My Blog Search

All parcels are

forakin at gmail dot com

Comment notice:

You are free to leave comments on my blogs as long as they are polite, reasoned and within the context of what I have written.

I will NOT entertain insults, abuse or expletives; your strength of emotion should be expressed without resorting to uncouth expression.

Since, it is my blog, I reserve the right to accept, review, edit without losing the context or delete the comment - if it does not meet standards of decent and polite discourse.

Finally, your comments cannot be anonymous, please give a name when leaving a comment.

Thanks for reading my blog and leaving a comment.

My Popular Tags

                                                           

My Mini Search

 

Blog Appreciation Notice

This blog is supported by the kindness and generosity of Blog-City, friends and readers.

Thank you to all who contributed to keeping this blog alive, I am most grateful, touched and honoured by your practical support.

Akin Akintayo

My Moon Days

««Feb 2010»»
SMTWTFS
  1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28

My Flickr Badge

www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from akinnld. Make your own badge here.

The veil amongst Christians

posted Sunday, 29 October 2006

The head scarf debate


As we settle into what would be a debate for a long time in the West about head scarves, veils, the hijab, coverings and exposures, I remember quite poignantly that this debate has been around for quite a while.


Some 20-something years ago, this debate was going around in evangelical circles, this was not just contentious but frustrating that what was so explicitly discussed in the Bible still left some selecting what they wanted to believe to support their prejudices.


Not, only so, people of other religions also select portions of biblical scripture to support their views completely out of context of the truth that was being portrayed.


Selecting Bible choice cuts


In the Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 (King James Version), gives the complete low-down on this issue, but it would take an open mind and fresh eyes to appreciate the context and direction of this passage.


The keys to this discourse are in verses 3 and 16, but the 3rd verse usually gets misunderstood and the 16th verse conveniently left out of the discourse for reasons I can never understand.


I would take particular verses and break them down for the purposes of furthering this debate, there are other meanings with regards to relationships in here, which I would not cover, but I would clearly contextualise because it is used to foster abuse.


Separating every man from the husband


3 But I 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.


What we need to note here is the article and possession, it says the head of every man is Christ, however, NOT that the head of every woman is man.


The woman using the definite article pertains to a single woman in relationship to a man, her husband. Every man anywhere cannot just lord it over any woman, he can only do that, in a relationship that is a marriage.


In another blog, on the more emotive issue of wife-battering, I covered how the husband has to be as selfless as Christ to be able to exercise any kind of authority where they believe themselves to masters of their homes and be able to throw their weight around the place.


What is clear is a woman outside the relationship of marriage automatically has Christ as her head, when she has her man, the dynamic of headship changes to her husband.


It is a difficult one, but man in general consists first of male and female; in this case, there is no conferment of the complete servitude of the female sex to any to every man born on earth – it would be illogical.


Traditions and customs might support this dynamic of making all women in society less of the male, but it is not supported in Christianity to give man husband-status to every woman except his truly wedded wife.


Who covers whom?

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.


Here, it is clear that this refers to man as male.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.


This uses every woman, but the possibility of two heads, if unmarried, her head is Christ and if married her head is her husband – NOT every man.


6 For if the 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.


If a woman would not cover her head, she should shave, but if shaving is considered a shame, she should then cover her head.


7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.


Once again, the definite article is here, the woman (wife) is the glory of the man (husband). We do not go around presenting every woman as our wife, rather, there is one woman who takes that pride of place, and we adorn her and present her with pride and honour her with love and devotion.


8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.


9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.


This takes us back to the Adam and Eve story, where Eve was crafted from the rib of Adam as his helper and companion. The definite article also features here – the man (husband) and the woman (wife).


The woman’s prerogative


10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.


Now, this fouls up every authority man tries to exercise over the woman because it says it is the prerogative of the woman to decide on whether to cover her head or not. There is no duty of man to impose this on the woman.


This is usually read as the man ought to have power of the head of every woman and force them to appear in a wifely role or subservient role.


For many, the Scripture ENDS here, reading any further is too inconvenient.


Co-dependence of the sexes and equality


11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.


12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.


Equality in the church and equality before God, so where did all this male domination come from?


So, no one would like to read beyond verse 10 because to serious home truths break down the male domination fortress.


13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?


Well, this is question of traditions and customs; there are places where women can be covered and others where woman do not get covered – debate.


The long hair day

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?


Touché – men with long hair have no say in this matter, they need to deal with their issues.


15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.


Oh! Apostle Paul does begin to complicate issues by clarifying them. There is a separation between the head and the hair introduced from verse 14 and the reference is now to long hair.


It appears, if a woman has long hair, she already has a covering for her head – it is a no-brainer that hair does grow out of the head - she does not need an artificial covering like a scarf.


Well, why do we have all this fuss about scarves when the hair already covers the head?


16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.


If this becomes a contentious topic, drop it, we have not taken on any traditions or customs of head covering, hair covering or even male domination – it is not the way of the church.


And all the men say … Amen!

tags:                    

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit

AddThis Social Bookmark Button




1. Mr. Davis left...
Saturday, 15 September 2007 6:12 am

A side note, when I was growing up in Christian School, my science teacher happened to be the pastor of another church unaffiliated with the church this school was under.

He always stated that Long hair was a SHAME unto a man, not a sin, and therefore okay with God. The thing no one cares to comment on is that in the ORIGINAL context of the original language, SHAME was meant as a VILE thing. My thoughts are that this DOES make it a sin.

Merely my thoughts on the matter of the original language, and not the interpretation of a few men in 1611. Totally unrelated to the equality of the sexes.


Tag Related Posts

Beware of Online Romance Fraud

Wednesday, 13 January 2010
If that internet romance with some faraway prospect is too good to be true, it probably is and you should cut and run.

Opening the mouth of the father - Part falls apart

Sunday, 10 January 2010
As the bride price was paid and the bride seemed to dazzle in her frilly undergarments, the father was ready to close his mouth, he had nothing to give.

Opening the mouth of the father - Part 5

Monday, 4 January 2010
We were knocking on the family door and when it finally opened the drinks rained in like a flood, it was part of the price we had to pay

Opening the mouth of the father - Part 4

Wednesday, 23 December 2009
The wedding list unfolded with the drama that accompanied having bottomless pockets. The stretch was extensive. The cost, quite expensive.

Opening the mouth of the father - Part 3

Saturday, 19 December 2009
First on the list, Opening the ceremony table and that is cash in hand or nothing happens. I just hope we had broken the bank, we would not leave in shame or disgrace

Opening the mouth of the father - Part 2

Saturday, 12 December 2009
We would get to the wedding list in time, but here I meet her, meet her father and present gifts, I am about to sweep my bride off her feet or get roughly tackled - this is part 2.

Opening the mouth of the father - Part 1

Saturday, 5 December 2009
A wedding list could not have been the Genesis of this multi-part story of a courtship of sorts that ended up very, very hilarious.

This part is the introduction.

Thought Picnic: A world without bad religion

Friday, 24 April 2009
My Thought Picnic looks at how the interpretation of religion and religious views takes away from our community of humanity and denigrates womenfolk.

Nigeria: Women's democratic rights curtailed by Sharia

Wednesday, 21 January 2009
The failure of Islam to address the rights of divorced Muslim women lead to the call for a protest by the women.

Protest has been banned by the Sharia police that feels it is an embarrassment to islam - is Nigeria not a democracy?

Nigeria: Gone is the Jos I knew

Monday, 1 December 2008
My childhood memories of Jos hardly square up with the horrible religious riots that have lead to the death of hundreds.

Our political leaders must have something to pay for these avoidable and unnecessary situations.

The matter of tying the knot

Monday, 8 September 2008
Reflections on the matter of marriage and where I stand.

Apes Obey! With very little sense of veracity

Wednesday, 13 August 2008
Another in my Apes Obey! Series about very little sense of veracity concerning Ambassador Edem's public profile and private occult activities along with his abuse of power and misappropriation of funds.

Medicine man rescues marriage

Tuesday, 15 July 2008
Are medicine men relevant to society in problem solving everyday life?

In Nigeria, can wives make independent choices?

Friday, 21 March 2008
A news story throws the spotlight on the husband-wife dynamic within a patriarchal hegemony.

The Lounge

Monday, 11 February 2008
They were going away for the weekend and they looked really prepared to be together.

The wonder of a man and his maid(en)

Monday, 7 January 2008
The man-woman dynamic never fails to amaze me - on holiday this time, I thought I would write about my observations.

Dearly Bigoted: Anglican Church requires pre-marital HIV test

Friday, 17 August 2007
The Nigerian Anglican Church now requires couples take an HIV test before they get married in church.

Religion saves cow for consumption

Wednesday, 18 July 2007
Two ways in in which religion can try to skew civil society.

Four weddings and a lesbian

Sunday, 29 April 2007
An Islamic Lesbian wedding of 4 brides to a groom or a benevolent fundraiser for 4 different wedding by big sister.

Gays may face a 21st Century Nigerian Inquisition

Wednesday, 14 February 2007
The National Assembly in Nigeria is about to vote to criminalise homosexuality, a few voices have been raised about the human rights and health issues, but against the hypocrisy of moral, religious and cultural values, reason probably has no chance.

Do not cross the cross

Sunday, 26 November 2006
British Airways has now climbed down from that unsupportable stance of not wearing visible jewellery in BA uniform. A principled stance on wearing the cross though feeds into a bigger concern about the disappearing Christian heritage of Europe.

Bringing the Burqa down on the Dutch elections

Saturday, 18 November 2006
The dying Dutch cabinet supports the banning of the Islamic burqa two days before elections. Methinks, this is an electoral sleight of hand.

The veil amongst Christians

Sunday, 29 October 2006
I remember we had the debate about the veil and the head scarf over 20 years ago, it still dominates some congregations when their should be no such encumbrance in the Church.

Rape-bait without the veil

Friday, 27 October 2006
The veil from another perspective gives us a great cause for concern, as it reads like the incitement to rape.

Beyond the veil

Tuesday, 17 October 2006
In my view, the whole raucous about the veil in the UK is about ease of communication curtailed by the foreign cultures that take advantage of freedoms to create separate societies in a host culture.

Batter yourself not your wife

Tuesday, 21 February 2006
The Vagina Monologues would hopefully be playing in Nigeria in March. It has set blogs alight with issues as diverse as wife battering, rape and genital mutilation. I just address wife battering here.