1 Corinthians 11 & Head-coverings

 

I would like to make the case that women should wear head-coverings in worship.  But, before I get to the argument I would like to offer some preliminary comments...

Preliminary comments

First, we need to be honest and admit that many of us have been guilty of doing something with this portion of scripture we don’t do with others. We skim through it.  How many Christians have really investigated it?  How many have said to God, “I don’t want to, but I am willing to wear a head-covering if you want me to. Please how me what you want me to do?”    

Second, people are sometimes afraid of what outsiders will think.  I’ve heard it put like this: “If all our women start wearing head-coverings what will people think when they visit us?  What will the unconverted say?  How will we reach the world for Jesus?”

That kind of reasoning is absolutely appalling. When I hear the Church reason I sometimes wonder do we really fear what man thinks more than we fear God? Are we actually willing to refuse God what He demands because we don’t want to offend or embarrass a carnal unbelieving God-hating world?   That kind of logic, when it makes its way into the Church, is an absolute disgrace.  It is the Lord who builds the Church.  It is God who saves; and He promises blessing on nothing less than obedience.  We do not serve the world by becoming like the world!  

Actually, our impact on an unbelieving nation is just in proportion to how different we are - how unlike them we are - and how much of God is upon us.  What matters most is not how appealing our worship is, but how pure it is. If God is in the midst of His people, outsiders will be anything but comfortable.  The Church needs to stop worrying about what people will think.  If we want to curry favour, we should curry favour with God. It is to Him that we must one day give account.

Third, people often complain that this is a difficult passage.  Its an odd thing to say about a relatively straightforward passage. In fact, the Greek words used are not actually difficult.  So why is it so difficult?  That was the question one minister asked his congregation?  “Why do people think it’s so hard?”  The answer should be obvious. The plain reading of this passage goes against the majority opinion of the Church.  It isn't actually difficult. It is 'offensive'. It is always easy to see difficulties and complications when we want a passage to say something else.  Find someone who attends a church that ordains women and ask them what they think of 1 Timothy 2. You will be amazed at the complications they manage to dig up. 

The truth is that people do not ordinarily come to this passage wanting to find an argument for wearing head-coverings.  They want it to say something else.  So where do all these supposed difficulties come from?  They’re man made!   We want an excuse and so we find one.  

A cultural practice?

The greatest objection to head-coverings - and one that you will hear in the reformed churches, evangelical churches and liberal churches - is that this was a cultural practice.  We are told that prostitutes in Corinth went about without head-coverings, and so Paul didn’t want the Corinthian believers to be mistaken for prostitutes. This, then (we are told), is why the women in Corinth were instructed to wearing coverings on their head. Of course, if it was merely a cultural practice we needn't worry about it anymore.

Before I get to the passage itself I want to answer the cultural argument.  R.C. Sproul, commenting on this text, said “it is totally inappropriate to assign to Paul a reason for his saying something that is different from the one he himself gives.  He does not leave us without a rationale… he appeals to creation not to Corinth.  If anything transcends local custom it is those things that are rooted in creation.”  In other words, Paul didn't say “wear a head-covering because we don’t want the Corinthians to be thinking you’re a prostitute.”   Later he actually insisted that all the other churches - without a single exception - practiced the wearing of head-coverings.

The truth is this kind of reasoning is exactly how liberals dismiss Paul’s words about women ruling over men in his letter to Timothy. They insist it was a cultural matter that was being addressed.  They tell us that Paul's instructions were given to deal with a problem peculiar to that particular setting in that particular time. Of course, the problem with their argument is that Paul himself never once addressed those cultural issues. That was not the reason he gave!  In fact, he gave two arguments and both of them theological.  He made his argument from creation (as he does in 1 Corinthians 11).

This raises an important question about Biblical interpretation in general.  If you once decide that certain portions of Scripture don’t apply today how do you decide which portions of Scripture do?  Who gets to decide which parts of the Bible are relevant and which aren’t?  Do you see the problem?  When we decide which parts of the Bible are for us (and which aren't), who is the authority? We are. When our own likes and dislikes determine which parts we will obey and which parts we needn’t obey we are usurping the place of authority that belongs to God. Its old fashioned liberalism: “man’s reason decides.”

One minister said, “you cannot decide which parts of Scripture are cultural and which aren’t without resorting to liberalism... You always end up with human minds judging what God has said.”  He added, “it all becomes very complicated when you go down that road!”

I cannot possibly emphasize that last point enough.  God has given us a book that is meant to be understood.  All of it - He has said - is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and it is given as a revelation to be read and understood.  According to the Bible even children can pick it up, read it and know what God wants them to do.

When I was at seminary I learned that liberals are very good at making everything complicated. As Paul Dowling put it, it all becomes very complicated when man is deciding which parts (of the Bible) are relevant and which parts aren't. According to the liberals, even the authors of Scripture aren't allowed to supply their own reasons for what they have written.  Its the scholars who must tell you why the apostles and prophets wrote what they wrote. As a result, the Bible becomes a closed and mysterious book rather than the precious inspired and living word of God.

In the conservative churches we have a much higher regard for the Bible.  But if there is one great exception its here. It is when we get to 1 Corinthians 11 that the perspecuity of Scripture is forgotten and God's word is suddenly made to seem very complicated. Why?  Because we don't want it to say what it says. But - if you do that with 1 Corinthians 11 you will eventually do it elsewhere. One man said “lots of problems in churches today would not be problems if they weren’t problems in the world first.”  It’s as if we’re always trying to play catch up. What an embarrassment to a holy God when the Church, like a child on the playground, cannot stand up to a bit of peer pressure. How tragic to think that the Church would rather the approval of the world than the approval of God!  

Reader - you know very well this is true.  Look what’s happened very recently with regard to homosexuality.  All of a sudden churches are rethinking what they’ve always believed.  Why?  Part of it is that many of them don’t know their Bibles.  Their own beliefs don’t come from the Bible.  They believe things because they are told to; and so now they are rethinking homosexuality and transgenderism because the world has embraced these things.  Consider what happened with regard to the place of women in the church. The Church didn’t sit down with their Bibles and discover that they had been mistaken for centuries. No, the Church responded to the Feminist movement. Demands were being made, and the church was pressured to conform.

The same thing happened with regard to head-coverings.  It was the changes happening in the society, the impact of the feminist movement, women going off to work, women rising to positions of leadership, women's rights, and the demand for equality, that impacted the Church.  As society changed so the Church changed. And the shift away from head-coverings made sense. Why would women keep wearing the sign of submission if they didn’t believe they should submit in the first place?  The head-covering, after all, is a sign of a woman’s agreement with God’s order!  And the church didn’t agree with God's order anymore.

Sadly, the Scriptures have been re-read and re-interpreted time and time again to fit cultural customs; and the irony is that we have the temerity to read culture into the Bible when it is our own culture that has changed. If we’re honest it is often our own cultural norms that we prefer over the norms and standards of the Bible.  And so we read God's own reason for what He has told us to do, but instead of believing Him we decide there must be another reason because we don’t want to look so unlike the world.

I freely admit that in a culture like our own nothing looks so ridiculous and counter cultural as a head-covering.  And why is it so counter cultural? Because everyone understands instinctively what the covering means. It is a visible sign of the submission of the woman to the man.  It is our women saying “I know the place God has assigned to me, and I embrace it for the glory of God.”  What a statement.  It is no wonder to me that when the church rejected the authority of the man and the subordination of the woman that they rejected, too, the sign of that submission.

The Argument

Consider then the text of Scripture, and the argument made by Paul.

1 Corinthians 11:2 says, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember mee in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."  By ordinances or traditions he’s not speaking about man made traditions or ordinances.  He’s referring to oral traditions and oral Scripture.  He is referring to those things that God passed on to us.  So, he’s praising the Corinthians for keeping these traditions as they should.  But, this letter was written to address and correct some problems.  Here, then, in this section of the letter Paul is about to address three matters (three traditions that pertain to public worship) that need correcting: 

• First head-coverings. 
• Second, the Lord’s Supper. 
• Third, the manifestation of spiritual gifts and particularly tongues.

1 Corinthians 11:3 says, "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man' and the head of Christ is God." Here is the basic principle behind the practice.  The head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.  It’s not about worth.  Christ is not less lovely or worthy than the Father; but for our sake, for the work of our salvation, He submitted to the Father.  In the same way our women are not less than our men.   They are their husband's crown and glory.  They are precious in the eyes of God, but they have a role in this world which is a role like that of Christ.  What is that role? They are to be subject to men even as Jesus was subject to the Father.  Women are not to usurp authority over the man (1 Timothy 2), and wives are to be obey their husbands (Ephesians 5).

Having established the principle, Paul says in verse 4, "every man who prays or prophesies having his head covered dishonours his head."  He is saying, here, that the man, who in the place of worship, wears a covering dishonours his Head.  In other words he dishonours Christ; and he dishonours Christ because "he is the image and glory of God (verse 7)."  Isn’t it interesting that we have preserved this part of the passage as somehow relevant? We don’t think it’s appropriate for a man to wear a headcovering in worship. We may not even be sure why, but something tells us a baseball cap on a male's head is disrespectful in church. Where does that come from? Its Biblical. The apostle Paul says that the man who wears a headcovering dishonours Christ.

But what does Paul mean by "praying and prophesying?"  Praying is obvious enough.  Prophesying can mean one of three things.  It could mean foretelling: telling what is going to happen in the future.  That is something women had occasionally done previously, though Paul will later say that women ought to keep silent in the church.  It could mean forth-telling: preaching and teaching - which God has expressly forbidden in the case of women.  Or it could mean singing.

However we understand the word "prophesying", it is obvious that where these things take place - where there is preaching, singing, praying and the observation of the Lord's Supper - men are not to wear head-coverings, whereas women must. It may be proper to apply these instructions to family worship and corporate prayer meetings, but it certainly applies - at very least - to gathered public worship services (where Paul's instructions about the Lord's Supper and speaking in tongues also apply). 

Notice, then, what Paul says in verse 5: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."  In other words, the woman in this setting (who during praying and prophesying) uncovers her head dishonours her head, which is the man. The word 'cover' is used repeatedly in this chapter to refer to something that covers the head. But why is the head to be covered?

Think through Paul's reasoning in this passage.  You have the principle, which is the subordination of women to men, and then in verses 7 to 16 you have arguments. What are those arguments?  Notice Paul nowhere mentions culture!  Instead, he makes two basic arguments.  

The first argument, as Paul Dowling explained it, is man’s consciousness. Man's consciousness refers to our sense (or instinct) that God has made a difference between men and women.  This argument from man's consciousness begins in verses 5 and 6 and continues in verses 13 through 15.  The argument goes as follows: God has made a clear difference between men and women, and this difference is shown for example in the way that they dress.  Women are not to dress like men, and men are not to dress like women.  Men are not to style their hair like women, and women are not to style their hair like men.  Men should not have very long hair, and women should not have very short hair.  Paul takes this for granted.  It is assumed that everyone knows this. This knowledge is written on the hearts and minds of everyone; and if it’s a shame for a woman to be uncovered in the one sense - with her cut short or shaven - it is a shame for her to be uncovered in the other sense.  

Earlier Paul put it like this: He argued that if the woman is uncovered in worship she might as well be shaven. In other words, if her hair is not covered it should be cut off. So, Paul is not suggesting woman’s hair being her covering. Many have argued that the hair is the covering. But consider what happens to the passage if you insert the word "hair" in the place of "covered." The passage ceases to make sense. Paul is borrowing from nature - this distinction between men and women (his short hair and her long hair) - to support his argument. You don’t support your argument by repeating your argument.   The apostle assumes that it is an obvious shame for a woman to have her hair shaved off; and what he is saying, then, is that if the women goes into worship without a covering on her head she might as well shave her hair.  But since it is a shame to be shaved she should have a covering on her head.  He’s not comparing a shaved head with a shaved head.  He’s not saying if it’s a shame to have her head shaved she might as well shave her head.  He’s comparing a shaved head with a head uncovered - that’s the only interpretation that makes sense.  The one teaches the propriety of the other. 

The second argument has to do with the created order.  This argument begins in verse 7 and continues through verse 11.  

Paul begins by explaining that man was created first (verse 8). This is the same argument that he made in 1 Timothy 2. Pay attention, then, to verse 7: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man." The man, he is saying, is the glory of God, and the woman is the glory of man.  The glory of man should be covered in worship so that no flesh should glory in His presence (1 Corinthians 1).  You know instinctively that its not proper for man to be glorified in worship.  Because the woman is the glory of man, it is argued that she is to be covered.    Do you see the reasoning?   The woman is his glory, but man’s glory is not be on display in the place of worship. Therefore her physical head is not to be uncovered but covered.  She is to have power on her head. She is to have a symbol of her submission to her head, which is the man. That is to say, she’s to have a covering.

Notice next what the apostle says about the angels.  "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." They are witnesses to what we do in worship.  Hebrews says that as we gather in worship we have come unto Mount Zion unto the city of the living God and to an innumerable company of angels. It is as if we have stepped into heaven. We are participating in the worship of heaven, and the angels are among us, watching and longing to inquire into these things. They want to learn. What does it say to watching angels when women do not wear coverings on their head?  It says they are refusing the role God has given them. It is a sign of rebellion. I heard one man say that it reminds the angels of the rebellion of Satan and his angels against God’s order at the beginning. What a message to send to angels - even as we are engaged in the act of worshipping God - that we are in rebellion to God's created order!

Conclusion

Here, then, is Paul's reasoning. God has covered the woman with long hair, and so there is a clear distinction between men and women even in nature, which - Paul is saying - ought to be the pattern for our worship. There should be a distinction here too. There should be this symbol of the difference that God has put between men and women.  Similarly, while man was made first, the woman was made from the man. He is to rule with love, and she is to subject herself to him. As her head he is the image and glory of God, and she is the glory of man. When we gather to worship God it is not right to cover and hide the glory of God, but it is appropriate to cover the glory of man and to have this visible symbol of her subordination to him.  There is to be a power on her head showing the angels and the world that she is willing for the glory of God to embrace this role that has been given to her. By wearing the covering she saying that she is willing for Christ’s sake to submit herself to man.  So, this isn’t just for married women or women of a certain age.  Men and boys should be uncovered and women and girls should be covered all bearing witness to the created order and testifying to our agreement with and subjection to God.

Some readers may be tempted to wonder if there isn't perhaps the smallest chance that this was just a temporary custom. You aren't sure one way or the other. There is a principle for when you are in doubt.  It’s a biblical principle.  Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.  R.C. Sproul said, "the burden of proof is always on those who argue such and such is a custom not a command."  Then he offered this wise advice.  He said, "if you treat a custom as a command you are only guilty of being overscrupulous and there is no sin in that; but if you treat a command as a custom you sin."   Far better to be accused of being overly scrupulous than to be guilty of sin.