Washington Conference Grants Females ______

[Robert]

I don't have a dog in the race on this subject.  In fact this is probably the first time I've responded.  Bottom line:  The Bible is my measuring stick of truth.  Pastors, male or female, are not my final word.  There....! 

[Green Cochoa]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Where does GOD "explicitly" tell us this?

See 1 Timothy 2:12-14 where the Bible says "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

A woman is not to "usurp authority over the man."  What does "usurp" mean?  It can mean one of two things, depending on whether the usage here follows the archaic definition of usurp or the modern definition.  The modern definition means to take power illegally.  The archaic definition is to encroach or infringe upon.  Of course, we can look at the Greek word behind this, which is translated in the KJV to the three words "usurp authority over": authenteō.  That word means (according to Blue Letter Bible):

1. one who with his own hands kills another or himself

2. one who acts on his own authority, autocratic

3. an absolute master

4. to govern, exercise dominion over one

If for a woman to have authority over a man equals an usurpation, this text implies that it has never been appropriate for such to be true.  Genesis 3:16 tells us, from God's perspective, why.  Clearly, this is what Paul harks back to in his statement.  "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."  After Eve had, as Adam's equal, led him into sin, God saw fit to place her under his authority.  The Bible does not record this as being a statement to "Eve" but rather to "the woman," indicating that this was to continue in its application for future women.  That it still applies today is obvious in the fact that women still have pain in childbirth.  A curse?  Yes, in one sense it was--but not without its blessing.  God's curses are all blessings in disguise.  God cannot truly speak evil--everything He does or says is good.  Notably, God used the word "curse" on the serpent and on the ground, but on neither the man nor the woman. For them, in fact, what He uttered was to be a blessing.  Once sin had entered our otherwise perfect existence, we needed these things.  Men needed to work, lest idleness become the devil's workshop.  Had the ground been too easily managed, as before, without the thorns and thistles, there would have been much less work involved--insufficient to meet the new requirements for spiritual safety in a post-sin existence.

[Green Cochoa]

10 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green: I will suggest that according to your thinking, those who do not believe in the ordination of women should remain silent, for the sake of peace, as you say EGW did and simply accept the fact that we will ordain women.

Note: Please do not propose the argument that she did it due to salary. That would suggest that one should refrain from raising an issue if doing so might affect one pay in a negative manner.

For the Biblical passage, see Matthew 17:24-26.

You ask a question as to why Christ paid the tribute, and did not challenge it. ASs I understand you, you accept the ministry of EGW. If so, she has commented on this very question. You will find her answer to your question on pages 432 - 434. Study her answer closely. You will find that none of the reasons that EGW gave apply to the issue of her credentials as an ordained minister. A refusal on her part would not and resulted in any of what EGW says would have happened if Christ had pad the money to the Temple.

Green, you generally do better than this.

Many of her books have pages with those numbers.  Did you mean in The Desire of Ages perchance?  Regarding the tribute:

. . . There were some classes who were held to be exempt from the payment of the tribute. In the time of Moses, when the Levites were set apart for the service of the sanctuary, they were given no inheritance among the people. The Lord said, "Levi hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren; the Lord is his inheritance." Deuteronomy 10:9. In the days of Christ the priests and Levites were still regarded as especially devoted to the temple, and were not required to make the annual contribution for its support. Prophets also were exempted from this payment. In requiring the tribute from Jesus, the rabbis were setting aside His claim as a prophet or teacher, and were dealing with Him as with any commonplace person. A refusal on His part to pay the tribute would be represented as disloyalty to the temple; while, on the other hand, the payment of it would be taken as justifying their rejection of Him as a prophet.  {DA 433.2}  

. . . 

While Jesus made it plain that He was under no obligation to pay the tribute, He entered into no controversy with the Jews in regard to the matter; for they would have misinterpreted His words, and turned them against Him. Lest He should give offense by withholding the tribute, He did that which He could not justly be required to do. This lesson would be of great value to His disciples. Marked changes were soon to take place in their relation to the temple service, and Christ taught them not to place themselves needlessly in antagonism to established order. So far as possible, they were to avoid giving occasion for misinterpretation of their faith. While Christians are not to sacrifice one principle of truth, they should avoid controversy whenever it is possible to do so.  {DA 434.4}  

Mrs. White avoided controversy regarding her status as a prophet, just as Jesus did regarding His status as a prophet who need not pay the temple tax.  Ironically, the ordainers of today, similar to the priests of Jesus' time who would have made Him out to be neither prophet nor loyal to the temple, would like to have both her prophethood and her ministerial ordination.  Her credentials recognized the latter, whereas her words recognized the former.  Neither recognized both.  Take your pick, I guess.  Do you believe the church's designation of her position or her own designation of it as a messenger of God?

Regarding my thinking, I didn't suggest what you appear to have inferred.  Ellen White already followed, in Jesus' footsteps, what I had suggested.  What I would suggest, though, is that those who use the certificates issued to Mrs. White by the church as proof of her status as an ordained minister do so in error.  She was never ordained as a minister of the gospel, and she only spoke of men in that position.  If she had wanted women to take such a post, she could certainly have written so.  But she did not, for she wrote under inspiration, and God is not in the business of contradicting Himself.

[Robert]

27 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

See 1 Timothy 2:12-14 where the Bible says "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

Here's Ellen White:

https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=AH&pagenumber=115

At one time I was against women's ordination, now I'm just neutral.  Both quotes, Paul and Ellen White, were used against ordination.  

I do not have a dog in the race.  I am non-attending Christian.  So neither male nor female usurps authority over me.  The Bible and the Bible alone is my measuring stick of truth.

Yes, I am an anti-authoritarian in religious circles! 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green:  Yes I meant the DESIRE OF AGES. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Rossw]

On 6/24/2016 at 10:39 AM, Kevin H said:

And yes, the argument started out whether or not the Bible is authoritive over us. The conservative scholars saying "Yes" and the liberal scholars saying "No". Both groups believed that these texts were against women in ministry and one group says "It is the Bible so we must follow" the other saying "So what if it is the Bible, we don't have to follow." If this was the current issue I would be very strongly anti-ordination.

The word of God is the great detector of error; to it we believe everything must be brought. The Bible must be our standard for every doctrine and practice. We must study it reverentially. We are  to receive no one's opinion without comparing it with the Scriptures. Here is divine authority which is supreme in matters of faith.

It is the word of the living God that is to decide all controversies. It is when men mingle their own human smartness with God's words of truth in giving sharp thrusts to those who are in controversy with them, that they show that they have not a sacred reverence for God's inspired word. They mix the human with the divine, the common with the sacred, and they belittle God's word.

THE ELLEN G. WHITE 1888 MATERIALS, PAGE 44,45

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, Robert said:

Here's Ellen White:

https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=AH&pagenumber=115

Again, at one time I was against women's ordination, now I'm just neutral.  Both quotes, Paul and Ellen White, were used against ordination.  

I do not have a dog in the race.  I am non-attending Christian.  So neither male nor female usurps authority over me.  

 

That is a good statement from Mrs. White regarding the story of Genesis 3.  However, regarding women's role in the home as compared to their husbands, there are some plainer statements.  Mrs. White was balanced, and certainly I do not see her condoning a dictatorial role for the husband, but she does establish the husband as the head of the home in very firm tones.  Some will say, "but how does this apply to the church?"  This is a fair question, and, fortunately, Ellen White also helps us to understand the position of the church as having its origination in the home.  The "corporate" body starts with the home family.  Below are two statements that help us understand these things.

"The husband is the head of the family, as Christ is the head of the church; and any course which the wife may pursue to lessen his influence and lead him to come down from that dignified, responsible position is displeasing to God. It is the duty of the wife to yield her wishes and will to her husband. Both should be yielding, but the word of God gives preference to the judgment of the husband. And it will not detract from the dignity of the wife to yield to him whom she has chosen to be her counselor, adviser, and protector. The husband should maintain his position in his family with all meekness, yet with decision." {1T 307.1}

"Every Christian family is a church in itself. The members of the family are to be Christlike in every action. The father is to sustain so close a relation to God that he realizes his duty to make provision for the members of his family to receive an education and training that will fit them for the future, immortal life. His children are to be taught the principles of heaven. He is the priest of the household, accountable to God for the influence that he exerts over every member of his family. He is to place his family under the most favorable circumstances possible, so that they shall not be tempted to conform to the habits and customs, the evil practices and lax principles, that they would find in the world."  {1NL 77.2} 

If the father is the head and priest of the home, and if the home is a church in itself, it is clear that the same principles of home order apply to the church.

[Robert]

Here's my question to both men and women seeking to become Pastors:  What's your motive? Is it status?  Is it self-importance?  

Keep in mind the disciples argued who among them was to be the greatest.  How did Jesus respond to this self-seeking mentality?

 “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” Mark 9:35

All motives outside the above are based in iniquity and are self-glorying.

[Robert]

19 minutes ago, Robert said:

Here's my question to both men and women seeking to become Pastors:  What's your motive? Is it status?  Is it self-importance?  

Keep in mind the disciples argued who among them was to be the greatest.  How did Jesus respond to this self-seeking mentality?

 “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” Mark 9:35

All motives outside the above are based in iniquity and are self-glorying.

Other verses to keep in mind:

Acts 20:28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them...

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires...

Notice in both of these scenarios men wanted to bring glory to themselves, not God....

[Gregory Matthews]

Robert asked:

In the SDA Church of today, congregational pastors do not have a high level of status.  Conference administrators may have less.

In the world of the Internet, all may find themselves to be an easy target for the critics who grow like mushrooms in the forest.

 

Here's my question to both men and women seeking to become Pastors:  What's your motive? Is it status?  Is it self-importance?  

[Rossw]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Robert asked:

In the SDA Church of today, congregational pastors do not have a high level of status.  Conference administrators may have less.

In the world of the Internet, all may find themselves to be an easy target for the critics who grow like mushrooms in the forest.

 

 

 

What do you mean by pastors not having a high level of status? They do have a high level of responsibility. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Exactly what I said.  In our present society there are many occupations that have a greater degree of respect/status than do clergy.  Responsibility does not equate to respect/status.

 

[Tom Wetmore]

On June 25, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Rossw said:

Greg, was EGW ever ordained with the laying of hands?

One can just as easily ask  with the same resulting answer for many of the male leaders of the Church.  Was there such a ritual performed for James White, Uriah Smith...

We are not a ritualistic religion such that there is some power or magic in the hands of the ordained that they have to physically pass on to others or through precisely worded incantations that a blessing is bestowed.  The founders of the Church were quite pragmatic people. 

[Kevin H]

When did the Seventh-day Adventists ordain James White?

[Green Cochoa]

56 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

When did the Seventh-day Adventists ordain James White?

If you remember your history, no "Seventh-day Adventists" existed when James White became an elder, so you're asking the wrong question.  "[James Springer] White was baptized at age 16 and in 1843 was ordained as a minister." When the Adventist church officially formed decades later, it had no need of ordaining Elder White, for he had already been ordained as an elder and had been serving in that capacity as the church was forming.

[Green Cochoa]

On June 27, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Tom Wetmore said:

One can just as easily ask  with the same resulting answer for many of the male leaders of the Church.  Was there such a ritual performed for James White, Uriah Smith...

We are not a ritualistic religion such that there is some power or magic in the hands of the ordained that they have to physically pass on to others or through precisely worded incantations that a blessing is bestowed.  The founders of the Church were quite pragmatic people. 

You might benefit from reviewing the historical documents before making such implications as that Uriah Smith or James White or others of our pioneers were not ordained. 

Here's one of those pertinent to your question.

"While we have gladly welcomed new recruits to the ranks of our workers, we have been made exceedingly sad to have some of our comrades fall at their posts of duty. During the two years that have so quickly passed since we were last assembled in General Conference, fifteen ordained ministers, besides six missionaries in the field, and a few who had returned, have been taken from us. Of this number it may be proper to mention Elders H. P. Holser, F. L. Mead, Dan. T. Jones, L. M. Crowther, H. D. Day, W. H. Falconer, C. Grin, O. S. Ferren, John F. Hansen, J. P. Henderson, F. J. Hutchins, H. M. Kenyon, Wm. Sanders, and G. W. Colcord. It has been but a few days since our esteemed and greatly beloved brother, Elder Uriah Smith, was suddenly removed from our ranks. May I venture to suggest that at some time during this session of the Conference, suitable reference be made to this loss by some of Brother Smith's fellow-workers?" {March 31, 1903 N/A, GCB 17.23}

[Gregory Matthews]

Green stated, below:

One cannot form something out of nothing.

The official formation of the SDA Church (denomination) in 1863, was a formal recognition that it already existed and it was a registration of this group that had already come into existence.

When the Adventist church officially formed decades later,. . .

[Gregory Matthews]

Green stated, below:

What Green has failed to do is to demonstrate that in each case these people were ordained by a public ceremony which included the laying on of hands.

Yes, as the denomination developed, it did begin to have such public ceremonies.  But, it is a demonstrated fact that the SDA denomination did issue the credentials of an ordained minister when no such public ceremony had occurred.  EGW is a clear example of this.

I might be asked as to why one would assume that the developing denomination had ever done such for people other than EGW.  That is a valid question.  Certainly assumptions are a very weak form of evidence.  Well, the assumption that such happened is not weaker than the assumption that the developing denomination did have such public ceremonies, absent specific proof that they did.;

But, I will suggest that there is some reasonable support for the idea that such credentials were issues without any such public ceremony.  Consider with me, for a moment, the historical background of the denomination beginning to issue credentials.  The historical record is that they began to be issued  so that people could differentiate between those the developing denomination wanted to recognize as actually Adventists and others whom the developing denomination did not want to be so recognized.  It seems that some were confusing the people and were as we might say, "wolves in sheep's clothing." 

With this recognized need, would it be reasonable to expect that the denomination would immediately hold such public ceremonies for the dozens of people involved?  I do not think so.  Rather, I suspect that the developing denomination simply issued the credentials and such was done for an unknown number of people as was done later for EGW.

 

During the two years that have so quickly passed since we were last assembled in General Conference, fifteen ordained ministers, besides six missionaries in the field, and a few who had returned, have been taken from us. Of this number it may be proper to mention Elders H. P. Holser, F. L. Mead, Dan. T. Jones, L. M. Crowther, H. D. Day, W. H. Falconer, C. Grin, O. S. Ferren, John F. Hansen, J. P. Henderson, F. J. Hutchins, H. M. Kenyon, Wm. Sanders, and G. W. Colcord.

[Rossw]

In EGW's day how many other women received credentials? Was there a laying of hands ceremony at that time? Did women at that time ever participate in the ceremony?

[Green Cochoa]

What Gregory has failed to do is the equal of what others before him have failed to do--search the archives before expressing their views.  I see no point, at this juncture, of bringing out the statements.  But they are available for those who prefer diligence over assumptions. The archives help us know what standard practice was in the ordination ceremony. 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

8 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

"During the two years that have so quickly passed since we were last assembled in General Conference, fifteen ordained ministers, besides six missionaries in the field, and a few who had returned, have been taken from us. Of this number it may be proper to mention Elders H. P. Holser, F. L. Mead, Dan. T. Jones, L. M. Crowther, H. D. Day, W. H. Falconer, C. Grin, O. S. Ferren, John F. Hansen, J. P. Henderson, F. J. Hutchins, H. M. Kenyon, Wm. Sanders, and G. W. Colcord."

Just asking, but wouldn't the word, "ordained," as seen in the above quote refer to those who were officially recognized ministers, but not necessarily having gone through some sort of "laying on of hands" ceremony?

The reason I ask, is because during that same time period (1880s-1915) my great grandfather was a Methodist Episcopal minister — a circuit rider in the eastern Washington Territory and on the Yakama Indian Reservation.  He was not ordained by the "laying on of hands," but was nonetheless listed as "ordained" in the church records because he had gone through the education and held office as pastor of several churches, and performed the various rites of the church (marriages, baptisms, etc).  He was considered "ordained" because of his role, function, and responsibilities in the church.

His father, my 2nd great grandfather, was listed as a "lay minister," as he could give sermons and provide counsel to the congregation, but he was not recognized by the church to perform the church rites.  That was the difference between an "ordained" and "lay" minister at that time for the ME Church.  Mightn't that also be a distinguishing characteristic in the Adventist church at that time?

[Rossw]

Did EGW perform baptisms, marriages, etc?

It's becoming very apparent EGW was not a normal case to use as an example for the modern change to women's ordination.

[Rossw]

26 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

What Gregory has failed to do is the equal of what others before him have failed to do--search the archives before expressing their views.  I see no point, at this juncture, of bringing out the statements.  But they are available for those who prefer diligence over assumptions. The archives help us know what standard practice was in the ordination ceremony. 

I admit I resemble this remark but am interested in learning more on the subject. 

Like I said before though, if EGW is a special case how do we use her as evidence for modern WO? I know the pro-WO must use evidence like EGW but it's really just a red herring away from what Scripture says.

[LadyRachelLynn]

I deal with non-sda public A LOT and I cannot tell you how hypocritical we seem to our public on this issue.  SEVERAL people I have met are shocked that SDA's do NOT ordain women since they believe "our church was started by a woman."  I do not believe we can say that EGW was a special case.  I believe if we do that we will be acting as hypocritical as ever.  How can we say, well, a woman here or there in history can work for G-d as a leader/pastor/prophet, but we won't allow the common woman to do this job".  Its not like EVERY woman in this conference is begging for it.  But there ARE women being called by G-d, and yet we deny deny deny them the ability to do the work they are called for out of HYPOCRISY, saying that a "lowly woman cannot do this, even though ELLEN WHITE, the lowest of them all (uneducated, farm girl, etc) was elevated to such a high place in our church, but that was just a fluke, we won't ever recognize it again."

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

just as a matter of record, Ellen White was not the "lowest" of women... she had *some* education before she was injured, and her education was continued at home by her mother.  The small Harmon farm was in Cumberland County, Maine, and in 1842 when Ellen was 12, the population of that county was over 70,000.  The farm was not the family's primary means of living — they ran a hatmaking business, in which Ellen was involved.  They lived in Gorham, less than 13 miles from Portland, Maine, which was the 25th largest city in the US in 1840.  I really don't think she was educationally and socially backwards or lacking in opportunities.