Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D (quoting Don W McFarlane who quoted Ellen Gould White):

“

‘The Lord desires His ministering servants to occupy a place worthy of the highest consideration. In the mind of God, the ministry of men and women existed before the world was created.’ (E. White, Manuscript Releases 18:380).

If you check the original quote you will see that there is no evidence Ellen White was saying women ought to be made the church pastor or an elder.

"Ministry" is a word with very broad meaning both in the NT and in the writings of Ellen White. It refers to anything that people do to build up the body of Christ. In fact, she states in the sentence just before the one quoted above that "merely to preach the word is not ministry." She goes on to speak of Christ as a "minister," showing that she's not speaking of "ministry" in the sense of being the pastor or elder of a church. She's talking about "ministry" in the biblical sense of unselfish service to others. In Ellen White's use of "ministry," she's saying that everyone can be a minister and do service for God just as Christ did.

Quote:

Ellen G. White:...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.”(Review & Herald, July 9, 1895.)

Notice what she says women should be appointed to do: visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. Ellen White is in complete agreement with the Bible here.

Quote:

Ellen G. White: All who desire 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 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.”(Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 322.)

In the writings of Ellen White, any helper in the church who "feeds the flock of God" is a pastor. Like the word "minister" in the NT, "pastor" has more than one meaning in Mrs. White's writings. For instance, she makes it clear that not all ministers are pastors. Some do not know how to pastor. They may be good preachers but they don't shepherd or pastor their flocks.

Speaking on 1 Peter 5: 2, 3, where Peter mentions the work of pastors, Mrs. White writes: "There is a wide field for the elders and the helpers in every church. They are to feed the flock of God with pure provender, thoroughly winnowed from the chaff, the poisonous mixture of error. You who have any part to act in the church of God, be sure that you act wisely in feeding the flock of God; for its prosperity much depends upon the quality of this food." 7 SDA BC 942

"Helpers" in the church include deacons and deaconess. In fact, that is the very word used in many translations to translate the Greek word, diakonos, into English.

Of women as helpers, or deacons, in the church, Ellen White said, "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."

When anyone does this work faithfully, they are true ministers, pastors, and helpers in the highest sense of the word. The New Testament word for those who do that work is deacon and deaconess. Romans 16: 1, 2 calls Phoebe a deaconess and a helper. Paul said she helped him, too, probably while he was a prisoner.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Church officers are elected by the church, and therefore they represent the church to the people of God; whereas Ellen White, as a prophet, was God's mouthpiece to His church and to the world. Her authority, unlike the authority of pastors and elders, rested solely upon the decision of God, who selected her-- just as did the authority of Elijah or Samuel.

Quote:

Neil D: Ok, so when the church "recognizes God's call to the minister" [that's a near quote from every ordination ceremony I've ever attended], in EGW's case, the ordination was recognized by the Church and it issued ordination certificate. Therefore, EGW has authority over every person, female and male. This conclusion is evidenced by her writings.

The church recognized Ellen White's call by Jesus Christ long before she received an ordination credential. (1 SM 32, 33) As said before, the credential had nothing to do with her authority or her work. She never claimed to have authority over people, certainly not men. It was God who had the authority.

Tuesday I'll go to the Ellen White Estate in Loma Linda (the Heritage Room) and do some research on the the question of Ellen White credential. I'll post what I find out.

Quote:

Neil D: If your arguments brought out from the bible are correct, then we have a direct contradiction regarding women's ordination and women's teaching over men.

Let me know if you still think so after you read all the posts from today.

Ellen White was called to be a prophet and this calling came directly from God, not by way of the church or from any man.

She didn't rely on the authority of any man or church. In that way, she was clearly different from anyone else in the church. Deaconesses and deacons are elected by the churches to represent the churches to the congregations. That is not the case with Ellen White.

Quote:

Neil D: If what you have brought out from the bible is correct, then we should not be using EGW's writing at all...since that biblical authority states that a woman is NOT to be teaching men...The problem is that she is definitely and definably and definitively teaching men thru her writings....

It means that the church should not appoint women to teach men. It doesn't say God cannot raise up women prophets.

It's true that Ellen White is teaching men through her writings, but anyone can write a book. Also, Ellen White's commission from Christ is different from men selecting or electing women to be over men. Ellen White was never "over" men in the sense that women pastors and elder would be. She gave them messages from God, but that never made her "over" men in the biblical sense. For instance, she gave her husband messages from God, but that didn't mean she was "over" her husband. She never ask for, or wanted, authority to be over men or to manage them.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: I'm just thinking of the Bible's viewpoint. I don't believe the NT allows a woman to govern or rule the local church or to dominate men-- or exercise authority-- within the church.

Quote:

Neil D: Well, this is definitely a problem, since EGW is teaching thru her writings, guiding thru her writings, and giving spiritual counsel....all thru her writings...

Let me know if you still feel this way after I've written this post.

The difference is that God is able to choose anyone He wants to as His mouthpiece, but the fact that God chooses a woman doesn't give men the right to violate the instructions we have in Scripture regarding church organization. God was free to raise up female judges and female prophets, but that gave men no right to choose female priests.

Quote:

Neil D: Now, I know that you're gonna say something about her being God's penman....but according to what you have said, God doesn't allow His word to come thru women....because women are not allowed to teach men...Therefore, only men can be the penmen of God...but we don't have any male penmen....at least, one who makes the claims of prophet, or "messenger of God".

You misunderstand what I've said. I never said God doesn't allow His word to come through women.

God's penmen were all the prophets and writers of the Bible.

Actually, the prophets, including Ellen G. White, were God's mouthpiece. 1 SM 32, 33. They spoke for God to His church. Pastors and elders speak for the church to the congregations.

The Bible shows there have been female prophets, a proof that God does allow His word to come through women. There's also 1 Cor. 11: 5, which refers to women prophecying and praying in public.

[Tom Wetmore]

... My impression is that the people making the requests will never stop asking until they get what they want, and if they don't get it, they will do it anyway.

This says more about the attitude of the opposition than about the reality of those who will never stop asking all these years. The fact remains that after more than a hundred and fifty years of asking, they haven't done it anyway. They keep asking. If they were inclined, as you suggest, to do it anyway, why keep asking?!?! Just do it. But the truth is, they haven't, have they?

Oh wait a minute. They did ordain women over 100 years ago. Ellen G. White and Lulu Wightman.

And those Chinese just did it... without asking for human permission. The leader of the largest Seventh-day Adventist Church in the world is an ordained woman pastor. And apparently the only One they asked said, "Yes, do it."

Originally Posted By: John317

Isn't it apparent after all those years of study groups, that the Bible doesn't give support to women as elders and pastors? If the support was there, and it was clear, wouldn't they have discovered it and shown the world church already? But the question is-- does it really matter? The answer is, no, clearly it does not matter.

The equally valid perspective to the contrary position on this is that it clearly does not matter. No amount of evidence, large or small, from any source whatsoever, will change minds made up and opposed to women in ministry. The volume of words expended here against the evidence for WO is self evident of that fact. Not even the majority of our own theologians at the Seminary supporting WO is enough. More study is the only response from those opposed.

There is nothing that can persuade the opposition to change their minds. You have convinced me of that fact.

Originally Posted By: John317

See the next paragraph, which shows that some of the unions have skirted the decisions of the General Conference in session and done what they have long been determined to do, despite the fact that the studies have never produced clear evidence that the Bible supports women as pastors and elders. ...

And again, for the umpteenth time, what is being done is with the blessing of the General Conference which in fact allows for commissioned women ministers and encourages woman to be pastors and elders. And the practice and written policy for the commissioning of women as pastors predates both the 1990 and 1995 GC Sessions. It is hard to skirt a decision not yet made.

Let's look at this the other way. Show us the "clear evidence" from Scripture against women as pastors and elders and against WO.

[karl]

John, it is not a matter of what the Bible says. It is a matter of what the communists are doing. Our emphasis is all wrong. We should be arguing from expediency rather than from principle.

But we are really on the wrong end of this discussion anyway. Men have bailed from their spiritual duties for a long time. It is good that women have picked up the shovel. What we have to do is encourage men to be transformed by the Holy Spirit so that they will put on the mantle and actually do the work that needs doing.

These women in China are doing a valuable work. Over half of the pastors in China are women and a majority of members are women. This is probably more a result of the persecution of the church than from any administrative direction taken by the church.

As you may know, Adventist proselytizing was illegal in communist China for many years. The testimony of Robert Huang is instructive:

"Adventism became a church led by fewer and fewer pastors as they were arrested one by one. I became one of the last, if not the last, Adventist pastor able to minister to the remaining Adventists in Shanghai. Because proselytizing was illegal in the new China, I went underground, secretly conducting private services in church members’ homes, beside hospital beds, or on park benches. I soon became a marked man and was followed by members of the secret police. In 1964, I was arrested and without trial was thrown in jail. When I remained unwilling to confess to crimes I had never committed, the guards told me to cooperate or sit on the floor until it rotted."

[Tom Wetmore]

....

Quote:

As early as 1881 the General Conference Session resolved, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry (The Review and Herald, December 20, 1881, page 392). Following the resolution, the matter was referred to the three-member General Conference Committee. There is no record of further action or implementation of the resolution.

Questions that need to be answered in regard to this paragraph are:

1) What did the GC session mean by "the work of the Christian ministry"? (As has been pointed out numerous times, "Christian ministry" has a very broad meaning in the Bible and in church history. Christian ministry includes the work of deaconesses, Bible instruction, evangelism, and many different ministries, such as working with the poor, the sick, and with children and women.)

As we have been told, context is important. The minutes reflect that the actions on that day of the Session dealt specifically with the ministers of our denomination. The immediately preceding two actions give the context of a series of 3 related actions of what was meant by "females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position" in what they were seeking to define as the "Christian ministry" of the denomination. Here they are:

Quote:

Resolved, That the Chair be requested to appoint a committee of five brethren, whose duty it shall be to arrange a systematic course of reading for the ministers of our denomination. - Adopted.

Quote:

Resolved, That all candidates for license and ordination should be examined with reference to their intellectual and spiritual fitness for the successful discharge of the duties which will devolve upon them as licentiates and ordained ministers.

See for yourself at page 197 - http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCB/GCB1863-88.pdf#view=fit

Originally Posted By: John317

2) Why was there no further action? Was it because Bible study showed the leaders that they didn't have the support of Scripture to ordain women to the pastoral ministery? It seems to me that if the church had seen clear evidence that women are to be made pastors and elders, there would have been no reason not to ordain them to such positions. I think we can safely assume that since they didn't do it at that time, they didn't believe they had Bible authority. Of course it is also possible that the reason they didn't move forward on it was out of fear the church wouldn't stand behind their decision. But if they saw good Bible reason for it, why not publish their findings?...

Actually a "further action" that was taken was two days later with the readings committee giving a list of readings for ministers. And two years later they in fact issued ordained minister credentials to a woman - Ellen G. White. That there was no further study given at that time was in no small part due to the study that had already been done. It had already been settled. That is reflected in the fact of the resolution.

It has not been until our time that the issue has become unsettled and unresolved.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: ... My impression is that the people making the requests will never stop asking until they get what they want, and if they don't get it, they will do it anyway.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: This says more about the attitude of the opposition than about the reality of those who will never stop asking all these years. The fact remains that after more than a hundred and fifty years of asking, they haven't done it anyway. They keep asking. If they were inclined, as you suggest, to do it anyway, why keep asking?!?! Just do it. But the truth is, they haven't, have they?

Yes, they have, Tom. Below is the evidence that they did go ahead and did it, despite the vote of the GC.

Here's an article written about the very issue I'm talking about: the fact that Southeastern Ca. Conference didn't vote to abide by the decision of the General Conference. Lynn Mallery was one of my favorite professors at Loma Linda University when I studied theology there during the 1970s. I don't blame Dr. Mallery. But I do agree with the president of the GC. I believe the church needs to move together, and not have some conferences doing their own thing on this or any other issue.

Quote:

(RNS) The president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has voiced his "regret" that the church's Southeastern California Conference has decided to issue the same credentials to male and female pastors.

The executive committee of the conference made the move March 16. F. Lynn Mallery, president of the conference, said the decision reflected the need to treat "women ministers without discrimination."

Mallery said the committee respected the various views on the matter, but hoped "our fellow believers will also respect our moral conviction that men and women in this conference who are equally qualified and have had fruitful ministries should be treated in the same way."

Pastor Jan Paulsen, president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, said the decision by the Southeast California Conference makes a unified position more difficult on the matter of male and female clergy.

"The issue is not the rightness or otherwise, ethically, morally or biblically, of the position that there should be no difference between them," Paulsen said. "My regret is that the SECC could not, out of deference to the larger international family of Seventh-day Adventists, have held in check their exercise of `freedom,' knowing that the church makes her decisions sometimes frustratingly slowly, but in a very deliberate manner with an eye to many issues.

"Moving together until we have agreed to give room to differ on specific issues is the price we pay for unity."

The Adventist Church traditionally has a two-tier credentialing system for men and women, reported Adventist Press Service. The church recognizes males in gospel ministry as "ordained" and females as "commissioned." Commissioned ministers are prohibited from organizing churches, ordaining deacons and elders and serving as conference president.

Nearly 10 percent of pastors in the 60,000-member Southeastern California Conference are women. The conference serves five counties south and east of Los Angeles.

[Tom Wetmore]

And they did not give women the ordained minister credential.

With the full cooperation of all the male pastors, both male and female pastors were issued the same commissioned minister credentials.

There is nothing in the policy against men holding the commissioned minister credential. In fact, many men did hold that credential throughout NAD before SE California took its action and many still do. They did not go against the action of the GC Session of 1995.

That reminds me of the principle articulated by James White:

Quote:

All means which, according to sound judgment, will advance the cause of truth, and are not forbidden by plain scripture declarations, should be employed.

If not expressly prohibited, it is permissible.

[Stan]

I have the commissioned minister credentials.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

Oh wait a minute. They did ordain women over 100 years ago. Ellen G. White and Lulu Wightman.

Tomorrow I'll be going into Loma Linda and will check out whatever information they have available on this at the Heritage Room at the university library. Whatever I find out, I'll post here.

Meantime do you know if she was actually ordained by the church? Or was it simply a matter of their issuing her the credential?

Also, when was the first time she was issued the credential?

My own understanding is that Ellen White was recognized and worked for many years as the Lord's messenger and prophet before the credential was issued.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: And those Chinese just did it... without asking for human permission. The leader of the largest Seventh-day Adventist Church in the world is an ordained woman pastor. And apparently the only One they asked said, "Yes, do it."

I've already said that the women of China are doing a wonderful work. We can only be thankful that they're stepping up to the plate, as it were, and are doing what they can to spread the gospel in China. But they wouldn't need to be the pastors and elders there if the men were more involved in the work.

God raised up women judges in ancient Israel, but that was also because the men weren't doing what they should have done. If they had been, God would have used the men the same as He did throughout the rest of Israel's history. The period of the Judges was clearly an exception to the rule.

Both Deborah and Huldah (2 Kings 22: 14-20) exercised their gift of prophecy differently from the men who possessed the gift. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other male prophets exercised a public ministry, but Deborah didn't prophecy in public. Instead, her prophetic role seems to be limited to private and indiviudal instruction. Judges 4: 5 says, "And she used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment." Note that Deborah didn't go out and publicly proclaim the word of the Lord. Huldah's ministry was similar to Deborah's, and the prophetess Mariam ministered only to women. Ex. 15: 20.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: See the next paragraph, which shows that some of the unions have skirted the decisions of the General Conference in session and done what they have long been determined to do, despite the fact that the studies have never produced clear evidence that the Bible supports women as pastors and elders. ...

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: And again, for the umpteenth time, what is being done is with the blessing of the General Conference which in fact allows for commissioned women ministers and encourages woman to be pastors and elders. And the practice and written policy for the commissioning of women as pastors predates both the 1990 and 1995 GC Sessions. It is hard to skirt a decision not yet made.

Why did the president of the GC say the following--

Pastor Jan Paulsen, president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, said the decision by the Southeast California Conference makes a unified position more difficult on the matter of male and female clergy.

"The issue is not the rightness or otherwise, ethically, morally or biblically, of the position that there should be no difference between them," Paulsen said. "My regret is that the SECC could not, out of deference to the larger international family of Seventh-day Adventists, have held in check their exercise of `freedom,' knowing that the church makes her decisions sometimes frustratingly slowly, but in a very deliberate manner with an eye to many issues.

"Moving together until we have agreed to give room to differ on specific issues is the price we pay for unity."

What's pastor Paulsen talking about? Does he have a valid point?

[karl]

As early as 1881 the General Conference Session resolved, That females possessing the necessary qualifications to fill that position, may, with perfect propriety, be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry (The Review and Herald, December 20, 1881, page 392). Following the resolution, the matter was referred to the three-member General Conference Committee. There is no record of further action or implementation of the resolution.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: There is nothing in the policy against men holding the commissioned minister credential. In fact, many men did hold that credential throughout NAD before SE California took its action and many still do. They did not go against the action of the GC Session of 1995.

Yes, you're right, there's nothing in the policy against men holding the commissioned minister's credential.

But then I don't know of anyone who argues that men shouldn't hold this credential.

Consider the request from the NAD which was rejected by the 1995 General Conference Session:

Quote:

The 1995 General Conference Session in Utrecht considered and rejected a request from the North American Division “that the General Conference in session adopt provisions on ordination as outlined below:

"The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies. In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender. In divisions where the division executive committee takes specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions."

The NAD wanted each division to be given the right to authorize the ordination of women within those divisions. This request was rejected by the world church in General Conference. But then after it was rejected, "unions that have employed women in ministerial or pastoral functions have used the policy on Commissioning, issuing commissioned minister’s licenses and/or credentials to these women."

What is the essential difference between the request that was rejected and the result of the "policy on Commissioning" as far as women in ministry is concerned?

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:...That reminds me of the principle articulated by James White:

"All means which, according to sound judgment, will advance the cause of truth, and are not forbidden by plain scripture declarations, should be employed."

If not expressly prohibited, it is permissible.

Do you know if James White ever either ordained a woman to be the pastor of a church or if he wrote that he believed the Bible supports women being made a church pastor or elder? I'd especially like to read what he wrote about 1 Cor. 11 or 14 and 1 Tim. 2.

Would you mind writing your understanding of 1 Cor. 14: 33-40 and 1 Tim. 2: 8-15?

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

Oh wait a minute. They did ordain women over 100 years ago. Ellen G. White and Lulu Wightman.

...Meantime do you know if she was actually ordained by the church? Or was it simply a matter of their issuing her the credential?

Also, when was the first time she was issued the credential?...

This is simply a distinction without a difference. The ritual you are searching for adds nothing and you are placing far too much importance on it. (That is what EGW said about it...) We are not a ritualistic religion that requires certain incantations and ritualized gestures to invoke God's blessing. Ordination is principally a public act of human recognition of the call of God to a particular purpose. That the General Conference, and the Michigan Conference before it, issued the credential is in fact recognition of the reality of God's call to EGW as a fully qualified member of the Adventist Church's clergy, fully authorized to do anything any other ordained minster was authorized to do.

As I asked you before, show us the same evidence that James White, Uriah Smith or any of the other founders of our denomination, were so ordained.

Originally Posted By: John317

I've already said that the women of China are doing a wonderful work. We can only be thankful that they're stepping up to the plate, as it were, and are doing what they can to spread the gospel in China. But they wouldn't need to be the pastors and elders there if the men were more involved in the work.

So women are used when something better isn't available!?!? What evidence do you have that no men are involved in the work? Seriously now, if there really were no Chinese men ever involved in ministry, you might have a point, but only up to a point. So if a man steps forward, must the woman step aside? If God can call women under any circumstances, what is it about women that disqualifies them under any other circumstances? Why can't an all powerful and all knowing God come up with at least one man among the thousands in that church in China lead by a woman?

Originally Posted By: John317

The period of the Judges was clearly an exception to the rule.

What rule? How was it the exception? I always understood the period of the judges to be closer to God's ideal for Israel. They drifted away from that when they clamored for a king.

Originally Posted By: John317

Both Deborah and Huldah (2 Kings 22: 14-20) exercised their gift of prophecy differently from the men who possessed the gift...

Different from all men? I think not. Some, perhaps, but not all. And are you still saying that God had no men in those roles during the same period?

It sure sounds like sitting out under a tree was public enough? You are really stretching for a way to distinguish and minimize what these women did. It seems like trying to distinguish Elijah and Elisha because they were quite different in their approach to being a prophet. Different, yes. But both were still prophets.

No evidence will ever be enough...

[Tom Wetmore]

...What is the essential difference between the request that was rejected and the result of the "policy on Commissioning" as far as women in ministry is concerned?

As far as the women pastors were concerned their role, function and credential before 1995 and after remained the same. They all had the commissioned credential before and after.

[Gregory Matthews]

John 317 said:

Quote:

Deborah didn't prophecy in public. Instead, her prophetic role seems to be limited to private and indiviudal instruction.

What! And waht is your source for that? How do you claim to know that she did not?

Do you believe that the Bible records every aspect of her ministry? I do not. Rather, it simply selects one part that becomes important for the story. This is essentially what the Bible does with men. It does not record every aspect of their ministry. It is selective for both men and women.

It is without foundation to claim that she did not have a public ministry.

[Tom Wetmore]

...What's pastor Paulsen talking about? Does he have a valid point?

I am not too sure what he meant. But I would understand his reference to their "freedom" as recognition that they were free within the policy to "downgrade" males to the commissioned minister credential since it was not a female only credential and that other male pastors held that credential.

I think Paulsen understood how it would be misperceived as being out of sync and stir up further opposition to women in ministry which he has made no secret of supporting.

[Neil D]

John-

Remember this passage-

R&H July 9, 1895

Women, who are willing to consecrate some of their service to the Lord, should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and the laying on of hands. In some cases, they will need to counsel with the [local] church officers or the [conference] 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. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul should be discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publically, for this grand work.

The historical context of this passage shows that there were women who were showing evidence of ministerial work within various conferences. When EGW published this work from Australia, the aussie conference rather immediately ordained 3 women deaconess. Is this not rather an afirmation that EGW supported ordination of women? Is this not a "working after a different order" that EGW urged us to do? Is this not the "branching out" that she encouraged? After all, women who do the gospel commission and bring Christ to others ought to be ordained with the laying on of hands and recognised by the church of thier calling that comes from God. There are many churches in the New York Conference that owe thier existance to a woman in our church history, who has rivaled even current pastors in the setting up of churches.

EGW is a contemporary mouthpiece of God during this period of time....Is there a place where she doesn't encourage ordination of women?

Something else you need to establish....What is the difference between an ordained minister and a licensed minister and justa "minister"? Which one comes closest to the biblical order, in your opinon?

I am getting the impression from your writings that you are splitting hairs regarding the differences of ministers and then of women ministers, ordained or not....

[Neil D]

Quote:

Neil D: Most persons who are trained to run are called a special name...If we say that women are dainty people, 'the weaker sex', and if we have a number of them who normally outruns most males, even in competition, are not called "Athletes", but only "runners"...are we being fair? If they fulfill the office of runner, and athlete, why are we so scared of saying so?

[snip]

I don't think it's a matter of what people are called but of whether the church is going to follow the Bible. Actually, it would be possible to invent new names or call them anything we want, and it wouldn't make any real difference as far as the name is concerned. The only important thing is whether the church is going to follow what God has revealed through the Bible.

[Neil D]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: The Bible teaches that women in ministry are not to teach men, or to exercise authority over males.

Quote:

Neil D: Now we have a problem with "When" does a male cease being a child and becomes a man...According to my understanding, when a boy becomes a man was thru a ceremony at age 12. A teen becomes a man....at this point, a woman can not excercise her authority over the wrong choices of a male because he is a man...This is the logical outcome of your conclusion....to which, I would be fearful for you of many a mother of teens.... teehe

That is not a problem, Neil. The NT instructions don't affect a mother's right to teach her children, whether males or females. It also does not affect teachers in schools. Paul is talking about "in all the churches of the saints" (1 Cor. 14: 33b-34).

[Neil D]

Ellen G. White was recognized by the church for a long time before she was issued a credential, and she was never actually ordained by the church or by any man. She wouldn't, in any case, have accepted such an ordination. Her authority and her work didn't at all depend upon her credential. See 1 SM 32, 33

The Lord gave me great light on health reform. In connection with my husband, I was to be a medical missionary worker. I was to set an example to the church by taking the sick to my home and caring for them. This I have done, giving the women and children vigorous treatment. I was also to speak on the subject of Christian temperance, as the Lord's appointed messenger. I engaged heartily in this work, and spoke to large assemblies on temperance in its broadest and truest sense. {1SM 33.2}

I was instructed that I must ever urge upon those who profess to believe the truth, the necessity of practicing the truth. This means sanctification, and sanctification means the culture and training of every capability for the Lord's service. {1SM 33.3}

I was charged not to neglect or pass by those who were being wronged. I was specially charged to protest against any arbitrary or overbearing action toward the ministers of the gospel by those having official authority. Disagreeable though the duty may be, I am to reprove the oppressor, and plead for justice. I am to present the necessity of maintaining justice and equity in all our institutions. {1SM 33.4}

If I see those in positions of trust neglecting aged ministers, I am to present the matter to those whose duty it is to care for them. Ministers who have faithfully done their work are not to be forgotten or neglected when they have become feeble in health. Our conferences are not to disregard the needs of those who have borne the burdens of the work. It was after John had grown old in the service of the Lord that he was exiled to Patmos. And on that

34

lonely isle he received more communications from heaven than he had received during the rest of his lifetime. {1SM 33.5}

"EGW didn't have authority over men....?" "EGW was the exception to the rule...?" Your reference shows that she did have authority over men, and she, as such, violated the biblical concept that she was NOT to have authority over men....

Again, you have a problem with 1] the concept of ministers...2] the concept of Ordaining women 3] the concept of what Paul meant when he said that women shall not have authority over men 4] the concept of "prophet" and what those duties and mission may include....

[John317]

Quote:

John317: ... My impression is that the people making the requests will never stop ...Isn't it apparent after all those years of study groups, that the Bible doesn't give support to women as elders and pastors? If the support was there, and it was clear, wouldn't they have discovered it and shown the world church already? But the question is-- does it really matter? The answer is, no, clearly it does not matter. Apparently they will keep asking until they get what they want, and if they don't get it, they will do it anyway.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: This says more about the attitude of the opposition than about the reality of those who will never stop asking all these years. The fact remains that after more than a hundred and fifty years of asking, they haven't done it anyway. They keep asking. If they were inclined, as you suggest, to do it anyway, why keep asking?!?! Just do it. But the truth is, they haven't, have they?

At first, apparently, the NAD had hoped plan "A" would work, which was that the GC would vote to allow women to be ordained, but when the GC voted against it, the NAD went to plan "B" and requested that each division be allowed to decide independantly of other divisions on the ordination of women. However, the world church in General Conference session rejected their request to have women ordained by the various divisions to be church pastors and elders. Then, after that request was rejected, the NAD chose to go with plan "C" which called for unions to use the policy on Commissioning and issue commissioned minister’s licenses and/or credentials to these women.

Do you think this is very far off the mark from what happened? I'm not saying NAD had it planned out that way, but from looking at what has happened, it certainly seems that's the way it turned out.

My thought is that once they studied the subject and the GC voted against it, they should respect the decision of the GC and not keep asking for a vote on the question again and again at every GC. Sooner or later, they will almost certainly get a GC that will change the vote, but will the change be due to Bible evidence? Or will the change come as a result of politics and the pressures from the feminist movement? What new Bible evidence have they turned up-- that Phoebe was actually an overseer in the church, Paul's superior, and the first bishop of Rome?

Strange, isn't it, that Seventh-day Adventists didn't see that evidence in over 130 years of diligent and prayerful Bible study of the topic?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: The equally valid perspective to the contrary position on this is that it clearly does not matter. No amount of evidence, large or small, from any source whatsoever, will change minds made up and opposed to women in ministry.

I'm not opposed to women in ministry. I'm not even opposed to women's ordination if it's done right-- that is, if the church publishes clear arguments showing Bible support for it, and then the world church in General Conference session votes in favor of it. But I'm not in favor of it when it goes against the decisions of the General Conference Session.

I'm looking for Bible support of women's ordination, and I don't see it.

On the basis of the discussion of the issue on the Forum, and even in looking at the discussions in books on the topic, it seems to me that the main thrust of those favoring WO is historical rather than theological. I believe a theological answer is the only one acceptable to the church.

Personally I would favor WO if I saw clear evidence from the Spirit of prophecy (i.e., Ellen White's writings) that this is what God wants for His remnant church. She would have had to explain 1 Cor. 11 and 14 and 1 Tim. 2. But Ellen White didn't have anything to say about those verses. She never said that we shouldn't go by the Bible when it comes to the church organization or women's ministries. In fact, I believe the evidence shows that Ellen White followed the Bible on this as well as on all other issues.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: The volume of words expended here against the evidence for WO is self evident of that fact.

You told Karl he doesn't read enough and now you're going to tell me I write too much. OK, I admit I write a lot, but then I write a lot about every subject that strikes my fancy. I sometimes write a lot about Shakespeare and about photography, too. All it shows is that I write a lot. But I think if you go back over what I've written up to this point on this topic, you will have to admit that I write on topic and that I deal straightforwardsly with the evidence. I'll answer any question you have without beating around the bush.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Not even the majority of our own theologians at the Seminary supporting WO is enough.

The important thing for me is not that the majority of theologians believe a particular thing, but their reasons for believing it. Are they based squarely on solid Bible evidence?

I've read articles and essays on the topic by Fritz Guy, who taught systematic theology at Loma Linda U when I was a student there, but even his statements don't show the Bible reasons for it. He talks mostly about the moral imperative of ordaining women, but he doesn't show that this is what the Bible clearly supports. (I've noticed, though, that Fritz Guy has also written things favoring the acceptance of homosexual relationships among SDAs.)

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: More study is the only response from those opposed.

Well, since no paper published by the church has yet shown a clear support from Scripture for making women church pastors and elders, I believe it's important for the church to study the topic until they see such support and can persuade the world church that this support exists.

If you believe that such a paper or book has been written-- showing FROM SCRIPTURE that the church should ordain women to be church pastors and elders-- please tell me the title and the name of the writer or how I can obtain a copy. I will certainly study it, and with an open mind.

Do you believe the GC in session is not right to vote against WO and to request more Bible study? It seems to me that Bible study is what's needed in order for the church to believe it's right for it to ordain women to be church pastors and elders. Should anyone vote for it if they don't believe it's supported by Scripture-- or if they have any doubts about it?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: There is nothing that can persuade the opposition to change their minds. You have convinced me of that fact.

OK, Tom. Just keep studying and writing on this thread. Don't tell me that since I write a lot, you won't exchange posts. You've already told Karl that until he reads what you want him to read, you won't communicate with him. You seem to have a lot of standards-- read more; write less, etc.-- for people to be able to communicate with you.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

...Meantime do you know if she was actually ordained by the church? Or was it simply a matter of their issuing her the credential?

Also, when was the first time she was issued the credential?...

Tell that to the men who are ordained, or to the women who want to be ordained. I'm pretty sure they don't feel that their ordination ceremony is of no importance. My maternal grandfather was ordained, and he thought enough of it to write about it in his autobiography. He wrote, "I was ordained to the gospel ministry in 1910. Elders' Haskell, Spicer, and Evans officiating."

If it makes no difference, why do they go to the trouble of having it? Is it just an empty ritual?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: The ritual you are searching for adds nothing and you are placing far too much importance on it. (That is what EGW said about it...) We are not a ritualistic religion that requires certain incantations and ritualized gestures to invoke God's blessing.

Have I indicated that I think the ordination ceremony in itself "adds something" or is a magical formula in some way? If you think so, you are mistaken.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Ordination is principally a public act of human recognition of the call of God to a particular purpose.

Sure. Of course. But it has the importance of saying to the church that this person is a representative of the church and has the authority to speak and act on behalf of the church. It's so that there will be no mistake on the individual's position. But it also is done in order for the individual to state publicly his pledge to work for Christ in the gospel ministry. In some ways, it has the same purposes as a public wedding or the swearing in ceremony by a public official.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: That the General Conference, and the Michigan Conference before it, issued the credential is in fact recognition of the reality of God's call to EGW as a fully qualified member of the Adventist Church's clergy, fully authorized to do anything any other ordained minster was authorized to do.

Today I'll research this question at the Heritage Room at Loma Linda U. I know she was issued a credential but I will find out when and why, etc.

I looked into this subject about 20 years ago but I don't remember all the details, but it seems to me that she was not given a credential until after James White's death. But I could be wrong about that. In any case, I believe she was working as the Lord's "messenger" and the church knew she was receiving dreams and visions long before she was issued a credential.

You said the ordination ceremony adds nothing. You are right. And in the case of Ellen White, the ordiantion credential also added nothing, either. That's what shows Ellen White was different from pastors and elders, etc. Why? Because, without that credential or license, they would not have a job in the church, and could not do their work. But Ellen White both could and did.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: As I asked you before, show us the same evidence that James White, Uriah Smith or any of the other founders of our denomination, were so ordained.

Here's the thing, Tom:

Is the church in the habit of giving men credentials showing they are ordained without actually ordaining them? No. Why not? Because the ordination ceremony shows the church that the person ordained has been given the authority to speak and act on behalf of the church, and also it shows the church that this man has been set apart for the gospel ministry.

Did they give Ellen White a credential without ordaining her? Yes. Why? Because the church could not give Ellen White authority, since her authority did not come from the church, but directly from Christ. Also because as a prophet, she didn't speak for the church but for God, and she had been doing this for a long time and the church realized it. All these reasons add up to the fact that Ellen White did not need or ask for ordination by the church.

I'll find out tomorrow (I mean later today) what info they have concerning the ordiantions of James White and Uriah Smith. Should prove to be interesting.

Your thoughts?

[John317]

Quote:

karl: John, it is not a matter of what the Bible says. It is a matter of what the communists are doing. Our emphasis is all wrong. We should be arguing from expediency rather than from principle.

You're right that as far as China is concerned, it has a great deal to do with what the communists are doing. I wouldn't be surprised if they would rather see women doing church work than men. I'm sure that the communists have their people in the church, just as they did in the USSR. It's a well known fact that the churches in China are not independent of the government. For instance, their relations with the SDAs in the US are not the same as the relations of SDAs in other parts of the world with the GC. The leadership of the churches in China are appointed or regulated by the communist government. It's possible that this-- and the persecution there-- has something to do with the fact that more women than men are in leadership positions in the church in China.

Quote:

Karl: But we are really on the wrong end of this discussion anyway. Men have bailed from their spiritual duties for a long time.

Yes, this is very true. Many men have also bailed out from their other duties as well, and many people have observed this and written about it. For instance, Bill Cosby and Jesse Jackson. But it is throughout society and in fact all over the Western world.

Quote:

Karl: It is good that women have picked up the shovel. What we have to do is encourage men to be transformed by the Holy Spirit so that they will put on the mantle and actually do the work that needs doing.

I agree. But there are some men who like it that way, because it lets them "off the hook" and frees them to do whatever they feel like, without feeling that they're neglecting their God-given responsibilities. Read, for instance, Adventist Home, pp. 211-243, about the position and responsibilities of the father; as well as those of the mother.

The problem is that we live in a society which tells men that there's no difference between the men's and women's role and responsibilities in the home and in the church. That's not biblical, nor is it in harmony with the Spirit of prophecy.

Quote:

Karl: These women in China are doing a valuable work. Over half of the pastors in China are women and a majority of members are women. This is probably more a result of the persecution of the church than from any administrative direction taken by the church.

I think you're right. We can praise God for what those women in China are doing.

I agree with you also about the probable reason for what we're seeing over there.

Quote:

Karl: As you may know, Adventist proselytizing was illegal in communist China for many years. The testimony of Robert Huang is instructive:

"Adventism became a church led by fewer and fewer pastors as they were arrested one by one. I became one of the last, if not the last, Adventist pastor able to minister to the remaining Adventists in Shanghai. Because proselytizing was illegal in the new China, I went underground, secretly conducting private services in church members’ homes, beside hospital beds, or on park benches. I soon became a marked man and was followed by members of the secret police. In 1964, I was arrested and without trial was thrown in jail. When I remained unwilling to confess to crimes I had never committed, the guards told me to cooperate or sit on the floor until it rotted."

I think I saw an interview of him on 3abn. Amazing testimony. Thanks for sharing that. I remember well when people could be killed or put in prison in China for teaching about Christ. I still don't think it's legal to preach the gospel on the streets of China. They have greater freedom of religion than they did before, but they still don't have freedom the way Americans are used to having. But thank God for the freedom they do have, and I'm praying it will increase before the end, so more people there can learn about Christ's soon coming.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: I've already said that the women of China are doing a wonderful work. We can only be thankful that they're stepping up to the plate, as it were, and are doing what they can to spread the gospel in China. But they wouldn't need to be the pastors and elders there if the men were more involved in the work.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: So women are used when something better isn't available!?!?

My point is that women will do it if no one else is going to do it. That is the way it is often in the home. If the man abandons his position and responsibility, guess who ends up filling up the void? This is exactly what happened in the Old Testament at times.

Quote:

Tom Wemore: What evidence do you have that no men are involved in the work?

Of course there are men involved in the work, but clearly not enough. That's why I say "more involved." Perhaps I should have said "more men more involved."

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Seriously now, if there really were no Chinese men ever involved in ministry, you might have a point, but only up to a point. So if a man steps forward, must the woman step aside? If God can call women under any circumstances, what is it about women that disqualifies them under any other circumstances? Why can't an all powerful and all knowing God come up with at least one man among the thousands in that church in China lead by a woman?

There's no reason that a woman has to "step aside" just because she's not the church pastor or an elder. There are many ministries open to women: evangelism, women's ministries, music ministries, working with the children, with the poor, the sick, Bible worker, ministries having to do with health and nutritian, to name just a few. So, clearly I'm not suggesting that women are supposed to "step aside." On the contrary, we need more women in the ministries. The problem is that some people are giving women the impression that if they can't be the church pastor or an elder, they must "step aside" and not be involved in ministry. Of course that's false. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That would be like the people in the Old Testament saying that since a woman could not be a priest, it was necessary for her to "step aside." That would be nonsense. God didn't make men and women to do the same things. They have different roles and different functions, both in the home and in the church. See Adventist Home, pp. 211-239.