Tag Archives: gender roles

Veils and heads, men and women

9 Replies

Bible studyThe first verses of 1 Corinthians 11 are not easily understood. I’m guessing that the original readers had an easier time of it, but I’m not altogether sure. Paul uses the same words in a literal sense and a figurative sense (as he does in other parts of 1 Corinthians), which can create some confusion.

Here’s the passage in question:

“Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For 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 was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:2–16)

There. It says what it means, and it means what it says. Let’s move on.

OK, I won’t chicken out like that. One problem with this passage is that there are several words that aren’t easily translated. Not that they are uncommon words, they’re just used in somewhat uncommon ways. Here are a few examples:

  • head — Paul begins by talking about a figurative head: Christ as the head of man, the husband as head of his wife, God as the head of Christ. But then he moves to a discussion of the literal head, which leaves us scratching our heads (all puns intended) about just what he means by the figurative use.
  • glory — Man is the image and glory of God; woman is the glory of man. Later he says that long hair is a woman’s glory (in contrast with disgrace).
  • authority — The KJV says that a woman should have “power on her head.” Several versions talk about a sign or symbol of authority, but those words (sign, symbol) have been added as an interpretation.

As different meanings of those words are used, so the interpretations shift. Like I said, it’s a difficult passage.

But here are some takeaways that I find, even as I wrestle with understanding specific details:

  • Women prayed and prophesied in public. One commentator suggested that this was merely a hypothetical that would then be ruled out by Paul’s teachings in chapter 14. I don’t buy that. Women prayed and prophesied in public. Probably in the assembled church, hence the reference to the presence of angels.
  • There are differences between men and women. Were there not, there would be no reason for this passage to exist. Paul’s appeals are theological in nature, not cultural. (see the previous chapters of 1 Corinthians for a good example of a culture-based argument) Galatians 3:28 did not erase gender nor gender differences in the church.
  • There is a sense of “hierarchy” to the relationship between men and women. We can talk around that all we want, yet it’s hard to get away from that understanding of verse 3 and it’s discussion of headship. It’s not accurate to say that the Greeks didn’t use the word “head” to refer to the leader or prominent one. They frequently used the word in that way. Philo did, a Hellenistic Jew of the time. Pre-Christian and post-Christian gnostic writers did as well. Many Jewish writings do the same, often basing themselves on the usage in Deuteronomy 28 (verse 11 and verses 43-44).
    Even if the word should be translated “source” or “origin,” the idea of hierarchy remains, based on the references to Christ and God. (Christ as “head” of man and God as “head” of Christ)
  • Women were to dress in a way that reflected their relationship to man and to God. They were not to try to be men, but women. Even as they practiced a new freedom in Christ, they were to do so in a way that showed respect toward their husbands.

Lots of other details can be discussed and debated. Feel free to do so in the comments.

Buried Talents by Jay Guin

15 Replies

Jay Guin is a prolific and thoughtful writer, unafraid to follow his study wherever it may lead him. He’s even willing to change positions, as he admits to in his book Buried Talents. This book is an important resource in the discussion of men and women in the churches of Christ. While I admit to not agreeing with his conclusions, I have high regard for the process that led him to those conclusions.

I’m not fond of beginning with conclusions, but I’ll make an exception in this case. On page 142, Guin states his position clearly:

The Bible says that in God’s eyes there is neither male nor female. It means what it says. Passages that apparently limit women’s role are written for a temporary cultural situation that no longer exists (much like the command of the Holy Kiss). Genesis 3 is a curse not a command. Genesis 1 and 2 define how men and women should relate in Christ, who came to undo the Fall of Man—they are both made in God’s image and husbands and wives should be one flesh, much as Jesus and God are one.

I know that statement leads to delight for some and dismay for others. Again, I encourage us to consider the process, how he gets there. Whether or not you agree with Guin’s conclusions, you owe it to yourself to see how he came upon them.

Briefly, let me state my points of divergence:

  • I do think that Genesis 1-3 is crucial to this discussion. I also agree that the idea of man “lording over” women is part of the curse, not part of the original design. Anyone lording over anyone in the church is a direct violation of Jesus’ teachings. However, as I’ve discussed, I see much in the creation story that leads me to see a divine plan behind maleness and femaleness that goes beyond biological reproduction.
  • I don’t think the concept of form and function is fully explored. Guin relies too heavily on the Holy Kiss argument (pages 22, 28, 135, 141, 142, 143, 177, and 178) as a means of saying that certain commands can be disregarded because of their cultural ties. He admits that the idea of greeting one another still carries weight, but doesn’t flesh out that correspondence to the commands about women. [I’ll insert that I think we COMPLETELY misunderstand the statements about greeting with a holy kiss… but I’ll save that for another time]
  • I think that Guin and many others exaggerate how much the early church bowed to cultural pressure. It’s worth noting that Paul (and other writers) made note of when they were making such concessions (Acts 16:3; 1 Corinthians 7-10; Romans 14). No such statement exists regarding the differences between men and women.

These differences lead me to a different place than Guin. But, as I said, I still think he brings a lot of unique insights to this discussion. You’d do well to read his work.

[I would note that Jay’s site is frequently hard to access. Be patient.]

Men, women, and the resurrection

36 Replies

Bathroom-gender-signIn our discussion about men and women and church leadership, one of the questions that has come up several times is whether gender differences will be an eternal thing. More pointedly, the objection to seeing differing roles for men and women has been that Jesus told us to pray for things to be on earth as in heaven; does a teaching that recognizes gender differences imply that those differences will exist after the resurrection?

I’ve written before about my agnosticism regarding what happens after we die. I don’t have it all down pat the way some people seem to. But I do know that life after the resurrection won’t be like life before the resurrection, at least not exactly. I base that on the following event from Jesus’ life:

“That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:23–30; see also Mark 12:18-31 and Luke 20:27-40)

The Sadducees weren’t merely confused about what would happen after the resurrection. They denied it altogether. But part of their error was failing to recognize that life after the resurrection will be different. As regards marriage, at least, we will be like the angels; marriage won’t be a part of our reality.

Marriage is part of our present life. It’s a big part of the church’s life, according to Scripture. But it won’t be after the resurrection.

On the subject of gender, this is especially telling. I believe that the recognition of gender differences in the church is closely tied with the family and with marriage. If marriage is going to be absent in the resurrection, then we shouldn’t be surprised to see a change in the relationship between men and women.

Form, function, and passages about gender differences

Leave a reply

Bible in the shadowSo what does form and function tell us about the passages regarding men and women in the church? I think it has several things to say:

  • The main question isn’t whether or not Paul intended to write rules for church practice throughout eternity. That’s where we often get sidetracked, either by someone wanting to strictly apply everything they read (these are the ones who are still holding their collection, waiting for Paul to come and take it to Jerusalem) and those who shout “Legalist!” anytime someone tries to teach based on Paul’s instructions to the early church.
  • The occasional nature of Paul’s writings doesn’t give us license to ignore what he says. The statement “That’s just cultural” is a meaningless statement. Everything is cultural in one way or another; that is, the Bible uses human language and situations to teach. It uses human culture. We must discern what teachings transcend culture.
  • Whatever we decide that Paul was addressing in passages like Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11, we still need to hear his teachings. The function behind the form must be addressed in some way. If women aren’t to wear veils, then how is the same function fulfilled today?

What other thoughts come to your mind when thinking about form and function?

Microphones do not a leader make

14 Replies

churchI want to repeat myself a bit. I think this point gets lost in so many of the discussions about gender: much of the problem stems from an overemphasis on public worship.

We define our churches by that once-a-week gathering of the saints. We define much of the work of the church by what is done during that time. Think about your church’s budget. What percentage goes to providing for that time? I’m talking about salaries, about building costs, about everything involved in allowing us to bring dozens or hundreds of people together. Isn’t that the main thing our church does?

If it is, then our church has little right to exist. Our weekly time together prepares us to go out and do the work of the church. If three hours a week (or five or one) make up the bulk of our Christianity, then something is really, really wrong.

Much of the discussion about men and women in the church comes down to who is going to get to stand up, who is going to get to speak, who is going to get to be seen by everyone else present.

So let me restate my radical views:

  • I don’t think the focus of the early church was a once per week assembly. To be honest, you have to do some piecemeal Bible study to even present a case for a weekly assembly.
  • I don’t think the focus of the church was on gathering hundreds of Christians together in one place. That wasn’t practical in many settings. And if it were the focus, wouldn’t we have more discussion of such in the New Testament?
  • I think a lot of our angst comes from the modern design of assemblies. Not the New Testament example. The modern design. Suddenly stepping up to a microphone implies authority. Where someone telling their story to a gathered group of friends feels like sharing, “giving your testimony” to a crowd seems to place you above them, if only for a moment.

I know that not all of the problems mentioned in gender discussions revolve around public worship. But a high percentage of them do.

I also know that pointing out that problem doesn’t solve it. Fact is, we have large weekly assemblies. We are guided by modernism’s idea of what should be done at such times. And we’ve got to work out how to proceed.

Let’s just recognize that there should be flexibility in how we proceed, with each congregation being given the freedom to work out its own standards and norms. Those who damn other Christians for not being more inclusive of women are running the risk of damning themselves. Those who damn other Christians for allowing women to participate more fall under the same threat of divine judgment.