First there are the implications of the uncovered head. Paul states that the reason for this bareheadedness is that the Christian man must exhibit the "image-glory of God," which we have understood in the sense that he must identify with and imitate God, as ruler of the creation. This is no small responsibility for men. We are all familiar with the biblical teaching that men must obey and serve God. The Bible in many places calls God's people His servants, and the word usually translated "servants" really means slaves.
But even so, where Christian men are concerned, the biblical concept of our relationship to God is more perfectly expressed as one of sonship. And a son is not a slave; he both obeys and imitates his Father. The incongruity of this metaphor in relation to women is obvious enough. A woman should not be asked to think of herself as a son who must imitate the Father. But this is what Christian men are called to do. A manly soul is not content to obey, he goes beyond that and makes his royal Father's interests his own. He inherits the dominion.
There is therefore a certain emulation of God proper for men which is not characteristic of female piety. This stance, symbolized by the uncovered head, is going to have consequences for the way in which a man worships God and lives out his faith.
I just think that we need to undertand the theological underpinnings of this kind of Christianity.
This sort of belief is contradictory with the notion that women are as fully human as men. To say things like this and still give lip-service to "equality" is illogical. Either God created man and woman in God's image to rule the Creation, or God created man in His image to rule the Creation and the woman. You can't have it both ways.
I am glad I am not reduced to arguing about the NT - but doesn't Hebrews 12:23 say that everyone is a firstborn son? I guess that Jerusalem translation is not lingua franca among the unequals - non-egalitarians. O well.
Thanks for the pointer in your comment at BBB re 1 Thessalonians. I think I understood what you were saying and I see how difficult the translation out of Greek would be. I doubt very much that I would take a structural approach that I have used for Hebrew poetry to some of the NT. I would likely do it for John's Gospel because of the poetry - but these letters - they seem to require something else.
Wow Suzanne, you sure find some horrible stuff to read. :-) It is too bad others with less wisdom are reading it too.
Marlowe is simply wacky in that analysis. No if, ands or buts. He needs to repent of his male preference reading of Scripture.
I have posted this on Denny Burk's blog. I also want to post it here because I am being moderated, and I'm afraid I may not be "permitted to speak" over there. Here it is:
The homosexuality issue has nothing to do with whether or not women are full citizens of the kingdom of heaven. They are two separate issues.
The oppressor has always said to the oppressed, “It is God’s will/design that you are subordinate. It is your destiny to be ruled.” Scripture has always been used as a tool to keep certain people under the control of others. “Divine right of kings” is an example. Also, “The curse of Noah on Ham means that Ham’s race (the African) are destined by God to serve the white races.” These passages about women don’t have to be read the way you’re reading them. You could take into account that these may be (and probably were) related to specific churches, times, and places, and specific situations. All of the verses that are used to control women come out of letters written to or about problem churches with specific difficulties to be addressed.
It’s your choice to decide to use 1 Cor 14 to subordinate women. Would you like it if it were used to subordinate you? Would you like to be told to be silent, and that it was shameful for you to speak?
Jesus’ Golden Rule says, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I think that if complementarians really wanted to follow this verse, they’d be on their knees asking God to please remove this oppression from their sisters. Surely, 2000 years after Christ came to set us free, it’s time.
This article in the weekend globe and mail is relevant - a remarkable statement - the subjection of women is its own religion
Doug Saunders shows the universality of the consequences of sin - he shall lord it over you. This has nothing to do with what religion you happen to be born into.
Great article, Bob. It makes some excellent points. I shuddered to read in a book by Dinesh D'Souza, a great Christian apologist, that women were honoured in the patriarchal culture of India. He really thought that women were much better off there than elsewhere.
Just wondering if you read the whole article, or only skimmed it to find bits that you could quote in a sensationalist manner? I read the entire article only last night, and know that the paragraphs you quote here occur almost at the very end of what is a long and well argued thesis. I wonder how many of those who commented before me bothered to follow the link and read the quotes in the context of the whole? I doubt if anyone did. No, you're all content to trash the work of a man you've never engaged with, based on only what you THINK he's saying.
Post a Comment