The Role of a Man in the Bible

[Legendary]

"But I would have you know, that the head [i.e., authority (Jdg. 11:10; Eph. 1:22)] of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God [Therefore, no inferiority is implied in submissiveness, only different God-ordained roles.]. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels." (1 Corinthians 11: 3-10)

So I understand that many people follow this. But how does this apply to other couples outside the heterosexual category. Does this mean that other types of relationships are wrong? I was thinking about this because when having a discussion with my mother about homosexuality and this that surround it this topic came up. I didnt know now to explain this.

[Daniel]

Ok. Gonna be a smart ass here. Are you ready?

With the scripture reading in mind, your mother really doesn't have anything to say about the matter: she should refer everything of substance and importance to the head of the household, your father. And if he is not alive, than that would be the oldest male in the household.

Here's the deal. If this scripture was followed to the letter (and it isn't!), then women would have no right to vote, could be institutionalized against their own wishes, and not be able to own anything- which is pretty much how everything was up until the early 20th century. Why the big change? Women got tired of being oppressed by men and other women who agreed with them.

Your mother doesn't appreciate her own freedom obviously, and in her ignorance is trying to take away yours too. Gee. That's nice.

Ok. Smart- Ass comment over.

These 'arguments' by your mother are a mind-game so that your she can postpone dealing with reality- the reality that you are gay.

Real love doesn't argue. It wraps its arms around everything.

[Legendary]

She wasn't being ignorant it was just a discussion. She doesn't oppress me in anyway. It was based off of a sermon that she heard. But whether people are just being picky or not it's still all very confusing. I need some more biblical knowledge.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Legendary

She wasn't being ignorant it was just a discussion. She doesn't oppress me in anyway. It was based off of a sermon that she heard. But whether people are just being picky or not it's still all very confusing. I need some more biblical knowledge.

So- please explain. What was her point? That two men can't live together because God made women to be subject to men?

[bnmoore]

Originally Posted by Legendary

I need some more biblical knowledge.

Why not broaden your scope?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/lgbt/index.htm

[Legendary]

Originally Posted by Daniel

So- please explain. What was her point? That two men can't live together because God made women to be subject to men?

It was just a discussion. Dont be so quick to judge.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Legendary

It was just a discussion. Dont be so quick to judge.

If she didn't have a point, and you don't have an actual concern in relation to it, then I guess there is no point is continuing yakking about it, is there?

[koneill08]

Originally Posted by Legendary

So I understand that many people follow this. But how does this apply to other couples outside the heterosexual category. Does this mean that other types of relationships are wrong? I was thinking about this because when having a discussion with my mother about homosexuality and this that surround it this topic came up. I didnt know now to explain this.

Legendary,

I would start by understanding the context of the biblical passage, which is stated by Paul at the very end of that same chapter. He's not speaking about the roles men and women (or wives and husbands) are to have with one another, he's speaking about the more important and relevant subject (which was Paul's subject all the time in his writings btw...)which is the relationship between Jesus and the church (and not the organizational one we know today, but that's a subject for another day!)

Jesus's most important concept, as written throughout Paul's writings is all about the role of Jesus as Lord and his Relationship with his bride, the church, the ecclesia (called out ones, in greek). It's not a manifesto on the relationship between husbands and wives.

And I say that because in the previous chapter and verse right before where you started your quote, Paul is talking about people submiting to each other (including men submitting to women and wives).

So if we follow the flow of the text, how can we each submit to one another and then a few verses later be told only women have to submit to men? And why isn't Jesus mentioned first if order/ranking/hierarchy in the family was important? So you have to carefully study that chapter to get what Paul is talking about. Because if the order actually mattered, then why is the husband mentioned first and not Jesus?

Just something to think about, I hope it helps.

[Ozgeorge]

Legendary,
Just out of curiosity, do all the women in your Mother's Church cover their heads whenever they pray as the quoted passage says they should?
George

[merlin2921]

Well, as the passage quoted was comparing the relationship between Christ and the Church to the relationship between a man and a woman, I would say it has nothing to say about the relationship between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Particularly since the focus of the passage is on the Christ/Church dynamic, and not on the marriage one.

But that's just my two cents. *shrugs*

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Ozgeorge

Legendary,
Just out of curiosity, do all the women in your Mother's Church cover their heads whenever they pray as the quoted passage says they should?
George

I think the quoted passage you're referring to actually means that women should cover their heads when they pray if they're in a church with pigeons flying around in it.

Rick

[Ozgeorge]

Originally Posted by Rick336

I think the quoted passage you're referring to actually means that women should cover their heads when they pray if they're in a church with pigeons flying around in it.

Rick

I find the phenomenon of selective reading interesting. Here we have a "definitive" passage of how men and women "should" relate to one another, yet the passage clearly states that women who pray with their heads uncovered are a disgrace and their hair should be shorn. Yet that bit of the passage (which is an unequivocally clear instruction) is permitted to be culturally determined by contemporary "sola scriptura Christians", while the rest of the passage is not.

[koneill08]

Originally Posted by Ozgeorge

I find the phenomenon of selective reading interesting. Here we have a "definitive" passage of how men and women "should" relate to one another, yet the passage clearly states that women who pray with their heads uncovered are a disgrace and their hair should be shorn. Yet that bit of the passage (which is an unequivocally clear instruction) is permitted to be culturally determined by contemporary "sola scriptura Christians", while the rest of the passage is not.

Actually, if anybody is really interested, and reads those passages (and others in Paul's epistles) we can begin to see that Paul actually is refuting that women should wear coverings, or woman can't teach. He's not actually in agreement with the men's "laws" on such things.

What Paul actually does is to quote someone else's "rule" and then provides a rebuttal against that rule. 1 Corinthians 11: 15 e.g. "But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering" This verse is something that was written TO paul in a letter by a false teacher - we know this because Paul states in the first chapter that "it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household that there are contentions among you."

Then in chapter 7 Paul didn't just hear about those issues with the Corinthian church, they actually wrote to him about them. And he starts off his responses by saying "Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me..." Paul is setting the stage to refute and correct false teaching in the corinthian church

With a view in that way, let's look at Chap 11:15 again. Paul is qouting what one of the false teachers wrote in the letter to him. Next comes his response to that verse: vs 16: BUt if anyone seems to be contentious, we have NO SUCH CUSTOM, NOR DO the Churches of God. Paul is telling them, we don't make woman wear coverings nor do any of the other churches, it's not a requirement.

In any event, read Corinthians carefully and see if you can pick out where Paul is quoting one of the false statements that was written to him, and then watch his rebuttal, it's a very different reading of those passages.

Enjoy..

[RedneckDyke]

I usually have a head covering on of some sort. Either a camo bandana or a gimme cap. In church I am uncovered but I do have a buzzcut so maybe that counts as being "shorn". (-:

[tdogg]

And that's the problem with Biblical literalism. People are unable to agree on what the Bible says, much less what it means. The Bible isn't a god, or a deity or anything to be worshipped. It is a book, much of it history. To find personal meaning, one must use it with prayer and meditation to help define what it means to YOU. A specific verse could mean something different to you one day from the next. A guide, an inspiration but not a step-by-step procedure manual.