johnsonshan wrote:Hello everyone!
I had a question about the passage in the bible that talks about women wearing head coverings and such (I'm sure you're all familiar with it).
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... 11&t=NIV#5These verses are often referenced in pro-gay theology and are used to show that because of their cultural attachment, we are no longer subject to it...i.e. wearing or not wearing head coverings during prayer/exclusion of gay people from church life, leadership, and marriage is subjective to culture. That's a really simple explanation, but I just want to get the general subject out there.
I tend to agree with this line of reasoning. However, I have some trouble chalking up the verse...
"For this reason,
and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (1 Cr 11:10),
...to culture.
Let's look at this passage in a greater context...
1 Corinthians 11:3-16 wrote:But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. [5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. [6] For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. [7] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. [8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. [9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. [10] For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. [11] Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. [12] For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. [13] Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? [14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. [16] But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
It's a long quotation, I know, but it's important to examine the greater context t o get the right interpretation and application.
1)
The head of the woman is the man... (v. 3) Does this not ring as cultural, dependent upon the people living in a patriarchal society? Go back to the garden of Eden. Eve was not pronounced as subordinate to Adam until
after the Fall. God's
intent was that they would be equal, and, in fact, that's how He views us (
Gal. 3:28). So then, the head of the woman is not the man in 2010. The head of the woman, just like the head of the man, is Christ. A woman does not need a man in her life in order to br brought under authority and have a covering. But, 2000 years ago, she did, because she had few legal and social rights without that covering.
2)
...dishonoreth her head... as if she were shaven... (v. 5) This is to say that it is dishonorable for a woman's head to be shaved, yet today, many women have short or no hair. A legalistic approach to Scripture would require all women to have long hair, even though our society no longer views hair lengths as having anything to say about the woman's character.
Note that the Greek word for "dishonoreth" is
kataischuno, and means to disgrace or make ashamed. This word is, by its very nature, culturally subjective. What disgraces someone in ancient Japanese culture, or ancient Native American culture, is completely different than what would have disgraced them in Ancient Greco-Roman culture, or in many modern cultures. Consider many Arab countries, where a woman not being fully covered (with a burqa) is disgraceful
there, but not in Western nations.
3)
...nature itself teach[es] you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him... (v. 14) Let's look back at the ancient cultures. A thousand years
before Paul wrote this, there was a sect called the Nazarites, in which the men never shaved their head. They were an honored sect, and the hero Samson was one of them. If long hair on a man was, by nature, wrong, why would God put Samson's strength in his long hair? That would be like God putting the source of one's blessing or anointing in their sin--like my being anointed only when I'm fornicating or cussing. Such a notion is contrary to God's nature, proving that from the divine perspective, no such mores exist. They are subject to the society in which a person lives.
Even contemporaneously with Paul statement, it was
honorable for Japanese men, as well as Native American men, to have long hair. Are we to believe that Paul's words were an indictment against them, especially considering that Paul didn't have these other cultures anywhere in his mind when writing this? Again, look at the Nazarites, which were a sect of Paul's own people--the Hebrews--yet they were an honored group a thousand years before.
Yet, Paul appealed to a seemingly transcultural justification for his teaching--nature. We can, then, only draw one sound conclusion. Even though a transcultural justification was used, it was only used in validation of a
cultural point. The point itself doesn't become transcultural; despite the fact that a transcultural supporting argument is used.
Let's build on this with my next point...
1Timothy 2:9-14 wrote:In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; [10] But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. [11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Once again, Paul uses a transcultural justification for a cultural argument. Women are to adorn themselves
not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly clothing... because Adam was formed first,
then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but Eve was (vs. 13-14). This is certainly a transcultural justification, for it doesn't matter what society or time period you live in. It's a historical fact that Adam was formed first, and that Eve was deceived. Still, I bet that even the girls you know who pray with their head covered probably have gold earrings, or sometimes wear their hair braided (or did when they were children). They probably own a dress that cost more than $40. Surely, they didn't buy a nice dress to wear to the prom, and wouldn't buy a nice wedding dress, because all of such things would be in violation of their not wearing costly attire.
And what about women's roles in the Church? Should they not be allowed to so much as ask a question in Bible class, seeing as they are commanded to "learn/be in silence"? Although a few fringe denominations still oppress women in this way, most have gotten the memo that these commands were based upon the social status of women during that time. They
must have been, otherwise Deborah never would have been a judge over Israel 800 years prior!
The point: The existence of a transcultural argument/justification does not make the point being validated any less culturally subjective. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that Paul was addressing particular people in a particular time living under particular social mores. He may have used various arguments to back up his points, but the points were still limited to the scope of that particular society.
4)
...we have no such custom... (v. 16). Paul clearly called this teaching a custom. He basically said, if anybody has a problem with it, let them know that our custom here is
different than theirs, so they need to just get with the program. Basically, it's a "when in Rome" situation--this was
their custom, so others were expected to follow it. Still, it was a custom, nonetheless, not a universal, divinely mandated practice. Note that in the same context in which Paul appealed to nature and to the angels, he still called this a "custom".
johnsonshan wrote:SO, even though I use the argument from culture to support my affirming/non-head covering position, looking back to 1 Corinthians, I'm finding it hard to prove it actually is cultural, mostly because of the business about the angels.
Paul's mention of the angels is almost certainly a reference back to the angels who sinned in the days of Noah, because they saw the beauty of the "daughters of men" and came down and married them. So, he's basically saying, "For their sakes, show that you have a covering (that you're already submitted to a man) and that you're not available, so that they won't be tempted." Although this is Paul's point, I certainly don't think that we need to take it as a solemn warning, that angels today would be tempted to have sex with human women. Even in Noah's day, it's not like a covered head would have prevented those rebellious angels from stepping outside of their proper domain. Once again, Paul is just using this statement as a way of backing up his teaching; but it, itself, should not be considered doctrinal or universal (transcultural).
I hope these considerations are helpful in addressing your concerns.
