not need that to get that permission.- - - -
Therefore, a union constituency is not completely autonomous. A union constituency has no right to vote an action contrary to the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes unless it can produce a clear cut, unequivocal inspired statement mandating that action.
I understand that this is just what these unions feel they have, A clear cut unequivocal statement that mandates that action. Has any responsible person from the GC denied this? All I have seen is their appeal for unity.
No, in actuality they know that they don't have any such statement. If you disagree, then please identify what that statement is and quote it here.
I agree that they feel they have a mandate. But they have no statement that says, "Thou shalt ordain women as gospel ministers that may organize and unite churches, ordain elders and deacons, serve as conference presidents, and baptize and conduct weddings outside their pastoral district without first getting permission."
If they had such a statement, there would be no controversy.
As it functions today, at least in some areas of the world, is that the local conference has granted all licensed ministers in their area, regardless of gender, permission to baptize as long as they are employed by that conference.
There is no record anywhere that the deacon Philip, called any of the Apostles for permission to baptize.
Even the apostle Paul makes it clear that he is foremost a deacon, so why do we make all this fuzz about the distinctive roles that did not exist in the apostolic church?
It appears to me like the ancient British conservative aristocratic class system has entered into our structure and certain people cannot understand real life cases without interpreting them wearing those ancient glasses.
Our history shows that a female has served as a conference president. (quote]Who has authorized you to be the authority to define exactly how the wording should be of the required statement? But then it lies in you faulty statement: "Without first getting permission!" Today they can do all of that if they get the permission. Male ordained pastors do not need that to get that permission.- - - -
Therefore, a union constituency is not completely autonomous. A union constituency has no right to vote an action contrary to the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes unless it can produce a clear cut, unequivocal inspired statement mandating that action.
I understand that this is just what these unions feel they have, A clear cut unequivocal statement that mandates that action. Has any responsible person from the GC denied this? All I have seen is their appeal for unity.
No, in actuality they know that they don't have any such statement. If you disagree, then please identify what that statement is and quote it here.
I agree that they feel they have a mandate. But they have no statement that says, "Thou shalt ordain women as gospel ministers that may organize and unite churches, ordain elders and deacons, serve as conference presidents, and baptize and conduct weddings outside their pastoral district without first getting permission."
If they had such a statement, there would be no controversy.
I think you misunderstood. Females in certain divisions cannot organize and unite churches, or ordain elders and deacons, or serve as conference presidents, even with permission.
As it functions today, at least in some areas of the world, is that the local conference has granted all licensed ministers in their area, regardless of gender, permission to baptize as long as they are employed by that conference.
There is no record anywhere that the deacon Philip, called any of the Apostles for permission to baptize.
You find that here below.Even the apostle Paul makes it clear that he is foremost a deacon, so why do we make all this fuzz about the distinctive roles that did not exist in the apostolic church?
It appears to me like the ancient British conservative aristocratic class system has entered into our structure and certain people cannot understand real life cases without interpreting them wearing those ancient glasses.
The more other arguments than biblical and SoP are resorted to, the more clearly is it manifested that the step to ordain women represents a radical departure from basing our practices on a clear "Thus saith the Lord."
Just provide for us the clear, unequivocal, inspired mandate, and that will end the discussion.
I am still waiting for someone to show clear and unequivocal proof that Ellen White never did, and doesn't hold any authority in the church, and that she never did, and still does not hold any authority over a man. Until then, you and your arguments hold no credibility. You cannot have a woman in authority, and maintain that women cannot hold authority.
I am for consistency.I am still waiting for someone to show clear and unequivocal proof that Ellen White never did, and doesn't hold any authority in the church, and that she never did, and still does not hold any authority over a man. Until then, you and your arguments hold no credibility. You cannot have a woman in authority, and maintain that women cannot hold authority.
So I take it that you are for women's ordination, assuming that you don't see the proof you want.
I am for consistency.I am still waiting for someone to show clear and unequivocal proof that Ellen White never did, and doesn't hold any authority in the church, and that she never did, and still does not hold any authority over a man. Until then, you and your arguments hold no credibility. You cannot have a woman in authority, and maintain that women cannot hold authority.
So I take it that you are for women's ordination, assuming that you don't see the proof you want.
So really --
It depends on how one explains the verses written by Paul concerning women's conduct in church.
According to most of the explanations concerning these verses, one must first be introduced to the culture of the area in Paul's day and rationalize away the more obvious meaning.
Most explanations do away with the "keep silent" clause -- some by pointing out the seating plan where men and women were segragated within the church and women weren't supposed to talk to their husbands.
There is no record anywhere that the deacon Philip, called any of the Apostles for permission to baptize.
Irrelevant. Philip baptizing in Acts 8 is before the ordination of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13, which ordination conferred upon them the authority to baptize and organize churches according to the SoP.
There is no record anywhere that the deacon Philip, called any of the Apostles for permission to baptize.
Irrelevant. Philip baptizing in Acts 8 is before the ordination of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13, which ordination conferred upon them the authority to baptize and organize churches according to the SoP.
Of course you have the freedom to evaluate for yourself which portions of Scripture are "irrelevant". That does not mean that I will accept your view. In this case I do not, but side with a number of Adventist Bible students who disagree with your interpretation.
You did not say in what way you disagreed. Please be specific.
Transcription of Bert Haloviak's presentation at the "Let's Talk"
meeting held in the LLUC, August 18,2012.
-------------------------
In the mid 1890s, Ellen White was serving in the Australasian Union
Conference. A question of the authority of the world church headquarters
in Battle Creek and that of the Australasian Union Conference arose and
Ellen White decided to address it.
Is God any nearer to the men in Battle Creek than to the workers
who are laboring in his service in far-off lands? Has the Lord to
go to Battle Creek and tell men there that are working at Battle
Creek what the men working in distant countries must do?
By the 1970s, Takoma Park, Maryland had replaced Battle Creek as world
headquarters. Available documentation shows that from the 1970s until
the recent localized 2012 action the position of women in ministry
was determined by two men. It was set-in-concrete in the 1970s, not
maliciously, but was the product of the beliefs of the General Conference
president and the vice-president for North America. All of the actions
taken by the church since then, in one way or another relate to the
decisions of those two men.
By 1968, a long forgotten Ellen White statement of 1895 about ordination
of women had been rediscovered. The GC president asked Harry Lowe,
retiring chairman of the Research and Defense Literature Committee to
investigate the issue. His report established a pattern for later
administrative decisions making. For, without probing into the context
of 19th century ministry, Lowe applied the Ellen White statement referred
to deaconess ordination. That interpretation provided a semblance of
progress by advocating a practice that had apparently never been
implemented. The president seemed pleased. "When your committee is
ready to report, we will be glad to receive it, but we can foresee
approximately what it is going to be and it seems that the Adventist
Church isn't too far out of line with some of the other Christian faiths."
By 1973, the president had approved a council on the role of women in
church consisting of 14 women and 13 men who met at camp Mohaven in Ohio.
Some 27 study papers were produced by top theologians, administrators and
scholars. The result was a remarkable consensus that suggested that the
time was opportune not only for SDA women to be ordained as deacons and
elders but a program be initiated in welcoming locale for licensed women
ministers to pastor a congregation. If the results were positive after
two years, the 1975 GC session be informed and hopefully approve
ordination of women as pastors in appropriate areas. The theological
papers concluded that no scripture evidence precluded women from
ordination.
The president, however, believed the commission went too far and his
response is clearly indicated in his personal correspondence, comments
to others and explicit actions to point the church in another direction.
Already by 1972 the president's view had surfaced. He had received advanced
copies and summaries of some of the papers to be presented.
By August 1972, he indicated that any decision whose goal is the ordination
of women as ministers would need approval by the whole world church. Anyone
with denominational experience knew that such a prospect was zero in 1972.
This nullified the pilot program and its demise deflated the original
Mohaven optimism. Almost all of the delegates had experience.
No one seemed surprised at the 1974 annual council conclusion that "the
Seventh-day Adventist Church is a world church and because a survey of its
world divisions revealed that the time is not ripe nor opportune, therefore,
in the interest of world unity of the church, no move be made in the
direction of ordaining women to the gospel ministry." "The time is not
ripe", or its variation, "more study is needed" has prevailed until a more
recent period.
In 1984, to Potomac conference believed it had a mandate for its three women
ministers to baptize. This was the first conference in more recent history
to have women trained and prepared for full ministerial duties. The
conference also voted to issue these women the ministerial license since
such had been granted to women in past church history. In his hand written
notes on that section of the Potomac Executive Committee action, the GC
president, formerly NAD president, observed that the question of women's
ministerial license had been clarified in the 1970s.
What was the nature of that "clarification"? In the mid 1960s, Internal
Revenue Service informed the GC that its licensed ministry no longer
qualified for the tax benefits provided to that time. Since licensed
ministers could not perform the same functions as the ordained ministry,
they were not ministers as defined by the IRS. The newly elected vice
president for North America realized that each licensed minister would lose
9% of his salary and the church would have to absorb that loss. What to do
in this situation? Although the gradually increasing functions of the
licensed ministry took over a decade of redefining, an initial step
concluded that if the licensed minister was ordained as a local church
elder, he could perform certain functions formally off limits.
Adding responsibilities to assist in ordinances, baptismal services
presiding at business meetings however, did not resolve the issue to IRS
satisfaction. At the end of 1971 NAD asked for and received authority, "to
take whatever steps are necessary to secure for licensed ministers full
status as ministers of the gospel."
The NAD president after additional failed attempts to satisfy the IRS
offered a new plan to GC officers September, 1976. He considered his plan
not one of the moral or theological nature, but a matter of church policy.
The crucial sentence in this latest proposal which was not, and still is
not in harmony with the church manual read, "A licensed minister is
authorized by the Conference Executive Committee to perform all the
functions of the ordained minister in the church or churches where he is
assigned." Meeting prior to the fall annual counsel of 1976 the home and
overseas officers and union presidents made it apparent that the field
outside the United States disapproved the critical phrase.
Despite world opposition NAD passed the legislation, thus the action voted
at the October 20 afternoon annual council session with representative
world participation differed from that voted at the North American section
of the Annual Council in the evening of October 20. The critical sentence
was not printed in either of the annual council booklets for 1976, or the
Review listing of annual counsel actions, but never the less it became
effective. Since the spring meeting of 1975 allowed for the ordination of
women as church elders, the question of their eligibility for the enhanced
functions of the male licensed ministry arose. Legislation already passed
and more on the horizon provided a resounding No. The 1977 NAD annual
council also added some new terms to policy implementation -- Associates in
Pastoral Care. That phrase identified persons who are employed on pastoral
staffs but who are not in line for ordination. The licensed women's
ministry, contrary to the male, had followed a ten year downgrading of its
ministerial personative, until by 1977 women were fully placed upon a
separate track of ministry that made them ineligible for ordination. While
they could be defined as ministerial workers, women were not on the track
of ordination where they were before the IRS problem. This change, in
response to the IRS caused significant disruption and pain for women
already in ministry.
For example women who previously held a ministerial license now had them
revoked. One such woman came to the General Conference archives for
research. Surprisingly, Josephine Benton was ordained as a local church
elder in the Brotherhood church in Washington in 1972. Both the Potomac
Conference and the Columbia Union presidents participated in her
ordination. Remember it was not until 1975 that official church sanction
was given to local church women elders to be ordained. Josephine was at
the Mohaven meetings where she presented her paper. She was associate
pastor at the Sligo church from 1973-9 and was the minister at the
Rockville Maryland church from '79 to '82. She arrived at the GC archives
with a large list of women who had received the ministerial license from
1904 and 5 to 1975. Her basic question: What did that ministerial license
mean and how far back in SDA history did women receive it? This led to
huge surprises for no one had pursued that topic in the church. By looking
at the minutes of local state conference meetings held annually in the 19th
century we soon realized that women received ministerial licenses since the
1870s. Once we had the names of those women ministers, we could look at
their ministerial reports regularly published in the Review. Josephine
published her research in her book entitled Called by God.
Why am I emphasizing this? I have described two towering male
administrators who faced the troublous and controversial issues of the
1970s and onward and who created policies that assured that their honestly
believed position prevailed. There was one woman who, instead of proposing
policies, probed the heritage of women in Adventist Ministry. No one, in
Seventh-day Adventism, and especially the two top leaders had a clue about
the heritage Josephine uncovered when they made their set-in-concrete
decisions in the early 1970s. We learned that the licensed women ministers
were indeed ministers as the 19th century church defined ministry. They
were tested by local conferences before receiving the license.
We discovered several cases where Ellen White actively participated in the
exams prior to their receiving the license. Mrs. White even lectured on
the importance of the ministerial license. Women were members of the
ministerial association and made presentations to it. Over 20 different
women were licensed as ministers from 1869 to the ending of the 19th
century. They were not lay members but were licensed and paid for by the
local conferences or general conference from tithe fund. They followed the
same path to ministry as men. There was only one track in ministry. Since
some were licensed for seven or eight years consecutively local conferences
obviously considered them successful ministers. The ministry continued to
be upgraded through the 1870s and 1880s and women continued being licensed
by the local conference. At the1887 GC session, the General Conference
implemented what had been done at the local conferences for the last 18
years when it licensed two women to serve in General Conference mission
areas within the United States. The bottom-up approach to ministerial
credentialing seemed to work in 19th century Adventism.
Beginning in 1981 Ellen White ministered in the Australasian Union
Conference. She advanced the new concept of ministry closely involving
both men and women ministers. Until 1895, Seventh-day Adventists had
not ordained women then Ellen White wrote in the Review that "women who
participated in ministry should be set apart for this work by prayer and
the laying on of hands. Women who were willing to consecrate some of their
time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look
after the young and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should
be set apart for this work by prayer and the laying on of hands. Not a hand
should be bound, not a soul discouraged, and not a voice should be hushed.
Let every individual labor privately or publicly, to help forward this
grand work." The Australasian context reveals Ellen White's full support
for full-fledged ordination of women's ministry in the church to that time.
An analysis of the terms "public labor" reveals that throughout SDA history
public laborers were recognized as ministerial workers and general paid
from conference or tithe funds. Ministry defined as Christian Help Work
involved training of lay members of local churches to visit before physical
needs in community families and provide scriptural training to assist those
families. Although trainees from local churches were lay volunteers, the
Australasian Union provided financial support for those who educated them.
This ministry supported both women and men and resulted in more than doubling
the Australasian church membership from 1146 in 1894 to 2375 by 1900.
Mrs White was fond of quoting Isaiah 61:6 when she considered women and men
in the Australasian ministry. She shattered all presuppositions Seventh-day
Adventists may have held concerning women in Ministry. "Of those who act as
his helping hand, The Lord says, 'Ye shall be named priests of the Lord: men
shall call you the ministers of our God.'" Here Ellen White applies to both
men and women a passage from Isaiah written when there were no women priests.
In Isaiah's day, to be named a priest implied ordination.
The history of ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist church in the 19th
century evidences that Seventh-day Adventists women indeed served as priests
and ministers of the Lord.
One last question remains.
Must the Lord first go to Silver Spring and tell the General Conference
president what is right for the Pacific Union? Or is it possible that
the Lord speaks directly to believers in the Pacific Union?
I am fully aware that there are straws to split and points to be made that Ellen White had/has no authority in the SDA church, but the reality is very different. She is regularly cited as the final authority in Adventism, she is considered by most Adventists as the defacto founder and author of our church and it's doctrines, she is cited as the final authority in the Church Manual along with the Bible... It seems very inconsistent to hold a woman as the final spiritual authority in the SDA church, yet deny women ordination to authority in the lowest field on the totem pole: the congregation, simply because they are women. This issue is a white elephant in the room and must be addressed in a realistic manner. Denying the authority of Ellen White is burying one's head in the sand. It is fact. It now remains for those who respect her authority but oppose WO, to avoid playing Peter in denying their faith in her, and demonstrate that they are not being inconsistent.