SERIES: Christ Is the Answer When the Church Is in Crisis
The Gender Minefield: Male/Female Roles in the Home and Church
SCRIPTURE: 1 Cor. 11:2-16
Note: This sermon was preached long before the gender controversy of the 2020’s. “Gender” here is being used as synonymous with “sex,” that is, male/female. A sermon entitled “The Gender Minefield” would probably be on a completely different topic if preached in 2023 or beyond. Nevertheless, I believe the principles laid out here are valid.
Introduction: The topic of gender roles is a minefield many pastors consider too risky to cross, and I understand their hesitancy. I know instinctively before I start today that not everyone is going to like what I have to say. Some will think I’m too liberal and others will think I’m too conservative, but maybe that’s not a bad position to be in; at least I’m pretty sure none of you will fall asleep today.
It should be obvious that we cannot look to our culture for help in resolving the gender controversy, for the positions staked out there are pretty extreme. On the one side we have the women’s liberation movements like NOW, the National Organization of Women; NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League; and WITCH, the Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell (I hope we don’t have too many charter members of that one in our congregation today). Some of the rhetoric erupting from these groups today evidences absolute insanity, if I may share my humble opinion. And the fact that these groups are fighting not only for legitimate rights of equal pay and equal opportunity for women, but also for abortion rights, gay rights, transgender rights, and animal rights, shows that the women’s movement as a whole has gone “rights-mad”, and has lost sight of meaningful goals to correct the wrongs perpetrated upon women, of which there have been many.
On the other extreme, however, there are those in our society who are indifferent to the tremendous inequalities in our society, and the fact that qualified women are often not allowed to advance in the business world, are not paid the same as men who do the same job, do not get equal protection under the law where they deserve it, and are even treated with chauvinistic disdain. They tend to find a “feminazi” under every bush and are suspicious of every effort to elevate the status of women.
Nor do we find much help in the Church in resolving the gender controversy, for the same extremes are often found there. In some denominations Paul’s teaching is flat-out dismissed as chauvinistic discrimination, and women are eligible in those churches for every position, from pastor to elder to denominational executive. In fact, in some mainline denominations local churches are required to ordain a quota of women under threat of church discipline or legal action.
On the other hand, there are conservative churches where women are not allowed to speak publicly, to pray in mixed audiences, or to exercise their spiritual gifts (except in the nursery, children’s programs, or women’s ministries). Men hold every office and every committee position, and they make every decision. In some churches women are expected to wear a head covering when they come to worship.
I would argue that if there is any hope of coming to grips with this hot topic, that hope lies in God’s Word, not in social customs or even in church tradition. So it is with confidence in God’s Spirit and in the Scriptures that I invite you to navigate this minefield with me. (And don’t put too much significance in the fact that we’re going to take a break from 1 Corinthians starting next Sunday to move to something a little easier–the book of Revelation).
Please follow along as I read from 1 Cor. 11:2-16:
“I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
{3} Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. {4} Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. {5} And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head–it is just as though her head were shaved. {6} If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. {7} A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. {8} For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; {9} neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. {10} For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
{11} In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. {12} For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. {13} Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? {14} Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, {15} but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. {16} If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.”
In this passage Paul is dealing with two immediate issues. Should women (or men for that matter) wear something on their heads in church, and how long should a woman’s (or man’s) hair be? Now these two issues don’t appear on the surface to be of earthshattering significance. However, in the process of dealing with them, the Apostle is going to give us some very important and timeless principles from which we should be able to draw some conclusions about gender roles in the home and church. Let’s begin, then, with …
Background of the Passage
Bible books were written in historical time periods and to specific cultures, and it is absolutely essential that we try to overcome language barriers, as well as the historical and cultural gaps between the first century and our own day. That is especially true in this chapter. So, let’s take a look at the situation in both the Corinthian culture and the Corinthian church.
The practice in the Corinthian culture. In the Middle East in ancient times (and largely even today), it was customary for women to wear veils or head coverings in public. This signified two things: it was a sign of modesty, and it was a sign of being under the authority of someone else. A girl went bareheaded until marriage as a symbol of her freedom. But once married, she wore a veil as a sign that she was under the authority of her husband. Not to do so was actually potential grounds for divorce in some cultures. In addition, it was the social custom in nearly the entire ancient world, for women to wear their hair longer than men.
The one exception in Bible times was the woman of loose morals. She not only cast off her veil, but usually cropped her hair closely and at times even shaved her head. The prostitute needed some means of advertising her profession, and very short hair was the method of choice in that day.
There were two main religions in Corinth–Judaism and paganism. In the Jewish synagogue only men were able to take part in the worship services. Most pagan religions operated the same way. Women were viewed as inferior to men and were treated as property. While not quite as low on the social scale as animal pets, they certainly were not esteemed highly enough to take active part in religious activities, except, of course, as sacred prostitutes. This was a dreadful situation, but that’s how it was.
Now with that understanding of the first century culture, we turn our attention to …
The problem in the Corinthian Church. Into this world came Christianity, announcing to women that God loved them and that Christ died for them. When women repented of their sins and trusted Christ as their Savior, they became joint heirs with men of salvation, and they received the hope of eternal life.
This new taste of spiritual freedom was a sweet wine for the Christian women of Corinth. But some were immature, and they allowed this freedom to be carried to unfortunate extremes. They decided they had been downtrodden long enough and began a miniature social revolution of their own. Some of you thought that the feminist movement began in October 1968 with Betty Friedan, but as a matter of fact, it actually began 1900 years earlier in the city of Corinth. The motto of these ladies was, “Burn your veil!” They were not as much concerned with getting the Lord’s work done as with the heady possibility of changing their social status and becoming “liberated women.”
Well, so much for the background. What sort of solution does Paul offer?
The teaching of the passage: Five guiding principles about hair and hats
1. Order (2-6) Paul affirms that there is a divinely established order of headship, and the order is this: God, Christ, man, woman. Headship implies authority. Each level in the divine order has authority over the level(s) below it. Of course, the authority we are talking about is not dictatorship; it is actually an authority that sacrifices itself in the interest of the loved one.
One of the implications of this order of headship, claims Paul, is that Christian men in Corinth should not pray or prophesy with a hat on and women shouldn’t do so without a covering on their heads. Why? Because man is subject to no other earthly creature, but wives are subject to their husbands, and the head covering was the recognized symbol of submission in the first century. If that seems strange to you, I would simply point out that we still practice this custom somewhat today, perhaps without even realizing it or knowing why. If you attended a graduation ceremony in the past few weeks, during which an invocation or benediction was offered (not likely in a state university), you probably saw the men remove their graduation caps during the prayer, while the ladies left theirs on.
2. Creation (7-9) Look at verse 7: “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” Here Paul goes right back to the beginning, to the first few chapters of Genesis to establish that man was created in the image of God. But wasn’t woman also created in the image of God? Yes, but indirectly, since she was created from Adam. The word “glory” here means that which honors and magnifies. Since Adam was the direct reflection of God’s glory, Paul argues that it is appropriate for men to be uncovered when they worship. The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of her husband, meaning she is the one who magnifies him, makes him look good, and keeps him from making a fool out of himself (any amens to that?). The fact that she is his glory gives her a very high place in the scheme of things, but her place is not her husband’s place. The veil or covering pictures that difference.
Paul then supports his argument from creation by appealing to the priority of the man both in time and function. He was first in origin and first in purpose. Chronologically man was created first, and woman was also created for the man, not vice versa. This is clear from Gen. 2:18: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helper suitable for him.” The man wasn’t complete until woman was created. In Paul’s mind these creation facts argue for a submission (we’ll talk about what this means later) of women to men in the home and in the Church, and the sign of that submission (at least in the Corinthian setting) should be a head covering.
3. Angels (10) Look at verse 10: “For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.” This is a strange verse indeed. Why should angels care, and why should women care whether angels care? There are several factors Paul may have in mind here. First, according to Job 38:7 angels witnessed the creation of woman from man; thus, they know that woman was secondary chronologically. Second, angels have a great interest in human affairs, especially spiritual relationships (we see this in 1 Peter 1:12 and Heb. 1:14). Third, good angels may be especially sensitive to order and authority, for Satan and one third of the good angels were cast out of Heaven for violating God’s order and casting off His authority. And fourth, in recognition of God’s authority, the holy angels veil themselves before God, according to Isa. 6:1-3. Shouldn’t unholy humans do as much?
4. Nature (13-15) Paul asks, “Does not the very nature of things 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 long hair is given to her as a covering.” It would be useless to try to prove Paul’s argument here, for it is presented as an intuitive argument, and by their very, nature intuitive arguments cannot be proven. You either know it or you don’t. In nearly all societies throughout history, it has been the general practice for women to wear their hair longer than men. That’s just a fact.
5. Custom (16) It seems as though Paul expects there to be some rather vigorous opposition to the position he has taken, especially after his last argument. So in v. 16 he addresses these potential objectors: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.” In other words, the apostles and the churches they planted were committed to the practice that women should wear longer hair than men and should wear proper head coverings to indicate their submission to their husbands. Why should these Corinthian feminists feel justified in establishing a whole new precedent? It is better to err on the side of being too modest than to do anything that might bring disrepute upon the Church. Custom argues against them.
Now, so far the teaching of the passage has focused upon the fact that if and when a woman prays or prophecies in a worship service in Corinth, she should have a covering on her head because of order, creation, angels, nature and the custom of the churches. It seems to me he is addressing only the case where the woman is actively participating in the service. No special requirements are made upon the woman who is not speaking in worship. This is important, because in some churches today women are both expected to wear a head covering and to be quiet. I do not see that in this passage.
Having examined the teaching, it is time to ask about the meaning.
The meaning of the passage: We must distinguish between what is timeless and what is cultural.
Here we walk on theological eggshells, for we want to do two things that are extremely difficult to do at the same time. We want to distinguish between what is merely cultural and what is timeless, but at the same time we want to be careful not to undermine the authority of Scripture in the process. Let me explain, first of all, the difference between timeless or “normative” truth and “cultural” truth.
Timeless (normative) Truth is for the whole Church for all time. An example would be the command “love one another.” That is applicable to men and women, Jew or Gentile, white or black, 1st or 21st century. It is truth for everybody, everywhere, and always.
Cultural Truth is for certain people at certain times, but not for all people at all times. An example of a cultural truth might be Paul’s exhortation in 1 Timothy 2:9: “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” Apparently, there was something about braided hair in the first century that was culturally significant and negative. But I don’t know anyone who would suggest that such a prohibition should apply today. In fact, in the fundamentalist churches in which I grew up, it was normal for godly women to braid their hair and wear it in a bun on the top, under their hat.
The task of the Bible student when he comes to a passage that has heavy cultural aspects is to get beyond what is merely cultural to the normative principle behind it. We’ve been faced with this task just recently in chapter 8 and again in 10. There Paul gives cultural instructions regarding meat offered to idols, which has no direct significance for us today. But when we get behind what is merely cultural, we find a principle that is normative for the church, namely that at times we must limit our liberty by love for our fellow-believers and for the lost.
So also, I believe there are cultural, as well as timeless, aspects here in 1 Cor. 11. When women go out in public unveiled today in St. Louis County, is that a sign of rebellion against their husbands? Hardly. Is short hair on a woman a sign of moral degradation? The answer is the same. Well, if the symbols of submission to headship have changed from the first century until today, is it not possible that the obligation to wear those symbols is also no longer in effect?
However, there are also timeless, normative truths in this passage.
Four timeless truths about male/female roles.
1. Men and women are equal in dignity, worth and spiritual usefulness. I see no hint in this passage (or in any other in the NT) that any woman is a second-class citizen in God’s kingdom. If Paul is seen against the background of the sexist society he lived in, he comes off as a courageous liberationist, not a chauvinist or anti-feminist. The very fact that he mentions women praying and prophesying in the church shows that he is breaking with both Judaism and paganism. Clearly the gifts of the Spirit are not limited to men. He adds in Gal. 3 that “in Christ there is neither male nor female.” Men and women are clearly spiritual equals. All of us are children of God.
But you may ask, “How can men and women be equal if the husband is viewed as the head?” The mere fact of male headship in no way signifies inferiority for women, and the best way to prove that is by appeal to the Trinity. God the Father is in a position of headship over Christ, but Jesus is in no way inferior to His Father. In fact, in two of Paul’s letters, Philippians and Colossians, he tells us that Jesus Christ was “in very nature God.” In reality, headship and submission never imply superiority or inferiority.
There are many kinds of submission mentioned in Scripture:
citizens subject to civil authorities
employees to employers
church members to the elders
children to their parents
Church to Christ
wives to their husbands
Christians to one another
And in none of these cases is any essential inferiority even hinted at.
Friends, the essential equality of character and spirit between men and women is borne out in the Scriptures in numerous ways, which due to time constraints I will have to share by way of a footnote to the posted manuscript of this sermon.[i] And even our text today, which is often viewed as negative toward women, affirms that equality. Look again at verses 11 and 12 as I read it from Eugene Peterson’s, The Message.
Don’t, by the way, read too much into the differences here between men and women. Neither man nor woman can go it alone or claim priority. Man was created first, as a beautiful shining reflection of God–that is true. But the head on a woman’s body clearly outshines in beauty the head of her “head,” her husband. The first woman came from man, true–but ever since then, every man comes from a woman! And since virtually everything comes from God anyway, let’s quit going through these “who’s first” routines.
I like that, and I think it gets to the heart of the matter.
2. Men and women are not functionally equal. Perhaps we could relate these two truths in the following way: “In Christ there is no male or female, but in the home and in the Church, there is male and female.” What we are saying here is that it is possible to have equality of being and equality of spirituality while maintaining a certain distinctiveness of roles. And I believe a certain distinction in roles between men and women is clearly taught in Scripture.
The women who took leadership over men in the OT did so rarely, and always in response to a lack of male leadership. Jesus chose Twelve Apostles and all of them were men. The Holy Spirit used over forty writers to convey God’s Word to us in the Scriptures, and every one of them was a man. These facts, along with our passage today, seem to convey that the role of spiritual leadership is most suitable for men, even though women play a very strong supporting role (and even on occasion are raised up by God to be leaders over God’s people for special tasks).
3. The Church should not be violating cultural norms needlessly. It seems that Paul’s philosophy was that it is better to err on the side of tradition rather than push the envelope. He was very jealous for the reputation of the Church and didn’t believe in giving unnecessary offense to outsiders. Remember the comment he made in 10:32? “Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the Church of God.”
Some churches feel they should be on the cutting edge of the rights movements– civil rights, women’s rights, worker’s rights, homosexual rights, native American rights, animal rights, etc. But Paul disagrees. Certainly, the Church should not be dragging its feet on basic human freedoms, but its primary function is never political or social or economic but spiritual. Any other approach will eventually bring disrepute upon the Church and make it that much more difficult to accomplish its essential tasks.
4. Women should be visibly distinguishable from men. Admittedly this is not a major thrust of 1 Cor. 11, but it seems to me to be a necessary implication of what is said about hair length. I do not know how long a woman’s hair should be, nor how short a man’s hair should be, but I believe on the basis of this passage that men should be distinguishable from women. There is great pressure in our society toward unisex haircuts, unisex wardrobes, unisex bathrooms, etc., but I do not believe this is biblical.[ii] “Male and female” God created them, and He intended for them to stay that way. I don’t like to see women wearing men’s clothes, and I certainly don’t like to see men wearing women’s clothes, or their jewelry, for that matter. There, I said it.
In summary, I am suggesting that the cultural and temporary aspect of 1 Cor. 11 is the wearing of veils or hats in worship services, while the normative and timeless aspect is that wives should acknowledge the headship of their husbands, particularly while participating in the church’s worship services. But the way of showing that submission may be different today than it was in the 1st century.[iii] In other words, I don’t believe my wife is breaking God’s law when she fails to wear a hat to church, but she would be breaking God’s law if she walked out of a sermon in obvious disgust at something I was preaching, or if she accosted an Elder in the hallway and berated him for a recent board decision. Now I don’t have to worry about her ever doing such a thing, and that’s why I can use her as an example. She understands and practices beautifully her role as my helpmate and soulmate (and works overtime to keep me from making a fool out of myself, not always successfully).
We come finally this morning to …
The lesson for all of us: Christianity is the greatest liberating force for women in history, but still God has assigned headship to men in the home and Church.
I call Christianity a liberating force for women despite the recent allegation of a leading feminist that “Religion in general and Christianity in particular, has been for women the single most ubiquitous force in history.” The basis for my dispute with her lies in the understanding of liberation. If liberation means the removal of all restraints so that a person can attempt to become anything he/she wants to become, whether or not that goal is constitutionally possible, or moral, or beneficial, then she is right. But if liberation means the ability to become all God intended, and to reach the highest achievements consistent with one’s constitution, one’s own good, and what is morally right, then I am right.[iv]
Now my time is up, but I cannot close without saying something about how all this plays out in our church. Last week I talked about two approaches to Christian freedom. One is to forbid anything the Bible doesn’t specifically allow; the other is to allow anything the Bible doesn’t specifically forbid. We opted for the latter. On this question of women’s roles, the spiritual leaders of this church have taken a similar stance. Rather than tell women they cannot do anything God doesn’t specifically assign to them, we encourage them to minister in any way God doesn’t specifically forbid.
Now that doesn’t answer all the questions, but I trust it does establish a frame of mind (and heart) that allows us to affirm the godly, gifted women in this church. We believe in the priesthood of all believers. We want to unleash our women under the loving, servant leadership of Elders and husbands who are willing to empower their wives and daughters to be and to become all they can be in Christ.
To the extent that we as a church have either knowingly or unwittingly communicated a “glass ceiling” for women in ministry, we need to confess it, apologize, and encourage women to serve as God has gifted them under the authority of our Elders. I want us to turn this minefield of gender roles into a Field of Dreams for you, one cultivated by the God who designed us as male and female to reach our full redemptive potential in Christ.
So men, women, boys and girls: all of us who follow Christ need not ask what gender a computer is, and we can quit assigning stereotypes to men and women regarding their expected behaviors. Rather, we should understand, appreciate, and revel in our gender differences and the Biblical roles which have been assigned to us by a loving God who has “fearfully and wonderfully made” each of us and has promised to build a Church of living stones so strong the gates of hell will never, never prevail against it.
DATE: May 20, 2001
Tags:
Women in the Church
Women’s liberation
Gender
Head coverings
Headship
Cultural truth
Normative truth
Equality
Submission
[i] We see this first in the very important spiritual contributions made by women. In the OT there were prophetesses like Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah, who not only communicated God’s Word but held key positions of leadership. Other important OT women include Sarah, Rachel, Rahab, Ruth, Hannah, the Shunamite Woman, Esther, and many others.
When we come to the NT, we find in Jesus a revolutionary way of relating to women. He treated them with great respect, and no word of depreciation or chauvinistic humor about women ever fell from his lips. Some of the women closely associated with Him in His ministry were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, Mary the mother of James, Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, plus many unnamed women, like the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, and the Syro-Phoenician woman. He also frequently used women as positive examples in His parables.
When we turn from Jesus to the rest of the NT, we again see women making key contributions in the early church. In the 16th chapter of Romans Paul salutes 25 church members, a third of whom are women, and he praises them for their labor in the Lord. Phoebe is labeled a deacon of the church, demonstrating at the very least that she had the gift of service; I personally think she also held the office of deacon. Other important women include Tabitha, Lydia, Elizabeth, Priscilla, and of course, Mary the Mother of Jesus, the noblest woman of all.
These examples should suffice to show us that women are equal to men in God’s eyes–in dignity, worth, and spiritual usefulness.
[ii] I am adding this footnote in 2023: Who would have imagined two decades ago when this sermon series was preached that the culture would be demanding that gender is a matter of personal choice, and that those born with male bodies should be able to play on women’s sports teams and even use women’s locker rooms? Gender dysphoria is a genuine psychological issue that needs to be addressed, but our culture and the Democrat Party have chosen to simply cave to the loudest woke voices.
[iii] Obviously we must be careful not to undermine the authority of Scripture while we are making this distinction between timeless and cultural truth, and many are doing exactly that today. Even some evangelicals are referring to Paul as a woman-hater whose views have to be discounted on this subject. P. K. Jewett and William Barclay are two examples of theologians who explain 1 Corinthians 11 properly but then proceed to reject Paul’s views as inadequate for the twentieth century, much less the 21st. Barclay, for example, states, “It is very improbable that in the 20th century we are likely to accept this view” (The Letters to the Corinthians, 97).
If we know what the Bible says and reject it, that is undermining the authority of Scripture. But that is not at all what I’m calling for today. I am stating that Paul’s argument was quite adequate and authoritative, and the principle of submission of wives to their husbands in public worship is still normative truth today.
[iv] An analogy may help. We hear a great deal today about sexual liberation. No longer is society arbitrarily limiting sexual expression to marriage, or to heterosexual relationships, or even to other humans. But friends, is this liberation? No? This so-called freedom can only lead to moral enslavement in the chains of sin.
The same concept applies to the liberation of women. Women may succeed in getting not only equal pay, equal job opportunities, and equal protection under the law (all of which I believe they deserve), but they may also achieve functional equality in the home and in the church, but they will do it to their own detriment. That is, they may succeed in throwing off the headship principle which God has instituted for the home and the Church. But all of us will suffer if that happens.