Did you know only a handful of Scripture passages can be used to argue against the full inclusion of women in ministry leadership—and all of them are disputed by scholars? The first one we’ll examine is a mysterious passage about head coverings.
Some Christians believe 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 affirms male headship as grounded in the created order rather than a changeable principle dependent on circumstance.[i] They believe it teaches male headship and women’s subordination as a timeless principle.[ii]
They think Paul wanted women who prayed and prophesied publicly to dress in a manner appropriate to their submission to male leadership in the church and that Paul bars women from being pastors or teaching men.[iii]
Open your Bible to 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 and let’s take a closer look.
The context of this often misunderstood and misapplied passage is Paul’s concerns about socially acceptable head coverings or hairstyles for men and women praying and prophesying aloud in the Corinthian church meetings.[iv]
Women at Corinth were praying and prophesying without a customary head covering (or possibly with loosed hair). This ignored traditional cultural distinctions between women and men and was therefore seen as disgraceful.[v]
In portraits, sculpture and other graphic evidence of the day, respectable women kept their hair up. The few instances of hair let down loose depicted a scene of wild partying.[vi] As for the men, long hair was seen as disgraceful because it was associated with effeminate homosexual behavior.[vii]
Without entering a lengthy discussion on what Paul meant by covered or uncovered heads for women (a subject much debated among scholars), we’ll simply note his point has to do with honor.[viii]
He doesn’t argue vigorously on this topic like he does on others, yet Paul sees the need to address the head covering issue because the Corinthians’ behavior affected the church’s reputation.[ix]
“Now I want you to 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.”[x]
Paul uses this point of reference from an issue of personal freedom to one of responsibility in relationships.[xi]
Women were bringing shame on their husbands and on themselves by making their appearance look less gender distinctive and/or sexually unrestrained.[xii]
Paul’s “head” metaphor has been taken to mean he is setting up structures of authority, yet nothing in this passage suggests this—in fact, the only time the word authority (exousia) is used, it is in reference to the woman’s own authority.[xiii]
The Greek word for “head” (kephale) means a literal, physical head, and its metaphorical usage includes top part, beginning, or source of something, but it does not mean “leader.”[xiv] Almost certainly, the Corinthians would have understood “head” as “source” (as in “source of life” or “origin”).[xv]
In this customized theological statement, Paul’s concern is not hierarchical, but relational.[xvi] He is addressing Christians in an ancient, honor/shame-based society, where women’s honor was grounded in that of a male relative.[xvii]
Rather than being concerned with the man’s authority, he is communicating how the woman (whose source of life is the man) is the man’s glory (doxa) and how the blurring of that relationship would bring shame on her “head.”[xviii]
In the first clause, regarding men, the man who prays or prophesies with an inappropriate appearance brings shame on Christ, who gave him life.[xix] In the third clause, Paul wraps up with God as the source of Christ (in reference to the Incarnation), circling back to God as the ultimate source of all things.[xx]
Whatever the head covering or lack thereof looked like for men and women at Corinth, the problem was that failure to follow customs on this matter would look like an attempt to erase sexual distinctions between male and female or to signal sexual looseness—and Paul is always concerned about reputation for the sake of the gospel.[xxi]
In the 21st century, a great deal of confusion exists regarding gender identity. This passage touches on the importance of maintaining clarity between male and female by maintaining a culturally appropriate appearance.
In a subsequent post, we’ll continue examining this passage and what the creation account reveals about male/female relationships.
***
This post is an excerpt from Prophesying Daughters: How Prophetic Ministry and Women in Leadership Strengthen the Church. Grab the study guide, too!
[i] Craig Blomberg, “Women in Ministry: A Complementarian Perspective” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 159.
[ii] Blomberg, 160. Wayne Grudem has argued for male headship based on the idea that “Scripture indicates a consistent pattern in which the Son always submits to the authority of the Father and that this aspect of the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity has existed eternally.” Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Second edition, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 301. This notion, called Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS), opposes the orthodox understanding of the Trinity and was condemned as heresy by the Nicene Creed, yet is being resurrected in order to try to prove that women should be eternally subordinate to men. See Aimee Byrd, Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: How the Church Needs to Rediscover Her Purpose (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2020), 101-102.
[iii] Thomas Schreiner, “Women in Ministry: Another Complementarian Perspective” in Two Views on Women in Ministry, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 318.
[iv] Marg Mowczko, “1 Corinthians 11:2-16, in a Nutshell,” Marg Mowczko (blog), August 10, 2021, https://margmowczko.com/1-corinthians-112-16-meaning/. Mowczko blogs for a popular audience but holds a theological master’s degree and cites scholarly resources. She covers multiple topics related to biblical mutuality.
[v] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Revised edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 550.
[vi] Philip B Payne, Man and Woman: One in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 110.
[vii] Payne, 110.
[viii] For a thorough treatment of the topic of head coverings, see Payne, Man and Woman, 141-187. Payne takes the view that no piece of cloth was involved, but rather specific hairstyles which would signal sexual looseness on the part of women and homosexual availability on the part of men.
[ix] Fee, 550.
[x] 1 Cor. 11:3. (See also 1 Cor. 8:6, “There is one God the Father. All things come from him, and we belong to him. And there is one Lord Jesus Christ. All things exist through him, and we live through him.”)
[xi] Fee, 553. The Corinthians’ over-realized eschatology may have caused them to think they had already arrived in the Spirit and thus were like angels (without sexual distinctions), 549.
[xii] Fee, 553-4. See Payne’s discussion of the debauchery of the Dionystic cult, where women in Corinth “prophesied” and engaged in sexual immorality while wearing their long hair loose (Man and Woman, 162-164).
[xiii] Fee, 554. See 1 Cor. 11:10, “Because of this a woman should have authority over her head, because of the angels (CEB).”
[xiv] Kevin Giles, “Complementarian Theology in Crisis,” Mutuality (blog), CBE International, October 24, 2018. https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/complementarian-theology- crisis/. Fee points out that the metaphorical use of “head” (kephale) as meaning “the person of highest rank” is rarely used in Greek literature, and the translators of the LXX, who usually used kephale to translate the Hebrew ro’sh when a physical head was meant, almost never did so when “ruler” was meant. (See Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 555.)
[xv] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 555.
[xvi] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 556.
[xvii] Mowczko, “1 Corinthians 12:2-16, in a Nutshell,” https://margmowczko.com/1-corinthians-112-16-meaning/.
[xviii] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 556. See Craig Keener, Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), 33. “The woman is not the man’s subordinate in this passage; she is his “glory” (or “reputation,” “honor,” “splendor), the one who brings him shame or honor.”
[xix] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 557.
[xx] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 557.
[xxi] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 564.
Photo by Moises Gonzalez on Unsplash
Leave a Reply