- It’s Christmas Eve and the kids are off to bed. You pull out the box with one of their big gifts for Christmas morning. Before you’re off to bed, you just need to spend a few minutes assembling the toy. You open the box and pull out piece after piece after piece, along with several bags of nuts and bolts. As you look at all of that laying on the living room floor in front of you, you get this sinking feeling in the bottom of your stomach. And you think: “This is going to be a lot harder than I thought. This is going to take a lot longer than I thought.”
- A feeling not unlike that awaits the person digging into this passage. As I scoured around earlier this week in these verses, everywhere I looked were more “pieces” - more issues raised and questions to be addressed. Everywhere were more “nuts and bolts” - little verses that didn’t initially seem to fit well with other verses. And I thought: “This is going to be a lot harder than I thought. This is going to take a lot longer than I thought.”
- For better or worse, I kept digging and kept digging and eventually came up with some semblance of an opinion coming out of all these issues and verses.
- One thing that made it harder is that the commentators that I normally turn to were all over the map. With most passages I can pretty accurately tell you the direction each commentator is going to be heading. Not so here. I was surprised that John MacArthur argued that the head coverings were cultural. (I was surprised he thought anything in the Bible could be treated that way.) I was surprised that Robert Deffinbaugh went so far in arguing that head coverings were for today. I was surprised that that old warhorse J. Vernon McGhee actually said that he didn’t have a problem with women teachers. It was like some kind of weird Twilight Zone episode where nothing is at it should be.
- I should probably note that these issues are particularly close to Karen and I right now, as one of the couples in our family has recently started into a new church and, as a result, the woman in that couple has begun wearing long skirts all the time (a practice that some particularly conservative churches believe in). I’ve been surprised at how strong the negative reactions have been to this change in behavior, especially among other Christians. These are issues that can raise a lot of heat. Let’s hope this evening we can shed a little light.
Three Opening Truths:
1. For most of us, our opinions on these issues are based on our thoughts, not on the careful study of Scripture.
- Very few of us have taken time to make a detailed study of these issues to see what the Word says. We may say, “I just think. . .” or “I was raised that women should. . .” or “I’ve always believed that. . .”, but that’s not the issue here. The issue is not what we think, but what God says.
2. So much of our battle as Christians is finding the line where we can engage our culture without accommodating to it.
- This is especially true with the issues we’re going to discuss this evening, but it is generally true in our Christian lives. We don’t want to be hermits, but we don’t want to lose our distinctiveness.
- For instance, technology is, of course, not intrinsically evil. Television can be used to show a Billy Graham Crusade (and see thousands saved) or show pornographic movies. There is no reason to reject TV as a whole, but sometimes it’s difficult to discern what’s appropriate and what isn’t for a Christian to watch. Many Christians I know like “Law & Order,” but does it have voyeuristic violence that makes it inappropriate? Some condemned “Schindler’s List” when it was shown by ABC, but did the movie (unedited in its violence and nudity) serve to educate about the horrors of World War II?
- As I write this, the “The Da Vinci Code” movie is soon to be released. Many Christians (myself included) view this movie as an excellent chance to engage unbelievers on who Jesus really is. Is using this movie in that way engaging the culture or accommodating to it?
- Throughout the Bible, we see people walking this line. Joseph shaved his beard as a concession to Egyptian culture, yet adamantly refused to give into Potiphar’s wife. Daniel and his three friends were willing to serve a foreign king, but would not bow down to his golden image.
- This is important on the issue of this sermon because the assertions made can be seen as so far out of line with cultural norms. If, however, cultural norms require us to forsake Biblical teaching, then something is deeply wrong.
3. The fact that Christians don’t usually do these practices anymore doesn’t mean that they’re not valid for us today.
- Some might dismiss these whole questions out of hand simply because “I don’t know any church that does these things, so therefore they can’t be binding for today.” That’s not the case. The fact that we don’t practice them doesn’t automatically mean that we shouldn’t practice them.
- A good example of this is fasting. We have a clear word from Jesus on this (Matthew 6:16) that it is something He presumed that we would continue doing. Yet, I’d be hard pressed right now to name five Christians I know who have fast regularly in their lives. The issue is simply disobedience. . . and the fact that everyone is disobeying doesn’t make our disobedience any less wrong.
Three Issues:
1. Should women be silent in church?
a. Yes - Then 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 should be interpreted in that straightforward way and 1 Corinthians 11:5 is talking about private, outside-church times.
b. No - Then 1 Corinthians 11:5 indicates that women prayed and prophesied in church and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 just means that women shouldn’t be argumentative.
- As these two statements indicate, we need some explanation to understand how chapter 11 and chapter 14 go together. At first glance, chapter 11 seems to indicate that women should be speaking up in church while chapter 14 seems to indicate that they should be quiet.
- The two most likely resolutions to that are listed above: either 11:5 isn’t talking about praying or prophesying in a church setting, but rather in a private setting, or 14:34-35 has to do with some women who were disruptive in service.
- It should come as no surprise that I think the latter option is superior.
- By the way, some define the prophesying simply as “talking to people about God” (closely tied to praying being “talking to God about people”) while others believe that prophesying refers either to preaching or to predicting the future.
- Another thought that is worth mentioning is that the larger context of chapter 14 is the orderly use of the gift of tongues in a worship service. As someone who doesn’t believe that the gift of tongues is for today, the relevance of the attached instruction is also in question. (J. Vernon McGhee argues that the instruction to keep silent is actually focused on women not speaking in tongues in worship. That, he says, is the type of “silence” Paul has in mind.)
- In some traditional churches, chapter 14 is used as a reasoning for why women shouldn’t be called on to pray. It should be noted though, that if you are going to actually take chapter 14 at face value then you have to go beyond just a woman praying to a woman doing anything verbal in worship: shouting Amen, giving a testimony, sharing an announcement, perhaps even singing.
- See 1 Timothy 2:11-12 for another reference to women’s silence.
2. Should women wear head coverings in worship?
a. Yes - This is a permanent teaching.
b. No - This was important in Corinth, but was a cultural issue.
- On the side of the yes argument are vv. 3 and 16, which seem to give a heavy weight to this line of reasoning. On the side of the no argument, one wonders if this was a permanent teaching, why is it only even hinted at here when worship is discussed throughout the NT? MacArthur argues that the divine principle here is the headship of the man while the head covering is just the cultural manifestation of that principle. He says that dress varies from place to place, but the larger principle applies.
- Here again, not surprisingly, I believe the latter of the two arguments is superior.
- If you do want to go with the yes argument, then implicit with that would be that all Christian women should wear their hair long, in addition to wearing a head covering, since the whole passage is being taken as literally true for today.
- The head covering in mind here is most likely not just a little cap on top of your head, but more of a shawl that would worn covering most of the sides and back of a woman’s head. It would definitely be noticeable. Further, he is not speaking of merely wearing a hat. It also is not merely having long hair, as Paul speaks of head coverings distinct from long hair.
- I should note, in combining the issues of silence and head coverings, that although I disagree with them, I have a certain respect for the consistency of those Christian women who take these passages literally and choose to wear long hair, head coverings, and remain silent in church. I don’t agree with them, but at least they aren’t picking and choosing certain parts.
3. Should women defer to men because of male headship?
a. Yes - The man is the head of the woman.
b. No - We are all one in Christ.
- 1 Corinthians 11:3, 7 push the idea that the man is the head of the woman. Is that true for today or was that a cultural issue? One strong argument in favor of it being true for today is that verse 3 puts “the head of woman is man” in between two statements “the head of every man is Christ” and “the head of Christ is God” which are indisputably still true today.
- On the no side we have statements like Galatians 3:28 - “neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus.” (Also see 1 Peter 3:17.) Further, it’s worth noting that the statement in Genesis 3:16 to the woman that “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” is part of the curse leveled because of sin. In Christ we have the lifting of the curse and victory over sin. Does that mean that we are free to live beyond the implications of the curse? Further, it’s important to remember the role that Jesus gave to women that was far about the cultural norms of His day, including their being the last at the cross and the first at the tomb.
- Among those who argue Yes, most are quick to note that this is not male chauvinism that we’re talking about, but that the husband is called on in the Bible to love his wife the way Christ loved the church - that is, even being willing to die for her. That kind of sacrificial love is a far cry from the “Woman, go get me a beer” idea that some associate with male headship. Also, they note headship does not mean that the man is more valuable or intrinsically more spiritual, but merely that that is the role he has been assigned.
Conclusion:
- These are difficult issues that sincere Christians genuinely disagree about, but I hope this evening that our look into these passages has helped you to understand how you see what the Bible has to say.
