-no title-

: [1]
: Ordination of Women  ( 4817 )
Full Member
: 199

« : February 24, 2009, 06:49:41 AM »

Recently (February 2009) there was a discussion in a certain church about the theological correctness of ordaining women as elders (not as ministers).  After some discussion, a small representative of the church membership voted that women were not permitted to be ordained as elders in their local church. I did not attend the meeting, but I read the written submissions to the church members which presented both sides of the discussion on the theological correctness of ordaining or not ordaining women as elders.

I found the discussion both enlightening and yet also frustratingly illogical.  It appeared to me that the argument supporting the ordination of women appeared to be Biblically sustainable, while the opposing argument tended to be concerned with the issue of the consequences of rebellion against authority instead of with the Biblical information on the subject of whether women were invested with the authority to be ordained as elders.  There certainly was information presented that maintained the traditional position against women elders, but this position did not attempt to deal with the bias against women elders purposely written into the King James version of the Bible, which was exposed by one of the church members who also happens to be a (male) Bible translator.

As part of the argument supporting women elders, the Bible translator revealed the bias of the KJV  translators toward interpreting the words ordain/ordained/ordination in inconsistent ways depending on whether the context referred to men or women.  Despite the same Greek words being used in the manuscripts, the KJV translators were ordered by King James to translate his version of the Bible so that it did not upset the existing Church of England hierarchical system where women were not ordained as elders or ministers. 

The Bible translator wrote a well presented Biblical study on the subject and submitted it for checking by a church conference leader whose comments supported the theological argument and confirmed the bias of the KJV.  This paper was then presented to the local church members - but it appears the information was not accepted or appreciated by the majority who who voted against the ordination of women as elders in the church. One has to ask the question -Why not? On what logical basis can truth be set aside?  Because it's difficult to accept change? 

Whether or not women are ordained in that particular church is of little consequence to me.  I am rather concerned that the people again appeared to follow  the traditional position without making a real effort to seeking out the truth. It seemed that few were concerned with understanding what the Greek text of the Bible actually meant.  Change is difficult to accept, and it seems especially so if a (male) leader in an authoritative position in the church doesn't lead the way!

If you are interested in seeing the information presented in the Bible translators paper and in the opposing argument, let me know and I'll try to get permission to post it here.

The Bible translator's New Testament version is being published soon also, but I was presented with an early gift copy three weeks ago and am enjoying reading it very much.  It is a scholarly, but also an easy-to-read version.  It is NOT a paraphrase, but a genuine translation of the Greek and Aramaic texts.  The bountiful footnotes give fascinating information that clarifies the original meanings.  I highly recommend this translation called, The Bible as Poetry, but I don't think it is available for purchase yet as it is still in the publishing/printing stages. 

: 5

« #1 : March 18, 2009, 08:02:06 AM »

Hi Sherlene......Thankyou for the interesting article re. Ordination of Women.
I would very much like to view the information presented in the Bible translator's paper and in the opposing argument when you are able to gain permission.
God bless........donsmith

Full Member
: 199

« #2 : March 19, 2009, 09:35:31 PM »

Hi Don,
Thanks very much for your interest in this subject. I'll get busy asking for the permission from both sides and get back to you asap.

Blessings in Jesus,

Full Member
: 199

« #3 : March 20, 2009, 01:41:09 PM »

I am unable to publish the article that was given by the Bible translator for reasons to do with publishing laws, however the following is my summary of the  information that was discussed which I believe tends to support the concept of women's ordination.  I have not got access to publish the opposite views which were presented at the church meeting yet, but will try to follow that up too, or else will try to present a summary of the main points against the women's ordination concept too.

                The word ‘elders’ is used 200 times in Scripture to describe both Jewish and Christian elders. There is no instance where any of these elders are identified as males.
                Nor are we are ever even given the name of an elder to know the elder’s sex.
                (When Peter is called an ‘elder’ in 1 Peter 5:1, it is a different Greek word. And while 2 and 3 John both start with the word ‘elder’ it probably means ‘The old man’.)
                It’s astonishing that there is not a single instance where we can clearly identify that either a Jewish elder or a Christian elder was a male or a female.
                If God wanted us to know that only men could be elders, there were 200 places in Scripture where He could have easily said so.
                But in no case does God ever identify a single elder on earth as a male – let alone say that only men can be elders.
                The Biblical evidence that women can be elders is just as good as the evidence that men can be elders.
                Some people argue that there is not one case in the New Testament of a woman being ordained as an elder.
                But the argument is totally invalid because neither is there a case of a man being ordained as an elder.
                We need to be suspicious of Bible translations produced by one denomination.
                For example, the New World Translation is published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
                And we correctly view some parts of that translation as being biased.
                Similarly, the Holman Bible was produced by the Southern Baptists, and God’s Word was produced by Lutherans.
                So we might find verses in those translations slanted to the doctrines of those denominations.
                There is a popular translation produced by one particular denomination. Yet we fail to realise that parts of it are just as biased as the New World.
                That translation is the Authorised Version or the King James Version.
                An encyclopaedia article correctly says that the KJV was “first published in 1611 by the Church of England… The translation was [made] by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.” (Wikipedia article ‘Authorized King James Version’). All of the translators except one were ordained priests of the Church of England. None of the translators were women.
                What is the KJV’s bias? “The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.” (ibid)
                So the KJV deliberately translated passages in a way that upheld the existing structure of the Church of England’s clergy. Before the translators even looked at what the original Greek said, they were instructed how they must translate it.
                The king was the head of the Church of England. He took the place of the Pope. The bureaucracy of that church was ultimately answerable to him. And his Bible helped show that.
                One historian said that the English king ‘kept the Roman Catholic system of bishops, deacons and the like for a very good reason. That system allowed him a "chain of command" necessary for any bureaucracy to function’ (An Introduction to the Geneva Bible).
                This means the King James Version and translations based on it, are not an unbiased guide in any study of church leadership.
                If you only study these issues in the KJV you will be led to a belief that only men can be ordained.
                You will come to this conclusion because King James wanted his translation to bring its readers to that conclusion.
                Most of us know the KJV is biased in some areas. But we don’t generally recognise that it is also biased in what it says about an ordained clergy.
                In the Church of England, a deacon is a junior minister. So when the KJV translators used the word ‘deacon’, they meant ‘minister’.
                The word they translated ‘deacon’ is diaconos. This Greek word is used 21 times in Paul’s letters, where the KJV translates it ‘minister’ 17 times and ‘deacon’ three times.
                However, there is one occasion where Paul uses this word for a woman named Phoebe (Romans 16:1). And there the KJV translates this word as ‘servant’.
                This clearly demonstrates the bias of the KJV. They knew the word meant ‘minister’. And they translated it that way whenever it referred to men.
                But they were instructed to uphold the Anglican views on an all-male clergy. So when they found a mention of a female minister, they translated the word as ‘servant’.
                Other versions are much more accurate in how they translate this word in Romans 16:1.
                ?It is correctly translated deacon in the NRSV, TNIV, NLT, and GW.
                ?The CEV correctly paraphrases it as leader.
                ?And the 1890 Darby Bible correctly translates it minister, as does the Catholic’s New American Bible, and the Bible as Poetry.
                ?The NRSV correctly gives the meaning minister in its footnotes.
                ?The Jewish New Testament translates this word as shammash. The Jewish Encyclopedia says that the shammash “was the overseer of the synagogue.” In modern times this is a paid ministry in the Jewish faith. So this translation (made by Jewish Christians for Jews) also clearly shows that a woman could be a church overseer.
                If we approach Scripture without a bias, we find that Phoebe was a minister (a diaconos in Greek).
                Paul’s glowing report about her indicates that she was clearly suitable for this role.
                What are the qualifications for a diaconos? The list is given in 1 Timothy 3:8-12.
                In this list, the King James Version says one qualification is that a diaconos must be “the husband of one wife”.
                (This term is also used of elders, hence the importance of Phoebe to our discussion about women elders.)
                Now, was Phoebe “a husband of one wife”? Obviously not! So whatever that term means, it doesn’t exclude a woman serving in that role.
                What are other ways that “husband of one wife” is translated in other versions?
                ?“married only once” NRSV
                ?“be faithful to his wife” Jewish
                ?“committed to their spouses” The Message
                ?“be married only once” New American Bible.
                ?“be faithful to his wife” TNIV
                ?“must have only one wife” GW
                ?“be faithful in marriage” CEV
                ?“have never been divorced’ CEV margin
                ?“be 'one-women’ people” Bible as Poetry
                ?“people advocating only one wife” Bible as Poetry margin
                ?“anti-polygamy” Bible as Poetry margin
                You can see that seven of these 11 different translations can be applied to women as well as men.
                One difficulty we face is that Greek does not have a dedicated word for ‘husband’. This is demonstrated by the King James Version itself. It translates this Greek word as ‘husband’ 50 times. But it gives it other meanings 165 times.
                The Greek word is aner. Translators must decide the most appropriate English rendering of the word aner on a case-by-case basis.
                There are several places in the New Testament where this word refers to women! So clearly, translating it ‘husband’ in such places is wrong.
                For example, this word is used in Acts 17:34 for people (aner) who accepted Paul’s preaching in Athens. One of these aner was “a woman named Damaris”.
                Another example is in Acts 25:24 where Paul spoke to a group of aner. One of these was a woman called Bernice, the sister of the king.
                So clearly the word translated ‘husband’ can also include women.
                Now, what does the KJV term ‘husband of one wife’ mean?
                In Greek it is literally, ‘a one-woman aner’. That is, ‘a one-woman man’, or a ‘one-woman person’. So in what way can an elder be a ‘one-woman’ person?
                It can be a person who advocates that a man should have only ‘one woman’ (or ‘one wife’). In other words, it is a person opposed to polygamy.
                Polygamy was allowed in the Old Testament. There are many Old Testament stories of godly men having more than one wife. And in Jesus’ day polygamy was still practiced in Palestine and in nations east of Palestine.
                However, Rome was opposed to polygamy. In the Roman world, men could have only one wife (at a time).
                Therefore, Christianity started in a part of the world where there were vastly different attitudes to polygamy. So what attitude did Christians adopt? I suggest that they adopted the same attitudes as the Old Testament.
                In the Old Testament, men could have more than one wife. But there was an exception. The kings of Israel and Judah were to have only one wife.
                “[A king of Israel] must not acquire many wives for himself” (Deut 17:17).
                This is the only verse in the Old Testament opposed to polygamy.
                So in Israel, the leader was not to be a polygamist, but other people could be.
                Similarly, in the church, the elder and minister could not to be polygamists, although other church members could be.
                Elders and ministers were not even to advocate polygamy.
                Polygamists could join the church, but they could not take a leadership role.

Also,  "husband of one wife" - if an elder had to be a MARRIED man,  this term could rule out unmarried men as elders and deacons (ministers). Yet Paul and Barnabas were unmarried and they were ordained.
                Now let’s examine the rest of First Timothy 3’s list of requirements for an elder. (Note that the King James Version uses the word ‘bishop’. This is because the translators had to follow the instructions given by the king.)
                In the KJV, verse 1 says, “If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.”
                Especially look at the two words in bold italics. The KJV says ‘man’ but the Greek doesn’t. The Greek is the word ‘anyone’. (In the parallel instruction in Titus 1:8 the KJV more accurately translates this word as ‘any[one]’).
                The KJV says “he’ but the Greek doesn’t. The Greek can be either ‘he’ or ‘she’.
                The KJV in verse 5 says ‘his’ but the Greek doesn’t. (The Greek doesn’t say ‘his own’, it says ‘the own’.)
                The KJV in verse 5 says ‘man’ but the Greek doesn’t. Again, this is the Greek word for ‘anyone’.
                The KJV in verses 6 and 7 says ‘he’ but the Greek doesn’t. The Greek can be either ‘he’ or ‘she’.
                Because of these masculine words, a person relying on the King James Bible would say that a ‘bishop’ certainly had to be a male. But in Greek, none of these words limits the role to a male.
                Similarly, the parallel list in Titus 1 uses the word ‘he’ once, but ‘he’ is not in the Greek.
                If Paul wanted to limit the role of elder to men, he would have said ‘male’ instead of ‘anyone’. Reading the Greek gives the impression that Paul deliberately avoided using sexist language.
                Some anti-women advocates point out that Ephesians 5:22 says women should be submissive to men. But they fail show you that the previous verse says all Christians should be submissive to all others. So men should also be submissive to women. There should be mutual submission.
                Remember, the King James Bible translators were deliberately biased when it comes to the issue of ordination.
                The following is a list of all the places the KJV New Testament uses ‘ordain’, ‘ordained’, etc.
                In every single case, ‘ordain’ is not the meaning of the Greek word.
                The actual Greek meaning of the word is listed in italics.
?Mark 3:14, Gr made, do, (a word used 579 times in the New Testament. Only here is it translated ‘ordained’).
?John 15:16, put in place, (a Greek word used 96 times in the New Testament and not translated ‘ordained’ anywhere else).
?Acts 1:22, become, (a Greek word used 678 times in NT and not translated ‘ordained’ in any other instance).
?Acts 10:42, decreed, appointed.
?Acts 13:48, assigned, put in order.
?Acts 14:23, voted, held elections for.
?Acts 16:4, judged, decided.
?Acts 17:31, defined, appointed.
?Rom 7:10, there is no Greek original here. ‘Ordained’ has been inserted into the text and is in italics in the KJV.
?Rom 13:1, assigned; put in order.
?1 Cor 2:7, predetermined, decided beforehand.
?1 Cor 7:17, thoroughly arrange.
?1 Cor 9:14, ditto
?Gal 3:19, ditto
?Eph 2:10, prepared beforehand.
?1 Tim 2:7, put in place (as); assigned a place (as).
?Titus 1:5, appoint, appointed.
?Heb 5:1, ditto.
?Heb 8:3, ditto.
?Heb 9:6, furnished; made ready.
?Jude 4, designated.
                So the KJV uses the word ‘ordain’ 21 times – without it being there one single time in Greek.
                This list strongly shows that KJV translators were obeying their master’s voice in supporting the concept of an ordained Anglican clergy.
                The bias of the KJV in Acts 14:23 is particularly interesting to churches which support the Presbyterian view of elders. Anglicans appoint people as church officers, with the appointment done by someone higher up the hierarchy.
                Presbyterians elect elders.
                The KJV of this verse says Paul ‘ordained them elders’. The actual Greek is that Paul ‘held elections for elders’. The Geneva Bible which King James was trying to replace says ‘ordained elders by election’.
                The Anglican hierarchy had to get rid of any suggestion of laity electing leaders of the church.
                If we base our teaching about elders on the KJV, we have no Bible verse that says local churches can elect their own elders.
                        WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS
                        ABOUT ORDINATION
                So does the New Testament talk about people being ordained? Yes it does, in five (or six) places.
                If you read these six verses, you will know everything the New Testament teaches about ordination.
                It will take you only a few seconds to become a Biblical expert on the subject of ordination. The six verses to read are:
Acts 6:6 (They placed their hands on the seven)
Acts 13:3: (They placed their hands on Saul and Barnabas)
1 Tim 4:14 (The group of elders placed their hands on Timothy)
1 Tim 5:22 (Lay hands on no one quickly. Note: the KJV says ‘no man’, but the Greek says ‘no one’.)
2 Tim 1:6: (God’s gift in you through placing my hands on you)
Heb 6:2 (this verse lists laying on of hands as a foundation doctrine of Christianity. However, it may not be talking about ordination, but to laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit).
Notice that in these six verses there is
                ?no command to ordain elders;
                ?and no command to say which sex
                can be ordained;
                ?and no command to ordain anyone,
                although there are examples.
                ?There are only three ordinations
                mentioned. (Timothy’s ordination is
                mentioned twice.) And in each case the
                people ordained are diaconos.
Yet these six verses are the entire New Testament teaching on ordination.
                Some people quote Ephesians 5:23 as a verse prohibiting women being elders. However, the verse is not talking about elders at all.
                In the KJV the verse says “the husband is the head of the wife”.
                However, the Greek word ‘head’ does not mean ‘ruler’ or ‘leader’. It means a skull, a cranium, the thing that sits on our shoulders. In secular Greek this word doesn’t have the second meaning of ‘leader’ which the English word ‘head’ has.
                In this instance the word head is probably a metaphor for ‘life’. (If the head is cut off, a person loses their life. Hence the metaphor means ‘life’.)
                So this verse probably means “the husband is the life of the wife”.
                Anti-women advocates quote the KJV of 1 Timothy 2:11 as saying men have authority over women.
                “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
                Firstly, the term “usurp authority over a man” is literally “kill a man with her bare hands”. Exactly what Paul was getting at with this metaphor, we don’t know.
                It is one of the very few places in the New Testament where we don’t know the meaning. So it is wrong to use these words as if we did know what they meant.
                There is no evidence that they mean men have authority over women.
                Secondly, “the woman [must] learn in silence with all subjection”. But to whom is this woman being submissive? A man, or a woman? Anti-women people suggest she must be silent and be subject to the man teaching her. But it’s probably a woman teaching her.
                A new discovery gives the meaning of a rare word in the previous verse. Starting in verse 9, the Bible as Poetry says,
                “Rather, their adornment should be good works, which suit women who instruct a female convert. A woman should learn in quietness and in complete submission.”
                So the context is that the woman should be quiet and submissive when being taught by another woman. It has nothing to do with being submissive to men.
                Some people point out that only men can be Old Testament priests. They say that this shows that only men can be New Testament elders.
                But the parallel is wrong. Priests represent Christ (Heb 2:17). And since the Messiah was going to be a male, it was appropriate that priests were males.
                A better parallel is between the New Testament elders and Old Testament Levites. The Levites were a whole tribe (men and woman) set aside as Israel’s spiritual leaders. Thus the church should have both male and female leaders.

These were most of the important points which I have gleaned from various discussions and research papers etc.   

Full Member
: 199

« #4 : August 22, 2009, 03:55:38 PM »

I also read this commentary on John 8:9, in a book that was recently given to me.  Note the relevance to the subject of the ordination of women.

In John 8:9, Jesus was defending the woman taken in adultery from the 'holy' elders.  "Elders" is interpreted from the Greek as "elders and/or older people.  In Jewish writings and the Gospels used this word for Sanhedrin members: elders is a venerable and very ancient title; it's first mentioned in Scripture in Genesis 50:7 for elders of Egypt before the nation of Israel was formed; the title was used in many Mediterranean nations; it was used for administrative councils of cities; for leaders of religious groups; and for elected officials in guilds; elders sometimes had judicial and ambassadorial roles; in secular society an 'elder' could be as young as 30, and was sometimes elected for a one-year term; women could serve as elders in Jewish synagogues; from Isaiah 24:23; Exodus 3:16.

Isa 24:23  (King James Version with Strong's Concordance Numbers)
"Then the moon (H3842) shall be confounded (H2659), and the sun (H2535) ashamed (H954), when (H3588) the LORD (H3068) of hosts (H6635) shall reign (H4427) in mount (H2022) Zion (H6726), and in Jerusalem (H3389), and before (H5048) his ancients (H2205) gloriously  (H3519). "

In Isaiah 24:23, the word translated as 'ancients' is "zâqên" and according to the Strong's Hebrew Concordance, is interchangeable with 'elders'.  The term elders and ancients and senators do not exclude women, but are in fact, inclusive of women.

From H2204; old: - aged, ancient (man), elder (-est), old (man, men and . . . women), senator.

The same word is used in Exodus 3:16
Exo 3:16 
Go (H1980) and gather (H622) (H853) the elders (H2205) of Israel (H3478) together, and say (H559) unto 9H413) them, The LORD (H3068) God (H430) of your fathers (H1), the God (H430) of Abraham (H85) of Isaac (H3327) and of Jacob (H3290) appeared (H7200) unto (H413) me, saying (H559) I have surely visited (H6485) (H6485) you, and seen that which is done (H6213) to you in Egypt (H4714):

Full Member
: 199

« #5 : August 30, 2009, 01:03:20 PM »

The issue of the ordination of women is not about striving for equality and a desire to be placed outside of one's divinely designated sphere!  It is about 'doctrines' being exposed as the commandments of men i.e. traditions. Regardless of how cozy we feel with certain century-old traditions, our faith is not to be based on feelings!  It is well known to SDAs that ALL doctrine is to be based on a "Thus saith the Lord."

In addition to my previous email, and in response to this thread, I add the following:

1. The King James Bible is not copyright free. It is crown copyright so the crown owns the copyright in most English-speaking countries of the world. The main exception to this is the United States which does not recognise crown copyright. So in any argument based on the lack of copyright, you have to ask why God didn't make it copyright free everywhere?

2. I'm happy with the concept of 'Sola Scripture'. And for most Bible subjects we study English translations are adequate. But to say that the KJV is without bias in the matter is simply wrong. Read the Wikipedia article on the King James Version which will give you a clear view of the instructions King James gave to the translators.

A friend of mine who knows and can read New Testament Greek says that it can easily be seen that the KJV ( i.e. its translation of the Greek manuscripts) is biased on this issue. It is reflecting the views of the Sixteen Century, not the views of the First Century. For example, in the description of who should be ordained in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 there are no masculine pronouns in the Greek. But the KJV has added five. Similarly, the KJV has the word 'man' twice, but it's not there at all in the Greek. And for good measure, the word the KJV translates as 'bishop' in verse 1 is feminine. Those of us who say the KJV is biased in this matter do so by simply reading the Greek. The history of King James' instructions to the translators merely confirms what we clearly see when we read the Greek.

 3. The main argument against ordaining woman is 1 Tim 3:2 which says a elder must be the 'husband of one wife'. However, that idiom (husband of one wife) was used by First Century Greeks to describe both men and women. It has, for example, been found on the tombstones of two different woman. So the idiom can clearly be used to describe a woman. The idiom means 'faithful to their spouse'. In fairness to the KJV, with the knowledge of Greek they had 500 years ago, it is understandable that they translated this idiom the way they did. But the Greek inscriptions we have uncovered where these very words apply to women, paint a different picture. The veracity - the intellectual honesty - of anyone who knew New Testament Greek and still translated the idiom that way now would have to be questioned.

All arguments about women striving for 'equality' on this issue are completely irrelevant to the topic of women's ordination.  Women are not to usurp authority of their own husbands, but Paul advises husbands and wives to voluntarily submit to each other (Ephesians 5:21-33). 

Paul demonstrates the relationship between Christ and His church as that which exists  between a husband and wife.  Paul says that, "The husband is head of the wife" (Ephesians 5:23).

In classical and secular Greek, 'head' does not mean 'leader.'

In the Persian pagan religion, the 'god' was the head and the 'universe' was the body.  Paul therefore has the intention of showing new Christians, (who were formally pagan worshippers), that Christ is the head (protector, provider) and that the church is the body (in need of protection, nurture) - a concept familiar to these people who were previously worshippers in the Persian religion.

The 'head' has the role of provide nourishment for the body by taking in food through the mouth, protection is given to the body through the senses of the eyes, ears and nose.  The emphasis of the role of the head is to sustain life, to provide safety and nourishment to the body.  The body does not have to 'obey' the head; indeed the Greek word translated 'obey' actually means to submit voluntarily. The body voluntarily accepts the care, protection, nourishment provided by the head. The body does not force itself to submit or obey.  It simply grows strong and healthy, as should the church under the headship (nurture) of Christ.

Scholars have found ancient lists of Jewish elders from Crete, Thrace, Malta, North Africa and Italy containing the names of women.
In fact, archaeologists have uncovered details of at least five women who were elders or bishops in the early church.
To some extent Christianity merely adopted the church structure of the Jews. Jewish synagogues had elders; Christian synagogues had them too. Jewish elders could be women; Christian elders could be too. You might wish to visit the following URL about what archaeologists have uncovered about the role of Jewish women in the early Christian centuries. 
There were women ministers who were evangelists for the SDA church in the early days of  the church's history. 

A Woman's Place: Seventh Day Adventist Women in Church and Society: By Rosa Taylor Banks (1992); Review and Herald Publishing

(1868) Ellen Lane (first SDA woman licenced as a minister; licence renewed 1978);

(1872) Sarah A Hallock-Lindsey -  licenced by the SDA conference

(1879) Hattie Enoch - received her licence to preach (General Conference President GI Butler, even reported to Ellen White that a prominent Kansas minister, Elder Cook, maintained that Hattie Enoch was "better than any minister in the state.")

(1898) Lulu Wightman - Licenced - "the most successful evangelist within the denomination for any time period"

Minnie Day Sype (1869-1956) - preacher and evangelists - paid by the SDA conference

Please note that these women ministers were licensed to preach/evangelise by the General Conference (all/majority male).  At this time, Ellen White was alive and well able to comment on this situation, which she did - in a  positive manner. One has to ask, if the ordination of women was not in harmony with God's divine direction, why didn't Ellen White oppose it.  In fact, Ellen White supported the work of women evangelists and preachers.

If the Greek New Testament and Ellen White support women preachers and evangelists, why are some of modern SDAs embracing the Roman Catholic tradition of forbidding women to preach?
« : August 31, 2009, 12:18:07 AM Sherlene »

: [1]