.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Sahlin, Monte
2012
|
What Did Happen in 1881?
Submitted: Aug 5, 2012
It is becoming widely known that at the 1881 General Conference Session the delegates voted a resolution that it is OK for “females possessing the necessary qualifications to ... be set aside by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry.” Because this is a surprising fact and because it runs counter to those who want to believe that their opposition to women’s ordination is in line with the Adventist heritage, considerable debate has sprung up. History is often not as simple as we would like it to be, and this is a case in point.
There are two original versions of the minutes from the 1881 GC Session. One was published in The Review & Herald and the other in The Signs of the Times. To further confuse things, there is also a third version of the minutes retyped in the late 20th century, about 100 years after the fact. All of these can be seen by anyone on the GC Archives web site.
One version includes the notation that the resolution was referred to the General Conference Executive Committee. The other version does not include this note. Some who are opposed to the ordination of women pastors point to that note as if it negates the resolution all together. In fact, there is no contemporary documentation to support that view, only the fact that the practice did not actually get started.
If you look through all of the published, contemporaneous minutes of GC Sessions around the time, you will see that there are many resolutions that include referral to a committee. When it is the intention of the body to have something studied further, the notation of referral says that clearly. When it is simply referred to the executive committee without specific language calling for “study,” the usual outcome was that the committee accepted the basic principle that was voted and gave attention to how to implement it. It appears that may have been the intention of the delegates in 1881.
Over the last three decades, researchers have scoured thousands of documents from the time and no one has ever found any document indicating that anyone among the Adventist leadership was opposed to the idea of ordaining women. The delegates repeatedly, session after session, for decades, voted to give Ellen White credentials as an ordained minister. (More about that in a minute.) Researchers have gone through the annual editions of the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook listing all of the ministers and their credentials, and found that in the years after this vote in 1881, more and more of the women serving as ministers were given a Ministerial License. In the Adventist system, this has always been the first step toward ordination, followed five or more years later with ordination itself.
In fact, it is not until the second half of the 20th century that any Adventist has written anything suggesting that the ordination of women is “not biblical” or not proper. The founders simply did not believe that. If you look at the articles published in The Review & Herald on this topic, you will find that (1) they support women in ministry, (2) they answer most of the very same Bible texts that are brought up against the idea of women’s ordination today, and (3) these objections came largely from people outside the leadership of the Adventist movement and those who were opposed to the prophetic ministry of Ellen White.
Ellen White knew about the resolution voted at the 1881 GC Session. Her son and assistant, W. C. White, was present when the delegates voted it. He always informed his mother of all the business at such meetings. She was in California at the time, located a short distance from where The Signs of the Times was published and saw that version of the minutes.
The question that opponents of women’s ordination must answer is this: If it is important for the Adventist denomination to refrain from ordaining women to the gospel ministry, why did not the Messenger of the Lord speak out at the time? There is zero record of her ever suggesting there was anything wrong with the resolution voted by the delegates in 1881. If it is essential for Adventists to oppose this view, why did God not send some message indicating so?
Ellen White wrote thousands of messages giving guidance on hundreds of issues. She did not hesitate to convey even the most unwelcome message from the Lord. Does anyone believe that she ditched a message on this topic?
The ordained minister credentials issued to Ellen White for decades can be seen on the Web, in photographs in her official biography and under glass at the White Estate vault. Some have pointed out that in a few years (not the vast majority) a line was run through the word “ordained” with an ink pen. No one knows who did this. Some have proposed that she did it herself, but there is no evidence that this is true.
Some have said that these were not “real” credentials for an ordained minister, despite the fact that she was paid the wages of an ordained minister, but simply a tool to get discounted railroad fares. It is evidently true that her credentials were used to get a clergy discount on railroad tickets. But, if one is to argue that Ellen White did not consider herself a “real” minister in some sense, then we are left with the prophet of our church engaged in defrauding the railroad companies for decades. Is that a moral posture that you are comfortable with?
I don’t know in precise detail what happened in 1881. I was not there. Neither were the people who are so convinced they do know precisely what happened. We are left with a document trail that can be interpreted in various ways. We all need to be honest that how we interpret it is susceptible to our opinion on the larger issue.
What is clear to me is this: Early Adventists were not opposed to women’s ordination in the strong way that many who fancy themselves “historic” Adventists are today. That is something that leaked its way into the Adventist movement after Ellen White died in 1915 and after A. G. Daniels was not re-elected GC president in 1922. Historians have documented that from that time on, the number of women employed in the ministry in our denomination declined until, by the World War II era women ministers had almost disappeared.
I am not arguing here for or against the current issue. What I am suggesting is that we must be honest with ourselves about our history. 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.
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
I found it a fascinating perspective into history. It would appear there are notable similarities with the developement of Adventism.
Also, Ann Judson (sp) mother of 13, preached justification by faith which angered the preachers in that area and she was expelled to another state. Women through the ages have been highly respected in religious circles as that was the one area it was considered "proper" while all other vocations were closed to them. It is incongruous that in the 21st century where women have become equal with men in work, academics, science, etc., that the last holdout is the church. It is considered by men their "sacred calling" as set forth 3,000 years ago and they are hanging on for dear life to their only "boys club."
It is a fascinating study to examine the correlationn of the "goldenn age of Islam", with the contemporaneous "dark ages" of western civilizations. Then compare this with the emergence of the West from that era and the contemporary slide of Islam into its own dark ages. How Islam is emerging from that is another interesting question. In the midst of all this the role of clergy, the absence of, or subjugation of women and its associated theological shifts etc all play significant roles.
The point? Does Adventism cling to its own "dark age" with its corresponding discriminatory practices?
At age 25, Muhammad wed his wealthy employer, the 40-year-old merchant Khadija. This marriage, his first, would be both happy and monogamous; Muhammad would rely on the wealthy Khadija in many ways, until her death 25 years later. They had two sons, Qasim and Abd-Allah (nicknamedal-Ṭāhir and al-Ṭayyib respectively), both died young, and four daughters—Zaynab, Ruqaiya, Umm Kulthum and Fatimah. Shia scholars dispute the paternity of Khadija's daughters, as they view the first three of them as the daughters from previous marriages and only Fatimah as the daughter of Muhammad and Khadija. During their marriage, Khadija purchased the slave Zayd ibn Harithah, then adopted the young man as her son at Muhammad's request."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives#Khadija_bint_Khuwaylid
-
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.FIFTH MEETING, DECEMBER 5, 1881, 10 A.M
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCB/GCB1863-88.pdf#view=fit .
I think this must be the 3 minutes mentioned.
RESOLVED, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry.
This was discussed by J. O. Corliss, A. C. Bourdeau, E. R. Jones, D. H.
Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee.
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!
Would you not agree that by putting up such a motion at the GC, especially in the context of the church at that time (and afterwards) employing women in positions open to ordination, that we can consider that the question of whether women can work as pastors was resolved long ago? In other words, suggesting that we ordain women - then and now - pre-supposes that we see no reason why they cannot do the work?
At our recent constituency session here, we had three somewhat controversial agenda items: (a) a pro-wait-for-the-GC-before-ordaining-women item, (b) a pro-WO resolution, and (c) a pro-life resolution. I was certainly for # c and spoke in its favor, but it was defeated. Now if I later said that the mere proposal of that pro-life resolution by a single church resolved the issue in favor of pro-life, even though the resolution was defeated, that would be less than honest on my part.
Monte also stated that there were no articles from back then that could be seen as opposing WO. I do not believe that is true either. I've been posting a number of 19th century articles at AdventTalk.com, and they certainly seem to me to be making the very same arguments I see anti-WO folks today making. See if you can find an article that clearly doesn't, and let's discuss it.
Finally, note that Ellen White opposed the idea that tithe-paid male ministers as a general rule would be serving as local pastors of local churches. Our early leaders agreed. Therefore, it makes no sense to use a defeated resolution proposed by a three-man committee in 1881 to justify having female ministers fill a role that, generally speaking, male ministers in 1881 weren't even supposed to be filling.
I think part of the confusion may be not understanding what ordination meant to our pioneers, and to Ellen White. Three times between 1878 and 1883 Ellen White wrote this about the ordination of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch recorded in Acts:
"Both Paul and Barnabas had been laboring as ministers of Christ, and God had abundantly blessed their efforts; but neither of them had previously been formally ordained to the gospel ministry by prayer and the laying on of hands. They were now authorized by the church, not only to teach the truth, but to baptize, and to organize churches, being invested with full ecclesiastical authority" (LP 42; 3SP 347-348; 8Red 5).
What evidence do you have that women around the year 1881 were performing these important functions of a gospel minister within Adventism, namely, baptizing and organizing churches? If ordination was required before performing these functions, then women weren't doing these things, and thus women weren't employed to do the same ministerial work as men. Biblical ordination is a conferral of authority, not merely some form of public recognition for doing a nice job.
What we do have in that ordination service in Acts 13 is a setting apart to a special work, after which Paul did travel, establish churches, ordain elders and deacons, and baptize. We have no record of him doing those things prior to that point.
The names of those who ordained Paul and Barnabas is presumably given in Acts 13:1.
As far as Ellen White's authority goes, to ignore what she wrote about the ordination service of Acts 13 would in itself be failing to live up to what the Bible teaches about the authority of the prophetic ministry. Consider whether it would have been appropriate if the folks at Antioch had refused to set apart Saul and Barnabas just because there was no Scripture that corroborated the instruction through the prophets to set Saul and Barnabas apart. At some point specific prophetic instruction is not found in Scripture yet must still be followed.
As far as Ellen White's authority goes, to ignore what she wrote about the ordination service of Acts 13 would in itself be failing to live up to what the Bible teaches about the authority of the prophetic ministry. Consider whether it would have been appropriate if the folks at Antioch had refused to set apart Saul and Barnabas just because there was no Scripture that corroborated the instruction through the prophets to set Saul and Barnabas apart. At some point specific prophetic instruction is not found in Scripture yet must still be followed.
Many systems were practiced years ago that are no longer appropriate today, but it seems tradition has become sacred, and tradition has no meaning other than "this is what was done before" so no reason is necessary today to do anything different: tradition must always be followed.
Well, "tradition" in Christianity for 2,000 years was that Sunday was the day set aside for worship; "tradition" ordained a male priest to hear confessions, perform marriages and funerals; "tradition" called for burning heretics at the stake; "tradition" said only priests could hear confessions and offer penance and absolution; "tradition" said no divorces were to be granted, only annullments; "tradition" said that marriage was arranged by parents when a girl was as young as 13 and she had no voice in the arrangement; "tradition" said that women stayed at home and cooked, cleaned, and cared for children.
Thank God! Tradition is no longer sacred and we can use our God-given brains.
But so what. let's learn from our mistakes and move on.
"We regret that the report received in the Review of Dec. 13, was incomplete. We will give any items of interest in the proceedings hereafter."
That means that the Signs was merely reprinting a condensation of the Review report, and thus the Review is the official record.
We can go around and around about this, but I wonder if the GC had adopted the resolution, would you change your mind on that basis and accept that women should be ordained?
And you are mistaken as to what the Signs meant by saying that the Review report was incomplete. The Signs was but recognizing what the Review report stated at the end: "To be continued." The Signs was merely saying that they would have to wait until they got the Dec. 20 issue of the Review before they could report further.
Whether the GC adopting rather than rejecting the resolution would change my mind, that's a side issue. Monte's blog entry was about the authenticity of the claim that the resolution was voted, and all, whether pro-WO or anti-WO, should be able to agree that it was never voted, and that if WO is a righteous cause, it needs no false information to support it.
These two resolutions were referred back to the Committee on Resolutions, though ST omits that fact. RH 12-20-1881 then reported that the second of these resolutions was modified, and that they were both adopted at later meetings. Therefore, even without seeing any additional ST reports of the 1881 GC Session printed in 1882, we may conclude the following:
-
The ST reports are merely a condensation of the official reports in the Review, not an independent account.
-
ST reported the resolutions as presented, marking them as adopted if they were adopted.
-
ST didn't mark the resolutions as referred if they were referred.
There is therefore no basis at all for using the ST account to say that the 1881 GC Session voted to ordain women as gospel ministers, UNLESS the next ST report actually labels the WO resolution as "adopted." If it does label it as such, we would then have to find out why the ST condensation of the official Review record differs from that official record.I somehow suspect that no amount of argument or evidence will change your mind on this, but those who take other positions are not without reasons for doing so.
"I somehow suspect that no amount of argument or evidence will change your mind on this, ...."
Before arriving at that conclusion, don't you think it fair to provide at least some evidence in support of your position? Here we have a case where rewritten history has been cited over and over again, and now that that has been exposed, no amount of argument or evidence would change my mind? That doesn't even sound reasonable to me.
On the face of it, it would seem cruel and unusual (to say nothing of illegal) to tell female teaching researchers at a university, "We're glad you're working here, but because you are a woman, you will never be granted tenure. You are on probation the rest of your life."
In today's world tenure on the one hand and ordination on the other do little to expand authority, overall, and by no means is that authority a difficult kind of authority, or something they are suddenly more capable of doing, by virtue of ordination. Clearly ordination in today's world is an affirmation of pastoral ministry as a life career, and within that context one can "feel the pain" of a woman who has no hope, ever, of being recognized as possessing the gifts of a lifelong pastor. To live in limbo one's entire career is not good for the heart or soul. The affirmation of one's career, after a period of time, is very important to one's self-identity, confidence, and career satisfaction.
Shining, those 12 inner-sanctum GC home-boys, sent at Sychar to go to Gerazim and procure a couple Wham and cheese gyros for the band of weary detouring wayfarers-were they blessed when they returned, and asked sucha a stupid question; "Sir, have you eaten?" (when they were really inferring surely he's not going to expect US to eat with HER?)
And when Photina (the Orthodox bible gives her name) realized her sneer at Jesus "Sir, you have NO cup, and the well is DEEP" was answered by his sweet calling whisper to her ear-"YOU are my cup-go home and tell your village of me"...she dropped her clay cup fractured in the dirt, ran back, and all the MEN (and, I'sure, given her reputation) all the women of the village came to Sychar to dip in eternal water. Fist evangelist, and phenom, called directly by Jesus; despite the multiple cultural taboos challenged, was a woman, of ill repute, and a Samarian woman, for God's sake. I wonder how those 12 MEN thought about their own prejudices...the Bible is mute on the point, but I suspect there was some inner admonishment from the true head of the church.
Whose WERE the false assumptions, cultural forces, "inaccurate info'? Sure hope it wasn't THE Jesus, or we are all doomed.
In reality, the opposite is true. Sure, bringing up other arguments may support the position youo favor, but it distracts attention from the error that was made. If we distract too much, this error which should have died long ago will probably occur again.
The clearest RH article I have found thus far is in RH July 16, 1901 (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19010716-V78-29__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4). It is a reprint of a Methodist piece which a Mrs. pierce sent to the Review and said was the most convincing argument on the topic. This piece argues extensively that women can speak, pray, prophesy, and preach in church, but it also makes a distinction between these activities and rulership. It indicates that women should not be ordained as elders, and cannot serve as gospel ministers.
This is just one of many Review articles I have found that echo the arguments and position of today's anti-WO crowd. Thus I am unsure of the basis for the statement from this blog entry that I quoted above.
We were using and credentialing (I don't know how to tell who was "employed" and who was not) women to evangelize as canvassers and preachers, but I know of no example thus far of women being used in a rulership type position, which is what the article was referring to when it spoke of gospel ministers.
Mrs. Pierce didn't write the piece, and I did not provide the link to be a decisive answer to the question. Certainly you could tell that, couldn't you?
Monte himself said, "I am not arguing here for or against the current issue. What I am suggesting is that we must be honest with ourselves about our history." The topic in this blog posting is not arguments for or against WO. Rather, it is about what position our church took around the year 1881, and whether our church papers ever printed articles opposed to WO.
Maybe there is a bit of reverse psychology in the works. If TW verbally supports the World Church regarding WO, and the NAD (as a disobedient child) votes in support of WO, TW can shrug his shoulders and say to the World Church "I did my best to persuade the NAD to vote against WO".
I trust if we do the right thing, He will work things out.
"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'" (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/ST/ST18750826-V01-42__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=4).
The 1881 resolution says nothing about ordaining women to some sort of position of authority. Thus, it is possible that the 1881 resolution was solely about ordaining a woman to preach, something that isn't even at issue today. Today the ordination debate is, basically, solely about granting authority to women to do what they cannot presently do: organize churches, ordain elders and deacons, and serve as conference and mission presidents. Thus, the 1881 resolution, even if it was adopted, which it clearly wasn't, cannot be used to support the pro-WO side of today's ordination debate.
"When they reached the temple of Minerva, lovely Theano, daughter of Cisseus and wife of Antenor, opened the doors, for the Trojans had made her priestess of Minerva."
We understand this was written about 800 BC. Perhaps it suggests that women played a greater role in religious elements of life than we sometimes give credit for in BC times.
Kevin,
mmm which example should we follow? I personally see the OT as thinly veiled paganism anyway and not much of an example. There are a good number of practices God instructed Israel to perform which if we did them today would be considered crimes against humanity. Jihadist like destruction of God's and Israel's enemies is just one example. It is arguably one of the most blood filled, horrific religious books ever written as regards Israel's respect for and treatment of fellow human beings, so to the degree this is correct one would wonder why we would or should consider the OT as an example in how to treat or give women equality.
I recall Tim made the observation the other day that Jesus chose 12 men. If the idea that Mark is "an anti-epic of sorts" set around the Jesus person, the choosing of 12 men, and pointedly no women, needs no explanation! It would illustrate a deliberate "anti" position to that of the pagan Iliad and the incorporation of the Jewish discriminatory practice of excluding women from the top ranks within religion.
I guess I am guilty of beleiving that the issue of WO should not be settled by seeking to understand what "The Bible" really teaches about the subject, but rather by beginning with the simple question "What is fair, right and respectfull of one another as fellow human beings regardless of gender, race, or role?" If any religious writing, no matter how "sacred", leads us to conclusions that are not fair, respectful and right, and which do not produce total equality and respect regardless of gender, race or role - it is wrong!
A glaring example of the outcomes when a religious body take their sacred texts and their interpretation of it as the final answer to the question of Women's right/equality is the two Islamic girls in the Olympics. Condemned and criticised by most of their country!
Aristophanes wrote a play where Lysistrata and her female compatriots offered a plan to stop the war. Sappho was also a great female poet and Sophia represented wisdom.
It is a pity that so many SDA students have not studied the great works of Greek literature. They come second after Shakespeare.
I found the Lysistrata topic very interesting when I chased it up. Thanks for the lead. I wish I had read some of this stuff years ago. How many evangelists have I heard talk about the history of Israel and the middle east etc with what I now realize was in so many ways a warped sense of history.
A 'mis-spent' childhood reading various myths and legends does at times prove useful. Many biblical issues cannot be solved without a knowledge of the history and social customs of the times.
Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories From the Ancient Near East, by Victor H. Matthews is a good book for discovering the many comparitive laws of the various tribes with the Israelites.
Absolutely pure education and instruction does not exist and Satan can use flawed instructors to introduce dangerous attitudes into any form of education. In fact, the greatest danger is more typically the introduction of errant ideas about God into education that is trusted as pure. Certainly, there are blasphemous and self-righteous sentiments that creep into the approved religious curriculum and these are even more dangerous than the infidel sentiments that the forewarned can filter out of the so-called "higher education".
That quotation says absolutely nothing. Who is to decide what is "pure mental food"? Who should be trusted to "winnow" through all the books in "higher education" to seek out "infidel sentiments"?
This implies that all such books, not approved by a list made by SDA educators who are trusted and competent to engage in such extensive hunting should be used in SDA schools.
But who is to be entrusted with this most important task?