Oh-K! Wow. As I read our 1 Corinthians passage for myself today, it seemed to state clearly that women are to cover their heads. I don't believe I've ever really contemplated this passage before, probably just glossing over it, thinking "No one I know ever covers their head, so this must no longer be applicable."
But wait... no longer applicable? There is nothing in the Bible, to my knowledge, that is no longer applicable. Is there? The only reason we no longer have to make animal sacrifices and so on as they did in the Old Testament is because Jesus' blood fulfilled that requirement in perpetuity, not because it is no longer necessary. So here, in the early church founded on the gospel of Christ, head covering is required. Why not now? Is it because women in our culture no longer cover their heads and so, as part of our culture, we don't either? I'm not sure what to make of this.
I'm thinking back to my childhood and realizing that the ladies in the Mennonite church we attended at the time DID cover their heads in a manner of speaking, if recollection serves. I know my grandmother, at least, wore a kind of netted thing like a decorative hairnet that had some flowers on it. I don't think she does so anymore, but why not? And why did she wear it then? Because even though they lived in Canada, with North American culture, they were observing a Mennonite tradition? If so, why has it changed? Because the Mennonite "culture," if you want to call it that, has become assimilated? Sorry I'm asking so many questions. This is all new to me.
I looked up a study by Bob Deffinbaugh (1 Corinthians 11:1-16 - It's Issues & Implications) on www.bible.org and his feeling on the passage is that a woman should have her head covered, demonstrating submission to male leadership and ultimately to God.
To sum up verses 1-16, Paul is instructing women to cover their heads in order to demonstrate to the angels and celestial powers their submission to God’s appointed authority. Paul does not present head coverings as a matter of his opinion, but as an apostolic tradition. He does not describe this as a matter of Christian liberty, or as a personal conviction, but as a matter of obedience. (“Let her cover her head” in verse 6 is an imperative, buttressed by the “ought” of verse 10.) Paul mentions no other alternative symbol nor does he imply there may be some other way to symbolize submission to male headship. He also speaks of the head covering of women as the consistent practice of every church and not just that of the Corinthian church. Anyone who would wish to debate with Paul over his teaching in these verses seeks to reject a tradition held and practiced in every church.
The assumption is often made that we must first understand the cultural setting of a particular passage before we can understand or apply it. Knowing the cultural background of any text is helpful, but it is not mandatory. If it is vitally important, the biblical text (in the context or elsewhere in the Bible) will supply what we have to know. If this were not so, we could have no confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture—that it contains all that is necessary for life and godliness (see 2 Peter 1:2-4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). It would also mean that some book, or books other than Scripture, are necessary for us to understand and apply the Word of God. Corinth appears not to have one given culture; rather Corinth was a cosmopolitan city with a wide diversity of cultures. In 1 Corinthians 1:1-2, 4:14-17, 11:16, and 14:33-34, Paul indicates that his teaching in this epistle is for every Christian in every culture. These truths are not culture-bound; thus, we need not know all we might wish to know about the cultural setting in Corinth.
He quotes a lot of the questions that I found myself asking and provides answers according to scripture, if you'd like to read up on it further.
I agree with almost everything John Macarthur says in The Subordination and Equality of Women. But then, taking two exerpts from the same sermon:
Earlier in the message, he is talking about having women as pastors, which he opposes, and he says:
This desire to force into leadership in the church women simply because this is what's happening. The church wants to accommodate itself to society.
These books are coming out, written by women and in some cases by men, saying that whenever the Bible says this, it's either cultural, it's either Paul repeating his opinion, it isn't inspired by God, or we're misinterpreting it.
Those who listen to such writers are going to be confused. You're going to have to come up with the same conclusion that they do. In every case, they ultimately have to say, "Not all of what Paul said is the revelation of God. Some of it was his own opinion, and when he gave it, he was wrong."
Later, as pertains to the covering of the head, he says:
What it amounted to was this: In the society in Corinth, women who were proper, women who were modest, women who wanted to make a statement publicly and visibly about their submission to their husbands, women who were feminine, women who were genteel and wanted to take the role that was assigned to them in their society wore a veil as a symbol of their submission. That was the symbol--to be veiled.
Remember, dress is very cultural. We have to keep it in mind. What is proper in once place is not proper in another place, and you've got to make some adjustments. The principle here is that women should conform in matters of dress to that which society says is the mark of a modest, submissive woman.
Which is it? We are NOT to conform to society in the case of a woman's role in the church, but when it comes to standards of dress, we ARE to conform to society? Not to say that style of dress is of equal importance to the role of women in the church, but where do we draw the line?
So, having said all this, do I think women should cover their heads? I lean towards no. I understand the reasonings of both of the studies/sermons above, but in the end, I also think that whether or not one wears a head covering is not a vital issue overall. Your faith, your prayers, and your submission in spirit are all as apparent to God as your head covering would be. Your submission or lack thereof is certainly apparent to your husband. A head covering in the 21st century wouldn't indicate submission to the general public, although it might set you apart, which isn't a bad thing. As Christians, we are not to conform to the world.
I like a couple of the last paragraph's of Bob's study:
I urge you not to confuse form with function. To merely place a covering upon one’s head does not make one submissive. I have observed some very unsubmissive women who would not think of going to church without their head coverings. The scribes and Pharisees had an obsession about keeping certain forms, but in function they completely missed the point of the Law. These discrepancies between form and function, between practice and principle, were a major bone of contention between the religious leaders of Israel and our Lord Jesus. May I add that they were meticulous about crucifying Jesus according to the rules (cf. Matthew 26:57-66, 27:3-6; John 18:31-32), but it was a sinful and damnable act (cf. Acts 2:23).
I also ask you not to make head covering the touchstone of submission and spirituality. It is so easy for the one who believes head covering is a biblical requirement to pass judgment on the submissiveness of a woman solely on the basis of whether or not she has a covering on her head. No external act, no matter how meritorious, is proof of one’s spirituality. Neither is the absence of a head covering proof that a woman is unsubmissive. While we might desire to be made (or at least considered) spiritual by the observance of some specific practice such as head covering, the spiritual life is simply not like that. Many godly women may cover their heads as an act of submission; many submissive wives may not do so, convinced that it is not required or even beneficial. In and of itself, head covering, or the absence of it, will not determine and may not reflect one’s spiritual state.158
(emphasis mine)
Have a great weekend!
Have a great weekend!
Tomorrow's passage: Psalm 73; Psalm 85; 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.
7 comments:
I think there's a different MacArthur sermon in which he explains it much more clearly, but I can't find it at the moment.
My understanding is that Paul is encouraging women to want to be feminine. All eras and cultures have differing standards of what that looks like and while our current North American view of femininity is getting muddier by the minute, there are still some generally adhered-to ideas.
Like long hair. Yes, there are some men who grow their hair long (like all our favourite 80's rockers!), but let's face it, that's a style usually associated with women.
Or skirts and dresses ~ they just look WRONG on men!! This is a popular and widely accepted fashion that is virtually NEVER associated with men. (I know, I know ~ you have to make an exception for kilts, but that's a historical cultural symbol, not a defining masculine/feminine thing!)
Those are just the first two examples I can think of. Nail polish might be another one. And this is not to say that women MUST have long hair and always wear dresses and have manicured fingernails either, but Paul is encouraging women to look decidedly feminine and men to look decidedly masculine, however their cultures and societies define it.
Because God has a purpose for creating gender, it's something we need to love about how we've been created. We shouldn't flaunt our female-ness or brazenly show off the parts that are supposed to be covered, but we should love it and enjoy being feminine because that's one way we can show our submission to God's plan.
I agree that we should love how we've been created and enjoy being feminine, however, I don't think that's all Paul was talking about here. He talks about women and men being different and a woman's long hair being her glory but a disgrace for a man in the context of masculine and feminine standards of dress at the time, however if we're looking at the entire passage, the whole thing has to do with submission to male leadership and to God. Both MacArthur and Deffinbaugh were in agreement on that as well, even though they differed in interpretation of whether a woman should cover her head in this day and age.
Okay, now I'm just embarrassed. I guess this is the point where I sheepishly admit I skimmed this post early this morning and only the "hobby horse" phrases popped out at me while the rest faded into oblivion!
Clearly, I should have read it through ~ from beginning to end ~ more carefully!! Sorry.
PS. Thank you for your thoughts and the time you put into this post and your response!!!
I honestly don't know if I have read this passage before. I thought many of your initial comments too and I really liked the parts you included from your research into it. My grandma, and Conrad's too, always covered their heads but I never questioned why. I just chalked it up to something old women did. :) I don't know what I think about head covering today, but only that it might come with it an aura of "I'm holier than you and so I cover my head" ...or maybe not.
Thanks, ladies. I'm sorry it got so long, but both were good and reasonable arguments, so I didn't feel I could just pick the one that suited me best.
Post a Comment