Um...oh. Wow. So, is this something you'd take seriously? Would the ramifications be, in your opinion, not to continue the use of the head covering based on our culture's understanding of hair now?
Or is this just a "Wow; take a look at this whackjob" kind of thing?
If the author's thesis is correct, then I think we should take it seriously. I.e., if this is indeed the cultural understanding and meaning of the phrase and the basis for Paul's statements, then we would be wrong to continue to misunderstand and misinterpret/misapply it.
That wouldn't or shouldn't necessarily or automatically mean that head coverings for women in church are wrong, but it would mean that if we reject the physiology that hair is an extension of the genitalia, we would have to base a preference or custom or requirement for women to cover their heads/hair on something other than the Apostle's reason (assuming the author is correct).
Is this author's idea a "whackjob"? It's not presented as a "whackjob," but as a serious piece of scholarship...unless the author is pulling our leg (I speak euphemistically, of course!).
I think one should read all of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 with the author's thesis in mind to see if it holds together when the entire passage is considered, and not accept or reject it simply on the basis of his consideration of the 3 verses (11:13-15) under discussion.
Um...oh. Wow. So, is this something you'd take seriously? Would the ramifications be, in your opinion, not to continue the use of the head covering based on our culture's understanding of hair now?
ReplyDeleteOr is this just a "Wow; take a look at this whackjob" kind of thing?
If the author's thesis is correct, then I think we should take it seriously. I.e., if this is indeed the cultural understanding and meaning of the phrase and the basis for Paul's statements, then we would be wrong to continue to misunderstand and misinterpret/misapply it.
ReplyDeleteThat wouldn't or shouldn't necessarily or automatically mean that head coverings for women in church are wrong, but it would mean that if we reject the physiology that hair is an extension of the genitalia, we would have to base a preference or custom or requirement for women to cover their heads/hair on something other than the Apostle's reason (assuming the author is correct).
Is this author's idea a "whackjob"? It's not presented as a "whackjob," but as a serious piece of scholarship...unless the author is pulling our leg (I speak euphemistically, of course!).
I think one should read all of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 with the author's thesis in mind to see if it holds together when the entire passage is considered, and not accept or reject it simply on the basis of his consideration of the 3 verses (11:13-15) under discussion.