Thomas Schreiner wrote an article (chapter 5) for Recovering Bibilical Manhood and Womanhood. In this article Schreiner exposits and interprets 1 Cor. 11:2-16 in order to clarify the head coverings issue. I highly recommend reading the article in its entirety because
Schreiner goes into great detail to support his conclusions, and because his sources aren’t included in this post. I agree with Schreiner’s overall conclusion, but I would nuance it. Here is Schreiner’s conclusion:
The significance of this text for the twentieth century must be examined briefly. Am I suggesting that women return to wearing coverings or veils? No. We must distinguish between the fundamental principle that underlies a text and the application of that principle in a specific culture. The fundamental principle is that the sexes, although equal, are also different. God has ordained that men have the responsibility to lead, while women have a complementary and supportive role. More specifically, if women pray and prophesy in church, they should do so under the authority of male headship. Now, in the first century, failure to wear a covering sent a signal to the congregation that a woman was rejecting the authority of male leadership. Paul was concerned about head coverings only because of the message they sent to people in that culture.
Today, except in certain religious groups, if a woman fails to wear a head covering while praying or prophesying, no one thinks she is in rebellion. Lack of head coverings sends no message at all in our culture. Nevertheless, that does not mean that this text does not apply to our culture. The principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership. Clearly the attitude and the demeanor with which a woman prays and prophesies will be one indication of whether she is humble and submissive. The principle enunciated here should be applied in a variety of ways given the diversity of the human situation.
Moreover, both men and women today should dress so that they do not look like the opposite sex. Confusion of the sexes is contrary to the God-given sense that the sexes are distinct. For example, it would be wrong for a twentieth-century American male to wear a dress in public. It would violate his masculinity. Everything within a man would cry out against doing this because it would violate his appropriate sense of what it means to be a man. The point is not that women should not wear jeans or pants, but that in every culture there are certain kinds of adornment which become culturally acceptable norms of dress for men and women.
Finally, we should note that there is a connection forged in this passage between femininity and the proper submission of women to men. The women in Corinth, by prophesying without a head covering, were sending a signal that they were no longer submitting to male authority. Paul sees this problem as severe because the arrogation of male leadership roles by women ultimately dissolves the distinction between men and women. Thus, this text speaks volumes to our culture today, because one of the problems with women taking full leadership is that it inevitably involves a collapsing of the distinctions between the sexes. It is hardly surprising, as the example of the Evangelical Woman’s Caucus demonstrates, that one of the next steps is to accept lesbianism.31 Paul rightly saw, as he shows in this text, that there is a direct link between women appropriating leadership and the loss of femininity. It is no accident that Paul addresses the issues of feminine adornment and submission to male leadership in the same passage.
In conclusion, we should affirm the participation of women in prayer and prophecy in the church. Their contribution should not be slighted or ignored. Nevertheless, women should participate in these activities with hearts that are submissive to male leadership, and they should dress so that they retain their femininity.
My addition to Schreiner’s conclusion would be that Paul’s instruction also accomplishes unity within the church. Just like Paul’s other prescriptions (e.g., eating meat sacrificed to idols), unity is achieved through an instruction that douses the fire of contention. The dishonoring of the head that Paul talks about causes strife and disunity within the church. Imagine if a married woman walked into a church wearing what a prostitute wears, and had no wedding ring on. The congregation would surely burst out in contention, bringing disunity over the issue of modesty, lust, and dishonoring her husband.
In order to prevent the potential for disunity, Paul prescribes adherence to a cultural standard. Is there any other way Paul could have prevented this disunity? The issue is honor and dishonor at the core and Paul’s answer is a cultural appeal. Does this mean all of Paul’s gender-roles prescriptions are cultural? Schreiner doesn’t think so, “We must distinguish between the fundamental principle that underlies a text and the application of that principle in a specific culture.” And I agree with him. As I outlined in my last post, Paul’s prescription for headship and submission is grounded in the way he views the Christ-church relationship which cannot function properly without headship (Christ) and submission (the church). Why isn’t headship/submission cultural? Because it has to do with Christ and the church, and that relationship is not cultural.
Mathétés Project 