Nomenclature and Honorific Titles in Ellen G. White’s Works
by William Abbott, August 19, 2016: Nomenclature and honorific titles in the Seventh-day Adventist church have a history. The practice of leadership, headship if you will, is revealed in the names and titles Seventh-day Adventists used, and did not use, to honor and distinguish themselves one from another. The entire works of Ellen G. White are now available and searchable online. In short order you can search individual words and phrases and study the context and usage comprehensively and directly from the primary sources. Everyman has indeed become an historian.
Reverend appears fifty-nine times in what I will call EGW Works. It is used as a title when historians are being quoted in reference to churchmen before and during the Reformation. It is used in reference to Psalm 111, “Holy and reverend is his name,” several times, and finally a few places along these lines:
If Christ were on earth today, surrounded by those who bear the title of “Reverend” or “Right Reverend,” would He not repeat His saying, “Neither be called masters, for you have one Master, the Christ”? From Heaven With Love, p. 409
According to the teaching of the Scriptures, it dishonors God to address ministers as “reverend.” No mortal has any right to attach this to his own name, or to the name of any other human being. It belongs only to God, to distinguish Him from every other being…. “Holy and reverend is his name.” We dishonor God when we use this word where it does not belong…. The Father and the Son alone are to be exalted. Sons and Daughters of God, p. 58
Not surprisingly, nowhere in EGW Works does Mrs. White use the term “Reverend” as an honorific title of address or use the abbreviation Rev. except when acknowledging source material in notes and bibliography (and as an abbreviation for the book of Revelation).
Pastor occurs 233 times. Interestingly Mrs. White uses “Pastor” as an honorific title only three times, all in the last years of her life, and only once in a written address. “Pastor” is used by Mrs. White in the context of a work, a labor. She never uses it as a verb, “to pastor.” I saw no references to women as pastors. If Mrs. White does in fact refer to women or a woman as pastor somewhere, we can assume from EGW Works it would be in reference to a work, not an honorific position or title.
Elder appears 9,770 times in EGW Works. Its usage is predominantly as an honorific title. It is invariably how Mrs. White and her Adventist contemporaries addressed the churchmen or leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist church. “Elder and Mrs.” was virtually the exclusive nomenclature of address for ministers of the gospel and the leadership, supplanting the early “Brother” (28,888 times) and “Sister” (16,360 times) which were frequently used in the formative years. In later years, “Brother” as a title was most frequently referring to a member who was not a minister of the gospel. Brother and Elder were simultaneously honorific titles and functionally terms of distinction. I did look at a couple of gender-neutral names that jumped out at me but I am confident the term “Elder” was exclusively used to honorifically address only males in EGW Works.
The overwhelming sense one gets from this brief overview of EGW Works is that the use of honorific titles establishes the “headship” of the Seventh-day Adventist church during Ellen White’s life as exclusively male.
William Abbott serves as a local elder in Columbus, Nebraska, and works in the forest products industry.
What is this? It purports to be some kind of research, but is completely inadequate as evidenced by the omission of the terms minister/ministry which EGW used alternatively to “pastor.” One example out of numerous ones: “O, when will the ministry awake to the solemn responsibilities that are laid upon them, and earnestly plead for heavenly power?” —RH, April 5, 1892
Equally unsupported are the conclusions that this review establishes, 1) not only the controversial notion of male headship itself, but 2) that it was theologically endorsed by Ellen White. “It is not always men who are best adapted to the successful management of a church.” —MR 19:56
AT, this “column” belongs in the comments where people opine regardless of evidence.
My2Cents,
Your reaction to my research (actually its a quick and dirty word search) was shared by AT’s editor, Monte Sahlin, who only reluctantly published it. In Monte’s and my back and forth I offered an alternate concluding paragraph, one without the sweeping conclusions. I reproduce it below:
In all EGW Works ‘Elder’ is essentially the singular honorific title used to denote differentiated status within the ranks of Seventh-day Adventists. Elder is never applied to women except as ‘Elder & Mrs.’ We will leave it to the reader to decide if this fact contributes to our understanding of male leadership or ‘headship’ in the nineteenth-century Seventh-day Adventist church.
Your criticism the word-study omits ‘minister’ and ‘ministry’ could be augmented with ‘clergy’, ‘clerical’ ‘Parson’ and ‘Preacher’ and ‘Mr.’ to name a few. I did quickly look at ‘minister’ writing this, I did not see it used as an honorific title of address and I did not expect it to be. It does appear 7040 times, often in the verbal form. I did not look at every use.
I want to thank the editors of AT for publishing this, even though it is very cursory. I thought it was interesting. Mrs. White apparently did not use a gender-specific, honorific title for women in any ministry apart from ‘Sister’ and ‘Mrs.’ Neither of those two honorifics connote ‘headship’ like “Elder’ does.
The illusions of Don Quixote live on in the fight against the ordination of women!
Bro. Noel,
Don Quixote did not live in the past, he imagined the present was the past. He had a deluded imagination. Inversely, that is precisely my concern here.
Most proponents of women’s ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist debate project onto the past a deluded vision of the Adventist pioneers approving of female Pastors. They make an argument using the almost total silence about the matter in the nineteenth-century. Choosing to ignore evidence that the Adventists thought female headship of the church was not a biblical possibility.
Because the common use of honorifics in address and language was habitual and universal in the nineteenth century it can tell us, as Jim Hamstra say, quite a lot about their practice. What was the proper term of address for a female ‘Elder’ in the nineteenth-century? All the headship of the nineteenth-century Adventist church was vested in Jesus Christ and after him the ‘Elders.’
William Noel moves on because the Holy Spirit moves him, regardless of history. If others want to discuss the past let’s discuss it. Let’s get to the bottom of how it really was back then. Let’s not contort history into propaganda.
That is the point of the word study. Telling the truth about our Adventist history.
Mr Noel, Ellen White wrote that women [can] be ordained by the laying on of hands but this did not include the role of elder. No women were ordained to the role of elder in the Bible nor within the Adventist church during the life and times of Ellen White.
Trevor,
My observation over the decades I’ve been in the church is that those who persist in arguing about worn-out topics when the rest of the church has moved-on are not building it, but tearing it down. I prefer building-up the church, so we’ll just have to agree that we have different views on the matter.
Bro. Abbott,
Your alternate conclusions are based also on unsubstantiated premises. What an honorific means is dependent on what the role means, which requires consideration of all related terms. In your case, you’d also have to address the challenge of responsibly establishing that for Ellen White church leadership was based on male headship. Such cannot be done so I understand why it may be tempting to express it as a given. These fatal weaknesses illustrate why “quick and dirty word searches” are a detriment to any agenda. Yours would have been less damaging to your cause without aspiring beyond reader comments.
“Christ is the only Head of the church” —MR21:274
“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.” —6T322
And on the next page, a few sentences down:
“The preaching of the word is a means by which the Lord has ordained that His warning message shall be given to the world. In the Scriptures the faithful teacher is represented as a shepherd of the flock of God. He is to be respected and his work appreciated. ” 6T323
Ellen White’s use of the word elder when referring to a church leader is always used only when addressing a male leader – never a female. Of course I haven’t gone through all the instances were elder is used but every one I did look at referred to a male. Mr Abbott makes a good observation in pointing this out.
Assuming that William Abbott has counted accurately, this tells us absolutely nothing about Ellen’s personal views (except regarding the use of Reverend as an honorific). What it tells us is that Ellen used the common jargon of her contemporaries. Many of the founders of the SDA church came from churches where the Elders were the leaders. So when they decided to established an ordained clergy, they chose that more Biblical term rather than the more pompous Reverend.
I doubt that Ellen abandoned the use of the more personal and egalitarian Brother and Sister in her personal discourse. I think you will find many letters where she still addressed people this way.
Regardless, this research tells us much about Custom and nothing about Doctrine. The only “doctrinal” admonition presented here is to avoid the honorific Reverend.
It might also be worth noting that the pioneers of the SDA church avoided honorifics like Apostle and Prophet. Ellen called herself a “lesser light” and a “messenger” rather than taking a more lofty title for herself.
Jim, I am thinking Elder was used by Adventists and some other primitive Christianity churches like Alexander Campbell’s followers perhaps. But most used an additional term to distinguish between the local Elders and the ‘Parson’.
Elder is not unique to Adventists. The Mormon Missionaries all have little black name plates that use the Honorific ‘Elder’.
What is distinctive among Adventists is ‘Elder’ is used to the exclusion of other honorifics for the preachers and churchmen. Most other protestant groups used Reverend or Parson to designate what the 1878 Signs called the ruling Elder.
You are right, it is an important distinction between the SDA and the LDS. LDS still officially use ecclesiastical titles for Apostles and Prophet in their hierarchy. Adventists never did.
Those who pointed out the weakness of this article are entirely correct. It only proves one thing: “Elder” was the title most often used in formal references to clergy in the early years of the Adventist movement. This proves nothing about any biblical teaching or any theology. Real historical research published in a number of books and articles has documented that there were many women serving in the Adventist ministry until the 1920s. The record shows clearly that by the 1880s most Adventist leaders were ready to ordain women serving as pastors because the Ministerial License was issued to women pastors and Ellen White was issued an Ordained Minister credential. There is no record of any Adventist advocating Male Headship theology until the 1980s. Regardless of one’s opinion on the question of ordination today, those are historical facts and it is dishonest to try to rewrite history. The most important question that must be answered: If women’s ordination is a wrong for the Adventist Church, then why did God never tell Ellen White to write such a directive? There are clear instructions on a host of other topics. To be honest, one has to conclude that God does not take that view.
Monte,
For all practical purposes ‘Elder’ was the exclusive honorific title for the leaders of the Adventist church. You keep calling them clergy, but Ellen White didn’t, ‘clergy’ appears 167 times in her writings and never once is it used to refer to Adventist leadership. You keep talking about licensed women pastors, but that language is completely foreign to 19th century Adventists. We have records of ministerial licenses being issued to Seventh-day Adventist women and we have records of their employment with the church and that is it. That is the limit of historical facts. Making conjectures and calling them facts distorts history.
I use the term ‘headship’ because it is so obviously scriptural: 1 Cor. 11 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. If Elder My2cents is correct, and I believe he is, in asserting when he quotes Mrs. White: “Christ is the only Head of the church” Then let us ask ourselves; Is Jesus Christ a male?
Maybe that is the reason the Adventists adopted such a level ecclesiology and limited themselves to the simply one title ‘Elder’ is to reflect in practice the idea Jesus Christ, not his disciples, is the head of the church.
Adventists were always in favor of women participating in worship and the work of the church. That is not in dispute. cont.
The concept that Jesus was male and this fact is means something in selecting Christian leaders is precisely the teaching of the Catholic Church. It has been widely regarded as not biblical throughout the 500 years since the Reformation. Why would Adventists adopt this concept?
“. Why would Adventists adopt this concept?”
Because it is biblical.
What is it???? If the RCC teaches anything, we are immediately to reject it, no matter what it is?????
Do you think they teach nothing that is biblical?????
William, Back in those days, men got into the ministry as a result of their soul winning efforts. Elon Everts, for example, who first wrote about the IJ in the Review, was an itinerant evangelist before he was ordained to the gospel ministry. His case was not unusual.The general plan in those days was for younger men to work with older men and then demonstrate their ability. If well done, they would be ordained. Everts, for example, even after he was ordained, apparently assisted J.N. Loughborough in evangelism.
That could be the reason that women did not enter pastoral work. At that time, it would be virtually impossible for a woman to travel, preach, give Bible studies, etc. to raise up a church Most men in the ministry could do that then. Nowadays, few men can or do. The paradigm has changed
Sir you miss one small bit of information: the Bible hasn’t chamged.
Mr. Hammond says that “the Bible has not changed.” That’s a meaningless statement. If he means that the text of biblical books has not changed since they were written down, for this purpose, let us stipulate that. (Ignore the many textual variants in copies, but that not relevant here.) Yes, the text has not changed, but interpretations of what the bible writers meant in the context of their times and cultures and whether what they meant is normative for us in a vastly changed social, economic, and intellectual climate is very much at issue. Thus, while the text of the Bible has not changed, the ideas and conclusions that should be taken from the bible has certainly greatly changed. Thus, from a practical perspective, what the bible says has very much changed.
But Erv, then the BIBLE still hasn’t changed by statement and we have? We have socially, economically and intellectually outgrown HIM; at least in our interpretations? Within the Truth of meaning?
Professor Taylor is correct about change. And that is the point of this article. The Seventh-day Adventist church is changing. Specifically, it is changing it’s hermeneutic. An apparent majority no longer want to take the plain and specific instruction of Paul as a reason to abstain from ordaining/electing women as Elders.
Many commenting here do not want to believe they are changing the hermeneutic. Hence the vigorous gyrations of denial and the distortion of our denomination’s history.
The ninety-five members of the Theology of Ordination Study Committee split three ways. A third voted not to ordain women, a third voted to ordain women someday, and a third looked for compromise. A bit like the American Revolution, a third were for independence, a third were not, and a third looked for cover.
I have no doubt where Erv stands; I don’t want to stand with him – I respect his honesty.
Could it be that they had and have other, more critical, responsibilities? That never really changed?
Could it be the created paradigm in change? Because we can definitely no longer provide, protect, shelter, sanction, teach or guide anyone; well less help ourselves. Is the intent to make it as difficult as possible for others to do as commanded? Then I would contend the intent successful?
Have you looked around and seen how well this paradigm is working; or better yet, been involved in fixing any of the problems it has created? Maybe we should start following the BIBLE instead?
Hansen,
The New Testament model of ministry in the Holy Spirit is that God calls to greater service those who have been serving using what gifts He has placed in them. That is why I believe no one should be allowed to serve as a pastor until they have planted a church and they should not be allowed to remain in pastoral work unless they continue planting churches, followed by turning them over to the lay leadership whom God raises-up to serve in those positions.
William Noel, You may believe that. It is certainly what EGW envisioned for pastors. If I understand her correctly, pastors were the primary evangelists, turning church management over to “elders.” The church model followed in general is actually the one she condemned i.e., churches helplessly dependent on ministerial labor, demanding sermons from pastors each week.
Pastors do it because it pays the bills and few of them have marketable skills useful outside the denomination. I guess a few imagine they are doing the Lord’s work, others, just earning a living.
Hansen,
Ellen White spoke at length against ‘settled pastors’ in during the 1883 GC debate about the proposed church manual.
Ordination began for Seventh-day Adventists in response to the confusion that arose from self-appointed itinerant preachers of the Seventh-day Adventist message, a few were quite unbalanced. Some sort of system needed to be adopted to place approval upon evangelists. Paul’s system of Elder/bishop appointment/election was devised to address a similar issue and was naturally adopted by the Adventists. Practical – not sacramental – not holy orders – and at this time reserved for men for both practical and scriptural reasons. Neither the Adventist pioneers nor Paul could imagine women serving as Elders or Overseers.
William, I doubt they could have imagined many of the things that go on in the church today; however, if a woman did become an itinerant evangelist and start teaching, preaching, raising up churches, it would be difficult to justly deny her ordination. They simply don’t do that or if they do, I haven’t heard about it. It should be big news.
Few male pastors raise up churches either, or even win souls into existing churches when they have every tool imaginable to do it. last time I checked [I’ve checked twice], the average pastor in the States baptizes 8 people a year, including the children of existing members.
Hansen,
I wrote up the simple word study to confront a misleading historical argument that keeps rearing up. Namely, the pioneer church in 1881 was ordaining and was ready to ordain women to the gospel ministry. That is an incorrect interpretation of the historical evidence.
If you want to argue in the affirmative for WO using practical reasons for ordaining women in the Seventh-day Adventist church today, I will have to switch gears.
You are trying to refute my historical interpretation with a practical consideration.
WA, Not trying to refute anything you wrote, just pointing out that the bar has been lowered for ordination of both men; consequently, denying women because they are women is simply male domination.
Quite a few years ago, The fire department in L.A. couldn’t find women who could pass the physical. When the chief pointed out that, not discrimination, as the reason there were not more female firefighters, there was such a hail of protest, he resigned. Police Chief Willie Williams couldn’t meet the physical requirements of the LAPD. He simply exempted himself from that requirement.
Now if the SDA church wants to be consistent and require a successful church plant of all ordination candidates and women can do it, they need to come up with a better reason to not ordain women; however, since that isn’t required of men, it’s just another corner into which the denomination has painted itself.
If the denomination, for example, created a policy which said all ordained ministers in NA must have a size 8 foot or bigger, they could keep most women out. Thy could also do like the Lutherans and create a new denomination which ordains women, validates homosexuals, believes in some form of evolution, etc.
Instead…..
Correction: “The bar has been lowered for both men and women….”
Here is a paragraph from a Dec. 19, 1878 Signs of the Time article:
And this appears yet more evidence from the explanatory declaration in his words to Timothy, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, not to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” 1 Tim. 2:12. The divine arrangement, even from the beginning, is this, that the man is the head of the woman. Every relation is disregarded or abused in this lawless age. But the Scriptures always maintain this order in the family relation. “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.” Eph. 5:23. Man is entitled to certain privileges which are not given to woman; and he is subjected to some duties and burdens from which the woman is exempt. A woman may pray, prophesy, exhort, and comfort the church, but she cannot occupy the position of a pastor or a ruling elder. This would be looked upon as usurping authority over the man, which is here prohibited. my emphasis
This is almost certainly written by the editor JH Waggoner, less than 36 months before the 1881 GC, published in a principal, official, public organ of the Seventh-day Adventist church. This is an example of the Adventist church publicly acknowledging ‘headship’ theology if you insist on giving it that name.
No one, including Elder & Mrs. White, took issue with Waggoner’s article.
William A,
Inferential thinking here, re the ‘headship’ arrival in Seventh-day Adventism by way of JH Waggoner. Most of our thinking is inferential by way of necessity.
With that in mind, so the Holy Spirit positions JH Waggoner at the Signs of the Times to bring the 1888 Righteous by Faith message to Seventh-day Adventism. Along with this essential truth, Waggoner’s hermeneutic leas him astray in ways such as misunderstanding 1 Tim 2:12. We should take note of how the Holy Spirit accepts mistakes like this.
The history of Seventh-day Adventism was founded on the spiritual presence of God despite a profoundly more dramatic misunderstanding of Bible prophesy having been ‘blasted’ as Hiram Edson put it.
The take away from Seventh-day Adventism’s publishing efforts during Sister White’s lifetime is this. They were ripe with articles that went nowhere, as well as articles that went places that later needed to be and usually were renounced, along with articles the substance of which many of us treasure today.
As I recall, the General Conference Executive Committee unanimously declared in the Adventist Review that there is no biblical prohibition for ordaining women to the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist church in the run up to the last GC vote on an aspect of women’s ordination.
I’m glad your article appeared here, too.
Bill,
Contextually, the idea of women ‘pastors’ would have been novel in 1881. Offices of trust were held by men, coverture was the law of the land, (a married woman’s property was controlled by her husband, she could not execute contracts without her husband’s consent, etc.) Women could not vote. The record of nomenclature reflects the reality.
Adventists may have been unconventional in some of their biblical interpretations but they were absolutely lock-step in agreeing and insisting the bible was the only rule of faith. In 1881, I think JH Waggoner’s interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:12 was not contentious. The part that might have been contentious was the allowances he thought the texts made for women participating in worship and study at church. The bible texts say what they say. If JH Waggoner’s understanding is mistaken, he had lots of company.
Why is there no debate if his explanation of the texts was not universally taken for granted as correct? We have plenty of debate right now, why not then? There are things we are not debating, where are pens and voices are silent. We never argue about those things held in agreement.
You can not make a coherent historical argument that the Adventist founders wanted women to exercise total equality with men leading the church. There is no evidence for that.
There is, in fact, considerably more evidence that most Adventist leaders were ready for women to exercise leadership of congregations and spiritual leadership more generally than there is that they thought otherwise. Look at the several books and papers that have carefully reviewed all the historical evidence. There is a reason why the GC executive committee (as noted by Bill Garber above) voted to recognize that there is no reason to prohibit the ordination of women serving as pastors. The Adventist Church has never recognized the view that it is wrong or prohibited or unbiblical. That is why it is not in the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. You need to deal with history as it is rather than try to manufacture a fictional history.
Again: Ellen White was well aware of the resolution discussed at the 1881 GC Session. She knew the views of the majority of the leaders at the time. Why did God not convey a message telling us that we should not extend ordination to women if, in fact, it is a bad idea? If Sister White had any reservations about it, why did she accept credentials as an Ordained Minister?
The bottom line is this: For the Adventist Church to try to proclaim both that a woman is the most important source of spiritual guidance for our denomination and that the Bible teaches that women must not exercise leadership as a pastor simply makes no rational sense. It is so irrational that those who seriously attempt to make this case end up undermining our faith.
Monte,
I have not read all the papers produced by the various individuals that served on the Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) Where would I read about women being ordained or being discussed for ordination as ‘Elders’ by the nineteenth-century Adventist church? I am sincerely interested in reviewing the evidence. ‘Elder’ is operative here, there was no other ecclesiastical title or office in the Adventist church reflecting the authority of ‘spiritual leadership’ apart from ‘Elder.’
The bottom line is this: For the Adventist Church to try to proclaim both that a woman is the most important source of spiritual guidance for our denomination and that the Bible teaches that women must not exercise leadership as a pastor simply makes no rational sense. It is so irrational that those who seriously attempt to make this case end up undermining our faith.
Now here you have written a strong argument in favor of women’s ordination. It is a rational argument. Perhaps it is the best argument. It is not a biblical argument. Neither is it an argument grounded in the historical practice of the Adventist church.
As for manufacturing fictional history, I give you my solemn word, nothing could be more contrary to my intent. Yes! Let us discuss the history of Ordination and Elders in the Seventh-day Adventist church.
There is no evidence that the term “elder” meant anything different than the terms “pastor” or “minister.” Nowhere does EGW or any contemporary write such an idea. The actual credentials use the word “minister.” The fact that no woman who was a pastor or minister was addressed as “Elder ——–” is an accident of social custom and zero evidence about the attitude of Adventist leaders on the topic of women in the clergy.
Monte,
Ellen White never used the term ‘clergy’ once in relationship to anyone in the Adventist church. You call them ‘clergy,’ but Mrs. White never did. That tells us something about Adventist attitudes towards ‘clergy’ doesn’t it?
Even today professional titles (profession in the old sense) are not misappropriated lightly. Styling myself as a Doctor or Lawyer will land me considerable trouble. I’ll grant the opprobrium attached to dishonest representation of high rank is social custom. I vigorously disagree that Adventist social custom said ‘zero’ about Adventist attitudes. The social customs reflected in Ellen White’s writings speak loudly about Adventist attitudes in that time period about a woman’s place.
We project the present onto the past. We constantly read in comments, “Ellen said.” Elder Sahlin it is our custom, in this place and time to address people by their first name. That behavior says some definite things about our egalitarian attitudes and our ideas about equality.
So the use of the honorific title, ‘Mrs.’ tell us something about the non-egalitarian attitudes towards women held by Mrs. White and the Adventist church at large in the nineteenth-century. They believed the bible. It says the man is the head of the woman. And that is why Adventist social custom always styled it, ‘Elder and Mrs.’
Once again I must remark on the irony of this debate within the SDA church, as viewed from the larger Protestant context.
All of the Bible arguments put forward by the anti-WO crowd, are the very same arguments that the Calvinist side of my family has used for decades, against the SDA belief that Ellen White exercised the spiritual authority of a Prophet within our church.
So a few years ago I asked one of my Calvinist uncles who is a conscientious student of the Bible and a truly God-fearing gentleman “Do you ordain women in your church?” His answer was “We do now”. When I told him that it was headed for a world-wide vote in our church his reaction was “I am amazed that this would even be an argument in a church that believes in Ellen White”.
A recent discussion with him is rather insightful. His own denomination is as deeply divided on this question as is ours. So they wisely decided that each Synod could choose whether or not to ordain women. He and another Elder from his local congregation were delegates to their Synod that voted on the question. He voted YES and his fellow delegate voted NO. Their Synod now employs and has ordained a few women pastors. One of his own grand-daughters is studying for the Gospel Ministry at their seminary.
“All of the Bible arguments put forward by the anti-WO crowd, are the very same arguments that the Calvinist side of my family has used for decades, against the SDA belief that Ellen White exercised the spiritual authority of a Prophet within our church.”
Apparently people don’t know the difference between a prophet who answers to no one but God, and a pastor who must answer to various levels of authority in his ministry.
There is no comparison between EGW and the role of a pastor in church ministry. It is a “false dilemma” to compare the two.
“Where are our responsible men at this crisis? Are they living like men who wait for their Lord? Are there not men in the ministry who are indifferent and careless? Are there any among us who are eating and drinking with the drunken? Inebriates are not the special ones here meant; all are included whose senses are so confused and benumbed by the spirit of the times that eternal things are not realized. If there was ever a time when men of God should stand aloof from the corruptions of the world, it is now. The Lord is at hand. Let the trumpet have a certain sound. Let the people be warned.” The Review and Herald, Dec 20 1881, Witness for CHRIST.
Jame became ill and died on August 6, 1881. She was worrying about her family. The family that said and says she never wanted nor was ordained (White Estate release). Maybe others just want it?
There is some confusion in this discussion between J. H. Waggoner and his son E. J. Waggoner. While J. H. Waggoner remained a faithful pioneer Adventist until the end, E. J. Waggoner took up John Harvey Kellogg’s pantheistic notions and ended up leaving the Adventist faith. Please don’t confuse the two and accuse J. H. Waggoner of departing from the faith or teaching heresy. He never did.
Edwin, Search the name [Sr] “Chittenden” on the research disk and then decide how faithful J.H. Waggoner was.
Hansen,
Where do you come up with this stuff? That is fascinating, JH had turbulent domestic affairs, didn’t he? And he was a favorite of EGW’s too. I had no idea.
Whatever others wrote, even in church periodicals, we have EGW’s own clear assertion that God calls women as pastors:
“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.” —6T322
As Conviction stated above (a few sentences down).
“The preaching of the word is a means by which the Lord has ordained that His warning message shall be given to the world. In the Scriptures the faithful teacher is represented as a shepherd of the flock of God. He is to be respected and his work appreciated. ” 6T323
“Where are our responsible men at this crisis? Are they living like men who wait for their Lord? Are there not men in the ministry who are indifferent and careless? Are there any among us who are eating and drinking with the drunken? Inebriates are not the special ones here meant; all are included whose senses are so confused and benumbed by the spirit of the times that eternal things are not realized. If there was ever a time when men of God should stand aloof from the corruptions of the world, it is now. The Lord is at hand. Let the trumpet have a certain sound. Let the people be warned.” The Review and Herald, Dec 20 1881, Witness for CHRIST.
Instead of interpreting what Ellen said; maybe we should do what she said?
““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.” —6T322”
The word “pastor” is used in a generic sense and not as an ordained minister.
But we know from her use of the word she was not using pastor synonymously with Elder.
No one was ordaining pastors or credentialing them in the nineteenth-century Seventh-day Adventist church.
“‘Elder’ is operative here, there was no other ecclesiastical title or office in the Adventist church reflecting the authority of ‘spiritual leadership’ apart from ‘Elder.’”
Actually, the church’s ‘office of spiritual leadership,’ was “Ordained Minister” as the certificates and Yearbooks identify. “Elder” and “Pastor” both came to be used as Adventist titles for ministers. “Elder” as a title doesn’t distinguish between the office of “ordained minister” and local lay elders, which do not share equal spiritual or ecclesiastical leadership.
My2cents,
Elder and Pastor both came to be used as Adventist titles. But the word study in EGW Works shows she used Elder exclusively. So timing is an important question. We know it was after 1881. I know in 1976 when I joined the Adventist church the ministers all used the title, “Elder.” I never saw a business card or church bulletin or written communication use the title “Pastor.” It was uniformly “Elder.” He was certainly the pastor, the term was common, but it wasn’t used honorifically. They were all called ‘Elder.’
The unanimous 2012 Supreme Court decision Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which revolved around the churches right to name its own ‘ministers’. In this case the church school teacher was not protected by the EEOC’s prosecution on her behalf.
From Wikipedia: Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence, in which he eschewed the use of any specific test for determining who qualifies as a minister, writing that he would like to “defer to a religious organization’s good-faith understanding of who qualifies as a minister”.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion, which Elena Kagan joined, stating that the word “minister” used in the decision should extend to similar titles for other religions such as Rabbi for Judaism or Imam in Islam.
Even in 2012 the usage and meaning of the word ‘minister’ in the United States is eclectic.
Anyone can have a ‘ministry’ and the word appears in EGW Works 7570 times. As I noted before ‘minister’ is used by Ellen White as a verb constantly. The way Adventists used the word ‘minister’ in the nineteenth century needs closer study. But we can safely conclude its use was varied, just like it is in EGW Works and in the above referenced recent Supreme Court decision.
It is perfectly sensible to imagine the ministerial credentials issued to women did not confer on them the title or office of ‘Elder.’ Elders in 1881 were the sole officiants of organized leadership in the Adventist church.
Wm Abbott,
You’d claimed that you’d found EGW using the title Pastor a few times, but now write, “the word study in EGW Works shows she used Elder exclusively.” So I’m having trouble following the claims.
I think we’re losing track of the issue you raise in your column. The use of the honorific “Elder” doesn’t represent endorsement of male headship. Honorifics did not appear on the church’s credentials and Yearbooks, rather “minister” designated the officially recognized denominational pastors/leaders.
Neither is it accurate that “‘minister’ is used by Ellen White as a verb constantly” so that there’s any implication that it’s her exclusive use of the word. My simple search for the term “minister gospel” shows numerous instances of “minister” as a clear synonym for pastors. Check out one of many sources: ‘Gospel Workers.’
Perhaps our conversation has come to an end. I easily find evidence that you claim doesn’t exist and I cannot agree on the meaning of an honorific based on incomplete research. I appreciate your time.
my2cents,
Mrs. White did use ‘Pastor’ three times as an honorific title of address very late in her writing. To say she used ‘Elder’ exclusively is technically inaccurate. I stand corrected. She used “Elder” several thousand times honorifically.
‘Constantly,’ as in, repeatably, regularly, frequently. Again, not the best word choice on my part, but not that bad. She uses the verbal form, minister a lot. She did not use the term ‘minister’ honorifically, no one does to my knowledge. Minister and pastor, are often used to to describe the person ministering and pastoring. Spell Checker doesn’t like ‘pastoring’ which we all use frequently. Spell Checker doesn’t like ‘eldering’ – which is understandable: there are no verbal forms for ‘elder’ are there? Eldercare?
There is no feminine honorific equivalent for ‘Elder’ used by Ellen White. Her honorific title was always Mrs. or Sister. Elder was the only honorific title used by Ellen White to signify what you have referred to as Adventist Clergy. I have called them leaders or used the term leadership. Based on the habitual and consistent use of honorifics by everyone, including Ellen White, in the nineteenth century, why can’t we conclude that the ministerial credentials issued to women were unlikely to convey the rank and status of Elder?
Elder is the only operative honorary title of address in use for the church leadership – as conclusively revealed in Ellen White’s…
One more thing before we go:
http://www.whiteestate.org/search/search.asp
Anyone can quickly study how Ellen White used a particular word.
The article assumes Ellen White supported any form of leadership/headship in God’s church. Organization, yes, leaders no, as that contradicts Christ’s clear statement. “All ye are brethren”.
True, brethren is a masculine term, but often addresses to men included women in principle, as one of the commandments that addresses only men should indicate. The principle is to not covet. Ellen White also often used masculine terms as inclusive of women.
In other words, until the words, “thou shalt not ordain women as elders/pastors” magically appear in the bible or Ellen White, or anywhere else, we are choosing to interpret what we read according to our understanding.
And that is based on both my research of bible search software, as well as EGW search software, which includes writings of the pioneers. The pioneers who knew how to study and put far too many of too shame, proposed ordaining women in 1888. No one knows for sure what happened with that. Ellen White’s secretary said the only reason Ellen White was against it, at that time, was due to the prejudice of a “gainsaying world”.
Searching for a particular word in only a start. We need to go further and look for the general sentiment, such as when she referred to women ministers, including wives of pastors who were to be paid on a par with their husbands, because….their work was as important. When one looks up the work Ellen White thought a pastor should do, come to find out,
the women were doing…
it. Not the men. She said if male pastors thought their only role was to sermonize it was best for them to be unordained.
The minister who is a co-worker with Christ will have a deep sense of the sacredness of his work and of the toil and sacrifice required to perform it successfully. He does not study his own ease or convenience. He is forgetful of self. In his search for the lost sheep he does not realize that he himself is weary, cold, and hungry. He has but one object in view—the saving of the lost. { AA 362.1}