Tagged: headship

Sermon: The Woman: Intelligent, Willing Helper – #8 in the series

Our latest sermon audio is on-line now: The Woman: Intelligent Willing Helper.  This is #8 in our series, “Male and Female He Created Them.”  Audio quality is not the best, but it should do…

“Male & Female in the Christian Marriage” – sermon audio

The latest installment (#6) in Community Church’s 10-part series “Male & Female He Created Them” is now available on-line.  You can find it here.

Sermon 4 of “Male and Female He Created Them”

You can find the 4th installment of our series “Male and Female He Created Them” online now at this link.  There won’t be another for 2 weeks due to a guest speaker this coming Sunday.

Male and Female He Created Them – Audio sermon now on-line!

Our new sermon series “Male and Female He Created Them” will examine our culture’s confusion over male and female sexuality and purpose in the world.  We’ll start from the beginning (Genesis) to see how God intended male and female to function together and take it all the way to today.

The first sermon in the series is now on-line – “Why a Sermon Series About THIS???”  You can find it here.

It’s NOT about headship and submission

The discussion in evangelical circles regarding marriage typically centers around the same age-old words that most people seem to enjoy debating.  Submission VS Headship.

First of all, there’s a danger in pitting the two against each other when the Bible NEVER takes that position.  But I think an equal danger is to become so embroiled in those terms and the contentious definitions given from both sides of the argument, that we miss the REAL issue behind it all… which is something that very few people seem to be talking about.

WHY? – Why did God create marriage in the first place?  What is it’s purpose?  If we understand this then it makes our attempts at defining the things within marriage (submission and headship) much more effective.  So, let’s take short journey to Ephesians chapter 5.

Paul writes,

 21 -Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.  22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.  25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Paul begins with the basic instructions, which really aren’t so basic.  In fact, God used this passage early on in my marriage to revolutionize my approach to being a husband.  It’s very helpful to work through this passage slowly and let the Holy Spirit apply it to a humble, non-defensive, non-sexist heart.  Forget what’s “fair” or “right” or “emancipated” from our culture’s perspective and understand the substance of what Paul is saying.

But the greater point I want to make is this one… it’s found in verse 32

This is a profound mystery – but I am talking about Christ and the church.

When the New Testament speaks of a “mystery” it’s referring to something that was previously unknown (at least partially) but NOW, because of Christ, is made clear.  From the time of Adam and Eve until Christ, marriage was just marriage – for procreation, for completion of each of the partners, for social reasons, etc.  But NOW that Christ has come, we are told a fuller meaning! 

God intends for Christian marriage – the way a Christian husband loves his wife and the way a Christian wife respects and submits to her husband’s servant-leadership – to DEMONSTRATE what Christ’s relationship with His church is like!  That’s the “why” behind the institution of Christian marriage.  To me, that puts an entirely new spin on things…

  • It’s no longer about “equality” or “fairness” – its about being an accurate representation of how the relationship between Christ and the church are supposed to be.
  • It no longer has anything to do with capability, gender, or “rights.”  It now has to do with my desire as a husband (or wife if that’s the case) to submit to God’s plan for showing off His love for the people of earth.
  • Marriage, like so many other things (rainbow, communion, sacrifices, baptism) is intended to be a living symbol – a real-life presentation to a dying and lost world of how Jesus cares for His bride, the church.

When we get this idea ground into our thinking, it makes all the difference in the world to how we approach issues such as submission and headship.  We can begin to see that God, in His tremendous grace, is allowing us to be a part of reaching those in the world whom He loves.  He’s allowing us to live out, sacrificial as it may be in some cases, a demonstration of that love.  We should be HONORED.  We should be HAPPY to play a role in that by life-ing out our roles in marriage as He’s prescribed them to be!  Why?  Because THAT is one way the world will recognize HIS LOVE FOR THEM!

The Christian calling in general, but also as it relates to marriage, is not about equality or societal ideas of fairness, or any other such worldly nonsense!  The Christian calling is about sacrifice for the sake of others!  The Christian calling is about me giving up my rights (like Christ did – check Philippians 2) and doing WHATEVER IS NEEDED to hold forth the word of life, the gospel, the love of God, the demonstration of that love in real-life terms!  THAT is what Christian marriage is supposed to be about!

Forget about the debate over headship VS submission.  Begin to think through the idea of “giving your life” so that others can HAVE life!  Marital roles, as defined in scripture, are part of that life-giving!

Women in Church Leadership – an afterthought

I thought I was finished with this series of posts until a point of clarification came to my mind.  It’s a bit more practical and “how to” in my thinking than the rest.  I hope this will help many of you to see how I apply the things I’ve already covered in this series.

My wife, Mindi, has been God’s greatest gift to me, after the person of Christ.  I don’t say that lightly or for any reason except for the simple fact that it is obviously true from my perspective.  Her home-life as a child was much more consistently Christ-centered than mine.  Her ability to communicate and be considerate of what is going on inside of poeple is much more finely tuned than mine.  She has been taught, from a very early age, to consistently be asking, “What does GOD think (about whatever she is facing)?”  Those and many other qualities and skills that she possesses have benefited me in countless ways and have blessed many people besides me throughout our ministry life together (if you are one of those people, I’d encourage you to post a comment saying how she has been used of God to bless your life – so those who don’t know either of us can get a feel for the kind of person she is – and to know that I’m not making this up!).

As a Pastor and Elder in a local church for the past how-many-ever years, I’ve learned that her partnership with me is invaluable.  She has discernment about people (the sheep I am called to shepherd) that is typically right-on, and that I would have missed on my own.  I have learned that much of that relational insight comes as a direct result of her being a woman.  There’s TREMENDOUS value in that – that I MUST recognize and humbly receive.  As a Pastor I talk with her about almost every situation with which I am faced (unless it’s in regard to a confidence I’ve agreed to keep).  I listen to her perspective, as a woman and as my wife and partner, and I often adjust or altogether change my intended actions based on her input – because I glean greater wisdom than I had on my own.

I’ve come to trust her relationship with the Lord, her ability to discern right from wrong, and her intuition about people.  I think that’s a HUGE (did I say HUGE) part of what a husband/wife partnership in marriage is all about!  That’s how we are MEANT to function together.  She’s neither a liability as a woman nor a simple “bonus” to enrich my life!  She’s an integral part of the ministry we do TOGETHER!  It’s OUR ministry under God’s authority and calling, not just mine.  Even though I’m the one in the leadership role within the church, she’s as much a part of it as I am – she’s part of God’s provision for HIS WORK to be accomplished in this scenario in which we’ve been placed (remember the old quote by Hudson Taylor, “God’s work done in God’s way will never lack God’s provision”?  She’s part of that provision for this work of ministry to be done!  Isn’t that obvious?).

I believe that any man who is in a church leadership role (Pastor, Elder, etc.) who DOES NOT include his wife in the ministry responsibilities that God has called THEM to do together is very short-sighted and perhaps risking great damage to the flock he is called to shepherd.  And if he is unwilling to benefit from his wife’s wisdom as a woman because he believes that theologically it is “not her place” (or some other such idea), he’s very sorely mistaken in the way he understands not only church leadership, but also the very foundational structure, meaning, and purpose of marriage!

I said all that to say this…

In reading my previous posts on this subject you might get the feeling that I simply tolerate women, or try to be nice to them but still think they are “less capable” than men.  You might think that I give women “lesser” tasks to placate or pacify them so as not to cause too much of a stir in the church.  None of that could be further from the truth.  In our church there are women (very competent women I might add) in VERY VITAL roles within our church community (finance committee, worship leadership, eventually as Deaconesses – when we get them established, etc.).  And all of that is in ADDITION to the irreplaceable role my wife plays in my leadership and oversight of the church as its pastor.  NONE of this denegrates the Biblical truths that I’ve already discussed, nor does it diminish the role of men.  I believe they are effective applications of what both marriage and the church are INTENDED TO BE!

Comments are still welcome…

Summary – Women in Church Leadership (Part 8)

I promised a quick (yeah right) summary of what I’ve covered in this series of posts on Women in Church Leadership.  Before I do, I want to reiterate something very important.

 I did not write this series of posts to slam anyone, condemn anyone, or oppress anyone.  I simply believe that the Bible speaks very clearly on this issue – and we are to follow what the Bible says.  When we do not, damage is inflicted on people and on the church as a whole.

THE SUMMARY

Part 1 – My Story
I covered my background as it relates to this issue – so you can see a bit more of where I’m coming from on this.  I honestly believe that I have no agenda other than to clearly communicate what the Bible teaches.

Part 2 – The Head of  Woman is Man?
I covered the often confusing passage of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 in an attempt to clarify what is meant by man being the “head” of woman. 

  1. I concluded that the peripheral issue of “headcoverings” is cultural.
  2. I also concluded that the issue of “headship” in the home is tied to the order of creation, NOT a cultural situation unique to Paul or Corinth.
  3. While obviously offensive to some in our modern-world, I believe that these distinctions are not to be “greater-than / less-than” issues between men and women, but rather an issue of ROLES within the church.
  4. I also noticed that within this very letter Paul admits that it IS appropriate for women to be verbal in the setting of the gathered church – I discussed that more in the following post.

Part 3 – Women should be silent in the church?
This issue appears from the context to have been a cultural issue, unique to Paul’s day and specifically, the church in Corinth.

Part 4 – Do women have the “right” to lead in the church?
In this post I addressed the common argument made by those who support women in church leadership – which is, “The fact that we are ‘co-heirs’ and both ’in  Christ’ negates any distinction at all between men and women.”  I tried to show that the use of such verses to make that point is to take the scriptures in question out of context, applying them to something to which the writers did not intend them to be applied.

Part 5 – The husband of one wife
This post addressed the qualifications of elders (church leaders) as Paul lists them in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.  Instead of making the word “husband” the issue, I went rather to the meaning of the phrase “husband of one wife” and showed that the intent was that the reader understand that the elder needs to be sexually pure, morally upright.  With this in mind, I pointed out that such a requirement would be equally important for both men and women leaders, yet Paul does not give any such warning or requirement for women.  It is my conclusion that he never intended women to be considered for such positions.

Part 6 – I do not allow a woman to…
The passage addressed in this post was 1 Timothy 2:11-15.  It is where Paul states that he does not allow a woman to “teach or have authority over a man.”  While advocates of women in church leadership claim that this was an instruction given to Timothy because of particular issues going on in his church, two issues seem primary to me in responding to that claim - first of all the specific language Paul uses is “I do not allow.”  He does not say “Timothy, here’s what YOU should do…” or anything similar.  His language is broad and all-inclusive.  Secondly, Paul’s main reason for giving this prohibition is tied to the created order in some way, not a cultural situation.  I continued to address that issue in the final post…

Part 7 – Why was Eve created second? 
Returning to the creation account in Genesis 2, I took the time to look at the specific language used to describe the origin of man and woman.  God seems to make a very particular point of making us understand that Adam was created first and that he was alone.  I believe He did so to point out the “why” of Eve’s creation, an act done some time AFTER Adam had already existed.  The two reasons God gives is that Eve was to be Adam’s companion and his helper.  Her ROLE was to be of help to the man in the role God had appointed for him.

CONCLUSION

A thought that comes to mind, and one that I know is very difficult for those opposed to “male only” leadership (within the church) to accept is this.  One can honestly hold a very high view of women – a view of spiritual equality in Christ and a belief that they are indeed “co-heirs” with men – and yet not believe they are permitted to serve as leaders within the church.  I personally believe that both the scriptures and experience show that women are equally capable with men and equally intellegent, spiritually attuned, etc.  But we must be careful to understand that those are not the types of issues that should be considered when deciding who is allowed to serve in the leadership of the church.  What matters primarily is what God has said are the proper roles for men and women.  While attempts have been made to use the scriptures to “prove” that women are indeed allowed to be church leaders – from both good and false motives, I’m sure – I have yet to be convinced that such interpretations are valid.  To me, there are too many interpretive backflips that have to be done in order to make that case, or in other instances, there is simply a willingness to avoid the words of scripture altogether in favor of what “seems” right to our modern culture.

I hold that scripture must be the only and final authority – and as I’ve said time and again in this series of posts – we have to let it say what it says. and honor God by accepting it and applying it as best we can.

“I do not allow a woman to…” (Women in Church Leadership – Part 6)

The passage I’m dealing with today is 1 Timothy 2:11-15.  Admittedly, for both sides of this debate, it is a very difficult passage.  VERY DIFFICULT.  I say that not because “my side” is in any danger of being proved wrong, but simply because both in the original language and in our English translation, the true meaning is somewhat obscure in places.  There are assumptions, on both sides of the argument, that seemingly must be made in order to understand these verses.  That’s not easy for me… because as I’ve  been harping on all along – we must let scripture say what it says!  So that’s going to be my basic approach to this passage, as far as I can go with it…

Those “for” women leading/teaching

Those who seek to allow women to be in positions of leadership within the church will address Paul’s prohibition of women “teaching or having authority over a man” in this passage by appealing to the context of Paul’s letters to Timothy (a good thing).  They point to passages such as 1 Timothy 5:11-15 and 2 Timothy 3:1-7 to show that a false teaching was going on in Timothy’s context and that the women in particular seemed to be prone to falling for it.  This, they say, is the basis for Paul’s prohibition against women being the teachers… they were typically more unlearned and were falling for this false teaching more easily.  Therefore they should not be allowed to teach or be in positions of spiritual authority.  So, in the end, for these proponents of women in primary leadership positions within the church, it comes down to believing (from these passages) that Paul’s prohibition was for this particular time and this particular place – not a universal prohibition for all time.

The problem (as I see it)

I can’t deny that this line of reasoning sounds plausible.  There was indeed false teaching going on in the church at Ephesus.  That’s a large part of why Paul wrote to Timothy in the first place.  (1 Timothy 1:3)  I could easly buy that argument, IF….  If it weren’t for one thing that Paul says in the passage…

“I do not allow…”

Paul doesn’t say, “Timothy, here’s what YOU should do in THIS situation…”  He says, “I do not allow…” a blanket statement that sounds very much like the overall way he does things.  Something that is said in such an all-encompassing manner cannot be cavalierly taken as a “temporary, cultural restriction.”   Paul gives no indication that such was the case, and in fact makes it sound very much the opposite by the language that he uses.

Another issue

Paul’s “reason” for making this prohibition is tied to the creation account.  Here’s where it gets a bit fuzzy for me, because I still don’t completely understand the truth behind this part of his argument.  (That’s not a cop-out, just an honest bit of information about where I am in this.)  Paul says he doesn’t allow women to be in positions of teaching or authority over men because “Adam was created first” and because “Adam was not deceived” but rather Eve was deceived.

If this were a temporary, cultural restriction I don’t see any way that Paul would use the creation account as part of his “justification” for it.  It seems that he’s appealing to the way God made things, the way God set things up in the first place.  Adam was created first – in my understanding – as the leader of the couple.  That was his ROLE.  He wasn’t better than Eve, or smarter, or more spiritually in tune with God.  He was just appointed to that ROLE.  He is the one who is placed in the position of “head” as I have previously discussed.  Additional support for this is that Adam is the one spoken of by Paul as the representative “head” of mankind, not Eve.  That lends more credence to the belief that Adam is viewed by God as the “head,” the one responsible to lead not only his wife, but also, initially at least, to represent mankind.

Those in favor of women being in leadership argue that this reference to the creation account was for illustrative purposes, showing what could happen in Ephesus if women (who had the lesser degree of knowledge in that day – as Eve did in her day) were allowed to teach or have authority over the men.  It’s their position that the women of Ephesus, in order to be “protected” from the false teachings, needed to submit respectfully to the leadership of the men who were more learned and able to handle the challenge of the false teachers.

Again, I could buy that argument, IF… if Paul were not so broad in the way he states his prohibition.  For Paul, it’s not an issue of “now” or “at this place.”  He phrases it as an overarching principle – and in my approach to scripture, I have to believe that is what he meant.

In application

I’m quite embarrassed at some of the wrangling and two-stepping that people on my side of this debate have taken in order to allow women certain ministry responsibilities (that are expedient at the time) and disallow them others that are very comparable.  Some have even gone so far as to give women the responsibilities that a man in the same position might have, but withhold the title of “Pastor” to solve the dilema.  I think that’s very inconsistent at best… and at worst, intellectually dishonest.

How do I apply this?  It seems to me that the simple understanding of Paul’s words are very helpful here.  He says these things to Timothy, a young leader of a local church.  So we can rightfully assume he’s speaking about how things should be done within the local church when he gives Timothy this prohibition.  How we apply this to Campus Crusade, Christian conferences, etc. is not addressed (because they didn’t have such in that day).  So, I believe we can only go as far as the text CLEARLY allows.  Here’s what I see…

  1. Women are not to teach or have authority over MEN.  Boys are O.K.  Children are O.K.  Other women are O.K.  So Sunday school on many levels is fine, as are women’s ministry and other forms of service within the church.
  2. Women are not to TEACH men – that would include any context where the woman is the primary teacher (Sunday morning worship, mixed gender adult classes or groups, etc.)
  3. Women are not to have AUTHORITY over men.  That would be in a Pastoral role or an Elder role.  I do NOT believe this applies to the role of Deacon.  First, it is not a position of teaching OR authority, and secondly, I believe the original language shows that Paul allowed women to serve as Deacons. (I can cover that at a later date).

I could be missing some positions in the modern-day church that fall under these simple criteria that Paul lays down.  If so, I’ll update this post as they come to mind.  But beyond these, any further restrictions don’t seem to be justified by the text.

I don’t believe Paul wanted women on a leash or to be supressed.  Nor did Jesus.  Women are valuable within the kingdom of God and should be treated as such.  The issue is one of ROLES, not value or competence.  It appears to me that the scriptures allow certain ROLES for men and certain ROLES for women.  My assumption is that God says that things work BEST when we follow these ROLES.  So, I’m just simple enough to believe that and adhere to it…

In the end, that’s my position – simply because it’s what I understand the scriptures to instruct for the church.  I don’t understand it completely, but I believe that God does – and I can trust Him!

The head of the woman is man? (Women in Church Leadership – Part 2)

As we begin this journey – one principle HAS to be at the forefront of the conversation… LET SCRIPTURE SAY WHAT IT SAYS!  A plain reading of the text is most likely the right reading of the text.  We can’t allow ourselves to read into the text or interpret it to mean something that it is clearly not saying.  The goal is to understand what it SAYS, not make it say something it doesn’t. 

One of the first passages I think we need to deal with, as it can give good foundation for all the others, is 1 Corinthians 11:3-16.  It says…

 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.

Wow!  What’s all that saying?  Let’s walk through it very s-l-o-w-l-y…

What does “head” mean?  

  • Those who contend that this does NOT mean any kind of authority often appeal to one legitimate meaning of the word “head” that means “source.” (see “Good News for Women” by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis).  In so doing they say that “perhaps Paul was referring to the man as the life source for the woman because the first man was the life source out of which God created the first woman and this serves somehow as an analogy for the husband-wife relationship.”  This sounds good, except when you apply that meaning to the other uses of the word “head” in this passage.  If we do so the passage would have to ALSO mean, “Christ is the life source out of which man was created…” and “God is the life source out of which Christ was created…”  The first is possible, as Christ was active in the creation of the world and man.  But the second is not possible, because Christ was not created at all (John 1:1).  It couldn’t even mean that God is the source out of which Christ comes, because Christ and the Father are one… and always have been – neither is the source of the other because they are completely equal.  To say that it means “source” in reference to the man being the source of the woman, and deny that it should mean that in regard to the Father’s relationship to the Son is being inconsistent.
  • In my humble opinion, the only meaning of the word “head” that makes any sense when kept consistent throughout the passage is that of “authority.”  God is the “authority” over Christ, Christ is the “authority” over man, and man is the “authority” over woman.  It is that way because it is the way God has organized it to be.  I see no other meaning that makes sense.  I must also say that I see nothing here that indicates that the woman can ONLY come to God/Christ through her husband.  That doesn’t seem to even be implied.

What’s with the head-coverings?

  • For a man to wear something on his physcial head while doing some religious act of worship (praying or prophesying) is said to “dishonor” his “head” (Christ).  How can we explain why this is?  I’m not sure – it’s something that isn’t a well-known fact in our day and culture, though Paul states it like everyone should understand.  It may be similar to when I was a kid and my mom would insist that I take off my cap when I went indoors.  She said it was respectful or polite toward others.  I never really got it, but I did it anyway.  It was a cultural thing.  So should we conclude that THIS is cultural too – and therefore only applies to the time/culture in which it was written?  Let’s hold off on that until we get through the entire passage…
  • For a woman to NOT wear something on her head when praying or prophesying would be to dishonor HER “head” (her husband/man).  It may be a custom that is similar to the wearing of a  Burqa in the Islamic faith.  It seems that in 1st century times, among both Jewish and Gentile cultures, the women were known to have worn head coverings any time they were in public as a sign of modesty and discretion.  For a woman to refuse to wear the head covering, especially in a worship setting, would be a flagrantly immodest thing to do – and would bring shame on her husband.  Paul says that if she is going to do that she might as well shave her head or cut her hair (both signs of a disreputable woman – either a slave or a prostitute).  He’s going to extremes to point out that no woman would willingly disgrace herself or her husband by doing those latter things, so they should not do a similar thing by insisting upon wearing no head covering.  Again, this sounds very cultural, but we’ll reserve judgement on that until we finish the passage…
  • Paul states that the man is the glory and image of God and the woman is the glory of man.  I have to be honest and say that this is a tough one to understand.  It’s clear from Genesis that both man and woman were made in the image of God, so I’m not clear what point Paul is making here.  He could be referring to the “order” and “manner” in which man and woman were created.  The verse continues in a way that seems to bear that out.  It appears that Paul is saying that the man was created first, and thereby put in the place of leadership, and the woman was created second, from the side of the man, and was thereby put in the role of submission to his leadership.   It’s for “this reason” that she is to have a sign of “authority on her head.”  That’s key.  Her head-covering is to demonstrate that she is submitted to the leadership of her husband as God created it to be.  This is also a primary indication that the reference to “head” as it speaks of God, Christ, and the man is a reference to their authority or leadership.
  • “Because of the angels”????????   I’m not really convinced what this means.  The best guess I’ve read is that Paul is saying that angels observe our worship, and would be shocked at such a dishonorable action as a woman having her head uncovered when she is praying or prophesying, since they cover their faces when in the presence of God.  But again, I’m not convinced…

No independence should exist

  • Both man and woman are placed into roles by God in such a way as to work together.  One is not to be domineering over the other.  Neither is to be inordinately controlling or abusive.  And by the same token, neither is to resist or disparage the other’s role.  Woman came from man (created from his rib) and man came from woman (born of woman).  In that same way God has designed the genders to work together, each bringing things to the table that the other does not have.

Judge for yourselves…  does not nature tell you…

  • Paul appeals to the reason and common-sense of the readers.  He asks them to make their own judgement about what is right in this issue.  If he were to tell us to make our own judgement about this issue, in our modern world, most of us would honestly and without any agenda say, “It doesn’t seem necessary to me that a woman cover her head during worship.”  Why would we say that?  Because in our culture there is NOT anything intrinsically dishonorable about a woman having her head uncovered.  We strain to even understand the concept!  This phrase alone causes me to lean heavily on the side of this practice (headcoverings) being a cultural thing.

IN CONCLUSION:

  1. The issue of headcoverings seems like a non-issue in our day and age.  This passage seems easily understood as a cultural issue Paul was dealing with.
  2. The principle of “head”-ship is tied to the order of creation – not a cultural belief.  As such, men are placed into a role of leadership within the family/church.  The comparison to Christ being the head of the man and God being the head of Christ bears this out.  There is no other meaning that allows that comparison to make logical sense.
  3. Though men and women have been given differing roles by God, neither is to see it as an adversarial or “greater-than/ less-than” issue.  It is not an issue of value or importance, but rather an issue of roles.  They are to work together in a harmonious way to fulfill God’s purpose for both.
  4. But also notice, though I didn’t point this out, Paul assumes that it is allowable for women to take part in worship gatherings.  The examples he singles out are prayer and prophesy.  While prayer can often be a very private thing, done silently, prophesy is seldom so.  It is a public action, spoken aloud to the group that is gathered.  What does this say for the role of women in the church given the fact that in this very same letter Paul singles out prophets as one of the more influential and important roles within the church?

More to come…