The Influence of Holiness Theology on Women Preaching

Any discussion about 19^th century worship must include the issue of women preachers, a topic of much debate at that time, tied to religious revival. A church’s attitude to style of evangelism and music was closely related to their attitude to women preachers. Neither Mrs Booth nor Mrs White were against women preaching and both were popular preachers themselves. In 1803, The Wesleyan Connexion prohibited preaching by women. This led to numerous Methodist subgroups which supported women preachers and emotional revival over the orderly practices of institutional religion. By the mid-1800s, most Methodists accepted that female preaching was unscriptural.^122–124

Catherine felt the church had wrongly denied women’s rightful place in the church, including the right to preach.¹²⁵ Holiness theology had a significant influence on the Booths’ understanding of the role of women in the church and revival methods that they adopted. Understanding holiness theology and its influence on how the Booths related to Scripture is essential to understanding their approach to music and worship. The influences that shape how we interpret Scripture and how we understand God will determine what type of music we think is appropriate.

Holiness theologians and revivalists felt justified in deviating from traditional interpretations of the Bible, which were often quite literal in their application. They felt confident in their own commonsense interpretation of Scripture, which freed them from adherence to traditional rules and conventions, such as the silencing of women in church.^{126 (p66,74)} These commonsense interpretations were made in light of their understanding of Pentecost and the gift of the Holy Spirit to empower the believer to overcome sin, interpret Scripture and achieve mighty works. Everything changed at Pentecost according to this understanding. It was a great leveller, for “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28).”

They believed in what is termed a second working of the Holy Spirit which empowered individuals to live a life of perfection. If they felt compelled by the Holy Spirit to do something, they were inclined to act on that compulsion, even if it meant giving up everything for Jesus. It might mean abstaining from alcohol or giving up a bad temper. If a person felt that their jewellery separated them from God, off it would come. Nancy D. Hardesty describes how “many women felt compelled to let go of their resistance to public speaking… So speak out they must.”^{126 (p64)} Historian, Pamela J. Walker said:

“This willingness to reinterpret Scripture opened the way for reconsidering women’s position… the presence of the Holy Spirit could be used to justify unconventional behavior. Advocates of holiness found they could not refuse the prompting of the Holy Spirit even when it moved a woman to kneel and pray for the souls of drunkards in the middle of a saloon or to speak and preach in church.”^{2 (p23)}

In the mind of the Booths, the dry formalism that had crept into the Methodist church was proof that it lacked the Holy Spirit. As Pamela Walker put it, “the Booths regarded the formal practices and regulations, including the restrictions placed on women, as worldly brakes on the full exercise of the Holy Spirit.”^{2 (p20)} On this backdrop, Catherine published her article, Female Teaching, in London in 1859, outlining her theological arguments supporting women’s right to teach and preach.¹²⁷ Her understanding of entire sanctification convinced her of the appropriateness of their revivalistic methods and of her defence of women preachers.  

As discussed previously, John Wesley taught that after conversion, in time and with much devotion to God and meditation on His Word, a person could obtain entire sanctification, which meant complete deliverance from sin. Phoebe Palmer, a prominent 19^thcentury evangelist, took Wesley’s theology of sanctification a step further and said that not only can we become entirely sanctified, but it can be achieved instantaneously. Salvationists, who were sympathetic to Palmer’s views, taught that new converts should seek entire sanctification without delay. Entire sanctification could be obtained immediately by anyone who 1. is convicted of sin; 2. is prepared to renounce sin; 3. consecrates themselves to Jesus; and 4. has faith that the blood of Jesus Christ purifies from all inward sin.¹²⁸ It was believed to be a second baptism with subsequent empowerment by the Holy Spirit for more effective service. It thus enabled the convert to live an elevated spiritual life. As she began her own preaching career, Mrs Booth believed she had attained entire sanctification which gave her confidence in the righteousness of her work. How could she be wrong in her understanding of Scripture and her conviction to preach if the Holy Spirit was guiding her?

Wesley taught that perfection was desirable but not required for salvation; whereas the Booths believed that it was absolutely necessary for Christians to seek entire sanctification. Phoebe Palmer, who strongly influenced the Booths’ theology, said, “holiness is not the distinguishing doctrine of any sect, but the crowning doctrine of the Bible.”^{126 (p73)} In line with this, General Booth said:

 “Holiness to the Lord is to us a fundamental truth; it stands in the forefront of our doctrines… any evangelist who did not hold and proclaim the ability of Jesus Christ to save His people to the uttermost from sin and sinning should be considered out of place amongst us.”^{129 (p5)}

This had a profound influence on the Booths’ ministry. Entire sanctification was considered crucially important for men and women joining the Army.^{2 (p53)} They were expected to demonstrate wholehearted commitment to God and service to the Salvation Army. There was no room for a lukewarm attitude. Holiness was the most important criterion for holding religious office.^{2 (p129)} There was much emphasis on holiness and being moved by the Holy Spirit, which would impart wisdom and give them direct thoughts and messages, as described by Mrs Booth:

“Take the Bible with you on your knees before the Lord; show Him the words, and say, ‘Now, Lord, show me the meaning of this.’ Wait, and there will come a voice from the excellent glory. There will come as light from the Shekinah, which will reveal it in your spiritual consciousness, and you will thus know that thing forever. You will be wiser than your teachers with respect to that particular point.”^{130 (p167)}

Because of this emphasis on the Holy Spirit for direct guidance, there was naturally less commitment to a literal interpretation of the plain teachings of the Word of God. Though Mrs Booth and Phoebe Palmer believed the Bible to be the standard for all doctrine and did recommend studying all that the Bible says on a topic,^45,126 experience was important for their understanding of Scripture. The deep conviction of the Salvationist, Pamela Walker says, is that “experience was more significant than mere rational, intellectual knowledge. To encounter the Holy Spirit, to hear God’s voice, to smell the fires of hell, or to fall to the floor was a far more meaningful way of knowing God than merely assenting to a creed or knowing a set of doctrines.”^{2 (p90)}

Apart from regular Sunday services, members of the Army were expected to attend weekly believer’s meetings, based on the traditional Methodist model. In these meetings, members shared their experiences and were given encouragement, instruction and reproof. They were trained in singing, speaking and sharing their testimony. Although these meetings included study of the Bible, leaders were encouraged to avoid lifeless formality and, instead, to engage the members in lively singing and brief speaking and prayer.^{2 (p99)} Salvationists strongly believed that holiness, brought about by the Holy Spirit, gave a person spiritual insights more advanced than the most knowledgeable theologian. Not only that, but these extra revelations could be received instantaneously.^130,131 Therefore, before being taught theology in any depth, a new convert could begin sharing their faith in public evangelism. Any man or woman who was entirely sanctified was ready to speak.^{2 (p59)}

The big question looming in the mind of Adventists and many other Christians on this topic was, how does one know when the Holy Spirit is working? Mrs White professed to have visions from God. Adventists demanded scriptural evidence that her manifestations and what she proclaimed were truly from God. James White spoke of men and women influenced by Methodist theology appearing:

“…in the Advent ranks who professed to be wonderfully led by the Holy Spirit… So wonderfully impressed to do this or that, and so directly taught by the Holy Spirit in relation to their entire duty, how could they err? The idea of mistakes on their part, in doctrine or in duty, was banished from them. Viewing themselves far in advance of their brethren, they were ready to teach even their teachers. And supposing themselves directly taught by the Holy Spirit, they were ready to reject the instructions and corrections of those who labored to help them.”^{32 (p142)}

Members of the Holiness movement professed to feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, which they believed was evidenced in physical manifestations, including ecstatic worship, loud preaching, shaking, crying, shouting and falling prostrate. But, questions the sceptic of holiness tradition, how can we trust our feelings and emotions if “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9)?” These sceptics want evidence that what we are thinking and feeling truly is from the Holy Spirit. How can anyone say they are perfectly holy if Scripture says that we deceive ourselves if we think we have no sin (1 Jn 1:8)? James White found fault with those who were teaching that holiness was necessary to enable people to stand when Jesus returns. He believed that because of “their false notions of entire consecration, they were in readiness for the torch of fanaticism.”^{32 (p143)}

Like Mrs Booth, Mrs White also strongly encouraged and supported women’s active involvement in gospel ministry, however, her reasoning for this differed from Mrs Booth. She did not adhere to holiness theology and a second baptism of the Holy Spirit for immediate spiritual empowerment. Instead, she believed that all believers receive spiritual guidance primarily through prayerful and methodical study of Scripture as the Holy Spirit leads them. By comparing Mrs White’s understanding of the role of women in ministry, we can better understand why she also differed from the Booths in her approach to music and worship. The strong association between women preachers and revivalistic methods in the 1800s is tied to the way Scripture was interpreted and applied. As she describes the different roles of men and women in the Bible, Mrs White remains firmly embedded in Scripture.

Traditionally, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has supported women preachers but has rejected the ordination of women. However, there is growing support for ordination of women, including amongst academic theologians. There are two passages in the Bible which, on their own, strongly suggest that women cannot preach or teach in church:

“I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach… Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:8-3:2, 3:8-13)

“How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.” (1 Cor 14:26-35)

The Role of Women in the Home

In this chapter, we will compare Mrs Booth’s understanding of the role of women in the home with that of Mrs White’s and in a later chapter we will compare their understanding of the role of women in church. According to Mrs White, before the fall, man and woman were equal: “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.”^{132 (p484)} Even after the fall, this did not change according to Mrs White – fallen men and women are still equal: “The wife is to stand by the side of the husband as his equal, sharing all the responsibilities of life, rendering due respect to him who has selected her for his lifelong companion.”^{44 (p214)} Therefore, both before the fall and after, Mrs White regarded men and women as equal.

Apparently, by equal, she did not mean identical. On many occasions, she describes the distinct roles of men and women. She explains the distinctness of man and woman prior to the fall: “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.”^{133 (p99)} The man had strength that exceeded that of the woman so that he could be her ‘strong helper.’ Pr. Jim Howard of the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church describes characteristics that he believes signify the leadership role of Adam before the fall:

“Adam always seemed to be given the ultimate responsibility for the fall even though Eve sinned first. In the first few chapters of Genesis, we discover that God created Adam first, a point that Paul will later reference when he talks about leadership roles in the church in 1 Timothy 2. We discover that God came to Adam first after eating of the fruit even though Eve was the first to eat it. And also, the man is the one referenced as leaving father and mother and being joined to his wife. Then, in the New Testament, when you go to Romans chapter 5 and verse 12 Paul says that sin entered into the world through one man Adam which would be a very strange thing to say if Adam didn’t have leadership responsibility in Eden since again it was Eve and not Adam who was the first to eat the fruit.”^{134 (12:23)}

Mrs White describes how, before the fall, God designed in Eden for the father to be priest of the family:

“The Sabbath and the family were alike instituted in Eden, and in God’s purpose they are indissolubly linked together. On this day more than on any other, it is possible for us to live the life of Eden. It was God’s plan for the members of the family to be associated in work and study, in worship and recreation, the father as priest of his household, and both father and mother as teachers and companions of their children.”^{135 (p250)}

Mrs White clearly saw a distinction between the role of men and women before the fall. She was to be a ‘helpmeet’ for him and he was to be her ‘strong helper.’ The father was to be the priest of the family and the father and mother were both to be teachers of their children. Paul also seems to affirm that there is a distinction in roles between men and women before the fall:

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Tim 2:11-15)

He appears to link the authority of men over women to the divine order at creation. However, Mrs Booth disagrees. She interprets Scripture a bit more loosely. She said of the Genesis narrative of pre-fall Adam and Eve that there “is not the semblance of inferiority or subjection.”^{136 (p5)} She did not believe that there was any significance in God creating Adam first or that God came to Adam first after eating the fruit. Neither did she think it was significant that Paul understood that sin entered into the world through one man, Adam (Rom 5:12). She denied the universal applicability of Paul’s statement and, instead, concluded that “Prior to the fall… the human pair were equal in nature, position, and jurisdiction.”^{136 (p5)} In other words, unlike Mrs White, Mrs Booth believed that men and women were equal in all areas, including roles, before the fall. Not all Seventh-day Adventists stick to the traditional Adventist view. Rather, some Adventist scholars and theologians agree with Mrs Booth on this point. Referring to the pre-fall narrative of Genesis, Richard M. Davidson, Senior Research Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at Andrews University argues similarly to Mrs Booth:

“This basic passage gives no hint of a divine creation order. Here man and woman are fully equal, with no subordination of one to the other. We find that this description of the relationship between man and woman holds throughout Scripture and beyond.”¹³⁷

Interestingly, as illustrated in this example, Adventist scholars who are in favour of ordination of women, such as Richard Davidson, use many of the same arguments that Mrs Booth used in her article, Female Teaching. Not that Mrs White disagreed with every point either. After all, Mrs White was also in favour of women preachers. However, when their views are laid side by side, there is a clear distinction.

Though they disagree on roles of men and women prior to the fall, Mrs Booth and Mrs White both agree that, after the fall, the wife was subject to the husband. Likewise, Paul seems to indicate that the fall had something to do with the woman’s submission to man:

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Tim 2:11-15)

Also, in Ephesians, Paul clearly sets out the divine order in marriage:

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” (Eph 5:22-33)

Quoting from this passage (Eph 5:23), holding to a traditional interpretation of Scripture, Mrs White affirms the authority of husbands:

“’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,’ or church. Christ’s rule is one of wisdom and love, and when husbands fulfill their obligations to their wives, they will use their authority with the same tenderness as Christ uses toward the church. When the Spirit of Christ controls the husband, the wife’s subjection will only result in rest and benefit, for he will require from her only that which will result in good, and in the same way that Christ requires submission from the church.”^{138 (p207)}

Though the husband may be superior in physical strength and in authority as head of his wife, Mrs White affirms that the wife is superior in her peculiar roles. For example, she says: “the distinctive duties of woman are more sacred, more holy, than those of man.” “The king upon his throne,” she says, “has no higher work than has the mother.” The wife is superior in her roles and the husband is superior in his. She said the wife should stand “faithful at her post of duty and he at his.” She affirms that man is head of the wife and priest of the family, but also that “The mother is the queen of the home, and the children are her subjects. She is to rule her household wisely, in the dignity of her motherhood. Her influence in the home is to be paramount; her word, law. If she is a Christian, under God’s control, she will command the respect of her children.”^{133 (p231-232)}

What is more, Mrs White affirms that the wife is, ultimately, answerable to the Lord: “The Lord would have the wife render respect unto her husband, but always as it is fit in the Lord.”^{44 (p213)} There is no room for a domineering attitude in this relationship. The husband’s authority is very much constrained by love and by the character of Christ living in Him and the wife has no duty to her husband when he is acting contrary to Christ. Mrs Booth agrees: “Even in her present state of subjection as a wife, she is only allowed to submit to her own husband ‘as it is fit in the Lord;’ her own enlightened conscience being left arbiter of that fitness.”^{136 (p6)}

As an illustration, Mrs White describes the story of Abigail and how she recognised the foolish course that her husband, Nabal, was following. She chose to act without the counsel of her husband (1 Sam 25:19) and God apparently approved of her actions. A husband can only faithfully ‘stand at his post’ when he is in Christ:

“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.”^{133 (p117)}

By contrast, when a man and woman are in harmony with Christ, they will be at one with each other, accepting each one’s unique roles. Men are not to have a Nabal-like spirit (1 Sam 25:17) but rather, referring to Ephesians 5:28-33, Mrs White describes how men ought to love their wives:

“’…Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.’ How could there be unhappy families if all were doers of the Word and not hearers only? The Lord does not require that which is impossible, but all are to live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, and those who do this will honor their Redeemer in their married life.”^{44 (p217)}

Sadly, husbands and wives do not always recognise the godly wisdom and superior God-given abilities of the other and, therefore, they seek their own way, as described by Mrs White:

“In the married life, men and women sometimes act like undisciplined, perverse children. The husband wants his way, and the wife wants her way, and neither is willing to yield. Such a condition of things can bring only the greatest unhappiness. Both husband and wife should be willing to yield his or her way or opinion. There is no possibility of happiness while they both persist in doing as they please.”^{133 (p118)}

The serpent promised Eve that she would be like God if she ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:5). Because she desired something that was not hers, she lost her equality with Adam and he ruled over her, as described by Mrs White: “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.”^{132 (p484)} Therefore, Mrs White believed that it was because of sin that man came to dominate the woman. It was part of the curse. But it does not have to be this way in the life of the Christian. Just because man came to lord it over the woman because of sin, does not make it right. Even after the fall, Mrs White says, fallen men and women are equal: “The wife is to stand by the side of the husband as his equal, sharing all the responsibilities of life.”^{44 (p214)}

Ever since the fall, men and women have continued to covet things that do not belong to them:

“A neglect on the part of woman to follow God’s plan in her creation, an effort to reach for important positions which He has not qualified her to fill, leaves vacant the position that she could fill to acceptance. In getting out of her sphere, she loses true womanly dignity and nobility.”

In other words, Mrs White is saying that when a woman attempts to be something she was not created by God to be, she fails to fulfil her God-given role. She went on to say that “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.”^{132 (p484)} That is to say, they were to work united for the same purpose but each having a different way to achieve that purpose.

The Booths agree that the head of the home is the husband. In his chapter on Love, Marriage and Home, speaking of married couples, General Booth said:

“If, therefore, there is to be harmony between them they must agree, in such differences, to accept the decision of one as the decision of both. In this case, the law of Scripture and of usage, and of common instinct points to the husband as having that responsibility as the head of the household.”^{139 (p120)}

Mrs Booth said, “We believe also that the order of God ought to be strictly maintained.”^{130 (p52)} However, for Mrs Booth, the distinction in roles between men and women was nominal – kind of emblematic only. In reality, she saw very little distinction in their roles. Norman H. Murdoch, Professor of History at the University of Cincinnati, says that for Catherine, “A Christian husband’s love for his wife… nullifies all but the ‘outward semblance of her curse.’”^{140 (p351)}

In contrast to Mrs Booth, Mrs White still held firmly to the traditional Biblical view of the mother’s role in the home, which she reiterated many times over in her writings. Paul seems to affirm that the primary role of the wife is in raising a family:

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Tim 2:11-15)

Mrs White said, “Amid all the activities of life, the mother’s most sacred duty is to her children.” Her writings greatly elevate the mother’s role in raising children:

“Could the veil be withdrawn and father and mother see as God sees the work of the day, and see how His infinite eye compares the work of the one with that of the other, they would be astonished at the heavenly revelation. The father would view his labors in a more modest light, while the mother would have new courage and energy to pursue her labor with wisdom, perseverance, and patience.”^{133 (p233-4)}

Of mothers, Mrs White says:

“The first work essential to be done is in the home circle. Those who do not have a disposition to deny self, to humble self, to be yielding and submissive, even as a little child, are not in sympathy with Christ and do not know Him by an experimental knowledge.”^{44 (p217)}

Therefore, Mrs White sees the mother’s role in her domestic duties as equally esteemed as the husband’s role in his distinctive duties – in that sense, they are equal. Though their roles are different, they are of equal importance.

The Booths, on the other hand, depreciated the domestic role of women as unjustly restrictive while they elevated the traditional male role. For example, General Booth spoke out against ‘injustice’ to officer’s wives, as follows:

“Many Officers have wives, who, before marriage, managed and captained Corps quite as effectively, or even more so, than their husbands have done, or even will do, and yet these Officers relegate their wives to little more than the discharge of their household duties.”^{140 (p358)}

Likewise, the Adventist scholar, Richard Davidson of Andrews University, instead of elevating the domestic role of women as Mrs White did, he agrees with Mrs Booth in seeing the distinctive roles of women in the Bible as social inequalities which God is working to eliminate.^{137 (p2-3)}

In summary, Mrs White sticks more tightly to a literal interpretation of Scripture and traditional roles. She believed that, though men and women were equal before the fall and after they fell, they have always had distinctive roles. For example, men were to be priests of the home prior to the fall and husbands head of the wife after the fall. Mrs White also highly esteems the domestic role of women as their most important duty to God. Mrs Booth, on the other hand, interprets Scripture more loosely. She believed that men and women were equal in every aspect prior to the fall – including in ‘nature, position, and jurisdiction,’ though it is not stated in Scripture. Though she recognised that man is head of the wife after the fall, she saw it as a nominal role and she denigrated the domestic duties of women as inferior to men’s traditional roles. However, the really big controversy lies, not so much with roles in the home but with roles in the church. We will compare their views on this topic in a later chapter.

William and Catherine’s marriage is an inspirational love story and an example of what can be achieved when a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, becoming one flesh (Gen 2:24). Throughout their whole life together, they were one in mind and purpose, living in harmony in their mission to serve Christ. At the time of their engagement, Catherine wrote to William:

“The thought of walking through life perfectly united, together enjoying its sunshine and battling its storms, by softest sympathy sharing every smile and every tear, and with thorough unanimity performing all its momentous duties, is to me exquisite happiness; the highest earthly bliss I desire. And who can estimate the glory to God, and the benefit to man, accruing from a life spent in such harmonious effort to do His will? Such unions, alas, are so rare that we seldom see an exemplification of the divine idea of marriage.”^{14 (p30)}

In hindsight, the Booths certainly did exemplify this ideal in their marriage.

Before going on to the next chapter, lest you feel discouraged about the imperfections in your own relationships, it is important to add here that neither the Booths nor the Whites had flawless marriages or families. Neither Mrs Booth nor Mrs White lived up perfectly to the ideals they espoused when it came to marriage and child rearing, as we will touch on throughout the book. Catherine and William Booths’ frequent absence from the family due to ministry commitments, combined with character traits they exemplified and encouraged – independence, outspokenness, austerity, autocratic authority and control – eventually resulted in family division.^{14 (ch14,20)} Despite the rift in their family, all of their children grew up to have a deep Christian faith and a commitment to mission, which their parents instilled in them from an early age.^{14 (ch8)}

The Whites also experienced fragmentation in relationships at times. As an illustration of their humanness, the Whites’ second son, Edson, was not always a good son. In fact, he was quite the problem child. Because of their similar temperament, he often clashed with his father. Edson married young against his parents’ wishes. He had a good wife, but they felt he was not mature enough for marriage. Even into his thirties, piggybacking on his parents’ reputation, he would talk church members into investing in a business venture that would invariably fail, at which point he would skip town. He became a source of embarrassment for his family.¹⁴¹

This led to conflict between James and Ellen because they had different parenting styles. Ellen was more inclined to take a motherly approach and bail him out with the intent to educate him and help him mend his ways. James had a hardline approach and felt Edson should feel the full force of his mistakes. Sadly, James died having never reconciled with his son. Mrs White, on the other hand, never gave up on Edson, spending many years praying for him. He was in his 40s before he was finally converted. After that, he went on to do a tremendous work as a missionary in the South. Mrs White’s endurance and spiritual influence paid off in the end.¹⁴¹