If We Don't Do Head Coverings Today, Can Women Be Elders?
Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman doesn’t cover her head, she should 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 head be covered.
A man should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. So too, woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.
-1 Corinthians 11:5-9
How can we argue that women are barred from being elders in the church, based on creation order, when Paul seems to also argue that women must wear head coverings in church, also based on creation order? But most churches and Christians today do not demand that women wear head coverings in church meetings. So are women elders, preachers and teachers in the church, also okay today?
There is an argument that since Paul taught on head coverings and prohibited women from teaching or having authority over men, based on God's created order; and we don't do head coverings today, in the Western world, that we can also throw out Paul's commands for women not to teach or have authority over men, because Paul also based his argument for this on creation order. The idea perhaps being that both of these are antiquated and not for modern times.
Paul wrote his letters to the Corinthians to address their problematic behaviors. NT scholars say that the Corinthian church had a problem Paul was addressing, called 'over-realized-eschatology'. In a nut-shell, o-r-e is the idea that we have the fullness of the kingdom of God now, and that there is no "already, but not yet", to the kingdom.
Women not wearing head coverings was a symptom of the real issue, which was rejecting creation order and a misapplication of Paul's teaching that men and women are equal in Christ:
There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus.
-Galatians 3:28
The meaning of this verse is unity among diversity. It does not teach or say that all are now the same. One means united, equal in value and dignity in Christ. Jews are not superior to Greeks, free people are not superior to slaves, and men are not superior to women. One means unity and not, "we're all the same now". Unity does not mean uniformity.
Jesus did not abolish gender distinctions. The not or no in this verse means no more discriminating. Men and women are equal in value or standing but with different roles and functions.
Now as we have many parts in one body, and all the parts do not have the same function, in the same way we who are many are one body in Christ and individually members of one another.
-Romans 12:4-5
We are all different, but part of the same body. Male and female differences are not disappeared in Christ.
Galatians 3:28 does not teach that we no longer have different roles as men and women, husbands and wives; because that would contradict what Paul wrote elsewhere, and the teaching of the whole rest of the Bible.
If Galatians 3:28 really teaches that men and women are no longer different, no longer have different, distinct roles; then the next logical step is what?
In Christ, we are now unified, and that does not mean we are all the same.
In creation, God created men and women differently; and these differences are not eliminated in Christ. Head coverings, were a cultural outworking of the truth of God's created order. Disregarding this section of scripture as having no application to today is totally missing the point of why this teaching is in scripture. The point is God's creation order. God's creation order is not obliterated by Galatians 3:28.
Paul does not appeal to creation order to say that women should wear head coverings and that men should not. Paul teaches us that from the beginning, God created men and women to be distinctively different, with different roles, that are good. Doing things that violate the distinctive differences in God's order brings shame. Head coverings are not Paul's main concern, but violating gender role distinctions, based on God's created order is the issue.
1 Corinthians 11 is about gender roles for Christians. It is about Christ and man, woman and man, and Christ and God. Distinctive genders and distinctive roles.
But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head.
-1 Corinthians 11:3-4
Christ has authority over the husband and the husband has authority over the wife. That is God's order. In the Corinthian church context, when a man wore a head covering or a woman did not wear one, it contradicted God's order. And Paul was teaching them that we are still under God's order and not in some sort of existence where we are now only spirit beings, like the angels, who don't do male/female distinctions.
Paul said to the women who were not wearing their head coverings, that what they were doing was wrong and disgraceful.
Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman doesn’t cover her head, she should 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 head be covered.-1 Corinthians 11:5-6
Men and women were created differently. It is not God's design for men and women to look the same. The paintings of Jesus with long hair are not based on the Bible or historical data. Hebrew men sometimes grew out their hair as part of the Narzirite vow. The issue is not hair, but God's created order.
A man should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. So too, woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God.
Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
-1 Corinthians 11:7-14
Paul argues for the distinctions and different roles of men and women, rather than head covering rules, based on God's created order. Paul is explaining how men and women function in design with God. At Corinth and in Paul's churches, Paul says that women should not do what men do with having their heads uncovered in the church gathering and men should not cover their heads, as was the custom for first century women. This was not a new rule based on creation order, but an admonition to uphold and continue to express gender roles and differences in church, based on God's creation.
The truth Paul is expressing is that women are created differently than men, and these differences should continue to be lived out in Christ's church and the Christian family. The truth here that Paul is teaching is based on God's created order for men and women, husbands and wives. Head coverings were a Greco-Roman cultural custom that were followed in the early church, that was and can still be a symbol, pointing to God's created design.
In 1 Timothy, Paul makes the case for male only elders, also based on created order.
Counter argument question: "The culture of the New Testament times when it was written, is different than ours. Today, women by and large (in the West), do not wear head coverings and few churches require them to do so. So doesn't it make sense that women should also be able to be elders and teach men?"
Some Christians believe that Paul was commanding head coverings for women in church for all time and the church is being disobedient today having let worldliness into the church. But 'hold onto your hats', as they say. All interpreters (Greek scholars and New Testament commentators) agree on one thing about 1 Corinthians 11. And that is that the head covering was a symbol, pointing to something, for Christians. Paul was not imposing or enforcing a dress code. Paul was very concerned about what head covings for these women or wives symbolized.
So, what did the head covering symbolize, that Paul was so concerned about? Head coverings on these women symbolized:
- Her submission to her husband and perhaps also to the male elders' leadership in the church.
- That she is a woman and not a man.
- That she is a wife and not single.
- That she has the authority to pray or prophecy in the meeting of the church.
The symbolism is timeless, but the culture is not. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with churches today maintaining a culture where women or wives wear head coverings. Not because Paul instituted it by divine revelation, but because of what it symbolizes. The symbolism is timeless and can go on throughout time, but cultures come and go.
To impose head covering rules today might be like imposing foot washing as something we need to do in the church. "Foot washing was not just cultural, Jesus did it to his disciples, so we should too," is what people might say. Foot washing is symbolic of something which is a rich, deep teaching. Perhaps humility and caring service to another person. Christians that regularly wash each others feet, as part of a church service, find it to be very meaningful.
Foot washing was part of first century life that we do not have in the Western world today. But what foot washing means or symbolizes remains very meaningful.
Head coverings do not mean the same thing today in the modern Western world that they did in the Greco-Roman first century. Paul's words concerning head coverings were over what they symbolized. We cannot be sure exactly what they symbolized for Greeks and Romans, but we have Paul's words explaining how important the symbolism is to the created order.
Imitate me, as I also imitate Christ.
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man (husband) is the head of the woman (wife), and God is the head of Christ. Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head. Every woman (wife) who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman (wife) doesn’t cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman (wife) to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her head be covered.
A man should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. So too, woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. This is why a woman (wife) should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God.
Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman (wife) to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.
-1 Corinthians 11:1-16
Wife and husband are in parentheses above because the Greek words mean woman or wife, man or husband depending on the context. The ESV and NRSV have husband and wife, where other popular translations (CSB, NLT, NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV) have man and woman. It is understood by some scholars that when a woman wore a head covering, a veil, in the first century, that it meant she was married.
In most places, especially in the West, head coverings do not symbolize, in the culture, what they did in first century Corinth. Does that mean we throw out, skip over, or ignore 1 Corinthians 11 as having no meaning or application to today? No. The application and the principles taught still apply. The meaning of head coverings is what is important and is the standard. The meaning remains and needs to be followed while the old cultural custom that symbolized the important meaning is still held to. Paul takes something of that time and teaches us how it applies to all time. These women, these wives, must cover their heads under certain circumstances, because of what it symbolizes; that is based on God's creation order. What it symbolizes and how God created us to be is applicable and to be followed and obeyed till the end of time.
Paul commanded head coverings for his churches, for women/wives, when they were praying or prophesying and told men to not cover their heads. At first glance, we could read that this is a transcultural command for all time, based on God's created order. We have evidence that head coverings for women, in church, continued after Paul's lifetime. The early Church Father Tertullian wrote a letter that we have preserved, "On the Veiling of Virgins", where he argues if unmarried women should join the married women, with being veiled in church.
Women wore head coverings in church, in America, and the West, before the Feminist movement. By the time of the 1960's, feminist movement leaders were targeting head coverings in church for Christian women:
In 1968, the NOW task force called for a “National Unveiling” to protest the Catholic tradition of requiring women to cover their heads in church. The “Easter Bonnet Rebellion” took place the following Easter at a Milwaukee church after a priest criticized a woman for her uncovered head. Fifteen women with outrageously large hats on approached the communion rail, removed their hats, and received communion in the “first church demonstration for women’s rights.”
-Elizabeth Farians: Catholic Feminist Pioneer
There seems to be a juxtaposition between Paul and the modern feminist movement on head coverings for women in Church. Did it become a trend and then a widespread practice in the Western church to abandon head coverings for women in church because we no longer believe in Paul's rationale of God's creation order of male headship/leadership? Or do we simply not have women or wives wear head coverings because it is no longer widely done in Western culture, and no longer carries the symbolic meaning of male headship/leadership? Can we have women/wives not cover their heads in church and at the same time believe and practice male headship/ leadership?
For churches today that still practice female head coverings as a preservative or reminder of God's created differences and distinctions between men and women, can we say that the practice is transcultural? No. Are women obeying the Bible when they wear head coverings and can we therefore say women need to wear head coverings in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11, to be obedient followers of Christ? No.
Paul is not teaching that women should wear head coverings in church for all time. Paul is teaching that gender distinctives and differences in roles are timeless, and should not be forgotten or messed with, which is what the Corinthians were doing and he was correcting. The application for today and for all time is to follow the gender roles and differences in how God created men and women.
In other words, Paul is teaching that if you and your church are in a culture where women or wives covering their heads sends the message of male headship/leadership, the different gender roles between men and women, then you should do so. If you are not, then you don't have to. But to be a Christian is to believe in gender roles based on God's created order. Women not having to wear head coverings because our culture no longer does that as a symbol of gender roles and differences, does not mean that we can also throw out and not follow gender roles and differences based on God's created order.
Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11 is for male headship, not for head coverings. Head coverings were an application of male headship in that culture. We cannot throw out male headship because we do not practice female head coverings in our culture. And that is why you cannot throw out male-only elders because it is based on created order and not the culture, because we don't have head covering in our culture.
___________________
Bibliography
Wayne Grudem, Countering The Claims of Evangelical Feminism
Benjamin Merkle, 40 Questions About Elders and Deacons
Stack Exchange: Biblical Hermeneutics "How do we decide if a biblical instruction is cultural or transcultural?"
Mike Winger: All The Head Covering Debates
Top photo is from:
Wikipedia: Christian head covering
Comments
Post a Comment