It's a very good biblical discussion fo the role of women in the Church and in the family, including an analysis of the Curse of the Fall. I wanted to post it for that reason alone, but then toward the very end, starting aroudn 50 on the counter, he decides he must address the issue of the woman's head covering in 1 corinthians 11, sand I'm SO disappointed.
Who am I to disagree with John MacArthur? He's probably the best preacher in the world today and I always get something out of his sermons. I disagree with him about the Bible versions too so it's not as if I'm just a complete fan of his, but for the most part I am a fan. He's the best.
As I think about it, getting this wrong is giving in to the very feminism he's so good at exposing and condemning. To my mind this remains an open door to all the apostasies that have been inundating the churches for years now. It was eyeopening to me to hear, as I report in the previous post, that theologian Wayne gr4udem had identified feminist influences in the churches as the beginning of liberalism. I'd wondered about that, it's seemed like an important possibility to me, and his research seems to have borne out my suspicion.
And to my mind the head covering is a hugely important emblem of that encroachment of feminism into the churches. Beth Moore has the position she has because of it, that's my sad suspicion. And it makes me cry.
MacArthur just gives the same old argument from culture that was foisted on the churches by Thomas Shrine. It's been answered by many but I can't muster all that here and I don't remember a lot of it. I think Michael Marlowe who called himself The BGible Researcher did a particularly good job of showing that Shriner got it all wrong about the culturral ppractices in Corinth at the time of Paul's writing. But I can't make that argument here.
It's about the head, the literal skull that sits on top of our shoulders. that's what it's about. It's the symbol of authorityh that Paul is talking about. It is not about appearing feminime or masculine. There's isn't one shred of a hint in the passage that justifies that claim. It's all about covering the head, the literal head as a symbol of the headship order ordained by God. The hair that women tend to wear longer than men is given as a clue to the meaning that it's about the head and nothing else. The long hair of women covers the head.
I also think it is particularly telling that we require men to remove their headgear on the basis of this passage. And for all the centuries up until the twentieth century women were also required to cover their heads. but all of a sudd3en when feminism was getting to be a force against the chur ches suddenly we stop requiring it, and it is justified by this flimsy and erroneous excuse for an analysis of culture that has influenced all the best churches in the co7untry and the world.
It's particularly sad to me when he goes into some detail about the watching angeles who would be offended by a violation of God's ordinances. As I see it that's what we are doing all the time these days, offending the obedient angels by not requiring that women cover our heads in the assembly. IIt hurts.
Well, so much for any hopes I've had that it might be reversed and the churches start to find their way badck from the capitulation to the culture that is rampant these days. Even if a church hasn't gone liberal and still maintains good Bible preaching it's got to be compromised in some way by embracing such a false view of a Bible passage.
Down swe go. All I can do is cry.
I'll add this thought. If I'm wrong I want to know it and I'd be very very happy to be wrong about this. I've prayed about it and will go on praying abou5t it in the hope that the Lord will give me a clear confirmation or disconfirmation of the wqay I think about this. If I see clearly that I'm wrong about it IK'll come back and correct my statements here.
No comments:
Post a Comment