Was she a heretic?

[Stan]

"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God." Gospel Workers, page 96.

[Naomi]

Perhaps I am being dense here; in what context are you asking the question, "Was she a heretic?"

Definitions of a pastor are rather loosely woven in that one can shepherd flock without any special credentials. In many countries our denomination has ordained appointed pastors who have multiple churches, spread out over large distance. Often the local members see their pastor only a very few times a year. The local leaders do the pastoral/shepherding work.

pas·tor (pstr)

n.

1. A Christian minister or priest having spiritual charge over a congregation or other group.

2. A layperson having spiritual charge over a person or group.

3. A shepherd.

tr.v. pas·tored, pas·tor·ing, pas·tors

To serve or act as pastor of.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin pstor, shepherd; see p- in Indo-European roots.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pastor·ship n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[Nan]

Naomi's explanation makes a lot of sense....the answer to the original question probably depends on which side of the

WO fence you are :)

[Naomi]

[Gail]

EGW was so progressive!

[Tom Wetmore]

True enough. Those opposed to WO (or women as pastors or ministers at all, as many in that camp really frame it) simply seek to define the word consistent with their POV. But context is important to understand what she meant. There really doesn't appear to be any reason to believe that she was using it to mean anything different from how we use and understand the word today. The statement Stan quoted came from an article in the January 15, 1901 Review and Herald entitled "Canvassers as Gospel Evangelists".

In the immediately preceding paragraph she is speaking of Ministers of the Gospel and their work in the gospel ministry and their relationship and involvement in the canvassing work. Then the next paragraph opens with two sentences immediately before what Stan has quoted, setting the stage for what she is talking about when she speaks of "pastors of the flock".

Quote:

All who wish an opportunity for true ministry, and who will give themselves unreservedly to God, will find in the canvassing work opportunities to speak upon many things pertaining to the future immortal life. The experience thus gained will be of the greatest value to those who are fitting themselves for the work of the ministry. It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.

And later in the article she further connects minister's role to being shepherds or pastors of the flock.

Quote:

The preaching of the word is a means by which the Lord has ordained His warning message to be given to the world. In the Scriptures the faithful teacher is represented as a shepherd of the flock of God.

I don't think there is the ambiguity in what she meant that would minimize "pastors" to be anything other than the clergy or ministers that we normally call and ordain as pastors, both here and in other countries.

[ClubV12]

Anybody can call themselves and in fact be a Pastor. I know several people who call themselves this and I appreciate their work. They are not paid by the Church (nor was Paul) and they hold no official office. It does not minimize that roll to recognize the difference between them and an ordained Minister given the authority to speak for the world Church anywhere in the world. A global calling as opposed to a local calling. A Head Elder carries no Church authority outside his local Church. Just as there is a difference between a Sabbath School teacher and a Head Elder, recognizing that doesn't minimize the roll of either. The roll of a stay at home Mom is crucial to a Ministers work, but Sister White is clear they both have an important part to play in the Ministry.

The roll of women in ministry is not in dispute, never has been that I've seen, they perform many important functions.

[Tom Wetmore]

In a similar article published earlier...

"Missionary work--introducing our publications into families, conversing, and praying with and for them--is a good work, and one which will educate men and women to do pastoral labor." {RH, April 4, 1882 par. 7}

[ClubV12]

"Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church."

RH, July 9, 1895

"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.

Daughters of God (255)

Sorry for the full caps, this is how I found it. This an answer to inquiries about a Review article that some had interpreted to mean ordination as a Minister of the Church. A problem we still face...

[olger]

No, Ellen White isn't a heretic.

Very silly.

Og

[Tom Wetmore]

Sorry for the full caps, this is how I found it. This an answer to inquiries about a Review article that some had interpreted to mean ordination as a Minister of the Church. A problem we still face...

In the published writings of EGW editorial commentary inserted by the White Estate editors and compilers are done in full caps to distinguish them from the words of EGW herself. The reason for this explanation is the editorial opinion that the context of the EGW quote was for the role of women as deacons or perhaps local elders and not clearly stated by her as that of pastors or ministers. This passage and a few others have been cited by the GC to sanction ordaining deaconesses, and as support for the ordination of women as local elders.

The word "minister" that you have emphasized is used as a verb, and as such has broader application for all sorts of ministry. As used it is essentially used to mean " to serve" just as "ministry" in a general sense can refer to any type of service. However, EGW is quite consistent when she uses the word "minister" as a noun in reference to a person she is consistently referring to the clergy and not lay workers.

[Tom Wetmore]

Anybody can call themselves and in fact be a Pastor. I know several people who call themselves this and I appreciate their work. They are not paid by the Church (nor was Paul) and they hold no official office. It does not minimize that roll to recognize the difference between them and an ordained Minister given the authority to speak for the world Church anywhere in the world. A global calling as opposed to a local calling. A Head Elder carries no Church authority outside his local Church. Just as there is a difference between a Sabbath School teacher and a Head Elder, recognizing that doesn't minimize the roll of either. The roll of a stay at home Mom is crucial to a Ministers work, but Sister White is clear they both have an important part to play in the Ministry.

The roll of women in ministry is not in dispute, never has been that I've seen, they perform many important functions.

Context of the author is important. As previously noted, the full context of the article from which the OP quote came from was about the value of literature evangelism and counsel to ministers of the gospel that they should also be involved in it and not consider it beneath them. EGW makes the stronger point that it is truly a vital part of their pastoral ministry. Here and elsewhere she admonishes preachers that only preach and neglect the personal home contact of pastoral ministry are not doing the job. And then she drives home the point by saying canvassing is excellent training for the vital role of pastoral ministry. That she includes women in this quote where she is only talking about the gospel ministry is clear evidence that she viewed women as pastors favorably.

And when EGW uses the word "pastor" she is not using it in the sense you have suggested. In the published writings of EGW the word "pastor" and any variation of it is used around 400 times. I have read every single passage to see if the context would even suggest lay pastors or where she might refer to other workers doing various types of church ministry as pastors. She does not. She very consistently is speaking of pastors as clergy and often uses pastor and minister (as in clergy) interchangeably. She describes both pastors and ministers as shepherds of the flock. She does not use the term "pastor" in reference to lay workers, deacons or local elders.

[ClubV12]

ALL CAPS: It's a letter Clarence Crisler wrote in 1916 concerning the ordination question that some were confused over concerning the Review articles. Obviously, that confusion is still with us!

He was one of five original members of the Estate.

His words carry greater weight than the comments and opinions of those far removed from the circumstances of that time. Asking the same questions that were asked at that time. Suggesting that same things suggested then, that Sister White approved of Ministerial ordination for women.

We have no direct statements that she supported Ministerial ordination for women, not one. We DO have evidence (a letter in this particular instance) from our pioneers, like Clarence Crisler, that she did not support Ministerial ordination for women in the Review articles.

Some, STILL suggest that is what she said. Such a misinterpretation is simply not consistent with her other statements. Most of which specifically speak ONLY of men being ordained to the Ministry of a Church.

IF we DID have a direct statement by Sister White on the issue of womens ordination as Ministers of the Church, the discussion would have been resolved a century ago. The G.C. has been dealing with this since 1881.

[ClubV12]

Clarance Crisler continues, in his letter:

"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."

Daughters of God (255)

[Tom Wetmore]

She did observe that as compared to the NT church, unwarranted importance was attached to the ritual of ordination. Her view seemed to be pragmatic. "It was merely setting the seal of the church upon the work of God--an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office." The ritual of laying on of hands was a legacy of tradition from the Jewish believers. One could assume that other forms of designation to an appointed office could as easily be used. The church could seal it by other public acknowledgement, such as endorsement, proclamation, publication, investiture, commissioning, issuing some form of certification, credentials or licenses, etc.

But back to the quote of the OP, it is clear that she did not consider women to be excluded from being pastors, ministers of the gospel.

And that is a major stumbling block for many in the anti-WO camp who oppose even women as local elders and preachers. Ordination is beside the point and just a convenient place to draw the line in the sand. EGW herself face opposition to her preaching in church, based on the silence on church passage from Paul. It did not prevent her from continuing to preach. The White Estate says she delivered over 10,000 sermons in her lifetime.

[Gail]

So, Tom, do you feel that there might be an over-importance to a man's ordinance as opposed to setting the sight on whether the person is God-anointed?

[Tom Wetmore]

Absolutely.

[Tom Wetmore]

The impression one gets from the idea that WO would expose to the church to perils from a gainsaying world was that it was more a peril in her day than it would be today in the Western world. In her day, women did not even have the right to vote. Few women entered professions. Although women preachers were becoming common it was not without ridicule and criticism, even of EGW herself. Women in such roles were being too progressive and out of their proper place. But I think it is fair to say that now quite the opposite is true. I think that the perils of not ordaining women exposes the church to opposition and criticism (gainsaying), especially in Western society and even from many in other Christian groups. They do find it rather odd that we are even having this debate.

[ClubV12]

As I have said, I support womens ordination, in the same way and manner as Ellen White does, as defined by the EGW Estate and the General Conference. Which does not include ordination for a woman to the position of Minister of a Church. To interpret or suggest ANY Ellen White statement in such a way as to suggest she does places one self at odds with the counsel of the brethren.

Therefore, whatever she meant by the use of the term "Pastor" or "Minister" cannot be interpreted to mean "ordained" with all the authority and responsibilities of that office as generally understood in the 1800's or today. I understand it may SEEM that way, but that is just not how the Estate or the General Conference understand it. I'll go with the counsel of the brethren on this.

In a recent dispute with the the county they needed to talk to the "owner" of our Church. That is legally the Conference. Locally the county accepts our ordained Minister and the Conference approves him as their legal representative.

"Gain say" remains a problem today. The issue of womens ordination is much bigger than just the Adventist Church today. It's a hotly disputed issue in many Churches. We don't need to bring undue attention and controversy on ourselves unecessarily. Then or now.

At any rate, let the world do whatever they are going to do. We, the Church, will follow the counsel of the bible and SOP regardless of whether it's popular or not.

[Tom Wetmore]

But your last sentence is just the opposite of what Crissler claimed that EGW had said. She was saying we should consider or be sensitive to the POV of the world to determine the course of conduct we would take on this issue.

I think the issue is far less a concern in most other denominations. The Baptists and the Catholics, yes. But most every other major Christian group have long since moved past it or are heading in that direction without much fanfare.

What is quite conspicuous in what EGW is reported to have said on the matter, and from her writings is a thus saith the Lord on the issue. Note carefully that she did not say that God told her it was wrong. No "I was shown" that WO should never happen. It comes across more of a "not now" sort of thought. But flash forward to our time, 100 years later. Times really have changed a whole lot since then. If not now, when?

I think that if EGW were alive today, she would not be opposed to WO. I think she would see the time as right for those areas of the world where women have made great strides toward equality.

[ClubV12]

I'm sure Crissler agrees with the Church that doctrine and Church law is based on the bible and the SOP not what the world thinks. It is absolutely true we need to be sensitive to what other people, our brothers and sisters in the Church and the world, think of us, lest we become a stumbling block to some.

I think if Ellen White were alive today she would take the same position she did then, she wouldn't get involved, she refused to be distracted by it. Like Jesus, who avoided conflict and controversy when ever possible, that was not always possible, but it's a worthy goal.

If not NOW, WHEN? Thats easy, when the General Conference has had sufficient time to study the matter to a conclusion. When they make a decision, I will honor that, just as I honor their authority now. There is room for some debate on the topic, but I see this debate in the same light as Ellen White saw the debate over the "daily" of Daniel. She told folks back then, in relation to the "daily", to stop arguing, stop using her statements to sustain their position.

As I see it, she didn't say NEVER study the topic of the "daily", but set it aside when it starts to get ugly. That is what the G.C. is asking of the world Church, let us consider the matter, peacefully. We've got Conferences and even Divisions threatening to or already taking action that directly challenges the authority of the world Church. It's getting really ugly out there...

[torahvideos]

I'm sure Crissler agrees with the Church that doctrine and Church law is based on the bible and the SOP not what the world thinks. It is absolutely true we need to be sensitive to what other people, our brothers and sisters in the Church and the world, think of us, lest we become a stumbling block to some.

I think if Ellen White were alive today she would take the same position she did then, she wouldn't get involved, she refused to be distracted by it. Like Jesus, who avoided conflict and controversy when ever possible, that was not always possible, but it's a worthy goal.

If not NOW, WHEN? Thats easy, when the General Conference has had sufficient time to study the matter to a conclusion. When they make a decision, I will honor that, just as I honor their authority now. There is room for some debate on the topic, but I see this debate in the same light as Ellen White saw the debate over the "daily" of Daniel. She told folks back then, in relation to the "daily", to stop arguing, stop using her statements to sustain their position.

As I see it, she didn't say NEVER study the topic of the "daily", but set it aside when it starts to get ugly. That is what the G.C. is asking of the world Church, let us consider the matter, peacefully. We've got Conferences and even Divisions threatening to or already taking action that directly challenges the authority of the world Church. It's getting really ugly out there...

The Body of Yeshúa - part 10 "Jezabel"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mshGBJJt0vk

[Gregory Matthews]

The GC/NAD has studied the question of the role that women should have in spiritual life for 40 years.

Prior to that the denomination in general debated the issue for 100 years.

How many decades must we wait for the General Conference to make up its mind? How long should we wait?

Sometimes people come to the place where they say: Enough is enough. They begin to act.

That is what is happening now.

[ClubV12]

The earliest reference I can find to the G.C. considering the question was 1881.

I understand the frustration with enough is enough. But here's the thing, it's been Church law for over a century, it's already been decided. Church policy is that women won't be ordained (as Ministers of a Church).

Those who support womens ordination aren't really saying, "Enough is enough, lets make a decision", they are saying they oppose the decision that has already been made. Their mad, their not going to take it anymore, some proclaim they are willing to die for their support of womens ordination. Conferences, Divisions are willing to openly oppose current Church law, to get their way. They are DEMANDING Church law change, or else.

Or else what? What IF the G.C. does reach a decision and keeps Church law the same as it has been for more than a century, no womens ordination? Will those who are so outspoken support the G.C. in that determination? Most won't, the rebellion will continue and grow louder, more ugly.

This isn't about "enough is enough", or "time is up" this is about a mob mentality willing and ready to split the Church if they don't get their way. IF the G.C. continues current Church policy, it won't change anything for them.

And you know what? It very much reminds me of the mob mentality who insist on LGBT rights. They won't stop for anything, they will keep up the pressure, they will refuse to submit to authority and they don't care who might get hurt in the process. They INSIST on getting their way, or else.

Israel wanted a King and after enough whining and crying about it, God gave them one. Be careful what you wish for.

[olger]

"Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church."

RH, July 9, 1895

"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.

Daughters of God (255)

Sorry for the full caps, this is how I found it. This an answer to inquiries about a Review article that some had interpreted to mean ordination as a Minister of the Church. A problem we still face...