Print

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

[Johann]

New studies indicate that it was voted in 1881 that female pastors should be ordained.

http://www.atoday.org/article/1326/blogs/sahlin-monte/what-did-happen-in-1881

[Bob Pickle]

New studies indicate that it was voted in 1881 that female pastors should be ordained.

http://www.atoday.org/article/1326/blogs/sahlin-monte/what-did-happen-in-1881

Johann, this is really getting ridiculous.

Monte, with all due respect:

• Why would you claim that the minutes in ST are available on the GC archives website, without giving anyone an issue date so they can check it out for themselves?
• I just searched all four Dec. 1881 issues and could find no reference at all to the GC Session. (The session was in December., and thus the issue date could not be before December.)
• The GC archives site has no 1882 issues available at all, and thus the minutes in ST cannot be available on that website as you claim.
• Please provide a complete copy of the minutes you claim were printed in ST, covering all the meetings of the 1881 session.
• The RH minutes and the minutes available under "General Conference Session Bulletin" record about 40 resolutions presented to the session by the three-man Committee on Resolutions.
• In every single case, 39 of these 40 resolutions are clearly marked  "adopted," "carried," or "approved."
• The only resolution not marked in any way as "adopted," "carried," or "approved" is the one on women's ordination.
• Why did you say that the confusion is due to the fact that the resolution was referred to the GC Committee, when the real problem is the fact that the minutes never once say that that resolution was voted?

You have stated that "we must be honest with ourselves about our history." I agree, and I would suggest that you set us all an example by acknowleding that (a) based on the 1881 GC Session minutes, the only resolution submitted by the committee that was not voted was the one on women's ordination, and (b) Ellen White, between 1881 and her death in 1915, apparently never complained that that resolution was never voted.

I am sorry if my post above is a bit pointed, but this is really getting ridiculous. If women's ordination is a righteous cause, it doesn't need misinformation to support it, and thus we don't need people to keep repeating without evidence that WO was voted in 1881, when no one thus far has produced any documentation to that effect.

Sure, many people have claimed that WO was voted in 1881, but that doesn't make it so anymore than lots of people saying that Sunday is the Lord's day makes Sunday the Lord's day. The minutes available on the GC archives website are as clear as can be: Like similar proposals today that might be included in minutes, each proposed resolution says "Resolved," whether or not it was ever voted, and if it was voted, the minutes clearly say so.

"If we make a decision based on false assumptions, we cannot expect the Lord to bless it, no matter how “biblical” we think it to be." Monte, I agree. Therefore I would suggest that you push for a new CUC Constituency Session to re-address the issue of WO, since the delegates eight days ago were misled by the false assumption that the 1881 GC Session voted in favor of WO. As it is now, by your own criteria, "we cannot expect the Lord to bless" the decision of July 29!

[Dedication]

Not sure if the important part is whether this resolution was voted or not.
Obviously it was never made policy.
It was referred to the General Conference committee, and the General Conference never reported back as far as I can see.

Yet, I'm not so sure talking about that resolution is so ridiculous.

That resultion didn't just drop out of thin air.
The climate in 1881 was supportive toward women's ordination which is quite a revelation.

Can you find any articles written immediately after the resolution was published in the Review and the Signs where leaders spoke strongly against ordination of women like people do today?

[Bob Pickle]

That resultion didn't just drop out of thin air.
The climate in 1881 was supportive toward women's ordination which is quite a revelation.

I'm not sure that it was. If we had a copy of the discussion, we might know more. But just because a three-man committee proposed such a resolution doesn't mean that the climate within the entire denomination was supportive of the idea.

Can you find any articles written immediately after the resolution was published in the Review and the Signs where leaders spoke strongly against ordination of women like people do today?

What I do find are articles using the same reasoning as today's anti-WO folks when addressing the question of the role of women in the church. Apparently, it was no big deal that the resolution was never voted. If it had been a big deal, you would expect to find articles that directly address the specific question of ordination, but I have yet to see any such thing.

If it wasn't a big deal that it wasn't voted, then the climate wasn't supportive back then.

[Johann]

New studies indicate that it was voted in 1881 that female pastors should be ordained.

http://www.atoday.org/article/1326/blogs/sahlin-monte/what-did-happen-in-1881

Johann, this is really getting ridiculous.

Yes, I agree with you, but possibly for a different reason

[Dedication]

[ But just because a three-man committee proposed such a resolution doesn't mean that the climate within the entire denomination was supportive of the idea.

Why do you say a "three man committee purposed it"?  Wasn't this a general conference session? 
True,  a committee of three was appointed to write out all the resolutions but I hardly think they MADE them up or originated them.  These issues would have  presented themselves before and were deemed important enough to be put on the General Conference agenda.

Another thing, the resolution was presented in the positive
NOT in the negative.

If people were thinking like the anti WO people the resolution would have read like this:
Whereas Christ is the the head of the church, and whereas men are the Biblical guardians and priests of women and children; and as such they are the earthly heads of the church, therefore:
Resolved that only men of good spiritual standing be ordained to the position of pastor.

But it wasn't worded in such a fashion, and I do believe the positive wording of the actual resolution shows that the general atmosphere of the times was in favor of ordaining women.

Also I think the denomination in general has changed the job description of the Pastors -- its moved from preaching and teaching the gospel and bringing people to the Lord  TO authority over the members, organizing church functions and events, presiding over meetings and church boards, keeping the members happy.   
Ordination is seen as a license to be the 'top dog" in the church, rather than a sacred trust to spread the gospel news near and far.

It would be interesting to see what really did happen with the woman's ordination issue -- both before, during and after the Dec. 1881 meetings.

[Bob Pickle]

[ But just because a three-man committee proposed such a resolution doesn't mean that the climate within the entire denomination was supportive of the idea.

Why do you say a "three man committee purposed it"?  Wasn't this a general conference session? 
True,  a committee of three was appointed to write out all the resolutions but I hardly think they MADE them up or originated them.  These issues would have  presented themselves before and were deemed important enough to be put on the General Conference agenda.

All we know is that a 3-man committee proposed it, that it didn't pass, and that it was referred to the GC Committee. We can speculate all we want, but that's all we know. We don't know why the Committee on Resolutions proposed it. We don't even know how many on that committee were for it.

To base a doctrinal change regarding how we interpret Scripture on speculation rather than on what we know does not seem right.

But it wasn't worded in such a fashion, and I do believe the positive wording of the actual resolution shows that the general atmosphere of the times was in favor of ordaining women.

Consider how anyone, then, can come up with any sort of resolution that they want to, word it in the positive, and then years down the road folks can claim that the general atmosphere of the times was favorable toward it.

Didn't someone push some sort of issue or motion or something at the last GC Session regarding gay rights or gay marriage? If so, wasn't it presented in a positive way? Can we look back now and say that the general atmosphere of the times must have been favorable toward it? I don't think so.

Also I think the denomination in general has changed the job description of the Pastors -- its moved from preaching and teaching the gospel and bringing people to the Lord  TO authority over the members, organizing church functions and events, presiding over meetings and church boards, keeping the members happy.   
Ordination is seen as a license to be the 'top dog" in the church, rather than a sacred trust to spread the gospel news near and far.

We need to get back to where ordination was seen as a license to baptize and organize churches. And then if a tithe-paid minister isn't doing those things, and is instead doing the work of a local elder, perhaps they should find another line of work.

It would be interesting to see what really did happen with the woman's ordination issue -- both before, during and after the Dec. 1881 meetings.

The articles I've been posting from ST and RH do show what folks thought of the issue before and after those meetings.

[Bob Pickle]

"And this appears yet more evident from the explanatory declaration in his words to Timothy, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Tim. 2 :12. The divine arrangement, even from the beginning, is this, that the man is the head of the woman. Every relation is disregarded or abused in this lawless age. But the Scriptures always maintain this order in the family relation. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." Eph. 5:23. Man is entitled to certain privileges which are not given to woman; and he is subjected to some duties, and burdens from which the woman is exempt. A woman may pray, prophesy, exhort, and comfort the church, but she cannot occupy the position of a pastor or a ruling elder. This would be looked upon as usurping authority over the man, which is here prohibited." (ST 12-19-1878 (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/ST/ST18781219-V04-48__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4))

This clearly shows the climate in which the 1881 WO resolution was made.

[Bob Pickle]

One member of the 1881 three-man committee was Uriah Smith. He authored an article for the August 28, 1875 issue of Signs in which he argued that women can speak in church. At the same time he also said this:

2. The antithesis of the command, "Let your women keep silence in the churches," is expressed in these words: "But they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. This shows that the speaking which is prohibited is of that kind which would show that they were not under obedience. But what is meant by being under obedience? The Scriptures represent that a subordinate position, in a certain sense, is assigned to the woman for the reasons that she was formed from the man, and at a subsequent time, and was first in transgression. 1 Cor. 11 :8; 1 Tim. 2 :13, 14.

The leadership and authority is vested in the man. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Gen. 3:16. This order is not to be reversed, and the woman take the position which has been assigned to the man; and every action on her part which shows that she is usurping this authority, is disorderly, and not to be allowed. Hence Paul says plainly to Timothy, 1 Tim. 2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." There is no doubt but it was the very same point, the usurping of authority over the man, that the same apostle had in view in 1 Cor. 14:34.

(http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/ST/ST18750826-V01-42__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4).

Unless Smith drastically changed his views between 1875 and 1881, he was not in favor of the ordination of women in 1881, UNLESS what was being proposed had absolutely nothing to do with authority.

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.

Has anyone noticed this before? There is absolutely nothing in this resolution that hints at an ordination that would put women in a position of authority. Is all that was really being suggested here was an ordination to only preach? If so, then this proposal has little or nothing in common with what the pro-WO crowd wants today.

Women already can preach, and already be commissioned to preach. The only thing that women can't presently do is exercise the authority required to organize churches, ordain elders and deacons, and serve as conference and mission presidents.

"This order is not to be reversed, and the woman take the position which has been assigned to the man; and every action on her part which shows that she is usurping this authority, is disorderly, and not to be allowed." So said Uriah Smith, a member of the committee that presented the WO resolution to the 1881 GC Session.

[Johann]

"And this appears yet more evident from the explanatory declaration in his words to Timothy, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Tim. 2 :12. The divine arrangement, even from the beginning, is this, that the man is the head of the woman. Every relation is disregarded or abused in this lawless age. But the Scriptures always maintain this order in the family relation. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." Eph. 5:23. Man is entitled to certain privileges which are not given to woman; and he is subjected to some duties, and burdens from which the woman is exempt. A woman may pray, prophesy, exhort, and comfort the church, but she cannot occupy the position of a pastor or a ruling elder. This would be looked upon as usurping authority over the man, which is here prohibited." (ST 12-19-1878 (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/ST/ST18781219-V04-48__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4))

This clearly shows the climate in which the 1881 WO resolution was made.

The link you give show no results.

[Bob Pickle]

"And this appears yet more evident from the explanatory declaration in his words to Timothy, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Tim. 2 :12. The divine arrangement, even from the beginning, is this, that the man is the head of the woman. Every relation is disregarded or abused in this lawless age. But the Scriptures always maintain this order in the family relation. "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." Eph. 5:23. Man is entitled to certain privileges which are not given to woman; and he is subjected to some duties, and burdens from which the woman is exempt. A woman may pray, prophesy, exhort, and comfort the church, but she cannot occupy the position of a pastor or a ruling elder. This would be looked upon as usurping authority over the man, which is here prohibited." (ST 12-19-1878 (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/ST/ST18781219-V04-48__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4))

This clearly shows the climate in which the 1881 WO resolution was made.

The link you give show no results.

It works fine for me, but you have to have the DjVu plugin installed. See http://www.adventistarchives.org/GetDjVuControl.asp.

[Johann]

So it is impossible for a male to change his mind in the span of 6 years? On the other hand, was he outnumbered one to two? Was he then the secretary of the GC and therefore just let the matter pass, if he was of a similar mind than Bob Pickle?

Have you considered the article posted by Gregory - I do not know why it attributed to Ivan Blazen, because I do not see his name there. It is a study of the writing of Ellen White during her Australian years. Personally I have more confidence i what Ellen White says about this than any other author. Perhaps you disagree with me on this point?

One member of the 1881 three-man committee was Uriah Smith. He authored an article for the August 28, 1875 issue of Signs in which he argued that women can speak in church. At the same time he also said this:

2. The antithesis of the command, "Let your women keep silence in the churches," is expressed in these words: "But they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. This shows that the speaking which is prohibited is of that kind which would show that they were not under obedience. But what is meant by being under obedience? The Scriptures represent that a subordinate position, in a certain sense, is assigned to the woman for the reasons that she was formed from the man, and at a subsequent time, and was first in transgression. 1 Cor. 11 :8; 1 Tim. 2 :13, 14.

The leadership and authority is vested in the man. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Gen. 3:16. This order is not to be reversed, and the woman take the position which has been assigned to the man; and every action on her part which shows that she is usurping this authority, is disorderly, and not to be allowed. Hence Paul says plainly to Timothy, 1 Tim. 2:12, "But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." There is no doubt but it was the very same point, the usurping of authority over the man, that the same apostle had in view in 1 Cor. 14:34.

(http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/ST/ST18750826-V01-42__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4).

Unless Smith drastically changed his views between 1875 and 1881, he was not in favor of the ordination of women in 1881, UNLESS what was being proposed had absolutely nothing to do with authority.

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.

Has anyone noticed this before? There is absolutely nothing in this resolution that hints at an ordination that would put women in a position of authority. Is all that was really being suggested here was an ordination to only preach? If so, then this proposal has little or nothing in common with what the pro-WO crowd wants today.

Women already can preach, and already be commissioned to preach. The only thing that women can't presently do is exercise the authority required to organize churches, ordain elders and deacons, and serve as conference and mission presidents.

"This order is not to be reversed, and the woman take the position which has been assigned to the man; and every action on her part which shows that she is usurping this authority, is disorderly, and not to be allowed." So said Uriah Smith, a member of the committee that presented the WO resolution to the 1881 GC Session.

[Bob Pickle]

So it is impossible for a male to change his mind in the span of 6 years?

That's not the issue, Johann. The issue is, what is the available evidence. If you want to make a case that Uriah Smith changed his mind, then find some evidence.

I've already posted articles from the Review through 1901. See if you can find one document that says something different within that time span.

On the other hand, was he outnumbered one to two? Was he then the secretary of the GC and therefore just let the matter pass, if he was of a similar mind than Bob Pickle?

I am adverse to playing such political games, and do not appreciate your suggestion to the contrary. If you don't have anything more constructive to contribute to the discussion than insults, then please bow out.

Have you considered the article posted by Gregory - I do not know why it attributed to Ivan Blazen, because I do not see his name there. It is a study of the writing of Ellen White during her Australian years. Personally I have more confidence i what Ellen White says about this than any other author. Perhaps you disagree with me on this point?

Please quote for us all where in that document Haloviak documents that Ellen White approved of women being invested with the authority to baptize and organize churches. Then we will have something concrete to comment about.

[Johann]

So it is impossible for a male to change his mind in the span of 6 years?

That's not the issue, Johann. The issue is, what is the available evidence. If you want to make a case that Uriah Smith changed his mind, then find some evidence.

You provided that by stating that he was one of the three even though you indicated he had been against females as preachers.

I've already posted articles from the Review through 1901. See if you can find one document that says something different within that time span.

What interests me more in this connection is what was EGW doing and saying during the years she was in Australia from where she wrote about women being ordained.

On the other hand, was he outnumbered one to two? Was he then the secretary of the GC and therefore just let the matter pass, if he was of a similar mind than Bob Pickle?

I am adverse to playing such political games, and do not appreciate your suggestion to the contrary. If you don't have anything more constructive to contribute to the discussion than insults, then please bow out.

I had no idea that you regarded this as a political game, and therefore regarded it being an insult that I compared Uriah Smith with you. I would never fell bad if someone compared me with such a great man, but then, we are so different. So I apologize for my mistake.

Have you considered the article posted by Gregory - I do not know why it attributed to Ivan Blazen, because I do not see his name there. It is a study of the writing of Ellen White during her Australian years. Personally I have more confidence i what Ellen White says about this than any other author. Perhaps you disagree with me on this point?

Please quote for us all where in that document Haloviak documents that Ellen White approved of women being invested with the authority to baptize and organize churches. Then we will have something concrete to comment about.

So you think because EGW states that Paul, in connection with his ordination, was authorized to baptize and organize churches, then every ordained pastor must do the same? Paul states clearly that he left most of his baptism to others. Was he therefore rebellious? During my ministry I have had a number of public campaigns. I have baptized about a hundred people, but I have never had the occasion to organize a new church. Does that mean that my ordination is invalid?

Paul was not only an evangelist. He was also an apostle. Does that make any difference in his qualifications?

[Artiste]

New studies indicate that it was voted in 1881 that female pastors should be ordained.

http://www.atoday.org/article/1326/blogs/sahlin-monte/what-did-happen-in-1881

From AToday:

Bob Pickle, a day ago

"The GC Session of 1881 voted a resolution permitting the ordination of women, but it was never implemented for reasons that remain unclear."

At this point I think the average reader may conclude that the AToday News Team is intentionally trying to deceive the public since there is absolutely zero evidence that any such resolution was voted at the 1881 GC Session. I pointed this out to J. David Newman after the CUC ad hoc committee report. He checked it out and agreed, and requested the chairman of that committee to correct their report to reflect the fact that the resolution was proposed but not voted.

It's not like the facts haven't already been dissected to the nth degree. See http://www.atoday.org/article/1326/blogs/sahlin-monte/what-did-happen-in-1881 where a blogger asserted that the resolution was voted based on some undisclosed ST article, with comments beneath that prove that the RH report was the official report, and that both the ST and RH reports clearly marked adopted resolutions as adopted. The resolution on WO was the only one of about 40 not marked adopted. Therefore, that resolution was never voted, and thus WO proponents have once again tried to support their cause with misinformation.