Cheryl Schatz

Okay, believe it or not I have a bit of spare time today and I read Mark’s comment. I must answer.

Mark,
You are doing a switch and bait. You are talking about a principle and then redefining it so that it becomes completely foreign to the text. You said:

The priciple in both texts is one of male leadership whether that is in the marriage or in the church.

Not so. There is not even one text or hint of it that says a husband is to “lead” his wife or that men are to “lead” women. There is also no text or even a hint of it that commands women to be a “follower”. Submission is not “followership”.

Paul supports both arguments for this from the creation account. The practice at the time in 1 Cor 11 was a head covering for a woman. This practice will change from culture to culture.

The “practice” was a humanistic cultural one, not a “practice” of the church. Is Paul demanding that the church follow the culture of the day and bring it into the church? The context defies that understanding. For example the humanistic culture was that men were to wear a headcovering when they prayed or worshipped because humans were seen as being unworthy to come to God with their sinful natures thus they must cover up. Paul forbid this practice in men as the humanistic culture was unworthy of Christian consideration. We have been made worthy because of the blood of Christ. Instead of covering up, we to come boldly before the throne of grace and we are all are to have the privileged of reflecting the glory of Christ without veiling.

2 Corinthians 3:18 (RSV)
18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Hebrews 4:16 (NKJV)

16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

In fact the Christian woman is to be the glory of both her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as well as her husband. Her unveiling is not to be a source of shame for those who are knowledgeable in the things of God. And there is such practice identified in the early church as Paul deemed those who would force the tradition of women to cover as being the contentious ones.

1 Corinthians 11:16 (NKJV)
16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Paul allowed women to cover only for the sake of their marriages in a shame based culture that caused women to be put away in divorce for breaking humanistic cultural taboos.

this is a great example of trying to implement a practice in our own culture that remains loyal to the principle.

The clear principle throughout the Bible is uncovering of all Christians as we are being changed into His likeness from glory to glory. The other clear principle is that husbands are to serve their wives and lift them up so that their gifts are encouraged and grown and used. Husbands are never encouraged to push down their wive’s gifts or hold them back from service to the Church.

We see this extended in seminaries also with the discussions of how much women should ‘teach’ or what they should ‘teach’ before it raises issues with the principle of 1 Tim 2 or 1 Cor 11, 14.

These seminaries who hold back their women are going beyond what is written and taking arguments that Paul is refuting as if the humanistic culture is to be the standard in the body of Christ. That is a faulty standard never set up or practiced by the Church in Scripture.

The challenge for any generation is how to apply the scriptural principles we see in the Bible. This will extend to singing, praying, or whatever.

There is no Scriptural principle that holds back the female “sons” of God in their service to God and those who hold back women from singing, praying or using their gift for the benefit of other Christians are practicing the worldly standards found in many third world countries who have long held traditions that suppress women’s speech, their gifts and their worth.

So to clear things up, i am not saying the head covering is the principle, it is the practice of implementing the principle at the time.

There is no such principle that holds back women from expressing their God-given gifts. The principle stated rather clearly in Scripture is once again that all of us are to be transformed into His image and to be true image bearers without covering up what God is doing with in us. God’s gifts are required to be used and they are never to be buried by either ourselves or those who believe they are appointed as God’s gatekeepers to the use of His gifts.

Mark, if I may phrase your principle this way, it would be that you are saying that “head covering” is not the principle it is the implementing of the principle. The implementing of the principle is the subdue of women’s expression and their God given gifts. Therefore it is man’s duty to hold back what God has given such that the self appointed gatekeeper decides the minute details of what a woman can and cannot do. Mark, you continue to flaunt the comp position here as if it is Scriptural and you do so by changing the very principles of Scripture that have been set up as a standard for all of us. You are going to be challenged again and again even though you just don’t get it for I believe you love the doctrine of male supremacy. It sure appears to me that you are not willing to lift a finger to stop the suppression of women’s gifts for the common good of the body of Christ for your rights come before the universal principles of the Word of God.

By the way I give my reasons for my absence from this blog here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/08/10/1-timothy-215-going-deeper/ on comment #189.