Of course Adam was the head of the human race …

Comment on Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference by Sean Pitman.

Of course Adam was the head of the human race – but so was Eve before Fall. They were made “as one” with full equality, both equally in the image of God – like the situation that exists in the Godhead where Jesus and the Father are “one” (John 10:30). Again, you’re completely ignoring the passages where their equality before the Fall is clearly stated. You can’t just take some passages without the others. An honest student must at least try to harmonize everything that has been said on the topic by Divine inspiration…

In the creation, God had made [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 was created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that 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. A part of man, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, she was his second self; showing the close union and the affectionate attachment that should exist in this relation. “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it.” “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one.” EGW, The Adventist Home, p. 25, 115 (Link) (Link)

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. The holy pair were to have no interest independent of each other; and yet each had an individuality in thinking and acting. But after Eve’s sin, as she was first in the transgression, the Lord told her that Adam should rule over her. She was to be in subjection to her husband, and this was a part of the curse. – EGW, Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 484 (Link)

What is confusing about the phrase, “In all things she should be his equal”? How do you explain this from your pre-Fall “headship” perspective?

Also, you’re using the language and texts for the “headship” that exists for the husband in the marriage relationship (which is all of them) as a argument for the headship of men, in general, within the church. That argument simply doesn’t follow. I’m not the head of all women in the church simply because I’ve been given headship within the context of my own marriage. Yet, this is the actual argument that you and others are presenting. It makes no sense when one really thinks about it candidly.

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.