11 reasons why I understand the Bible and Mrs. White to support Women's ordinaion

[jsm]

I will definitely read the Phoebe article, and also advise all to read the following: 

 

Ellen White gave a warning that all need to prayerfully consider. She wrote: “The same spirit is seen today that is represented in Revelation 6:6-8. History is to be reenacted. That which has been will be again. This spirit works to confuse and to perplex. Dissension will be seen in every nation, kindred, tongue and people, and those who have not had a spirit to follow the light that God has given through His living oracles, through His appointed agencies, will become confused. Their judgment will reveal weakness. Disorder and strife and confusion will be seen in the church.” 4MR 152.  

 

We certainly see a marked increase in worldwide confusion and dissension, along with a greater tendency toward divisions and confusion in the church. This comes from a natural tendency in all to go our own way. Isaiah 53:6. Our own way is revealed in a tendency to either doggedly cling to the past with no allowance for change or to actively press for what we see as progress in harmony with our own ideas on what is best.

 

Our great need is for all to be filled with “the Spirit of truth,” believing—as Jesus said—that He will guide us “into all truth.” John 16:13. Then the spirit of God-inspired harmony will prepare us for the latter rain in the same way that it led to a greater outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the early rain.

 

“When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.” Acts 2:1-6 nkjv.

 

Let’s all pray for that unity and that power—knowing that very difficult times are even now becoming evident in the world and in the church.   

[jsm]

It’s true that Phebe (Phoebe) is given recognition as a servant (diakonos) of the church who gave assistance (prostatis) to many (Romans 16:1-2); but note that Paul used another form of the same Greek word in writing about his personal servant, who ministered (diakoneo) to him in prison:  

“I appeal to you for my son Onesimus…   whom I wished to keep with me, that on your behalf he might minister (diakoneo) to me in my chains for the gospel.” Philemon 1:10, 13 nkjv.

The word ‘diakonos’ is a general term, and does not specify precisely the capacity or position in which the ministering work is being performed. But then we go to 1 Timothy 3:10-13 where it clearly refers to a man as an appointed deacon in the church. Surely we recognize that both men and women can serve or minister in many ways without serving in a designated leadership position. The context in which a word is used makes the difference. 

Compare it with the word Sabbath which is applied in Colossians 2:16-17 and many OT verses to several special days that were “a shadow of things to come.” Then we go to many OT texts plus many more in the NT—like Mark 2:23-28—and connect Sabbath specifically with the seventh day of the week.

Context plus a comparison of texts is very important when considering the meaning of many words in the Bible. The 23rd chapter of Leviticus includes the 7th day Sabbath along with those that were “a shadow of things to come.” But Exodus 20:8-11 clearly says it is to be a weekly reminder of creation, and not “a shadow of things to come” like the other “Sabbath” days. Many Bible scholars do not see that distinction; just as many do not see a distinction in the various ways diakonos is used. 

[Tom Wetmore]

Context, the full context, is indeed important. And youse seem to have omitted or glossed over key elements of the full context of those two verses about Phoebe. They are loaded with consistent messages very different from the little you are acknowledging. Yes, a diakonos of a person was a common personal servant. But a diakonos of a church, the body of Christ, was no ordinary household servant. To be a servant of the body of Christ was as Paul often referred to himself, a servant of Christ. That context is consistent with another contemporary meaning of diakonos, a servant of an important person such as the king. The King's servant comes to serve by direction of the king carrying the authority of the king. The people don't tell the servant of the King what to do. Quite the opposite! There is a world of difference that the whole context tells us. Phoebe was a servant of the body of Christ. An ordinary servant is sent to serve at the direction of the ones being served. But the context here is what Paul tells the believers, "Here is Phoebe an esteemed saint and servant of the Church. Do what she tells you to do." Notice the fundamental difference? That is not a household servant to be ordered around to serve as commanded by the ones being served. She was a servant of the King, King Jesus. She was sent by Paul to minister to them as a diakonos of the church.

And still very consistent is the next key term which you also seem to miss. Prostatis is not a lowly service role. It literal means, "to stand before" (pro - before, above, in front of, statis - stand, standing, status). In other words, one who is a prostatis is one who stands before others, one who is in charge. It is a female governor, a leader, a ruler. In its masculine form it is always speaking of one who rules over others. In its verb form it means to rule or govern. Sure, that can be construed loosely as one who helps others, like the King helps his people. But that is most clearly not the context, the whole context, of what Paul is saying about Phoebe.

Another bit of context not found directly in the text itself is the longstanding and undisputed tradition that Paul entrusted the letter to the believers in Rome to Phoebe to deliver it to them. Again that was not just a mail delivery role to drop off a letter in the mailbox and leave. In a community where many were illiterate, that meant also sitting and reading it to them. But a letter of this sort was not just a friendly chit chatting news letter. It was a teaching document. The one reading it the believers would have also been expected to explain it, to help them understand it. Yes, to teach them the spriritual truths it contained. She was to teach the believers.

And all of the key roles a descriptive titles in the New Testament were common, general terms from secular Greek. They were not, apart from the context of some role within the church, anything of sacred or sanctimonious church only significance as they are today. A deacon or a pastor or bishop of today is only talking about a church office. Even elder, disciple and apostle were common general terms. We have to understand their significance in context of the NT times, not our own. You cannot ignore it or redefine it as something in a modern context when it was speaking of Phoebe, a 1st Century believer unreservedly endorsed and commended (ordained as we would understand it today) to the believers in Rome. She was a minister, and leader sent by Paul with his blessing (ordination) to Rome to lead and teach and guide the believers there. As our early Adventist leaders saw it, she was the first bishop of Rome.

Go back and read the article, all of it.

[jsm]

I read the article, and the basics are provided in what I wrote. In my opinion, the rest of the article is mainly diversionary filler information, and I choose not to expand on it further. Lawyers and others may find it of value, but I do not; so thanks for your thoughts, but please don't expect me to contribute more to this thread along that line. Obviously we look at the information differently, and argument will not help. I do study deeply from many sources - including EGW writings - that lead me to remain satisfied with primary portions of the Bible as it reads; and that includes the portions on elders & deacons.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Regarding Sister White and the other women who were given licenses to preach, I heard somewhere that this was done for another reason possibly for making it easier for Sister White to be able to travel?... (Does anyone have any information about this?)The bottom line to this entire subject for me is that if GOD wanted this denomination to have lots of women ordained as pastors, He would've made sure that this happened before Sister White passed away -- and it didn't happen -- so I really don't see it as being "necessary" down here at the End of Time to enable SDAs to receive the Later Rain.

Simply to make it easier for EGW and other women to be able to travel!?!? The historical accounts make no mention of that. That seems to be a notion invented in more recent times to diminish the significance of the reality that there were proportionally far more women active in pastoral ministry doing evangelism during EGW's lifetime. And perhaps the reason more women were not ordained during her lifetime was the same reason that other things seemed to have stalled in the Church during the latter part of her lifetime and after she died. She certainly felt their should have been more women involved in ministry. She employed a favorite expression in context of women preaching the gospel - "if there were twenty where there is now one..." She proclaimed that amazing results would happen. Perhaps she was reflecting God's desire then. Why it didn't happen is perhaps the same as why many other great things didn't happen.

[Kevin H]

God is not trying to force his church. Radical Islam want's God to force them. The problem with the way some of the Pharisees were applying the Bible in Jesus' day was they became very strict and forcing tradition on others. The false Messiah's around the fall of 70 AD were all trying to force compliance and ended up fighting against each other instead of the Romans and this lead to the fall of Jerusalem. With the exception of stepping in to save a life, force is a tool that is not one of God's major tools and one that he does not like to use and is very careful with if he needs to use it. Force is one of Satan's favorite tools.

 

God wants to lead us and guide us. He wants us to learn from our mistakes. While there were a couple people where Jesus came right out to say that he was the Messiah, he tended to want to let people come to it on their own. (and even the few times he did tell they were probably catching on quicker).

 

Mrs. White had pressing matters, telling people that the Millerite movement was from God and that we should not give up our experience. Then the formation of the church, then the formation of the health and education work, finally the issues of the Great Controversy.

 

When the New York Conference and Atlantic Union wanted to ordain women ministers in the first decade of the 1900s, Elder A. G. Daniels on the one hand agreed with them. On the other hand he asked them to wait a little bit. The reason for waiting was that there were people who did not understand that women could be ordained. He did not want to confuse these people until they were better educated.

 

Since he worked very closely with Mrs. White and was a good friend of hers, and her hand picked and trained leader for our church, odds are that he discussed this with her. (Especially when NY and the Atlantic Union was going to start ordaining women). This sounds like something that she would say. And Mrs. White had a chance to simply stop us. She wrote articles about women in ministry that the anti ordination people study like a lawyer studying the law for loopholes. She had a chance to tell Elder Daniels that he made a mistake in only asking NY and the Atlantic Union to wait a little bit while they try to educate the church. She had the chance to not write the articles about women in ministry and just write how God did not want women to be ordained. But she did not do this.

 

I think that it is quite telling in how Elder Daniels believed that women should be ordained but wanted to educate our members. How Mrs. White wrote gentle articles encouraging women in ministry and to try to soften people's prejudices towards women in ministry and how she missed the opportunity to prevent us from being where we are today. 
 

[Ron Lambert]

jsm, It is a common fault of most human languages that the masculine gender is used where gender is indeterminate, or could be both. For example, suppose I were to stand on the pulpit and announce "The list of new church officers is in your bulletin. Let anyone who is in favor raise HIS hand." Would anything think I were implying that only men could vote, and not women?

 

Or let's look at a Biblical example, James 1:5-8:

 

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.  For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."

 

Notice that here the masculine gender is used. The pronouns are "he" and "him" and it even says "that man." Yet is there anyone on earth who would deny that this passage applies equally to women? It starts out by saying "If ANY of you...."

 

Thus we see clearly illustrated that use of the masculine gender cannot be taken as definitive restriction only to men in application.

 

If we really and truly and honestly want to be good, responsible students of the Bible, then we must remember the requirement that everything be taken in context--including cultural context, understanding how it is that people normally speak, and what they mean. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is probably the text most commonly used by people who deceive themselves that they are standing by the Bible in opposing women's ordination. But in fact, the honest truth is that it betrays poor scholarship, and a misuse of Scripture.

 

If the Apostles believed that women could never be leaders in the church, never be ordained, then how do we explain Junia and Phoebe, who Paul mentions favorably in Romans 16:1,2, 7? Phoebe is called in the original Greek a diakonon, the Greek word from which we get the English word "deacon," and Acts 6 shows us that the New Testament Church ordained deacons (there is no separate word in the Greek New Testament for female deacons), so we know that Phoebe was ordained. Also in verse 2 in the original Greek, Paul calls her a prostatis. which means "woman placed in charge of others," according to Thayer's Bible Dictionary, the standard work used by most Bible translators. Then in verse seven Paul calls Junia one of the apostles. Most scholars recognize that the name is feminine in the Greek, and must have referred to a woman.

 

When you take an extreme position based on a questionable use of Scripture, especially something that depends on taking Scripture in an overly literal manner, and it leads you to contradict other clear statements in Scripture, that should be a signal to you that there is something wrong with the way you are using Scripture.

 

Remember, Paul instructed Timothy: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15; NKJV)

[Ron Lambert]

jsm, let me give you a further discussion of why being overly literal in the interpretation of Scripture does not always work. 

 

A prime example of a case where neglecting to consult the cultural context has led even most translators of most versions of the Bible astray, is 1 Timothy 2:15. In the KJV this reads: “Notwithstanding she [the woman] shall be saved in childbearing….” Most modern English translations render this essentially the same way. But if we take this literally, just as it is written, we have the Apostle Paul apparently contradicting the basic principle of his gospel, that we are all saved by faith in Christ’s blood shed for us. The idea that women are saved by having babies is obvious heresy. Would Paul really say that?

 

This text only makes sense at all if we consider the historical, cultural context, which informs us how to translate the original Greek properly. At that time, one woman in five died in childbirth. The cult of the goddess Artemis (Diana to the Romans), which was the main obstacle to the gospel that Timothy had to deal with in Ephesus, which Paul was counseling Timothy in how to deal with, promised women that Artemis would keep them safe during childbirth. What Paul was really saying was it is the Lord who has the power to keep women safe during childbirth.

 

Of the 12 English translations of the Bible I have on my computer, only one gives the sensible, obviously correct translation, as a marginal reading: "But a woman...will be kept safe through childbirth." (The English Version Good News translation.) The fact that so many translators got this wrong should be a warning to us that we cannot simply go by a superficial, literal reading of what our favorite version may say, and we must compare Scripture with Scripture, consult multiple translations, and even take into account the historic, cultural context.

 

Now what about verse 12, which some people like to take "literally" as meaning that Paul never allowed a woman to have any authority at all over a man? As I mentioned in my preceding post, we see that Paul commended to the Roman Christians Phoebe, whom he described as a prostatis in original Greek for Romans 16:2—which means “a woman placed in charge of others” (according to Thayer’s Bible Dictionary—the standard reference used by most translators.)

 

Most English translations of 1 Tim. 2:12 make it seem like Paul never allows women to have any authority at all over men. The KJV actually suggests there is more to it than that, when it says that Paul does not allow a woman to "usurp" authority over a man.

 

But if we will check the cultural context, and what it was that Paul was counseling Timothy about—dealing with the Artemis cult of Ephesus—we will see that Paul was addressing the way that women in the Artemis cult claimed the right to dominate men, because of their myth that Eve was created first, and her eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge conferred upon all women a secret wisdom.

 

Also women in the Artemis cult would reward men with sexual favors if they submitted to their control. This is why the unique word Paul used for “authority” here—authentein—(the word is only used this once in all the New Testament) in other Greek literature of the time carried obscene sexual connotations. The Vulgate translation rendered this as Paul saying he did not allow women to DOMINEER men. The Living Bible renders this: "I never let women teach men or lord it over them."

 

And as for never allowing women to teach—that cannot be taken literally, because Paul did clearly allow women to teach—if they knew God's Word (such as Priscilla, Junia, Phoebe). But Jews normally did not teach women to read, and Greeks did not believe in educating women at all. So the women in Ephesus were uneducated, except in the myths of the Artemis cult. Of course Paul did not allow them to teach in churches. But if they heeded what he said in verse 11 where Paul says women should be taught (if the Greek is properly translated), and they did learn the Word of God, then they would be qualified to teach.

 

And notice also how considering the cultural context makes perfect sense of what Paul said in verse 13: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Paul was not presenting this as an argument for never allowing women to have any authority over men; he was correcting the errors of the Artemis cult, which wrongly claimed that Eve was created first, and that her eating from the Tree of Knowledge conferred upon all women a special secret wisdom.

 

Verses nine and ten are also made much clearer when we consider the cultural context. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; {broided: or, plaited}  But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”

 

Members of the cult of Artemis had a special way of adorning themselves, exactly the way Paul described, so they would stand out, and could command respect and even submission to their authority. Paul was saying Christian women should not attire themselves like the acolytes of the cult of Artemis, just to get respect.

 

The importance of taking all Scripture in proper context—including historical, cultural context, so we can consider the situation the writer was addressing, should be obvious to everyone.

[Ron Lambert]

Let me also recommend to anyone interested in the issue of women's ordination in our denominational history and in Sister White's counsels, that they read Appendix C of the book, Daughters of God. There you will find, among other things, that Ellen G. White herself personally participated in ordaining by the laying on of hands deaconesses, and she wrote in the Review and Herald in 1895 that women should be ordained. You will also learn that the General Conference session in 1881 passed a resolution that women should be ordained, including for the gospel ministry. This was then referred to the General Conference Executive Committee, which consisted of three men at the time, who did not act on it. You will also see Ellen G. White's explicit statements that the Holy Spirit equips men and women to labor in the gospel ministry, and that women should labor in the gospel ministry, even contrasting such women to men who may be negligent in visiting the flock. Since deaconesses were ordained in Ellen G. White's presence (and even with her personal participation in the laying on of hands), that would surely have been a good opportunity for the Lord to make an objection to this through the prophet, if it were not in harmony with His will.

[Gregory Matthews]

Ron Lambert in post # 33 said:

 

Also women in the Artemis cult would reward men with sexual favors if they submitted to their control. This is why the unique word Paul used for “authority” here—authentein—(the word is only used this once in all the New Testament) in other Greek literature of the time carried obscene sexual connotations. The Vulgate translation rendered this as Paul saying he did not allow women to DOMINEER men. The Living Bible renders this: "I never let women teach men or lord it over them."

 

For a more extensive discussion of the word authentein see:

 

http://godswordtowomen.org/kroeger_ancient_heresies.htm

[Ron Lambert]

Jackson, did you read what I wrote in my posts concerning 1 Timothy 2:11-15? You are basing your theology on mistranslations that ignore the situation in Ephesus that Paul was addressing in his counsels to Timothy. Paul was not saying men only should have all authority in the church because Adam was created first and Eve was deceived. Paul was correcting the errors of the Artemis cult which claimed that Eve was created first, and her eating of the Tree of Knowledge supposedly conferred upon all women a secret wisdom.

[Ron Lambert]

Jackson, let me put it as simply as possible. If you do not recognize the absolute requirement of God that you must take everything in the Bible in context, including historical and cultural context which informs us what situation the Bible writer was addressing, then you are not being HONEST about the Word of God. Remember, it is HIS Word, not yours. You do not get to be arbitrary and seize upon some simplistic, overly literal interpretation, and claim that you are being faithful to His Word. If that is your attitude toward the Word of God, then you will have much to be ashamed of in the Judgment, for the way you dared to mishandle God's Word.

 

Look again at 1 Timothy 2:15. If you take it exactly the way it reads in most English translations, then you will have to conclude that women are saved by having babies. Which is heresy. Women are saved by faith in the blood of Christ, the same as men. Do you deny this? Do you see the need here to make the necessary effort to understand what Paul was really saying? Do you see where you have no conscientious choice but to conclude that most translators got this wrong?

 

Or what about Luke 23:43, which in almost every English translation gives Jesus' words on the Cross to the thief at His side with the comma placed before the word "today," instead of after it: "And Jesus said to him, 'Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.'" Is the placement of the comma inspired? Are we to go by this just as it reads? Could Jesus keep that promise, if He was promising the thief that he would be with Jesus in the kingdom on that same day? Jesus did not ascend to Heaven that day, He slept in the tomb until Sunday morning. Note that Jesus said to Mary after His Resurrection: "Do not cling to Me, for I HAVE NOT YET ASCENDED TO MY FATHER...." (John 20:17; NKJV; emphasis supplied)

[Ron Lambert]

Jackson, if you had two candidates you had to choose between to hire for a sensitive position in your company, and one of them did wrong because of being deceived, while the other one deliberately and knowingly did wrong, which one would you regard as the best choice? See, if you apply Paul's statement the way you are taking it, then it does not make sense.

 

You are the one who is introducing confusion by not being willing to make the effort to understand what the Bible writers were really saying. Even when corrected by the clearest evidence, you choose to be intransigent. That is not virtue. That is not faith. That is merely perverse human stubbornness.

 

You seem to be claiming that we are supposed to go by whatever it says in the King James Version of the Bible. Is that what you really believe? Or do you suppose it is the Bible in its originial languages that we are to regard as inspired?

 

You still haven't explained how you would explain the wrong placement of the comma in Luke 23:43, which makes it read like Jesus was promising the thief on the Cross that he would be with Jesus that very day in Paradise--when John 20:17 plainly tells us that even by Sunday morning, Jesus had not yet ascended to His Father.

 

Do you believe the translators of the various versions of the Bible were divinely inspired? Are they the basis of your faith?

 

You are seizing upon statements by Ellen G. White that apply in specific situations, and ignoring her plain and explicit statements that call for women to be ordained, and that call for women to labor in the Gospel ministry. Your argument is with the Spirit of Prophecy, not with me.

 

Again, in case you have not seen them, here are some explicit statements by Sister White that call for women to be ordained, and that call for women to serve in the Gospel ministry:

 

 

"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 (emphasis supplied)

 

“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.” (6T p. 322; RH January 15, 1901)

 

“There are women who should labor in the gospel ministry. In many respects they would do more good than the ministers who neglect to visit the flock of God.”—Evangelism 472; Manuscript 43a, 1898.

 

There is nothing in the context of either statement that changes the clear and explicit meaning of them. Again, I recommend that you read Appendix C of Daughters of God.

[Gail]

This is coincidental for me, who just found a Daughters of God in our used books section...

[Ron Lambert]

It is always good to have the book in your hand. But anyone can read Appendix C of the EGW compilation, Daughters of God, by going to White Estates at https://egwwritings.org/ Then in the left hand column, click on books under Ellen G. White writings, then click on Daughters of God, then click on Appendix C.

 

I have it on my White Estates CD of Ellen G. White's writings, so that is where I read Appendix C of Daughters of God. The CD also has a good search engine.

[Tom Wetmore]

...You will also learn that the General Conference session in 1881 passed a resolution that women should be ordained, including for the gospel ministry. This was then referred to the General Conference Executive Committee, which consisted of three men at the time, who did not act on it... 

 

I know that it has been frequently said that that the GC Executive Committee never did anything to to follow up on the resolution that had been referred to them in 1881.  That has mostly been a conclusion reached by some who are opposed to WO. I think that perhaps they were looking only for some follow up documentation of what they did.  I have concluded that there were in fact actions consistent with that 1881 resolution.  The Michigan Conference acted positively on it and so did the General Conference.  The 1881 GC Session minutes reflects that the president of the Michigan Conference was present and participated in the discussion of the resolution. In 1883, that same man signed a credential issued by the Michigan Conference to Ellen G. White identifying her as an ordained minister.  In subsequent years for the rest of her life, the General Conference itself issued the same credential to her.  The credentials were signed by two officers of the General Conference.  Just a few short years after the 1881 resolution, two of the officers of the GC who were a part of the GC Executive Committee to which the resolution had been referred were in fact the ones who signed her credential issued by the General Conference.  And several of those on the GC Executive Committee were present for the 1881 discussion of the resolution.  I would submit that there is indeed evidence that something did indeed happen with that resolution.  It appears that with no opposition or dissension they simply acted consistent with the resolution by officially recognizing EGW as an ordained minister.   

[Ron Lambert]

That is interesting, Tom. I have read a number of claims and counter claims about whether Ellen G. White was actually ordained by the laying on of hands. Can you point to any documentation? Some people flat out deny it. Yet Ellen G. White herself did personally participate in ordination by laying on of hands for deaconesses. So she did not consider that ordination was forbidden to women! Ordination is ordination, whether it be for deacons (deaconesses) or for pastors.

 

Appendix C of Daughters of God lists dozens of women who were issued "licenses to preach" during Sister White's lifetime. One would have to ask, if women can be issued licenses to preach, why can't they be ordained? Perhaps the problem is a misunderstanding of ordination itself--there seems to be a carry-over from the way Catholicism has exalted priests so that they are regarded as semi-divine, with supposedly the power to "create the Creator" in the Eucharist, where the priest utters an incantation, and the wine and bread are supposedly turned into the actual blood and body of Christ. Ordination is assumed to be what gives the priests semi-divinity. But in truth, ordination is no more than an ackowledgement by the church that God has called someone to an office of God's choice. Here is what Ellen G. White said about ordination:

 

"Both Paul and Barnabas had already received their commission from God Himself, and THE CEREMONY OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS ADDED NO NEW GRACE OR VIRTUAL QUALIFICATION. It was an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office and a recognition of one's authority in that office. By it the seal of the church was set upon the work of God." Acts of the Apostles, p. 161 (emphasis supplied)

 

Notice she said that ordination recognizes the authority that the recipient ALREADY has. No new authority, no new supernatural power, no new "grace or virtual qualification," was added to him.

[Tom Wetmore]

And it should also be remembered that she also said far to much importance was place on the ritual of laying on of hands. I have often challenged the effort of anyone discrediting her ordination credentials because that ritual supposedly never happened to her, as if it magically passed some divine power through the hands of those doing the ordination. To invalidate the official,action of the GC in giving her that recognition with these credentials for the want of any record of the ritual of magic hands, is to put an inordinate level of importance on the ritual. It is as if that trumps the action of the GC. We are not a ritualistic religion.