That is absolutely wonderful!!! Thanks so much for writing that. All of us can be helped an awful lot by each other, I know. We simply have no way of knowing what others have gone through and why they think as they do until we talk to them and let them know we care. You've really made my day, Redwood. God bless.

Re: "A Signs of the Times editorial, 1878, said, "A woman may pray, prophecy, exhort, and comfort the church, but she cannot occupy the position of a pastor or a ruling elder. This would be looked upon as usurping authority over the man, which is here [1 Tim. 2:12] prohibited." Obviously this editorial, written at the time when James White was editor, would not have been printed if Ellen White was an ordained pastor."

John, have you ever read first-hand the articles written in the early days of our denomination in our early magazines? During a time when I was a pastor in the Potomac Conference I did. I spent time in the records reading many early articles in our magazines.

It is interesting to see the degree of freedom that existed, and what was published.

Yes, there were articles, and more, written in regard to women and the role that they should play in religious life. There were clearly those that advocated that females should neither have the role of a pastor, or of a prophet. There were articles published that directly challenged the role that Ellen White was filling in the SDA Church.

And there were articles published that defended her role, from the Biblical standpoint, and that challenged those who wanted to limit the role that women should play in religious/spiritual life.

Both sides cited Scripture as authority for their positions.

In reality, the arguments of today in many areas differ little from the arguments of those early days.

My point: I differ with you when you say: ". . . would not have been printed if. . . .." I will suggest that the historical records of those days tell us otherwise.

Gregory,

A case in point on the range of early articles and views published is the article published in the July 30, 1861 edition of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald entitled "Women as Preachers and Lecturers." The article is a republished lengthy letter to the editor of the "Portadown News" reflecting a wider public debate on the role of women as preachers. The AR&SH editorial introduction reflects favorably on women in such roles saying,


The article addresses many of the same arguments still put forward today by those apposed to women in ministry. And the author very strongly identifies the woman I consider to be one of the most convincing examples that Paul really supported women not only in ministry but in leadership in the church - Phoebe. One might even reasonably conclude that Paul appointed her as the first Bishop of the church in Rome. (Read Romans 16:1-2 carefully and if possible note the original Greek meaning of two key titles applied to Phoebe - diakonos and prostatis.)

Actually, the NT positively applies the key terms for all of the NT church offices and leadership roles to women.

Tom

REASONS WHY MEN SHOULD NOT BE ORDAINED


1. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such
as chopping down trees or wrestling mountain lions. It would indeed be "unnatural"
for them to do other forms of work. How can we argue with the intended
order that is instituted and enforced by nature?

2. A man's place is in the army.

3. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.

4. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.

5. For men who have children, their duties as ministers might detract
from their responsibilities as parents. Instead of teaching their children
important life skills like how to make a wiener-roasting stick, they would be
off at some committee meeting or preparing a sermon. Thus these
unfortunate children of ordained men would almost certainly receive less
attention from their male parent. Some couples might even go so far
as to put their children into secular daycare centres to permit the man to
fulfill his duties as a minister.

6. According to the Genesis account, men were created before women,
presumably as a prototype. It is thus obvious that men represent an
experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

7. Men are overly prone to violence. They are responsible for the vast
majority of crime in our country, especially violent crime. Thus they
would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in
positions of leadership.

8. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man.
Thus his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the
subordinate position that all men should take. The story also illustrates
the natural tendency of all men to be either unwilling or unable to take a
stand. From the Garden of Gethsemane to football locker rooms, men still
have this habit of buckling under the weight of the lowest common
denominator. It is expected that even ordained men would still embarrass
themselves with their natural tendecy toward a pack mentality.

9. Jesus didn't ordain men. He didn't ordain any women either, but two
wrongs don't make a right.

10. If men got ordained, then they wouldn't be satisfied with that; they'd
want more and more power. Next thing most of the Conference leaders
would be men and then where would we be? No. The line must be drawn
clearly now before it's too late.

11. Many, if not most, men who seek to be ordained have been influenced by
the radical "men's movement" (or "masculist movement"). How can they be
good leaders if their loyalties are divided between leading a church and
championing the masculist drive for men's rights? The tract writers
haven't pronounced on it yet, but the masculist movement is probably
profoundly un-Christian.

12. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture and strengthen a whole
congregation. But these are not traditional male roles. Rather, throughout
the history of Christianity, women have been considered to be not only more
skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. Women,

the myth goes, are fulfilled and completed only by their service to others.
This makes them the obvious choice for ordination. But if men try to fit into
this nurturing role, our young people might grow up with Role Confusion
Syndrome, which could lead to such terrible traumas as the Questioning
Tradition Syndrome.

13. Men can still be involved in Church activities, without having to be
ordained. They can still take up the offering, shovel the sidewalk, and
maybe even lead the singing on Fathers' Day. In other words, by confining
themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally
important in the life of the Church. Why should they feel left out?

Thanks Tom. Yes, in those early articles, which I have personally read, women in ministry were strongly defended by some, just as they were attacked by others.

Phoebe: Yes, there are major arguments made that place her in a major role in the spiritual life of the early church.

One of the points that I am attempting to make with John and others is to do their homework, and do more than simply read what someone else has said. E.G. Don't cite a statement of James White written years before EGW was granted credentials. That is not doing your homework.

So, what CAN an "ordained pastor" do that a woman can't?

It sounds like the ONLY answer is to show a piece of pretty paper on the wall.

If that is the case then the SDA church has no justification for ordaining men as pastors! Why hand out pieces of paper at all?

/Bevin

Bevin:

You have made a point. There are those who argue that ordination, as practiced by the SDA Church is not Biblical.

Well, I will leave that for another time.

As to what I can do that a woman cannot, there are only two things that I can do, and she cannot. IF my memory is correct, these are the two:

a) I can be elected President, she cannot.

NOTE: We recently elected a female as a General Vice-President of the General Conference. At the same time, the prohibition against women serving as Conference Presidents was extended to include the General Conference President.

As another aspect, in the developmental days of our denomination we had a woman serve as a Conference President, for a short period of time. The result of that was that policy was changed so that women could never again serve as a Conference President.

b) According to my memory, women cannot organize a church. I can.

If I am wrong on the above, I will be corrected. In any case it is agreed that under current policy, women are only prohibited from two functions that I can do.

Re: "If that is the case then the SDA church has no justification for ordaining men as pastors! Why hand out pieces of paper at all?"

That is exactly why the South Eastern California Conference does not give any employee the credentials of an ordained minister. [NOTE: I am assuming that they have not recently changed their policy.] They give men and women exactly the same credential, one that they developed and is not recognized elsewhere.

Yes, that raised a question in regard to the YEARBOOK. The YEARBOOK follows standard Adventist practice, and does not report as the SECC actually does.

[NOTE: Yes I know that the last five words of the above sentence may be challenged and/or discussed. I wanted to make a point.]

What does this phrase mean?

My understanding was that a church basically organises itself via its business meetings, and that it is accepted into a conference by a vote of the delegates at a business meeting of the conference, and hence does not need either a pastor or the approval of the conference administration.

/Bevin

Makes you wonder what the delegates at the GC actually thought their vote was achieving, doesn't it.

Also makes the whole discussion basically look like folly - a lot of expense of energy over exactly nothing.

Maybe if the whole issue was clearly explained, it would simply go away - men would continue getting a worthless piece of paper, a similar ritual could be invented to provide women with an equally worthless piece of paper, and the office of president - which is clearly extra-biblical anyway - opened to both genders with the obvious understanding that delegates from most of the world aren't going to vote for a woman anyway.

Kind of like the USA president. In theory women can be elected but the voters are not likely to do it.

And then, in a few years, a suitable woman candidate will naturally fall into the slot because a majority want her there - like in England, India, Israel, and a few other countries.

/Bevin