Men and Women in the Church

This is a very, very controversial area of scripture. And I think it's our job to dissect this in terms of the relevance of this section of scripture to the times and the culture. And also to kind of what the Lord really had this be all about for us even today. So we don't like to pick and choose and take things that we think are applicable because they're convenient or things that are not convenient we dismiss. But anyway, I think we have to put this perspective prayerfully in culture times and also interpret it for today's age.

We're in 1 Corinthians 11, we're going to read 1-16. I'm going to read all of that now because I think we need to take it in context to interpret each and every section. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I deliver them to you.

But it would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head, but every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is even all one if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn, but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is in the image and the glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the women to have power on their head because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, and neither the woman without the man in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman. but all things of God.

Judging yourselves, it is comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered. Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory for her, for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, that ye come together, not for the better, but for the worse.

Let's proceed here. Imitate me or be followers of me even as I also am of Christ. This verse fits better actually with the end of chapter 10. It's really kind of not appropriate the chapter should have ended where it did, it should have been 1034 instead of 111, nevertheless that's here and I love this verse and the reason I love it is because you know it's just as I, by the way to go back to 1033, just as I also please all men in all things not seeking my own profit but the profit of many that they may be saved imitate me just as I also imitate Christ. It's a sequential to that whole section we talked about last time. Now, a couple of questions for you here this morning. Wake up.

Are we to walk in Paul's footsteps? Did Paul walk in Christ's footsteps? And how are we to imitate or be followers of Paul? Your thoughts. This term, by the way, of being followers or indicators is used eight times in seven verses in the Greek Concordance, and always refers either to Paul specifically, the church as a body, or God himself. This is never used in the negative, always in a spiritual context. So back to the questions. Do we walk in Paul's footsteps? Did Paul walk in Christ's footsteps? What does it mean to be a follower of Paul? I got some thoughts, but I'm not answering it for you because I didn't want your thoughts. No thoughts. This is a thoughtless group.

I'll accept this in different ways in other passages. He's an exceptional... God chose him exceptionally and directed him exceptionally. He spoke in Acts there, in other places, he spoke that My relationship with the Lord, I got a special revelation, so he delineated that. He calls himself out as an example, and this is one of the cases. His life was one that we see, and what he taught. He's an exceptional person.

Paul would not say, follow me. He says he's the chief of sinners. So he puts it in the right perspective. It's a little bit hard to swallow maybe a little bit. But he was an exceptional person. But he also was a very humble person. And he didn't go beyond God's role for him. Other thoughts? Randy? Well, I think Paul is It is not focused on actually imitating himself, but more as he's an example of someone imitating Christ. The focus is on Christ, not on Paul. OK. Other thoughts? Carolyn.

I mean, literally, he didn't follow in Christ's footsteps. But he followed, in a lot of ways, he did. He had difficulties he had to deal with. He had people he had to deal with. And he went to prison and things like that. He certainly suffered. But he imitated, he followed Christ's teachings. And in that way, I think we're going to follow his teachings. All right. Well, and often he would also say that he was in Christ.

And so his imitation, so to speak, would be while he was in Christ, and so it wasn't about being in Paul, it was in Christ. Alright, let me see if I can condense all these comments into kind of a scenario here. I'm crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live. It's not I who Christ lives in me. We dealt with that last week, we deal with it repeatedly.

It's not the only verse that supports the exchanged life. But Paul is a human like we are a human. We are not a sinless God-man like the Lord Jesus Christ. And Paul increasingly describes his walk as an exchange life. So that's how we're imitators of Paul. Paul is a human as we are human. Yes, Roger, Paul was set aside for a very special mission, but Paul still has sin nature.

And close to his death he said, among sinners I am the greatest. And is that the way we're thinking about our old sin nature? Crucified, yes, positionally we're righteous as can be. But boy, as we grow in grace, the ugliness of the sin nature becomes even more apparent. So my thought here is that Paul says, look. I've been called aside and I've learned that this is a new life that I am, a new creation in Christ Jesus. Be imitators of me as humans in terms of that day-to-day walk. Everybody okay with that? I think that fits. Okay. All right. And I just pulled just a couple of verses out of Philippians.

Let each of you look not only for his own interest but also of interest of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. That's not being imitators of Christ, that's identification. That's walking a path in this new spirit-led life that we are in Christ Jesus. Let this mind be in you.

Alright, now on to the meat, or if you will, maybe this is ground beef here we're dealing with. to really think through this carefully and we gotta really dissect it carefully and we all have our opinions which I will share with you at the end but nevertheless. Now I praise you brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I deliver them to you. Remember all things.

What's Paul talking about here? Well he's talking about the gospel. Moreover brethren I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you which also you received and in which you stand by which also you're saved and if you hold fast that word which I preach to you unless you believed in vain. So that's kind of all things is wrapped up in the gospel and the truth of the gospel. Now 1st Corinthians 15 as you know is an ABC of the gospel. It's not so much the exchange life but nevertheless it begins with salvation so things he delivered to them it begins with the gospel.

Now to what traditions do you think Paul is referring? I mean, are traditions always good? Well, how about the Lord's Supper? I mean, Scripture does declare remembrance of the Lord's Supper in terms of what Christ has done on our behalf. Teaching of the Apostles, a couple of verses in 2 Thessalonians. I just have recorded one here, 2.15.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by epistle. So, Paul's out there teaching and the tradition is the education of the new church in the ways of Christ Jesus in the life of the believer and the body.

What about baptism? Is that a tradition? What about Passover, another Jewish feast? So, put into perspective, traditions are kind of legal, aren't they to some extent? What about celebrating Christmas? I mean, that's not scriptural. Baptisms talked about But it's never talked about, you know, you must be baptized by water or by patting on the head with a little water. I mean, baptism is something that I think we could talk about for a whole morning in terms of its relevance.

But is that a tradition or is that in fact It seems like to me he kind of redefines tradition in this passage. You have the last part of that verse he says, you know, traditions, and he says, just as I deliver them to you. So almost like he says, I'm going to redefine traditions as what I shared, or what I was given by the Lord. So he actually doesn't, I don't think it's as broad as the word tradition can be. He's kind of zooming in on, this is the teaching that I was given by the Lord. So this is a quote to traditions. And perhaps the second Thessalonians verse best speaks to that, right?

And you know, the tradition, the Lord's table, how often do we do it? Well, at Holly Hills we do it once a month. Where is that in scripture? I mean, you're to remember the Lord in terms of his crucifixion, his resurrection, and the Last Supper, but it doesn't say monthly, it doesn't say weekly, it doesn't say every other day. I mean, the point is that it's a tradition we carry forward because it seems that scripture would have us remember formally the Last Supper.

Tom, thoughts? Sir, I would not see it as hard core as the Catholic. Yeah, time to gather together. If you like, the first is it. That kind of thing. And here we're for a lot of other stuff attached. OK. I think we don't need to spend a lot more time on this, but the tradition of Paul's message in the gospel and ultimately spreading the word both written and spoken is really, I think, the tradition he's talking about. I mean, these are the things we could again discuss for some time, but nevertheless, the tradition of the word of truth brought forward and expounded upon. Now, notice Paul here starts with kind of praise, but that's going to change. Remember the church at Corinth is kind of a piece of work and so we're going to start kind of now getting into some of the issues that they're dealing with on a regular basis.

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of women is man and the head of Christ is God. So, I mean ABC, right? This is kind of what came forth and the verb know here is iaido, which in the Greek is factual knowledge. This isn't gnosis or epigenosis, some experiential knowledge. This is the traffic light is green. Or there's a stop sign here. Or we know that Holly Hill's Bible Church is on South Holly. Anyway, this is kind of factual. You know this, by the way.

The head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Now the question is the application of that is what we're thinking about here. The noun head is anything, you can't get around this, it's the position of supremacy, chief or prominence and you can define that. We won't ask the women to define that, but...

You know, I think this whole passage, it really helps. You know, I went back and listened to how Vern covered this, because I was kind of curious. Maybe Vern should have taught this on tape, is that right? But I think, you know, you don't want to miss, you know, there's some things in here that have bothered people, and people have gone off and they've done certain things. But don't miss it.

And this verse is the underlying, the underpinning of all this. This is God's order. So if we, if we in our zeal to Worrying about head coverings or whatever or the lack of head coverings if we miss this point with this verse says we miss the whole point of these 16 verses there to show that there isn't there's an order and God established the order and you know Maybe we have a problem with that We shouldn't we should you know, we should agree with God's order and we should try to see well, how is that order? What what is Paul communicating about that order and he's also communicating as you're going to cover you shortly about there were some some cultural traditions there and then that's a challenge what cultural traditions are and how does that fit with ours today and that's the challenging part.

But let's don't miss what this verse points out. And by the way this section ends with this same theme. So the beginning of this issue of women's head coverings and men not being covered begins with this and kind of ends with this. So let's keep that in mind. All right let's go ahead. And we need to interpret this scripture truthfully and accurately. So we want to make sure we don't be misled. Man is head in marriage in the church and the Bible is very clear on this issue. Very clear that men are the head of women in marriage and in the body of Christ.

1 Peter 3.1 we could go to Ephesians 5 and other places. Wives likewise be submissive to your own husbands that even if some do not obey the word they without word may be won by the conduct of their wives.

So I mean that's true of me. Sharon got saved and I got saved a year later because I saw what had happened in her life. So I mean you know women who are married to unsaved guys have a real mission before him, and it's not necessarily verbal. It's a life that gets changed. So, I mean, that's just one example personally.

1 Timothy 2, 11-14. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission, and I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, that Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.

Now, I think in context, we're talking about leadership in the church and also spiritual leadership on the part of the husband. Now, for a single woman, this is irrelevant, basically. I mean, she used to answer in the body of Christ to the elders of the church. But nevertheless, what God's looking to in a man is spiritual leadership. And you know, women tend to step forward in all circumstances, whether it be spiritual or unspiritual, when men let them down.

And by the way, this verse, I think, gives a bit of an explanation. Adam's guilty in letting Eve really make the decision. And so, I mean, this could be a reason why the Lord has set it up this way. Yeah, Randy? I think you hit on a really key topic.

It's a word that we maybe don't use very often in our culture, but there's an abdication of leadership that leads to what Paul is addressing. And you're pointing out in these verses, the abdication is a responsibility ignored or set aside. Sometimes willfully, sometimes not willfully. And that's a really, really key issue. You don't just have this position of authority over stewardship. It's just power. So just to build on what Randy just said, I've kind of made this paragraph that I hope you're comfortable with because I thought a lot about this before I do this.

Thus, because Christ is head of the man and man the wife, this is in spiritual matters and shouldn't extend beyond that. A man who is dependent on Christ and leads in marriage is a man who loves his wife as Christ loved the church. And his headship over her demonstrates her respect for and dependency on his spiritual leadership. So we have failed our wives to a large extent. in terms of not really assuming this role in our marriages. Now again, a guy who's not married, I mean he answers to Christ.

I mean that's our responsibility as believers. Now keep in mind the unbelieving world, this doesn't fit at all. We live in a world that doesn't put this in any kind of correct perspective in terms of bringing glory to God. That's the business here, bringing glory to God. But I think a woman who sees a man take a position of spiritual leadership and that could be somewhat unconscious or conscious is a woman who then has, by the way it doesn't say the woman has to love her husband. It's his level of respect and trust and that's a comfort zone I think for married women. And you know, we don't have a metric here. How am I doing here? Can you give me an A or a B or a C?

No. I think our response as husbands and men is to the Lord Jesus Christ. And our love for our wives is unequivocal no matter what or when or where. Now we fall short sometimes in that but nevertheless the scripture is very clear in terms of what God has said about this relationship. And submission doesn't mean the guy whips it. Put this in perspective. If a man has spiritual leadership there will be none of that kind of behavior. It just won't occur.

So I think that's what the Lord's intended here and now we need to dissect this down in terms of things like women speaking. I mean, God, she speaks to your husband all the time. I think in the body, the idea of what we dealt with back here in terms of the woman was first flawed. I mean, it doesn't mean that she still is.

It's just that historically that's a reason why God has put Adam in the position he has been. So what was the penalty of the initial sin? Adam had to work his tail off. Sweat in the fields, make sure there's enough food on the table. And she had to be put in submission to her husband, ultimately, the man, and ultimately have pain and childbirth.

I mean, that's Genesis 1 scripture. So, let's leave it there. And by the way, we're all one in Christ Jesus, just different roles. Galatians 3.28, there's neither Jew nor Greek. There is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So that happy optimal marriage is one in which these roles are played out perfectly. It doesn't mean she can't share insights and perceptions and ultimately spiritually challenge her husband. It simply means that he needs to assume a role of spiritual leadership. Now, let's drill down on some of the issues of the times.

Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. For that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn, or totally without hair. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

Oh yeah, kind of a back and forth seesaw kind of thing. Okay, is this the biblical head or anatomic head? Is this head perhaps her husband? Are we talking about the anatomic head? Now at this point in this section you could interpret it perhaps in relationship to her spiritual head. But verses to follow I think are going to really indicate this is the anatomic or physical head. So keep that in mind going forward. By the way, Macaulay kind of thinks this is the spiritual head.

And I'm not sure I agree with him here, but we just got done dealing with a man as head of the wife. So now we're talking about her head being covered with ultimately being put in a position of responding to that headship in her husband. Yeah, Roger.

Well, it looks like you have two heads in two different ways, right? In this verse you have, he talks about his physical head, or anatomical head, being covered, and then he talks about his spiritual head. And, you know, the wife's spiritual head is her husband, so I say, both are covered in this passage, it seems to me. I don't think you can say it's It seems to me that both are addressed here. Well the fact that he began with the husband being the spiritual head and then he's going to deal with the anatomic head.

It could be interpreted perhaps either way. Let's go ahead. So the idea here is that she shows by uncovering her head that she wants to be like the man. We're putting that in scriptural interpretation. How much this relates to today we could argue. Maybe it has no relationship to today. But she dishonors her head both physically and spiritually.

So to build on what Roger just said, there could be some interpretation either way. To uncover her head is going to say, hey, you may think you're above me, but you ain't living up to it. I'm going to act a little bit independently here and I'm going to leave my head uncovered. Or alternatively, because the culture kind of dealt with women having their head covered, then she may have failed in terms of the traditions of the time which may be totally inapplicable and likely is today. Let's go ahead.

So if she were uncovered then why should she be shorn? Well, the idea here is that at the time a woman with a shaven head was an adulteress or a prostitute. I mean this was common in Corinth at this time. So for her to really reject the leadership of her husband and not cover her head or even be shorn, she's entering into a sphere of contextual and cultural interpretation of being a loose woman.

I don't know about you, but a woman without hair, never mind, but that was the times. A woman who had very short or shaven heads was often a woman of ill repute. Now is this one of those traditions that we leave behind? What are your thoughts? Is this relevant at all to today? Well, I'm thinking about a question here. Please ask one. And Roger and Randy have all the answers. My question is this.

Why were their heads shaven? Because a lot of the Jewish tradition had to do with health and things that were going on in their culture. Was her head shaven? Because if she was a loose woman, she had parasites. she shaved her head because she lice or was her head shaven because maybe someone holds her down and her head is shaven to show that she is a woman of ill repute. The only reason I'm saying that is I think about even in today if a child goes to school and she gets lice And they have a lice epidemic at these public schools, which they do a lot. They shave that little child's head because of the lice. So my question is, do we really know why the Jewish tradition was that the head was shaven? This was a Greek, this wasn't Jewish tradition. So the Greeks, it was for prostitutes.

And remember Corinth had several major temples. And it's probably, think of it as a marketing strategy more than it is a... Well, and by the way, I'm going to relate to some Old Testament scripture that relates to men's head being uncovered. I mean, by the way, so I think there was a Jewish tradition of the men being uncovered, not so much the women being covered, but I think Randy's right, in the cultural times.

Okay, so this was not... There could have been a medical reason too. I think it would be healthy, let's be honest. healthier exposure. Honey don't shave your head please. Sure. Because there had to be some reason and a lot of times it wasn't just I mean it was it ended up being a cultural reason but there was some real reason why they did it. That's all we know. Let's answer your questions.

So Geneva this seems like the most Inappropriate grammar I've never ever read in the English language, but this is one of the commentators that I looked at. So Geneva, that commentator says, it appears that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance of the time that Paul lived in by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly was a sign of subjection. I think I could write that a little bit more clearly.

Basically, even in the culture, without the Jewish tradition, which I'm going to come to in a few minutes, for a man to have his head covered was not to be insubjective to those to whom he was responding, even in the Greek culture. So this is, if a Jewish tradition, that carried over into those times. This isn't dealing with women. But for a guy, having his head covered would say, I'm addressing you without any atmosphere of subjection to your leadership or your role.

So heathen priests of Rome covered their heads as do modern Jews. So that's back to the Jewish tradition. So this was not only a culture for the Greeks, but also pertained to the Jews who were heathen. Well, actually, the heathen priest may be related to the early church. I mean, this is a statement of fact after the Catholic Church was founded. But all that aside, having your head uncovered was a sign of submission and subjection. All right, 7 through 9.

For a man, indeed, ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God. Now, here's a different kind of scenario. not cultural, but kind of, not kind of, but very distinctly related to God's glory. But woman is the glory of man. Now most many women may not feel this way, but anyway, this is what scripture says. For man is not from woman, but woman from man, nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

So, a simple reminder again of God's creation. I mean, by the way, this wasn't Roger's idea or Tom's or Brian's. I mean, this actually is what the Lord has said. And both are created in the image of God. I think we have to keep that in mind. I mean, this wasn't a mistake the way it happened. This is what God had in mind and this is what took place.

Let's turn to Genesis, very straightforwardly. And God said, let us make man in our own image after our likeness. Now notice our, you know that our term is a plural term. The idea that the triune God was there from the very, very beginning. Our likeness, our image.

And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth. and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, and in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them. So if man is created in God's image, and the female is taken from man's side, it's clear that God's got both in his image. Because man is created in God's image, and the female is out of man's side, back to Genesis, both are in the image of God.

And to whom goes the glory throughout this process? Our purpose. Today's Hungry Heart, by the way, talks about human works and pleasing men is really so vain and shallow. Yes, we might accomplish something from a human perspective, but where's the credit going? It's not going to God. And our lives should be reflecting day in and day out that God's glory is what needs to be exemplified.

And that's our purpose. Okay, verse 10. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. How interesting. We'll come back here in a second. Because of the angels. What? Did they bring the angels into this? Anyway, is this only when she prays? Remember we were talking about prayer and prophecy? Is this only when she prays for this reason? Meaning her head uncovered? It's a symbol of power. By the way, authority is really power. So what powers this?

For this reason, what would be powerful for a woman to take a position of having her head covered in prayer or prophecy? By the way, not much evidence of females being prophets in the New Testament. So the prophesying, I think, was simply left up to the male leadership. But praying, we have examples of prayer from women. Remember Lydia in terms of the new church?

What do you think here? How would a woman having her head uncovered bring power or authority? Paul is trying to present the order of creation here. He's pointing out that in that culture, you're stepping outside the order. You're taking a place that is not in the order that God has created. Well, the idea here, I think, is here's where the anatomic aspects come in, I think, in a sense as they apply to the spiritual aspects.

So is this a veil? Is it a hat? Is it jewelry? Or some other covering? Or even is this her own hair? I mean, so having her have long hair, would that be sufficient to meet these, kind of quote, requirements of a woman in the body? I mean, I think the idea of power here is that bringing glory to God is a woman who is scripturally tuned in. And her having her hair covered in the times was a sign of her being subjected to God's leadership portrayed through her husband.

I think that's where the power comes from. And that brings glory to God. Because if a woman's obedient to this truth, ultimately that is where the power comes from. And why power? Well, I think whatever, I just said whatever, it was to show subjection and before God this brought glory. That she was obedient, not to a set of rules, but just kind of God, Christ, man, woman, in that order. And for what reason? Well, again, I just said that. Now, in this verse, I kind of chuckled a minute or two ago.

Let's not discuss angels in detail here. But we know in mysterious ways angels do minister to believers, and we could spend a whole quarter studying angels. It does say angels are observing us, which is pretty amazing. When they are observing me, are they going to see all the times I fall short? How is that going to help? The angels have been talking to me about you. I think there is no area of more uncertainty about who they are and what they are doing.

I think it goes back to the order that the Lord has set up. The angels are paying attention to the order. That is God's design. isn't bringing glory to the Lord, and I think he just throws that in there as angels, just to reiterate, this is the order God has set up, and even angels are paying attention to this order. But we're higher than the angels, are we not? Well, but the thing is, like Margaret's saying, so then the woman should say, wow, I'm, you know, the angels look at me, shouldn't I follow God's order?

That would bring glory to Him. The angels say, wow, look at this woman, Why is she doing that? Just like they marveled, just like Satan marveled at Job. Well, Job, he's doing it for a payback. Come on. Come on, God. He's doing it for a payback. He won't serve you. If we take this away, he won't serve you. Well, Job, still continue to serve God.

Well, back in 1 Corinthians 4, I'm not sure who taught this, but anyways, I think that God hath set forth in us the apostles last as if we're appointed to death, for we are made a spectacle into the world and to angels and to men. So this gives you this idea that angels are looking at us in our day-to-day walk. in terms of whether we're obedient to the faith. Remember, our obedience isn't to laws and traditions, it's to the faith. And the faith here is a woman being submissive to her man in terms of the authority God has placed him over her.

It doesn't make her less, just they're different roles. Okay, 11 and 12. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, boy I could say that's true, nor a woman independent of man in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes from woman, but all things are from God. Most of us wouldn't have quite been born, would we, without our mothers, right? Men and women both need to glory in their, here's what Macaulay says, I think he's on the right track here, mutual dependence, mutual uniqueness, and mutual origin. We're all one in all these aspects of mutual interaction.

And I would say that this is absent of the world system entirely. The world system doesn't put this in context at all. And I think even in the body of Christ we fail frequently here. Understanding this whole issue of mutual dependency, uniqueness, and origin, and when you put it into biblical perspective and things are working according to God's will, this becomes a very It's a term I'm looking for, a very uplifting experience for each man and each woman in the biblical context. This is really what we're looking for. Alright, last four verses. Judge among yourselves.

Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it's a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it's a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

I find that last verse extremely interesting. And it's going to help us a little bit in terms of where we're at today on this scripture. Alright, first. Notice to whom the judgment resides, and it relates to a woman who prays publicly. Okay, now in context, this is a woman who prays publicly. To whom does the judgment reside? Us. Judge among yourselves. We're talking about the body here. Judging whether a behavior is appropriate. Men with long hair. How long? Are we going to measure it with a ruler to see if that's too long? A woman too short. Margaret, is your hair too short?

Maybe? Maybe. So anyway, the idea here, who's going to make these judgments? Well, it's the body of Christ that's going to make these judgments. So in the times, a woman with short hair was going to be judged for being maybe led astray, or a woman with loose morals. Whereas today, a woman with short hair in the body, who cares?

It just doesn't seem to make any difference. But you know, there's something about shorter hair on a guy and longer hair on a woman that kind of is something that we kind of think of as a man and a woman. It doesn't make it right or wrong. It's kind of an impression. Does a woman have long hair or short hair? Does a guy have long hair or short hair?

Well, we're going to judge that. That's our job as a body to judge that. And I don't know about you guys, but I don't judge it at all what a length of somebody's hair is, woman or man, but in the times. This is really pretty relevant. For a man with long hair, he showed disrespect to either authorities or the leadership within the body of Christ, based on Jewish tradition. But a woman with short hair, again, the interpretation of the judgment about her might not have been a very positive one.

John 7.24, judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." Now of course that's in John, and in context may not relate to this specific issue, but I think Christ is saying very clearly, judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. And we could really apply that here a little bit, couldn't we? I mean, this may have been pre-church, although remember the epistle of John is kind of church-related and church-based.

Is it proper? Relates to custom. Meaning, is it proper for a woman to pray with her hair uncovered? And is this the custom of the times, these times hand up the church? No, I would say. No. I mean, do women keep silent in the body today? No. Do they have short hair? Or hair uncovered? Absolutely. Are we wrong? No. That's bringing a tradition that related to the time forward that I think doesn't have appropriate interpretation in terms of today's body of Christ.

Barnes, among the Hebrews it was regarded as disgraceful to a man to wear his long hair except if he had a bow as a Nazarite. So there's the verses, we're not going to turn to them today, but you go back and look at length of hair for men. Basically, unless you have a vow as a Nazirite, which related to a tradition of the time where the Nazirites, in fact, represented a culture with long hair. It's kind of like an act of missionary kind of strategy. These verses point to the fact that long hair was not really an acceptable position for Jewish men to be in. interesting, you just mentioned missionaries and I think if you have read Hudson Taylor's Spiritual Secret one of the things he did when he went to inland China or into China, not even inland China was he cut his hair differently to the cultural ways and he got way more people who were willing to listen to him because he abandoned this argument and concern over hair length instead dressed like the locals so that he would be taken seriously. Well, some of us in this room went through the Vietnam War era and the length of hair on a guy said a lot about his political persuasions and where he was coming from.

And you could reach judgment that spiritually that this young man might be separated from the Lord. Of course, I wouldn't say at the time, that didn't make any difference to me. So the length of the hair does say something within the culture about people and today it's clearly not an issue because hair length is irrelevant in terms of righteous judgment of one another.

A tradition carried out at least once by Paul, and that's in Acts 18.18. And Paul, after this, should be a comma, tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila, having shorn his head in Tenchrea, for he had a vow. So there was something about, kind of like Hudson Taylor, there was something about going into Centuria, and I didn't drill down on this in terms of what the culture in Centuria was, but nevertheless, shaving his head was part of a vow he made to somebody related to that missionary journey. So anyway, it's kind of like in Rome, do as the Romans do, and Hudson Taylor is a good example, Randy, in terms of his inland China mission.

So this hardly applies today or should it? I think it doesn't apply today and in the times was really important I think for reiterating the fact that God created man in his own image and from man woman was created with roles that were distinct and different despite the mutual dependency. Does this have to do with how, is this like a root maybe of how men used to, when they wore hats, they would take them off and it was a sign of respect to take your hat off when you were talking to somebody. So is this related to this somehow maybe? Is this related to that? I think so, very much so.

The Alamo. Davey Davey. I have my baseball cap on one in there. And they said, sir, would you mind removing your hat? This is a memorial. The Alamo is a memorial to those who fell. And so actually that kind of made me think a little bit about this. This patch here is that. In a way, that shows respect. And that's the whole point of this. This is all about respect. And respect to God for His order.

So we shouldn't get too hung up about that. We show it in a different way today than Paul was talking about. And he was just admonishing them. Don't let people get the wrong impression about what you're doing. Don't let your actions physically make a difference in what people think about you. He had a problem with what they were doing. They were violating the cultural norms that people were going to think, what are these people all about?

But to some extent, this men taking off their hats when they're indoors is still kind of a tradition that's in part of it, although increasingly you see guys in doors with hats on. Historically this has been important to show subjection or respect and still kind of there and ingrained in our society.

I want to show just one thing because normally when we travel we will go into churches or basilicas or even mosques. And so they want women to have their head covered. And so usually if I'm like going into mosque, I always have a shawl. So if you have shoulders, and even in these Catholic churches, they want your shoulders covered in a hat. Well, when we were in Ecuador, so I've never had to take my hat off in a facility like that. But when we were in Ecuador, we went into a very old Catholic Church.

Catholic Church. And they said everyone has to take their hat off. Everyone. Which was the first time. And I said, in a Catholic Church? You're asking a woman to take off her hat. Because that is so unusual. We've been all over the world. We've never had a Catholic Church say a woman... And I said, why are the women... I thought you wanted women's heads covered.

It's out of respect. It was a disconnect for me. I was like, really? I had a hat here. That was the first time that we ever seen that in a Catholic church. And verse 15 indicates that the covering for a woman may have been her own hair. I think one interpretation is that this is not a hat or a shawl or a veil or anything else. This is her own hair. It's her hair covering.

I think most people would disagree with that, but this first kind of implies that. Look at verse 15. Anyway, and long doesn't indicate how long it is, does it? And for men, short doesn't indicate how short. I mean, again, that's legal stuff that wasn't even Jewish law in terms of length, just comments on it.

Hardly are women who have had chemotherapy ungodly. A wig is an option if she's uncomfortable in terms of her appearance. Do we deal with that? A woman in the body has had chemotherapy. I had a wife that had no hair for years before she died. She was hit time and time again with drugs. Other people can relate to this kind of thing. Is she ungodly? Absolutely not. That's why I think increasingly we need to look at this through cultural eyeglasses. It wasn't wrong for the times, but today this is a tradition that we can forget about.

Now is it interesting that if a man be contentious over this, meaning the body, the leadership of the body or the body as a whole, I mean if the body, if we at Holly Hills are unhappy with something, we go to Roger, we go to Vern, we go to Mike and say look you know I've talked to to you about Tom, and Tom is kind of misbehaving over here.

What are you going to do about Tom over here? Of course, Tom never misbehaves, so that's not an issue. We're going to go to the elders and bring it to them. So if the elders are concerned about this kind of behavior, what's it say? Well, there's no custom. In or outside the church is what you're going to do about this.

So the fact that God has not put forth through Paul's writings to the church at Corinth that this is what you do if, in fact, a woman doesn't have her hair covered, or a guy has long hair or he has his hair covered, there's no custom or within the body any dogma as to how we respond to that. And that to me makes this also seem like a cultural issue that's not important for us today.

1 Corinthians 14.33, for God is not the author of confusion but of peace as in all churches of the saints. So long hair, hair covering is not something that is going to do anything but cause confusion. So let's not be confused. To summarize this very complicated section, thank you Roger. I think, I don't know. Hal, where are you?

To summarize here, God has created men and women uniquely for oneness, mutual dependency, and roles to bring glory to God. That's the bottom line. The hair covering or lack thereof was a cultural issue for the time that today just is totally irrelevant. So that's my conclusion. Any other thoughts about this, Tom? There's an old phrase that was common currency in the past and it's kind of dropped out of favor today but it says a lot more as you see it from the scriptures. If you see it scripturally, beauty is as beauty does. It covers that whole thing. You don't have to start with Vendetta.

My challenge is to the men who have wives. Our responsibilities are foremost to the Lord Jesus Christ in our life. Our spiritual leadership is incredibly important in having a happy marriage. So challenge to all men here. Let's close in prayer. Roger will you close us in prayer please? Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you, Lord, for this day. Father, we thank you for the passage that we read. Lord, thank you for your plan, your purposes and creation and how it was carried out. Lord, we praise you for that. We pray that we'd be willing to accept your order in all things. In Christ's name, Amen.