First Corinthians 14: On women in worship
Paul, have you lost your mind?
After declaring that male and female are partners in Christ (11:11) and elsewhere that there is neither male nor female in Christ, Paul falls off the deep end in a comment that seems off the cuff and out of place.
Again within the context of worship, Paul addresses the women in the church, this time in the middle of his discussion on tongues and prophecy in worship. Apparently, the Corinthians are already struggling with order in worship (drunkness at the Lord's Supper, confusion of tongues and prophecy, and bitter divisions). Now, Paul takes on the women specifically. But why? His words have been used to alienate women from service and spiritual value in many cultures. Is this what Paul had in mind for the female who is a partner to the male? It could be that Paul is saying that women have a role to play as a partner, but it is as a silent partner. However, this is a hard teaching for me to understand or accept, especially in light of biblical examples where women play a large role in leadership of God's people--as prophets, leaders, communicators of the Gospel, and Christian examples.
Do we have any other choice here, though, than to accept the literal statement: women must remain silent?
How about these options: First of all, Paul may well be speaking specifically to the anarchy in the Corinthian church. He mentions women because of their spiritual significance in this pagan culture, and their tendency to speak in tongues in that culture for the purposes of the pagan gods and goddesses. So, Paul is calling on the Corinthian women to cease their old ways of living and listen to the Spirit of God. The one problem with this theory is that Paul says "as is the practice in all of our churches." While the issue maybe local, Paul states that silence in encouraged in all congregations. However, I imagine if things are done in order, Paul would be tolerant.
Secondly, Paul may be speaking of a formal meeting, like a business meeting, where the women must remain silent. Again, the context of the whole chapter is worship, and it is hard to see this verse outside of the worshp context.
Thirdly, maybe the silence pertains only to tongues, and not to worship or prophecy. This would make sense in light of Christian prophetesses and other Christian female leaders in the New Testament. However, one must still deal with the issue of "speaking" in general, and learning also.
Fourthly, what we have here is a Jewish model for synagogue and Christian worship, where women and men would sit separately in the worship environment. This model, while appropriate for the First Century, may not apply to today's Gentile cultures. Thus, the command is mute and of no real value, other than to emphasize the need for male and female to worship in order. Note: Within the context of Paul's comments in chs 11-12, this model is valuable for order, sexual purity, learning/teaching, and focus on God.
While this logic may be satisfying, it also is a slippery slope that has been applied from everything to slavery, adultery, and homosexuality. There must be more justification than just "it is not our culture today, and thus is of no value."
Personally, I think options 1, 3, and 4 all have merit in this discussion. Yes, the culture has changed, but I also think that Paul went to extremes in his discussion because of the extremes in Corinth. Ultimately, as long as order is preserved, and the Gospel communicated, then I think male or female is justified in worship through prophecy, preaching, and teaching--since there is neither male nor female in Christ. It may not be the Jewish ideal, but we are no longer under the law (as long as we are orderly), but under the law of grace.
Let each one interpret this as God's gives them faith.
After declaring that male and female are partners in Christ (11:11) and elsewhere that there is neither male nor female in Christ, Paul falls off the deep end in a comment that seems off the cuff and out of place.
Again within the context of worship, Paul addresses the women in the church, this time in the middle of his discussion on tongues and prophecy in worship. Apparently, the Corinthians are already struggling with order in worship (drunkness at the Lord's Supper, confusion of tongues and prophecy, and bitter divisions). Now, Paul takes on the women specifically. But why? His words have been used to alienate women from service and spiritual value in many cultures. Is this what Paul had in mind for the female who is a partner to the male? It could be that Paul is saying that women have a role to play as a partner, but it is as a silent partner. However, this is a hard teaching for me to understand or accept, especially in light of biblical examples where women play a large role in leadership of God's people--as prophets, leaders, communicators of the Gospel, and Christian examples.
Do we have any other choice here, though, than to accept the literal statement: women must remain silent?
How about these options: First of all, Paul may well be speaking specifically to the anarchy in the Corinthian church. He mentions women because of their spiritual significance in this pagan culture, and their tendency to speak in tongues in that culture for the purposes of the pagan gods and goddesses. So, Paul is calling on the Corinthian women to cease their old ways of living and listen to the Spirit of God. The one problem with this theory is that Paul says "as is the practice in all of our churches." While the issue maybe local, Paul states that silence in encouraged in all congregations. However, I imagine if things are done in order, Paul would be tolerant.
Secondly, Paul may be speaking of a formal meeting, like a business meeting, where the women must remain silent. Again, the context of the whole chapter is worship, and it is hard to see this verse outside of the worshp context.
Thirdly, maybe the silence pertains only to tongues, and not to worship or prophecy. This would make sense in light of Christian prophetesses and other Christian female leaders in the New Testament. However, one must still deal with the issue of "speaking" in general, and learning also.
Fourthly, what we have here is a Jewish model for synagogue and Christian worship, where women and men would sit separately in the worship environment. This model, while appropriate for the First Century, may not apply to today's Gentile cultures. Thus, the command is mute and of no real value, other than to emphasize the need for male and female to worship in order. Note: Within the context of Paul's comments in chs 11-12, this model is valuable for order, sexual purity, learning/teaching, and focus on God.
While this logic may be satisfying, it also is a slippery slope that has been applied from everything to slavery, adultery, and homosexuality. There must be more justification than just "it is not our culture today, and thus is of no value."
Personally, I think options 1, 3, and 4 all have merit in this discussion. Yes, the culture has changed, but I also think that Paul went to extremes in his discussion because of the extremes in Corinth. Ultimately, as long as order is preserved, and the Gospel communicated, then I think male or female is justified in worship through prophecy, preaching, and teaching--since there is neither male nor female in Christ. It may not be the Jewish ideal, but we are no longer under the law (as long as we are orderly), but under the law of grace.
Let each one interpret this as God's gives them faith.
Labels: First Corinthians, women, worship
posted by Randy Rogers at
11:04 AM
3 Comments:
I find myself thinking I am repeating myself here, but I do like to apply the Bible directly, logically and personally. But when that is done with this passage it is easy to develop an argument with which others will impale the advocate with the flag of chauvinism.
So taking care early on to mention that I am one who believes everybody has every right that anyone else has and the responsibility which preambles or follows those rights. Noting the great strides civilization has made in the balance of equity between the sexes, I find myself asking quite often of generally no one in particular, Would women have come as far as they have without more than the acquiessence of men to their call for rights, but yea the promulsion by men of the actualization of those rights. This would seem to be an enactment of an analogy for the humbling by God of those he holds dear along with His desire to incorparate our minds bodies hearts and souls into His plan. Which I see as the raising of the bottom to the apparent lowering of the top. Thus a physical law--when some are raised others are APPARENTALLY equally lowered.
I am not sure that I see it at all as a loss to my status that women have been raised up in our era, but on the other hand it may be that jobs are scarcer because there are more job applicants.
I am not sure that they have actually been raised to higher station, because now they are often required to be exposed to risks and conditions heretofore thought as BENEATH their station as mothers and nurturers of the future.
I believe that the industrial revolution has skewed the modern and post-modern view of role enactment for the genders by changing the time and timing of husband and wife interactions in the daily life of the family and by changing the very character, or perhaps nature, of living standard or tradition by displacing at first the male, and now more and more the female, away from the home.
So with our new vision of who we are as members of an evolving role pool defined less and less by gender, we are reluctant to wear Paul's robe because we as males do not know much anymore, since the early twentieth century, about how to sew, and women don't know so much about how to keep silent because there hasn't been a man around the house since the late nineteenth century to scold them for talking too much...ah oh. I mean since Lucille Ball and Dale Evans appeared onscreen.
'Beam me up Scotty! I see a storm brewing on the horizon.'
RobeFRe
makes me want to start my own blog...
RobeFRe,
Your points are well taken. It is difficult, living in an age where technology can be such a blessing, to think of where we would be without these advances. So, we in America enjoy great health care (compared to everyone else), hygiene, wealth, and comfort. And yet, physically, emotionally, socially, spiritually, (and any other -lly you can think of) we still know suffering and imperfection. We can always ask, "What if we returned to a simpler time when we had fewer decisions to make?" That is the same time where infant moratlity rates were high, where illness and disease could kill at any moment, water was not always fit to drink, etc. So, we have not improved as much as we have traded off. Our culture gives us hope--that someday we will overcome all of these things. Yet one constant remains: sin. So, even if we make advances socially, we still have an amazing ability to screw it up.
I find it hard to argue that we need to return to an age where choice and freedom were not a part of the equation. However, freedom is not the only answer. Freedom still leads to wrong choices. The Freedom to choose correctly is more important the freedom itself.
This is Paul's Gospel message to the Corinthians: be free in Christ.
So, did Paul think that women were unable to choose properly? Perhaps he did, as the majority of males in his day. However, I find that women have the same ability to choose as men do. And in Christ, we all are capable of choosing rightly. So, give everyone, male or female, freedom to choose in Christ. Anyone who tries to control this freedom by denying it to another will find themselves fighting the wrong battles. Even if gender roles change, we need to adapt and fight for the Gospel.
All this comes from a guy who has been married once, for 16 years, and is currently the only one gainfully employed in his family. My wife has not held a full-time job in 12 years. And she loves it. And I kinda like it too!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home