Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

A growing number of Columbia Union members are voicing their dismay at the breach and separation from the worldwide church regarding womens ordination. And many are choosing to send the tithe elsewhere in a clear final "vote with your wallet" protest.

If the Columbia Union is in OPEN APOSTASY and adopted a congregational stand, why is it not proper for the dissenting SDA to caste their dissenting vote by redirecting their tithe to Biblical SDA ministries?

Who will be the beneficiaries, Hartland Institute, Steve Bohr or Amazing Facts?

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Bob Pickle]

We have been taught for years not to send our tithe to independent ministries. If we are going to follow that counsel, it seems difficult to send tithe to a union that has decided to go independent from the world church.

However, people don't usually send tithe to a union. Conferences do that. People could first inquire and find out if their church or conference is forwarding tithe money to independent ministries before deciding what to do. A church could even request that the conference committee consider a proposal to not forward tithe money to independent ministries, including unions that have decided to go independent from the world church.

[Johann]

Some years back I saw a paper by Colin Standish claiming that he did not request anyone to send him tithe money, but if someone did send him tithe he'd accept it. This was one of the contentions between Hartland and the GC, as far as I reccall.

[Daryl Fawcett]

I am also against the action of both the Columbia Union and the German Union that goes contrary to any policy of the GC.

There is a process to be followed and the action of these two Unions is not the procedural way to go in defiance of any policy of the GC.

If they feel the GC is holding on to one or more wrong policies, then they should inform them of such, if they haven't already done so, and give the GC the time needed to look at it and decide upon it.

[Dedication]

If the Columbia Union is in OPEN APOSTASY and adopted a congregational stand, why is it not proper for the dissenting SDA to caste their dissenting vote by redirecting their tithe to Biblical SDA ministries?
Who will be the beneficiaries, Hartland Institute, Steve Bohr or Amazing Facts?

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

Withholding tithe is simply another form of "rebellion", really.
It's simply forming another "congregational" identity.

I never knew before that the General Conference in 1881 actually voted to ordain women pastors.
That's what Raj Attiken said:
"The 1881 General Conference session voted a resolution to approve the ordination of women.  There is no record of Ellen White counseling against this, either before, during, or after the action.

Finding this rather intriging I dug out the Archieves of General Conference Minutes,   Dec. 1, 1881, to see if this was so.

And sure enough, on Dec. 5, 1881 at their 10:00 a.m. meeting this was voted:

RESOLVED, That all candidates for license and ordination should be
examined with reference to their intellectual and spiritual fitness for the
successful discharge of the duties which will devolve upon them as licentiates
and ordained ministers.

This was spoken to by D. M. Canright, D. H. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn,
S. H. Lane, G. C. Tenney, E. R. Jones, W. C. White, A. S. Hutchins, and R. M.
Kilgore, and adopted.

RESOLVED, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry.

[Artiste]

I don't think it was voted in, Ulicia. Presented (resolved) but not voted.

[SDAminister]

If the Columbia Union is in OPEN APOSTASY and adopted a congregational stand, why is it not proper for the dissenting SDA to caste their dissenting vote by redirecting their tithe to Biblical SDA ministries?
Who will be the beneficiaries, Hartland Institute, Steve Bohr or Amazing Facts?

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

Withholding tithe is simply another form of "rebellion", really.
It's simply forming another "congregational" identity.

I never knew before that the General Conference in 1881 actually voted to ordain women pastors.
That's what Raj Attiken said:
"The 1881 General Conference session voted a resolution to approve the ordination of women.  There is no record of Ellen White counseling against this, either before, during, or after the action.

Finding this rather intriging I dug out the Archieves of General Conference Minutes,   Dec. 1, 1881, to see if this was so.

And sure enough, on Dec. 5, 1881 at their 10:00 a.m. meeting this was voted:

RESOLVED, That all candidates for license and ordination should be
examined with reference to their intellectual and spiritual fitness for the
successful discharge of the duties which will devolve upon them as licentiates
and ordained ministers.

This was spoken to by D. M. Canright, D. H. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn,
S. H. Lane, G. C. Tenney, E. R. Jones, W. C. White, A. S. Hutchins, and R. M.
Kilgore, and adopted.

RESOLVED, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry.

Oh come on now! Let's not be so selective in how we quote from church materials! Why didn't you quote the entire item in the bulletin dealing with that resolution?

It reads in full:

 "RESOLVED, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry.

 This was discussed by J. O. Corliss, A. C. Bourdeau, E. R. Jones, D. H. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee. "

Do we see that this resolution was adopted? No. It was "referred to the General Conference Committee. All the other resolutions placed before the Session and voted upon were "adopted" and it says so in the text of the bulletin. Look at them. They all say "Resolved......adopted." But the one here says "Resolved......and referred..."

By the way, the word Resolved only becomes a resolution once it is voted in. Just because one sees the word "resolved" somewhere in an action item does not mean that it is church policy. It has to be voted upon and adopted.

SDAminister

[Dedication]

As recorded in Review and Herald, Dec. 12, 1881
RESOLVED, That all candidates for license and ordination should be
examined with reference to their intellectual and spiritual fitness for the
successful discharge of the duties which will devolve upon them as licentiates
and ordained ministers.

This was spoken to by D. M. Canright, D. H. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn,
S. H. Lane, G. C. Tenney, E. R. Jones, W. C. White, A. S. Hutchins, and R. M.
Kilgore, and adopted.

RESOLVED, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry.

This was discussed by J. O. Corliss, A. C. Bourdeau, E. R. Jones, D. H.
Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee.

You're right, it never became church policy.   
But the fact remains that the church was ready to ordain women in 1881, and resolved to do so.
Ellen White never attended that sessions.   Her husband had just died.  But her son, W. C. White, was present.

 
 If you read the minutes of GC Sessions around the time, you will see several other resolutions that are referred to the General Conference Committee.   Some resolutions they refered for further study.  But on others there is no note that it should be studied further. When it is simply referred to the GC committee without a call for “study,” the usual outcome was that the committee accepted the basic resolution and made further plans as  to how to implement it.

The same session has a resolution to renew the credentials of the Southern workers, this too was referred to the GC committee.

What is even more interesting, is that even though  a resolution was made for ordaining women, there doesn't seem to be any documents from that time  indicating that anyone among the Adventist leadership was greatly opposed to the idea of ordaining women.

Those guys weren't shy when it came to writing fiery articles against something they preceived as unbiblical and dangerous to the truth.  Are there any articles decrying the resolution?

The resolution to ordain women was published in both the Signs of the Times and the Review and Herald, was there a great outcry like there is today against it?


According to one reporter --
"Researchers have gone through the annual editions of the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook listing all of the ministers and their credentials, and found that in the years after this resolution in 1881, more and more of the women serving as ministers were given a Ministerial License. In the Adventist system, this has always been the first step toward ordination, followed five or more years later with ordination itself."

It would be interesting to map this out on a graph, and just see when it peaked and when it started to fall off and why.
The General Conference Committee has never reported back concerning this resolution.

It's very true that as the  decades went by,  women pretty much disappeared from higher church offices.  Till by the 1950's I don't think there were any in higher leadership positions.  And those who worked for the church were receiving only a small percentage of a wage a man doing the same job would receive.

[christian]

[christian]

As recorded in Review and Herald, Dec. 12, 1881
RESOLVED, That all candidates for license and ordination should be
examined with reference to their intellectual and spiritual fitness for the
successful discharge of the duties which will devolve upon them as licentiates
and ordained ministers.

This was spoken to by D. M. Canright, D. H. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn,
S. H. Lane, G. C. Tenney, E. R. Jones, W. C. White, A. S. Hutchins, and R. M.
Kilgore, and adopted.

RESOLVED, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry.

This was discussed by J. O. Corliss, A. C. Bourdeau, E. R. Jones, D. H.
Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee.

You're right, it never became church policy.   
But the fact remains that the church was ready to ordain women in 1881, and resolved to do so.
Ellen White never attended that sessions.   Her husband had just died.  But her son, W. C. White, was present.

 
 If you read the minutes of GC Sessions around the time, you will see several other resolutions that are referred to the General Conference Committee.   Some resolutions they refered for further study.  But on others there is no note that it should be studied further. When it is simply referred to the GC committee without a call for “study,” the usual outcome was that the committee accepted the basic resolution and made further plans as  to how to implement it.

The same session has a resolution to renew the credentials of the Southern workers, this too was referred to the GC committee.

What is even more interesting, is that even though  a resolution was made for ordaining women, there doesn't seem to be any documents from that time  indicating that anyone among the Adventist leadership was greatly opposed to the idea of ordaining women.

Those guys weren't shy when it came to writing fiery articles against something they preceived as unbiblical and dangerous to the truth.  Are there any articles decrying the resolution?

The resolution to ordain women was published in both the Signs of the Times and the Review and Herald, was there a great outcry like there is today against it?


According to one reporter --
"Researchers have gone through the annual editions of the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook listing all of the ministers and their credentials, and found that in the years after this resolution in 1881, more and more of the women serving as ministers were given a Ministerial License. In the Adventist system, this has always been the first step toward ordination, followed five or more years later with ordination itself."

It would be interesting to map this out on a graph, and just see when it peaked and when it started to fall off and why.
The General Conference Committee has never reported back concerning this resolution.

It's very true that as the  decades went by,  women pretty much disappeared from higher church offices.  Till by the 1950's I don't think there were any in higher leadership positions.  And those who worked for the church were receiving only a small percentage of a wage a man doing the same job would receive.

Finally, it took nearly 50 years to put women back in their place, we definitely don't want to have to wait another 50.

I definitely vote no on women ordination.

[Bob Pickle]

If you read the minutes of GC Sessions around the time, you will see several other resolutions that are referred to the General Conference Committee.   Some resolutions they refered for further study.  But on others there is no note that it should be studied further. When it is simply referred to the GC committee without a call for “study,” the usual outcome was that the committee accepted the basic resolution and made further plans as  to how to implement it.

I don't see how the GC Committee would be authorized to implement a resolution that the GC Session had declined to adopt.

What is even more interesting, is that even though  a resolution was made for ordaining women, there doesn't seem to be any documents from that time  indicating that anyone among the Adventist leadership was greatly opposed to the idea of ordaining women.

Those guys weren't shy when it came to writing fiery articles against something they preceived as unbiblical and dangerous to the truth.  Are there any articles decrying the resolution?

The resolution to ordain women was published in both the Signs of the Times and the Review and Herald, was there a great outcry like there is today against it?


According to one reporter --
"Researchers have gone through the annual editions of the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook listing all of the ministers and their credentials, and found that in the years after this resolution in 1881, more and more of the women serving as ministers were given a Ministerial License. In the Adventist system, this has always been the first step toward ordination, followed five or more years later with ordination itself."

Someone wrote Raj Attiken re: his statement on July 29 that the 1881 resolution was voted when it never was. Monte Sahlin has assisted in trying to answer the question.

You state above that the resolution also appeared in ST. That is what Monte claims, and it may be true. But Monte also claimed that it is available online at the GC archives site, and I can't find it anywhere. This leads me to suspect that Monte, and Raj, never went back to the original source documents to read what they actually say.

Therefore, I think "reporter" fits Monte. How does he even know that researchers really didn't find any such articles? Did someone tell him so? There are lots of articles discussing the role of women in the church that sound like today's anti-WO crowd in their basic concepts.

[Bob Pickle]

It's very true that as the  decades went by,  women pretty much disappeared from higher church offices.  Till by the 1950's I don't think there were any in higher leadership positions.  And those who worked for the church were receiving only a small percentage of a wage a man doing the same job would receive.

Finally, it took nearly 50 years to put women back in their place, we definitely don't want to have to wait another 50.

I think that goes too far. Ellen White told Nellie Druillard that if she got involved in the efforts at Madison, the Lord would extend her years, and He did. She had previously served as a treasurer. There seems to be no indication in inspiration that a woman serving as treasurer is inappropriate.

[Dedication]

You state above that the resolution also appeared in ST. That is what Monte claims, and it may be true. But Monte also claimed that it is available online at the GC archives site, and I can't find it anywhere. This leads me to suspect that Monte, and Raj, never went back to the original source documents to read what they actually say.

Therefore, I think "reporter" fits Monte. How does he even know that researchers really didn't find any such articles? Did someone tell him so? There are lots of articles discussing the role of women in the church that sound like today's anti-WO crowd in their basic concepts.

Like I said, the whole 1881 issue is new to me and I haven't done that much research on it.
I did go to the archieves and found the item in the GC bulletin and also in the Review and Herald.
The last Signs magazine for 1881 had an article about the Conference listing the resolutions made the first couple days of the meetings but did not go as far as Dec. 5.  It did say that they were sorry their information was incomplete and they would give further information in future issues.
The archieves for "Signs" then jumped to 1884 so there was no way to see the issues that followed.

To really know what the reaction was, I'd have to read through 1882 issues of both Review and Signs -- for surely there must have been some reaction specifically for or against  the proposed resolution for it was published.

Truthfully-- I'm not really for or against women's ordination.  On one hand I prefer the minister to be male, though some of my reasons for that are quite different from most of the arguments.  On the other hand, I'm not sure women should be denied to follow what they may be convinced is God's call.  I'm not that sure that God doesn't have a place for both male and female ministers.  At this point I would probably mark the "refrain from voting" box.

[Bob Pickle]

Like I said, the whole 1881 issue is new to me and I haven't done that much research on it.
I did go to the archieves and found the item in the GC bulletin and also in the Review and Herald.
The last Signs magazine for 1881 had an article about the Conference listing the resolutions made the first couple days of the meetings but did not go as far as Dec. 5.  It did say that they were sorry their information was incomplete and they would give further information in future issues.
The archieves for "Signs" then jumped to 1884 so there was no way to see the issues that followed.

Thank you so much, Ulicia. I looked through all the issues and didn't notice that the Dec. 22, 1881 issue actually made reference to the GC Session. Note the last paragraph of the partial report:

We regret that the report received in the Review of Dec. 13, was incomplete. We will give any items of interest in the proceedings hereafter.

You know what that means? It means that the ST was merely reprinting what the RH was reporting, and it looks like they were only printing a summary at that. Therefore, if there is a difference between the ST and the RH, then the RH is the authoritative copy we have to go with.

Since the WO resolution was reported in the Rh 12-20-1881 issue, the ST 12-22-1881 could not have reprinted that since they only had access to the RH 12-13-1881 issue.

Further, note the first and third of the last three resolutions in ST 12-22-1881. Those aren't marked adopted because they weren't reported as such until RH 12-20-1881. They were referred back to the Committee on Resolutions, but ST omits that fact. They were brought back to a later meeting, the second being modified, and then adopted. Thus the alleged failure of a later ST issue to say that the WO resolution was referred means nothing.

[Battle Creek]

By Courtney Ray:

"I received a letter from the GC appealing for the PUC constituency to wait to make a decision on ordination. They did a (mostly) fair job of outlining the historicity of this issue in the church (I take issue with some things they omitted).

Nevertheless, I was pleased to see that the last sentence admitted, "Decisions (1975, 1985, 1990, and 1995) to withhold ministerial ordination to women have been made on the basis of the perceived negative impact to unity rather than on the basis of compelling evidence from the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy."

This communication was on the letter head of the Office of the General Conference President and signed "the General Conference Officers and Division Presidents"."