John: Thank you for responding, and with some points that clearly deserve a response from me. In my response, I will copy your comment, and begin it with a “Re:”. My response will begin with a “GM.” I am sorry about the differences in color. You placed the commands in your document in regard to color, and I do not know how to get rid of them in my response. So, my response will have its colors based upon the commands that you have placed there—GM.
Re: “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.”
GM: O. K. I made an error, and I was confused. I am a somewhat concrete person. I did not understand from your comment that you referenced a Biographical Information Blank (BIB). I believe you only identified it as a 1909 document. So, I was left on my own to figure out what you meant, and I was wrong in my decision as to what you meant. Now, to get to your question as to what EGW meant in regard to placing an “X” in the BIB, we can only assume what she meant. You have given us your assumption. I will assume that she meant that she had never been ordained by men in a public ceremony. Now your assumption and mine are similar, yet different. I will suggest that as EGW is not here to tell us exactly what she meant, that my assumption is logically as valid as is yours. John, assumptions are just about the weakest form of evidence that exists.

Re: “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.”
GM: John, you seem to have assumed (weakest form of evidence that exists) that I have not. I have discussed this in depth with A. L. White (prior to his death, of course). As I stated there is no evidence to indicate that EGW either crossed out the word “ordained” [NOTE: There is no “X” crossed out in the credential.] in the credential, or that EGW did not cross it out. We know nothing as to who crossed it out, or when it was crossed. Anyone who tells us that EGW crossed it out is speculating without knowledge.

Quote:
In addition, you have made a second factual error on that point. That error is in a failure to tell us a second known point. There is only one (1) known certificate of ordination in which the work "ordained is crossed out. The General Conference has in their records more than one certificate of ordination, with different dates. Only the one has the "X."


Re: “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. “

GM: As I stated above, I am a concrete person. While you did not say it was a credential, you also did not cite it as a Biographical Information Blank. I did not know your point of reference.

Re: “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."

GM: I do not consider it necessary to produce such. I did not make that a point in saying that she was an ordained minister. As I did not make that a point of proof, I do not need to produce such. As a point of interest, you cannot produce any evidence that she was not called such. But, as I have said, arguing a negative is an impossible task. So, I do not expect you to do so.

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

GM: I have not argued that she did. She called herself a messenger. As I have not argued that point, I do not have to produce such.

Re: “(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?”

GM: Again I have not argued that they have. Whether or not they have done so is irrelevant to the argument that I made. John, I am not certain if you understood my argument. Let me attempt to clarify it for you. In its basics my argument turns into the following issue: Is an ordained SDA minister one who is credentialed as an ordained minister or one who has been ordained in a public ceremony? I have taken a position on that issue. You may rightfully challenge me on that point. But, you have not done so. Therefore, I am uncertain that you even understand my argument. Once you have decided the point above, it is irrelevant what the White Estate says about it. She either is, or is not, based upon the fact that she was issued credentials, and so listed in denominational records and anything the White Estate would say on that is simply interpretative of the basic facts. I have interpreted them one way. You and anyone else may interpret them in another way.


Re: “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."

GM: John, as I stated, at the time that editorial was written she was not an ordained SDA minister. At that time, she had not been issued the credentials of an ordained minister. Also read my further comments along with that of Tom Wetmore in regard to published comments on this issue on several of our magazines in those early days.

Re: “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.”

GM: John, again I am a concrete person. There are at least three, and I think several more, books that you could reference by the title “Seventh-day Adventists Believe.” I cannot respond as I do not know the book you reference. I checked the one I have in my library. The main subject in that book, on page 257 is the thesis that the Sabbath is related to righteousness by faith. I checked that book in the section on EGW, and I do not find what you have quoted.

I believe, but may be wrong on this point; one such well known book was privately printed, and was not published by the SDA denomination.

In any case, the issue of whether or not EGW was ordained is based upon the fundamental issue that I have previously stated. People line up on both sides of this. Some say, as do I, that she was an ordained minister as she was credentialed, and so listed in denominational records. Others say she was not as there was never a public ceremony. So, the answer to our question is that people who write books, and articles say what they do based upon their reaction to the fundamental issue. The fact that some say one and some the other does not decide the question. The question may only be decided by individuals like you and I taking a personal position.

Re: “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.)”

GM: John you are correct. I have stated so. But, you do not go far enough. Let me ask you, would you be willing for the denomination to give all of its female pastors the credentials of an ordained minister, and to so list them in the YEARBOOK, as long as they, like EGW, were not ordained in a public ceremony?

My guess, which may be wrong, is that you would not be willing to do such.

O.K. now face this issue: If it was wrong for EGW to have those credentials, and to be so listed, why did God allow that go on for years, with new credentials being issues, and never reprove EGW and the denomination? Share your thoughts with me on that.

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

GM: John, that may be my personal position. But, it is not one that I intend to discuss. I am not here to convince either you or anyone else on that point. My desire is to bring to your attention the issue of EGW’s credentials, and to ask you to deal with that.

Re: “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.)”

GM: John you are correct. I have stated so. But, you do not go far enough. Let me ask you, would you be willing for the denomination to give all of its female pastors the credentials of an ordained minister, and to so list them in the YEARBOOK, as long as they, like EGW, were not ordained in a public ceremony?

My guess, which may be wrong, is that you would not be willing to do such.

O.K. now face this issue: If it was wrong for EGW to have those credentials, and to be so listed, why did God allow that go on for years, with new credentials being issues, and never reprove EGW and the denomination? Share your thoughts with me on that.

NOTE: I have taken this out of a larger post as people often do not read large posts, and I think it is an important point.

David ... you are right about politics in the church. It is very discouraging. But, just like the legalism problem ... the church is making very good progress in these areas. I do a lot of complaining ... but I do need to give the church credit for slowly improving.

I guess because I am so hurt by the church ... I don't say enough positives. But, I do know they are there. I have and do witness them.

God bless you and this church of yours. I am not physically able to get to church very often so I think this will become my church family also.

Redwood

Here is what I believe to be an interesting statement:

"The ministerial credential is granted only to ordained minsters." Page 71, MINISTER'S MANUAL, 1992 edition.

Does anyone suggest that this has changed since 1992? I do not think so.

Does anyone suggest that this was different in the time when EGW was granted ministerial credentials? Well let us look at this a little more:

a) It is well known that in the early days of our denomination, women contributed quite a bit. What kind of credentials were they issued.

b) Was EGW the only woman issued the credentials of an ordained minister? If so, we cannot determine the meaning of those credential by comparison with other women issued such credentials.

c) If other women were issued such credentials, we may be able to assertion the meaning by comparing her experience with that of other women so issued credentials.

d) In actual fact, the claim is made by some that the SDA Church did ordain a second woman in its early days. However, I do not argue that position as I consider that claim to not be fully supported by what we today know as facts. So, I am willing to say that EGW was in a unique situation. We now should resolve that question by looking at whatever evidence we have today.

e) As I have stated, EGW was first issued the credentials of an ordained minister in 1887. A. L. White correctly states on page 377 of vol. 3 of the EGW Biography, that she was granted such credentials by General Conference action (vote). So, it was not simply the action of some person acting on his own. Rather it was the majority action of the delegates to the 1887 General Conference. I think that it is important to realize that the church as a whole, as evidenced in that General Conference session, granted her those credentials.

But, we still need to ask how the church considered those credentials. That is answered in the announcement of that action that was printed in denominational magazines that were distributed to the membership. Those articles clearly tell us that EGW was considered to have been ordained by God. They stated that due to the recognition that God had ordained her, they did not ordain her in a public ceremony by the laying on of human hands.

Ie. The denominational leaders who publicly ordained others considered EGW to be ordained. But, they considered that ordination to have been by God, and therefore human ordination in a ceremony was not required.

Based upon those articles, I will say to you that the denominational leaders who granted those credentials, considered her to be ordained.

I say again: Ellen G. White was an ordained minister of the SDA Church. If it was wrong for her as a woman to so be ordained, we, as a denomination need to repent of that sin. And, we ought to ask why God did not reprove us for doing so. After all, God reproved us for many other things.

Gregory,

I agree with you regarding EGW. It is very evident that the Adventist Church during her lifetime was much more open to women in ministry and actively included women in pastoral and leadership positions. Women were actively involved in evangelism, preaching, teaching and pastoral ministry and local church leadership, all of which EGW clearly and openly encouraged in her own writing. The White Estate estimates that EGW herself preached more than 10,000 sermons in her lifetime. (This begs the question of how she and the early Adventist leadership understood Paul's call for silence and against women teaching men...)

But one aspect about EGW seems to be totally ignored by those who desperately seek to minimize her ministerial credentials. I have raised it before in these discussions and have never gotten an answer. Which is a higher calling from God, prophet or pastoral ministry?

Whose words are given greater authority by the church, the prophet or any (or all) ordained ministers? If one considers the gospel/pastoral ministry to be the higher calling why wouldn't the words of any ordained minister trump those of EGW? What does this do to the idea that ministry is a calling to be a servant of the church?

If one considers prophet-hood to be a higher calling, doesn't this turn all of the leading arguments against women in ministry upside down? If God calls women to be prophets, why would He exclude them from lower ranked callings?

If one takes the cope-out answer that they are equal callings, why would one be exclusively male-only and the other most clearly open to both male and female?

It seems to me that honest reflection on these questions tends to put in perspective this whole hair-splitting debate over EGW's credentials, and women's ordination, for that matter.



Tom

Very interesting Gregory and Tom. Thanks so much for taking the time to post as much as you have on this topic.

Tom, I am reminded of a time when the world was at war. The SDA Church was substantially left without pastoral support as their able-bodied male pastors had been inducted into the military.

Two women decided that God had called them to action. So, they held evangelistic campaigns. The brought converts into the Church. But when it came time to baptize they had to call upon the elderly and disabled male ministers to do that. All in all, in their lifetimes they brought more converts into the SDA Church than the majority of SDA ministers.

Did God call them.

Did God call them to preach and otherwise to the work of evangelists?

Should they have baptized?

Interesting questions. There are entire countries where most of the evangelists are women. (check out some countries in Africa). In countries where pastors have at various times been taken as political prisoners, women have held the churches together, preaching, visiting, giving Bible studies, and performing the role of a pastor.

It would certainly seem so! "By their fruits shall you know." And the Biblically supported evidence of a call to ministry which preceeds and confirms ordination outlined in Church policy looks for the fruits of the calling which is souls won to Christ.

Tom

Unintentionally you are placing the measuring stick of truth with EGW. In other words if God didn't reprove her for being ordained it must be okay.

Using this logic you could easily concluded that since God didn’t reprove the OT people of polygamy He endorsed it.

So instead of asking what does EGW teach, we should ask what does Paul teach for he is the NT theologian appointed by God:

1 Tim 2:3 For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. 8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire 10 but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.