Headship Theory

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

The Headship Theory and Spiritual Abuse | Adventist Today (atoday.org)

 

[phkrause]

Great article!! Thanks for posting!!

[B/W Photodude]

Saw this article the day it was posted, but thought I would leave it until later. Quotes from the article are in the blue. 

After expressing some views on the political landscape, she said to me, “My husband reads all the stuff, and he must know. I don’t really follow these things.” 

This was a good Adventist pastor’s wife in the United States. In this matter she did not bother to think for herself but accepted, ...

Should she accept her husband’s opinion in all other matters as well? 

A subservient woman who looks to her husband for guidance in all things falls

This opening story set the stage for the rest of the article. Because this wife had little interest in politics, she was by insinuation a subservient wife who was incapable of forming her own opinions about anything. Typical of progressives.

Modern headship theory arose around the same time as the Women’s Liberation Movement, as women started shedding the power of men who had been oppressing women for centuries, even millennia.

This article used a number of inaccurate historical facts, engaged in generalities, and generally put forward Christianized radical feminist ideas. This concept of oppressing women for centuries is false and as a "Christian" this author should have been more studious and well rounded in her knowledge of men's and women's roles and family dynamics than she displayed.

As women were striving for equality, Christian men were afraid of losing their power. They came up with a theory to keep women in submission: employ religion for the purpose.

Often proffered by these types, it is said that men are afraid of losing their power. So, they invented a religious theory to keep women submissive. Unfortunately, there are Bible reasons for men in leadership. Headship theory is just a name invented by these radicals to justify their whinging over men in leadeship.

However, the ideas of liberty, equality and justice had become ingrained in the minds of thinking people since the French Revolution, and could not be ignored. 

What has been ingrained in the minds of the people in the last several decades is radical feminist ideas, to some extent, even in the minds of more conservative people.

In order to get around that, headship theory called the gender roles “complementary,” which meant that men and women are in some way equal but different. 

Unfortunately, men and women are different and you can not get around that. "Headship theory" did not invent the concept. Seems to me that it came from even in the Garden of Eden when God pronounced His punishment on Adam and Eve. And if you seriously study it, there is evidence of it even before the fall. The radical feminist jealousy of men is of the same poison that made Lucifer jealous of Jesus in heaven.

But when headship theory is applied to the church, with all men having authority over all women, it becomes dangerous.

All men do not have authority over all women. That is a ridiculous statement. 

When a man assumes authority over a woman, he also takes over responsibility for the woman’s actions when she obeys and when she disobeys. This leads to abuse. It is no secret that abuse is prevalent in conservative churches that embrace headship theory. 

OK, play the abuse card. Never mind that over 70 percent of domestic violence in the home is initiated by the female in the relationship. And these radicals in the church such as in "EndItNow" got people so worked up of the women being in danger from couples in lockdown that even one pastor doing tele-evangelism was doing messages about domestic violence with interviews from a women domestic violence shelter. No interviews from a men's domestic violence shelter. Oh wait! There are no domestic violence shelters men men. They get the underside of bridges. (That ministry lost credibility with me. Not to mention many men watching who can now conclude that there is little acceptance for men in the church. Ever wonder why 70% of young men leave the church?)

Of course radical feminists would never lie! That is why they invented the Superbowl domestic violence hoax which has been quite successfully debunked. Throw in the March of Dimes DV hoax. And the list goes on.

The news that a once-prominent church leader, a former pastor, has been disfellowshipped by a local church in Ohio hit the Adventist media on January 18, 2021. 

I can give you a long list of female pastors committing less than moral acts. Of all the men in ministry, trotting out one fallen pastor to justify this article was uncalled for.

Headship theory was never a part of our beliefs as Seventh-day Adventists, and I believe the infiltration of such thinking is not the will of God for His church. 

Uhmm, sorry, the practice of not ordaining women into ministry is the vote of the members to the General Conference. Like many in progressive politics, stating an untruth over and over doesn't make it true.

Why is there no outcry against those who push headship theory in our church? One answer would be that the church leadership consists of men only. 

Actually, many women are supportive of the practice of not ordaining women to ministry. In fact, you could probably say that NAD men have been gutless in not following the will of the church as a whole and caving to the radical feminists. Recent leadership in the NAD has been to exclude men from ministry in their frantic efforts to put women into pastoral positions.
 

[Kevin H]

Originally the female and male were equal. Male headship takes both the Bible and Mrs. White out context. They quote Mrs. White as saying that Eve wanted to go above her assigned role in life, and then they imply that she wanted to take Adam’s place. But if you continue to read what she wrote, as well as careful Bible study, it was not Adam’s place she was striving for but God’s place.

Mrs. White and the Bible point out that due to sin that one would need to work with our sinful nature by yielding to another, and this can be applied to the woman since it was the woman who ate the fruit first and wanted to take God’s authority, but does not push the issue. Mrs. White also gives application on how women can use their influence in a way that brings about more of a balance in the relationship.

Now, despite this application, if you take an exegesis of the text, if I understand the linguists correct, the Hebrew poetic form of Genesis 3:15-16, has three relationships between the woman and the world around her. And although we can make the application that was talked about in the previous paragraph, the actual exegesis of the text gives linguistic and poetic connections of between the woman and the serpent there would be enmity. To her husband there would be desire. Then there is the “He” who would rule over her. We tend to apply the “He” to the Husband, but by the words used and poetic structure, the “He” is not her husband, but the promised seed on Genesis 3:15.  Thus the exegesis of Genesis 3:16 are 3 relationships: enmity with the serpent, desire with her husband and ruled over by the promised seed.

Now as for women’s ordination, it was an issues of discussion among rabbis in Jesus’ day and was reflected by their protocol. In our protocol today the preacher stands behind the pulpit to preach, while the members sit in the pews or other seats. But in Jesus day, the protocol was that the rabbi would sit and teach from  a seat. Other rabbis could sit too. The rabbinical students would sit at their teacher’s feet. Laymen would stand. Now we come to variations in this protocol. The conservative rabbis, who sometimes had women rabbis (and thus rabbinical students sitting at their teacher’s feet) and who were open to the idea of women priests (which was stopped when Herod added a court of women to the temple), they would allow the un-ordained women stand with the un-ordained men, and ordained women could sit at their teacher’s feet or with other rabbis. But the liberal rabbis, who tended to be against women’s ordination, would only let the lay men stand to listen to them, and the women were to be busy with hospitality tasks. They were NOT to stand with the men, and certainly not allowed to be with the ordained rabbinical students to sit at their teacher’s feet. First century readers of the story of Mary and Martha would have clearly seen that it was talking about women’s ordination and where Jesus sided in the conflict.

As for "NAD men" being "gutless" it is better to obey God than man. When there are Sunday Laws will you call Seventh-day Adventists gutless for supporting the Sabbath? Jesus said that Mary's choice (which was quite literally "When I grow up I want to be a rabbi") Jesus said that it shall not be taken from her. What right to we have to reply to Jesus with the attitude of saying "Wanta bet?" While the Holy Spirit will not force himself on us, we have the words of Jesus hanging over our heads that it will not be taken away from her.

[B/W Photodude]

On 2/1/2021 at 9:13 PM, Kevin H said:

Originally the female and male were equal. Male headship takes both the Bible and Mrs. White out context. They quote Mrs. White as saying that Eve wanted to go above her assigned role in life, and then they imply that she wanted to take Adam’s place. But if you continue to read what she wrote, as well as careful Bible study, it was not Adam’s place she was striving for but God’s place.

I think there is a whole lot of taking things out of context to support women's ordination. The fact that Adam & Eve were to be equals in their marriage no way takes away his part in the leadership of the new world. Job noted that the sons of God came before God, no daughters mentioned. Torah over and over notes that only males were part of the Temple services. There have been some very good sermons preached that made a very good argument for male leadership even before the fall. It is not something dreamed up in response to sin.

Quote

Now as for women’s ordination, it was an issues of discussion among rabbis in Jesus’ day and was reflected by their protocol. ... The conservative rabbis, who sometimes had women rabbis (and thus rabbinical students sitting at their teacher’s feet) and who were open to the idea of women priests (which was stopped when Herod added a court of women to the temple), they would allow the un-ordained women stand with the un-ordained men, and ordained women could sit at their teacher’s feet or with other rabbis.

Usually when people note that Jesus had no female disciples, I usually hear it was part of the culture. But what you have written makes ordination of men only even more solid. If they were so accepting of female rabbis then, why did not Jesus choose some female disciples? But He didn't. 

Quote

As for "NAD men" being "gutless" it is better to obey God than man. When there are Sunday Laws will you call Seventh-day Adventists gutless for supporting the Sabbath?

There is no mark in the hand for the people of God, only in their forehead. The mark in the hand for the mark of the beast is for those unable to stand up to Sunday worship and comply with government edicts. That is a definition of gutless. It is of the utmost courage to stand for the Sabbath at the risk of your life.

[Kevin H]

On 2/5/2021 at 8:47 AM, B/W Photodude said:

 

Usually when people note that Jesus had no female disciples, I usually hear it was part of the culture. But what you have written makes ordination of men only even more solid. If they were so accepting of female rabbis then, why did not Jesus choose some female disciples? But He didn't. 

 

I'm sorry but for your quote to be correct you need to either have a list of all 82 disciples (the 12 plus the 70) or prove that Jesus never once allowed a woman to sit at his feet as he sat and taught. 

No rabbi, pro- anti- or indifferent to women's ordination would have one of their 12 to be a member of the opposite sex due to sleeping arrangements. It would be among their 70 where you can tell their stand on women's ordination, and as I said if you can prove that Jesus had only males among his 70 and never allowed a woman to sit at his feet as he taught then you can say that Jesus did not have a female disciple. If you cannot prove this you can at most say that you don't know, but if you find any evidence of women disciples among the 70 or find any evidence that he might have allowed a woman to sit at his feet when he was teaching, then you are wrong.

[B/W Photodude]

On 2/10/2021 at 8:53 PM, Kevin H said:

I'm sorry but for your quote to be correct you need to either have a list of all 82 disciples (the 12 plus the 70) or prove that Jesus never once allowed a woman to sit at his feet as he sat and taught. 

No rabbi, pro- anti- or indifferent to women's ordination would have one of their 12 to be a member of the opposite sex due to sleeping arrangements. It would be among their 70 where you can tell their stand on women's ordination, and as I said if you can prove that Jesus had only males among his 70 and never allowed a woman to sit at his feet as he taught then you can say that Jesus did not have a female disciple. If you cannot prove this you can at most say that you don't know, but if you find any evidence of women disciples among the 70 or find any evidence that he might have allowed a woman to sit at his feet when he was teaching, then you are wrong.

I am sorry, but you are presenting a lot of guesswork here. It is unfortunate when people try to read into the Bible and behaviors and use that instead of a "Thus saith the Lord" on any issue.

Whether or not a woman was allowed to sit at the feet of Jesus and listen to Him teach is really irrelevant to the issue of women's ordination. We do have record that Mary listened to Jesus rather than help Martha out with preparations for the guests, but that is a long way away from saying that Mary was ordained. 

When you read thru Torah, you will find that only males were called for the priesthood and later only Levite males. There is no record anywhere where a female was part of the priesthood or had any direct participation in temple services. So, you would need a specific statement in Scripture that a practice has been changed and not just guesswork on what the people may have been doing, and even that would not be acceptable as no foundation in the Scriptures is present.

When something changed, it is specifically mentioned in Scripture. For example, the act of circumcision was specifically noted to have been done away with.

Some also follow the method of validating something based on what the people did and they then get into trouble. The Sabbath is considered to have been changed because people may have worshipped on Sunday and/or Saturday nite. If i follow that there may have been women disciples based on what may have occurred, then I have the same license to discard the Sabbath day.

Another very weak argument to support ordination of women is the "disciple" Junia. There is nothing in Scripture that gives any details beyond a name for Junia, but apparently because the name ends with an "a" sound it must be a female. Unfortunately, assumptions are being made based on "rules" of other languages. Some languages frequently do have female names ending in "a"s. However, many translations of the New Testament spell the name as "Junias". And do not forget all the "a" ending male names in the O.T. such as Elisha, Ezra, Hosea, Joshua, and Yehuda. 

So, sorry, it is another strike out for women's ordination!

[Kevin H]

On 3/6/2021 at 3:26 PM, B/W Photodude said:

 

Whether or not a woman was allowed to sit at the feet of Jesus and listen to Him teach is really irrelevant to the issue of women's ordination. We do have record that Mary listened to Jesus rather than help Martha out with preparations for the guests, but that is a long way away from saying that Mary was ordained. 

 

Only if you want to ignore the historical and cultural context and allow your imagination to make it say what you wish the text would say. It was fine until the mid 1800s to use this method, but since the mid 1800s as we have been discovering the ancient world, we need to do careful word studies and if possible to find geographic studies and cultural studies. You have to take the words of the Bible in the context that the Bible writer was writing from. Your argument is from a "If I want to know what the Bible teaches, I'll think about what my mind can conjure up and read the words in that context." 

Jesus lived in a culture where women's ordination had been argued for about 200 years. This argument lead to King Herod adding to the temple a court of women, where women were allowed no further. This was not a part of the sanctuary or other temples. Also, this argument caused the rabbis who were against women's ordination to change Numbers Numbers 15:38 from both men and women wearing this tassel in their clothes to only men wearing it. By Jesus' day there were strict protocols to make it very clear that they did not want women to even give the appearance of  supporting women's ordination. Rabbis who did support women's ordination (this tended to be the conservative schools of rabbis) would deliberately break these protocols. We find Jesus breaking these protocols. Do you have something to show where Jesus said "Oops, I did not mean to do something that looks like a blatant ignoring of these protocols. I really need to do a better job in the future to not give the appearance of the wrong thing. My bad."