Did Sr. WHITE preach sermons in church during the devine service? What Bible text supports women to preach in the church during the divine hour?

Regards

___________

Dear Brother ___________,

Thank you for getting in touch with the Ellen G. White Estate.

In answer to your first question, Yes, Sister White did speak at the main church services from time to time. However, you may find it interesting that she declined to do this while her husband was with her. He would speak at the main meeting in the morning, and she would speak, most often, at an afternoon meeting. After his death, however, she accepted invitations to speak at the regular church services when they were offered.

Your second question asks for Bible justification for this practice. The question came up quite frequently in the early days of the Seventh-day Adventist movement, and not just on behalf of Mrs. White. From time to time in the early decades of our movement and article would appear in the *Review* under the title, "May Women Speak in Church?" or some variation of it. The answer, given from the Bible, was invariably Yes.

I have typed the relevant portion of such an article for you from The Signs of the Times from nearly 120 years ago, and I am including it here. The article (an editorial) deals with two questions regarding women's relationship to the church. The second question is basically the same as the one you posed. Here is how the article handled it:

The Signs of the Times, vol. 4, no. 48 (Dec. 19, 1878), p. 380:

"Woman's Place in the Gospel" (Editorial)

2. "Is it right for women to speak in meeting?" Certain texts are quoted to prove the negative, and, *apparently,* they do prove it. Do they *really?* A text of scripture may not be taken in all its *possible* meanings, but only it is *actual* meaning. This is obvious; for it is often possible to draw from a text that which may be shown to be foreign to the actual intention of the writer. We are not at liberty to draw a meaning from any text which makes it conflict with any other text, and especially of the same writer. And, secondly, we may not draw a meaning from a text which puts it in contradiction with a known fact. In 1 Cor. 11:5, Paul says: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head." Again in chapter 14:3 he says, "But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." But if women were never to "speak unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort," why did he say they should not speak thus or prophesy with uncovered heads? Why give a direction as to the manner in which they were to exhort, or comfort, or edify the brethren, if he meant to forbid it altogether? Granted that it is quite possible to draw such a meaning from his words in chapter 14, and to Timothy, can that be the actual meaning, seeing it is entirely inconsistent with his directions in the text noticed? It cannot be that he intended to utterly forbid in one text that which he allows in another text. We notice, then the connection of the two texts which seem to involve a difficulty. 1 Cor. 14:29-35. "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." It appears that *something,* or speaking of some kind, was herein permitted to the men which was not permitted to the women. But we have seen, and shall notice further, that they were allowed to pray and to prophesy, but under certain restrictions. We cannot allow that this text contradicts that. If this text is likewise restrictive--if it permits certain exercises or, perhaps, disputations, to the men which it prohibits to the women, then there is no conflict between the two. Dr. Clarke gives us the following information: "It is evident from the context that the apostle refers here to asking questions, and what we call dictating, in the assemblies. It was permitted to any man to ask questions, to object, altercate, attempt to refute, &c., in the synagogue, but this liberty was not allowed to any woman." Such being the custom of the times, the propriety of the order will at once be seen, for it would be unseemly for a woman to engage in such a debate of words as was likely to occur. Paul was specially guarding against confusion. But this would not interfere with the permission to the women to pray or to prophesy, if it were done to edification and comfort, and if the decorum which belongs to the place and occasion were preserved, and the women regarded that modest reserve which is such an adornment of the sex. And this appears yet more evident from the explanatory declaration in his words to Timothy, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor 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. Thus it appears from a harmony of Paul's words that his orders were *restrictive,* but not *prohibitory.* He certainly did not prohibit that which he plainly permitted. [Waggoner follows with several paragraphs about women as prophets in Bible times, which we have not reproduced here.] . . . Some would now put such a construction upon the words of Paul as to have closed the mouths of these handmaidens of the Lord [Philip's four daughters who prophesied], who were specially endowed by his Spirit. But Paul gave no sanction to such a construction; so far from forbidding the exercise of this gift by women, he pointed out how they should appear when they prophesied. Paul was not so presumptuous as to interfere with the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel, or to frustrate the gifts and callings of God in the gospel. If this is not proof that Paul did not intend to forbid women taking part in public worship, then we must confess that we are slow to comprehend proof. Neither do the words of Paul confine the labors of women to the act of prophesying alone. He refers to prayers, and also speaks of certain women who "labored in the Lord," an expression which could only refer to the work of the gospel. He also, in remarking on the work of the prophets, speaks of edification, exhortation, and comfort. This "labor in the Lord," with prayer, comprises all the duties of public worship. Not all the duties of *business meetings,* which were probably conducted by men, or all the duties of *ruling elders,* and *pastors,* compare 1 Tim. 5:17, with 2:12, but all that pertain to exercises purely religious. We sincerely believe that, according to the Scriptures, women, as a right may, and as a duty ought to, engage in these exercises.

J. H. Waggoner (unsigned editorial), resident editor of The Signs of the Times

I hope these things will be helpful to you. Thank you again for writing. May God richly bless and guide you.

--------
William Fagal, Director
Ellen G. White Estate Branch Office
Andrews University
Berrien Springs, MI 49104-1400 USA
Phone: 616 471-3209
FAX: 616 471-6166
E-mail: [email protected]