Today's scripture reading on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 brings up many questions for me:
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But 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. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but 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. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
I know the passage probably was about "dress code" in the early church, especially for women. Paul called it "the tradition" he passed on to them (verse 2). But then he went on rambling about who was the head of whom and who had authority over whom. I found this reference helpful to understand the context of this passage and I have borrowed the subject heading for this provocative blog! The author James Rochford first presented the historical, general negative view toward women by all major religions. He then gave a list of "It does not mean..." from the apostle Paul's writing explaining what "biblical authority" is:
1. It does not mean inequality. A man is no more superior to his wife, than the Father is superior to Christ (1 Cor 11:3, 11). “There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28; c.f. Gen. 1:27).
2. It does not mean that a woman should follow the leadership of any man –just her husband. “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22).
3. It does not mean patriarchy –but responsibility. Husbands should love their wives “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). This is the model against which we should compare servant leadership in marriage. Under this definition, servant leadership is not authoritarian –but sacrificial. In fact, servant love is the antithesis of patriarchy.
4. It does not mean cruel or worldly leadership. Jesus said, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:42-45). Jesus redefines what leadership truly means: humility, compassion, and sacrificial love.
5. It does not mean unqualified leadership. “Christ is the head of the man.” In the biblical view of marriage, both spouses submit to God and his Word. The husband could not command or force his wife to do anything that is outside of the bounds of Scripture. Marriage should be presupposed by being “subject to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph. 5:21).
James Rochford then concluded:
Christians cannot agree with a feminist understanding of leadership, because we are operating out of different definitions of what leadership even is. Feminism assumes that leadership refers to power and authority. However, under the biblical definition, leadership means sacrificial love and service. Based on this view, the husband is responsible to initiate love, serve, apologize, and be responsible for leading the marriage on grey issues, which aren’t clearly defined in Scripture. When we properly understand the biblical view of leadership in marriage, frankly, we find that this isn’t a privilege for the husband. Instead, it is a serious burden and responsibility!
Now regarding the "head coverings" tradition, this is a thoughtful but very lengthy commentary which may serve later as a great reference if I have to share on the subject:
http://www.ovc.edu/terry/articles/headcovr.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment