Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[Woody]

The subject has been well explored and presented. Anyone who is interested can use the 'search' engine. Truth has been outlined clearly.

[John317]

Quote:

karl: Doug's most recent book is entitled, "Trinity."

Here is the blurb about it from the Amazing Facts website:

"The doctrine of the triune Godhead is under attack from all corners of Christianity. Understand the history behind this dangerous assault and know the biblical support for this great mystery found in both Testaments. You will see the nature of the Godhead and each being in a new, fascinating light, and you will find peace with a fundamental truth important to all believers. Doug Batchelor?s newest book is a convincing defense of the faith!"

Yes, that's the little book by Doug that I recently read. It's a pretty good defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, so unless he recently underwent a radical change in his thinking on that topic, it seems that there may be some misinformation about him being spread around.

But like Gail said, there is a move among some SDAs and former SDAs to reject the Trinity and accept a view that is more in line with Arianism, similar in many ways to the view held by Jehovah's Witnesses. Some of these people can be very vocal and even agressive.

I think one mistake we as a chuch have made is that we've too often assumed that all SDAs are thoroughly convinced of established doctrines like the Trinity. But the truth is that all of our doctrines need to be studied and preached on in our churches, including the Trinity, the state of the dead, the Sabbath, the Investigative Judgment, and the Spirit of prophecy, etc. Otherwise it's easy for people to forget them or not remember why those things are important.

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: The subject has been well explored and presented. Anyone who is interested can use the 'search' engine. Truth has been outlined clearly.

Search engines can also bring up lots of false information and false teachings.

You are welcome to come here and take part in the exchanges of evidence and explantions.

If truth on this topic has been "outlined clearly," why does the majority of the SDA church still believe they are not ready to accept women as church pastors and elders?

Even if the the truth about this subject is known in some areas of the world, it needs to be shared and discussed so that the entire SDA church is aware that the Bible clearly supports Women Ordination. That's one of the purposes of the current discussion. You can help do that.

[John317]

Quote:

Beryl:

Jesus promised (John 14:26) that the Holy Spirit would be sent by the Father, and He would "teach you all things" and "bring all things to your remembrance." Did Jesus lie? NO!

We see the work of the Holy Spirit touching so many lives today.....

A group from one of our country churches flew up to New Guinea and held a series of meetings with wonderful success. They had prayed for the presence of the Holy Spirit, and He was truly there. God had kept back the rain every evening (it poured rain during the days, but cleared in time for the outdoor meetings). On the last night a man brought in his daughter who was truly being torchured by a devil. After a series of prayers after the meeting the devil, with one last struggle, left her. The Holy Spirit is with us today just as He was with the disciples at and after Pentecost.

We need Him in our lives daily.

AMEN. Yes, we do. Thanks for that post.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: Tom, can you please exegete 1 Cor. 14: 33b to 40 and 1 Tim. 2: 8-15? I've discussed these verses many times before, but I have yet to see exactly how you understand them. Could you show what those verses say and what they mean-- how the church of today should understand them?

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: ... may I suggest you read the material I just linked to you that speaks directly to how the founders of our denomination read and understood those specific passages, and more. Also, my reading of those passages is consistent with the hermeneutic outlined by John Brunt in his September, 1988 Ministry article. Here is a link to that issue - http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN19880901-V61-09__B.pdf#view=fit

OK, I read and re-read the article several times, Tom. It definitely has problems, and we can discuss them in detail as soon as I've finished doing some research at the Ellen White Estate in Loma Linda. I plan to finish tomorrow, Thursday.

I went to the Ellen White Estate yesterday and reviewed their files on the subject of Ellen White's credential. I'm going back in about one hour and continue studying this material. I have access to everything on the topic.

The first credential given to Ellen White by the General Conference was after her husband's death. The female staff [the woman in charge] at the Estate told me one of the main reasons the credentail was given to Ellen White was that when Ellen White traveled after James White's death, she needed an "official position" in order to be reimbursed by the conferences for her travel expenses. She wasn't reimbursed by the GC but by the individual conferences she visited. Also she needed proof after her husband's death of who she was and why she was while traveling. It was not good in those days for women to be traveling alone without proof of why they were in the cities. In Letter 40a, 1874, manuscript release 794, Ellen White wrote, "Women who travel alone through those cities [Chicago, etc.] are taken up by the authorities [because they were suspected of prostitution] and their cases are investigated." This is another reason it was wise for Ellen White to have proof of her work and the reason for her travels after the death of her husband.

One document, entitled "Exhibits Relating to the Ordination of Women from the Lifetime and Experience of Ellen G. White," page 1, states, "[Ellen White] was never ordained by human hands, nor did she ever use the functions usually associated with the ministerial office. She never performed a wedding, organized a church, or conducted a baptism."

The ministerial credential from the Michigan Conference was given to both James White and Ellen White together. Ellen White was not issued a separate credential or license. The first mention of one being "renewed" to them is in the RH 9/10/1872, p. 102. She first received an individual credential to herself alone after James White died, and that's when she got it from the GC in 1883. On the one she was issued in 1885, the word "Ordained" was crossed out. No one knows who crossed it out. However, we can assume it was crossed out because of the fact that Ellen White was never ordained by human hands.

The credential, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with Ellen White's actual work as God's messenger. It wasn't the basis of her authority. She had the same authority from the beginning of her prophetic ministry in Dec. 1844 and during the Sabbath Bible Conferences.

In the same document, there is this statement: "It is likely that Ellen White did not suggest at any time that the Seventh-day Adventist church should commence the practice of ordianing women to the gospel ministry. Her secretary, C. C. Crisler, says that she was very cautious on this point." It then quotes correspondence between Crisler and a woman named L. E. Cox who had recently been granted a "ministerial license" and wanted information about Ellen White's views on ordination of women. (Remember that "ministerial" has broad meaning, referring to women evangelists, deaconesses, Bible instructors, etc.)

Part of Crisler's reply: "... Sister White, personally, was very careful about expressing herself in any wise as to the advisability of ordaining women as gospel ministers. She has often spoken of the perils that such general practice would expose the church to by a gainsaying world; but as yet I have never seen from her pen any statement that would seem to encourage the formal and official ordination of women to the gospel ministry, to public labor such as is ordinarily expected of an ordained minister.

"This is not suggesting, much less saying, that no women are fitted for such public labor, and that none should ever be ordained; it is simply saying that so far as my knowledge extends, Sister White never encouraged church officials to depart from the general customs of the church in those matters."

(The above statement proves to me that the women who were "ordained" and given "ministerial licenses" were deaconsess, Bible instructors, evangelists, & preachers, but not church pastors or elders. But I will keep doing research on this topic to see if I'm right about this. That is what I've seen so far.)

Then the document ends with this statement:

"The question of women's ordination was not high on Ellen White's agenda during her lifetime, and it likely would not be one of her primary concerns were she with us now. Her best energies were directed toward achieving a greater unity and a deeper spirituality in the church. No doubt this would still be her burden if she could speak to us today."

My conclusion on the basis of everything I've seen so far is that WE CAN'T BASE OUR DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE REGARDING WOMEN'S ORDINATION ON ELLEN WHITE'S WRITINGS OR ON HER LIFE. Why not? Because the Lord did not reveal to her the solution to those questions, and she did not even write comments on the the primary verses related to the issue. For instance, she didn't write anything in regard to 1 Cor. 14: 33, 34 or 1 Tim. 2: 11, 12. Nor did she write anything about Phoebe, as to her work in the church.

Personally I believe this was probably by God's design. I believe God doesn't want us to be able to go to Ellen White for the answer on this topic. The issue must be solved theologically, on the basis of Scripture. If He wanted us to be able to get the information from Ellen White, He would have inspired her to tell us. But He didn't.

It's perfectly possible that the reason she didn't say anything at that time was simply that the church wasn't ready for it, or that the society wasn't yet ready for the church to do it. But I believe it's far more likely that God would not have inspired Ellen White to say anything that goes against what we find so plainly stated in the Bible. If she had written something like, "Women are to teach men and have authority over men," it would have caused many people to accuse her of contradicting the Bible, and thus have "proved" to these people and many others that she was a false prophet.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I just talked to Bonnie, Doug Batchelors' private secretary on the phone. Doug Batchelor has NOT rescinded his beliefs about the Holy Spirit. And they would appreciate that we stop his character assassination.

[John317]

AMEN to that!!

My son-in-law just took a course in evangelism at Doug Batchelor's Institute at Weimer, and he never mentioned anything like that. I think there are people who are spreading false rumors.

Thanks for that reminder, rudywoofs.

[karl]

I just talked to Bonnie, Doug Batchelors' private secretary on the phone. Doug Batchelor has NOT rescinded his beliefs about the Holy Spirit. And they would appreciate that we stop his character assassination.

I tried.

There's nothing like going to what he actually has written.

[phkrause]

AMEN to that!!

My son-in-law just took a course in evangelism at Doug Batchelor's Institute at Weimer, and he never mentioned anything like that. I think there are people who are spreading false rumors.

Thanks for that reminder, rudywoofs.

I second that.

pk

[John317]

just what the paper she signed states.

(nothing more ... nothing less)

After spending two days studying the material on this issue at the Ellen White Estate, it's clear to me from the evidence that her signing the Credential doesn't mean anything as far as Women's Ordination is concerned. The first time she signed it was after her husband's death, and it was done for practical, not theological, reasons. One of those practical reasons was that she needed to be reimbursed for traveling expenses by the various conferences she visited. She also needed to be able to show proof of why she was traveling alone, without a husband in those days. As one document in the file at the White Estate states, "She was never ordained by human hands, nor did she ever use the fucntion usually associated with the ministerial office. She never performed a wedding, organized a church, or conducted a baptism."

It's signifcant that the credential she received in 1885 had the word "Ordained" crossed out.

The credential from the Michigan conference was issued [1872-1881] to Elder James White and Mrs. E. G. White, but they were never issued to Ellen White independently of James White. He's the one who carried the credential.

Notice also that she was never referred to as "pastor" or "elder" White but simply as "Sister" or "Mrs. White."

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: And I might add that "John317" is painting a picture of a less than forthright, dare I say dishonest, representation of the General Conference and the Michigan conference which had been issuing her ordained ministerial credentials for many years before that. He is essentially saying that the General Conference was saying that even though she really wasn't a fully qualified and authorized ordained minister with all the privileges and responsibilities of an ordained minister, we will just call her one so that those to whom she may need to present her credentials will think she is one.

Here is the specific language, which may be hard to read in that small photo Woody posted:

"This is to Certify that Mrs. E.G. White of Healdsburg, Cal. is an Ordained Minister in good standing in the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and is authorized to perform the duties of said office for the Conference Year commencing November 1 1887

By order of the Conference."

Why would she need any credential at all at that stage of her life? Wasn't she so well known already within the Church that she really didn't need to be verified? Would it have been necessary for the purpose of verifying her position and authority primarily for those outside of the Church? So it would be OK to misrepresent to such outsiders so that they might recognizer her and extend to her all the courtesies, privileges, and benefits of a fully qualified member of the clergy?

The first credential given to Ellen White by the General Conference was after her husband's death. The staff at the Loma Linda branch of the White Estate told me that one of the main reasons the credential was given to Ellen White was that when she traveled after James White's death, she needed an "official position" in order to be reimbursed by the conferences for her travel expenses. She wasn't reimbursed by the GC but by the individual conferences she visited. Also she needed proof after her husband's death of why she was traveling. It was not good in those days for women to be traveling alone without proof of why they were in the cities. In Letter 40a, 1874, manuscript release 794, Ellen White wrote, "Women who travel alone through those cities [Chicago, etc.] are taken up by the authorities [because they were suspected of prostitution] and their cases are investigated." This is another reason it was wise for Ellen White to have proof of her work and the reason for her travels after the death of her husband.

One document, entitled "Exhibits Relating to the Ordination of Women from the Lifetime and Experience of Ellen G. White," page 1, states, "[Ellen White] was never ordained by human hands, nor did she ever use the functions usually associated with the ministerial office. She never performed a wedding, organized a church, or conducted a baptism."

The ministerial credential from the Michigan Conference was given to both James White and Ellen White together. Ellen White was not issued a separate credential or license. The first mention of one being "renewed" to them is in the RH 9/10/1872, p. 102. She first received an individual credential to herself alone after James White died, and that's when she got it from the GC in 1883. On the one she was issued in 1885, the word "Ordained" was crossed out. No one knows who crossed it out. However, we can assume it was crossed out because of the fact that Ellen White was never ordained by human hands.

The credential, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with Ellen White's actual work as God's messenger. It wasn't the basis of her authority. She had the same authority from the beginning of her prophetic ministry in Dec. 1844 and during the Sabbath Bible Conferences.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: And I might add that "John317" is painting a picture of a less than forthright, dare I say dishonest, representation of the General Conference and the Michigan conference which had been issuing her ordained ministerial credentials for many years before that. He is essentially saying that the General Conference was saying that even though she really wasn't a fully qualified and authorized ordained minister with all the privileges and responsibilities of an ordained minister, we will just call her one so that those to whom she may need to present her credentials will think she is one.

Tom later told me that he meant to say that I was painting a picture of a less than forthright and a dishonest General Conference. But I'm not implying in any way that the GC was not honest or forthright. They had legal and moral right to issue a credential to Ellen White under those circumstances. The first time the GC issued credentials to Ellen White was in 1883, and, significantly, the testimony at the Ellen White Estate is that Ellen White "was never ordained by human hands." More evidence on this is given below.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Here is the specific language, which may be hard to read in that small photo Woody posted:

"This is to Certify that Mrs. E.G. White of Healdsburg, Cal. is an Ordained Minister in good standing in the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and is authorized to perform the duties of said office for the Conference Year commencing November 1 1887

By order of the Conference."

Why would she need any credential at all at that stage of her life? Wasn't she so well known already within the Church that she really didn't need to be verified? Would it have been necessary for the purpose of verifying her position and authority primarily for those outside of the Church? So it would be OK to misrepresent to such outsiders so that they might recognizer her and extend to her all the courtesies, privileges, and benefits of a fully qualified member of the clergy?

As I said before, the first credential issued to Ellen White by the General Conference was after her husband's death. Yesterday the staff at the Loma Linda branch of the White Estate told me one of the main reasons the credential was given to Ellen White was that when she traveled after James White's death, she needed an "official position" in order to be reimbursed by the conferences for her travel expenses. She wasn't reimbursed by the GC but by the individual conferences she visited. Also she needed proof after her husband's death of why she was traveling. It was not good in those days for women to be traveling alone without proof of why they were in the cities. In Letter 40a, 1874, manuscript release 794, Ellen White wrote, "Women who travel alone through those cities [Chicago, etc.] are taken up by the authorities [because they were suspected of prostitution] and their cases are investigated." This is another reason it was wise for Ellen White to have proof of her work and the reason for her travels after the death of her husband.

One document, entitled "Exhibits Relating to the Ordination of Women from the Lifetime and Experience of Ellen G. White," page 1, states, "[Ellen White] was never ordained by human hands, nor did she ever use the functions usually associated with the ministerial office. She never performed a wedding, organized a church, or conducted a baptism."

The ministerial credential from the Michigan Conference was given to both James White and Ellen White together. Ellen White was not issued a separate credential or license. The first mention of one being "renewed" to them is in the RH 9/10/1872, p. 102. She first received an individual credential to herself alone after James White died, and that's when she got it from the GC in 1883. On the one she was issued in 1885, the word "Ordained" was crossed out. No one knows who crossed it out. However, we can assume it was crossed out because of the fact that Ellen White was never ordained by human hands.

The credential, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with Ellen White's actual work as God's messenger. It wasn't the basis of her authority. She had the same authority from the beginning of her prophetic ministry in Dec. 1844 and during the Sabbath Bible Conferences.

[Woody]

Quote:

"No one knows who crossed it out."

Yes. This is despite all the fables that one hears on this topic. Certainly not enough to build a theology upon. :)

[Tom Wetmore]

With just as much reliability as most of what is said to minimize and discredit the significance of EGW's credentials including the meaningless cross out on only one of the several credentials - here is my spin on it. - I think the cross out happened years after EGW was dead and gone. I think a forensic analysis would prove that it was done later and not by the same writing instrument as used by EGW to sign it or possibly even one available to her, like say, a ball point pen. I think it was done by someone firmly opposed to WO that couldn't accept the decision made by the GC to ordain her as a minister, just like the "sex change" in the Middle ages performed on the female apostle Junia. Some people will do absolutely anything to keep women in sub-ordination...

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: "No one knows who crossed it out."

Quote:

Woody: Yes. This is despite all the fables that one hears on this topic. Certainly not enough to build a theology upon.

The fact that the word "ordination" was crossed out on one of Ellen White's credentials is certainly not anything that anyone is building a theology on.

The answers to our questions regarding women's and men's roles in the church must be found in the Bible. As William Fagal said, "Ellen White made no explicit statement supporting (nor prohibiting) ordination for women. When she had opportunity to speak for it, as she did in response to the failure of the 1881 General Conference ressolution that would have provided for it, she said nothing. When she could have called for it in connection with the pay issue for women, she did not do so. All the evidence that I have seen so far fails to substantiate support in her writings for ordaining women." ("Ellen White and the Role of Women in the Church," p. 17)

[Woody]

With just as much reliability as a most of what is said to minimize and discredit the significance of EGW's credentials including the meaningless cross out on only one of the several credentials - here is my spin on it. - I think the cross out happened years after EGW was dead and gone. I think a forensic analysis would prove that it was done later and not by the same writing instrument as used by EGW to sign it or poassibly even one available to her, like say, a ball point pen. I think it was done by someone firmly opposed to WO that couldn't accept the decsion made by the GC to ordain her as a minister, just like the "sex change" in the Middle ages performed on the female apostle Junia. Some people will do absolutely anything to keep women in sub-ordination...

This is what I 'assume' also. I hope they do some investigation. But like I stated ... even if she did cross it out for some unknown reason on just ONE of her many credentials .... WHY just ONE? This one cross out is just not what I would build a theology upon. I will stick with the clear word of scripture on this issue. The Bible and the Bible alone is what should be our guide.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: With just as much reliability as a most of what is said to minimize and discredit the significance of EGW's credentials including the meaningless cross out on only one of the several credentials - here is my spin on it. - I think the cross out happened years after EGW was dead and gone. I think a forensic analysis would prove that it was done later and not by the same writing instrument as used by EGW to sign it or poassibly even one available to her, like say, a ball point pen. I think it was done by someone firmly opposed to WO that couldn't accept the decsion made by the GC to ordain her as a minister, just like the "sex change" in the Middle ages performed on the female apostle Junia. Some people will do absolutely anything to keep women in sub-ordination...

The first credential given to Ellen White by the General Conference was after her husband's death.

One document, entitled "Exhibits Relating to the Ordination of Women from the Lifetime and Experience of Ellen G. White," page 1, states, "[Ellen White] was never ordained by human hands, nor did she ever use the functions usually associated with the ministerial office. She never performed a wedding, organized a church, or conducted a baptism."

William Fagal of the Ellen White Estate states, "The question whether she had been ordained or not is settled definitively by her own hand. In 1909, she filled out a 'Biographical Information Blank' for the General Conference records. On the blank for Item 19, which asks, 'If ordained, state when, where, and by whom,' she simply inscribed an X. This is the same response she makes to Item 26, which asks, 'If remarried, give date, and to whom.' In this way she indicated that she had never remarried, nor had she ever been ordained. She was not here denying that God had chosen and equipped her, but she was responding to the obvious intent of the question, indicating that there had never been an ordination ceremony carried out for her." ("Ellen White and the Role of Women In the Church," p. 11)

Arthur White published the above information in the introduction of an article entitled, "Ellen G. White the Person," Spectrum 4 2 (Spring, 1972): 7.

The ministerial credential from the Michigan Conference was given to both James White and Ellen White together. Ellen White was not issued a separate credential or license. The first mention of one being "renewed" to them is in the RH 9/10/1872, p. 102. She first received an individual credential to herself alone after James White died, and that's when she got it from the GC in 1883.

The credential, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with Ellen White's actual work as God's messenger. It wasn't the basis of her authority. She had the same authority from the beginning of her prophetic ministry in Dec. 1844 and during the Sabbath Bible Conferences.

[Woody]

I wish that we could see some new thoughts on this issue rather than the same old tired copy and paste of previous posts.

Perhaps all has been said that can be said and this subject has run it's course? I hope not but that is the way it's appearing.

[Tom Wetmore]

How about what I posted on the other thread...

I think the lack of an absolute "Thus saith the Lord" given to EGW or to the writers of Scripture begs the question of why would God make himself clear on this point. Why would God avoid the obvious question that the founders of our Church were vigorously debating from the very beginning? Why didn't he just show EGW the light on this by simply saying yes or no to WO? He certainly seemed to do so on other issues He deemed important. Surely an all knowing God could have seen the frustrating debate we have festering among us over this very issue for all these years!

Here is my spin on that question. It just isn't all that important to God. God is gender neutral. It is not an issue of theology if God has not given us clear and unequivocal evidence in Scripture. It is a matter of history and culture and tradition. Those who wish to advance, change and progress will see it one way. Those that don't will see it the other way.

There was a day when we could refer to this as the "Advent Movement". Movement strongly implies, progress, advancement, change. We are at extreme risk of no longer being a Movement. We are slowly grinding to a halt by those who prefer us to be the Advent Monument. Monuments are made of granite. They do not move, advance, change, or progress. They are memorials of things past that are no longer the reality of our current existence. What they stand for is etched and carved in stone. Change is not possible.

The only thing God etched in stone were ten simple principles to illustrate what loving God and loving one another looked like. All the rest is commentary.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: The founders of our denomination had a full and robust dialog and Biblical study of the matter and concluded that there was no reason to limit women in ministry. Please read what I posted before - http://auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=1092&journal=1&type=pdf

Where was the full and robust dialog and biblical study at the link you posted?

What part do you consider the key or the essential statements?

I read the entire article several times, and it doesn't address the issue of women being church pastors and elders. It has to do with women being able to talk and preach and evangelize. No one is disputing women in ministry per se or that they may pray and preach in public.

[Neil D]

Perhaps a clarification of PASTORIAL DUTIES needs to be brought to the for...

So, for the record, in order to be a pastor, a definition of "Pastor" needs to be posted....John, you want to bring out your definition of "pastor"?

[John317]

I posted some of the information several times because it answered the questions on those particular posts. Also, I was hoping they would elicit responses to more than the crossing out of the word 'Ordained.' While the crossing out of 'Ordained" is significant, it is certainly not anything that anyone is building a theology on. Whatever we teach or practice in regard to this issue must be based on the Bible. We're completely agreed on that point.

I'd like to see what you believe the Bible says in some of the verses directly related to woman's role in the church. For instance, 1 Cor. 14: 33b-35; 1 Tim. 2: 11-12. Ellen White did not say anything at all about those verses. James White said at one time that 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35 have to do with "business meetings." Do you believe this, and if so, why?

[John317]

Quote:

Neil D: Perhaps a clarification of PASTORIAL DUTIES needs to be brought to the for...

So, for the record, in order to be a pastor, a definition of "Pastor" needs to be posted....John, you want to bring out your definition of "pastor"?

Sure, good idea. I did write something earlier on this discussion about the use of "pastor" in her writings, but I'll be happy to write more about it.

Like the word 'minister' in the NT, the word 'pastor' in Ellen White's writings has a broad meaning. She uses it in the sense of "feeding the flock," which anyone can do by opening the word of God to people. One can "feed the flock" without being a gospel minister in the commonly-accepted sense of the term. It can be done in small groups in people's homes or when studying with a single person. Ellen White talks about ministers who were not "pastors." So she distinguishes between being a minister and being a pastor. It's in this sense that Ellen White refers to women as being "pastors."

William Fagal wrote on this very topic in "Ellen White and the Role of Women in the Church," pages 6-9. He says, "But such a work [of doing personal labor, visiting people in their homes] does not necessarily involve appointment to the headship role of a congregation or ordination to the gospel ministry." Ibid., page 7.

I'll add more to this post as I have time.

Let me know if this is helpful.

[Neil D]

Like the word 'minister' in the NT, the word 'pastor' in Ellen White's writings has a broad meaning. She uses it in the sense of "feeding the flock," which anyone can do by opening the word of God to people. One can "feed the flock" without being a gospel minister in the commonly-accepted sense of the term. It can be done in small groups in people's homes or when studying with a single person. Ellen White talks about ministers who were not "pastors." So she distinguishes between being a minister and being a pastor. It's in this sense that Ellen White refers to women as being "pastors."

So, a minister can be a pastor, but a pastor can not be a minister...? is that what I am hearing?

I need a better definition of minister and pastor....

[Neil D]

Minister-

1. a person authorized to conduct religious worship; member of the clergy; pastor.

2.a person authorized to administer sacraments, as at Mass.

3.a person appointed by or under the authority of a sovereign or head of a government to some high office of state, esp. to that of head of an administrative department: the minister of finance.

4.a diplomatic representative accredited by one government to another and ranking next below an ambassador.Compare envoy1 (def. 1).

5.a person acting as the agent or instrument of another.

pas·tor

 

–noun

1.a minister or priest in charge of a church.

2.a person having spiritual care of a number of persons.

3.Ornithology. any of various starlings, esp. Sturnus roseus (rosy pastor) of Europe and Asia.

Perhaps we are talking past each other again....in the context of women ordination, we may have been using the words pastor and minister in appropriately.

Would you say, John that EGW would have agreed to have ordained women for pastors instead of ministers, given the definitions above?