EGW ordination papers

[Stan]

Might be of interest to some.

[Tom Wetmore]

Indeed!   Speaks load and clear... Add to that the consistent listing of EGW among the ordained ministers in the official records of the Church (Yearbook, GC Minutes, etc.) from that first one from the Michigan conference in 1883 until her death in 1915.  32 Years!  In all that time - not a peep about opposition to it, rejection of it, questions about it or discord over it. Not from anybody.

Decades after the fact many have sought to rewrite history to minimize, denigrate, explain away, and really just plain and simple, deny the simple fact of what was done and accepted when it was done.  

[B/W Photodude]

No one has ever heard me claim the position of leader of the denomination . . . He has not provided that the burden of leadership shall rest upon a few men. Responsibilities are distributed among a large number of competent men. . . Every member of the church has a voice in choosing officers of the church. The church chooses the officers of the state conferences. Delegates chosen by the state conferences choose the officers of the union conferences, and delegates chosen by the union conferences choose the officers of the General Conference. By this arrangement every conference, every institution, every church, and every individual, either directly or through representatives, has a voice in the election of the men who bear the chief responsibilities in the General Conference . . . neither then [when the work was just starting] nor since the work has grown to large proportions, during which time responsibilities have been widely distributed, has anyone heard me claiming the leadership of this people” (8T 236-237).

 

Some say, “Yes, we understand that Ellen White was not the formal or informal leader of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but she exercised authority over men, so it is okay for women to be ordained to headship roles in the Church.”

But Ellen White did not exercise authority over men. In her capacity as a prophetess, she often delivered divine rebukes to both men and women, including the male leaders of the SDA Church.  But she was not in direct administrative authority over them; she did not have the power to hire and fire.

 

In fact, Ellen White herself submitted to the regularly constituted male authority of the church, as in the case of her nine-year sojourn in Australia. She did not move to Australia on her own initiative or based upon a prophetic prompting from God.  In a letter to General Conference President Ole A. Olsen, she wrote, “The Lord was not in our leaving America. He did not reveal that it was His will that I should leave Battle Creek. The Lord did not plan this, but He let you all move after your own imaginings.”

In other words, even though she had no prophetic light on the matter, she followed the call of the male leaders of the General Conference:

At times before leaving America, I thought that the Lord did not require me to go to a country so far away, at my age and when I was prostrated by overwork. But I followed the voice of the Conference, as I have ever tried to do at times when I had no clear light myself.” (July 10th 1892, Manuscript Releases 21, emphasis added)

http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/5/6/does-the-life-of-ellen-white-authorize-female-ordination

[Tom Wetmore]

No one has ever heard me claim the position of leader of the denomination . . . He has not provided that the burden of leadership shall rest upon a few men. Responsibilities are distributed among a large number of competent men. . . Every member of the church has a voice in choosing officers of the church. The church chooses the officers of the state conferences. Delegates chosen by the state conferences choose the officers of the union conferences, and delegates chosen by the union conferences choose the officers of the General Conference. By this arrangement every conference, every institution, every church, and every individual, either directly or through representatives, has a voice in the election of the men who bear the chief responsibilities in the General Conference . . . neither then [when the work was just starting] nor since the work has grown to large proportions, during which time responsibilities have been widely distributed, has anyone heard me claiming the leadership of this people” (8T 236-237).

 

Some say, “Yes, we understand that Ellen White was not the formal or informal leader of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but she exercised authority over men, so it is okay for women to be ordained to headship roles in the Church.”

But Ellen White did not exercise authority over men. In her capacity as a prophetess, she often delivered divine rebukes to both men and women, including the male leaders of the SDA Church.  But she was not in direct administrative authority over them; she did not have the power to hire and fire.

 

In fact, Ellen White herself submitted to the regularly constituted male authority of the church, as in the case of her nine-year sojourn in Australia. She did not move to Australia on her own initiative or based upon a prophetic prompting from God.  In a letter to General Conference President Ole A. Olsen, she wrote, “The Lord was not in our leaving America. He did not reveal that it was His will that I should leave Battle Creek. The Lord did not plan this, but He let you all move after your own imaginings.”

In other words, even though she had no prophetic light on the matter, she followed the call of the male leaders of the General Conference:

At times before leaving America, I thought that the Lord did not require me to go to a country so far away, at my age and when I was prostrated by overwork. But I followed the voice of the Conference, as I have ever tried to do at times when I had no clear light myself.” (July 10th 1892, Manuscript Releases 21, emphasis added)

http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/5/6/does-the-life-of-ellen-white-authorize-female-ordination

​Of the thousands of ordained ministers (18,000 plus or minus...) currently employed by the Adventist Church world wide, how many of them can "claim the position of leader of the denomination"?  And how many of them are in a position of "authority"?  Being a minister/pastor, ordained or otherwise is not about rulership and authority.  Having a credential that says that one is an "ordained minister" does not confer upon that person "authority over men" nor qualify the person for a position of leadership.

You are barking up the wrong tree.  And so is the author of the article you cut and pasted here from Advindicate.

Like I said, anything to minimize, denigrate, explain away and deny that EGW in her time was recognized by The General Conference (What was that other discussion about the authority of the GC...) as an ordained minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.   I don't need to embellish, interpret, insinuate, speculate or give any explanation.  The intent of a credential is that it speaks for itself and is self-explanatory of that to which it certifies.  

Edited May 20, 2015 by Tom Wetmore

[Gail]

I was thinking the same thing... 

[Tom Wetmore]

Also... The excerpt from the article from Advindicate, as well as the entire article itself are a classic examples of a straw man argument.  (There are truly too many defects of that article to count...) And in both cases the subterfuge totally missing the point that the credentials themselves testify to.  It amazes me that anyone can declare with a straight face that  "there were no ordained women in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Ellen White's lifetime" after trying so vigorously to deny the fact of the matter that she herself was in fact recognized during her lifetime as just that!  It has only been after she was dead and gone that people have taken these denials to the level they are now.

 

​What it brings to my mind is a favorite  EGW quote of many of these same people that are opposed to WO and in denial about EGW's own credentials giving  silent testimony to the fact  that she was indeed recognized as being ordained.  It is an oft used phrase by EGW about those who misused  her words, counsel and testimony.  She would  say that their efforts  made "of none effect"  the work of the Lord through her.  I have just scanned through  numerous examples of her use of that expression.  I am amazed at the similarities we can see in what I read in this article and other similar efforts to minimize, ignore, or explain away EGW's own words about women as pastors and that to which her own credentials issued by the General Conference testify.  And so frequently they fall back to the old "the office of minster/pastor/elder is different than that of a prophet" canard in an effort to distinguish that it OK for women to be prophets but not ministers.  The illogic that a call to be a minister is of so much more of a vital interest to the Church, more important really,  than that of a prophet that only a special elect group can attain that high office.  It really elevates the role of minister above that of a prophet.  They seek to "make of none effect" EGW herself.

"For Christ's sake do not confuse the minds of the people with human sophistry and skepticism, and make of none effect the work that the Lord would do. Do not, by your lack of spiritual discernment, make of this agency of God a rock of offense whereby many shall be caused to stumble and fall, 'and be snared, and be taken.'"  {5T 691.2}  

Here is another...

"Those who start up to proclaim a message on their own individual responsibility, who, while claiming to be taught and led of God, still make it their special work to tear down that which God has been for years building up, are not doing the will of God. Be it known that these men are on the side of the great deceiver. Believe them not. They are allying themselves with the enemies of God and the truth. They will deride the order of the ministry as a system of priestcraft. From such turn away, have no fellowship with their message, however much they may quote the Testimonies and seek to entrench themselves behind them. Receive them not, for God has not given them this work to do. The result of such work will be unbelief in the Testimonies, and, as far as possible, they will make of none effect the work that I have for years been doing.  {TM 51.1}  
     

[Gregory Matthews]

The paragraph quoted by Photodude, which seems to have come from advindicate is a classic example of how to string together some isolated sentences, taken out of context.

The 1st quoted sentence comes from one paragraph that in context discusses an issue that seems to have arisen between EGW and Dr. Kellogg.  Here is an important sentence at the beginning of that paragraph:

In the daily papers of various cities there have appeared articles which represent that there is a strife between Dr. Kellogg and Mr. Ellen G. White as to which of them shall be leader of the Seventh-day Adventist people.

O.K.  The context includes articles in the newspapers.  It involves Dr. Kellogg and the medical work of which he was the  leader.

The second sentence in the cited article skips an entire paragraph.

The last sentence in the cited article skips two complete paragraphs and part of the third paragraph.

he biggest problem is that the author of that article totally leaves out an important statement from EGW, found on page 238:

I write this that all may know that there is no controversy among Seventh-day Adventist over the question of leadership.  The Lord God of haven is our King.   He is a  leader whom we can safely follow, for H never makes a mistake.  Let us honor God and His son, through whom he communicates with the world.

The question that EGW address was not about human leadership. 

 

The cited article misrepresents what EGW actually said.

 

[Tom Wetmore]

And none of it has anything to do with her being recognized as an ordained minister by the Church and issued credentials confirming that recognition during her lifetime.

[B/W Photodude]

And none of it has anything to do with her being recognized as an ordained minister by the Church and issued credentials confirming that recognition during her lifetime.

​So, exactly when and where did this ordination take place?

[Gregory Matthews]

In the matter of EGW, as is well known, humans did not lay hands upon her and ordain her.

Humans believed that God had ordained her.

So, the question becomes:  Is one ordained because humans decided to ordain a person, or is one ordained because humans, in recognition that God had ordained that person, issued the credentials of ordination.

 

Edited May 21, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Tom Wetmore]

Ours is not a religion bound up by rituals.  We don't have a magic incantation that must be uttered flawlessly to open the door to our salvation.  The undue emphasis on a ritual of hands makes it seem like we believe in magic hands as able to trump everything else, not just including a the act of the top officers of the GC, the highest authority of the Church under God, but the ability to stay the hand of God himself.  That to me is nearly blasphemy.  It is presuming to take God' authority, usurping it, as if what we do is more important than God's own act.  I have shuddered at reading what some have said and written that most definitely places the act of man as over that of God.  It is as if it really does not matter that EGW said that God Himself ordained her.  Our ritual of magic hands is more important.  And lacking any evidence of that ritual of laying human hands on someone's head means God's own clear calling of her and blessing of her ministry, all the other evidence of 32 years of records of the Church, and EGW's own testimony is made of none effect.  Really!?!? Is that what you would have us believe!

[GayatfootofCross]

I love this Thread!

Confounding people with the facts is always most interesting on a message board!

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, it is amazing to see to what lengths some will go to avoid facing up to the facts.

[Tom Wetmore]

With regard to the undue importance some are putting on the lack of evidence of the ritual of the laying on of hands to ordain EGW, I have sometimes pointed out that there is a similar lack of any evidence of that ceremony being performed at the appointment/ordination of many, if not most, of the early Adventist leaders and ministers.  But another thought similarly came to my mind just recently.  When Jesus appointed the twelve apostles, there is no mention of Jesus laying his hands on them when he did that.  Nor is there any mention of him doing so when he sent out the 70.  There is mention of him laying his hands on the sick when he healed them.  And he layed his hands on the children when he blessed them.  (Did he accidentally ordain them by placing his hands on them?)   

 

Edited July 5, 2015 by Tom Wetmore

[Kevin H]

And what we find in Judaism is rather than a laying on of hands is a permission to sit as the Rabbi's feet while the laymembers all stood and the speaking Rabbi sitting on some kind of a seat.

[debbym]

No one has ever heard me claim the position of leader of the denomination . . . He has not provided that the burden of leadership shall rest upon a few men. Responsibilities are distributed among a large number of competent men. . . Every member of the church has a voice in choosing officers of the church. The church chooses the officers of the state conferences. Delegates chosen by the state conferences choose the officers of the union conferences, and delegates chosen by the union conferences choose the officers of the General Conference. By this arrangement every conference, every institution, every church, and every individual, either directly or through representatives, has a voice in the election of the men who bear the chief responsibilities in the General Conference . . . neither then [when the work was just starting] nor since the work has grown to large proportions, during which time responsibilities have been widely distributed, has anyone heard me claiming the leadership of this people” (8T 236-237).

 

Some say, “Yes, we understand that Ellen White was not the formal or informal leader of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but she exercised authority over men, so it is okay for women to be ordained to headship roles in the Church.”

But Ellen White did not exercise authority over men. In her capacity as a prophetess, she often delivered divine rebukes to both men and women, including the male leaders of the SDA Church.  But she was not in direct administrative authority over them; she did not have the power to hire and fire.

 

In fact, Ellen White herself submitted to the regularly constituted male authority of the church, as in the case of her nine-year sojourn in Australia. She did not move to Australia on her own initiative or based upon a prophetic prompting from God.  In a letter to General Conference President Ole A. Olsen, she wrote, “The Lord was not in our leaving America. He did not reveal that it was His will that I should leave Battle Creek. The Lord did not plan this, but He let you all move after your own imaginings.”

In other words, even though she had no prophetic light on the matter, she followed the call of the male leaders of the General Conference:

At times before leaving America, I thought that the Lord did not require me to go to a country so far away, at my age and when I was prostrated by overwork. But I followed the voice of the Conference, as I have ever tried to do at times when I had no clear light myself.” (July 10th 1892, Manuscript Releases 21, emphasis added)

http://advindicate.com/articles/2015/5/6/does-the-life-of-ellen-white-authorize-female-ordination

​i don't  think we have headship roles in the denomination.  Jesus is the head of the body, we are members of the body of Christ according to the various Gifts God has given in the Church. Romans 12.  

Humble Service in the Body of Christ

3 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. 4 For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your[a] faith; 7 if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; 8 if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead,[b] do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.

[Gerr]

I don't recall ever having serious objections to having women ministers, especially after looking into what scripture had to say about it.

My issue is with conferences who took it upon themselves to ignore what the world church had decided in a general conference session

which, according to God's messenger, is the voice of God on earth.

[Gregory Matthews]

There are others that believe that the GC attempted action violated the advice of EGW (See a previous post of min which quotes her), and violates the rights given to the Unions by the GC.

 

[whbae]

I see the ordination paper of Ellen White, however, why do I hear some say that her grandson denies Ellen White ever ordained ?

[Gregory Matthews]

Humans, as far as we know, never laid hands upon EGW in a public ceremony.  That is why.

 

 

[John317]

I'm willing to accept the decision of the world church in General Conference in the matter of women's ordination.  Let it be settled there, finally, in 2015.    I'd hate to see it put to a vote at every GC if one side or the other does not get the decision they want.   

[Tom Wetmore]

First of all, great to "see" you back with us.  I was just wondering about you a few days ago.  

I too would hate for this to keep coming back.The  difficulty of this vote as with each one before it is that it is not directly a vote for or against WO if those who vote read the proposed action carefully.  It is more about who gets to decide and if it is OK now for some to go forward on the issue without everyone else doing so.  The implication of past votes was similarly a vote of "Not now" or No you can't do if the rest are not ready for it.  There has not been a Session action of any sort specifically on WO since 1881 when the resolution in favor of WO was voted and and referred to the Executive Committee.  I think that until they have simple yes or no vote on WO, it will keep coming back. 

The problem was the lack of strong consensus on WO by the GC TOSC.  The proposed  action to be voted on Wednesday acknowledges that sad fact.  The action is framed reflecting the honest differences on the issue and that because Scriptural support for or against it is not conclusive, the real consensus by a very clear majority of TOSC effectively favors allowing for diversity of opinion and practice on the issue of WO.

What has disheartened me and many others is the persistent effort by those decidedly against WO to reframe the proposed action as only about WO, as if a yes vote is a vote for WO for everyone and a no vote is a firm and final vote of nor to WO for everyone for all time.

[Lauralea]

Tonight I watched James Nix of the White Estate online at General Conference and he told of a vision Ellen White had but she could only hear the voice of the man it was about and not see his face. Then she and her husband went to an Adventist camp meeting and when they walked in the tent, she recognized the voice. She walked down to the front and told him he had no right to be speaking on that platform, that he was a bigamist. He left the platform and the tent quickly. His brother was also present and backed up the testimony, but said he had been sworn to secrecy. So even though she did not need this right to demonstrate she was ordained. she did in a sense have the power to hire and fire. There were other instances where God gave her a vision regarding a church officer that needed to be immediately removed. One was a local church treasurer who was embezzling funds.

I am sure whoever hired him for that event was not about to continue that professional relationship.

She said she saw the voice of the General Conference in session as the voice of God, not just the actions of a few at the head of the work. Today, there are female as well as male delegates- not sure about then, so going to Australia was listening to the General Conference but not because their leadership was exclusively male.

By the way, soon after that SMI Henry, a woman, was General Conference treasurer, a role women can no longer hold because one must now be ordained. Ellen White wrote of her work, formerly with the Women's Christian Temperance Union, favorably Ordination was not a requirement in Ellen White's time for conference treasurers as far as I know.

[Gregory Matthews]

A female can be the General Conference Treasurer as that position is not required to be held by an ordained person.

As a matter of fact, in 2010 the delegates to Atlanta elected an African American female to the position of General  Conference Vice-President, as those positions do not require the person to be ordained.  In 2015, the delegates to San Antonio elected that same woman to her same position as a  General Vice-President.

The point of argument, or one of them, is that a woman cannot b elected to the position of the President of the South Eastern California Conference, as that position is required to be held by an ordained person.  I  guess the thinking is tha a local Conference President has more power over men than does a General Vice-President of the General Conference.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Lauralea]

A female can be the General Conference Treasurer as that position is not required to be held by an ordained person.

As a matter of fact, in 2010 the delegates to Atlanta elected an African American female to the position of General  Conference Vice-President, as those positions do not require the person to be ordained.  In 2015, the delegates to San Antonio elected that same woman to her same position as a  General Vice-President.

The point of argument, or one of them, is that a woman cannot b elected to the position of the President of the South Eastern California Conference, as that position is required to be held by an ordained person.  I  guess the thinking is tha a local Conference President has more power over men than does a General Vice-President of the General Conference.

Interesting that a General Conference treasurer can be female but local ones must at least in many places be ordained.