Some new opinions regarding WO...

[olger]

Don Mackintosh

Given all I've heard and am seeing in many current church periodicals, I was shocked to hear the following... all I can say is wow!

#1 - Were SDA women ever ordained to gospel ministry in early Adventist history? Short answer - No.

#2 What about the examples often mentioned as proof that early SDA women were ordained? Short answer - Not true

#3 Why have so many people been saying that they were ordained? - Short answer - They evidently don't have the facts

#4. What has been the result of this misinformation? - The creation of a "fallacious impression."

"All of the work of Benton, Haloviak, Watts, Been, Hanks Harwood, and others - all the many superb quotations they have mined from Adventist periodicals - all go to show no more than that early Adventists affirmed the right of women to preach and evangelize. In all this historiography, there is nothing to show early Adventists arguing for women's right to baptize, to preside over the ordinances, to organize local churches - no evidence of any commitment to ordination." p. 7 (lines 14-18

"There is, in sum (looking at all the research done by the above groups), as much wishful thinking as historical fact in many of the conclusions drawn about women ministers in the nineteenth century." p. 8 (line 12, 13)

The above quotes are taken from David Trimm's presentation

on the history of Women's ordination in the Adventist church.

http://www.adventistarchives.org/the-ord...nd-practice.pdf

-----

#1 - Were SDA women ever ordained to gospel ministry in early Adventist history? Short answer - No.

"That a women has been ordained to gospel ministry with the sanction of the organized Seventh-day Adventist church is highly unlikely... it is possible that ad hoc measures were taken that departed from denominational praxis... but I am unaware of (any) documentary evidence.... even if true (if such ad hoc evidence were found) it "cannot be taken as normative." p. 1 (line 40-43) p. 2 (line 1-4)

#2 What about the examples often mentioned as proof that early SDA women were ordained?

What about Ellen White" - Short answer - No

"Although Ellen White carried an ordained minister's credentials, she was never ordained..." p. 3 (line 7,8)

What about Sarepta M. Henry? - Short answer - No

"Mrs Henry was never ordained." p. 3 (line 37)

What about Lulu Wightman (nee Russell) - Short answer - No

"There is little reason to think that Lulu Wightman was ever ordained." p. 4 (line 19)

#3 Why have so many people been saying that they were ordained? - Short answer - They don't have the facts

"This judgment that no women have been ordained with the sanction of the organized denomination runs contrary to the trend of much of the recent historiography on women's ordination in Adventist history, which is written by proponents of ordaining women to gospel ministry. The sheer volume can seem impressive. However, this body of scholarship does not actually prove its case, due to a critical misunderstanding of what early Adventists supported when it came to the involvement of women in the church." p. 4 (line 25-28)

#4. What has been the result of this misinformation?

"The result is to create a fallacious impression that Adventist pioneers, including Ellen White, approved of ordaining women to gospel ministry." p. 4 (line 32,33)

#5. What did women do back then?

This however, does not mean that women could not serve (preach in public, proclaim the gospel and evangelize), and it does not mean that they were never ordained, but it was not for the role of "ordained minister", rather to the role of deaconess or "it was as "licentiates".

#6. What did they do then?

"The function of these women who justify ordination is instead (of serving as an ordained minister) "to visit the sick, look after the young, minister to the necessities of the poor." Similarly, theirs is not a full-time role; just the opposite in fact, for they are "to consecrate [only] some of their time to the service of the Lord". Finally, they are to counsel with the church officers or the minister", which shows that Ellen White distinguished them from "church officers or the minister". All in all, one can only identify the functional role described here as neither that of ministers [whether ordained or licensed], nor elders ["church officers']. It seems clear she is calling for the ordination of deaconesses." p. 6 (line 24-30)

#7. What has the actual evidence proved? - Short answer - That women had a well defined role - but it was not that of ordained minister.

"All of the work of Benton, Haloviak, Watts, Been, Hanks Harwood, and others - all the many superb quotations they have mined from Adventist periodicals - all go to show no more than that early Adventists affirmed the right of women to preach and evangelize. In all this historiography, there is nothing to show early Adventists arguing for women's right to baptize, to preside over the ordinances, to organize local churches - no evidence of any commitment to ordination." p. 7 (lines 14-18

"There is, in sum (looking at all the research done by the above groups), as much wishful thinking as historical fact in many of the conclusions drawn about women ministers in the nineteenth century." p. 8 (line 12, 13)

#8. Ordination of women - was it called for and voted in 1881at the GC session? - Short answer - No

"It is widely claimed as fact in Adventist circles that a decision to ordain women was taken at the 1881 General Conference Session - that the celebrated resolution proposed at the Session was "passed" or "voted". This is in fact not so." p. 9 (7-9)

What happened then? Short answer - The resolution was referred to the GC Committee - which means it was tactfully but decidedly rejected.

"Referring resolutions from the Resolutions Committee to the GC Committee was a tactful way of rejecting them." p. 12 (line 20,21) "The resolution was not adopted." p. 12 (line 41,42)

#. 9 Do we need the present committee? - Short answer - Yes, because it is doing something that no other committee has done

"All those (past) committees failed to do justice to the theological question that was at stake and failed to reflect the global nature of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This Committee is the first time that the worldwide Church, has explored the theology of ordination." p. 17 (line 33-33)

#10. What is the committee role? - Short answer - Define what ordination means, recommend how it should be handled globally

"None of these (the former committee's) was given the task of establishing the fundamental question of what ordination means, as is the case with this Committee. Furthermore, none of the previous study committees or commissions operated as part of a global process." p. 17 (line 36-38) and p. 18 (line 1)

#11. Do we need the work of this committee? - Short answer - yes

"Although one of the comments one hears most often about this Committee's work is "Why do we need another committee? Why does the issue need more study", actually what we are doing is unique. We face an extraordinary challenge. But we have an unusual opportunity. I pray that we are open to cooperating with the Holy Spirit, to make the most of it." p. 18 (line 11-14)

http://www.adventistarchives.org/the-ordination-of-women-in-seventh-day-adventist-policy-and-practic

ADVENTISTARCHIVES.ORG

blessings,

G

[Neil D]

The following was penned by EGW....How do you interpret it?

Injustice has been done to women who labor just as

devotedly as their husbands, and who are

recognized by God as being as necessary to the work of ministry as their husbands.[if ordination is defined as an

official church recognition of a calling that was

instituted by God, it would seem long past the time

when the church should harmonize with that Divine

perspective.] The method of paying men-laborers and

not their wives, is a plan not after the Lord's order.

. . . This arrangement . . . is liable to discourage

our sisters from qualifying themselves for the work

they should engage in [i.e., ministry]. . . . This

question is not for men to settle.

The Lord has settled it. You are to do your duty to the women who labor in the gospel.

[Ms 43a-1897].

[Neil D]

How do you interpret the following quotes of EGW-

As Mrs White reflected upon the post-1888 focus upon

justification by faith, she clearly perceived its implications concerning the nature of ministry:

We must look more to the presentation of God's

love and mercy to move the hearts of the people. We

must have a sense of both the justice and mercy of God.

Those who can blend together the law of God and the

mercy of God can reach any heart. For years I have

seen that there is a broken link which has kept us from

reaching hearts; this link is supplied by presenting

the love and mercy of God. [Ellen White, Statement to

General Conference Committee and Conference Presidents,

March 3, 1891, GCC Minutes.]

Nine days after that statement Mrs White addressed the

ministers at the 1891 GC session and conveyed the sentiments of that address to her diary. The statement transcends all

arguments concerning the ordination question. Ellen White is not here espousing a cause for she penned the following to her diary as her understanding of the nature of ministry:

The Lord has given Christ to the world for

ministry. Merely to preach the Word is not ministry.

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 . [The premise that God had a

preconceived concept of ministry for both men and women

before He created the world destroys ideas of

subordination and offers very telling evidence about

Ellen White's concept of the role of women in

ministry.] He determined that His ministers should have a perfect exemplification of Himself and His

purposes. No human career could do this work; so God

gave Christ in humanity to work out His ideal of what

humanity may become through entire obedience to His

will and way. God's character was revealed in the life

of His Son. Christ not only held a theory of genuine

ministry, but in His humanity He wrought out an

illustration of the ministry that God approves.

Perfection has marked out every feature of true

ministry. Christ, the Son of the living God, did not

live unto Himself, but unto God. [Ellen White, Diary

entry March 12, 1891, Ms 23-1891, emphasis supplied.

Ellen White's original diary entry did not contain the

wording that included women within God's original

concept of ministry, but the 1903 version did. Most

likely Ellen White's experience in Australia brought

her to include that significant phrase in her later

editing.]

The history of the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist

church in the 19th century illustrates that women were indeed

serving as "priests" and "ministers" of the Lord. We must

recognize that heritage.

[Tom Wetmore]

And then there is this from EGW in 1901:

"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."

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work. Place the burdens upon men and women of the church, that they may grow by reason of the exercise, and thus become effective agents in the hand of the Lord for the enlightenment of those who sit in darkness.—The Review and Herald, July 9, 1895. PaM 75.1

[Neil D]

WOMAN MEMBER OF HUSBAND-WIFE TEAM SERVES ESSENTIALLY AS LOCAL

PASTOR--NATURE OF MINISTRY WHEN ADVENTISM LACKED STATIONARY

PASTORS:

"Iowa seems to be a very encouraging field of labor....The way is open for Bro Cornell to labor successfully in this part of the State. Sister Cornell has well acted her part.

The mode of warfare is something as follows: Bro Cornell goes out alone into a new place, perhaps puts up at the tavern, preaches a few days, when friends appear to invite him to their houses; and when the work is well under way, Sister C[ornell] joins her husband, and labors from house to house as they are invited. And when Bro Cornell's work is done, it is a good place for Sister C to remain and defend the truth in private conversations, and bear responsibilities of the work in the midst of young disciples. In this way both can bear a part in the good work." [James White, RH, March 8, 1860.]

I have been told that this is a good description of how SDAs went out to preach and bring in converts. They went to a local meeting place [a tavern, hotel] and preached to the small group that was there, make friends ect...If you do this, long enough, you eventually have people meeting in homes for church worship....

You ask, what about a church building? I those days, there wasn't a church building....consider what James White wrote regarding holding onto church property....

JAMES WHITE ANALYZES THE QUESTION OF SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY AND

CHURCH POLITY ISSUES:

"If it be asked, Where are your plain texts of scripture for holding church property legally? we reply, The Bible does not furnish any....The church is left to move forward in the great work, praying for divine guidance, acting upon the most efficient plans for its accomplishment. We believe it safe to be governed by the following

RULE

All means which, according to sound judgment, will advance

the cause of truth, and are not forbidden by plain scripture

declarations, should be employed." [James White, "Making Us a

Name," RH, April 26, 1860.]

So, the phrase "itinerant preacher" takes on a whole new meaning....In today's language, it is literally a pastor who never settles in one place, but who always raises up a church in a place where there was none before...it was later in the century that pastors would "settle down" and literally take up his duties as we currently know them....

I mention this because when these preacher/pastors were married, the husband and wife team would work thusly-

JAMES WHITE AND EARLY CONCEPTS OF ORDINATION OF WOMEN: "My views and feelings are that the minister's wife stands in so close a relation to the work of God, a relation which so affects him for better or worse, that she should, in the ordination prayer, be set apart as his helper." [James White, RH, Aug 13, 1867.]

Hence, women should be ordained as pastors or if in the case of husband/wife teams, both should be ordained for the gospel ministry....

[CoAspen]

Enjoying your tidbits of history..but....you do know the stumbling block will be the word 'helper'!!

(In context, its meaning is clear!)

[olger]

Helper good.

Need help.

[Neil D]

Enjoying your tidbits of history..but....you do know the stumbling block will be the word 'helper'!!

(In context, its meaning is clear!)

Dang it, CoAspen....he's got one of them thingys on the end of his posts..it says not to "feed the drama queens"....and we ain't talkin' about bees....

It's a good thing that context is everything.... [smile]

[Neil D]

Meting out help for helpmeet

helpmeet

This badly mis­guided com­ment crossed my com­puter mon­i­tor yes­ter­day: “GOD made women to be a help­meet for Man, the Bible says. What is a Help Meet. It is a Proper assis­tant — A Sec­ond in command.”

Help­meet isn’t a real word — or at least it shouldn’t be a real word. It’s essen­tially a mis­take, an ety­mo­log­i­cal mis­step that dis­torts the orig­i­nal text from which it derives. The King James Ver­sion of Gen­e­sis 2.18 reads: “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

In this pas­sage we see two words: help and meet. “Help” is here used as a noun. In mod­ern usage we’d say instead of “an help” we’d say “a helper.” “Meet” is an adjec­tive describ­ing that helper. In King James Eng­lish, “meet” means “fit­ting” or “suit­able.” Accord­ingly, we find in the NIV this trans­la­tion of Gen 2.18b: “I will make a helper suit­able for him.”

Unfor­tu­nately, in the late 17th cen­tury, print­ers started hyphen­at­ing the noun and adjec­tive phrase “help meet” to “help-meet” and shortly there­after merged the words into a sin­gle noun: “help­meet.” From there, help­meet and the related word help­mate wormed their way through the Eng­lish lan­guage, quickly becom­ing syn­ony­mous with a woman’s sub­or­di­nate role in marriage.

But let’s take a step back and look at what lies behind “an help meet for him”: the Hebrew words ezer and k’enegdo.

Ezer does in fact mean helper, but not a sub­or­di­nate helper. It is used through­out the Old Tes­ta­ment to describe God help­ing human­ity. It implies com­pan­ion­ship and part­ner­ship and assis­tance, often in the con­text of doing what you can’t do for your­self. If any­thing, the one being helped is sub­or­di­nate to the helper!

K’enegdo describes cor­re­spon­dence. It means “that which is oppo­site, that which cor­re­sponds.” It’s talk­ing about man’s coun­ter­part, not just a part­ner or a com­pan­ion, but a match­ing opposite.

The two Eng­lish trans­la­tions that best bring out these nuances are prob­a­bly the NET and the CEV. The NET ren­ders this verse as:

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a com­pan­ion for him who cor­re­sponds to him.”

While the CEV trans­lates it a bit less-woodenly as:

The Lord God said, “It isn’t good for the man to live alone. I need to make a suit­able part­ner for him.”

There are cer­tainly Bib­li­cal texts that lend weight to argu­ments favor­ing patri­ar­chal hier­ar­chy. But Gen­e­sis 2.18 and a false notion of a “help­meet” isn’t one of them.

[Tom Wetmore]

[ClubV12]

A common issue we see coming up over and over is the barrage of quotes, verses, examples of women working within the Church. Old Testament, New Testament, our own early Church (1844) and the present day.

I certainly don't dispute or wish to minimize in any way what women have done, should do, are doing and the expanded role I would like to see them take in the Church today. I think few would argue that basic truth.

But MOST of the time, the examples, rhetoric, quotes and bible verses don't specifically address the issue of womens ORDINATION and how it applies today. Those who support W.O. ASSUME that these examples of powerful women in powerful roles automatically assume they must also qualify for ordination.

If that were true, we wouldn't need the committee appointed by the G.C. to consider the matter.

[Tom Wetmore]

That is a major issue for the committees to address- what exactly is ordination? Much of the dispute really does come down to understanding it from a Biblical perspective rather than several millennia of tradition. EGW did say they was far to much emphasis placed on it.

For me it is fairly simple. We should ordain anyone to a task or role to which we appoint them. If we have women working in whatever Minstry they are suited we should affirm it the same way we would if they were a man doing the same thing. Ordination, or whatever you want to call it, is simply recognizing their gifts and calling to use them and asking God's blessing on them. Why is that wrong?

I find it very difficult to reconcile a view that supports women in ministry, including pastoral ministry, but thinks WO is going too far. I can understand better the purists that take a very hard line view against women in any significant role in the Church and are apposed to WO, since that really leaves no role or function for which they even need to be ordained. They are at least being consistent.

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom & ClubV12:

As I have said before: The Biblical issue is not ordination of females. The Biblical issue the role that they should have in spiritual nurture.

[ClubV12]

Truth is a very narrow path indeed. We are constantly confronted with the conundrum of finding a balance in impossible to rectify situations. Faith and works being the most classic example.

There are no easy, yes or no answers. What is sin to me, is not to you! We touched on this recently over the apparent dispute Paul had with the G.C. over meat offered to idols. A conumdrum, how do you resolve such disputes?

I am finding more and more that for man, it is impossible. Truly we must be constantly aware of our need for the Holy Spirit to guide us. We must maintain a humble, teachable spirit.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

What is sin to me, is not to you!

The reason is NOT that God has different standards. The reason is that God charges us with sin on the basis on our reaction to what the Holy Spirit is attempting to teach us.

[olger]

The reason is NOT that God has different standards.

Indeed. It is a pluralistic value system that has different standards. Example: "Well, THAT may be true for you..."

[Neil D]

Quote:

It is a pluralistic value system that has different standards

Besides the 10 Commandments, what other value system is there?

[ClubV12]

James 4:17

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Ellen White was shocked when the angel revealed to her that Sabbath was to begin and end based on sunset times. For years that had been keeping the Sabbath based on the clock. She was shocked because now that she understood the "law" she felt she had been sinning all these years. The angel assured her that was not the case. Her ignorance of the law was not one of laziness or indolence on her part, therefore, it was not sin. It WOULD have been sin had she refused to follow this revelation of the law concerning what times to keep the Sabbath.

But I agree in general, God has ONE standard and that never changes. His mercy allows for our heart felt, sincere ignorance where it is warranted.

[Neil D]

James 4:17

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

[snip]

But I agree in general, God has ONE standard and that never changes. His mercy allows for our heart felt, sincere ignorance where it is warranted.

[ClubV12]

A humble teachable spirit, a phrase Ellen White uses many times. It means just what it says, humble, teachable. THIS is the spirit we must bring to our bible study, to our Christain walk. set aside your preconceived ideas of truth, set aside your cherished position and view points. Come to the word, come in search of the truth expecting to find it and follow it where ever it leads.

"It was by cherishing a humble, teachable spirit that these men gained the experience that enabled them to go out as workers into the harvest field. Their example presents to Christians a lesson of great value. There are many who make but little progress in the divine life because they are too self-sufficient to occupy the position of learners. They are content with a superficial knowledge of God’s word. They do not wish to change their faith or practice and hence make no effort to obtain greater light."

Acts of the Apostles pg 283

[olger]

This much is true. Our church is flying into a box canyon, and the only ones who will survive are the humble.

[CoAspen]

You keep calling for gloom and doom, is their no Son shine in your life? It is quite easy from reading your posts that you have one wish, for all to fail but your way. Do you not trust God? Your statements in no way sound 'humble', but maybe you have other than the normal definition of he word!

[Neil D]

A humble teachable spirit, a phrase Ellen White uses many times. It means just what it says, humble, teachable. THIS is the spirit we must bring to our bible study, to our Christain walk. set aside your preconceived ideas of truth, set aside your cherished position and view points. Come to the word, come in search of the truth expecting to find it and follow it where ever it leads.

"It was by cherishing a humble, teachable spirit that these men gained the experience that enabled them to go out as workers into the harvest field. Their example presents to Christians a lesson of great value. There are many who make but little progress in the divine life because they are too self-sufficient to occupy the position of learners. They are content with a superficial knowledge of God’s word. They do not wish to change their faith or practice and hence make no effort to obtain greater light."

Acts of the Apostles pg 283

This is what bothers me.....According to EGW, we are NOT to be reflectors of men's [or women's] thoughts...but to be thinking individuals...

When I asked about what you meant by humbleness, I wanted YOUR words. I know what EGW has to say...I want YOUR words...

And if EGW is your words, then I would suggest that you don't know what she is talking about....because you can not talk without reflecting only her words....And she had some very harsh words to say about that.....

[ClubV12]

Mans words, if of any value, echo the words of God. In this case, I simply echo the words of His inspired prophetess.

It's not complicated Neil. Humble, look it up in the dictionary. Teachable, not sure that one's in the dictionary. It means, being in frame of mind to learn something. As opposed to "talk to the hand" because I refuse to listen. Like some teenager might do, or some person who never grew up and still thinks they don't need anyones counsel on anything!

"...reason is a gift of God, and his Spirit will aid those who are willing to be taught. ...Man’s words, if of any value, echo the words of God."

Special Testimonies on Education pg 54