First Corinthians 11:2-16: On Women in Worship
On women, long hair, and shaved heads: Paul calls on Christian women to keep long hair so that they might distinguish themselves from pagan female priests who would shave their heads as a sign of submission to the gods. For Paul, their idolatry and shaven heads went together and were unnatural. He called on Christian females to dress and behave in ways that separated them from their former ways of worship. Certainly Paul is arguing from a cultural perspective that is somewhat foreign to us, but I do not think Gentiles or Jews would necessarily debate his logic concerning the natural order of things. The hair in our cultrue does not play as crucial a role in determining spiritual connections or convictions. So, while some would say that Paul's words are a command to all woman, most in the Baptist tradition would argue that as long as the actions and dress of the woman (or any of us, for that matter) do not detract from the worship of the Lord, then we are following the directives of Paul and of Scripture.
Labels: First Corinthians, women, worship
posted by Randy Rogers at
11:15 AM
7 Comments:
Randy,
I seem to recall that in Acts, Paul, returning to Jerusalem from a missionary journey, had shorn his hair due to some (Nazarene?) oath or somesuch he had made to God.
It would also be expedient for Corinthians to actuate behaviours that would help them to relate to Jewish Christians there that they might get more counsel from some who might be repelled by the active and oddly coiffed woman in public meetings.
The natural order of things could be that man as complete was lonely, or at least noticeably alone. When God made woman He made her by taking a rib from man, and it does not say that she was incomplete,(should we assume then that she is?) nor that the removed rib regenerated in Adam. Furthermore, under the microscope, the difference in men and women chromosomally is a missing rib(leg) on the part of men in the XY chromosome pair which in reality women have but also the missing leg(rib) which gives them, then, the XX pairing. So while women appear to be less complete by virtue of a missing letter, they may in reality be more complete with eight legs(yeesh).
Today, with the new 'Gladiators', it is obvious that men generally, though not in every comparison, have some advantage in things of a physical nature(dead lift, foot speed, size). Yet, recently, (within the last two hundred years) with the improvement in child bearing practices along with other developments, women have surpassed men in terms of the longevity of life, and probalbly since Cain been more adept at asimmilating greater pain than men can or will. I have personally noticed out my front door and at the walking park, women are often faster walkers over distance(remember men do not like to lose).
Now I was trying to be brief so I will stop.
thank you Randy for taking the time to post your Bible observations.
RFR
Robefre,
Your point about relating to Jewish Christians is a point well taken; although I find it ironic, in light of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15, Galatians 1-2) that Paul would cater to Jewish cultural opinion, especially in Corinth.
I use the term "incomplete" only because woman was made as a helper--implying that Adam, by himself was insufficient.
Your observation that women have become "Stronger" in recent history is interesting, although I do not see much of a connection to the Biblical argument. The point of Paul is not which sex is stronger or more likely to live longer. Paul's point is that God established an order, regardless of physical strength. The order is divine because of sovereignty. We should not argue value for men or women based on God's order. Both are valuable because God saw fit to make both of them, with unique roles to fill.
Randy,
I guess that one aspect of the reasoning I presented is that it is still a risk to women to go alone into public, there are still men who would so dominate women as to effect an abuse of them, and so after all this time the natural order of things may be to bring about some social equilibrium through a spiritual, physical and vocational evolution. Not that the husband is not the head of the house and the leader of the wife.
RFR
I agree with you that some men would dominate women, and the corruption of God's original intent is that humans desire to rule over one another.
I wish that no one used these verse to justify their own abuse of another human being. I know, though, that this had happened and is happening.
I also have to admit that my generation and culture is afraid to say that the husband is the head of the wife, primarily because we don't want to be seen as sexist or abusive. I don't know how to restore the honor of Paul's statement of logic.
Randy
It seems to me that if we emulate Christ and His example in our relationship with our wives, what we do is sacrifice ourselves for them that they might be free. I find that hard as I might try in some areas, in other areas and even the ones where I am trying, I fail as much or more than I succeed, so, that whether or not that is sinful, I find myself dependant upon God to provide.
I am no Menonite nor Quaker but I do see an attraction for simpler lifestyle. I wonder what roles other than man as breadwinner and woman as childbearer is allowed.
No neither do I see that God's order establishes or defines value, it is rather His attention to our need after we have exhibited our deficit that reveals our value.
I think there would be alot more monastic living if men tried to be the head of women in the way it is taken, as you say, to rationalize abuse. To repeat myself, if a man sacrifices himself to provide for his wife then it seems the potential for harmony is good to better if wife is not broad headed. But I still see the Proverbs as an excellent source of how to approach wife's ego--the feminine helping side is the wiser course, and as such has many unique perspectives and good advice to give.
forgive me If I aint John Wayne enough!
RFR
I do not know where this translation comes from but it seems a bit more palatable for today and yet it places Paul, opr leaves hem there, in the position of having stated thatr dress and fashion are of sginifacance.
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering (of hair) on her head dishonors her head—she is just like one of the "shorn women." 6 If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair
rfr
Dress is important in the context of worship because it can make a statement about who or what you worship. Remember, 1st century culture did not separate secular from spiritual. Everything had a social and spiritual implication. So, even if clothing is significant, it is so because of what it says about the individual and their spiritual preferences. It is not just a simple statement about clothing. However, I do not think Paul's words are a simple statement about male domination. There is nothing simple about them.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home