Adventist Church Ranks Third in Newsmax Denominations with Most Traditional Stance on Women Clergy
By AT News Team, May 8, 2015: Newsmax published a list of the five top denominations with the most traditional stance on women clergy this week. The Seventh-day Adventist Church ranked third after Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and the Roman Catholic Church.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) ranked the most traditional. It “allows women to hold unpaid positions in the church and deliver sermons and offer prayer in Sunday services,” the international online news service said. “But maintains its ban on women serving as priests.” Newsmax quoted former Brigham Young University president Gordon B. Hinckley as stating that the reason is because God “designated that men in his church should hold the priesthood.”
The Roman Catholic Church ranked second most traditional on this topic, according to Newsmax. It “maintains a centuries’ old ban on women under the reasoning that the church has no authority to confer priestly ordination of women,” the publication stated. It noted that some bishops have called for a change in this rule.
Although Newsmax ranked the Adventist denomination third, its explanation of the reasoning behind the Adventist tradition is much less clear than the others. “Some have challenged this old decree,” Newsmax reported, giving as an example a vote in 2012 by the denomination’s Danish Union Conference to halt all clergy ordinations until after the General Conference Session in July of this year. Newsmax included some information that is out of date and cited an Adventist source that is not well-informed.
The Orthodox Church ranks fourth on the list with the explanation that it “follows a line of reasoning that reflects those of the Roman Catholics.” Newsmax also stated that the Orthodox Church in America venerates a woman in Orthodox history named Theotokos as “more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim” (orders of angels) and “holds her up as a model for all of God’s people, male and female alike.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses organization ranks fifth on the list. “Women are allowed to be ordained to go … door to door to recruit new members [but] deacons and elders must be male,” Newsmax reports. “Women may only conduct services when there is special need.” Samuel Herd, a member of the denomination’s governing body, is quoted with the reason for the ban: “Women have smaller brains, thus not built for leadership roles like men are.”
Seven other religious groups are listed as less strong in holding onto the tradition of excluding women from the clergy. Most Christian denominations “have changed that antiquated policy,” Newsmax stated.
What the Newsmax editors evidently did not know is the Adventist connection to this issue over the years. James White, a cofounder of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, was a pastor in the Christian Connection prior to founding of the Adventist denomination. The Christian Connection was the first denomination to ordain women as clergy, evidently with White’s support. He long argued against those who criticized his wife, Ellen G. White, for functioning as a preacher and leader in the Adventist movement. She long held credentials as an ordained minister in the denomination. Her voluminous writings continue to have spiritual authority among Adventists.
The Christian Connection might or might not have been the second Christian denomination to ordain women as pastors though I do not know.
What I do know is that the Council of Laodicea in the 4th century AD banned the practice of ordaining women as Presbyters (Elders in today’s parlance). There is circumstantial evidence that women may also have served as Episcopa (bishops) in isolated instances in the first few centuries AD.
Jim Hamstra
The early church didn’t stop ordaining women as Presbyters. It never started. Don’t make a fool of yourself trying to revise history. The same goes for Adventist history. Women were not ordained to headship roles. It was uncontroversial because the scripture is so plain-spoken about it. The entire historical record makes it obvious. It was seldom discussed because it wasn’t an issue.
agree
So the early church did not stop ordaining women. Really? I’m not sure who the foolish one is here.”
Don’t you think you might want to read some scholarly discussions of this by church historians before you make these kind of statements?
As for Adventist history is concerned, you might also want to do some additional reading outside of the literature of apologetics by the anti-WO crowd on this topic.
Revisionist Erv
By all means. Teach us. Just don’t make things up and don’t make mountains out of mole hills.
The Adventist church passed out ministerial credentials to most of its workers in the nineteenth century. This was not ordaining women as Elders or Pastors. The historical record is clear; Adventists didn’t do that and the obscure incidences where it appears like they might have are exceptions that prove the rule.
Please deal honestly and comprehensively with the facts and teach us all. I want to learn.
Well if nobody was ordaining women as Presbyters then why did the Council of Laodicea ban the practice?
The same reason Paul banned it in his epistle to Timothy. To preclude women ruling over men in the church.
Let me wee if I understand. So the Council banded something that was not being done. Right? Ah . . . O.K. May I suggest that this understanding does not pass the smell test.
Your nose is not a historian. Women were not being ordained as Presbyters. If you can find real examples,you will have found exceptions. But, as I said: Tell us about it, who, by whom, when, where were these women ordained. Smell test indeed!
Third behind Mormons and Roman Catholics … too easy … Meanwhile the Gospel of Jesus languishes in the face of small-bore distractions.
Saving the church rather than pointing to the Gospel of Jesus the Savior, which is the First Angel’s message, helps explain why the First Angel is said to have to use a loud voice to be heard.
Not to worry, we will hear the Gospel when the First Angel proclaims it, and when that happens, we will be described by the Second Angel as having turned our back on Babylon’s assurances that we can take actions to help save our church and ourselves.
By all means, let’s not risk being showcased by the Third Angel … or settle for awaiting the First Angel’s cry.
Corinthians 14:34 -35: 36.Jesus quotes religious law in verse 34 and 35. Jesus chastises them in verse 36 saying, 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? Jesus says this: truth comes to both sexes.
KJV Cambridge edition bible 1611 or 1900.
and does that apply to ordination or salvation ?
How many men have weighed in on this compared to the ones who are affected by being refused full participation equally with men in the church? Is your belief that Jesus would exclude women from any office of the church? How did He ever demonstrate such an attitude toward women? He treated them much better than the Jewish religious leaders.
The priesthood ended at the cross. The NT had no priests in the early church because the Jewish system was abolished with Christianity accepting all as equals before God. Anything otherwise is a misrepresentation of Christ and the apostles that recognized the gifts of women as equal with men. There were no ordained leaders appointed in the church; the word was never used.
Can any body tell me who was ordained as a pastor in the New Testament church?
And why the SDA church does not ordained health workers, teachers and interpreters/
No one was because ordination cannot be found in the New Testament. It simply does not exist there. Period. Ordination is a concept that arose after the church fell into apostasy. Some confuse the baptism of the Holy Spirit with ordination when they are totally different. Ordination arose as an act to elevate people into the clergy class where they exercised ecclesiastical authority over the “common people” where the baptism of the Holy Spirit is an act by God investing in a person a greater amount of divine power for service.
Well said William – no suitable answer I see.
The SdA church will be #1 when W/O is voted “No” and TW is re-elected in about 2 months in San Antonio.
Then a GC committee will be formed to rescind and revoke all previous female ordinations from deaconesses, elders, and pastors and preclude any future such ordinations.
It will be back to the future circa 1915
That idea may be ideal for some of us. But as Raj pointed out in his evaluation, this is not likely to happen, and I tend to agree with him about the outcome at the GC sessions.
The political elements are too strong to allow a “thus saith the Lord” to dominate the decision.
We should also recognize there is no middle ground as some have tried to claim as a possibility. To allow WO on any level of church authority is to deny male headship. And if you support male headship, then you deny WO as elders and/or pastors on any level or any part of the denomination.
To claim some middle ground is simply foolishness.
Bill, was the GC Session foolish in 1990 when it voted yes on women ordained as elders and no on women ordained as pastors?
Yes, they were. They abandon a “thus saith the Lord” for human speculation and now are in a dilemma created by our church leaders they can not and will not get out of without repentance and an admission they made a terrible mistake.
Will they do this? As I stated, not likely.
While there may be exceptions to any rule in this world of sin, at no time does an exception negate the rule itself.
Just because there may be a need to ordain women in China, (I don’t know, I don’t live there) it could only be by way of an exception because of unusual circumstances. And then to claim, well, we do it in China, this means the rule of male headship has been negated and abandon in all parts of the world, and there is no rule of male headship.
And this is the basic argument of those who support WO. They claim there is no rule of male headship in all the bible and any “headship” exercised by men was because men are wicked and dominate women for sinful reasons. Men may well dominate women for sinful reasons, but this fact does not negate male headship as God’s ordained system of government in the home, the church and society in general.
David ate the shewbread. Do this negate the rule of how the shewbread was to be used? The disciples picked and ate grain on the Sabbath. Does this mean we can now get out our farm machinery and harvest crops on the Sabbath?
Sin creates exceptions of how to administer the principles of God’s kingdom in this world. But none of these exceptions negate the rule as the norm for the Christian community.
Show me where those who advocate WO are willing to claim it is an exception to the rule, and not the rule itself. They are not about to confess this position. It would over throw their whole argument of equality without distinction in authority.
Oh yes, the church has created a dilemma they will not resolve without great difficulty just as the early church did when they abandon the Sabbath and opted for Sunday keeping. And for this same reason, it is not likely the church will admit the error and repent. It is likely like Raj suggested, they will make some political statement and try to resolve the dilemma by political agendas instead of affirming a clear “thus saith the Lord.”
Suffice it to say, “I am not over-expecting as some are about the final outcome.” None the less, I am still hopeful that such a reality may come and the church will truly repent from top down for the fiasco created in the beginning. God will yet create a church community by the bible that will not be moved by the fiddling tricks of men.
The head of the woman is man, the head of the church is Christ and the head of Christ is God. Can somebody explain the doctrine of the Trinity to me?
The sooner this hoo-hah is over the better. Like it or not, women have been capable of ordination as local elders for quite a few years. There are distinct differences between their position and ministers, viz.
1. Their authority is limited to their own local congregation;
2. While in theory having authority to baptize, in my 50 years as an SDA I have only once seen a local elder administer baptism;
3. Such are usually of mature years, enjoy the respect of their local congregation, and may well have occupied lesser offices with credit;
4. Whether we like it or not, the notorious “double standard” still casts its dark shadow over relations between men and women, even in a pastoral context.
Middle ground? Yes there is! Women as lay preachers and local elders – YES. Women as full-time ministers – NO.
Well said Bill.
Theotokos “a woman in Orthodox history”? Theotokos (mother of God) is the.virgin Mary!
Some Adventists, even some Adventist historians, make stuff up. They latch on to something like “a woman named Theotokos” or ministerial credentials being issued to Adventist women and just invent a fabricated back story that supposedly justifies WO. It’s embarrassing to behold.
I was impressed by the honesty of this.
>>Samuel Herd, a member of the denomination’s governing body, is quoted with the reason for the ban: “Women have smaller brains, thus not built for leadership roles like men are.”<<
At least the JW's governing body is upfront about their true feelings. Is this what some of our church REALLY think?
I also note that his grammar is as good as his biology (and the "original language" expertise of their biblical translators for that matter).