Showing posts with label Church troubles; Women's rights; Paul's teaching methods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church troubles; Women's rights; Paul's teaching methods. Show all posts

Monday, April 19, 2010

1 Corinthians 11:11-12

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God (KJV)

Then: Paul is moving on in his reasons for distinguishing the sexes in a worship service. He turns from Creation's evidence to the interrelation of men and women. Following the Lord's initial action, the existence of all succeeding generations comes from those which preceded. No man nor woman exsits independently of the other. They serve in unity and community.

Now: The obvious meaning relates to the ongoing reproduction of mankind from generation to generation. Paul calls upon that to support his teaching that men and women should worship together in a seemly, ordered fashion. In short, order in creation requires order in worship. To signify both order and headship, some rely upon an extended meaning of women wearing head coverings. Phillips (p. 241) understands them to be the means by which the woman can assume a man's role of teaching, preaching, reading scripture, praying, or singing - any of the leadership functions - when wearing a head cloth because the cloth signfies her being under authority. That point of view assumes roles in the kingdom are based on sex, and not on individual gifts and talents bestowed by the Spirit. It sidesteps Paul's earlier presentation and does not explain the perception of limited acceptance into the Lord's kingdom. Phillips (p. 239) makes an unsupported assertion that women are not inferior to men. Within all top-to-bottom analyses of herarchies something is always superior to something else. That holds true for an authoritarian church. There is no other logical conclusion. This conclusion conflicts, however, with Paul's later comparison of the church as a single, integral unit (the church or a human body) which operates using reciprocal submission.

Extra source: Exploring 1 Corinthians: an expository commentary by John Phillips. Grand Rapids MI: Kregel Publications, c2002.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

1 Corinthians 11:6

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. (KJV)

Then: Paul resorts to the common everyday culture to reiterate his main desire -- worship must give honor to God. Probably using Islamic practices today, Baker (p. 161) conjectures and explains a possible problem. Women were used to wearing nothing on their heads at home, but now the whole church was coming to worhip there. Hayes (p. 185) discusses Roman/Greek clothing styles in which women never wore veils, but they did wear their hair bound. Women who left their hair loose may have been considered to be "loose" (prostitutes) with lifestyles normally set up to honor temple gods and goddesses. Adding to the confusion was women's new liberty in Christ. Someone needed to give guidance.

Now: Believers keep looking for the principle in the verse. They sense Paul's sarcasm that, of course, women don't want to be bald. Any who deal with the effects of cancer treatment suffer thereby. They also know that western culture no longer uses head coverings as a means of identifying an individual's morality. It is easy to see Paul's greater teaching about shame; however, the principle is difficult to find - especially since verse eleven begins with "nevertheless" and seems to reverse all that he just said.

Extra source: Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.
First Corinthians by Richard B. Hayes (John Knox Press, 1997) on line at http://books.google.com/books?id=M_PC0PAs3VYC&dq=1+Corinthians+and+Richard+B.+Hays&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=2oPcStDCIIvf8Aaq0Ki3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CCMQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=1%20Corinthians%20and%20Richard%20B.%20Hays&f=false

1 Corinthians 11:4

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head (KJV)

Then: Looking first towards the male, Paul brings up the question of "What should you wear to church?" Paul believed any Corinthian male wearing a cloth covering on his head during a worship service would be perceived as bringing dishonor to Christ and to the Lord. Men had to wear them at other times; non-believers would not be offended by seeing men wearing head cloths outside temples or other places of worship. Contrarily though, in the pagan temples men's heads were covered. Of significance to commentators also is Paul's specific words, "praying or prophesying." These acts of worship are often audible and, if not performed decorously, can be extremely disruptive (Baker, p. 160) to another's worship experience.

Now: Today it makes no difference whether it is church or not, men customarily remove hats when inside a building. Worship and honor do not apply. A major question does remain regarding dishonor. How does the practice of having a covered head dishonor the Lord when, in actuality, dishonor before the Lord stems from disobedience, lack of gratitude, and ignorance as to the identity and existence of the Creator? Baker (p. 160) refers to a question of male/female identity in the worship of God. Paul seems to teach that when bowing before the Lord, a male should reflect that the process of creation was different for the male and for the female. The opposite appearance of wearing or not wearing head coverings is a way to mirror and symbolize the Lord's work in creation.

Extra source: Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 1 Corinthians (William Baker), 2 Corinthians (Ralph Martin & Carl Toney), ed. by Philip Comfort. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, c2006.

Interim

Trying to discuss the meanings and applications of these coming verses in context, as they have been understood across the ages and current understandings makes me want to be an ostrich. What do they mean for women? Should they decide for themselves or just say that it means what a husband- or pastor or culture or government - says it means?

I don't expect Paul meant to cause so much trouble for women. He was not telling women that because God created women first, their acceptance in heaven hinged on the husband's or guardian's will. If the man was cut off, so were they. I'm with Thistelton (p.799). In chapters eleven through fourteen Paul was teaching the Corinthians about order in a worship service. He was presenting practical applications of everything covered in chapters eight to ten.

It also makes sense that Christians living with non-believers had to avoid being offensive. Paul taught them to circumvent and prevent as many inpenetrable barriers to non-believers accepting the gospel as possible. In the church itself, how much the attitudes towards women were cultural and how much they stemmed from Christ is another unknown factor. (The higher teaching is that before God men and women are equally accepted and personally responsible for their individual actions.) Interestingly Augustus and Claudius unknowingly headed that way for they modified Roman law regarding guardianship of freedwomen and freeborn women (Thiselton, p.802). Certainly laws granting equal treatment of men and women evolve slowly.

If "headship" has the restricted meaning of "boss" and Paul delineates a chain of command, then many of Christ's (and Paul's) other teachings are belied. "Thy kingdom come on earth" will never happen. The principles of "There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female" has meaning only in heaven. All distinctions of the law are still in effect. None of what Paul says about being submissive to one another is useful except to men who happen to be on the same cultural plane. That's the bottom line of the trouble: Are women free to be followers of Christ or are they an extension of the headship of particular men? That's why I'd rather be an ostrich running fifty miles per hour in the other direction.

Extra source: The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a commentary on the Greek text by Anthony C. Thiselton (Authentic Media, c2000) online at http://books.google.com/books?id=IHG_DNLpmroC&dq=1st+Corinthian+commentaries&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=W9fQSpC1GILplAfHiumoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CB8Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=&f=false