This
came up in conversation recently, and I thought I’d address it systematically.
1. Paul
is dealing in 1 Corinthians 11 with the church’s conduct in corporate worship
being orderly. Part of this involves living out the distinctions between male
and female, which even nature shows us.
2.
One argument put forth by James Jordan is that the prophesying going on among
women, predicted by Joel 2:32, ceased with the passing of the apostolic age
(around the time of the destruction of the temple). So this whole discussion is
not directly relevant. This is partially convincing. Women (or men!) spontaneously
prophesying in church was unique to the apostolic age, in my view. But this assumes
a position on a separate controversial issue I don’t have time for! And it doesn’t
really deal with women praying in church, or how the natural distinction
applies today. The context seems to be more than just prophecy. (Check out the
Jordan article for other good thoughts, though.)
3.
So the passage is relevant to us, and cannot be explained away with the old “that
was their culture” line. We need to figure out how to obey this text. But as we
do, cultural custom does come into play.
4.
Can women obey this passage by wearing their hair long, as verse 15 seems to
say? I believe so. There is no other explanation of verse 15 that makes sense. Its
meaning is plain and a principle, along with verses 3, 7, and 10.
Objection
1: long hair and a covering seem to be different things in verses 6-14. A woman
with long hair could pray uncovered, it seems.
Response:
this is because of the cultural practice in Corinth (all of Greco-Roman world,
really) of women wearing a veil or shawl of some sort at a religious service.
Verse 15 actually gives more freedom to the church from that cultural practice,
while maintaining the gender distinction principle.
Objection
2: This position makes verse 6 a tautology. Verse 6 says if she won’t cover her
head she might as well (and should) have short hair. If long hair IS the
covering, this would be a given, not a command.
Response:
Paul’s point is that a woman uncovered in dress or behavior should be shown
such by cutting her hair short. If she is speaking, praying, or prophesying in
a way that shows lack of submission to her husband, she might as well dress
unsubmissively, too.
Objection
2: what about older women who cannot or do not grow their hair long?
Response:
as long as a distinction from men is being made in her dress and behavior,
there isn’t a real problem. Length of hair is a factor in this principle, but
not the only one. Verses 3 and 10 are broader and more controlling than verses
14-15.
Objection
3: there is really no way to disobey this text, if a woman simply needs to wear
her hair in a feminine way.
Response:
yes there is. For one thing, Sinead O’Connor comes to mind. And a woman can do
her hair with a mind to being sexy and catching a man. Even at church. Hm… The
principle is that a wife should do something to her hair (or other apparel?) to
show she is bound to her husband. Culturally, we don’t have a category for how
specifically to do this today, besides wedding rings. Almost all other cultures
did. This is where the confusion comes in. I’m uncertain that the hair itself must
be adjusted, if the rest of her dress and behavior is ordered. The hair
requirement might be a culturally adjustable thing, here, but the principle of
maintaining gender distinctions in corporate worship is not. Each family can
work through this themselves and come up with something. It is an area for
future Christian culture building.
Bibliography
James
Jordan
Ben
Merkle
Daniel
Wallace
No comments:
Post a Comment