Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johann]

 "And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry."--RH, July 26, 1906.{DG 252.4}

     "In the city of Portland the Lord ordained me as His messenger, and here my first labors were given to the cause of present truth."--RH, May 18, 1911.{DG 252.5}

[Murcielago]

EGW had no problem with reproving the men of the church when they did something wrong, yet she never reproved them for ordaining her or any of the other women who served as ordained pastors of the SDA church during her life. Indeed, it was not until after her death that the men of the church proceeded to officially bar women from ministry and other positions of authority, based upon their gender alone. I think it is somewhat hard to show that she disapproved of something that she accepted for herself and many other women, and that she never said she disapproved of.

[tinka]

Thank you Johann for putting that up there. I was about wore out yesterday. But here again, we must watch the wording exactly and what it means. "She was chosen, she was ordained for a "messenger" it does not say the word "preacher", "pastor".  She performed as she was instructed. I believe she was too humble to decide what "God would have or instruct somebody else". So she stayed away from direct comment as she was shown another way. I wished I could say words better to what I mean.

The only thing I can read into this is for the words available is that she did not reprehend or give embarrassment back for a believeling good gesture on the part of the church even tho through out she told of a higher calling for women and their God given abilities that backed their family, husband, home wellfare. The church alone did this as a good gesture but you saw then after this document the reasoning why the church did finally take the stand they did.  She did not blast them or condemn them but steadily gave a soft continual answer to what a woman should be doing. Now the church or woman want to go back and try it again.

also, look what the church approves today that is seen and completely discarded by woman doing their thing again. Most of our woman now dress like men. What happened there too? Most woman after a certain age look awful and no one tells them that their lines from behind is outright vulgar. Women have discarded SP worse then the men. If you do not believe this, here is another point why. the woman today run after all the equal woman's rights in the job place...and look what it did to the younger generation. Has anybody noticed?? EGW then comes straight out and says. She does not run after the woman's movement that is then taking place. this is her direct comment! I understand what she is saying.  That is good enough for me and I could fill the posts up with all statements. I thought she handled it well. The Church did follow for a time period but look at it now.  Watch Family Reunion. What in the world are these woman thinking?

 I have lived my life to the best I can for the service of my family, and many many others and have taught my children the same. I have been mostly a homemaker, and helped my husband in business with all book work and actual labor for the business when needed and many people that worked for us.  I have been taught by my mother, worked in dorcas for many years and my life has been very fulfilling. I do not like men's jobs. I do not know which is worse. Men not supporting their children and causing women to work or women having the children and putting them away with a husband that does work.  i take care of my husband so he looks good and feels good as my children love him very much. and with todays menu in the market it is best to grow and prepare your own things. So we have had heavy date time in the garden. I will never forget. A Son in Law wrote a funny poem of us in the "Garden" I posted it on here in the recipe section. Never really spoke out except in Sabbath School as I have been too busy until I have looked up and saw it seems apostasy happening in almost all directions and within. But I know what time it is but now inspired as "He is coming".

Thanks again Johann and I want to look where your coming from in questions maybe tonight.  Garden time is almost here again (smile)

[princessdi]

Exactly, George.   I had all of this information somewhere.  I will have to check BSDA.  Included in that was at least one letter written to EGW for her counsel on the ordination of women, to which she never had chance to respond.  She was effectively silent on the issue. and seeing as there were quite a few women serving as ordained pastors,she had plenty of time and opportunity to give her thoughts on it.

Also, Tinka, you cannot limit God.  I talked about Deborah, but there was also Miriam who was a prophetess.  God chooses whom he pleases to serve and how.  God chose EGW, and we believe that she was in spiritual authority even over GC itself.  The church made it's doctrines from her words.  Why would God care about a woman being a pastor?  Why would He place a woman at that level of authority, and then have no women be pastors?  it makes no sense.  I believe we miss man blessings, signs and guidance from God, because we are stuck on what manner or package the message comes.  Effectively, telling God we will only accept his Word coming from this person, or that person.

EGW had no problem with reproving the men of the church when they did something wrong, yet she never reproved them for ordaining her or any of the other women who served as ordained pastors of the SDA church during her life. Indeed, it was not until after her death that the men of the church proceeded to officially bar women from ministry and other positions of authority, based upon their gender alone. I think it is somewhat hard to show that she disapproved of something that she accepted for herself and many other women, and that she never said she disapproved of.

[tinka]

Di,
sorry to differ but she in no way claimed that the doctrine of the church was made by her words or ever intended it. Those are peoples accusations.  She was enlightened to give finer detail to the doctrine that was Biblical already for better understanding. When people come across with this I automatically know they have not read in consistency.  I have spent years getting to know her from her writings, and made it my duty to understand her sentence after sentence, book after book and cover to cover. I either had to believe or disbelieve. One can make any kind of theory of opinions and cannot be out spoken on the matters unless they have done the homework on it. This is no time for guessing at this late date. I know when she is misquoted or misstated instantly. The Reformers are very good at that. She had some humor at times and so did I think the angels did too.

 Her "ministry" was given for her faithfulness,and humbleness. It is like the word "ministry" ordained for her ministry. Her ministry could have been anything. Like LS ministry is music. She was ordained to be trusted with visions, writing and presenting what was shown. She did not claim to be a prophet, but the church and myself included feel for sure she was and state it. So our statements do not reflect anything that she claims because the church viewed it that way.  The church claimed to give her credentials but no where does she claim she is that nor takes the position of doing a pastors duties.  You must understand her or you can't begin to put it all together.  The Churches from all different cultures and area does a lot under either liberal or conservative or cultural beliefs without even caring really what she has said in the history of the beginning of the SDA faith. It is obvious to just look around and see. I know one church that does not believe in having any thing at all brought up in church of any SP. So when it gets down to it, women just need to go out and do their thing and don't worry about  any ones recalling what was written in inspiration -- as this is the new age --please the public and forget the ol ways as you see the people do what they want regardless and it is evident to be seen. We or they have had enough years already to get it together- but justifications of our own ways is prevalent. all you do is sit in SS and hear it. I think the time is about done for opinionated theories and where women should be preachers. In this age anything goes and women can do and be anything they want. even lady boxers, and wrestlers. It's all justified by ones own view.

If you can say that you read every book cover to cover and in all the right context that she speaks then maybe you can bring to lite how she agreed to this. I do not make my own justifications of any theory,and yet do not claim that my every theory of what I read is right but always I am all ears to listen or study or see new connections that match.

 Doug B. is correct in his presentation beyond doubt.  and I have listened to him before but did not get to hear him this time. The scripture was enough evidence he presented before.  There is also another fact, you cannot change a liberal in justifications of trying to find ways to make all things right to their wants or opinions. If women are supposed to be preachers I want documents, biblical reference other then what I know is there. Just because God used women in Biblical days, as leaders, judges or whatever you can find He chose to use EGW in our day does not state anywhere that women are to be ordained preachers. When I got into her writings, I went in with open mind to accept what was truth as she fills in the finer details. I never ever found her to contradict and backtrack. and took slowly what she presented and how she did it. She made me laugh at times for the common sense she used.  I love her writings and grew to almost think I know her as her trials and everyday applications were very vivid to me.

[Murcielago]

To my knowledge, EGW never specifically stated that women should be ordained, nor, have I ever seen where she says that they shouldn't. That, in the context of her own ordination and that of many other women during her time says a lot, imo, in addition to the fact that the church didn't take its stane againt women until after her death.

[tinka]

Just because she does not make a statement that "we shouldn't" ordain women does not change her stance as she simply states "what is" the best direction and why. and she was right as now in this age you can see where women movement has taken this cockeyed generation. The first time I heard DBatchelor preach on this he was right on as he presented it Biblically and years ago EGW was correct in future views the reason not to do it. But you know women do what women want to do!!.


     8. IT IS LIKELY THAT ELLEN WHITE DID NOT SUGGEST AT ANY TIME THAT THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH SHOULD COMMENCE THE PRACTICE OF ORDAINING WOMEN TO THE GOSPEL MINISTRY. HER SECRETARY, C. C. CRISLER, SAYS THAT SHE WAS VERY CAUTIOUS ON THIS POINT. HERE IS THE CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THIS QUESTION:{DG 253.2}

   "MARCH 12, 1916
   "MR. CLARENCE CRISLER, SANITARIUM [CALIFORNIA]
   "DEAR BROTHER: WILL YOU PLEASE INFORM ME IN REGARD TO THE SETTING APART OF WOMEN WHO CAN GIVE SOME TIME TO MISSIONARY WORK, BY LAYING ON HANDS IN PRAYER, FOUND IN REVIEW AND HERALD, BACK IN THE EARLY PART OF THE NINETIES, PROBABLY BACK IN ABOUT 1892 OR 1893, FROM THE PEN OF SISTER WHITE.{DG 253.3}
     "THE REASON I ASK FOR THIS, I WAS IN A RECENT MEETING WHERE ELDER ANDROSS SET ASIDE WOMEN BY THE LAYING ON OF HANDS, AND WHEN I ASKED HIM FOR THE AUTHORITY FOR SO DOING, HE REFERRED ME TO YOU, AND AS I HAVE BEEN A BIBLE WORKER FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND HAVE RECENTLY BEEN GRANTED A MINISTERIAL LICENSE, I WANT THIS INFORMATION. {DG 253.4}
254
     "PLEASE ANSWER AT ONCE, AS I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU BEFORE I GO TO THE SOUTHWESTERN UNION CONFERENCE, WHICH CONVENES APRIL 7. PLEASE SEND ME TWO OR THREE COPIES OF HER STATEMENT, AS THE PRESIDENT OF OUR CONFERENCE WANTS ONE."-- MRS. L. E. COX, 134 AGARITA AVENUE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.{DG 254.1}

   "MARCH 22, 1916
   "MRS. L. E. COX, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
   "DEAR SISTER: I HAVE YOUR LETTER OF THE TWELFTH, MAKING INQUIRY REGARDING THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN WHO GIVE SOME TIME TO MISSIONARY WORK--PARTICULARLY TO SOME STATEMENT WHICH YOU BELIEVE TO BE FOUND IN A REVIEW EARLY IN THE NINETIES, FROM THE PEN OF MRS. ELLEN G. WHITE.{DG 254.2}
     "AS THIS QUERY WILL REQUIRE SOME STUDY ON MY PART, AND SEARCHING, AND AS I MUST GO TO MOUNTAIN VIEW IN THE MORNING FOR A FEW DAYS, I AM UNDER THE NECESSITY OF ASKING THAT YOU EXCUSE ME FROM ANSWERING FOR A FEW DAYS. UPON MY RETURN, EARLY NEXT WEEK, I WILL ENDEAVOR TO SEND YOU A REPLY, ACCOMPANYING SAME, IF POSSIBLE, WITH THE EXTRACTS CALLED FOR. HOWEVER, I MIGHT SAY THAT I HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD THESE EXTRACTS AS TEACHING POSITIVELY THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN AS MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL. I HAVE SUPPOSED, RATHER, THAT THEY REFER PRIMARILY TO THE ORDINATION OF GOD-FEARING WOMEN AS DEACONESSES IN LOCAL CHURCHES. BUT OF THIS I WILL SPEAK MORE FULLY WHEN I WRITE AGAIN.{DG 254.3}
     "I HOPE TO WRITE YOU ABOUT THE TWENTY-EIGHTH, AND WILL ADDRESS YOU AS ABOVE. IF YOU ARE LEAVING SAN ANTONIO FOR OTHER PARTS, IT WOULD BE WELL FOR YOU TO LEAVE A FORWARDING ORDER, SO MAIL ADDRESSED AS ABOVE WILL REACH YOU IN DUE TIME AT THE UNION CONFERENCE."--CLARENCE CRISLER.{DG 254.4}

   "JUNE 16, 1916
   "MRS. L. E. COX
   "DEAR SISTER: IN MY ANSWER UNDER DATE OF MARCH 22, I WAS UNABLE TO FORWARD YOU COPY OF THE REVIEW ARTICLE CALLED FOR, BUT VENTURED TO SAY, 'I HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD THESE EXTRACTS AS TEACHING POSITIVELY THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN AS MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL. I HAVE SUPPOSED, RATHER, THAT THEY REFER PRIMARILY TO THE ORDINATION OF GOD-FEARING WOMEN AS DEACONESSES IN LOCAL CHURCHES.'{DG 254.5}
     "SINCE WRITING THE ABOVE, I HAVE FOUND THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION AND
255
HAVE HAD SAME COPIED. ENCLOSED FIND A COPY OF THIS ARTICLE. [RH, JULY 9, 1895.] I AM ALSO FORWARDING A COPY TO YOUR LOCAL CONFERENCE PRESIDENT, ELDER E. L. NEFF, AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF YOUR UNION, ELDER J. W. CHRISTIAN, THAT THEY MAY KNOW WHAT I AM SENDING TO YOU.{DG 254.6}
     "WHILE I DO NOT MAKE IT A PART OF MY WORK TO PRESUME TO INTERPRET THAT WHICH HAS BEEN WRITTEN, YET I MAY BE PARDONED FOR EXPRESSING AS MY CONVICTION THE THOUGHT THAT THIS ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE REVIEW DOES NOT REFER TO THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN AS MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL, BUT RATHER TOUCHES UPON THE QUESTION OF SETTING APART, FOR SPECIAL DUTIES IN LOCAL CHURCHES, GOD-FEARING WOMEN IN SUCH CHURCHES WHERE CIRCUMSTANCES CALL FOR SUCH ACTION.{DG 255.1}
     "AND MAY I ADD THAT SISTER WHITE, PERSONALLY, WAS VERY CAREFUL ABOUT EXPRESSING HERSELF IN ANY WISE AS TO THE ADVISABILITY OF ORDAINING WOMEN AS GOSPEL MINISTERS. SHE HAS OFTEN SPOKEN OF THE PERILS THAT SUCH GENERAL PRACTICE WOULD EXPOSE THE CHURCH TO BY A GAINSAYING WORLD; BUT AS YET I HAVE NEVER SEEN FROM HER PEN ANY STATEMENT THAT WOULD SEEM TO ENCOURAGE THE FORMAL AND OFFICIAL ORDINATION OF WOMEN TO THE GOSPEL MINISTRY, TO PUBLIC LABOR SUCH AS IS ORDINARILY EXPECTED OF AN ORDAINED MINISTER.{DG 255.2}
     "THIS IS NOT SUGGESTING, MUCH LESS SAYING, THAT NO WOMEN ARE FITTED FOR SUCH PUBLIC LABOR, AND THAT NONE SHOULD EVER BE ORDAINED; IT IS SIMPLY SAYING THAT SO FAR AS MY KNOWLEDGE EXTENDS, SISTER WHITE NEVER ENCOURAGED CHURCH OFFICIALS TO DEPART FROM THE GENERAL CUSTOMS OF THE CHURCH IN THOSE MATTERS."--C. C. CRISLER.{DG 255.3}

At the conclusion of this you have C.C. Crisler the sec. giving opinion. So therefore I came up with this same scenario of EGW stand on ordination but fail to take in consideration of an opinion other then EGW wrote on.

  The people who obey God's commandments are now the light of the world, the preserver of the Word of God in its purity, and they are elevating and exalting the law of God,--the only true, infallible standard of character in our world,--therefore every man and woman whom Heaven has intrusted with this most sacred truth are required to be active instruments to diffuse the light to others. The church who obeys God's law is to send forth her sons as missionaries and preachers, and her daughters as teachers.

[anyman]

Man (in the generalized sense) is the one who places limits on God. Man assumes to know what God meant in every word He has uttered or has guided the hand of man to write. One can not know the heart of God. The church knows only the truths that God has revealed, each time at a point where man was ready to comprehend.

The easiest way to "prove" Mrs. White's position on the ordination of woman would be to provide contextually framed quotes from her writings that indicate her position against the practice. If they do not exist, then one must look at her actions in regards to the act. In this instance she did not reject, by word or act, the ordination conveyed to her by the church. That was in a day and age when woman in our society didn't even have the right to vote. Her actions are a strong statement. She did not take the cloak of ordination of her own volition as that would have been placing herself above church leadership (leaders who were called of God to serve and accepted), but accepted the act of church leadership when it did. To call into question that act of the church is to insinuate those men acted without spending time on their knees in communion with God and at their desks in study. I have no doubt they sought the Lord's guidance and acted accordingly. One, today, can question their motives or the way in which they arrived at their decisions, but that is a judgment that is not ours to make. Only God sees the hearts of man (and he looks past the wedding rings and pants in doing so) and can know intent.

Women can powerfully present the word of God in the home or in the pulpit. Being called of God is not something man can question - that is a conversation between the called and God.

[princessdi]

While EGW was ordained in her calling as prophetess/messenger, there were still others that the denomination ordained as pastors, "ordained to preach".   So essentailly after the deaths of EGW and these other women the church deemed that women had no more to say.   No one has ever said they changed because they recieved new light, or anything.  they just stopped and adopted the world's sexist view.  Is it not Paul who says, there is neither male female, Jew or Gentile...........?

Thank you Johann for putting that up there. I was about wore out yesterday. But here again, we must watch the wording exactly and what it means. "She was chosen, she was ordained for a "messenger" it does not say the word "preacher", "pastor".  She performed as she was instructed. I believe she was too humble to decide what "God would have or instruct somebody else". So she stayed away from direct comment as she was shown another way. I wished I could say words better to what I mean.

[Murcielago]

Man (in the generalized sense) is the one who places limits on God. Man assumes to know what God meant in every word He has uttered or has guided the hand of man to write. One can not know the heart of God. The church knows only the truths that God has revealed, each time at a point where man was ready to comprehend.

The easiest way to "prove" Mrs. White's position on the ordination of woman would be to provide contextually framed quotes from her writings that indicate her position against the practice. If they do not exist, then one must look at her actions in regards to the act. In this instance she did not reject, by word or act, the ordination conveyed to her by the church. That was in a day and age when woman in our society didn't even have the right to vote. Her actions are a strong statement. She did not take the cloak of ordination of her own volition as that would have been placing herself above church leadership (leaders who were called of God to serve and accepted), but accepted the act of church leadership when it did. To call into question that act of the church is to insinuate those men acted without spending time on their knees in communion with God and at their desks in study. I have no doubt they sought the Lord's guidance and acted accordingly. One, today, can question their motives or the way in which they arrived at their decisions, but that is a judgment that is not ours to make. Only God sees the hearts of man (and he looks past the wedding rings and pants in doing so) and can know intent.

Women can powerfully present the word of God in the home or in the pulpit. Being called of God is not something man can question - that is a conversation between the called and God.

Well said.

And again, it was not until after the death of EGW that the church took its stance against women being in ministry leadership.

[Bob Pickle]

In this instance she did not reject, by word or act, the ordination conveyed to her by the church.

When was Ellen White ordained by church leaders, and to what was she thus ordained, if she was?

[Johann]

Where in Scripture do you find the term "ordination"?

[anyman]

Ordination is a tool to organize workers, create a credential so people have some means, whereby, to identify those who are sanctioned by the church. The one thing it doesn't do, is indicate whether or not the individual has been called by God to preach, minister, or teach. It is a human construct in a world where power is established through the development of hierarchies.

The Bible does not indicate that any should be kept from preaching the message of "Love God with all your heart, and everyone else as much as you love yourself." All are to be called. If God is willing to call the rocks to cry out (because man refuses to share God's love) will men stand in the way and deny ordination to the rocks? God calls men and women to preach his word. He always has, He always will. It is arrogant of man to think he knows better than God does.

[tinka]

No it is arrogant to add, take away and justify opinions that never have been written or stated. Many times the church does not have rules of the SP. They went against the jewelry, wearing of the gold, diamonds, and their whatnots.  How will you now justify wearing a ring in church manual just because the church did it when she gives her statement that it is just "vanity" in all reasoning.

Anyman, all vanity will keep you from the gates. Do you realize how that is not a drop in the bucket like you are sounding off with.
EGW above all -worried about being chosen for this "task" thinking it would cause her the least "vanity".She infact made a bargin with God, did you know that??  That is she did this task requested of her that a promise that she would not gain "vanity" and lose her soul. How about that? Then you  treat this so lightly and come off with the opinion that God looks beyond "vanity". I really wonder why some on here even call themselves SDA other then to "jest" against what the actual language she was inspired and used. It is very plain to me and I have no problem with complying or finding excuses why I should copy brazen women running after all women's movements. She not only was faithful, but set an example, and she explained it well at her baptism. Did you grasp that??

The example of the stumpling blocks are now in view through out. and very few so called Adventist will enter (not my statements either) and I totally understand it. The worst place to be in on that great Day is in the class of the unjust. Volume 5. The unjust seems to be the very worst class as they had the message (Sanctification)went to church but failed in their "Justification"  (actions)and then lost "Salvation" You need to read Vol. 5.  The Just are people before the 3 angels message. As like Miller and some of the others mentioned from generations raised with the "just" the unjust--(the church goers,) That will have the most terror. The wicked who never wanted or cared about religion or knew will be more like they never were. That is too vivid to me to think I can change words and statements and examples given. Not from the church but from EGW and her example.

[Murcielago]

No it is arrogant to add, take away and justify opinions that never have been written or stated.

Would that include the opinion that women are not qualified to be ordained pastors and elders? Nowhere does EGW or the Bible state that. It has certainly been added and justified, but never written or stated.