Washington Conference Grants Females ______

[Tom Wetmore]

@Green Cochoa What is Biblical "ordination" that you claim to support?

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said the following which I have quoted below:

Green's statement is simply specious on its face.

1)  The expectations of an ordained SDA minister are so broad that many of us have not done everything that is expected of them.  I have not and I have been a congregational pastor.

2)  The expectation of EGW should be referenced in the time in which she lived and not in the time in which we live today.  The major expectations that SDA pastors did in the time in which EGW lived were:  a) preaching.  'b) evangelism--converting people.  c) traveling to Adventist congregations and building them up.  Ellen White did all of those.

3)  In addition, there were other expectations for some SDA clergy:  a)  Guiding the developing SDA denomination in its development.  'b)  Producing written material for the edification and instruction of members and the conversion of non-members.  c) Traveling Internationally to aid and guide in the development of the SDA Church in other countries.  d)  Providing corrective advice and/or recommending discipline to leaders, clergy and members who had committed  wrong.  Ellen White did all of these.

4) Yes, it is true that Ellen White did not do some things that are common of SDA clergy today:  a)  She never baptized anyone.  This is also true for some SDA ordained clergy today.  The extent to which it was true in the time of EGW is probably not known.  'b)  Yes, she is not known to have performed a marriage ceremony.  The extent to which this was true of others in the time of EGW is not known to me.  However, I personally know of SDA Clergy, in the U.S., today who have never done such.  I also know of some countries in which no SDA Clergy person has ever performed a marriage ceremony.

5)  Today, the SDA denomination limits the so-called organization of SDA congregations to people who are ordained.  EGW probably participated is such in her time.  It should be noted that the SDA denomination has identified Ellen White as a "co-founder" of the SDA denomination.  On all levels of denominational structure today, organization is accomplished by ordained clergy. 

 

Quote

Mrs. White has not done everything that an ordained minister would ordinarily be expected to do.

[Tom Wetmore]

I would also add that most all of the "fact" arguments Green puts forward are basically straw men arguments.  The deniers of EGW's ordination also play word games of redefining words to minimize or neutralize anything that does not suit their POV. An example of that is narrowly redefining what they think she must have meant when she used the word "pastor" in reference to women.  That is exactly like the traditional denigration of Phoebe. "She was just a servant and helper."  But in both cases one has to ignore the immediate context and how the key words are used elsewhere in the time period they were written.

The other disingenuous hairsplitting is denying the obvious by saying that EGW was not ordained since there is no evidence of the correct set of humans that uttered ritualistic words over her in a public ceremony whilst laying hands on her head.  She herself stated plainly that too much importance was placed on that ritual.  There is nothing magical about it that it is the only means by which recognition of a person's gifts can be done by the Church.  And that last phrase is precisely what it is all about - recognition by the body of believers, the Church, of the gifts of the person and appointing/dedicating them to do something for the Church.  The form of the recognition is quite beside the point.  The fact of a public recognition by the Church is the ordination.  And the continued issuance of the ordination credentials to EGW by the highest body, signed by its top officers was precisely that.  To deny that she was ordained was to accuse those leaders of fraud and falsehood.  And the fact ( I am talking of relevant facts now...) that she accepted those credentials year after year without speaking out against them or insisting they stop doing it, speaks volumes.  Either she supported the idea or she was a co-conspirator to fraud and deceit of leadership in claiming she was ordained.  

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom said, quoted below:

1) True.

2)  As I have said previously:  Non-SDA clergy are dumbfounded that in a denomination that was co-founded by a woman, there should be any discussion as to the  role  that women should have in that denomination.  

3)  A study of the life and ministry of EGW would lead one to believe that she would never have tolerated for one moment the issuance of those credentials if she had believed that they violated any Biblical command. 

4)  To continue to believe that the Bible speaks against females in this role leaves one with the logical belief that EGW not only failed to understand the Biblical teaching on this point but to believe that she was not corrected, ever, in her error.

 

Quote

The form of the recognition is quite beside the point.  The fact of a public recognition by the Church is the ordination.  And the continued issuance of the ordination credentials to EGW by the highest body, signed by its top officers was precisely that.  To deny that she was ordained was to accuse those leaders of fraud and falsehood.  And the fact ( I am talking of relevant facts now...) that she accepted those credentials year after year without speaking out against them or insisting they stop doing it, speaks volumes.  Either she supported the idea or she was a co-conspirator to fraud and deceit of leadership in claiming she was ordained.  

[Tom Wetmore]

The continued downgrading of EGW in denial of the obvious and unequivocal documented recognition of her by the Church is a slippery slope eroding confidence in her ministry.  It brings to mind the oft repeated phrase of many in the camp of those opposed to women in ministry - 

Quote

"Because the message of Sister White in testimonies given did not harmonize with their ideas, the testimonies were made of no account, except when they endorsed their ideas." 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

People, including me, have posted in this forum that EGW is not known to have ever performed a marriage.  While that may be true on its face, it fails to tell the full story.

In 1895 Ellen White was involved in the wedding of  her son Willie to a woman named May.  This marriage was performed in Tasmania by a Methodist clergyperson due to the fact that no Adventist ministers were licensed to perform such in Tasmania.  And it was a wedding ring marriage.  Ellen  White solemnized the marriage by offered a prayer of blessing over the couple.

I have posted this elsewhere in this forum, to include the source of my information.

Yes, it may be true that in the eyes of the government of Tasmania, the wedding was performed by a Methodist clergyperson.  But, I will suggest that the involvement of EGW in that ceremony demonstrates that she at that time took the role that a male ordained SDA Clergyperson would have taken if she had not been present..

[Rossw]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

People, including me, have posted in this forum that EGW is not known to have ever performed a marriage.  While that may be true on its face, it fails to tell the full story.

In 1895 Ellen White was involved in the wedding of  her son Willie to a woman named May.  This marriage was performed in Tasmania by a Methodist clergyperson due to the fact that no Adventist ministers were licensed to perform such in Tasmania.  And it was a wedding ring marriage.  Ellen  White solemnized the marriage by offered a prayer of blessing over the couple.

I have posted this elsewhere in this forum, to include the source of my information.

Yes, it may be true that in the eyes of the government of Tasmania, the wedding was performed by a Methodist clergyperson.  But, I will suggest that the involvement of EGW in that ceremony demonstrates that she at that time took the role that a male ordained SDA Clergyperson would have taken if she had not been present..

?

[Rossw]

A question mark is all I could come up with for Greg's comment...sorry.

[Gregory Matthews]

A question mark may be an appropriate response.  At least, it indicates an openness to wherever the truth may lead.   While I do think that my post has merit, I do not think that my post is conclusive.

 

[Rossw]

2 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

A question mark may be an appropriate response.  At least, it indicates an openness to wherever the truth may lead.   While I do think that my post has merit, I do not think that my post is conclusive.

 

Ok, I'll take it for just that.

[Green Cochoa]

9 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

@Green Cochoa What is Biblical "ordination" that you claim to support?

Well, for one thing, it is NOT such as can be reached simply by praying at one's son's wedding.  Talk about cheapening ordination--I have yet to see a more egregious example of pettiness on the issue of women's ordination--as if a mother cannot pray for her son at his wedding without implying that she must have been ordained!  When only the ordained can pray in church, we have arrived at….exactly where?

Some of us still believe in the Biblical doctrine of "laying on of hands."  (See Hebrews 6:2, 1 Timothy 4:14, 1 Timothy 3, 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Timothy 5:22, etc.)

     Some young men who enter the field are not successful in teaching the truth to others because they have not been educated themselves. Those who cannot read correctly should learn, and they should become apt to teach before they attempt to stand before the public. The teachers in our schools are obliged to apply themselves closely to study, that they may be prepared to instruct others. These teachers are not accepted until they have passed a critical examination and their capabilities to teach have been tested by competent judges. No less caution should be used in the examination of ministers; those who are about to enter upon the sacred work of teaching Bible truth to the world should be carefully examined by faithful, experienced persons.  {4T 406.1}  
     After these have had some experience, there is still another work to be done for them. They should be presented before the Lord in earnest prayer that He would indicate by His Holy Spirit if they are acceptable to Him. The apostle says: "Lay hands suddenly on no man." In the days of the apostles the ministers of God did not dare to rely upon their own judgment in selecting or accepting men to take the solemn and sacred position of mouthpiece for God. They selected the men whom their judgment would accept, and then they placed them before the Lord to see if He would accept them to go forth as His representatives. No less than this should be done now.  {4T 406.2} 
     In many places we meet men who have been hurried into responsible positions as elders of the church when they are not qualified for such a position. They have not proper government over themselves. Their influence is not good. The church is in trouble continually in consequence of the defective character of the leader. Hands have been laid too suddenly upon these men.  {4T 406.3}  

Mrs. White is clear that when the church chooses a man for a position of eldership in the church, it should be done with ample consideration before the laying on of hands to dedicate them for this office.  Note that despite the lack of wisdom in prematurely ordaining some men of weak character, Mrs. White does not then conclude that we should ordain women in their stead.

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

People, including me, have posted in this forum that EGW is not known to have ever performed a marriage.  While that may be true on its face, it fails to tell the full story.

In 1895 Ellen White was involved in the wedding of  her son Willie to a woman named May.  This marriage was performed in Tasmania by a Methodist clergyperson due to the fact that no Adventist ministers were licensed to perform such in Tasmania.  And it was a wedding ring marriage.  Ellen  White solemnized the marriage by offered a prayer of blessing over the couple.

I have posted this elsewhere in this forum, to include the source of my information.

Yes, it may be true that in the eyes of the government of Tasmania, the wedding was performed by a Methodist clergyperson.  But, I will suggest that the involvement of EGW in that ceremony demonstrates that she at that time took the role that a male ordained SDA Clergyperson would have taken if she had not been present..

 

[Green Cochoa]

12 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

I would also add that most all of the "fact" arguments Green puts forward are basically straw men arguments.

A straw man argument is one that is used in misrepresentation of the real viewpoint of the other individual.  Which of your viewpoints did I misrepresent?  I was not trying to represent your viewpoint in the first place, only to establish some facts upon which we could continue our discussions.  If I have misrepresented anything, I apologize--but would like to know what it was so that the record can be set straight.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green:  How many times have you seen a non-clergy mother of the groom pray over her son at a wedding?  I have never seen such happen.

The context, as I see it is:  They wanted to have a SDA wedding, but they could not and it had to be conducted by a Methodist minister.  So, Ellen  White solemnized the marriage by offering a prayer of blessing over the couple.   I will admit that what I have said is not conclusive.  People may be justified in disagreeing with me.  But, the facts stand for what they are.  These facts are of interest.

Those facts do not cheapen ordination.  For a clergy-person to offer a prayer of blessing at a wedding does not cheapen ordination.

You can call this pettiness if you wish.  I can list examples of pettiness from people on the other side.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, my argument was not the strongest argument that has been made on this issue.  But, it was not the weakest.  As I have said, it is of interest.

 

[Green Cochoa]

2 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green:  How many times have you seen a non-clergy mother of the groom pray over her son at a wedding?  I have never seen such happen.

The context, as I see it is:  They wanted to have a SDA wedding, but they could not and it had to be conducted by a Methodist minister.  So, Ellen  White solemnized the marriage by offering a prayer of blessing over the couple.   I will admit that what I have said is not conclusive.  People may be justified in disagreeing with me.  But, the facts stand for what they are.  These facts are of interest.

Those facts do not cheapen ordination.  For a clergy-person to offer a prayer of blessing at a wedding does not cheapen ordination.

You can call this pettiness if you wish.  I can list examples of pettiness from people on the other side.

 

Gregory,

I witnessed such many times.  In the country in which I reside, both bride and groom come down from the platform and kneel before both sets of parents, one set at a time, who place their hands on them and pray (each parent) a prayer of blessing for them, before the final pronunciation of "man and wife" is made at the wedding.  This is at once a gesture of respect for their parents on the part of the couple and an acceptance of the new family members, with the blessing of the parents.  It is true that I have not witnessed this in America.  That does not mean that parents in America should be elevated to "ordained" status in order to be able to start such a beautiful practice.

3 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green, my argument was not the strongest argument that has been made on this issue.  But, it was not the weakest.  As I have said, it is of interest.

If this argument of yours was not the weakest, there is no need of considering your weakest.  Scratch it off your list!

[Rossw]

Was EGW more in touch with God and more spiritual than pretty much any other woman in the last few thousand years? This shows 2 issues. I would think any extremely spiritual person would pray over a wedding no matter who they are and may not necessarily constitute clergy obligations. Does it take clergy to pray over a marriage? 

And for the second point, we cannot liken EGW to every other women.

And thirdly, why didn't EGW perform the wedding herself if she were fully capable and in her right to do so? The evidence of the wedding goes against WO.

Even though no evidence has been provided for the events that took place.

[Rossw]

11 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

The continued downgrading of EGW in denial of the obvious and unequivocal documented recognition of her by the Church is a slippery slope eroding confidence in her ministry.  It brings to mind the oft repeated phrase of many in the camp of those opposed to women in ministry - 

 

This is an example of a strawman. It can also be said that EGW was in support of a "thus saith the Lord" approach to hermeneutics but is clearly in denial by the pro-WO. Then accusations of trading straw for straw arises.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

it is actually very significant that Ellen White offered the prayer of blessing during the Methodist marriage ceremony...  Only ordained ministers were to do that.  Take a look at the marriage ceremony outline for the Methodist denomination during that era:

[Green Cochoa]

Pam,

Perhaps that is why we are Adventists and not Methodists.  Of course, if you wish to follow that template (I seriously doubt it is an inalterable doctrine of the Methodist church), then I suppose you cannot pray the Lord's Prayer, since you are not a minister.

I'm even less convinced than I was before--and would find this yet the greater evidence of pettiness.  What ever happened to following the lady people claim to use as an example?  She said plainly:

There are many among professed Christians today who would decide that Daniel was too particular, and would pronounce him narrow and bigoted. They consider the matter of eating and drinking as of too little consequence to require such a decided stand--one involving the probable sacrifice of every earthly advantage. But those who reason thus will find in the day of judgment that they turned from God's express requirements and set up their own opinion as a standard of right and wrong. They will find that what seemed to them unimportant was not so regarded of God. His requirements should be sacredly obeyed. Those who accept and obey one of His precepts because it is convenient to do so, while they reject another because its observance would require a sacrifice, lower the standard of right and by their example lead others to lightly regard the holy law of God. "Thus saith the Lord" is to be our rule in all things.  {SL 19.4}  

. . . "Thus saith the Lord," not the Methodist Church.

Give me the Bible.  Where is your "thus saith the LORD" for why a woman cannot pray in church?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

GC, your comment baffles me.  All I did was provide the official outline of the Methodist matrimonial ceremony of the era, which was most likely the outline done for Willie White's marriage, and in which Mrs. White gave the marriage blessing. 

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

GC, your comment baffles me.  All I did was provide the official outline of the Methodist matrimonial ceremony of the era, which was most likely the outline done for Willie White's marriage, and in which Mrs. White gave the marriage blessing. 

But that isn't all you did.

1 hour ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

it is actually very significant that Ellen White offered the prayer of blessing during the Methodist marriage ceremony...  Only ordained ministers were to do that.  Take a look at the marriage ceremony outline for the Methodist denomination during that era:

You used that "outline," in the context of this women's ordination discussion, calling it "very significant."  May I ask what happened to the significance of the Scriptures?  Where is your plain "thus saith the LORD" that Ellen White says one should expect?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Your response again baffles me.  

I've seen no "thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt ordain only men [not women] to the ministry."  If this was such an all-consuming, important point to God, why wasn't it written as the 11th Commandment? 

Gregory gave an example of Mrs. White performing the marriage blessing at the marriage of her son in the context of a Methodist marriage ceremony.  To my way of thinking, it is entirely proper to examine what a Methodist marriage ceremony involved during that specific timeframe (Willie was married in 1895.)  To wit, the marriage ceremony *only* involved the couple and the ordained minister.  For Mrs. White to have given the marriage blessing was significant because only ordained ministers were to be involved in the matrimonial ceremony of the couple.

It has nothing to do with me or you or anyone else praying in church.

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

3 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

Your response again baffles me.  

I've seen no "thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt ordain only men [not women] to the ministry."  If this was such an all-consuming, important point to God, why wasn't it written as the 11th Commandment? 

Gregory gave an example of Mrs. White performing the marriage blessing at the marriage of her son in the context of a Methodist marriage ceremony.  To my way of thinking, it is entirely proper to examine what a Methodist marriage ceremony involved during that specific timeframe (Willie was married in 1895.)  To wit, the marriage ceremony *only* involved the couple and the ordained minister.  For Mrs. White to have given the marriage blessing was significant because only ordained ministers were to be involved in the matrimonial ceremony of the couple.

It has nothing to do with me or you or anyone else praying in church.

I certainly agree that what the Methodists say have nothing to do with you or me or anyone else praying in church.  That's why I don't see how you can call their outline "very significant."  

The Bible allows women to pray in church.  The Bible also tells us to choose faithful men to lead the church.  Will you force God to come down to your requirement and forbid everything that He has not expressly commanded?  If God tells you to select a qualified man to be the church leader, must He also forbid anyone that did not qualify per the qualifications listed for us?  Should the Hebrews have performed female circumcision because God must have wanted that too?  After all, He never forbad it, right?  Should we keep Sunday because God never forbad it?  Should we promote polygamy because the Bible never forbad it?  (Does the "husband of one wife" command mean anything then?)  Obviously, in order to say "husband of one wife" (see 1 Timothy 3) does not proscribe women, one must necessarily indulge other errors as well.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I don't know how else to explain the significance of Mrs. White participating in a Methodist marriage ceremony.   Sorry that it seems to be as clear as mud to you.

 

 

[Rossw]

Last Thursday, Willie and May Lacey were united in marriage.Everything passed off pleasantly. The children seemed very earnest that Mother should pray on the occasion, and I complied with their request. The blessing of the Lord was present. Every movement was conducted with the greatest solemnity. She was married from her father’s house....

All, every member of the family, dote on May, and they feel highly honored to take in Willie to their family circle. They all highly esteem Willie. He is 40 years old and May is 21. 4