To view the English translation, please scroll down to the bottom.
新約聖經對婚姻與性別角色的議題，幾乎清一色由使徒保羅做主。基督徒對他的教導遵紀守法、一板一眼。其中一點，就是基督徒不鼓勵跟非基督徒通婚。「你們和不信的原不相配，不要同負一軛。」（歌林多後書6：14）但是如果你已經和非基督徒通婚了，你可以透過婚姻影響你的配偶，「... ...不信的丈夫就因著妻子成了聖潔，並且不信的妻子就因著丈夫成了聖潔；不然，你們的兒女就不潔淨，但如今他們是聖潔的了。」（哥林多前書7：14）這意味著信徒是聖潔的；非信徒是不聖潔的。聖潔程度之不平等，可能會導致婚姻的不協調，甚至連兒女都會變得不潔淨。基督徒因此把這個經節銘記在心，勸導信徒一定不要與非信徒交往而導致結婚。有許多主內信徒因為考慮跟非基督徒匹配，或已經踏上了婚姻之路，教會除了為他們感到惋惜之外，也會有相當多苦口婆心的勸誘、輔導、甚至評論、排擠。有些教會乾脆在教會憲章條例上明寫，不容許這一種夫婦走他們教堂的紅毯上接受牧師的祝福。
可是當使徒保羅給另外一套教誨時，信徒對這些指示態度卻大不相同。在聖經裡，有五處不同的經節，都指示基督徒要互相「親嘴問安」（羅馬書16：16；哥林多前書16：20；哥林多後書13：12；帖撒羅尼迦前書5：26 ；彼得前書5：14）。聖經學者難道須要針對這個「親嘴問題」的議題，提出來加以討論嗎？這樣的問安方式，以現代基督徒的標準，能被接受嗎？所以馬上就有人提出辯解說，這顯然得視文化而異；也就是說，若親嘴問安不是你的文化就不須奉行了。更有人說，這只不過是鼓勵基督徒之間須要有團契交通的表徵罷了，大可不必拘泥在「親嘴」的字面上。
至於教導女人要蒙頭，以顯示她們的端莊和樸實，又要如何來解釋呢？同樣，有些人說，這些做法現今已經不實用了。他們堅持，使徒保羅所說蒙頭的做法，只不過是當時一種傳統罷了。雖然眾說云云，全世界各地，還是有許多現代基督徒婦女想要、或是被要求要遵照聖經的指示包頭巾。譬如，現今門諾會女子仍戴無邊白色小帽，重浸派與較保守的貴格會女子，則戴有帶子的帽子。再者，女人既要舉止端莊，就要衣著樸實；而男人代表的是神的榮耀，因此他們不需要戴帽子。「男人本不該蒙著頭，因為他是神的形像和榮耀；但女人是男人的榮耀。」（哥林多前書11：7）所以女人無法代表神的榮耀嗎？神的榮耀彰顯一定要透過男人嗎？
還有另一個更具爭議性的辯論，就是關於女人在教會的地位。教會對於她們可否做領袖，意見分歧。保羅說：「我不許女人講道，也不許她轄管男人，只要沉靜 。」（提摩太前書2：12） 幾世紀以來，保守派的基督徒對這段經節，一絲不苟地奉命而行，一直到近幾年來，才做稍微的調整；而自由派一向對這個規矩比較鬆弛。所以這條界線應畫在哪裡呢？該拘泥或不該拘泥在聖經文字上？
兩性不平等是歷史事實。身居第二十一世紀，我們不斷被灌輸兩性及社會平等的觀念。但是，現在有一大部分的宗教團體，仍然贊成「男權至上」的主張。這正好與基督徒所號稱的「提倡性別平等」之道德標準背道而馳。如果基督徒宣稱他們反對任何的歧視，為何今天教會還繼續渲染著這種「男人支配女人」的下意識信息呢？許多牧者把用夏娃在伊甸園吃禁果的故事作為後盾。創世紀記載，夏娃因為違背上帝，她的懲罰有兩個咒詛：「 上帝必多多加增她懷胎的苦楚；她生產兒女必多受苦楚。她必戀慕她丈夫；她丈夫必管轄她。」（創世紀3：16）在新約聖經中，這個故事再次被保羅重申：「起初，男人不是有女人而出，女人乃是由男人而出；並且男人不是為女人造的，女人乃是為男人造的。」 （哥林多前書11： 8-9）「因先造的是亞當，後造的是夏娃。」（提摩太前2：13）在申命記裡，凡犯姦淫的，要被石頭打死。但在父權社會裡，女人必須承擔這條命令的羞辱，遠比男人大得多。
在前段提及的提摩太前書裡，使徒保羅除了不准女人講道、不能管轄男人之外，還要女人順服她們的丈夫，並且在教會裡要保持沉靜。 女人務必「舉止行動要恭敬，不說讒言。」 （提多書2：3）在彼得前書3：3-4 對「聖潔婦女」所下的定義是 ：「不要以外面的辮頭髮、戴金飾、穿美衣為裝飾， 只要以裡面存著長久溫柔、安靜的心為裝飾。」今天，有一些比較嚴謹的教派，還是會因為這些聖經章節而禁止女人穿短裙、甚至化妝。有一部份女教友會發聲反對，她們說，男人沒有權利告訴女人如何穿著打扮；但只要教會一把神權威的王牌翻出來，她們的聲音馬上被淹蓋得無聲無息。這些遵守聖經教條的教友們說，這個規則可不是彼得書作者訂的 ，是神說的。雖然聖經裡教導丈夫要愛他們的妻子，但是同時卻清楚地指明，妻子比丈夫「軟弱 」（彼得前書3：7）。 很不幸，這個經節，常常廣泛地被男人用來使男性主權階級制合理化──支持男人當頭，否定女人在社會、教會及神子民地位的理念。
可能有些基督徒認為這樣子的傳統結構有助於社會與家庭的平衡。他們認為一般社會的認知從史前時代開始就有了。男人外出打獵，負責供應食物，女人則負責哺育小孩；這好比現代男人出去工作賺錢養家，女人在家打掃育兒，都是咱們老祖宗穿流下來的智慧。加上聖經如此清楚的教導，盡心依從效力是所當然的。既然明目張膽貶低女人地位在現今社會是無法被接受的，教會只好把上帝的話當作權威，用委婉的方法對性別角色作解說。這種做法雖然在表面上有看似完美的平衡，但閾下訊息所表達出來的，真的是同一回事嗎？
既然上帝所有的話語都是權威，為什麼教會選擇強調保羅「婚姻觀」與「性別角色」勝過「親嘴問安」的教導呢？這是雙重標準嗎？還是只是美其名“遵守聖經原則”，但實際上是在推動自己的議程？
Marriage and Gender Roles
The New Testament addresses issues of marriage and gender roles, largely through the teachings of the Apostle Paul. Christians often adhere strictly to his instructions, including the discouragement of marrying non-believers, "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers." (2 Corinthians 6:14) However, if a Christian is already married to a non-believer, they can potentially influence their spouse, "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (1 Corinthians 7:14)
This implies that believers are considered sanctified while non-believers are not. Such inequality in holiness may lead to marital discord, even affecting the children. Hence, Christians often advise against dating or marrying non-believers. As a result, Christians often keep this verse in mind, advising believers not to date non-believers, which might lead to unsuccessful marriage. Many devout Christians who consider matching with non-believers or have already embarked on the path of marriage receive not only sympathy from the church but also a lot of earnest persuasion, counseling, and sometimes criticism or exclusion. Some churches go so far as to explicitly state in their church constitution that couples of this kind are not allowed to walk down their aisles to receive the pastor's blessing on their union.
However, when the Apostle Paul provided another set of teachings, believers had a significantly different attitude toward these instructions. In the Bible, there are five different verses that instruct Christians to "greet one another with a holy kiss" (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14). Do biblical scholars need to discuss this "kissing issue"? Can this manner of greeting be accepted by modern Christians' standards? Consequently, some immediately argue that this clearly depends on cultural differences. In other words, if kissing as a form of greeting is not part of your culture, then there's no need to adhere to it. Others argue that it's merely a symbolic way of encouraging fellowship among Christians and should not be strictly interpreted as a literal "kiss."
As for the teaching about women wearing head coverings to display their modesty and humility, how should we interpret it today? Similarly, some view these practices as no longer practical and rooted in traditions of the past. They insist that the head covering mentioned by the Apostle Paul was simply a tradition of that time. While many modern Christian women no longer follow these rules, there are still some who choose to wear head coverings in adherence to these biblical instructions. For example, some women in the Mennonite community continue to wear plain, white head coverings called kapp, while women in more conservative branches of the Quaker tradition also wear head coverings, or bonnets with straps. Furthermore, while women are instructed to maintain modest behavior, the idea that men, as representatives of God's glory, don't need to wear head coverings is also found in the Bible. " A man ought not to cover his head,[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man." (1 Corinthians 11:7) So, does this mean women can't represent God's glory? Must God's glory be manifested solely through men?
The issue of women's roles in the church is also contentious. Paul's writings state that women should not preach or have authority over men but should remain quiet in the church (1 Timothy 2:12). Conservative Christians have upheld these teachings, while more liberal denominations have relaxed these rules. The question arises: should Christians adhere strictly to these biblical texts or adapt them to contemporary society's views on gender equality?
Gender inequality is a historical fact. In the 21st century, we are constantly exposed to ideas of gender and social equality. However, a significant portion of religious groups still support the idea of "male supremacy." This stands in direct contrast to the moral standards of gender equality that Christians claim to promote. If Christians profess to be against any form of discrimination, why does the church continue to perpetuate this subconscious message of "men dominating women" today?
Many pastors use the story of Eve eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden as a basis. In the Book of Genesis, it records that because Eve disobeyed God, she was cursed in two ways, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16) In the New Testament, this story is reiterated by Paul, "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9) "For Adam was formed first, then Eve." (1 Timothy 2:13) In Deuteronomy, it is stated that those who commit adultery should be stoned to death. However, in patriarchal societies, women often bear much greater shame and consequences for this commandment than men.
In the earlier mentioned book of 1 Timothy, the Apostle Paul not only prohibits women from preaching and having authority over men but also requires women to submit to their husbands and maintain silence in the church. Women are instructed to "dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes" (1 Timothy 2:9). In 1 Peter 3:3-4, "holy women" are defined as those who adorn themselves with a gentle and quiet spirit rather than external adornments. Today, some stricter denominations still prohibit women from wearing short skirts or even makeup based on these Bible verses. Some female church members speak out against this, saying that men have no right to dictate how women dress, but as soon as the church invokes its divine authority, their voices are silenced. These adherents to biblical doctrine argue that these rules were not made by the authors of these books but by God Himself. While the Bible teaches husbands to love their wives, it also clearly states that wives are "weaker" (1 Peter 3:7). Unfortunately, this verse is often broadly used by men to legitimize male dominance, supporting the idea of men being in charge and denying women their place in society, the church, and the people of God.
Some Christians may believe that such traditional structures contribute to the balance of society and the family. They argue that these gender roles have been ingrained in human society since ancient times, with men hunting and providing food while women nurture children. They see this as a continuation of ancestral wisdom, where modern men work to earn a living, and women take care of household chores and childcare. Combined with the clear teachings of the Bible, they view wholehearted obedience and compliance as the right path. Since openly devaluing the status of women in today's society is unacceptable, the church resorts to presenting God's word as authoritative and offers subtle explanations for gender roles. While this approach may seem to maintain a perfect balance on the surface, it raises questions about whether the messages conveyed underneath truly align with these ideals.
The question remains: Since all of God's words are authoritative, why does the church choose to emphasize Paul's teachings on marriage and gender roles over the practice of "greeting with a kiss"? Is this a double standard, or is it merely a way to appear to "follow biblical principles" while actually advancing its own agenda?
Comments