Are Head Coverings Cultural? 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

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.

The Christ-Church Metaphor: Gender Roles in Marriage

In the theology of gender debate there are many passages that can easily be translated to fit a preferred paradigm. If you want men and women to be equal in essence without functional distinction, you can (rightly or wrongly) read those things into any gender-related passage. Likewise if you want men and women to be equal in essence and distinct in function, well you can (rightly or wrongly) read those things in too. If you really want to, you can make a good biblical case for either Egalitarian or Complementarian agendas.  As a Complementarian, I admit that many Egalitarian arguments are good arguments.

Word Choice: Essence and Function

Before diving into the reason you started to read this post, I want to be clear about some verbiage. Egalitarians too frequently perpetuate a caricature of Complementarianism that pushes Complementarians off the civil rights band-wagon and off into the archaic gutter, “Go hang out with those old oppressive father-knows-best types!” they say. Let’s make a deal: if I refrain from such slander, will you? It doesn’t help the discussion. So, some clarifying terms: essence and function. Essence- “the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything” Function- “the kind of action or activity proper to a person” (dictionary.com). These must be understood as dynamics that work together. I argue that the common denominator between Complementarians and Egalitarians is essential equality. The point of divergence is how this plays out in roles (or lack thereof).

It is possible for equality of essence and distinction of function to coexist (Post-modern buzzword alert!) without violating either essence or function. In this co-existence, equality of personhood before God is not threatened because function does not add or subtract to essence. That is, whatever the function of a human being, he or she is essentially equal before God and between other humans (just like Galatians 3 spells out, which by the way is a passage about justification before God, and not gender roles). With this foundation of essential equality, gender distinctions must exist because God did not create us as sex-less beings. He made us distinctly male or female with distinctly male or female characteristics. Your value as a human being does not have to do with your function. It is a worldly principle that position, roles and function add or subtract value to a person. I also contend that it is the Egalitarian agenda which puts so much weight on roles and positions as having greater or lesser honor. Think about all the condemnation of stay-at-home moms. Complementarians aren’t the ones making such a calling seem unworthy of a human’s potential.

To further my rhetoric, equality must be understood as an essential characteristic having to do with a human being. One example is a football team. The quarterback is not “more equal” than his receivers or linemen. They are all equal, all on the team, and all contribute distinct roles towards the same goal—essential equality harmonizing with functional distinction. Some roles are indeed more “glamorous” than others, but you must admit that Peyton Manning could not be a successful quarterback without his trusty linemen whose names most of us don’t know (and yes I am a proud Denver Broncos fan). Function does not increase or diminish essential equality.

The Metaphor

Now, then, on to the main point. The most frequently cited passage in the gender roles debate is Ephesians 5:22-33. For clarification, I am leaving out verse 21 from this citation because it is still in address to the body of Christ in general, not husbands and wives in specific. Yes, husbands and wives are a part of the body of Christ in general, but it would be hasty to reject specificity for the sake of generality. As verse 22 begins, Paul narrows down his audience from “you church” to “you wives…and husbands.” Or at the very least, Paul is qualifying verse 21 and bringing it into practice for husbands and wives as in verses 22 and following. That is, the kind of “mutual submission” (not a preferable term) Paul is referring to between the husband and wife is qualified by a wife’s submission to her own husband, and a husband’s sacrificial laying down of his life that secures unity between them both.

The kind of headship Paul calls husbands to is not in contrast to the “submit to one another” he calls everyone to in verse 21. The kind of headship Paul calls husbands to allows for the submission of verse 21 to take place. Laying down one’s life like Christ did for the church is far from self-assertion (the opposite of submission, and what Egalitarians assume Complementarians mean by headship). Headship does not mean self-assertion. Some have posed the question, “Why would any man want this role? Laying down one’s life? That is far more difficult and painful than anyone would want! No man really knows what he’s getting himself into.” So, let the thought be far from your mind that (good) Complementarians are seeking power, position and privilege. What we are really seeking is humility, lowliness, sacrifice, suffering, and hardship. Don’t get those confused. Headship is self-denial and self-sacrifice. Are wives called to such a thing as a disciple of Christ? Yes, but let’s look at how Paul gets specific:

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” (Eph. 5:22-33)

Let’s skip the submission language briefly and address why Paul is writing this in the first place. In verse 32 Paul writes, “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” I would argue that verse 32 here establishes the reason for Paul even using submission language in the first place. If someone asked me why there is such thing as gender roles within marriage I would say that it has to do with Christ and the church. Verse 32 is the “why?”

This relationship should model and frame every understanding and nuance of how we view the marriage relationship. This mystery gives a reason for why wives should submit to their own husbands and why husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church, giving himself up for her. For Paul, this functional instruction is not merely to make us all get along nicely. The Bible does not justify headship and submission because it is “best practice.” There is something much more transcendent going on here than civil codes, it’s part of God’s redemptive history and it’s a witness to the world. When a husband and wife pursue headship and submission knowing that what they are doing represents something bigger than the universe, marriage becomes a lot weightier than mere civil codes.

Christ-church Dynamics

“For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.” We (the church) are part of his (Christ’s) body, we are united with Christ; likewise, husbands and wives are “one flesh.” What an honor! The people God seeks to redeem are united with Christ as part of his body. This clearly communicates unity. But how can unity occur with different functions?

First Corinthians 12:12-27 speaks of the diversity of function harmonizing with unity and equality. In this context, equality is established because all are a part of the body (same essence), yet this equality is not the same as function (different parts of the body). Function is distinct but equality is in tact. Paul makes it clear that function and even perceived honor do not dictate membership or standing.

Christ is the head of the church and we are Christ’s body. Much debate surrounds the meaning of “head” (Greek: kephale). Many Egalitarians argue it means “source,” while most Complementarians argue for “authority over.” In the context of Ephesians 5, I could see “source” being a secondary meaning, but it needs to include at least a nuance of “authority over.” In the case of Eph 5:24, submitting to a “source” must still imply deference to authority—some sort of “followership.”

Verse 24: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” How does the church submit to Christ? This is where “source” can be a part of the meaning of “head.” Christ established the church. If it weren’t for Christ, the church wouldn’t exist, so “source” can be encapsulated in the meaning, but it cannot end there. Even if it did end there, I would argue there is still a sense of deference to authority that invalidates the Egalitarian notion of mutual submission because the source itself does not honor what comes from it, but that which comes from the source honors the source. However, the church does look to Christ as her head having authority over her—authority to instruct, guide and correct. So whether you use “source” or “authority over” there must still be a sense of “authority over.” The church listens, follows, obeys, and seeks Christ. This should characterize a wife’s submission to her husband too: listening, followership, obedience, seeking out.

We need to be specific about what headship means. The husband giving himself up for her for the sake of their unity primarily characterizes husbandly headship. Headship is not self-assertion. He is to sacrifice himself in a way that promotes her holiness and secures their unity as one flesh. By the husband doing this, he enters into a sanctifying process as well. So, essentially, this headship/submission dynamic that is also present in the Christ-church relationship is for the sake of unity and the married couple’s sanctification. Christ’s sacrificial life secured the church’s holiness and provided for unity between Christ and the church.

Marriage should maintain the kind of headship/submission dynamic that characterizes the Christ-church relationship. I argue that the only sound way to view gender roles within marriage is with the emphasis being unity between a husband and wife exercised through a husband’s headship that looks like Christ’s sacrificial life, and his wife’s submission to him that looks like the church’s obedience to Christ. If this dynamic is thrown out it will have serious implications for the way the church sees Christ as her head. If “head” excludes “authority over” for a husband’s headship, it does for Christ’s headship over the church too.

I referred to a kind of “mutual submission” above. Why don’t I fully affirm this language? The Bible doesn’t use it. The Bible calls for wifely submission and husbandly headship. Yes, the verb for “submit” is found in verse 21, and not 22, but it is found in 24 (in a ver black and white kind of way, I might add) and its directed at wives, not husbands. Nowhere in the Bible are husbands called to submit to their wives. This is a principle known as “gender-specific” and “gender-inclusive,” the former being where only one gender is addressed at the exclusion of the other, while the latter includes both genders. Here in Ephesians 5, submission is gender-specific towards wives and not husbands, while headship is specific towards husbands and not wives.

I argue that the kind of mutual submission Egalitarians support risks an independence similar to that found in a disciple who does not submit to Christ—in this scenario Christ’s headship is rendered useless to the disciple and the disciple’s submission is fatally lacking. Likewise, a husband who does not seek to lay down his life like Christ did seeks his own independence from his wife, this does not foster unity, and a wife who neglects to submit to her own husband also seeks her own independence from her husband and this does not foster unity either. In other words, I argue that true unity comes from headship and submission founded on essential equality and justified by the Christ-church relationship.

Headship and submission, therefore, is a beautiful, God-glorifying dynamic between husband and wife founded in the essential equality of human beings between each other and before God intended to secure unity between husband and wife, and witness to the world just like the dynamics found in the Christ-church relationship secure unity and witness to the world. Far from mere first century civil codes, this dynamic within marriage testifies to God’s interaction with his people. It is ecclesiastical, it is redemptive, and it is much more grand and mysterious than we think.

End Note: This language sounds very similar to how the Trinity is described, but as I’ve written here, I want to avoid that comparison and keep the marriage relationship analogous to the Christ-church relationship where Paul keeps it and away from the Trinity because the Bible just doesn’t go that far.