Dangers I see in Headship theology

[Kevin H]

Some good comments by a Ray Hartwell:

 

"Strange Fire" is accepted at face value as fact, by many conscientious individuals. but there are many questions that beg to be answered, which the authors do not address at all. In this concluding section, we will look at what a historic Adventist should ask and should be able to receive an answer.

Part 11.
Some of the exact same arguments used today to claim that women should not serve in the gospel ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, were used by critics of Ellen White and the Adventist Church in the day of Ellen White.

Why do the authors ignore these criticisms and the answers our early Adventist pioneers gave to answer the charge that God could not use a women as a prophet or a spiritual leader?

What do they do with J.N. Andrews (Who Ellen White called our ablest man, and who was our first foreign missionary, and who had committed to entire New Testament to memory) when he answers these critics who had cited 1 Timothy 2:12 that women were not to teach?

“This her colleagues consistently refuted, not by pleading that she as a prophet constituted a special category, but by arguing that the verse was wrongly applied to prohibiting women ministers in general (cf. Lt 17a, 1880, in 10 MR 70). J.N. Andrews cited Paul’s female coworkers (Philippians 4:3), Phoebe the deaconess (Romans 16:1), Priscilla’s role in ‘instructing Apollos’ and the leadership roles of other New Testament women to prove that Paul’s ‘general rule with regard to women as public teachers’ did not constitute a rigid or universal prohibition. Andrews argued that Romans 10:10 requires public confession of the faith as integral to salvation, and therefore ‘must apply to women equally with men’ (J.N. Andrews, “May Women Speak in Meeting?” Review and Herald, January 2, 1879) – quoted from The Ellen White Encyclopedia, page 1279, Review and Herald Publishing Association, copyrighted 2013.

Other historical examples:
1857: D. Hewitt states that the force of Joel 2 supports women’s public ministry.
Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1857, p. 190.

1858: James White challenges Review and Herald readers.
Urges that Joel 2 be viewed inclusively, noting that men and man in Scripture "generally means both male and female." Review and Herald, Jan. 7, 1858, p. 69.

1859: B. F. Robbins decries rules in any church that invoke 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 to silence women. Review and Herald, Dec. 8, 1859, pp. 21, 22.

1860: S. C. Welcome supported women’s equality, claiming the "authority of divine revelation that male and female are one in Christ Jesus." Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1860, pp. 109, 110.

1861: J. A. Mowatt declared it "a woman’s right" to participate publicly in worship.
Review and Herald, July 30, 1861, p. 65.

1861: Editor Uriah Smith supports women’s public ministry. He quoted with approval a long extract from the Portadown News, "Women as Preachers and Lecturers." Review and Herald, July 30, 1861.

1868: M. W. Howard said Bible women (like Priscilla) were viable role models for modem women. Review and Herald, Aug 18, 1868, p. 133.

If today you are not in favor of women in the gospel ministry (it's not their role, only males could be priests, etc.), then can you even call yourself a historic Adventist, standing in agreement with the founders and pioneers of the church?

If you have "moved away" from the founding pioneers of the church, then are you not indeed, yourself, proclaiming some kind of "New Theology?"

[Gregory Matthews]

I agree that the early leaders in the development of the SDA denomination were divided on the issue as it related to Ellen  White.  However, many of  them correctly saw it not as an issue of ordination, but, rather as an issue of the role that females should/could play in spiritual nurture.  As I have said, many times, the Biblical issue, regardless of the position that one might take, is that of the role, it is not ordination.

[Johann]

 

Neither could I remain a Seventh-day Adventist if my church enforced all of the arguments used by so many of the anti-OW people.

[Tom Wetmore]

@Green Cochoa  Here is a prior discussion of the headship issue...

[Green Cochoa]

On April 16, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Kevin H said:

This new teaching "Headship Theology" is simply Roman Catholicism filtered through Calvinistic philosophy. Seventh-day Adventism is more Methodist, not Calvinistic. If headship theology is true then Mrs. White's thought is not true. We have no reason for being Seventh-day Adventists. Satan wins the great controversy and the Sabbath becomes nothing more than an arbitrary imposition.

You need to define headship theology.  As I see it, the Bible teaches headship.  It would appear that the "headship deniers" would like to erase this aspect from their theology for one reason only: women's ordination.   However, God is the head of Christ, and man is the head of woman, according to Scripture.  Like Martin Luther, I must stand on the principles of the Word of God alone, though all men forsake me.  

[Gregory Matthews]

It is interesting that you would compare yourself to Martin Luther.  On a number of doctrines he was not in accord with the Biblical teaching.  So, potentially may that be true of you.

 

[Green Cochoa]

On April 17, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Kevin H said:

It was from listening to these arguments and contrasting them with scripture that I came up with my warning list. This is built on Calvanistic theology and read back into the Bible. Elder Sorke received his doctorate from the Dallas Theological Seminary. When I was working on my Masters at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary and my BA at AUC (late 1970s early 1980s), our professors warned that the Dallas Theological Seminary was one of the most Anti-Adventist schools that there was.

I have no idea who Elder Sorke is, so this is not a defense of him per se; however, your argument above is clearly a fallacy of logic called "poisoning the well."  It reminds me of the Biblical question, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?"  Of course, Jesus did.

 

On April 17, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Kevin H said:

At the 1919 Washington DC Bible Conference Elder A. G. Daniels and W. W. Prescott were warning the people (who were on their way to the Fundamentalist Bible Conference in Philadelphia) about what they were going to learn in Philadelphia. Daniels, Prescott and Willie White feared that what they were going to hear in Philadelphia would ruin the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Dallas Theological Seminary is based on what was taught at the Philadelphia 1919 Bible conference with it mixed with Calvinism and Darby's Dispensationalism.

The 1919 Bible Conference resulted in great harm to the long-term theology of the Adventist church.  The effects of this meeting were not immediate, but the ripples have become waves in our theology today.  A few things about the Conference were good.  But the bad outweighed them, unfortunately. The doctrines about inspiration put forward by that Conference have served to undermine the authority of both Ellen White and of the Scriptures in the minds of many today.

On April 17, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

While I have a personal position on the subject and you probably know what it is, I have come to a different understanding that many people, on both sides have.  I agree with what is essentially the position of the SDA Church, at this point in time.  Perhaps it will change either in July , or at some other time.  My position is that a the Bible does not speak so definitively on this issue that all can come to agreement on it.  I am still searching for why this may be. But, I am leaning to either it is because:  1)  God does not consider this to be fundamentally related to salvation and therefore has not had the need to speak with clarity.  2) God has not spoken with clarity because God want to force people into a deeper study of the Bible.  If the reason is not one of these, perhaps there is another.  In any case, it is the Holy Spirit that is responsible for leading us into truth.

When we perceive that God is not clear on such an important matter as ordination within the church, it is almost certain that we have either: 1) not studied carefully, and are, therefore, still in ignorance on the matter; or 2) formed an opinion of our own which contradicts the Scriptures and hinders our understanding of them.  Private interpretation can bias an individual to the point of blindness where he or she can truly not "see" what is plain and obvious in the Scriptures.

On April 17, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Or are you willing to concede, as a forum, that Bible based Christians can disagree on this issue and that ultimately in the end it will have to be  God that will settle it.  In the mean time, we will live at peace with each other and thanking god for the ministry that each of us is doing?

While Bible-based Christians might disagree, the Bible does not disagree with itself, and those who humbly seek the leading of God's Spirit in understanding it will have no need of being confused nor in disagreement on the matter.  "God is not the author of confusion."

On April 18, 2015 at 0:17 AM, Kevin H said:

I believe that the reason why we don't have a clear "proof text" is that God wants us to dig deeper.

I believe the reason that you don't have a clear proof text is that you have refused to accept its proof, seeing as it disagreed with your pre-developed opinion.  The Bible is clear enough.

On April 19, 2015 at 7:39 AM, B/W Photodude said:

I found it interesting how much the pro-women's ordination movement depends on feelings and emotions. This is also something we are well warned about. Feelings are not doctrines.

Amen!  We are instructed to walk by faith, not by feeling.

On April 19, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Kevin H said:

We can either study the Bible with it's historical, cultural, geographical and linguistic context; or else we read the Bible and submit it to the context of our imagination. I find the context to be very compelling arguments.

Kevin, the Bible transcends culture.  The Bible itself speaks harshly of culture/tradition (see Mark 7).  So the third option, that you failed to list, is that we can read the Bible with guidance of the Holy Spirit to see what He would have us understand in our present time--which is not merely "our imagination."

On April 21, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Johann said:

Daryl, just a few days ago I received a note from one of the persons working for a division about as far from Europe as you can get. I was told that most of the delegates from that division will be voting "yes" to the proposal in Texas, and that is becaue they are convinced that WO is Biblical.

Obviously, those voters failed to become the majority as God's Spirit kept our church on the right path.  Praise the Lord!  The God we serve is well able to prevent theological errors from upsetting His church, even today.  God is good.

On April 21, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Johann said:

In my early youth I learned to read the Bible the way our pioneers and Ellen G White did, and not the way the fundamentalists from Dallas are teaching and which has infiltrated among many SDA's who wrongfully label themselves as "Conservative". It was through my Bible study I learned from Paul in 1 Timothy that the ordination of women is Biblical. This happened about 30 years ago, and therefore I saw it as unbiblical what took place at the GC session in 1995.

You cannot both accept Mrs. White and believe that God did not speak through the vote at the GC Session.  As for me, I learned to read the Bible in my youth for myself, aided only by the Holy Spirit, and not based on how anyone else, pioneer, fundamentalist, liberal, or conservative, read it.  

[Green Cochoa]

56 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

It is interesting that you would compare yourself to Martin Luther.  On a number of doctrines he was not in accord with the Biblical teaching.  So, potentially may that be true of you.

 

Perhaps you need to read Great Controversy "again for the first time."  Meanwhile, an excerpt from Signs of the Times will serve as a reminder.

 But those who stubbornly closed their eyes to the light, who were determined not to be convinced of the truth, were enraged at the power of Luther's words. Of this class was the spokesman of the diet. As Luther ceased speaking, this official said angrily, "You have not given any answer to the inquiry put to you. You are not to question the decision of the councils; you are required to return a clear and distinct answer. Will you, or will you not retract?"  {ST, August 30, 1883 par. 11}  
     Luther answered firmly, "Since your most serene majesty and your high mightiness require of me a simple, clear, and direct answer, I will give one; and it is this: I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the councils; because it is as clear as day that they have often erred and contradicted each other. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture or by cogent reasons; if I am not satisfied by the very texts that I have cited; and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God's word, I neither can nor will retract anything, for it cannot be right for a Christian to speak against his conscience." Then turning his eyes upon the assembly before which he stood, and which held his life in their hands, he said, "Here I stand, I can do no other. May God help me! Amen!"  {ST, August 30, 1883 par. 12}  
     So stands this righteous man upon the sure foundation, the prophets and apostles, Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. Firm and fearless at his post of duty is the great Reformer. Faithful among the faithless, unheeding the storms of malice and revenge, he stands a mighty cedar of Lebanon among the trees of the forest. While the passions and pollutions of the multitude surge around him like waves of the great deep, he stands, a Heaven-sent beacon, to warn the imperiled mariner of the hidden shoal and the rocky shore.  {ST, August 30, 1883 par. 13}  
     Luther knows not what may be his fate; but he knows that the cause of truth can never fail, and he is ready to die, if need be, knowing that by death he may serve the truth better than by his life. Light from the throne of God illuminated his countenance. His greatness and purity of character, his peace and joy of heart, were manifest to all, as he testified against the power of error, and witnessed to the superiority of that faith that overcomes the world.  {ST, August 30, 1883 par. 14}  

Some today still stubbornly close their eyes to the light.  The world still needs men like Luther who are unafraid, even at the risk of their lives, to speak God's truth plainly.

[Rossw]

Amen.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said, below:

Bias can also influence the importance that we give to various doctrines.  Doctrines do not all have the same importance.  And, bias can influence us to be quite dogmatic as to truth belonging to us. 

When we perceive that God is not clear on such an important matter as ordination within the church, it is almost certain that we have either: 1) not studied carefully, and are, therefore, still in ignorance on the matter; or 2) formed an opinion of our own which contradicts the Scriptures and hinders our understanding of them.  Private interpretation can bias an individual to the point of blindness where he or she can truly not "see" what is plain and obvious in the Scriptures.

[Gregory Matthews]

GGreen said below:

Rather judgmental and insulting to suggest that I need to read GC for the 1st time.  Green, I have read GC more times than I have fingers on my hands.

Quote

Perhaps you need to read

Great Controversy "again for the first time."  Meanwhile, an excerpt from Signs of the Times will serve as a reminder.

On another post of mine:  Yes, Green, Martin Luther was a great man and used by God.  Yes, he attempted to take a stand solely on the basis of the Bible.  While he often did that, the reality is that he also failed and it might be said that he failed more than he succeeded.  There is much in the teachings of Martin Luther that is not soundly based upon the Bible.  He may have been one who started the Protestant Reformation, but he did not finish it.

 

[Green Cochoa]

13 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rather judgmental and insulting to suggest that I need to read GC for the 1st time.  Green, I have read GC more times than I have fingers on my hands.

You missed the word "again."  I was writing in the spirit of Jesus who gave His disciples a "new" commandment.  If the "new commandment" that Jesus gave His disciples was already written by Moses, was it really "new"?  Why was it "new" for them?  My comment intended to provoke thought, not to be insulting.  

What were you looking for when you read The Great Controversy?

 

18 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Yes, Green, Martin Luther was a great man and used by God.  Yes, he attempted to take a stand solely on the basis of the Bible.  While he often did that, the reality is that he also failed and it might be said that he failed more than he succeeded.  There is much in the teachings of Martin Luther that is not soundly based upon the Bible.  He may have been one who started the Protestant Reformation, but he did not finish it.

No, of course he did not.  You speak as if you suppose the Protestant Reformation either has been or should have been finished.

Thus the Waldenses witnessed for God centuries before the birth of Luther. Scattered over many lands, they planted the seeds of the Reformation that began in the time of Wycliffe, grew broad and deep in the days of Luther, and is to be carried forward to the close of time by those who also are willing to suffer all things for "the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ." Revelation 1:9.  {GC 78.1}

The Reformation did not, as many suppose, end with Luther. It is to be continued to the close of this world's history. Luther had a great work to do in reflecting to others the light which God had permitted to shine upon him; yet he did not receive all the light which was to be given to the world. From that time to this, new light has been continually shining upon the Scriptures, and new truths have been constantly unfolding.  {GC 148.4}  

So Mrs. White says repeatedly that the Reformation is a work in progress.  Perhaps we could say that as Adventist Protestants, we have failed more than Luther to move forward in receiving "all the light which was to be given to the world."  Furthermore, of Luther she says:

Foremost among those who were called to lead the church from the darkness of popery into the light of a purer faith, stood Martin Luther. Zealous, ardent, and devoted, knowing no fear but the fear of God, and acknowledging no foundation for religious faith but the Holy Scriptures, Luther was the man for his time; through him God accomplished a great work for the reformation of the church and the enlightenment of the world.  {GC 120.1}   

If you have truly read The Great Controversy so many times, how can you still say "he failed more than he succeeded"?  It appears, according to Mrs. White, that his place among the Reformers has the preeminence.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, I did not speak in any manner as to his preeminence among the reformers.

You posted as to Luther standing only on what the Bible taught.  His theology and teachings are well published and contained in many books.  If you review them you must might come to the conclusion that the number of doctrines that Luther taught and believed  which were not based upon the Bible as you (probably) and I understand it exceed those that were clearly based upon the Bible.

Luther was quite human.  He carried with him doctrinal understandings that were a part of his culture and background, as most of us actually do.  Those teachings are contained in published books that contain his teachings, translated into English and other languages.  His pen still speaks today.

[Kevin H]

7 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

I have no idea who Elder Sorke is, so this is not a defense of him per se; however, your argument above is clearly a fallacy of logic called "poisoning the well."  It reminds me of the Biblical question, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?"  Of course, Jesus did.

The idea of can anything good come from Nazareth comes from the fact that Nazareth was a very small (did not make most maps) out of the way place. Nathaniel was one of the few people who even knew that it existed.  Because of the Bible the Hebrews were very well educated. an "Illiterate" Hebrew had the equivalent of a 2 to 4 year college degree, while most of the world could not even read. But Nazareth only had an equivalent to a 6th grade education, just getting the basics of reading and writing, learning the Bible but not the traditions of the Rabbis, and even having the possibility of a female rabbi from time to time (small unpromising location with highly conservative people would be a place that would welcome women rabbis at a time that they were being put down).  

Sitting under a fig tree was a sign of being a student. Education was clearly important to Nathaniel. Was this college student willing to study with a rabbi with only a 6th grade education?

but for what it lacked, it more than made up for. It was on the ridge overlooking the Jezreel  Valley where a very large number of Bible stories took place. Jesus was able to study the Bible right where the story happened. This gave him a study in what we are not just learning about the importance of Biblical Geography in studying the story. Far more valuable than the theories of the Rabbis. Thus despite being a hillbilly from an out of the way place Jesus was able to view the advantages before him and seize them.

Very different than listening to someone who got their doctorate from a school that wants to defend tradition and attack Seventh-day Adventism....

[Kevin H]

7 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

The 1919 Bible Conference resulted in great harm to the long-term theology of the Adventist church.  The effects of this meeting were not immediate, but the ripples have become waves in our theology today.  A few things about the Conference were good.  But the bad outweighed them, unfortunately. The doctrines about inspiration put forward by that Conference have served to undermine the authority of both Ellen White and of the Scriptures in the minds of many today.

 

The leaders of the 1919 Bible Conference started out as fundamentalists. In fact it appears that Elder W. W. Prescott was the first Seventh-day Adventist leader to read a book on it and start to teach it and introduce it to others. One who learned it from him was Stephen Haskell. Two others who were starting to get very much involved in this was A. G. Daniels and D. M. Canright. When Mrs. White learned what they were teaching she asked them to come and work for her. She made them do things that they felt very uncomfortable doing with an inspired writing.

Elder Canright couldn't take it and left the church and many have noted (including my self) that all his criticisms come from not finding Adventism and Mrs. White meeting his views of inspiration and he joined the most extreme fundamentalist church.

What Elders Daniels and Prescott taught was what Mrs. White taught them. Willie White was supposed to teach with them but seeing the growth of fundamentalism in the church and seeing what they were up against he had to cancel his part in the program due to having business out of town.

I read many letters between Mrs. White and Elder Haskell. Elder Haskell trying to convince her to become a fundamentalist, and she trying to convince Elder Haskell to adapt the views that Daniels and Prescott taught. They were both frustrated that neither could convince the other to change but they still stayed good friends.

I read other letters between Mrs. White and/or Willie White to people such as Elder Washburn, Elder Wilkinson and I believe an Elder Watson as well as others. The correspondence sounded so similar that it took me a long time to realize that they were not all the same person. These letters did not have the warm friendship as the White/Haskell letters had and they were clearly more conservative than the more moderate Haskell. There were also articles and other publications that were saying that Mrs. White had apostatized, that she no longer believed that her writings were in spired and that if you wanted to get her message that came from God instead of her writings that came from apostasy to not turn to her but to turn to these pastors, that they will share what Mrs. White wrote that was not apostasy and leave her apostate writings alone  so that you won't be deceived by them.

She and Willie would complain that despite their massive quoting of her works that they did not understand her message. That they had their own message they were pushing on others and looked for her quotes that they could find to make it look like with a superficial reading that she agreed with them thus they would use her words to give authority and force their views on to others. She and Willie also tried to teach them like she tried with Elder Haskell and what Elder Daniels and Prescott tried to teach at the 1919 Bible Conference.

Elder Washburn was the nephew of General Conference President Butler. While he and his uncle were united in their opposition to Jones and Wagner, they were at odds on the topic of inspiration and the events that lead to the 1919 Bible Conference and 1922 (or 23) General Conference. Of course Elder Butler died in 1917 and Canright died before the conference in 1919.

You may side with Elder Haskell, Washburn and Wilkinson (although according to A. Graham Maxwell, Elder Wilkinson recanted just before he died). But I'm more comfortable siding with Elder Butler, Daniels, Prescott, Willie and Ellen White.

 

[Kevin H]

Green, have you ever read the book "A thousand may fall" the story about the Hasel family during World War II?

The boy, Gerhard Hasel grew up to become one of our most conservative leaders. He also held a view of inspiration not quite like Washburn and Wilkinson, but more like Elder Haskell's and what Elder Haskell tried to get Mrs. White to believe about her works.

Dr. Hasel first started out supporting women's ordination. However after a while he was convinced of headship theology and turned against it and wrote against it and even his son follows in his footsteps in opposing women's ordination and supporting headship theology.

But shortly before he died, as he was studying this and using his studies to oppose women's ordination, he came to the realization that headship theology was too Calvinistic and does not fit our Methodist roots and he again changed his mind and began teaching his colleagues that headship theology is a heresy and that he had again changed and had come to the conclusion that women's ordination is indeed Biblical and agrees with the historical Adventist faith. He died before he could write about this and before he could change his son's view.  

[Green Cochoa]

41 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

The idea of can anything good come from Nazareth comes from the fact that Nazareth was a very small (did not make most maps) out of the way place. Nathaniel was one of the few people who even knew that it existed.  Because of the Bible the Hebrews were very well educated. an "Illiterate" Hebrew had the equivalent of a 2 to 4 year college degree, while most of the world could not even read. But Nazareth only had an equivalent to a 6th grade education, just getting the basics of reading and writing, learning the Bible but not the traditions of the Rabbis, and even having the possibility of a female rabbi from time to time (small unpromising location with highly conservative people would be a place that would welcome women rabbis at a time that they were being put down).  

Sitting under a fig tree was a sign of being a student. Education was clearly important to Nathaniel. Was this college student willing to study with a rabbi with only a 6th grade education?

but for what it lacked, it more than made up for. It was on the ridge overlooking the Jezreel  Valley where a very large number of Bible stories took place. Jesus was able to study the Bible right where the story happened. This gave him a study in what we are not just learning about the importance of Biblical Geography in studying the story. Far more valuable than the theories of the Rabbis. Thus despite being a hillbilly from an out of the way place Jesus was able to view the advantages before him and seize them.

Very different than listening to someone who got their doctorate from a school that wants to defend tradition and attack Seventh-day Adventism....

Ellen White does not present the matter as you do.  So far from being relatively unknown, Nazareth was a proverb in Israel.

The life of Jesus was a life in harmony with God. While He was a child, He thought and spoke as a child; but no trace of sin marred the image of God within Him. Yet He was not exempt from temptation. The inhabitants of Nazareth were proverbial for their wickedness. The low estimate in which they were generally held is shown by Nathanael's question, "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" John 1:46. Jesus was placed where His character would be tested. It was necessary for Him to be constantly on guard in order to preserve His purity. He was subject to all the conflicts which we have to meet, that He might be an example to us in childhood, youth, and manhood.  {DA 71.1}  

It doesn't matter to me that Ellen White did not have a doctorate.

 

[Green Cochoa]

6 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Green, have you ever read the book "A thousand may fall" the story about the Hasel family during World War II?

The boy, Gerhard Hasel grew up to become one of our most conservative leaders. He also held a view of inspiration not quite like Washburn and Wilkinson, but more like Elder Haskell's and what Elder Haskell tried to get Mrs. White to believe about her works.

Dr. Hasel first started out supporting women's ordination. However after a while he was convinced of headship theology and turned against it and wrote against it and even his son follows in his footsteps in opposing women's ordination and supporting headship theology.

But shortly before he died, as he was studying this and using his studies to oppose women's ordination, he came to the realization that headship theology was too Calvinistic and does not fit our Methodist roots and he again changed his mind and began teaching his colleagues that headship theology is a heresy and that he had again changed and had come to the conclusion that women's ordination is indeed Biblical and agrees with the historical Adventist faith. He died before he could write about this and before he could change his son's view.  

I don't get into whether something is "Calvinistic" or "Catholic" or "Adventist" or "Arminian" or "fundamentalist" or "conservative" or "liberal" or "Methodist."  To persuade me, talk about whether or not the Bible says it.  Or Ellen White.  

[Unchained]

For those of you who are interested in this topic I strongly recommend the following paper:

A Short History of the Headship Doctrine In the Seventh-day Adventist Church
http://storage.cloversites.com/calimesaseventhdayadventistchurch/documents/a-short-history-of-the-headship-doctrine-in-the-seventh-day-adventist-church (1).pdf