UNCOVERING HEADSHIP

UNCOVERING HEADSHIP
Sun. 2/26/06 – Midway City.
Bumble

{This sermon followed a dialectic-style/ First Naiveté -> Critical Reflection -> Second Naiveté pattern. The speaker will move around between the left and right of the platform to illustrate the dialectic reasoning of the text}


A. First Naiveté (At the surface of the text)

{. Read the text:}
{Standing at the usual corner}

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (NASB)
2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

{. Introduction: how do I feel -> my commitment to the Word}

Wow – what a passage! Earlier this week I sent out an email to quite a few people telling them this is my “head covering” Sunday. If preach this passage favoring the men, some women will not like it and will stone me. If preach this passage favoring the women, some men will not like it and will also stone me. But then if I bail on the truth, God will get me. What shall I do?[1] Well, Jesus warned us that “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” [Mat.10:28] And so, as much as I dread you hating me, it is my obligation, duty and honor to proclaim the Word of God for you and for me today.

Shall we pray?

{Prayer}

{. The historical context:}

First, what’s going on there? Let’s take a look at the historical context of what Corinthians look like at that time.

Corinth was a new city, comparatively speaking. It had been burned to the ground by a Roman general’s orders back in 146 B.C., lay in ashes for one hundred years, and then got a new start. Like all new cities “zoned commercial” it had few “fine old traditions.” Everybody was out for the almighty drachma. The city was a very tough place to start a church. It was tough because while the place reeked with “religions,” some of them were so depraved that even the Roman government refused to license them. The people were mostly lovers of pleasure, materialistic to the core, the last people in the world you would think capable of “spiritual” understanding or living. If you could get a church going in Corinth, you could get it going anywhere[i].

Eerdman adds, “The town was dominated by the temple of Aphrodite (goddess of love), built on the heights of the Acropolis. Thousands of temple prostitutes, a large floating population, and the general racial hotch-potch, all contributed to Corinth’s unsavory name. The city was a by-word excess and sexual license. There was even a word for it: to ‘Corinthianize’.”[ii]

Now, what’s the deal about head covering in Corinthians?

Although Greek women had traditionally been secluded in the home to a great extent, there is not much evidence for frequent head coverings among them in this period, certainly not among the well-to-do. East of Greece, however, the custom was prevalent, including in Palestine and southern Roman Asia (e.g., Tarsus; see MacMullen); further, Roman women (like Roman men) covered their heads in worship, in contrast to Greek women and men. The Corinthian church, located near a major port and born in a synagogue (Acts 18:4, 7–8), probably included a number of Eastern immigrants for whom the covering was an important practice. Evidence from Egypt indicates that many Jewish women covered their heads outside Palestine, even if they were Hellenized in many other respects (Philo; Joseph and Asenath). But more is probably involved than merely a clash of cultural icons; the head covering was a cultural issue, but it symbolized certain values that went deeper than the symbol itself.

Women’s hair was a prime object of male lust in the ancient Mediterranean world (Apuleius Met. 2.8–9; Sifre Num. 11.2.3); societies which employed head coverings thus viewed uncovered married women as unfaithful to their husbands, that is, seeking another man (cf. m. Ket. 7:6; virgins and prostitutes, conversely, were expected not to cover their heads, since they were looking for men). [Think of it as showing skins in our culture!] Women who covered their heads could thus view uncovered women as a threat; uncovered women, however, undoubtedly viewed the covering custom as restrictive and saw the way they dressed their hair as their own business. Significantly, the uncovered women probably include the cultured women of higher status. [Think of all the lowcut gown celebrities wear on formal occasion!] [These wealthy] family homes hosted most of the house churches. Statues show that well-to-do women pursued fashionable hairstyles and uncovered heads, styles that poorer women probably considered seductive. Given the class conflict in the Corinthian church evident from other passages in 1 Corinthians (e.g., 1 Cor 11:21–22; see Theissen), this would easily have flared into a major issue of controversy [especially when we consider that the Corinthians church had a mixture of Jewish, Greek and Romans people and culture in their congregation] (see Keener 1992, 22–31; cf. Thompson)[iii].

{. What is Paul saying based on that historical context?}

Given that situation, what Paul saying is this: “Look, don’t just blindly follow the culture around you and offend others people when you come to church meeting.”

{. What seemed to be an obvious application for us then?}

If Paul was writing to our church today about the same topic he might write something like this: “Hey Midway people when you come to church: show some respects! Don’t come to church in t-shirt with bad messages (like one with the word “porn star” on it). Don’t sing praise song with a low cut blouse! Don’t lead worship in super low rider jean showing your belly! Even secular people with some morals look down on these attires. Fix up your clothes and dress for worship in a way that shows the reverence to your God!”

Ouch! That hurts.

I think just this is enough for us to repent today. Let us each return here next week and show more respect with what we wear to church!

But is this really what Paul wants the Corinthian church to do? Does all God want of me was to come back here next week, dressed in suit and tie?

B. Critical Reflection (things that made us go “Hhm”)

If you turn your outline over, you will see the same text today arranging in a strange indentation style. I learned this bible study method from Rev. Thach and some other people[iv]. This indentation technique breaks down each sentence, separating the main clauses to the left, identify the action verbs, and also group the supportive clauses to the right. It helps us analyze the structure of the text to determine its main ideas. It also helps if you do this on a translation which is as literal as possible, and so here we have the NASB version from my study. This is one of those rare occasions that I would show you the prep work I’ve done; not to brag, but to convince you what the Word of God really saying to us today.

Now looking at it, is Paul main idea what we should wear to church or how we should wear it? No, what we were looking at was just the supportive application of the main principle. And so the first thing that we need to know is that…

... All Practicalities of Christian living should come from some Principle.

Don’t just blindly do things because everyone is doing it; or because we have always done things that way. The Bible taught us that “Test everything. Hold on to the good” {1Thes.5:21}. But sometimes…

... The Principle could be misunderstood and required didactic clarification.

For example:
- When I said, “Killing is bad.” Some might misunderstood and place me on the extreme {move to the far right} of Buddhist’s Vegetarianism: “You won’t even consume an egg!”
- And so I clarify “Not quite, I really meant killing living and breathing people.” Some then may place me on the other end {move to the far left}: “Then you are not environmentally friendly!”
- And so I clarified, “Not quite, I believe that we need to take care of the earth, especially now we are just too populous.” Then people could think, “Then you would support abortion (because fetus is not quite living-and-breathing people yet)” {move to middle right}.
- “Not quite, I won’t support abortion because I values human life.” They might say, “O, so you won’t support the death penalty” {move to middle left}
- “Not quite, I think sometimes capital punishment is justifiable.” “Then you must also think that sometimes euthanasia is justifiable too?” {Move to the center}
- “Bingo – it’s all depends on how are we working out the circumstantial ‘justifiable’!”
Note that it takes a few “Not quite” before we get to the “Bingo” and be able to really understand what a person means when they stated a simple principle of “Killing is bad”

Let’s take a look at the beginning of the passage again:
“2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3But I want you to understand...”

Notice the words “But” and “I want you to understand”. Apparently there is some misunderstanding here. What did the Corinthian misunderstand? Whatever it is, we know that…
(1) It is quite important (because of the “traditions, just as I delivered them to you” in v.2 is the same word used later in v.23 about the Lord’s teaching on communion which “I also delivered to you”).
(2) It requires a “Not quite” corrective measure by stating the principle of “Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”
(3) And it relates to gender issues between male and female as we see all the supportive arguments later on.

{Start on the left}
So let’s take a look at what Jesus might have influenced Paul in regard to gender issues:

The society at that time was far more patriarchal than anything we ever know. Jewish men renders thanks to God every morning for making him neither a slave, a Gentile, nor a woman. They taught that “the Law holds women to be inferior in all matters”, that “female traits as examples of weakness” and even had proverb stated, “better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; it is woman who brings shame and disgrace”[v]

{Slowly move to the right}
In that oppressive Jewish background, Jesus had respects for women as persons of dignity and worth. He ministered to them, healed them {Mk 1:29–31; Mt 9:18–26; Lk 13:11–17; etc.}. He cared for prostitutes and forgave their sins {Jn.4; Luke 7:36–50}. He protected an adulteress and sent her free {Jn 7:53–8:11}. He also included women as his followers {Mt 27:55–56; 27:61–28:1; Mk 15:40–41; 15:47–16:1; Lk 23:49; 23:55–24:1; Jn 19:25–27; 20:1} and they were the first one He appeared to after His resurrection.[vi]

Jesus’ disciples understood the principle of gender equality very well when Jesus asked, “Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’?” {Mt.19:4 was in the context of men could divorce his wife “for any reason”}. And so they passed that on to the first Christians who passed on to Paul.

And in Paul travel through out the world at the time, he knew that women in Greek or Roman cultures fared no better. Men were still valued far more than women. Romans law stated that wife was property of the husband. Philosophers, even Aristotle, taught that women are inferior to men. When they gave birth to girls, usually they practiced abortion on her because she is not valuable. They see nothing wrong for married men to publicly sleeping with any slaves they own, prostitutes, or even other men.[vii]

So practicing Jesus’ tradition, Paul also had respects for women as persons of dignity and worth. He ministered to them, partner with them in the ministry {Phil 4:2–3}, even commended them as church leaders {Rom.16}. He understood that both genders are equaled before God and he put forth this explosive counter-cultural statement: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” {Ga.3:28}

I’ve spoken about gender equality quite a few times in the past. Rev. Thach spoke about it too in relationships at the last Winter Conference so I am not going the details again. Please see me for a copy of my talk on it if you need. So here’s a just brief summary of why we believe both men and women as equal before God: {put this on the slide}

• Both male and female are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27);
• The [controlling] domination of male over female is the result of sin and of attempts to be our own gods and goddesses [“he will rule over you”] (Gen. 3:16);
• [Sin also the cause of the rebelling desire of female over male “Your desire will be for your husband” (using the same Hebrew meaning of “sin desires to have [Cain]” in Gen.4:7)]
• Such sinful domination of male over female [and female over male] has been overcome by the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in whom there is now neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female (Gal. 3:28);
• Equal relationships between males and females are mirrored in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, who broke all of the discriminatory rules against women (Lk. 10:38–42; Jn. 4); who made faithful women to be models of discipleship (Mk. 12:41–44; Lk. 7:38–50; Jn. 12:1–8); who made a woman the first witness of his resurrection (Jn. 20:11–18); and who called women as leaders in his church (Acts 9:36–43; 18:2; Rom. 16:1–16; 1 Cor. 16:19, 2 Tim. 4:19);
• Through the death and resurrection of our Lord we are now freed from our slavery to our sinful selves and society; and
• For freedom Christ has set us free to serve and to walk by his Spirit in newness of life (Gal. 5:1, 16–24).[viii]

Gender equality is a great principle. The problem is that…
. Misunderstood Principle lead to Extreme Practices:
{Move to the far right}
When women back then misunderstood what Paul meant by gender equality, by freedom in Christ, they began to cast aside their usual customs, the example back then is uncovering their head when praying. The equivalence example of today would be citing “The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” {1Sam.16:7} and then show up to lead worship in bikinis.

(ie. Extreme feminist liberal theology)
Similarly today some times people take gender equality principle a bit too far. Even it was the Christians who started the feminist movement back at the turn of the 20th century; today many feminists are extreme in believing that women are better than men, that all women should rebel and revolt against the oppressing class of men. They want to erase any lines of distinction between men and women in all areas of life. I even heard of some feminist theologian advocated for changing God the Father as God the Mother so that “true equality of the sexes will come when God is universally perceived as androgynous. Then, and only then, will there be true equality of the sexes.”[ix]

C. Second Naiveté (Deeper meaning)

That feminist might be the most extreme. But to all who misunderstands gender equality in Christ, God’s Word said, “Not quite!” Paul pointed them back:

{Move back to center}
“I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”

. What is “head” then?

The Greek word for “head” is exactly the same Vietnamese word “+Da^`u”. It could denote authority, and it could mean the source. I want to use the term headship for a moment to detach the connotations with other terms. You head guides your body in actions. Christ leads you and me in our daily living. Jesus came to do the will of God the Father. Similarly, the man leads his wife and his family. (Did you notice Christ is the head of “every man”, but the man is only the head of “a woman”? The Greek word here could be translated “wife”, and the ESV translated the passage that way. It made much more sense to me.)

Headship is the chain-authority for actions, but not superiority! Otherwise it would violate the equality nature between God the Christ and God the Father.

{Move to the left} Did you see the equality there? Both men and the women can equally pray and prophesying (v.3, 4)

{Move to the right} But there is certain restriction for women: they should cover their head.

{Left} As well as restriction for men: they should not cover their head.

Do you see how Paul keep clarifying himself to make sure the principle was understood? And the principle of…

1. Headship is rooted in CREATION:

{Center right}
“7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.”

Gary shared with me that recently the College ministry team studied a similar passage like this about men and women from 1 Tim. 2 – Similarly here, Paul pointed back to creation. Even though God could do it, “It is not that one lump of clay was divided into two parts so that the male and female simultaneously appeared.[x]” He decided to created man from the earth and woman from the man. The intrinsic design for male’s responsibility for leadership was built in even in the pre-sin days before Genesis 3. Let me show you a few evidences:

{Show slide}

Biblical Foundations for Headship[xi]

• The priority of Adam’s creation. (Gen. 2:7)The use of the name “Adam” for the entire race. (Gen. 2:20)
• The investiture of Adam with authority prior to Eve’s creation. (Gen. 2:15)
• The assignment to the man of the responsibility for provision and protection. (Gen. 2:15–17)
• The responsibility of the man in naming the animals. (Gen. 2:20)
• The designation of the woman as the man’s helper. (Gen. 2:18, 20)
• The naming of the woman by the man. (Gen. 2:23; 3:20)
• [Even after the fall] The recognition of the man as leader and spokesman. (Gen. 3:9; 11)
• [Even Eve caused sin to enter the world, Adam was responsible for it: (Rom.5:12)]

In this headship-chain-authority, God the Father has the leadership role to God the Christ; Christ has the leadership role to us the human; and among the human the male has the leadership role to his wife.

Now, what would happen if the human leaders went outside of the headship-chain-authority (Say a husband asking his wife to kill someone)? Pastor Chuck Smith suggested that the wife should then ignore “the missing link” in the chain and continue to be accountable to God.

What about woman pastor? Would that violate the headship-chain-authority from God? I am supporting the ordination of women. Not because they can pastor better than men, but because they will be different than the male pastors. Hey, do you think the male pastors can adequately meets all the needs of the congregation out there? For sure, I would never be able to relate to 50% of you here. And most of you would rather be counseled by someone who has the same gender, who not only understand, but could sympathize with the issues you face.

{Center}
2. Headship is INTERDEPENDENCY:

Paul clarified again (“Not Quite”) from the male’s role of leadership lest the reader think that men is more important than women:
“11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.”

As high as it would be, the head is still a part of the body. Without the body, the head is dead. And without the head, the body is dead. Different roles, but they are mutually interdependent.

But then there is this saying from some Vietnamese women, “Sure, you go ahead and be the head. But we will be the neck. The neck will control the head. Hah hah hah.” To those people, Paul flipped side again:

{Center right again}
3. Headship is COMMON SENSE:

“13Judge for yourselves: is it proper?” Then he referred the readers to observe nature to draw conclusion for themselves.

Our common sense could be used here to. Consider this story told by a pastor:
Several years ago I had to deal with such a woman. She was a missionary to China. Sweet, quiet, and reserved. We supported her ministry for years understanding that she had been sent out by another church and served under their headship. We later discovered that this was not true. So, we met with her to ask if she was willing to be under the headship of shepherds of the church she said, “I don’t need to be under anybody but God.” We stopped supporting her immediately.
The issue is not whether she is a woman or a man. The issue is being under the headship of Christ. If a man or a woman wants to pray or prophesy at Meridian Christian Church and refuses to be under the headship of Christ and his shepherds they will not be permitted to do so. Period.[xiii]
Let me contrast this woman missionary I just told you about with our own Ba Muc Su Sung (the elderly widow woman pastor leading a church of 20,000 the Vietnamese tribal people who was here a few months ago). When she stood up here and spoke, she did not cover her head, but our common sense show us that certainly she was covered in the authority of God and of His church.

4. Headship is God’s established CHURCH AUTHORITY:
Finally, Paul concluded firmly:
“16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.”

He pointed to the headship God established in church authority to seal the matter. There might be some who want to argue some more, but Paul pointed out that rebellious arguments were just not the way how things work out in the church.

I might have stated my support for ordination of women in the church; but our denomination right now doesn’t have any provision for that. As far as they understood the Scripture, ordination of woman pastors are not Biblical. I disagreed, but I would submit under the local church’s authority in the matter without being rebellious or contentious about it.

Many of you attended Chelsea and Gary’s wedding a few years ago. Before the wedding, Chelsea insisted to enter the sanctuary with her veil uncovered. Our senior pastor wouldn’t let her do it. And Chelsea appealed to me citing that other Christian friends of her got married without the veil down. I told her I understood, but I also understood our senior pastor has a biblical principle for his practices as well. Even I disagreed with his interpretation, but in the spirit of humbling submission to God’s established authority, we are asked to honor God’s headship in his church. Once God allow us to take on the leadership of his church, then it could be a different matter.

D. Personal Reflection and Application:

So where is God telling you “Not quite!” today? Perhaps some of you will need to repent of disrespectful in the way you dress? Perhaps some of you need to adjust your attitude toward gender equality, respecting women as equal to you. Some of you will need to adjust your attitude to recognize God’s headship in your men. Some of you need to repent of your rebellious attitude toward church authority.

Let us come to Christ, our head, and repent in humility as Steve lead us in the closing worship song…

END NOTES_________________________
[1] http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermon.asp?SermonID=43856&ContributorID=1292 - Russell Brownworth “Worship - It’s All About Him”

[i] Forman pp. 64-65

[ii] Eerdman p.589

[iii] Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 585.

[iv] This is Gordon Fee’s exegetical indentation method to parse the structure of the text.

[v] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 880:
“The extant male literary sources of ancient Judaism, which reflect both a class and gender perspective, present a fairly consistent pattern of a negative view toward women (see Swidler 1976). For example, Josephus, the first-century A.D. Jewish historian, states that the Law holds women to be inferior in all matters and that, therefore, women should be submissive (Ag. Ap. 2.25 §201). Philo, the first-century A.D. Alexandrian Jewish philosopher and biblical commentator, refers throughout his writings to women and female traits as examples of weakness (e.g., Op. Mund. 151–52; Quaest. in Gen. 1.33). Philo argues that women ought to stay at home, desiring a life of seclusion (Spec. Leg. 3.169–77; Flacc. 89). Sirach, a proto-Pharisaic work from about 180 B.C., presents women either as good wives or as problems. It even states that “better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; it is woman who brings shame and disgrace” (Sir 42:14 NRSV). According to the rabbinic Tosefta, which may well in this case reflect first-century A.D. tradition, a Jewish man prayed three benedictions each day, including one in which he thanked God that he was not made a woman (t. Ber. 7.18).”

[vi] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 882.

[vii] Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 587:
Roman law vested complete authority over wife, children and slaves to the male head of the household, known as the paterfamilias. The wife’s quiet submission was viewed as one of her greatest virtues throughout Greco-Roman antiquity (e.g., Sir 26:14–16, 30:19; Greek marriage contracts).
Perhaps due to the proliferation of female infanticide (this detail is debated), there seems to have been a shortage of women in Greek society, and the marriage of men in their thirties to girls in their early and mid teens was thus a standard practice. Until their thirties men normally had intercourse with slaves, prostitutes or one another (see Homosexuality); when men in classical Athens married, many of them found their wives (just entering puberty) less intellectually challenging than prostitutes. While the situation was not this dismal throughout the Empire of Paul’s day, and tomb inscriptions testify to an abundance of genuine love between husbands and wives, the very structures of ancient society militated against husbands perceiving their wives as potential equals.
From the time of Aristotle, in fact, it had been customary for moral philosophers to advise their male readers how to govern wives and other members of the household properly; these instructions have come to be known as “household codes” (or in their German title common in scholarly literature, the Haustafeln). Aristotle and many subsequent moralists classified the three main categories subordinate to the male householder as (1) wives, (2) children and (3) slaves (Aristotle Pol. 1.2.1, 1253b); although he allowed that the character of their subordination differed (male children, for instance, required less subordination as they grew older; cf. Aristotle Pol. 1.5.12, 1260b), he argued that their subordination was a matter of their nature, not merely of culture (on women, Aristotle Pol. 1.2.12, 1254b).

[viii] World Evangelical Fellowship. Theological Commission, vol. 19, Evangelical Review of Theology Volume 19, "A Digest of Articles and Book Reviews Selected from Publications Worldwide for an International Readership, Interpreting the Christian Faith for Contemporary Living.", electronic ed., Logos Library System; Evangelical Review of Theology (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Periodicals, 2000, 1995), 24.

[ix] Genie Webster

[x] World Evangelical Fellowship. Theological Commission, vol. 10, Evangelical Review of Theology Volume 10, "A Digest of Articles and Book Reviews Selected from Publications Worldwide for an International Readership, Interpreting the Christian Faith for Contemporary Living.", electronic ed., Logos Library System; Evangelical Review of Theology (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Periodicals, 2000, 1986), 218.

[xi] Inc Thomas Nelson, Woman's Study Bible . (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1995), Ge 2:2.

[xii] http:/ /www.sermoncentral.com/sermon.asp?SermonID=70470&ContributorID=7538

[xiii] Rick Stacy, “Haircuts and Hats”, http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermon.asp?SermonID=60771&ContributorID=1534