The Manly Way to Lead

What Does the Bible Say About Male Headship—and Leadership?

Jeffrey O. Brown
The Manly Way to Lead

Not to brag, but I’ve won my share of athletics medals. High jump, 200 meters, and relay were my specialties. In the relay there was one thing they stressed: run in your own lane. If you cross into another lane, you will be disqualified. So let me tell you what this article is not about. 

This article is not about women in leadership. It is not about what women should and shouldn’t do. Women will speak for themselves. This article is about men in leadership. Who we should and shouldn’t be. What we should and shouldn’t do. Let’s just examine ourselves fairly, deeply, and honestly, and trust our women to do the same. 

So often we are hard on others and easy on ourselves. Jesus repeatedly asked us to go easy on others and be hard on ourselves. He never said the other group was without fault. He did ask, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and fail to notice the plank in your own?” (Matt. 7:4, Phillips), and He did advise, “Let him [a man] who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her [a woman]” (John 8:7, MEV). Our goal will be to run in our own lane, because I’ve seen what disqualification looks like.

My wife, Pattiejean, and I were conducting a seminar for young people in Manchester, England. In one exercise I went with the young men to one location and Pattiejean stayed with the young women. The assignment was to list what we can be or do to enhance relationships. I had the flip chart and marker pen ready for the guys. I wasn’t prepared for what they unloaded.

“They need to respect us.” “They need to know their place.” “They need to sit still when I’m with my friends.” “They need to know when to speak and when to be quiet.” Each person emboldened the next until it was time to rejoin the women. The men marched over like an army. Strengthened by each other’s statements, they chanted as they marched.

The young women were thrilled with the assignment. They excitedly listed all that they would be and do for the young men. They would be patient, they would be attractive, they would be hardworking, they would be ambitious, and they would be faithful. Then they heard it: the sound as of a marching army. 

The chants filled them with dismay. They heard, “We’re going to tell them this time.” “Now they’re going to listen to us.” All the love drained out of the women. When the men came in, they covered up their flip chart. Smiles gave way to frowns, and arms once open were now crossed. The men never did see the women’s list. I wept inside because both men and women lost out. Both were disqualified.

Church leader and historian Norman Miles tells the story of the man who broke into a Quaker’s house. Awakened by the sound of an intruder, the peace-loving Quaker took up his shotgun and declared to the startled thief, “Sir, I mean thee no harm, but I’m about to shoot where thou standest.”

This article will examine the place of men in leadership from a biblical perspective. Understanding our role necessitates comprehending our mission: “To restore in men and women the image of their Maker, to bring them back to the perfection in which they were created—this was to be the work of redemption.” Here we find our outline, the three acts in the biblical drama: Creation, Fall, and redemption. Our journey will encounter mountains and valleys, compliments and criticisms, affirmations and disappointments. I may shoot where you stand, but understand—I mean you no harm.


Scripture is clear—men and women were equally created in the image of God and equally given dominion over the earth. “ ‘God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over . . . all the earth. . . . So God created man in his own image, . . . male and female created he them.’ Here is clearly set forth the origin of the human race; and the divine record is so plainly stated that there is no occasion for erroneous conclusions.” What is this indisputable conclusion? “When God created Eve, He designed that she should possess neither inferiority nor superiority to the man, but that in all things she should be his equal.” 

Richard Davidson comments, “Genesis 1 teaches us that male and female participate equally in the image of God. ‘So God created man [Heb. ha’adam, “humankind”] in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.’. . . Both have been commanded equally and without distinction to take dominion, not one over the other, but both together over the rest of God’s creation for the glory of the Creator.”

The fact that the woman was created out of the rib is one for which men may rightly stake a claim but wrongly take the credit. However roles were shared in Creation, there is no hint of ranking. The fact that Eve’s creation followed that of Adam is not determinative of rank, though Creation does tell the story in an ascending order of significance.

“Feminists and patriarchalists are equally in need of redemption.”

Genesis 2 makes clear that the initiative belongs to God. God places the man in a deep sleep. He is not aware, conscious, responsive, or responsible. The need was not for completing roles or competing roles, but for complimentary roles. God created an environment in which men and women would need each other. “[Jesus] answered, ‘Haven’t you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female?’ ” (Matt. 19:4, Message). Thus: “Neither maleness or femaleness connotes a disparity in rank or function.”

The creation of woman is critical to the topic of men in leadership because Scripture makes an inseparable connection. “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him’ ” (Gen. 2:18, NLT). Werner Neuer wrongly interprets “helper” and concludes that woman is an assistant, a supporter, occupying merely a secondary position. The Hebrew word for “helper” is used overwhelmingly in the Old Testament to describe God Himself, and thus a term highly unlikely to signify subordinate female roles: “God the Helper (’ezer, Ex. 18:4) provided a helper (’ezer, Gen. 2:18) to deliver man from the void of aloneness.” 

Leadership in the Garden of Eden was shared leadership. Both were leaders and both were helpers. Ellen White states, “God made from the man a woman, to be a companion and helpmeet for him, to be one with him, to cheer, encourage, and bless him, he in his turn to be her strong helper.” Leadership in the Garden was an equal leadership. “She was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him.” Leadership in the Garden was a mutual leadership. Frances and Paul Hiebert assert that Adam and Eve enjoyed before the Fall “a relation of full mutuality in equality.” Ellen White says, “In the creation God had made her 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.” So “the biblical ideal of the relationships of husband and wife is not so much equality, however, as mutuality, sharing at every level of life.”


Genesis 3 is the record of the fall of humankind. The position of Adam and Eve in the Fall is that of the subjection of the wife to the husband. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16, KJV):“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.”

Theologians aplenty concur with these insights. Walter Brueggeman comments: “In God’s garden, as God wills it, there is mutuality and equality. In God’s garden now, permeated by distrust, there is control and distortion. But that distortion is not for one moment accepted as the will of the Gardener.”

David and Diana Garland state: “Their sin resulted in dire consequences for their relationship: the husband now shall rule over the wife. This new development implies that it was not what God had originally determined for their relationship.”

Ellen White states, “Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man’s abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.” 

As time progressed, the original image became more distant and less distinct. Distortions led not only to the abuse of power, but also to the abuse of privilege. Garland and Garland state, “The hierarchical pattern of marriage [was] something less than God’s intention for humanity. . . . If anything, the hierarchical pattern is a perversion of God’s intention.” 

Ellen White also states: “The Lord Jesus has not been correctly represented in His relation to the church by many husbands in their relation to their wives, for they do not keep the way of the Lord. They declare that their wives must be subject to them in everything. But it was not the design of God that the husband should have control, as head of the house, when he himself does not submit to Christ. He must be under the rule of Christ that he may represent the relation of Christ to the church. If he is a coarse, rough, boisterous, egotistical, harsh, and overbearing man, let him never utter the word that the husband is the head of the wife, and that she must submit to him in everything; for he is not the Lord, he is not the husband in the true significance of the term.” 

Humanity’s fall into sin distorted God’s ideal. As Gilbert Bilezikian maintains: “The ‘he shall rule over you’ should not be viewed as prescribing God’s will any more than death may be regarded as God’s will for humans.” Ruling, then, is introduced as a consequence of the Fall. Genesis 3:16 becomes God’s description, not His prescription. Phyllis Trible states: “We misread if we assume that these judgments are mandates. They describe; they do not prescribe. They protest; they do not condone. . . . This statement [Gen. 3:16] is not license for male supremacy, but rather it is condemnation of that very pattern. Subjugation and supremacy are perversions of creation.” 

Extreme care needs to be taken to ensure that statements and quotes pass the test of “the law and . . . the testimony” (Isa. 8:20, KJV), because there are extremes to the left and to the right. Indeed, as Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen affirms: “Feminists and patriarchalists are equally in need of redemption.” 


The world is witnessing war—and questioning why. James asks, “What is the source of wars and fights among you? Don’t they come from the cravings that are at war within you?” (James 4:1, HCSB). While we may excoriate bully behavior outside the church, we must examine abusive conduct inside the church. Ellen White disturbingly connects the two. “Special instruction has been given me for God’s people, for perilous times are upon us. In the world, destruction and violence are increasing. In the church, man power is gaining the ascendancy; those who have been chosen to occupy positions of trust think it their prerogative to rule.”

“Man power” is the passion to rule that some consider a divine right, leading to the most evil abuses. Jesus said this was “not part of God’s original plan. I’m holding you to the original plan” (Matt. 19:8, Message). What was the original plan? Ellen White declares, “Woman should fill the position which God originally designed for her, as her husband’s equal.”

Before loving leadership can be executed in the church, it has to be demonstrated in the home: “The restoration and uplifting of humanity begins in the home.” Here, the biblical emphasis is not so much on the submissiveness of the wife but on the radical change in behavior expected of the husband. “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the saviour of the body” (Eph. 5:23, KJV).

If we miss the newness of the New Testament, we have missed everything.

Key concepts here are headship and submission. The Greek word for “head” (kephale), used some 75 times in the New Testament, never involves the sense of domination. The husband’s headship does not signal superiority and the wife’s submission does not indicate inferiority. The husband does have the role of headship, but it is selfless, sacrificial, and agapic love. Submission for a wife is to freely choose to accept this Christlike love. Submission, then, is not to the husband’s wishes but to the husband’s love. Elizabeth Achtemeier finds Ephesians 5, on headship and submission, “ingenious. It has preserved the traditional view of the male as the head of the family, but that headship is a function only, not a matter of status or superiority. The understanding of the headship and of the wife’s relation to it has been radically transformed.” 

In the view of S. Miletic: “The text is deceptively simple. It contains all of the trappings of an androcentric worldview and could easily be misunderstood as a justification of patriarchal domination. It is very much a ‘sheep in wolf’s clothing.’ It must therefore be read in light of its theological message about the power of living for others rather than as a justification for male domination, itself an absolute contradiction to the very nature of agapic love.” And for William Barclay: “The basis of the passage is not control; it is love.”

Headship does not belong to a man; it belongs to a husband. The husband’s example of headship in the home, mirroring the headship of Christ, is to exemplify spiritual authority in the church exercised by male and female. Submission does not belong to a woman; it belongs to a wife. The wife’s example of submission in the home, mirroring the submission of Christ, is to exemplify spiritual obedience in the church exercised by male and female. The husband and wife’s example of unity in the home, mirroring the oneness of the Trinity, is to exemplify spiritual oneness in the church exercised by male and female leaders and followers. 

Headship in the home does not equate to headship in the church. A man may be leader of his family at home, but his wife or children may be his leader in society or at church. “As the Scriptures say, ‘A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one” (Eph. 5:31, 32, NLT).

What’s “New” Got to Do With It?

Two statements of Scripture lay the foundation for what loving leadership ought and ought not to be: “It shall not be so among you” (Matt. 20:26, KJV) and “As I have loved you” (John 13:34, KJV). The point of these statements in their context was that there is to be a radical difference between leadership in the church and rulership in the world. 

Ellen White has commented on Jesus’ “new commandment” to love as He loves (John 13:34, KJV): “To the disciples this commandment was new; for they had not loved one another as Christ had loved them. . . . The command to love one another had a new meaning in the light of His self-sacrifice. The whole work of grace is one continual service of love, of self-denying, self-sacrificing effort.” 

Garland and Garland concur: “It was certainly nothing new to tell the husbands to love their wives, but this love was given a new dimension when the standard is Christ’s love for his people. . . . Christ loved through his sacrifice; he was willing to pay the supreme cost and cherish the beloved even when she was unworthy of that love (Rom. 5:8). He loved without conditions. He experienced the failings of the beloved and yet gave of himself to overcome them. This is the love that the husband is expected to have for his wife, and it is an awesome demand without parallel in the ancient world.”

If we miss the newness of the New Testament, we have missed everything. There was now a new standard of love, radically different from the contemporary customs and culture. This new standard had the potential to quietly undermine the abuses of a society enslaved in rulership, without advocating a social revolution. “Such love is without a parallel.”

There is a new mutuality in relationships. There must be a mutual submission if there is to be an authentic relationship (Eph. 5:21). Wives must still respect their husbands, but husbands must now love their wives as Christ loved the church (verses 25, 33). David Field muses that “Paul never seems to have quite resolved the conflict between a view of women consistent with his new Christian insights and the view which he inherited from his Jewish past.” In reality, when Paul spoke about men in leadership, he faced the challenge of placing new wine into old wineskins. Jesus faced the same challenge: “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40, HCSB). That’s leadership.

There is a new ordering of relationships. The leader is now the servant. The greatest is now the least. The last is now the first. There is no more Jew or Gentile, male or female, single or married. Distinctions exist, but their significance is subjected to the mission of the church. Choice bows to the call, preference submits to priority, and emotion succumbs to devotion. 

The New Testament model of leadership parallels God’s ideal in Creation. Eradicating supremacy or subjection in family and church, eclipsing tolerance and equality in family and church, and reaching for mutuality in submission. This biblical model of leadership does not discriminate or elevate one above the other. Equality is not trampled; it is transcended. Authority is not human-focused; it is Christ-centered. 

There is an interdependence between husband and wife that was severed in the Fall and cemented in redemption. This marital interdependence is to be replicated in the church. The focus now is not the fall of the woman in Genesis 3, but the call of the woman in Acts 2. It is not about the gender, but about the Sender.

A Man’s Role?

Are leadership roles based on gender—or worse, rights? David Williams states: “Many persons in our society view the socially determined role of husbands and wives as established by God for all cultures, societies, and times.” He notes that the verse “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands” (Eph. 5:22, KJV) is the most famous passage used to justify the abuse of wives by their husbands, and observes: “Many wives accept violence as part of their God-ordained lot in life.” He asserts that some husbands think Scripture gives them a license to use abusive force in their efforts to “command their children and household after them” (cf. Gen. 18:19). 

There is a wonderful role interdependence between men and women. Yes, “the mother is the queen of the home, and the children are her subjects,” but “the children are his as well as hers, and he is equally interested in their welfare.” Yes, the husband is a priest and mother is a teacher, but Ellen White calls fathers and mothers priests and heads of families. “Parents standing as heads of families, priests of the household, as teachers and as governors, must” “obey the highest Authority.” 

Thus, Garland and Garland have maintained: “The scripture does not lay out specific role expectations or provide a how-to-do-it marriage manual. What is clear is that God does not order relationship roles by gender. In that spirit, couples may—must—choose to order their lives to fit their context and the task to which they have been called.”

Man’s desire for supremacy was to be transformed into initiating love. “Outdo one another in showing honor” (Rom. 12:10, ESV). H. Page Williams states: “I often talk with men who say, ‘When my wife changes her attitude, then I’ll change mine.’ But from God’s point of view, men are to initiate love, and the male leader is to initiate reconciliation. It is not a matter of giving in, it’s a matter of being honest and assuming the lead in your God-given responsibility.”

Headship in the home does not equate to headship in the church

There ought not be a line in the sand that women cannot cross. Especially should we, men, not draw the line. In the great controversy between Christ and Satan, the symbol of destruction is the man. “Because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man” (Rom. 5:17, ESV). In this great conflict the symbol of salvation is the woman. “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 12:17, KJV). It is therefore strangely ironic that we ponder whether women can join men in proclaiming the gospel.

Ask yourself if this sounds like a spiritual leader: “It was Mary that first preached a risen Jesus. . . . If there were twenty women where now there is one, who would make this holy mission their cherished work, we should see many more converted to the truth.” “The Saviour will reflect upon these self-sacrificing women the light of His countenance, and this will give them a power that will exceed that of men. They can do in families a work that men cannot do, a work that reaches the inner life. They can come close to the hearts of those whom men cannot reach. Their work is needed.” “We may safely say that the distinctive duties of woman are more sacred, more holy, than those of man.”

We stand in awe of women’s giftedness and are joyfully honored to lead together. Ellen White says, “God’s cause at this time is in special need of men and women who possess Christ-like qualifications for service, executive ability, and a large capacity for work, who have kind, warm, sympathetic hearts, sound common sense, and unbiased judgment; . . . striving constantly to uplift and restore fallen humanity.” “When a great and decisive work is to be done, God chooses men and women to do this work, and it will see the loss if the talents of both are not combined.” Scripture highlights different roles, but never endorses different ranks.


The scourge of war perpetrated by men is paralleled in evil only by the scourge of femicide. I thank God today that men of integrity can still be identified. Not only can you hold your head up, but know that godly women also notice—even in the midst of their own pain. “Let us also remember that there are men in this world that are still admirably playing the role of provider and protector and we need to acknowledge and appreciate these men and sincerely hope that the rest will strive to follow their example.”

Perhaps at the end of the day, that’s what we want—for people to follow our example. Paul said, “Imitate me, just as I imitate Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1, NLT). “Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do” (Phil. 4:9, KJV). “And you became followers of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became examples to all in Macedonia and Achaia who believe” (1 Thess. 1:6, 7, NKJV). Followers connect with leaders and become disciples.

Perhaps “followership” has been underrated and leadership overrated. The goal of followers and leaders is to become disciples. “And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of [people]” (Matt. 4:19, KJV). Becky De Oliveira states, “The preference for leaders over followers is certainly apparent in the Christian church. There are endless seminars created and books published with the aim of instructing individuals on how to be leaders, but very little material available addressing what it means to be a good follower.” 

Lunden and Lancaster concur: “We all know that leaders are expected to be visionary, decisive, communicative, energetic, committed, and responsible. But what about followers? Are the characteristics of successful followers so different from those of leaders? Not really.” Yet we are infatuated by leadership, even when we say “servant leaders”? Why not “leading servants”? Our Lord and Leader says, “And whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:27, 28, ESV). The leadership model cannot be prosecuted outside of the family model. The distinguishing criterion for Christian service is not who can lead, but who can serve. Scripture knows no hierarchy. Followers are sometimes leaders, leaders are often followers, and both are always disciples “ordained unto God to bear fruit.”

Men and women together must restore and reflect the image of God by their united ministry in redemption.

These are whom the world needs. “The greatest want of the world is the want of those men and women who will not be bought or sold, those who in their inmost souls are true and honest, those who do not fear to call sin by its right name, those whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, those who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.”

Only as we understand the heights of the one flesh union in Creation and the depths of the distortion of God’s image in the Fall can we understand the breadth of ministry necessary for restoration in redemption. The image of God was defaced by the sins of independence and indulgence. It is to be reproduced by a ministry of mutuality and oneness. Men and women were together in the Fall. They separated from each other and hid from God together. Now men and women must be together in restoration. It cannot be otherwise. 

Men and women together thwarted and aborted the plan of God by their united missteps in the Fall. Men and women together must restore and reflect the image of God by their united ministry in redemption. Labels are eradicated, status is eliminated, and Jesus is the head of all. It is Adam and Eve restored. It is the great controversy ended. It is earth’s love story consummated. It is intimacy at its highest. It is inclusion at its widest. It is love at its greatest.

Remove Your Coat

My most vivid memory of my father, Maurice Brown, is of one winter in Birmingham, England. We were traveling home from Aunty Ruby’s house with my mom and four siblings. The snow was falling heavily, and we reached that street in the city center ominously called Hill Street. We had a powerful car, but our Ford Zodiac was not making it. The wheels began to spin, and then we felt it—we started to slide backward. Quick as a flash, my father pulled up the handbrake and cried, “Stay here!” Next thing we knew, Dad leapt out of the car, whipped off his coat, and placed it under a tire. Jumping back into the car, he maneuvered our vehicle with dexterity (Dad taught us all to drive), and we made it over the hill. 

Dad is now 90 years old, enjoying his retirement years in Mandeville, Jamaica. Like Moses, his eye is not dim, nor his natural force abated. We remain indebted to our father, forever grateful for the day that we witnessed confidence, care, compassion, from a man who led us safely home. I don’t remember if my mother dialogued with my father before his leap out of the car, but as a social work lecturer at Oxford Brookes University, I’m sure Carmen Brown would have had something to say. 

My mother did not subscribe to the “Total Woman” philosophy that women should please and keep their mate by adhering to the formula “Adapt to his way of life. Accept his friends, food, and lifestyle as your own.” Neither did she imbibe the analogy likening the husband to a company manager and the wife to an assistant manager “who is comfortable in sharing her suggestions concerning the management of the company and is not upset when she is overruled.” 

The focus now is not the fall of the woman in Genesis 3, but the call of the woman in Acts 2.

Mom was a wife, mother, lecturer, and activist—and my parents arranged for Grandma to come to live with us. Ellen White says, “Seventh-day Adventists are not in any way to belittle woman’s work. If a woman puts her housework in the hands of a faithful, prudent helper, and leaves her children in good care, while she engages in the work, the conference should have wisdom to understand the justice of her receiving wages.” “This question is not for men to settle. The Lord has settled it.” 

We are caught in a vehicle that is sliding precariously toward destruction. The causes of the slide are many and complex. The voices of anger are deafening, and the fingers of blame are many. But God is calling men to do their part in stopping the slide and getting the vehicle to its destination. We are not called to forsake leadership; we are called to abandon rulership. God asks us to replace abusiveness with servanthood. 

The time has come for men to take off our coats of privilege and authoritarianism and lay them down. Let our strength lie not in power and pride. “You’ve observed how godless rulers throw their weight around, how quickly a little power goes to their heads. It’s not going to be that way with you. Whoever wants to be great must become a servant. Whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave. That is what the Son of Man has done” (Matt. 20:25-28, Message). Men, let’s remove our coats.

Jeff Brown is an associate Ministerial secretary of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and associate editor of Ministry, an international journal for pastors.


1 Bible texts credited to Phillips are from The New Testament in Modern English by J. B. Phillips, copyright © 1960, 1972 J. B. Phillips. Administered by The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England. Used by permission. 

2 Scripture quotations credited to MEV are taken from the Modern English Version. Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. Published and distributed by Charisma House. 

3 Ellen G. White, True Education (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 2000), p. 11.

4 Ellen G. White, Daughters of God (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1998), p. 22.

5 Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1948), vol. 3, p. 484. 

6 Richard Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), p. 12.

7 Texts credited to Message are from The Message, copyright © 1993, 2002, 2018 by Eugene H. Peterson. Used by permission of NavPress, represented by Tyndale House Publishers, a division of Tyndale House Ministries. All rights reserved.

8 Gilbert Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says About a Woman’s Place in Church and Family (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 21.

9 Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

10 See Werner Neuer, Man and Woman in Christian Perspective (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1990), p. 74.

11 F. Hiebert and P. Hiebert, “The Whole Image of God,” in C. Kettler and T. Speidell, eds., Incarnational Ministry (Wipf & Stock Pub., 2009), p. 272.

12 Ellen G. White, The Adventist Home (Nashville: Southern Pub. Assn., 1952), p. 99.

13 Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1890, 1908), p. 46.

14 Hiebert and Hiebert, p. 31.

15 E. G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 58.

16 B. Kisembo, L. Magesa, and A. Shorter, African Christian Marriage(London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1977), p. 107.

17 E. G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 58. (Italics supplied.)

18 Walter Brueggeman, Genesis: An Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), p. 15. (Italics supplied.)

19 David Garland and Diana Garland, Beyond Companionship: Christians in Marriage (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1986), p. 29. (Italics supplied.)

20 E. G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 58, 59.

21 Garland and Garland, p. 30.

22 E. G. White, The Adventist Home, p. 117.

23 Bilezikian, p. 41. 

24 Phyllis Trible, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41, no. 1 (March 1973): 41. 

25 Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Gender and Grace (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1990), p. 208.

26 Texts credited to HCSB are taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible, copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission.

27 E. G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p. 270.

28 E. G. White, The Adventist Home, p. 231.

29 Ellen G. White, The Ministry of Healing (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1905), p. 349.

30 Elizabeth Achtemeier, The Committed Marriage (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), p. 86.

31 Stephen Francis Miletic, “One Flesh”—Eph. 5:22-24, 5:31: Marriage and the New Creation (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1988), p. 118.

32 William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1977), p. 107.

33 Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1898, 1940), pp. 677, 678.

34 Garland and Garland, p. 36.

35 Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1956), p. 15.

36 David Field, “Headship in Marriage: the Husband’s View,” in Shirley Lees, ed., The Role of Women: When Christians Disagree (Leicester, UK: InterVarsity Press, 1984), p. 49.

37 See Marcos Paseggi, “Adventists Can Do Much to Confront Domestic Violence, Harvard Professor Says,” Adventist Review news online, Oct. 16, 2020, where Paseggi reports on a presentation to the General Conference Executive Committee by public health professor David Williams,

38 E. G. White, The Adventist Home, p. 232.

39 Ibid., p. 211.

40 Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases (Silver Spring, Md.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1993), vol. 19, p. 317.

41 Garland and Garland, p. 75.

42 Scripture quotations marked ESV are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

43 H. Page Williams, Do Yourself a Favor: Love Your Wife (Plainfield, N.J.: Logos International, 1973), p. 22.

44 Ellen G. White, Evangelism (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1946), pp. 471, 472.

45 Ellen G. White, Christian Service (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1925), p. 27.

46 E. G. White, The Adventist Home, p. 231.

47 E. G. White, Manuscript Releases (Silver Spring, Md.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1990), vol. 2, p. 88. 

48 E. G. White, Evangelism, p. 469.

49 “Femicide in SA: Are These the Solutions?” Breaking Flash News [BFN] Today, Sept. 3, 2019. 

50 Bible texts credited to NKJV are from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

51 Becky A. De Oliveira, “Where You Go, I Will Follow,” Journal of Applied Christian Leadership 3, no. 1: 2.

52 S. C. Lunden, and L. C. Lancaster, “Beyond Leadership . . . The Importance of Followership,” The Futurist, May-June 1990, p. 18; cf. Bill Knott, “Can We Trust Our Leaders? Whom Is It Safe to Follow?” Adventist Review, June 2021, pp. 18, 19.

53 Sung Kwon, “The Leader as Servant,” English Compass, July 27, 2015,; cf. Skip Bell, ed., Servants and Friends: A Biblical Theology of Leadership (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2014).

54 E. G. White, Manuscript Releases (Silver Spring, Md.: Ellen G. Whiite Estate, 1990), vol. 6, p. 29.

55 E. G. White, True Education, pp. 38, 39.

56 Marabel Morgan, The Total Woman (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1973), p. 87.

57 Sherrill Burwell, “Improving and Strengthening Black Male-Female Relationships,” in Lee N. June, ed., The Black Family: Past, Present, and Future. Perspectives of Sixteen Black Christian Leaders (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), p. 91.

58 Ellen G. White, Gospel Workers (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1915), p. 453.

59 Ellen G. White manuscript 33, 1912.

Jeffrey O. Brown