The big issue is how we take Scriptural passages that are suspected to have cultural application.
As a loosely related example I want to look at the issue of headcoverings.
As we examine it, please ask yourself an honest question: What would Paul have to say to make it enduring, not just cultural?
Notice the arguments he makes.
1CO 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. 6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
1CO 11:11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.
a. starting in vs. 3- appeal to the story of the fall. He doubtless had in mind the account of the fall in which it said "her desire shall be fore her husband and he shall RULE over her). To Paul this was no cultural issue. It was a God given directive. And as was noted before, he is not giving his opinion, he is appealing to the established scripture of his day. (The old Testament WAS their Scripture).
b.Starting in vs 8, appeal to the initial creation order and roles. Woman was a helper for Adam. Again, Paul does not consider this as his opinion: This was BEFORE sin, so I see no reason to read in difficult cultural significance. Now after sin these natural roles were intensified because sin brings more division. Therefore there needs to be a definite authority, and one who is accountable to God for the family as a whole. He also mentions the angels. Now if anyone has further information on why angels seem to be blushing over uncovered heads, fill me in! It is a difficult passage. Perhaps it is just that they can't fathom getting rid of God's instructions out of preference or rebellion.
c. Starting in vs 11, A concession that they are interdependent...but that all comes from GOD...ie, who are you to argue with what God did? Do you not think he anticipated that they might give all kinds of reasons even in their own time? He is being careful to make appeals to established authorities that are free of connotations of their day.
d. Starting in vs. 13, an appeal to the natural order. (Now some might note that while he says the nature of things, that he has in mind the cultural idea that women have long hair. Obviously it is possible for men to have long hair in nature. But this essentially cultural argument is significant in that he puts it THIRD in the line of reasons, and clearly states that he is putting it in their terms....think for yourself...is it really done this way? It is not his main argument, but one that he is using as a reinforcement to his argument.
e. Starting in verse 16, appeal to authority. Finally he ends with an appeal to ecclesiastical authority which puts it beyond any doubt that it is not a matter of private interpretation. And he also assumes that there would be contention over it. Why? Well, I think that is obvious, even then it seemed like a controversial issue. Here he says it is this way in all the churches of God. Not just Paul's church. Why? Because they took the OT seriously, and it seemed a rather clear concept.
Paul is here basing this teaching off of the biblical council regarding roles in the family. These he sees outlined in Genesis, and he gives more details of his view in Ephesians 5. He indicates that the wife submits to the husband. But the husband submits to God. So this is not free rein there. And more than that the husband is to love the wife as Christ loves the church. So this is SACRIFICIAL love. And it is love that is directed by God. Essentially the man has a greater responsibility to look out for the interests of all in the family. He is directly accountable to God for them. Paul is in no way iin Ephesians giving the idea that men can just kick around their spouse.
Back to the passage in Corinthians...His main stress in the argument is that the head covering is a SIGN OF AUTHORITY for the woman.
Now, what does it all mean then? Quite possibly there were those who were not covering their head, which revealed a lack of respect, and perhaps indicated that they were ignoring the roles given in the family structure.
So now we have to ask, is there something here that Paul sees as enduring? I think there is. He felt this family structure was important. It also underlies his teaching that a woman would not hold authority over a man in the church, because this would set the biblical order on its head.
So then this means that women should be all covering their heads, right?
Maybe not. the cultural application of head covering may no longer be a big issue, because head covering is not a sign of AUTHORITY in our day and age . Paul says that in verse 9 that she ought to have a sign of authority on her head. He implies that the women were disregarding not just cultural norms, but the authority structure set in place by God. Now today, if we were to apply this, it might be overkill to have women cover their heads, because most in society wouldn't even get the reference, as they would then. So saying there is some cultural element is true. But the concept of authority, and of a hierarchy in the family is not a cultural issue, and he goes to great pains to ANTICIPATE arguments from people who thought it was just his opinion.
Of course the argument could be made (and was in GT before!) that in many countries it is still a symbol of submission. Not only that, but in America too I have noted that even those of Islamic faith who cover their heads are seen to be in submission. Our society tends to put it in a bad light (repression, etc.) but this is still clearly understood. So perhaps we have dismissed the custom too quickly.
Now in our modern culture, we often take great pains to escape the clear thrust of the Bible on the role of women. And this is often based on the idea of cultural interpretation. But the facts are that the enduring principles of different roles is a clear one in scripture. Paul also said don't let your mind be conformed to the pattern of this world. And I think many of us have been far too unwilling to take that to heart and resist cultural trends which undermine biblical realities.
Was Paul really conforming to the cultural trend of his day? The culture of Corinth was not necessarily putting women down. On the contrary, the women priestesses had prominent roles in fertility cult worships. Paul was not just enforcing a code that was accepted by most of Corinth. He was expressing a code from the OT that very will might have been in OPPOSITION to the dominant trend not only in the specific situation in that church, but perhaps the whole culture there.
Peter's text too on women making inward beauty the focus deals with submission. And again ,we seem to see a counter-culture element. The assumption was that the man would be impressed if the wife focused not on her own adornment, but on submission. In other words he would say "wow, this is a change...maybe these Christian folks have the right idea." Now that seems to me to say that Paul and Peter were dealing with cultures that did NOT promote submission in the same way as the Christian church did in response to the OT.
So again, what would Paul have to say before we believe that it was not cultural? In my opinion he put it as clearly as he could. He was fighting an unpopular teaching even in that day, which is clear from the numerous arguments from various angles that he presents.
Incidentally I have mentioned to my wife, (who happens to be Sophia7), that because head coverings are not longer a sign of submission that I am going to buy her a nice pin that says "I submit to my husband!" She said she would wear it, but somehow I haven't gotten up the nerve yet !
A futher note, I don't have any problem with women teaching etc. if it is understood that it is not an extension of authority which undermines the clear teaching of the Bible in regards to roles. Women can minister in many ways, and we see this even in those women who worked with Paul. Some were clearly prophets, others taught, etc. Even in this text women are seen as prophesying, though with their head covered.
The issue to me is whether they could hold roles of spiritual authority in the church, as this would set the established family structure on its head.
