“At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Ps. 16: 11)
The Basket Case Chronicles #127
“For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for man” (1 Cor. 11:8-9).
We will return in the next verses to the application, and to the symbolism manifested in and through head coverings. Those applications are various, but the reality being applied, the symbolism being expressed, is here.
What Paul says is that we can say that the woman is of the man in a way that we cannot say in reverse. We cannot say that the man is of the woman. We can say that the woman was created for the man, and we cannot say that the man was created for the woman. We live in a day that takes high offense at things like this, and so we have to be careful. We have to take care not to make it any more offensive than it is, and we must also take care not to back away from the apostle’s teaching in order to stay out of trouble. If we reject the apostle’s teaching here, the only honest response would be to find a religion other than Christianity.
Paul teaches that the woman is oriented to the man differently than the man is oriented to the woman. There will be additional detail in subsequent verses, but here it says that she is “of” him, and in that same way, he is not “of” her. The man was created first, to tend the garden, and the woman was created second, to tend the gardener. She was created for him in a way that is not true concerning him and her.
This is a creational orientation. The fall and sin has disrupted it, and men must love their wives as Christ loved the church in order to keep their families from being disrupted by male selfishness. But orientation toward his creational task (his garden) is not male selfishness.
This fundamental orientation is very important—so important that we need continuing and ongoing cultural reminders of it. If we ditch those reminders, we must not be surprised when we start to lose the reality as well. Symbols matter. Liturgy matters.
Pastor Wilson, In my ongoing quest to learn to think, I have a question regarding both “…a day that takes high offense at things like this…” and “…take care not to make it any more offensive than it is…”. With the former, I think that just because someone takes offense at something does not necessarily mean that there is something wrong with the something. Regarding the “…any more offensive than it is…”, are you saying that it is offensive because it offends our sin, or that the premise is a type of malum in se?
G.K. Beale – “It is appropriate for God’s glory to be reflected in worship, but not that of man. Thus Paul’s point is not that women are not made in God’s image, but rather that the way the creation narrative distinguishes between the origin and purpose of the man and the woman suggests that the man (not originating from the woman or being created to complete her) does not reflect the woman’s glory (but only God’s), while the woman does reflect the glory of the man. Paul’s overarching point seems to be that nothing should happen in worship that detracts… Read more »
DW “If we reject the apostle’s teaching here, the only honest response would be to find a religion other than Christianity.” And so when we did not baptize our children and admit them to the church, were we of such lack of spiritual understanding that we should have just found another religion? The church is currently, as in this blog, multiplying solutions for the theological vacuum created just a few generations ago. The long hair argument is a modern novelty when viewed against history, and simply the text itself. The exegetical gymnastics performed to somehow deeply spiritualize this teaching is… Read more »
Gymnastics? Wilson hasn’t revealed an argument for or against hats yet. At this point he is driving corner stakes, so we know where the boundaries are. It seems Steve Perry is far too eager to get to the denunciation phase. Why all of the bridge burning while people may still be on the other side? Is this about understanding Scripture and each other, patiently, or is it about being right, right this instant? If we are wrong, and if it took a generation for us to get where we are, it may take more than a few weeks to gather… Read more »
The enemy’s not about to change his M.O now: the front line is, and has always been, between the sexes: the whole world (the world of men that is) is controlled by (or, more specifically, by the FEAR of) The Cold Shoulder.
A woman should cover her head to show she is obedient to her husband, so if she is not obedient, covering her head would be a worst sin: women’s uncovered heads in the modern Church are an honest representation of where we’re all at.
Until we get the barracks in order, no one’s going to war.
Before things get high jacked again with bridge burning, denunciations, accusations of malice and the common characterizations that such language could hurt my cause because it is not tender-hearted enough, lets quickly review how this study has really gone along. First, this is a study. But have you “ever” heard of a study without “any” references to the historical church? Because there are none thus far. Doug starts his study out with a statement like “there is a false piety that strives for originality, and lands in mind-numbing conformity.” Ok, not sure why he’s addressing the WestBuro Baptists, if in… Read more »
Steve, I don’t understand why you keep harping on Doug’s use of the word “artificial.” Hair = natural head covering. Hat/scarf/snood/doily/mantilla/yarmulke/hijab/paper bag/lamp shade = artificial head coverings. We aren’t born with those things, nor do they spontaneously sprout from our skulls. Somebody makes them, and then we put them on. You’re injecting something into Doug’s meaning that just isn’t there.
Sister, that’s just it. We are being taught that theres no meaning to it other than a means to cosmetically enhance a woman’s true glory, her hair. It’s a non needed symbol. It becomes a second covering for a covering. And bringing even greater attention to a woman’s glory (mans glory) in the presence of God, smacks in the face of what’s historically being taught. It is the opposite. “Nothing should happen in worship that detracts from God’s glory, including behavior that would draw attention to the glory of man.” But we’re being taught to show your glory, enhance your… Read more »
As an honest question Steve, as I’ve only recently started to study the subject, where is, “Nothing should happen in worship that detracts from God’s glory, including behavior that would draw attention to the glory of man.” from?
I keep hearing that principle, especially as a charge against Wilson, but I don’t find that in the 1 Cor 11 passage.
I should have stated that I hear that principle as proof for a woman using man-made means to cover her head, but I’m honestly curious as to how the conclusion that women should wear an additional covering follows from the premise that we shouldn’t detract from the glory of God. Where is it stated that the point of a covering is to cover woman’s glory rather than being about wearing a sign of authority?
Steve — Doug doesn’t believe an artificial covering is required. You believe that an artificial covering is required. Fussing about the perfectly legitimate use of the word “artificial” is not making your point at all.
Wesley – this entire teaching is about transcendence. It is about worship and visibly acknowledging creational principles of Headship, Authority and Glory. In verse seven Paul explains that a man should “not” have his head covered because he represents the “glory “of God, but a woman should. This covering of both man and woman’s glory (covering her natural long hair which she should have seven days a week otherwise it’s a disgrace) accentuates only God’s glory in the sanctuary. This is how we are to approach Him at His table in front of all the holy angles. And this is… Read more »
Valerie – If this was just a matter of two symbols representing the same thing, one making the case for long hair, and the other for a covering as historically taught, then I could understand or at least have a better disposition. At this point however I don’t think you understand how Doug has actually attacked the historical significance of the symbol and emptied it of all it meaning. He has gone beyond defending long hair, and turned the historical covering into a glorious sideshow. It’s kind of like this, to make my point. A friend of mine wanted to… Read more »
I don’t know… I’m still a bit shakey as to saying that the passage is about subjugating glory, but rather about showing headship and submission. To my amateur comprehension, it appears that according to the passage, man images his Head through being the head of the woman while woman ought to wear a symbol of authority on her physical head–that symbol of authority being her glory, incidentally, that symbol of authority is her hair which was given her, in Wilson’s language, “For a Glory and a Covering.” Short hair, her being uncovered, is therefore a symbol of her bucking the… Read more »
Understand that I’m not submitting that as an authority, I just don’t (yet?) understand the purpose of covering one’s head in the same way you do, but I could be wrong.
Gilbert — As usual, you are spot on.