Women in Ministry

[Taylor]

I don't believe so. Times change and EGW didn't change the gospel but some issues like clothing she did because they were cultural.

[Woody]

Just curious...did EGW always wear a bonnet?

I would hope not. I think she indicated that bonnets were not modest enough. She advocated veils to cover the face.

[John317]

Just curious...did EGW always wear a bonnet?

There are many pictures of her at camp meetings and other occasions that show her without a bonnet.

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

Just curious...did EGW always wear a bonnet?

I would hope not. I think she indicated that bonnets were not modest enough. She advocated veils to cover the face.

Does anyone know if she ever once wore a veil over her face?

[Woody]

Quote:

EGW didn't change the gospel

You may be right Taylor ... she didn't change it. For it remains the same. But she changed. At least from my reading of her ... she changed from a legalist to a more "gospel" and "Righteousness by Faith" believer towards the end of her life. I would just call it growth though. Not changing the gospel.

[Woody]

Quote:

Does anyone know if she ever once wore a veil over her face?

This does bring up a confusing issue to me personally that I have not been able to resolve. Ellen White frequently spoke of things that she did not actually follow. Since it is negative ... I don't want to make a long list. But for example ... the meat issue. She ate meat at times throughout her life. At one point she said that she was not able to gain the victory over it.

Perhaps it is just an example for us to show that she was human. I hope so. I need that example. I get far too much of the opposite thrown at me.

I do believe that there is a high standard ... and then there is the reality of what we do. What do we do?

We ALL fall short

Notice ... I didn't say we all fall short except for Ellen White.

[Taylor]

I personally see several things

1. Yes, she was human and had struggles like the rest of us. She didn't "instantly arrive" any more than the rest of us.

2. Things like being a vegetarian or not are not salvation issues, but health issues, so the ideal and reality don't always mesh (for instance maybe in some circumstances she only had meat available to eat.)

3. She was flexible when in the presence of others who couldn't offer her anything better (I have never read she at unclean meat, however.)

[Taylor]

I for one am glad she recognized that times change...hence she wore a bonnet when younger but I have virtually never seen pictures of her in a bonnet when she was older.

[Woody]

Quote:

I have never read she at unclean meat, however.)

Well ... she did. But then I am not going to drag out the quotes that I have for this subject. If anyone wants them ... they can PM me.

It just does not bother me. I value her writings that are scriptural. The fact that she was human as I am only makes me feel closer to her. The fact that she indicated she had an addiction problem for meat shows me that she understands and would not condemn those with similar issues.

[Woody]

Let me add that I see two faces of Ellen. I see she had one objective or face ... and that was to express herself as a voice to the church.

Then the other face was her personal life and belief. For instance she was very judgmental in her writing face ... of those who ate meat etc. But in her real private life ... I don't think she was as judgmental.

[Beryl]

Quote:

Yes, she was human and had struggles like the rest of us. She didn't "instantly arrive" any more than the rest of us.

You are correct, Taylor. Ellen White had many struggles on the food issue. In one instance she told of her "addiction" to vinegar, which she realised was causing her stomach problems. She told how she sat at the table, and could not face her food (I think it was a piece of wholemeal bread -- hope my memory is not too far out!). She determined that she would eat nothing else until she had won the victory over that particular food. It was that way with a number of foods.

There was another story of how, when travelling by train with a group of ministers(?) the train had a number of delays, their food had run out, and they still had a long way to go. They were sitting at a station, and the train was waiting for repairs. She got someone to take her in to the town, and the only food she could buy was meat -- so she bought that because they had to eat. The story did say the type of meat. I forget which it was, but, yes, it was "clean" meat.

Ellen White never declared that everyone should follow her eating habits. She faithfully passed on the message that God had given to her in vision regarding healthful living, and, to the best of her ability, she followed it herself. Her table was well supplied with healthful foods. Somewhere amongst my "treasures" is a copy of a week's menu for the White household. They ate well. Basically, breakfast was a two course meal with a cereal, fruit, milk, cream, and a hot dish. Lunch was also a two course meal -- main meal plus dessert. Ellen did not eat an evening meal herself, and the table was not set, but a good variety of food was placed on a buffet, and those who chose to eat had plenty to choose from.

I promised myself that during January I would sort out all of those boxes of "treasures", and file them away properly -- but I don't think much will happen. Already I have a service to take (for which I can't use any of my already prepared sermons) and we have a country trip to do. --Oh, well, I can always look forward to next January!! (ha ha!)

Have a great New Year! I plan to!!

Beryl

[Woody]

Thank you Beryl. It is always so good to hear from you. WE could use a few of those treasures.

[Beryl]

Quote:

WE could use a few of those treasures.

Sure! I will share them when I get them sorted! It is 2 1/2 years since I shifted in to my present unit, and, while everything else has its proper place, those boxes are still waiting! I shifted just before I had a short stint in hospital and was not able to do any lifting for 4 weeks after -- and by that time I was back enjoying my volunteer work -- and every year-end "break" seems to be full. But I AM getting there! I have dealt with a couple of the boxes. Now, THAT is progress!!

God bless,

Beryl

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Beryl, I haven't been on much lately but just got on today and read your post.

Quote:

OK, Norman, I have, this afternoon, spent much time studying what Paul had to say to the Corinthian Church. Not only have I studied what the Bible says, but I have also read, and studied, what the SDA Bible Commentary says regarding both chapters 11 and 14. It is very hard to try to condense it all into an answer that can be given here.

Let me, however, point out a few things. I shall quote from the Commentary, 1 Corinthians 14.

v.34 "Women Keep Silence" "......Some have found difficulty in understanding this prohibition in terms, not only of our modern concepts of the place of women in the church (this commentary was published 1957 -- 50 years ago) but also of the place and service of women in Bible history (see Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Luke 2:36, 37; Acts 21:9) Paul himself commended the women who laboured with him in the gospel (Phil.4:3). There is no doubt that women played a definite part in the life of the church. Why, then, should they be prevented from speaking in public? The answer is found in v.35."

Law [This section outlines the assignment by God to a position of subordination to her husband (not men in general) as a result of the fall]. "Owing to the change in his nature by the entrance of sin into his experience, the harmonious life that man had previously known was brought to an end. No longer was it practical for husband and wife to have equal authority in the leadership of the home, and God chose to place upon man the major responsibility of making decisions and instructing his family (see PP 58,59)".

V.35. "Ask their husbands". Such a procedure would prevent unseemly interruptions in the service of worship and avoid the confusion attendant on such interruptions.

Shame . This was true because both Greek and Jewish custom dictated that women should be kept in the background in public affairs. Violation of this custom would be looked upon as disgraceful and would bring reproach upon the church. /b]

As I first indicated -- this was a cultural norm that does not apply to us today.

I will be back with more later.

Beryl

Beryl, this is a good start but even the what you have posted here is not touching the real issue, keep searching though. At least you are keeping an open mind and that is a good thing.

Norman

[Woody]

I think Beryl's point is valid.

It is cultural.

But if you think not ... then the woman could always just ask her husband for permission to speak and then it would be permissible if he is in agreement.

OK ... Mrs. Redwood ....

PREACH

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

You may think it's valid, but if you understood, you would not post what you did. It's obvious that you lack understanding in this matter. Think about Paul's point to have power onthe head or cover the head because of the angels. You have no idea what that means do you? And you have no idea why Paul is saying it is a shame for women to talk in church because it's in the law. You are clueless on these matter and that's why you connot understand what this is about. As long as you keep shutting your mind to any ideas other than culture, you won't see the beauty in this.

It's not up to me to teach you what that means, you would do well to pray that God would give you understanding and then you'd have peace with this.

Norman

[Denise]

It's really something how some of you view what others are trying to point out, and then misunderstand completely what they are trying to say.....and then put it into something what you think they are trying to say........and then by your post, sounds like you are angry and retaliate (Now,I'm not saying that you are, just looks like it)by this quote:

Quote:

OK ... Mrs. Redwood ....

PREACH

I think sometimes we get ourselves worked up by thinking what that other person is trying to say and mean, which is not true.

[Woody]

Quote:

then by your post, sounds like you are angry and retaliate

I think we would do well to not make such judgments. It is too hard to do that over the internet.

Telling my wife that she can preach when she is a commissioned pastor of the Seventh day Adventist church is just an example ... why would there be any anger in it. It seems rather silly to me. I might laugh. But I would not be angry.

These kind of voiced judgments are not helpful on an internet forum or anywhere. For one thing they are dead wrong ... and they are divisive.

I think the following is applicable ...

Quote:

I think sometimes we get ourselves worked up by thinking what that other person is trying to say and mean, which is not true.

[Woody]

Quote:

YOU would do well to pray

I am getting tired of this request towards those who have a different view from yourself. This repeated and pious sounding plea is just that. You have admonished us to pray and we have. Maybe it is time for you to follow your own advice.

[Denise]

Quote:

(Now,I'm not saying that you are, just looks like it)

Sorry you took that as a judgement.

[Woody]

Why would you judge that it looks like it when it clearly is not as you have judged it to look?

This is a forum of voicing opinion. You have stated your judgment or opinion. I happen to disagree and believe that your opinion or judgment of how it looks is not helpful. I find it divisive. I don't see how you can judge that it looks that way when your vision on the internet is somewhat clouded to put it mildly.

But then that is MY judgment. And it could be a wrong judgment. I will let the "viewer" decide.

[Denise]

Quote:

But then that is MY judgment. And it could be a wrong judgment. I will let the "viewer" decide.

Fine Redwood, I am not worried about it, my consciense is clear.

[Woody]

I am glad for you Denise. I would like to suggest an alternative idea though.

Here on CA we have an option to send a PM. If in the future you suspect that someone is "angry" ... you could always send a PM and clarify. To do so in public ... just causes division in my "judgment". Perhaps though I am the only one who feels that way. But at least you can know that if you have concerns of a personal nature with me ... I will always commit to answering your PM in a timely manner.

I consider this a part of Matt.18 and so I take it seriously. You can count on me to follow through.

[Denise]

Quote:

Here on CA we have an option to send a PM. If in the future you suspect that someone is "angry" ... you could always send a PM and clarify. To do so in public ... just causes division in my "judgment". Perhaps though I am the only one who feels that way. But at least you can know that if you have concerns of a personal nature with me ... I will always commit to answering your PM in a timely manner.

I consider this a part of Matt.18 and so I take it seriously. You can count on me to follow through.

This should of been a PM.

[Woody]

Thank you Denise. This has been a fruitful discussion.