1) What is the tradition described in the passage and is it applicable to us?
This is a difficult and controversial passage that deal with propriety in worship. On the deeper level it also teaches us a lot about gender roles.
The passage implies that in public worship/church gathering men should wear short hair, no head covering and women should wear long hair, also covered by something. By cover it is most like to mean some kind of veil or shawl.
It seems that tradition is cultural and hence is not necessary to follow now. For example, Jews had a very different tradition. Samuel never cut his hair. Jewish priest were wearing a special head covering when serving in the temple. On the other had, in Egypt the tradition was to shave hair, as Joseph had to comply in Gn. 41:14. Paul, however, speak to Greeks in this passage, and they seem to prefer shorter hair for men and longer for women.
Also, women in Israel were shaving hair as a sign of morning, as in Deut 21:12 and Micah 1:16. But in Roman empire it was also a sign of adultery - that’s probably why Paul speaks of it as disgrace.
2) What does this tradition symbolize?
Man’s lack of hair or covering symbolizes Christ as his head. Women’s long hair and covering symbolizes the man as her head. Paul produces several arguments to support the headship of man over woman:
Woman was made from man, not the opposite
Woman was made for man, not the opposite
Both facts come from Genesis 2. The argument resembles that of 1 Timothy 2:12-14, where Paul says the women are not permitted to teach men because woman was created second and was deceived by Satan.
For many, including myself, these arguments would not sound very persuasive. But one thing should be clear to us: The headship of man over women is there by God’s design and not a result of the fall, which happened later in Genesis 3. Period.
3) Does the headship of man implies woman’s inferiority?
Of course not! It is important to see that being on the submissive side does not imply inferiority. As Paul himself says, man now comes from woman, so man and woman depend on each other (v.11-12). Yet man is still the head.
The best way to understand this is to consider the whole hierarchy established in the passage: God->Christ->man->woman. We can learn about man’s headship/woman’s submission by looking at the fact that Christ submits to God. Is God higher than Jesus? Of course not! God, Christ and Holy Spirit are of equal value. Then how can Christ submit to God?
Christ has willingly lowered himself to the men’s level and submitted to God’s authority in order that he can save men. The difference between God and Christ is not based on their value but on their function. Men and women are of equal value to God, but of different function.
Application:
1) What is you greatest problem with this teaching, if any?
I, personally, don’t have much problem with submission in general. Families with two heads are bound for conflicts. Society where everybody have the right to tell others what to do cannot exist. I have no problem submitting to people who are smarter or more experienced than I am. But I do have problem submitting to people who are less capable. And I foresee many women will have problems submitting to less capable men. Somehow, I think it’s fairer when headship is determined by abilities, not by gender.
Yet all I can say is that since its God’s design it must be good. God is not a type that does arbitrary things, he’s got a good reason for everything. Some day we all will be given a chance to ask him “Why?”, face to face. Did it makes sense for God to choose one of the weakest nation to reveal himself to? Did it make sense for Him to constantly prefer younger brother over older, weaker over stronger, outsider over insider? Did it make sense for Christ to die for our sins?
We should never presume to think that we can completely understand God, but learn to trust Him whether we do or we don’t.
2) If man’s leadership is there by God’s design, he should have made men more capable of leading. Is there any biological reason for submission?
These are some biological differences. Most of them have to do with men being food provider and women doing child rearing.
a. Men have more muscles than women
b. Women’s biology is more adapted to long enduring tasks, while males are better at short bursts of energy. This is clearly evidenced by sports.
c. Women can better endure cold weather, but men are better at dissipating heat.
d. Males feel less pain and heal bruises faster. Women are better resisted to infections.
e. Women posses many advantages for child rearing (better hearing, smell, taste, touch senses)
f. Reaction to prolonged stress. In the beginning, the reaction to stress is similar between the sexes - both can stay awake longer, be more concentrated, etc. But as time goes by, women lose adrenaline and become depressed while in men the adrenaline production is not being reduced, which allows them to maintain higher energy for much longer duration. This, however, comes at at the risk of heart attack, high blood pressure, early death.