Many Christian traditions think that the Bible should be our primary authority when it comes to gender norms. Men should lead and women should follow. Women should not be pastors. A husband should be the head of the family just as Christ is the head of the church.
Here's the difficulty: the Bible, even the New Testament, says things about gender that most conservative Christians won't even accept:
Consider this fairly uncomfortable passage from 1 Corinthians 11:
Notice that Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11 is theological, not cultural. Paul does not advocate head coverings because they were the practice of the day or because they had a particular social significance at the time. Women should wear head coverings because God is the head of man and man is the head of woman--a theological reality that presumably holds across all times and cultures.
To their credit, some traditions, like conservative Mennonites, are at least consistent. They follow everything that Paul says, both forbidding women from holding leadership positions and requiring them to wear head coverings.
Most of the rest of us find the whole idea of requiring women to wear head coverings as a sign of male authority to be repugnant. The challenge is finding a principled way to ignore what Paul says on this issue without also undermining the general reliability of his letters on other theological matters (the place of grace in salvation, say).
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.What should we make of this passage? There are any number of conservative Christian churches that do not allow women to be in leadership positions--supposedly, because of passages like 1 Corinthians 14. But the vast majority of Christian churches, including conservative churches, entirely ignore what I take to be Paul's clear teaching only three chapters earlier: women should wear head coverings at all times as a sign of authority and God's divine order.
Notice that Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11 is theological, not cultural. Paul does not advocate head coverings because they were the practice of the day or because they had a particular social significance at the time. Women should wear head coverings because God is the head of man and man is the head of woman--a theological reality that presumably holds across all times and cultures.
To their credit, some traditions, like conservative Mennonites, are at least consistent. They follow everything that Paul says, both forbidding women from holding leadership positions and requiring them to wear head coverings.
Most of the rest of us find the whole idea of requiring women to wear head coverings as a sign of male authority to be repugnant. The challenge is finding a principled way to ignore what Paul says on this issue without also undermining the general reliability of his letters on other theological matters (the place of grace in salvation, say).
If anyone has any brilliant ideas, feel free to post them.
13 comments:
Just found your post today and wanted to let you know that there are Christian women, from a broad spectrum of denominations who are recapturing the Headcovering practice. I blog on the subject. :)
You are completely correct in pointing out that the HC is a spiritual act. It is the only other physical item necessary for worship mentioned beyond bread, wine, water, and oil. Veil. The Greek word, Exousia, used to describe Power or symbol of authority in the English translation, is also used to describe a crown. Christian women are at once viewed as being in submission and also holding authority! How incredible is that?
Anyway, if you'd like to read more, I have lots of resources at my blog.
Peace,
Anna
http://veiledglory.wordpress.com
Are you asking why one and not the other?
-Mrs. Gillet
Yes, that's my main question. It seems as though someone who holds to inerrancy and agrees with Paul on women in leadership positions should also agree with Paul on head coverings.
I have just finished a rough draft on the headcovering that I am hoping to have published in our ladies newsletter at church.
I am posting it on our blog, even though it still needs some work, but feel free to check it out.
Paula
www.steveandpaularunyan.blogspot.com
Can I ask a question?
Why would you want to ignore commands in the Bible that are under the New Covenant?
As soon as you do that, you start on a slippery slope.
As you may have noticed, women are now allowed to teach in churches.
If the headcovering had been kept in practice, this would never have happened.
Another interesting tidbit, is that since the time that the headcovering practice was thrown out (around 50 years ago), the divorce rate among christians has skyrocketed. Christians are more likely to divorce then non Christians. 60% versus 50%.
Paula
Paula,
Thanks for the link to your blog. I read your article and I like what say about the symbolism of head coverings/lack of head coverings. Head coverings symbolize the fallen, but redeemed, glory of the human race rather than male authority. That's interesting and something that I had not heard before.
What do you think about this? Many find head coverings to be a stumbling block to accepting Christianity. Rightly or wrongly, most people see head coverings as a symbol of male domination rather than a spiritual symbol of our relation to God. I suspect that Paul might have been a pragmatist on this: if head coverings are a stumbling block in sharing the Gospel, then don't worry about them.
The key question (one that I'm still sorting out..) is "why think that every command in the New Testament is a command from God as opposed to simply the opinion of the early church?" I think that we meet our redeeming Lord and Savior in scripture, but I haven't yet found good reasons to think that every command in the NT is a command from God.
If you have any suggestions, let me know. =)
Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God?
Well, that's complicated question. I think that scripture is the Word of God, in the sense that in it we find his message condemning out sinfulness and offering us forgiveness.
But is every chapter and verse of the Bible, as we have it, inspired by God? I have yet to find good evidence that it is. Why do you believe that all of the Bible is inspired?
I'm sure that it is way more than you want to read on the topic, but I actually did a two part post on scripture and the Word of God a while back.
http://allpossibleworlds.blogspot.com/search/label/scripture
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
1 Corinthians 2:13
These things we also speak, not in words which mans wisom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
2 Peter 1:20,21
Know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of god, spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
The reason I have quoted these verses, and not answered your other questions, is because unless you believe the Bible is Gods Word, and His alone, then I see no reason to try and discuss it with you.
I am not trying to be rude. Just sensible.
Paula,
Thanks for the scripture references.
It's important, I think, to be able to have conversations with those who don't think scripture is inspired. After all, the vast majority of unbelievers don't believe in scripture's authority. And if one is to obey the great commission, one has to be able to talk to these people.
Suppose that you're on a jury and that you're trying to assess the reliability of a witness. The defense lawyer points out that the witness says that everything he says is true, so therefore, you should believe that everything the witness says is true. But that doesn't work at all.
The same thing seems to be going on if we try to justify the reliability of scripture with scripture. It doesn't work because the argument is circular.
Here is where things start at. If you do not believe the Word of God is just that, The Word of God, than it is pointless to discuss what to believe in it.
The Bible does not contradict itself. You can verify it, by looking at the lives of the various writers.
You can verify it by looking at history. You will frequently hear (not on secular news) of new geological evidence proving that the Bible is not just a bunch of fairy tales.
Look at the evidence of the Flood all around us!
Even those that "believe" in evolution, would have to admit, that its not true. If it was, they would not need to worry about "global warming". We are so close to the Lord coming back, and we can see evidence of that all around us. The earth is dying, and it is part of God's plan.
Oops, bunny trails. Hope I have not gone to far off track :o)
Anyway, by discussion, I was refering to the headcovering and silence of women issue.
You cannot have one without the other.
Forgot to input my username. Sorry.
Post a Comment