Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (Wagner, David H.) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: ambitious women may approach the altar now ... Message-ID: Date: 23 May 91 01:10:40 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston Lines: 103 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes... > >I Corinthians 11:4-6 > ... 4 So a man who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship >with his head covered disgraces Christ. 5 And any woman who prays or >proclaims God's message in public worship with nothing on her head >disgraces her husband; there is no difference between her and a woman >whose head has been shaved.... >Paul goes on like this for some time. Women should have long hair, and >keep their heads covered. Men should have short hair, and not have them >covered. It's the natural order of things. > >It's tempting to ask if you are in favor of enforcing these rules. (I >for instance have long hair. I know many Christian women who do not >wear their hair long, and they don't wear hats in church.) But that's >not really my point here. To the best of my knowledge, Paul in 1 Cor 11 was using a biblical principle - male headship and female submission - to uphold a local custom - head coverings. A woman in that place and time with no head covering and/or shaved hair was considered a prostitute. Paul was telling the women to dress respectably. It is strange that he used a biblical principle of male headship and female submission to make his point. Perhaps he simpy meant that since the custom gave expression to the principle in a valid way, it ought to be upheld. In my church it is popular to translate v. 16 as: "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no *such* practice/custom--nor do the churches of God." This makes clear that he was talking about a local custom and not a practice binding on the church for all time. >Check out verse 5 again. Paul doesn't say that it is bad for a woman to >proclaim God's message in public worship. He only says that she mustn't >do it with her head uncovered, or with her hair cut (which amounts to >the same thing in his eyes.) > >There is quite a difference between keeping silence, and proclaiming >God's message in public worship! We seem to have quite a conflict >between the letter written to Timothy and the letter written to the >church at Corinth. But wait! I admit this is a bit of a problem. >I Corinthians 14:29-35 > >....Two or three who are given God's message should speak, while the >others are to judge what they say. 30 But if someone sitting in the >meeting receives a message from God, the one who is speaking should >stop. 31 All of you may proclaim God's message, one by one, so that >everyone will learn and be encouraged. 32 The gift of proclaiming God's >message should be under the speaker's control, 33 because God does not >want us to be in disorder but in harmony and peace. > As in all the churches of God's people, 34 the women should keep quiet >in the meetings, They are not allowed to speak; as the Jewish Law says, >they must not be in charge. 35 If they want to find out about >something, they should ask their husbands at home. It is a disgraceful >thing for a woman to speak in a church meeting. (TEV) > >Well now what! Now even I Corinthians seems inconsistant with itself! >But isn't it interesting that Paul makes reference to the Jewish law for >support? Back in Chapter 7 we find... The word 'Jewish' is a translator's interpolation, and a bad one. Paul simply says 'as the Law says'. Now this might refer to the Law of Moses, the code given at Sinai. However this law contains no such injunction. That is actually part of the problem in understanding the text. But in Jewish usage 'the Law' frequently referred to all of the books of Moses, Genesis through Deuteronomy. Thus Jesus would refer to 'the Law and the Prophets'. I think we can use 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to help us understand what part of 'the Law' Paul referred to. In Timothy Paul referred to the creation and fall: "For Amam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." Evidently this is also 'the Law' that Paul had in mind in 1 Cor 14. There is another problem in that Paul's injunction appears to be a complete ban on speaking. Yet elsewhere women are commanded to pray, and, as you have pointed out, Paul speaks of them prophesying. The best resolution that I know of is that this ban on speaking has a context given in the previous verses--that of 'orderly worship'. So he seems to be saying 1. They should recognize the order of creation, the headship of men, and of 'their own men' -- which is usually translated 'husbands', but could also mean fathers, uncles, etc. 2. They would dishonor this headship if by rising to speak to the assembled church, they would force a man to sit down (v. 30). Does this make sense? Beats me! But I am convinced at least that the ban on speaking applies to *public* speaking before the assembled church, and not to praying, singing hymns, etc. In the letter to Timothy, however, he is speaking principally about teaching, and authoritative teaching of men, at that. I conclude from this that a woman should not serve as a man's pastor. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.