Cheryl Schatz

Ah, “Mark the complementarian” is sure popular here! What a pleasure to have a complementarian visit my blog and be a part of the conversation. I think this is helpful and it sure does stir up the mix.

Well, folks, I am back. I haven’t had a chance to read most of the comments yet as I have been suffering from jet lag, trying to keep from getting my husband’s cold and trying hard to catch up with all the ministry emails that I missed. I will comment as I am able.

I appreciate Lin giving a plug for my DVDs and my work on 1 Cor. 11 (see my side bar). Mark seems to think that 1 Cor. 11 is a slam dunk for the preeminence of the man with the woman having a secondary function, but this is the opposite of what the passage says. I won’t go into the passage at length but here are a few comments.

1 Cor 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

What many people miss in this passage is that it is only the man who has a restriction, not the woman. This is because the man has a simple mandate “image and glory of God” while the woman has a more complex mandate with “image and glory of God” AND “image and glory of man”. The bottom line is that “image and glory of…” empowers humans. It is not a term of subordination to limit one’s function.

This means that “image and glory of God” frees humans to bring glory to God by operating in the authority as an image bearer. As the “image and glory of God” we are to show forth that glory and not hide it. The fact that we have been forgiven of our sins and Jesus has bore the shame of our sin, allows us to shine forth His glory. The covering which was meant to cover the shame of our sin is to be removed. If we keep the covering as if we still bear the shame of our sin, then we shame Jesus who paid a great price to take away our sin and the shame of our sin.

The woman too was to appear with a covering because Jesus also took away the shame of her sin, but since she bears the glory of two and not just one, (she shines the glory of both God and the man) Paul allows her to choose to keep the covering if it would bring shame to her husband. Her position was greater than the man’s position in that she was allowed to make her own decision, while the men were forbidden from wearing the covering of shame.

1 Cor 11:10 Therefore the woman ought to have (a symbol of) authority on her head, because of the angels.

The term “a symbol of” is not in the text and this addition distorts the meaning of the text. The woman, Paul says, must have the right and authority to make her own decision because of her up-coming position as judge of the angels. (1 Cor. 6:2, 3).

This passage in no way limits women, but connects the dual nature of the woman’s glory to the freedom for her to take her authority to make a godly decision. Here Paul emphasizes the equality of men and women as joint-heirs in the next life where women will stand side by side with the men in judging the world and the angels. In her position as ruler and judge (as an equal image bearer of God) she is not subordinate to men but fully equal in showing forth her place as image bearer as she is both the glory of God and the glory of the man.

Does this make sense, Mark? Do you have any questions about the importance of the equality of the woman which is highlighted in 1 Cor. 11?