Organization of a chruch: That is discussed in chapter 16 of the 2000 edition of the CHURCH MANUAL. That must be done by an ordained minister, which rules our women.

Yes, this issue is a very minor one with little practical significence. It is simply a "poke in the eye," so to speak.

General Conference Vice-President--what were they thinking?: They were clearly thinking. They knew that the votes were present to elect her. So they concentrated on restricting her role and making it impossible for her to be elected President.

I'm afraid you have your facts confused. You are referring to her credentials of 1883, 1885, and 1887, but I am referring to a "Biographical Information Blank" which Sister White filled out in 1909. On that Information Blank, she was asked if she was ordained, and do you know what Ellen White put in that spot? She put an "X", meaning that she had never been ordained. She also put an "X" at the question whether she had ever remarried. Why? Because she had never been remarried, of course.

As for the "X" being crossed out on the credential, why not ask the Ellen White Estate about that? Wouldn't that be fair? Ask them the significance of the fact that Ellen White was issued a credential and whether that means Ellen White was an ordained pastor or minister. I would be willing to accept the Estate's answer to that question. If anyone ought to know for sure about it, they should.



In all due respect, friend, you are the one who made the factual error. If you will please re-read my statement, which I copy here,


---1) Ellen White was never "an ordained minister" in any church. See p. 257 of the book, Seventh-day Adventist's Believe. (If anyone doubts the testimony of the above, please write to the Ellen White Estate and inquire if Ellen White was ever an ordained pastor or minister.) Also, in 1909, when she was asked for the date of when she was ordained, she wrote an "X" meaning that she had never been ordained. ----

you will see that I did not even mention the credential that was given her in 1885. You will see that I specifically mentioned only the biographical sheet she filled out in 1909. I clearly mentioned 1909. On that biographical sheet she clearly placed an "X" indicating that she had never been ordained.

Please notice I did not even discuss what you mistakenly claim was my "second factual error." But I forgive you, Gregory. Don't worry about it; anyone can make such a mistake. Only just please be so kind as to answer the following questions:

(1) Can you produce one documentated piece of evidence that anyone during her lifetime ever called Ellen White a pastor or minister or elder? You will find that anytime someone used the title "Pastor White," or "Elder White," everyone immediately knew the reference was to James White or Willie White, not Mrs. White. Also, you may recall that Ellen White was always known as "Mrs. White," "Mother White," or "Sister White."

(2) Can you show that Ellen White ever referred to herself as pastor or minister or elder?

(3) Can you show evidence that the Ellen White Estate has stated that Ellen White was an ordained Seventh-day Adventist pastor, minister, or elder?


4) Could you please discuss why the Signs of Times would print an editorial in 1878 that said the following, if indeed Ellen White, the editor's wife, was at that very time an ordained pastor?-- "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."

5) If Ellen White was an ordained SDA pastor, please explain the statement that Ellen White was never "an ordained minister" in any church that is found on p. 257 of the book, Seventh-day Adventist's Believe. I find it hard to believe that the Adventist church would publish this statement if it was not true.

Finally, it shouldn't be forgotten that as far as the issue of women's ordination is concerned, as with any other practice or doctrine in the church, the Bible must be the sole basis of the church's decision. If the Bible teaches against something, you will agree, I'm sure, that it doesn't matter who else favors it, whether Ellen White or anyone else; it has to pass the test of Scripture. Establishing that Ellen White was indeed an ordained SDA pastor would only establish what Ellen White did; but it would not settle the issue whether the Bible teaches that we ought to have ordained women pastors. (I will have more to say on this topic later.)

That being the case, how do you Bibilically affirm the view that women should be ordained to the ministry?

I-- and I'm sure many others as well-- would like to hear your strongest Biblically based argument. Thank you in advance.



Hi Redwood,

I'll try to answer your interesting question today, as soon as I take care of some business. John

John 317 ...

Regarding your question ... "That being the case, how do you support the view that women should be ordained to the ministry?

I-- and I'm sure many others as well-- would like to hear your strongest Biblically based argument. "

John 317 ... My answer in the Biblical sense would be that Ordaination in not even Biblical . So how do you prove it is Biblical for women if it is not Biblical for men.

That is the strongest Biblical based argument I can come up with to answer your question.

Redwood

By nature God is neither male nor female, yet the Divinity of Christ was combined with the male gender.

Why didn't Christ come into this world as a woman? Do you feel left out?

Robert

Let me quote a verse that is very controversial in the light of what we are discussing. Then I'll quote EGW:

Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

-BC- PP
-TI- Patriarchs and Prophets
-CN- 3
-CT- The Temptation and Fall
-PR- 03
-PG- 58

Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God--in harmony with His great law of love--they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.

Take this with statements from Paul and you get a bit of insight into his thought.

Controversial, is it not?

Robert

One more:

-BC- PP
-TI- Patriarchs and Prophets
-CN- 3
-CT- The Temptation and Fall
-PR- 01
-PG- 59

Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side [as an equal] in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan. In their efforts to reach positions for which He has not fitted them, many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing. In their desire for a higher sphere, many have sacrificed true womanly dignity and nobility of character, and have left undone the very work that Heaven appointed them.

Now, what does this infer? Please don't forget this was written by a woman - a Messenger (as she preferred to be called).

John317:

YOu have raised some important points. I will respond later, either this evening, or tomorrow.

Okay, going back to Paul:

Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Does this refer to the Genesis account? Not sure, but let's read on:

19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

Is this where men are going wrong? Is this what EGW referred too?

Anyway, it seems like Paul is saying that the man is head of the house (as Christ is head of the church). Now going with this logic why would you have a bunch of families within a church setting with a woman as the overseer?

Again, I'm just trying to figure out Paul. He was hand picked by God. Without him we would have 53% less of the NT. Without him we would all be blooming legalists.

Trying to stay neutral, but I won't stand for dismissing Paul and yet claiming the Bible as the infallible word of God.

Robert

It seems to me that the Pastor does not have much decision making ability as far as the church goes. He is responsible to the Board . It is the Board that makes the decisions. If the Pastor doesn't like the decisions of the Board ... he can not over-ride them. All he or she can do is to resign as Pastor. I've been on enough Boards to know where the power is. The Pastor is head only of how to carry out the wishes of the Board. He can not make policy. Only the church board does that.

Now I do not have much experience with Conference or GC Presidents to know what power they have. I suspect that they also have to answer to the will of the people ... either at the conference level or GC level. Does the president make policy or does the GC in session make policy.

Hey, I hate politics. Another reason I do not attend church. I saw too much of me, me, me. That's how it is in the world. When you bring that principle in the church it is called worldliness.

The greatest problem that I see within the SDA church is legalism/self-righteousness. Yes, I was around when this ordination thing started. Personally I think it is less about equality and more about rising up. Again, I see that in the world...especially at work. A manager will come in and cut heads automatically. Why? To move up....He's not really concerned with the company or those under him, only himself.

That's the way I saw this ordination thing 10 years ago or so. I opposed it and was badly treated. Of course I was a legalist back then and people like Firm Foundation, etc., were opposing it also. Only they make it a salvation issue (which I bought into at that time).

Personally I think we need to understand Paul and follow his counsel. But then again I do not attend church. This place is my church. And yes there are still legalists here, but I can always press "Alt, control, delete". I tried that at church, it didn't work!