Propriety in Worship
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[a] just as I passed them on to you.
3 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. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6 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. 7 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. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
I argued that:
“If anything, this passage is a classic example of the selectivity we apply to the bible, our hypocrisy in claiming ourselves as the truly ‘bible believing’ ones, and the bizarro logical contortions required to try and uphold the “trustworthiness” of the text while skirting around the issue that’s actually spoken about!
How can we even discuss this passage with a straight face? If ever there was a “plain reading” we ignore, this is it. To wander off into “mystery” is just a cop out.
“With that said, I think our attitude revealed in our treatment of this text is correct—Paul’s understanding of gender is antiquated—it’s just a shame we don’t apply it consistently! “
...and that if we were consistent and applied the same arguments we do to 1 Tim 2, we would have very different attitudes towards either women teaching men, or head coverings. But we seem to take one seriously and not the other.
I think that’s a pretty damning observation, but what do you think?
How can we even discuss this passage with a straight face? If ever there was a “plain reading” we ignore, this is it. To wander off into “mystery” is just a cop out.
“With that said, I think our attitude revealed in our treatment of this text is correct—Paul’s understanding of gender is antiquated—it’s just a shame we don’t apply it consistently! “
...and that if we were consistent and applied the same arguments we do to 1 Tim 2, we would have very different attitudes towards either women teaching men, or head coverings. But we seem to take one seriously and not the other.
The plain reading is about respect and authority, not head coverings. Yes it’s about gender, and it’s not antiquated. We have to take seriously what Paul says here about authority, and apply it to our current society, in which head coverings probably won’t be relevant any more. But the truths about authority still are.
God’s world is never simple Dannii. If it was, we wouldn’t need God.
Indeed. I was once informed that I needed to have my hair cut because the Bible is clear in these verses that long hair is not good in a man. But cultural context was removed and the bloke telling me this was a tad literalist.
I think this is a better approach to the questions raised
A while ago my church was doing 1 Corinthians, and the week we were up to this passage, I happened to be on prayers.
I have short hair, wasn’t wearing a hat, and I was even wearing slacks. Shocking! No it was quite okay (I just thought I’d make that plain).
I do remember thinking something like - ‘Okay, this passage (taken literally) says I shouldn’t do this very thing - hmm. I’m usually quite literal, which is partly I think because I have a literal personality.
I don’t quite remember how the sermon handled the section. I think it was something like (married) women shouldn’t dress or act in any way that might embarrass their husbands.
Luke said -
“With that said, I think our attitude revealed in our treatment of this text is correct—Paul’s understanding of gender is antiquated—it’s just a shame we don’t apply it consistently! “
...and that if we were consistent and applied the same arguments we do to 1 Tim 2, we would have very different attitudes towards either women teaching men, or head coverings. But we seem to take one seriously and not the other.
As an ex- Uniting Church person I find SydAng culture quite sexist in comparison. I don’t think of this just in terms of women not preaching, but an attitude that spreads throughout. I don’t know whether this is something that flows from having exclusively male leadership (or close to). I’m not convinced (in general) that allowing women in ‘important’ positions necessarily improves anything for the ‘less-important’ women, but maybe that is so.
[ Edited: 24 January 2010 11:31 PM by Ros Burgess]
I’m tempted to think Paul had an ‘off day’ when he wrote 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, and to agree with Festus (Acts 26:24)‘You are out of your mind, Palu! ..Your great learning is driving you insane.’
Regarding the saved through childbirth thing, I thought that related to the seed of the woman, Jesus.
I’ve always interpreted 1 Cor 11:3-12 metaphorically/symbolically. I don’t know whether The Message version of the Bible cherry-picks, or whether I’m cherry-picking the version. It however claims to draw directly from the Greek, and bears out my interpretation:
3-9In a marriage relationship, there is authority from Christ to husband, and from husband to wife. The authority of Christ is the authority of God. Any man who speaks with God or about God in a way that shows a lack of respect for the authority of Christ, dishonors Christ. In the same way, a wife who speaks with God in a way that shows a lack of respect for the authority of her husband, dishonors her husband. Worse, she dishonors herself—an ugly sight, like a woman with her head shaved. This is basically the origin of these customs we have of women wearing head coverings in worship, while men take their hats off. By these symbolic acts, men and women, who far too often butt heads with each other, submit their “heads” to the Head: God.
10-12Don’t, by the way, read too much into the differences here between men and women. Neither man nor woman can go it alone or claim priority. Man was created first, as a beautiful shining reflection of God—that is true. But the head on a woman’s body clearly outshines in beauty the head of her “head,” her husband. The first woman came from man, true—but ever since then, every man comes from a woman! And since virtually everything comes from God anyway, let’s quit going through these “who’s first” routines.
Arthur, here’s the J B Phillips translation - with a few interesting viewpoints :
CHAPTER 11 - J B Phillips
11:1 - Copy me, my brothers, as I copy Christ himself.
The reasons that lie behind some of the traditions
11:2 - I must give you credit for remembering what I taught you and adhering to the traditions I passed on to you.
11:3-10 - But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every individual man, just as a man is the “head” of the woman and God is the head of Christ. Thus it follows that if a man prays or preaches with his head covered, he is, symbolically, dishonouring him who is his real head. But in the case of a woman, if she prays or preaches with her head uncovered it is just as much a disgrace as if she had it closely shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head she might just as well have her hair cropped. And if to be cropped or closely shaven is a sign of disgrace to women, then that is all the more reason for her to cover the head. A man ought not to cover his head, for he represents the very person and glory of God, while the woman reflects the person and glory of the man. For man does not exist because woman exists, but vice versa. Man was not created originally for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to bear on her head an outward sign of man’s authority for all the angels to see.
11:11-16 - Of course, in the sight of God neither “man” nor “woman” has any separate existence. For if woman was made originally for man, no man is now born except by a woman, and both man and woman, like everything else, owe their existence to God. But use your own judgment, do you think it right and proper for a woman to pray to God bare-headed? Isn’t there a natural principle here, that makes us feel that long hair is disgraceful to a man, but of glorious beauty to a woman? We feel this because the long hair is the cover provided by nature for the woman’s head. But if anyone wants to be argumentative about it, I can only say that we and the churches of God generally hold this ruling on the matter.
And we can also look at the Amplified Bible for another perspective :
1 Corinthians 11 (Amplified Bible)
1PATTERN YOURSELVES after me [follow my example], as I imitate and follow Christ (the Messiah).
2I appreciate and commend you because you always remember me in everything and keep firm possession of the traditions (the substance of my instructions), just as I have [verbally] passed them on to you.
3But I want you to know and realize that Christ is the Head of every man, the head of a woman is her husband, and the Head of Christ is God.
4Any man who prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, and comforts) with his head covered dishonors his Head (Christ).
5And any woman who [publicly] prays or prophesies (teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts) when she is bareheaded dishonors her head (her husband); it is the same as [if her head were] shaved.
6For if a woman will not wear [a head] covering, then she should cut off her hair too; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaven, let her cover [her head].
7For a man ought not to wear anything on his head [in church], for he is the image and [reflected] glory of God [[a]his function of government reflects the majesty of the divine Rule]; but woman is [the expression of] man’s glory (majesty, preeminence).(A)
8For man was not [created] from woman, but woman from man;(B)
9Neither was man created on account of or for the benefit of woman, but woman on account of and for the benefit of man.(C)
10(b)Therefore she should [be subject to his authority and should] have a covering on her head [as a token, a symbol, of her submission to authority, [c]that she may show reverence as do] the angels [and not displease them].
11Nevertheless, in [the plan of] the Lord and from His point of view woman is not apart from and independent of man, nor is man aloof from and independent of woman;
12For as woman was made from man, even so man is also born of woman; and all [whether male or female go forth] from God [as their Author].
13Consider for yourselves; is it proper and decent [according to your customs] for a woman to offer prayer to God [publicly] with her head uncovered?
14Does not [d]the native sense of propriety (experience, common sense, reason) itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is a dishonor [humiliating and degrading] to him,
15But if a woman has long hair, it is her ornament and glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no other custom [in worship] than this, nor do the churches of God generally.
It is worthwhile also reading the rest of the chapter ( verses 17-34 ) to see what other issues Paul was concerned to write about and give instruction.
[ Edited: 26 January 2010 06:22 AM by Kevin Goddard]
Normally I’d go the NIV for overall quality & consistency, but not this passage. The NIV just makes it downright confusing here (and other versions, to equal or less degree).
I think this passage is less about gender roles and more about how a spirit-filled humanity operates within culture. Luke, I agree entirely that it is highly hypocritical to apply a cultural qualification to this passage and not to others.
Here’s a few thoughts on the passage in question…
Paul writes here to a small church under keen observation from suspicious neighbours with in a Roman colony. The sign of a married woman in Roman culture was a covered head (and usually body too) in the same way a ring is in ours. Paul has given these Christian women unprecedented freedom in worship and asserted that all people are equal under God but he wants them to appear beyond reproach.
It seems that some women within this church were taking this new-found freedom to new and culturally provocative extremes and following after the model of the “new Roman woman”. In the 1st century AD these women were subverting cultural norms and living like men. They dressed provocatively, partied hard, shagged whom they wanted and flaunted their husband’s authority – removing their veils was one of the more obvious marks of a new Roman wife. It was a trend that caused great alarm in Rome to the point that Augustus tried to legislate against it.
Given this climate you can understand why Paul would be concerned by the image his church could be projecting. Women were clearly leaders in the early church and made up the larger percentage of its numbers. They already spoke and prophesied within church meetings (1 Cor 11:5) which could have aroused suspicion among the “Angels” or messengers dispatched by interested local dignitaries.
Paul had to be very careful that this new Jesus thing didn’t look subversive or revolutionary as maintaining order was paramount to the Romans. So, in the same way that he councils slaves to submit to their masters as if to God, he implores his charges not to turn everything on it’s head just yet.
As for men keeping their heads uncovered – as a Jew both Jesus and Paul would have frequently covered their heads in the synagogue. Here, given Paul is writing to Romans it could be that the men were imitating the Pagan custom of high priests covering their heads as a symbol of greater authority. Submit to God and to each other is Paul’s mantra.
[null]London 2012 Olympics: 'Snow bird' Skelton finds fabulous form in FloridaTelegraph.co.uk (blog)[{}]... owns most of the top rides of 2004 Olympic champion Rodrigo Pessoa); Tom Tisbo, CEO of Suncast, one of America's largest producer of domestic durables; and Kimberley Boyer, grand-daughter of the billionaire evangelical financier Robert Van Kampen.
[null]Mitt's Muffled SoulNew York Times[{}]Christ or Christianity came up repeatedly. Four years later, he still avoids the word, trumpeting his faithfulness without specifying the faith. What's surprising is that no one around him — not reporters, not rivals — talks about it all that much, ...
RSS Feed