Leaders!

[teresaq]

A person made a comment about Jesus being the Leader of the church and in that instant I realized how true that is. I also realized how irritated I have been feeling that that fact is being subjugated, if not downright effaced, to men leading the church.

Did God ever intend for man, or any group of men, to lead the church? Or has His real intent been to have representatives of the gospel? Not leading, representing.

Is there any way to get this leadership/headship out of the way and put God and Jesus back into their rightful places over the church?

Those who are against WO go ahead and be against WO but let's please put God and Jesus back in their rightful places as the Head and Leader of the church!

Those for WO if you believe God has no problem with WO go ahead and "agitate" for it, but please do not allow yourselves to get caught up in that mentality.

God and Jesus are the Heads of the church. God and Jesus are the Leaders of the church. It is they we are to follow, to give our allegiance to. If we are following them everything else will fall into place.

[teresaq]

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18920621-V69-25__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=8

PETER AND ROME.

THERE seems to be of late a more than usual activity in the circulation of the claim that the Catholic Church is founded upon St. Peter....

This is what the tract has to say upon the Peter question:—

"It is denied that our Lord appointed St. Peter to be his vicegerent, and head of his church upon earth. Now, on. the headship of St. Peter, 'What does the Bible say?' '...

[Woody]

[teresaq]

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18960721-V73-29__B/index...

The whole papal theory of the supremacy of Peter, from which the supremacy of the popes of Rome is maintained, has no foundation in the Scriptures. Its foundation is a conglomeration of tradition, fraud, and presumption. Still further, it may be said that a universal headship of the church, whether of the pope, or of any other person or persons, aside from the actual and Scriptural headship of Christ, is not only unscriptural, but it is an actual contravention of the whole genius and spirit of Christianity.

[teresaq]

Is the bolded statement by the author an accurate reading of EGW's thought?

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19571010-V134-41__B/inde...

But because of sin, discord and differences would ever intrude into the family unit. It therefore became necessary that one of the two must occupy a position of leadership. Since Eve had first submitted to sin, God designated the husband as the leader of the family unit.

"In the creation, God had made her [Eve] the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God—in harmony with His great law of love— they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband."—Ibid., pp. 58, 59.

[olger]

* * *

As to your question, male headship and male-female equality are both taught in Genesis 1-3. It's certainly nothing to be afraid of.

Why then, do some fellow church members resist this teaching so energetically? One reason is incidences of male domination asserted in the name of male headship. I have seen examples of this, along with examples of pushy dominating women. Both are wrong. When truth is abused, a rival position (in this case feminism) that lacks logically compelling power can take on psychologically compelling power. But male domination is a personal moral failure, not a Biblical doctrine.

If we define ourselves out of a reaction to bad experiences we will be forever translating our past pain into the present where it damages ourselves and others. We must define ourselves not by personal injury, or popular hysteria, but by the pattern of gender and sexual truth taught here in the Holy Scriptures. As the head, the husband bears the primary responsibility to lead their partnership in a God-glorifying direction. This is a Biblical principle that stands forever apart from changing cultures.

Rejoice always.

G

[phkrause]

Is the bolded statement by the author an accurate reading of EGW's thought?

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19571010-V134-41__B/inde...

But because of sin, discord and differences would ever intrude into the family unit. It therefore became necessary that one of the two must occupy a position of leadership. Since Eve had first submitted to sin, God designated the husband as the leader of the family unit.

"In the creation, God had made her [Eve] the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God—in harmony with His great law of love— they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband."—Ibid., pp. 58, 59.

It does seem so to me.

[Woody]

TERESAQ

this is a good point

dgrimm60

I agree with dgrimm. I think you are making some excellent points teresa. I expect the conservatives will have no option except to try to attack you personally now. For what you are saying is truth.

[teresaq]

* * *

Quote:

As to your question, male headship and male-female equality are both taught in Genesis 1-3. It's certainly nothing to be afraid of.

That was not the question.

Quote:

Is the bolded statement by the author an accurate reading of EGW's thought?

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19571010-V134-41__B/inde...

But because of sin, discord and differences would ever intrude into the family unit. It therefore became necessary that one of the two must occupy a position of leadership. Since Eve had first submitted to sin, God designated the husband as the leader of the family unit.

"In the creation, God had made her [Eve] the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God—in harmony with His great law of love— they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband."—Ibid., pp. 58, 59.

Is the question. Apparently you see no difference. Your further statements appear to show why you see no difference.

Quote:

Why then, do some fellow church members resist this teaching so energetically? One reason is incidences of male domination asserted in the name of male headship. I have seen examples of this, along with examples of pushy dominating women. Both are wrong. When truth is abused, a rival position (in this case feminism) that lacks logically compelling power can take on psychologically compelling power. But male domination is a personal moral failure, not a Biblical doctrine.

If we define ourselves out of a reaction to bad experiences we will be forever translating our past pain into the present where it damages ourselves and others. We must define ourselves not by personal injury, or popular hysteria, but by the pattern of gender and sexual truth taught here in the Holy Scriptures. As the head, the husband bears the primary responsibility to lead their partnership in a God-glorifying direction. This is a Biblical principle that stands forever apart from changing cultures.

* * *

[olger]

* * *

Here is a quote that speaks directly to your questionings.

"We women must remember that God has placed us subject to the husband. He is the head and our judgment and views and reasonings must agree with his if possible. If not, the preference in God’s Word is given to the husband where it is not a matter of conscience. We must yield to the head." —Letter 5, 1861. {2BIO 431.5}

Rejoice always,

`oG

[doug yowell]

Is the bolded statement by the author an accurate reading of EGW's thought?

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19571010-V134-41__B/inde...

But because of sin, discord and differences would ever intrude into the family unit. It therefore became necessary that one of the two must occupy a position of leadership. Since Eve had first submitted to sin, God designated the husband as the leader of the family unit.

"In the creation, God had made her [Eve] the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God—in harmony with His great law of love— they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband."—Ibid., pp. 58, 59.

Yes, I believe that the embolded statement is an accurate application of EGW's original thought.

[teresaq]

However,

Here is a quote that speaks directly to your questionings.

"We women must remember that God has placed us subject to the husband. He is the head and our judgment and views and reasonings must agree with his if possible. If not, the preference in God’s Word is given to the husband where it is not a matter of conscience. We must yield to the head." —Letter 5, 1861. {2BIO 431.5}

[teresaq]

adventistarchives.org

Review and Herald for 1856 - Vol. 07 - No. 24 LEADERSHIP.—We clip the following paragraph on this subject from the Morning Star, denominational paper of the Freewill Baptists. Its suggestions will be useful to the members of other denominations :—

" There is a strong disposition, in a large class of individuals, to be first, to take the lead; and it not unfrequently happens that religion does not bring men to those humbling views of themselves and of their importance, that would seem becoming in professed Christians. It not unfrequently happens that even ministers are dissatisfied with that measure of influence assigned them by the generality of Christians; and because they cannot succeed in the projects they have originated, or be acknowledged ''lords over God's heritage." cease to do any thing, or, what is worse, stir up strifes and dissensions among brethren »nd churches. We. as a denomination, have suffered amazingly from this source. Aspiring and ambitious men, failing in their designs of rising to popular eminence, withdraw, and join other denominations, or, what is more frequent, entice away a faction, and stand alone.

They prefer to be at the head of a score of individuals, to unity on a level with hundreds in promoting the welfare of a whole denomination. Turn it and excuse it as you will, these dissensions, in nine cases out of ten, grow out of disappointed ambition, or the issue of the question "who shall be the greatest." But the very fact that they aim at such superiority and distinction, proves them unworthy of it. True worth is modest and unassuming."

[teresaq]

adventistarchives.org

Review and Herald for 1869 - Vol. 33 - No. 12

LOVE OF THE WORLD.*

BY ELD. JAMES WHITE.

But prior to this time, Abraham passed a terrible trial. Prior to the birth of Isaac, he was in great perplexity as to how this thing could be. Abraham waits, and his perplexity increases. Here are all the nations around him just glorying in the popular vice and sin of the age, polygamy. It was as common for a man to have a plurality of wives as it is now for a man to have only one wife. This was the existing state of things. Wherever Abraham turned his eyes, it was polygamy. Wherever Sarah looked around her, it was polygamy. It was the glory of the age. The Devil comes along and tempts Sarah. She goes to Abraham arid says, Wow Abraham, my age forbids the fulfillment of the promise; but here is my maid, Hagar, take her to wife, and let the promise of God be fulfillled. Abraham yielded. Oh ! .what a living shame!

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world." If he had stood where he might have stood, and had clearly seen God's plan in the beginning, that one man and one woman only should constitute the head of every family, he would not have been tempted. But the power of example around him influenced him in his perplexity to the popular sin of the time. And what a miserable family trouble followed. Hagar despised her mistress. Isaac is born. Then came the rivalry between the two women, Hagar and Sarah. Hagar had the idea that her Ishmael was to be the child of promise. Sarah, now that Isaac is born, believes him to be the child of promise. What a miserable family fuss! And just such things are ever the result of error. How embittered was Abraham's life. He has to send Hagar away, and his own son, Ishmael.

[teresaq]

Quote:

The restoration and uplifting of humanity begins in the home. The work of parents underlies every other. Society is composed of families, and is what the heads of families make it. Out of the heart are “the issues of life” (Proverbs 4:23); and the heart of the community, of the church, and of the nation is the household. The well-being of society, the success of the church, the prosperity of the nation, depend upon home influences. {MH 349.1}

The context of this Chapter 28—Ministry of the Home in Ministry of Healing gives no indication that "heads" as used here refers to the men, specifically or only, as heads of the home. On the contrary, as used in the same paragraph, and several paragraphs later EGW uses "parents" which would indicate she meant both mother and father as the "heads" of the home.

Quote:

This work rests, in a great degree, with parents. ... teaching parents how to {MH 352.1

Parents may lay for their children the foundation for a healthy, happy life. {MH 352.2}

Reading these 2 paragraphs from the same chapter (below) literally as opposed to the biblical sense of "man" could also lead us to wrong conclusions, could lead us to think it does not apply equally to women:

Quote:

Multitudes long for a better life, but they lack courage and resolution to break away from the power of habit. They shrink from the effort and struggle and sacrifice demanded, and their lives are wrecked and ruined. Thus even men of the brightest minds, men of high aspirations and noble powers, otherwise fitted by nature and education to fill positions of trust and responsibility, are degraded and lost for this life and for the life to come. {MH 351.3}

For those who do reform, how bitter the struggle to regain their manhood! And all their life long, in a shattered constitution, a wavering will, impaired intellect, and weakened soul power, many reap the harvest of their evil sowing. How much more might be accomplished if the evil were dealt with at the beginning! {MH 351.4}

We object to that narrow-souled theology which will not allow the old ladies to have dreams because the prophecy says, "your old men shall dream dreams;" and that will not allow young women to have visions because the prophecy says, "your young men shall see visions." These stingy critics seem to forget that "man," and "men," in the Scriptures generally mean both men and women. The Book says that it is "appointed unto men once to die." Don't women die? "Unto you, O man, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men." Don't the Lord call women? But the prophecy does say, "Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." {1870 JW, PSG 16.4}

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[teresaq]

Esther 1:10 On the seventh day, when the king was merry with wine, he commanded ... the seven eunuchs who attended him, 11 to bring Queen Vashti before the king, wearing the royal crown, in order to show the peoples and the officials her beauty; for she was fair to behold. 12 But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king's command conveyed by the eunuchs. At this the king was enraged, and his anger burned within him. 13 Then the king consulted the sages who knew the laws ... 15 "According to the law, what is to be done to Queen Vashti because she has not performed the command of King Ahasuerus conveyed by the eunuchs?" 16 Then Memucan said in the presence of the king and the officials, "Not only has Queen Vashti done wrong to the king, but also to all the officials and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. 17 For this deed of the queen will be made known to all women, causing them to look with contempt on their husbands, since they will say, "King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, and she did not come.'

18 This very day the noble ladies of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen's behavior will rebel against the king's officials, and there will be no end of contempt and wrath! 19 If it pleases the king, let a royal order go out from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes so that it may not be altered, that Vashti is never again to come before King Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal position to another who is better than she. 20 So when the decree made by the king is proclaimed throughout all his kingdom, vast as it is, all women will give honor to their husbands, high and low alike." 21 This advice pleased the king and the officials, and the king did as Memucan proposed; 22 he sent letters ... declaring that every man should be master in his own house.

[olger]

Interesting story. There are a couple things we don't know about this event. Was Vashti the same person as Amestris? Herodotus indicates that she was. If so, she is described as evil and vain (the Midrash agrees). We don't know for certain.

Just as drinking alcohol is irresponsible behavior, calling his wife in to exploit her beauty was irresponsible of this man as well. Alcohol breeds lust, according to the Bible (Proverbs 23:33; Ephesians 5:18). That is not protecting her as a husband (house-band) should.

It should also be noted that feminist interpreters have often seized upon this story as a triumph of feminist ideology. In that view, Vashti is a hero for disobeying her husband in a public format.

The whole situation might have turned out differently for Vashti had she reasoned with the King in some manner (although it is difficult to reason with intoxication). Either way, what had become a public offense to the King, would now be handled in a public manner.

To his credit, Xerxes didn't overreact by ordering her immediate death or eviction. He consulted his counselors (whom he appears to rely on heavily).

Two overriding themes of the book of Esther are offered in summary.

1) The providence of God in preserving His people is cause for much gratitude and encouragement.

2) Esther's courage and faithfulness stand in contrast to Vashti. Esther's humble spirit (if I perish...) stand as an emblem of God's promises ("He who loses his life will find it"; and "God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble").

rejoice always,

G

[teresaq]

Excellent re-victimization, minimizing, whitewashing and denial. Kudos!

----------------

Esther 1:10 On the seventh day, when the king was merry with wine, he commanded ... the seven eunuchs who attended him, 11 to bring Queen Vashti before the king, wearing the royal crown, in order to show the peoples and the officials her beauty; for she was fair to behold. 12 But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king's command conveyed by the eunuchs. At this the king was enraged, and his anger burned within him. 13 Then the king consulted the sages who knew the laws ... 15 "According to the law, what is to be done to Queen Vashti because she has not performed the command of King Ahasuerus conveyed by the eunuchs?" 16 Then Memucan said in the presence of the king and the officials, "Not only has Queen Vashti done wrong to the king, but also to all the officials and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. 17 For this deed of the queen will be made known to all women, causing them to look with contempt on their husbands, since they will say, "King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, and she did not come.'

18 This very day the noble ladies of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen's behavior will rebel against the king's officials, and there will be no end of contempt and wrath! 19 If it pleases the king, let a royal order go out from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes so that it may not be altered, that Vashti is never again to come before King Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal position to another who is better than she. 20 So when the decree made by the king is proclaimed throughout all his kingdom, vast as it is, all women will give honor to their husbands, high and low alike." 21 This advice pleased the king and the officials, and the king did as Memucan proposed; 22 he sent letters ... declaring that every man should be master in his own house.

[doug yowell]

Just as drinking alcohol is irresponsible behavior, calling his wife in to exploit her beauty was irresponsible of this man as well.

[olger]

I understand the allegory, Doug, and see the connection. It wasn't real bright of Vashti to defy the King in public format.

She disrespected him (Ephesians 5:33).

Was he loving her? (Col. 3:19).

Esther demonstrated 1 Peter 3:1-2 in real time. Like that.

[teresaq]

Part 1

This looks like an excellent case of picking and choosing texts or SoP to prove our case while disregarding anything by the same that would show us in error.

Originally Posted By: olger

Just as drinking alcohol is irresponsible behavior, calling his wife in to exploit her beauty was irresponsible of this man as well.

Why? HE WAS THE KING!! And he only asked his wife to show up looking queenly and beautiful. See any typology there?

In a perverted fallen nature sense. Really. The king wanted his kingdom to admire Vashti's beauty, to lust after her. "See what I have and you can't?" Like a possession. No regard for her as a human being. That seems to go part and parcel with headship far too often. It shows the authorship.

If he had had any regard for her as a human being she and the ladies would have been invited as equals but like many men even in our "enlightened" society, women were not considered as worthy conversational partners. They were considered more along the lines of the animal kingdom. The only purpose of a woman was to look good for the man, for his sexual needs (and even then many need other women to use sexually) and as a personal servant.

That puts God in a very bad light. It believes Him to be a control-freak with no regard for the feelings of His creatures, the ones He had sympathy for. It seems to not understand that God is interested in our character and not our physical appearance. That God is asking us to change our garments not our physical looks. To exchange our perverted character, for His righteous character.

[teresaq]

Part 2

Quote:

Quote:

An Alcohol breeds lust, according to the Bible (Proverbs 23:33; Ephesians 5:18). That is not protecting her as a husband (house-band) should.

True about the alcohol but what he asked her to do was not pornography. He was the ruler of the world and when the wife of the ruler of the world publically tells her husband to bug off cuz she doesn't feel like being told what to do it's not a simple matter of conscience it's a matter of who's in charge here? The king's counselors made note of what would be the consequence of letting the incident slide. They were prophetic for out time. Given the heathen nature of all the involved parties they still recognized the need for respect for the husbands's role as leader.

By God! and by gum! And if she doesn't cowtow to unjust demands we'll put her away and get another. How dare she think for herself! Yep, good idea. Follow a pagan king as an example over the King of heaven! And then call it "typology"! That's how our God acts, yes indeed!

[teresaq]

Part 3

Quote:

Quote:

It should also be noted that feminist interpreters have often seized upon this story as a triumph of feminist ideology. In that view, Vashti is a hero for disobeying her husband in a public format.

What these hero worshippers ignore is the fact that the antihero chosen to replace Vashti was Esther. Hardly unlikely that the King would look for a Vashti clone after the way she had just punked him in public.

Well my two give-every-appearance-of-pick-and-choose-texts-and-SoP-at-your-convenience, meet another feminist. Let's hear what that Feminist the HS says: (Some of us believe the Lord spoke to Ellen White. I am one of those)

We read with pleasure of the feast of queen Vashti. This was not a feast attended by a promiscuous number, but a feast given by the queen for the women of rank in the kingdom, who were entertained with modest courtesy, without wantonness or sensuality. {3BC 1139.3}

It was when the king was not himself, when his reason was dethroned by winedrinking that he sent for the queen, that those present at his feast, men besotted by wine, might gaze on her beauty. She acted in harmony with a pure conscience. {3BC 1139.4}

Vashti refused to obey the king’s command, thinking that when he came to himself, he would commend her course of action. But the king had unwise advisers. They argued it would be a power given to woman that would be to her injury (Manuscript 29, 1911).

Had the king maintained his royal dignity by practicing habits of temperance, he would never have made this command. But his mind was affected by the wine that he had used so freely, and he was not prepared to act wisely. {3BC 1139.6}

When this command came from the king, Vashti did not carry out his orders, because she knew that wine had been freely used, and that Ahasuerus was under the influence of the intoxicating liquor. For her husband’s sake as well as her own, she decided not to leave her position at the head of the women of the court [Esther 1:12 quoted] (Manuscript 39, 1910)

There is little doubt that the king, when he afterward considered the matter, felt that Vashti deserved to be honored, rather than to be treated as she was. {3BC 1139.8}

Est 8:8 for the writing which is written in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may no man reverse.

Quote:

Quote:

To his credit, Xerxes didn't overreact by ordering her immediate death or eviction. He consulted his counselors (whom he appears to rely on heavily).

Good point, it also shows that women had a legal standing under the law and that the king and his Persian counselors were thinking of the greater consequences to society.

This same king rounded up all the beautiful women in the kingdom, who had no say in the matter, and raped each one night after night til he settled on one of them as a replacement, like a car, and we can be quite sure he then finished raping the rest. And they better like it and not object and service him well!

I understand the allegory, Doug, and see the connection. It wasn't real bright of Vashti to defy the King in public format.

She disrespected him (Ephesians 5:33).

Was he loving her? (Col. 3:19).

Esther demonstrated 1 Peter 3:1-2 in real time. Like that.

What choice did she have?

Est 4:11 All the king's servants, and the people of the king's provinces, do know, that whosoever, whether man or woman, shall come unto the king into the inner court, who is not called, [there is] one law of his to put [him] to death, except such to whom the king shall hold out the golden sceptre, that he may live: but I have not been called to come in unto the king these thirty days.

No my brothers, I don't think your use and understanding of scripture is accurate at all.

[olger]

Your efforts to define Ellen White as a feminist - if that is indeed what you are attempting to do - fails to explain how the feminist worldview can be co-joined to the Bible without destroying the worldview itself.

"Those who feel called out to join the women's movemnt migth as well sever all connection with the three angels message..."

Repent always,

`oG

[olger]

As to the effects of alcohol in the story, please see my original response which agrees that the request of the King was inappropriate. I concur with that. It is wrong for a man to treat his wife as an ornament.

It should also be acknowledged that Vashti is eagerly seized upon as a feminist hero by those inclined to do so.

M. Gendler, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Elizabeth Stanton, and Diane Tidball are in this camp.

Rejoice always,

G