Can of worms...

[Silvertusk]

My wife came back from a woman's only session last night at our church. They are doing a course called resolution for women. What they were talking about was how women should submit to their men - as in they are under authority. Now personally I would not dare try and order my wife about - I value my extremities far too much for that - but this did raise the question (and a lengthy discussion - which is why I am so tired this morning) about what some of the passages in the New Testament say about woman's role in the church - more specifically in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16
2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but 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 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord 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.

and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

34 Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Now my minister is a woman and she is amazing - a real blessing from God. But as you can imagine these verses do not sit well with my wife - or me to be honest. I have read a number of interpretations and most of them seem to take the literal meaning of them - so is the context cultural and meant to be take as much - or is it a rule for all ages? What interpretations of these passages do people here understand to be the best ones? Any help on this is much appreciated.

God Bless
Silvertusk

[Kurieuo]

If you knew my mother, then you'd understand ones like 1 Cor 14:34-35

mouth-belt.jpg (43.43 KiB) Viewed 3327 times

[Silvertusk]

If you knew my mother, then you'd understand ones like 1 Cor 14:34-35

mouth-belt.jpg

[Silvertusk]

I would also add to that list of scripture - 1 Timothy 2:12 by the way.

[melanie]

i am not one to fall on these arguments often but In this case I think it's relevant.
Cultural significance is paramount.
Racism and slavery can be argued in scripture.
As can polygamy
By the scriptures apparently I also have to wear my head covered
Law, tradition, with a bit of cultural bias and an extra dose of tradition can be the means of subjection and control.
When Jesus said we are all equal under God, man has tried to distinguish otherwise.
When Jesus said love God, and love others and by which all law is subject too, that was the fulfilment of the law.
If for whatever reason people..men, would like to use scripture to fill another agenda then that is not a testament of Christianity but character.

[RickD]

I would also add to that list of scripture - 1 Timothy 2:12 by the way.

My bible says:
"12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain in the kitchen."


I have the MCP bible, btw.

[melanie]

Ohh Rick, dictonomy really!
When we can make a sammich, be humble enough to do so, and wise enough to know when we can manipulate our sammich making to pull the hunger strings.
Muhaha ha ha that's power

[EssentialSacrifice]

Ohh Rick, dictonomy really!
When we can make a sammich, be humble enough to do so, and wise enough to know when we can manipulate our sammich making to pull the hunger strings.
Muhaha ha ha that's power

in point of fact ... that's powerfully hysterical

Muhaha reminds me of Dishonest John on the Beanie and Cecil Show !

[RickD]

Ohh Rick, dictonomy really!
When we can make a sammich, be humble enough to do so, and wise enough to know when we can manipulate our sammich making to pull the hunger strings.
Muhaha ha ha that's power

Why do I get the feeling that you aren't really talking about sandwiches and hunger?

Mel, you are an evil, evil woman!

[melanie]

Ohh Rick, dictonomy really!
When we can make a sammich, be humble enough to do so, and wise enough to know when we can manipulate our sammich making to pull the hunger strings.
Muhaha ha ha that's power

Why do I get the feeling that you aren't really talking about sandwiches and hunger?

Mel, you are an evil, evil woman!

What? Paranoid man

[Silvertusk]

Ummmm...derailed anyone...

[RickD]

Ummmm...derailed anyone...

Sorry Silvertusk...

Derailing was easier than dealing with the OP. I was hoping you wouldn't notice, and you'd play along.

[Jac3510]

34 Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Silvertusk

I actually don't think those verses were in the original text at all. Probably a later gloss added in.

[Kurieuo]

The question to ask I think, is whether there is truth to such?
Put social sensitivities aside, I believe there is. I've seen it.

95% of women, want to talk. 95% of men just want peace and quiet to chill.
Not always 100% of the time, nor in all cases.
But we all see the Mars and Venus difference, right?

I think one needs to look beyond the sexes though.
Pay attention to Paul's fuller teaching also in Ephesians 5:25-28.
Husbands love wife as Christ loves the church. That means respect.
That means not being bastardly. Lay down your life for your wife. That means no cheating. It means dying for her.
The man, as even seen in nature, is intended to be the protector. Unless you have say a Bill Gates married to Xena, you know, by and large we can all see the natural order intends man as the protector given greater muscle and strength.
Can you picture if Paul had said the woman has the lay down her life for the husband?! OMG, the heavens would cave in by today's social norms.

I've seen many men in churches sit high on such passages. Especially in more rigid circles.
It's not a license to be a bastard. Not a license to be abusive.
Wives ought to control their tongue, as ought the any mouthy men should.
Husbands shouldn't *****, put down or disrespect their wives, but listen to and honour them (and likewise wives).
It's just proper etiquette in the church which really shouldn't be a place of disorder.

My mum caused a lot of disorder and even had pastors walking on egg shells.
She created a bit if social chaos and disturbance within churches.
My dad never stood up, told her to hush it and lead as a father should.

Question I'd ask anyone, is whether there is meant to be an intended order to the family?
Today, many will say no way. There is no normal family structure.
I disagree. I clearly see a structure in nature and as such intended by God.
There does seem to be an order to the family.

My father never manned up to his role, which just made my mum even more frantic and feeling out of control.
If he was a good husband and father, then he would have lead. He'd stand up for what was right.
Yet, he shirked such responsibility, and let my mother lead.
Speaking from my own experience this didn't work out.

So, I do see an order to the family unit, but then rarely are we all healthy.
You know, the reason why Dad never stepped up is to a degree because his own father went in a rage and violence.
He never wanted to be the same, and to a degree I suppose that made him more withdrawn.
And then, my mother came out of a family where she never felt like anyone was in control.
Shove the two together, and you get the dynamic I experienced and a breakdown in the family unit.

That, however, doesn't mean there isn't an intended norm.
You know, sometimes a child doesn't get both their parents. One dies.
That doesn't mean the ideal situation isn't for children to have their natural parents.
You can't point to dysfunction in order to justify dysfunction.

So, I'd back Paul's words when taken into a holistic manner.

As far as coverings are concerns, such is full of symbol
-- which if interpreted in a different light is quite honouring to the woman.
But, by and large, these cultural sensitivities aren't even understood today.
Culture is seen as something to be shaken off. Any rule or structure seen as shackles to be broken.
Nonetheless, one could take away from the passage we should be sensitive in the church to cultural etiquette.

Furthermore, theologically understood, husband and wife are one unit.
So then any insult upon the wife is an insult to the husband and vice-versa.
Within the unity of a truly loving relationship God intends and desires for each of us with our spouse.

[B. W.]

Remarkably, 1 Co 14:34 comes right after speaking in different languages in the church or unknown language. Paul then writes and note the context:

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
1Co 14:34 Let your women (wives) keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
1Co 14:35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
1Co 14:36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?
1Co 14:37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. NASB

It is apparent form 1 Co 14:1-32 something was going amiss in the Corinthian church and then verse 33 ( see above). Now read verse 36 and 37. The context indicates a lot of disruption going on because of the language gift and from this it is a safe deduction that the women at that time were overusing that gift and making vows that they were prophets or on the other hand Christian wives were asking questions during the church service of that era where there would have been a lot of singing, tongue speakers, tongue interpreters, teachings, and prophetic gift displayed. Add to the mix - asking questions - maybe a bit of both. The whole Corinthian church at that time was a mess -- must of been chaos...

Looks like Paul had a rough time straitening this mess out and he told the married women not to make a scene or spectacle out of the church service but go home and bother their husbands instead - for some reason that makes sense to me. Maybe Paul lost his cool in the letter, like we all do from time to time.

Notice that He did not address the single gals in the church, just the married ones. It was like Paul was being polite but holding back saying this outright: shut up and go home and bug your husbands and talk in unknown langues to them there not here - naw nanan na...
-
-
-