Ordination of women

[a mere housewife]

Joanna, I confess that the explanation by Matthew Henry is compelling to me. It seems to me that the passage is addressing decorum and propriety in a matter involving special authority for one of the gifts poured out so liberally on the Corinthian church in that time (in keeping with the prophesy that the Holy Spirit would be poured out not only on sons but also on daughters). And it seems to me that at verse 14 & 15, Paul is showing that custom in this matter is in keeping with 'the great principles of truth and holiness,' as Henry says. Hence women are, by nature, already 'covered' with their more ornamental hair as being in a position of submission; which is also a certain special glory they have as being the 'fullness' of the man, who is their head. So it was not against nature and creation, but in keeping with it, to comply with this point of propriety about a woman's place of submission in a special matter of authority current in that time.

I have some health issues which make balance a difficult enough matter when sitting still for long periods, and headcoverings aggravate that; but as a matter of honoring the culture of my own church I do try to wear a headcovering when I can -- as if I were in an Eastern country, I would do all I could without violating my conscience or damaging my health to appear in keeping with their customs. The ongoing principle of the passage seems to me one of not simply being subject to my husband, but of not being contentious with (biblically congruent) customs of respect and submission and place that prevail wherever I might be. That seems to me more in keeping with what still applies of the passage now that those gifts have ceased and we know I am not to be in a position of ecclesiastical authority. I am actually hesitant to be very militant about headcoverings; for it seems in my experience of the issue too easy to become singular and contentious in the practice, sometimes even in disregard of one's husband. I personally think that misses the point. Just my small thoughts .

[edit: Perhaps I ought to add that of course our consciences are bound by God's word and I would not wish to convince anyone to behave against conscience in this matter; and I do very much respect those who follow their conscience even when it isn't very pleasant for them, though I might not agree with their interpretation here -- I might be mistaken! I mostly wished to show that the sweeping representation of a position via images in history is not necessarily accurate. One has to supplement with reading the commentary on the subject Regardless of the view one takes, surely God will honor our conscientious observance of His word as we scrupulously try to understand it.]

 

[JoannaV]

Your explanation of Henry is compelling to me haha.

 

[TylerRay]

I have long hair and don't prophesy or pray publicly

Joanna,

You do pray and prophesy publicly if you engage in public worship. The Bible uses the term "prophesy" to refer to the singing of Psalms--the Word of God is in our mouths--(1 Chr 25:1-2; c. f. 1 Sam 10:5), and the whole congregation is to be praying as the minister leads.

 

[Sebastian Kim]

Well 1 Tim 2:11 makes the case pretty clear and straightforward, as previously stated. There is no need to reinvent the wheel

 

[kvanlaan]

Pastor Richard Bacon has a great sermon on this but all I can find right now is this article:

http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm

Is the hair given to the woman as a covering as a sign of authority on her head (if it is the ''covering" instead of a hat/shawl/veil)? If so, the man has the same sign of authority on his head...

I appeal to a short summary by our learned brother Rev Winzer:

The covering cannot be the woman's long hair because, (1.) the apostle clearly distinguishes an artificial covering from a natural covering in 11:5, 6. His aim is to show the shamefulness of going into the presence of men in the church gathering without an artificial covering. To paraphrase, "For the woman to go without the artificial covering is as shameful as if she should go without the natural covering. If she goes without the artificial covering then let her also go without the natural covering." (2.) There is no indication in the passage that the women were praying and prophesying without long hair. If anything, the appeal to long hair as the woman's glory takes it for granted that the women understood this full well because the natural covering of long hair is brought in later in the passage for the purpose of showing what nature teaches. The women understood it was "their glory" and probably even flaunted it in the process of praying and prophesying. Hence the need for an artificial covering as a token of gender order in the context of the church gathering.

 

[a mere housewife]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the covering the woman praying or prophesying was to wear in passage is hair, nor are Calvin or Matthew Henry.

However it's also quite clear that hair is spoken of in the passage as a natural covering, v 15, as part of a woman's created place of submission -- Henry's point is that Paul's injunctions to follow the custom of headcovering in this situation involving a special authority for a woman appeals to this natural fact.

The bible also uses 'prophesy' to refer to the daughters of Philip, who were something of an exception; and as Mr. Kim cited, to refer those activities which are inappropriate to women in the assemblies. Calvin and Henry's readings both point to these public activities, involving authority, being the case in point in this passage. Hence, history is not sweepingly on the side of those who say this passage means that a woman must be covered in public worship because she is engaging in those activities of public worship common to every member of the body. That is really my point in entering the discussion. I won't reiterate it, for I don't wish to argue it, simply to state it in the interest of representing the written views of the people in those pictures cited .