Original Meaning

THE NEXT THREE TOPICS Paul addresses all deal with behavior in worship. They include what men and women should or should not wear on their heads (11:2–16), proper conduct during the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34), and the use and abuse of spiritual gifts (chaps. 12–14). Only the last of these is introduced with the “now about” phrase that suggests a direct reply to an item in the letter from Corinth. Yet 11:2 seems abrupt and awkwardly placed unless it reflects Paul’s response to some affirmation by the Corinthians that they were “remembering [Paul] in everything and holding to [his] teachings” (literally, “traditions”). It may well be that they went on to specify faithfulness to his teaching on male and female equality (cf. Gal. 3:28) and to the tradition of regularly practicing the Lord’s Supper (cf. v. 23).1 Whether or not these two issues had been specified, Paul has information (if not at least partly from their letter, then clearly from other personal reports—v. 18) that suggests all is not well.

In the case of head coverings, Paul continues his “yes, but” logic. Yes, he praises them for their faithfulness to his teaching—probably about freedom (v. 2), but they have carried things too far (“now” in v. 3 should probably be translated “but”). Yes, it is true that men and women are equal in Christ before God, but that does not mean that all differences between the sexes may be blurred.

The events that lie behind verses 3–16 seem to proceed as follows. Because of their new found freedom in Christ, women in the Corinthian church were praying and prophesying (v. 5a). Christian tradition from Pentecost on had approved of such practice (Acts 2:18), and it readily fit Paul’s own emphasis on freedom. But these women were not merely speaking in worship but doing it in a way that unnecessarily flaunted social convention and the order of creation. So Paul has to encourage them to exercise restraint. As in chapters 8–10, knowledge must be tempered with love.2

One of the keys to understanding verses 3–10 is to recognize Paul’s play on the word “head.” The main point of this paragraph is the claim that what one does or doesn’t put on one’s physical head either honors or dishonors one’s spiritual head. Verse 3 establishes three such relationships of spiritual headship, but what the term for head (Gk. kephale) means here is hotly debated. The word was not often used figuratively (i.e., to refer to something other than a part of one’s anatomy); when it was it seems that its two main meanings were either “source” or “authority.”3 Paul appears to use both meanings elsewhere (e.g., Eph. 4:15 more readily yields “source”; Eph. 1:22, “authority”), so a decision will ultimately depend on the immediate context. But even here Paul sends mixed signals, supplying an argument from the origin of men and women in verses 8–9, 12 but speaking explicitly of authority (Gk. exousia) in verse 10. The other passage in which Paul calls a man “head” over a woman refers as well to wives’ subordination to their husbands (Eph. 5:22–24), so “authority” seems somewhat more likely here too.

The order of the three parts of verse 3 also proves significant. Some commentators stress that the sequence does not set up a chain of command, as if Paul had written, “The head of the woman is man, the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.” On the other hand, since the problem in Corinth involved men and women (but not Christ) dishonoring their heads, it is natural that he should refer to the heads of the man and of the woman first. The rationale for placing Christ’s relationship to God last is most likely to draw attention to it as an analogy for the relationship between men, women, and their heads (the same sequence in v. 12).

There are at least three additional problems with an interpretation that denies any sense of “authority” to the word “head” in verse 3. First, if “head” is taken merely as “source,” it would require interpreting “the head of Christ is God” as a reference to the incarnation, in order to avoid the ancient Arian heresy of claiming that God created Christ. But nothing else in the passage deals with Jesus coming to earth from heaven, while Paul’s theological arguments in both verses 8–9 and 10–11 explicitly appeal to the way God fashioned things at the time of creation. Second, the vast majority of all church history has understood “head” as “authority.” Traditional consensus, of course, is not inspired, but weighty arguments are needed to overthrow it. Third, up until the last few years, almost everybody who argued for “source” still did so within a hierarchical framework. That is to say, even if Paul is talking only about origins in verse 3, he does so to set up his subsequent commands about honoring those in authority over us.4 Fortunately, however, the overall thrust of this passage remains clear even if one cannot agree on the precise meaning of “head.”

Another disputed issue in verses 3–10 involves the translation of the words the NIV consistently renders as “man” (aner) and “woman” (gune). In every other place in Paul where they are paired, with the possible exception of 1 Timothy 2:8–15, they refer to husband and wife. It is much harder to understand how Paul could have claimed that every man is an authority over every woman and much easier to interpret the passage if husbands and wives are meant throughout (e.g., v. 5). References to the creation of man and woman (vv. 8–9) have understandably given rise to the former translation, but Adam and Eve were not only the prototypical male and female but also the first “married” couple. Given that Paul addresses the problems of singleness and widowhood in chapter 7, we may not deduce that every woman in the Corinthian church, even in a patriarchal society, necessarily had one specific male authority living—that is, a husband or father. The NRSV, therefore, may well be justified in translating the middle clause of verse 3 as “The husband is the head of his wife.”

Verses 4–5a proceed with Paul’s play on words. In each verse, the first use of “head” refers to the physical anatomy; the second to the spiritual authority or originator (depending on how one interprets kephale). The reference to praying and prophesying shows that the context is public worship; the latter in particular required an audience to be effective! Chapters 12–14 will explain Paul’s understanding of prophecy. For now it must suffice to define it broadly as the proclamation of a message given by God to a Christian speaker for the benefit of a particular congregation. It may include both spontaneous utterances and carefully thought-out communication, so long as the prophet is convinced that God has led him or her to preach a certain message (cf. below, pp. 244–45).

“With his head covered” in verse 4 reads literally, “having down from the head.” As the NIV footnote makes plain,5 this might refer to long hair rather than to some external covering like a veil or shawl. In verses 14–15 Paul is definitely talking about relative lengths of hair for men and women, so it is somewhat more natural to assume that he has been talking about hairstyles all along. Long hair on Greek men might well have led to suspicions of homosexual behavior.6 If an external covering is meant, then Paul is probably objecting to a practice which resembled that of Roman priests pulling their togas up over their heads while offering sacrifice or performing religious rituals.7

Still another possibility is that long hair on men made their appearance resemble the elaborate hairdos of the sophists.8

Wives, however, should keep their heads covered (v. 5a). Again, the covering could refer to long hair. It could be that Paul wants them to keep it “done up,” as was the custom among married women, rather than loose and flowing—a sign in some circles of being unmarried or, worse still, of suspected adultery (among Jews) or pagan, prophetic frenzy (among Greeks). Or it could be that they are simply wearing their hair too short, perilously close to the shaven heads of a convicted adulteress in Jewish circles or of the more “masculine” partner in a lesbian relationship in the Greek world. Alternately, if an external head covering is meant, Paul probably wants married women to wear a shawl over their hair and shoulders, as many Greek women still did in public, and not to resemble those who discarded their hair coverings during pagan worship in order to demonstrate their temporary transcendence of human sexuality.9

In verses 5b–6, Paul remarks ironically that if women are going to send ambiguous signals about their sexuality or religious commitments through inappropriate hairstyles or lack of headdress, then they might as well go all the way and become bald (or discard all head coverings) and unequivocally send the wrong signals! Verses 7–10, however, state Paul’s true preference—that the Corinthian husbands and their wives revert back to the culturally appropriate signs of marital fidelity and worship of the one true God. Verse 7 makes this point by referring to the husbands as the “glory and image of God” and the wives as the “glory of their husbands.” In verses 14–15 “glory” is the opposite of “disgrace,” so in both places it probably carries the sense of “honor.” For a Christian man to appear gay or pagan dishonors God; for a woman to appear lesbian or unfaithful dishonors her husband. Obviously husbands also dishonor their wives and wives dishonor God when they act in these inappropriate ways, but if an authority structure is implicit in this passage, Paul’s less inclusive wording becomes understandable. One should be particularly concerned not to dishonor one’s immediate spiritual head.

Verses 8–9 ground the commands of verses 4–7 in a two-fold argument from creation:10 (1) Adam was created first and then Eve (v. 8); (2) woman was created to be a helper suitable for man (Gen. 2:18) and not the reverse (v. 9). Verse 10 brings the first part of Paul’s argument to a climax, but with a notoriously obscure statement. “For this reason” suggests that this sentence is giving a further rationale for women keeping their heads covered (either with lots of hair or with a shawl). The NIV therefore translates exousia echein epi (literally, “have authority on”) as “have a sign of authority on.” But there is no word for “sign” in the Greek, and “to have authority” most naturally means something the woman would actively exercise. So a popular recent view has been that the woman’s head covering indicates her authority to pray and prophesy.11 Yet every other use of this three-word construction in the New Testament means “to have authority (or control) over” (Matt. 9:6 [par. Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24]; Rev. 11:6; 14:18; 16:9; 20:6; and cf. the similar constructions with epano for epi in Luke 19:17, and with peri for epi in 1 Cor. 7:37). This suggests a translation more along the lines of “For this reason … a wife should exercise control over her head [i.e., keep the appropriate covering on it].”12

“Because of the angels” proves equally perplexing. The suggestions that these are fallen angels who might be sexually seduced or human messengers or church leaders go against the consistent meaning of angeloi used without qualification elsewhere in the New Testament. It is better to see them as the angels who remain God’s servants, watching over creation and protecting the worship of his people. They in particular would want to see services proceed with appropriate dignity and decorum.13

Verses 11–12 introduce an important qualification into Paul’s discussion. Beginning with a strong contrast (plen—“however”), Paul reminds the Corinthians that as Christians, notwithstanding creation, husbands and wives (or perhaps men and women more generally) are fundamentally interdependent. The order of creation is reversed in subsequent procreation, and whatever hierarchies remain are significantly tempered by the fact that God is the origin of everything that belongs to redemption. He is therefore our ultimate and most important authority.

Verses 13–16 return to the specific problem of head coverings, this time explicitly referring to long hair on men and women, with three further arguments. After appealing to the Corinthians to conclude that what Paul is saying is true (“Judge for yourselves”—v. 13a; cf. 10:15), he argues further from propriety (v. 13b), nature (vv. 14–15), and the widespread first-century custom (NIV “practice”) of all believers (v. 16).14 The first and third of these clearly refer to the “status quo” in Paul’s day. “Nature” sounds like an appeal to the way God created things, but Paul the Jew would have known of the Nazirites whom God blessed precisely because they did not cut their hair (of whom Samson was the most famous example; Judg. 13:5). In the Greek world, the Spartan men were known for their shoulder-length hair. But it was true, then as now, that most cultures maintained a relative difference in hair length between men and women. So “nature” is probably best understood here as that which is “almost instinctive because of long habit,” a “long-established custom.”15

Verse 15b also supports the idea that hair length or style has been the issue throughout verses 2–16. “As a covering” might more literally be rendered “instead of a wrap-around garment.” That is, rather than wearing the customary hair shawl as Greek women did, long hair, perhaps done up in a bun, will suffice for Christian women. On the other hand, if an external garment is in view in verses 3–10, then Paul will be drawing an analogy here. Just as “nature” teaches that women should wear long hair as a head covering, so it is appropriate for women to further cover their heads according to the established custom of the day. But the transition is abrupt, and it would seem slightly better to follow the NIV footnote for verses 4–7 and see hair as the primary topic of this entire section. Grammatically, the least probable portions of this alternate rendering are the phrases, “let her be for now with short hair” and “she should grow it again” in verse 6. But the translation problems are solved if we adopt the interpretation that women were not keeping their hair “done up” properly. Then this verse would convey the sense, “If a woman will not do her hair properly, she might as well cut it off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven as men are, she should do her hair in a womanly fashion.” Verse 15 might then be translated, “For long hair is given her so that she may wind it around her head.”16

Bridging Contexts

THIS PASSAGE IS probably the most complex, controversial, and opaque of any text of comparable length in the New Testament. A survey of the history of interpretation reveals how many different exegetical options there are for a myriad of questions17 and should inspire a fair measure of tentativeness on the part of the interpreter. Still, there are several points about which we can remain relatively confident. Very little evidence supports the suggestions that Paul did not write this passage or that the most objectionable parts for many modern interpreters (vv. 3–7 or verses 3–10) are in fact a Corinthian position that Paul goes on to refute in verses 11–16.18 The former position founders on the complete lack of manuscript evidence for verses 2–16 as a later addition; the latter neglects the fact that verses 13–16 also support the position outlined in verses 3–10.

More positively, most interpreters agree that one timeless principle that may be deduced from this passage is that Christians should not try to blur all distinctions between the sexes. Gnosticism may have valued the androgynous human being as the return to some pristine ideal, but Christianity recognizes that God created men and women as sexual beings, with sexual differences. So we must not try to efface these distinctives by dressing or grooming in ways that make it impossible to recognize a person’s gender or, worse still, by changing our sexual appearance through transvestite behavior. There is also general agreement that there is nothing inherently moral or immoral about head coverings, whether veils, shawls, hats, or whatever. The same is essentially true for hairstyles, but one must be sensitive in certain cultures to the social connotations that may be present with certain fashions of men’s or women’s hair and even, occasionally, with other kinds of head coverings.

Careful attention to the nature of Paul’s argumentation in this passage supports these consensus views. When he speaks explicitly of length of hair, he grounds his arguments in what is proper (v. 13), normal practice (vv. 14–15) and contemporary custom (v. 16). None of these verses, as we have seen in the discussion of original meaning (see pp. 213–14), implies a timeless, transcultural mandate, even if the customs were widespread in the first century and have often been imitated in other cultures and eras. When Paul does ground his commands in the order and purpose of creation (vv. 8–9), he does so to support his statements that husbands are the image and glory of God and that wives are the glory of their husbands (v. 7). When in a particular culture, appropriate honor to God and husband cannot be maintained without certain head coverings, such coverings must be used. When covered or uncovered heads and long or short hair imply nothing about one’s religious commitment or marital faithfulness, worrying about the appearance of one’s physical head in these ways becomes unnecessary.

This last remark leads us to another important historical-cultural observation. Even though we cannot be sure if shawls or hair are the main problem, and even though there are numerous possibilities for what the use or non-use of these head coverings would have implied, all of the options boil down to one of two issues: what the Corinthians did with their heads mattered because of either the sexual or the religious implications of their appearance (or both).

In any culture, believers must strenuously avoid whatever forms of dress or grooming potentially communicate to the non-Christian world sexual misconduct or idolatrous worship. Indeed, Romans 1:21–27 identifies the theological core of unbelief as idolatry and the ethical core as sexual sin. Behavior, mannerisms, clothing, or hairstyles that suggest that a person is sexually unfaithful to his or her spouse, promiscuous, homosexual, or the devotee of some non-Christian religion or cultic or occult sect are entirely inappropriate for Christians, particularly in church.

Beyond this, the consensus among interpreters begins to break down. It is still widely acknowledged, irrespective of the meaning of “head,” that verses 8–9 present an argument based on the subordination of women (or at least of wives) to support Paul’s command that they ought not to disgrace their men (husbands).

It is not at all agreed as to how verses 11–12 relate to verses 8–9. Some treat verses 11–12 as a mere parenthesis, so that the mutuality they stress is barely heard. Others take them as canceling out everything else Paul has said, even though they account for only two of the fifteen verses in the passage.

A mediating view seems preferable. “In the Lord,” that is among Christians, the nature of creation is substantially qualified but never erased altogether.19 This view follows from several observations: (1) “Creation ordinances” (arguments based on how God set things up before the Fall of Gen. 3) are regularly used throughout the New Testament as desirable, timeless principles that all Christians should follow (e.g., Jesus’ arguments on the permanence of marriage in Matt. 19:4–9). (2) Paul himself supplies verses 8–9 as a rationale for behavior he is commanding of Christians, not unredeemed people. (3) Verses 8–9 would be meaningless and unnecessary if verses 11–12 entirely canceled them out. (4) Attempts to translate plen (“however,” in v. 11) as “the point is” (so that vv. 11–12 become the point Paul has been building to all along) rely on an extremely rare use of the adverb. (5) The interdependence that verses 11–12 stress actually reinforces Paul’s insistence in the first half of the passage that wives not dishonor their husbands.

Some object that verse 8 supplies an argument from creation that is nonsensical. The order of creation has no logical connection to any hierarchy of authority; if it did, animals ought to be above people, since in Genesis 1 they were created before humanity. But Paul is not arguing from Genesis 1 but from Genesis 2. He is not claiming that order always implies rank, merely that it does in the one part of the one creation account to which he refers. People in the ancient world familiar with the privileges that firstborn sons retained (of dynastic succession, inheritance, etc.) would not have found Paul’s argument unusual.

This argument must also be considered together with the second (v. 9—that Eve was created to be Adam’s helper). The fact that the Hebrew word for “helper” is often used for God, as he helps humans out of many difficult circumstances throughout the pages of the Old Testament, proves that the term itself does not inherently imply subordination, but it does not prove that it cannot imply subordination. Some helpers are authority figures, others are peers, many others are subordinates. And in the context of verses 3–7, it is hard to escape the feeling that Paul intended to speak of a hierarchy in verse 9 too.

On the other hand, verses 3 and 11–12 radically redefine that hierarchy in ways that should render it unobjectionable. If verse 3 suggests that the authority of a husband over his wife parallels that of God over Christ, then certainly one is struck by the mutuality of the relationship far more than by any act of subordination. Still, both are present. The historic, orthodox view of the Trinity, supported by the New Testament, involves ontological equality (equality of essence or being) combined with functional subordination (submission within role differentiation).20 Christ emptied himself of the independent exercise of his divine attributes in the incarnation (Phil 2:6–8). But even before he took on human flesh, the Father had to send him. (No Scripture ever speaks of the Son sending or commanding the Father.) And even after Christ’s resurrection and exaltation, Paul speaks of the day when “the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). Jesus himself can declare without any sense of contradiction that “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). And there is no evidence that any human society or any Christian community has ever functioned successfully without de facto if not duly recognized authorities to whom others submit. Most Christians regularly experience situations in which they submit to authorities with whom they believe they are essentially equal.

Still, there is a legitimate objection to this perspective. The most acceptable subordination in society does not rely on forever barring certain categories of people from certain functions simply because of innate features such as gender. Here is where the interpretation of aner and gune as “husband” and “wife” becomes attractive. It does seem unfair if all women are forever subordinate to one or more men in their lives. If, however, authority and subordination in this passage are limited to the institution of marriage, then those who cannot live with this relationship need not enter into it.

Yet even the “hierarchy” of marriage as Paul defines it in Ephesians 5:21–33 seems not only innocuous but wonderful. Here is no authority of extra privilege but one of extra responsibility. No husband may legitimately refer to these verses to support an authoritarian leadership style. Quite the opposite, Paul commands husbands to love their wives sacrificially, with Christ’s death for humanity as their ultimate model (v. 25). Unlike children and slaves (6:1, 5), women are not commanded to “obey” their husbands but to “submit” (vv. 22–24), a term that in some contexts can be almost as mild as our concept of “deferring.”21 And Paul’s hierarchy is qualified even further by the context of mutual submission (v. 21) into which it is introduced.

Marriages that operate according to Paul’s guidelines will appear in real life very similar to the ideal of evangelical feminists—each person concerned to seek the best interests of the other above self and to arrive at decisions through mutual prayer and discussion. But they contain a mechanism for breaking the deadlocks that do at times occur, when two people cannot jointly reach a decision on which both agree. Then it is up to the husband to exercise his authority to resolve the problem—but on the basis of what is in the best interests of his spouse (and children, if any), not merely to please his own interests.22 Some individuals protest that if two people cannot make a joint decision, equally agreeable to both, then they should make no decision and continue to pray and work it out together. This is good advice, when it is possible, but it is not always possible. Cultures of many kinds impose deadlines on people for decision-making, and often not to make a decision is to opt for one alternative over another.

When men and women in a marriage become “liberated traditionalists” in this sense, then God and husband are properly honored (v. 7). When their appearance or demeanor in church does not distract from this honor, God is glorified.

But why does Paul call the man “the image” as well as the glory of God, while referring to the woman merely as “the glory” of her husband? He knows his Bible too well for us to believe that he did not think woman was also created in God’s image (Gen. 1:27). So it must be precisely because women with men jointly reflect the image and likeness of God that Paul does not repeat the word “image,” lest he wind up saying women are the images of their husbands. But why then introduce the idea of “image” at all into the discussion? Probably because “image” and “glory” were already closely connected in Jewish thought. Particularly suggestive is Exodus 33:18–34:7, in which God reveals his very nature to Moses, the moral and relational attributes of the image of God, under the auspices of his “glory.” It may well be that Paul is thinking of husbands modeling God precisely in the areas that 34:6–7 spell out: “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love, forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin,” though not leaving “the guilty unpunished.”23

In all of this discussion, we must not lose sight of verse 5. Paul does assume it is appropriate for the women to pray and prophesy in public worship. It is true that the only explicit references to the church gathered come in the next two sections of 11:2–14:40 (e.g., 11:18, 20, 33; 14:26), but 11:3–16 shows every indication of reflecting this identical context: (1) It follows verse 2, which with verse 17 ties 11:3–16 closely together with verses 18–34. (2) While prophecy could be given to an individual, the detailed concern for one’s outward appearance does not fit private contexts, in which such customs were irrelevant. (3) The analogies with Jewish and Greco-Roman religious behavior all involve public worship. (4) Paul regularly conceives of the exercise of the spiritual gifts as in the church (see esp. chaps. 12–14). (5) Even in Christian circles, women would probably not have had much occasion to minister to men in “one-on-one” settings, given the misleading impressions such encounters could create. (6) The presence of angels concerned about gender-specific behavior (v. 10) makes best sense when seen as analogous to Jewish beliefs about their role in public worship. (7) Verse 16 refers to the practice of other “churches,” which favors a reference to the gathered assembly.

What then of 14:33–38? We will discuss the implications of that text in more detail when we get to that point in the letter, but suffice it for now to say that commentators are almost unanimously agreed that Paul is not silencing all speech by women in the church. Contextual indicators in chapter 14 make that highly unlikely. In fact, recognizing that he permits prayer and prophecy here will help us choose from among the options presented to us when we get to that later passage. And to the extent that prophecy overlaps with what is more commonly called preaching, this passage remains one of the clearest New Testament texts in support of women preachers.

But chapters 12–14 will also make it clear that Paul views prophecy as a spiritual gift, and gifts are not the same as offices. So to say that Paul permits, and perhaps even encourages women to preach—in ways, of course, appropriate to their cultures—does not settle the vexed question of whether they should be elders or overseers. One’s exegesis of 1 Timothy (esp. 2:8–15) should be more relevant to that problem. But given Paul’s greater interest in gifts than in offices, our point here stands: gifted women must be given abundant opportunity, however formally or informally, to preach God’s word to his people as he calls and leads them.

If 14:33–38 sometimes tempts interpreters to apply 11:2–16 too narrowly, Galatians 3:28 often tempts people to apply it too broadly. Though it is often maintained that when Paul wrote, “There is neither … male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” he left no room for role differentiation or hierarchy of any kind, this sweeping claim simply does not follow. Other Jewish and Greco-Roman teachers regularly made similar claims even as they upheld far more chauvinistic distinctions between men and women than anything found in the Bible.

At the same time, Paul probably did mean more than simple equality before God for salvation, since Galatians 3:28 appears in the context of baptism. We often forget what a radically inclusive social statement baptism made in the first century, as the Christian initiatory rite replaced one limited to men—Jewish circumcision. At the very least, the church of Jesus Christ should seek outward, public signs in every culture to affirm the full equality of the sexes—and also of races and classes.24 Particularly in contexts in which local congregations come to believe that certain ministries or offices are reserved for men, these fellowships must then go out of their way to encourage women to use their gifts to the fullest in every setting that is open to them.

As we move to our discussion of contemporary application, it is worth pondering one additional question. One of Paul’s rationales for his commands in this passage is to avoid hindering the spread of the gospel by sending misleading cultural signals. Yet if we restrict women’s roles in any area of the church or domestic life, don’t we erect unnecessary barriers to the expansion of Christianity in democratic and egalitarian cultures? On the other hand, if Paul’s logic flows also from creation ordinances, then some of those hindrances may be inescapable and part of the scandal of the cross—the voluntary relinquishing of rights we feel we deserve.

Contemporary Significance

CLEARLY, HEAD COVERINGS SEND virtually no sexual or religious messages in contemporary Western societies. Perhaps the only exception is in those few extremely conservative churches that still insist on women wearing hats, scarves, or hairnets. And the message these churches usually send to the culture at large is that they are hopelessly out of touch with modernity! For them it would be best to abandon the practice at once, so that they could better implement Paul’s principle of being all things to all people in order to save as many as possible (9:19–23). In other cultures, however, head coverings often continue to carry great significance. Christian workers in Muslim lands will have to consider seriously whether or not it will promote their witness if their women wear some kind of veil. At the very least, they will have to avoid causing the offense that is almost universally created when women’s shoulders are not covered with appropriate attire. For many Muslims, bare-shouldered women are sexually promiscuous; the practice is almost tantamount to bare-breasted women in this country.

In Jewish circles, Christian men should be prepared to wear the yarmulke or skull-cap when entering holy places. This does not violate verse 4 precisely because it fulfills the same function that not wearing a head covering did in Corinth—it prevents people from thinking that a person is deliberately worshiping a false god or dishonoring the one true God of Israel. Interestingly, the Jewish practice of covering a man’s head during worship did not become widespread before the fourth century A.D., though it “seems to have been innovatively tried in the Jewish synagogues of Paul’s time,” and may have actually arisen in response to Paul’s commands, to differentiate Jews from Christians.25

Whenever Christianity enters a new culture, the hermeneutical principles at stake here will need to be discussed. Charles Kraft, for example, tells the story of his missionary work in Nigeria in which new believers could not understand why Western Christians “obeyed the Biblical commands against stealing and not those about head-coverings.”26 That the one practice is inherently immoral and the other not may seem self-evident to us whose laws have been deeply informed by the Judeo-Christian tradition but may not be at all transparent to other, quite different peoples.

Hairstyles too are generally seen as morally neutral these days. Since the 1960s we have watched men’s hair grow long and short again, and we have seen teens of both sexes fall in and out of love with punk styles. New generations will doubtless bring still different fashions and resurrect others tried in the past. To the extent that people’s grooming or dress deliberately flaunts authority and social convention, such actions cannot be condoned by Christians, because it gives us an unnecessarily bad reputation among non-Christians. No doubt some of this occurred in the 60s and with punk. But wise Christians, like wise parents, will choose their battles carefully. We should not get overly upset by a person’s outward appearance when there are more fundamental theological and ethical issues to be concerned about in our society.

Exceptions to this principle involve dress or hairstyle which in certain contexts is likely to communicate misleading sexual signals. Men should not wear dresses, since this suggests transvestite behavior to most onlookers. Women should not wear the excessive make-up and revealing clothing typical of prostitutes “on their beat.” Less dramatically, both men and women should avoid any clothing that would prove unnecessarily seductive, particularly in settings where God is to be worshiped and participants should be free from such distractions. More specifically, husbands and wives should carefully guard against sending signals that suggest they are not married or are disloyal to their spouses. In some contexts, it would be misleading and inappropriate not to wear a wedding ring if one is married. Flirtatious conversation or behavior with someone other than one’s spouse also puts one in a position of asking for trouble.

Dress and grooming do not usually send misleading religious signals today. But still there are exceptions. An unwise application of 9:19–23 could actually convince non-Christians that one had converted to a non-Christian religion or sect. It would not be good, for example, for believers to don the garb of the saffron robes and shaved heads of the Hare Krishna, just for the sake of relating to them. Certain combinations of long, disheveled hair, tattoos, and other self-mutilation in certain circles would suggest that one is the member of an occult or even Satanic group. It is even arguable that this passage hints at the inappropriateness of distinctive clerical garb, at least to the extent that it fosters unbiblical notions about clergy and laity as somehow qualitatively distinct.27 And to the extent that such dress is valid in certain places, it would certainly be inappropriate for one who is not a member of the clergy to wear garments that deceive others into thinking he or she is. In general, one should not seek to defy social fashion and convention merely as an expression of one’s own freedom; to do so is to deny Paul’s concern to put others above self.

Many contemporary Christians also repudiate this concern in their intransigent positions on one side or the other of the debates about women’s roles in home and church. Many today are understandably uncomfortable with any hierarchical interpretation of Paul’s words, because modern society is trying to vanquish patriarchal structures on all fronts. Evangelical feminists insist that Paul never intended for male/female relationships of authority and submission to be preserved cross-culturally.28 But it is hard to believe that Paul was really a modern egalitarian, as entrenched as patriarchy was in his society and in the rest of Scripture, and given his arguments from creation in verses 8–9.

Tellingly, non-evangelical feminists regularly agree with more traditional evangelicals that Paul is promoting the subordination of wives here.29 But they usually deny that we can accept his instruction, because they are not committed to the authority of all parts Scripture in the same ways evangelicals are. Yet they admit that Paul would have wanted his patriarchy to be preserved cross-culturally. Those who are bound by a higher view of Scripture, therefore, should at least be considerably wary of rejecting all forms of hierarchy in this passage.

Part of our problem lies in our inability to see submission and equality as simultaneously possible. Earle Ellis agrees, and his words merit extensive citation precisely because they reflect insights not widely recognized today:

The mind-set that places “equality and subordination” in opposition and that views distinctions of class and rank as evil per se is largely a modern phenomenon. It may reflect a justifiable resentment toward attitudes of disdain and elitism that often (and in a sinful society always) flow from such distinctions, but it seems to be less aware of the egoistic and antisocial evils inherent in egalitarianism itself and sometimes expressed in programs for economic or social conformity, in a libertarian rejection of authority, and in a despisal of servanthood as a “demeaning” role.

In any case Paul, like the New Testament generally, holds together quite harmoniously an equality of value and diversity of rank and resolves the problems of diversity in a manner entirely different from modern egalitarianism. In this issue, as in others, the Apostle finds the key to the problem in his Christology…. That is, Jesus the Son of God manifested his equality with God the Father precisely in fulfilling a role of subordination to him.30

There is an acute need for a balanced application of this “liberated traditionalism” to contemporary Christian marriages. On the one hand, there are far too many authoritarian relationships in which husbands continue to abuse their wives physically, emotionally, or verbally, all in the name of Christian headship. More tragic still are the numbers of churches and pastors who call women to continue to submit to and tolerate such abuse. Scripture makes it plain that God’s people must not submit to authorities when they are transgressing God’s laws (Dan. 1, 3; Acts 5:29), and mistreatment of one’s wife surely qualifies as such transgression, given Ephesians 5:25–29. Sadly, much of the literature in conservative circles about men’s and women’s roles in marriage teaches precisely the opposite.31 On the other hand, the more liberal wings of Christian feminism consistently promote the assertion of one’s rights and self-realization in ways that play down or deny altogether the dominant biblical theme of servanthood as the model for all Christians of either gender.32

In between these ends of the spectrum there is much room for individual diversity. Male headship, even when defined as “authority,” implies nothing about whether or not a woman should work outside the home, who should perform various domestic chores, or which parent should be the primary caregiver for young children. Rather it speaks volumes about a husband’s responsibility to see that his entire family is involved in activities that promote their mutual spiritual growth and in harmonious agreement (when possible!) about the major decisions that affect each individual. And, of course, wives should work toward these ends too, not leaving all responsibility to their husbands. Again the Allens seem to have captured the correct balance: “In our day, without wishing to risk the excess of some feminist writers, we may do well to emphasize the element of equality this passage represents. In a context that depends on hierarchy for the apostle’s argument to work, we are most impressed by his stress on mutuality.”33

In the same vein, many churches must come to grips with this passage’s implied mandate to allow and even to encourage women to participate publicly in worship services, particularly in praying and preaching. Many gifted but frustrated Christian women have lamented that they’d be happy to keep their heads covered, as Paul said, if other Christians would just let them prophesy or preach!

Of course, once we understand these verses rightly, we probably shouldn’t ask women to worry about head coverings as they preach. And even churches that believe women shouldn’t hold certain leadership offices ought at the very least to encourage them to be ushers, serve Communion, pray, read Scripture, lead hymn-singing, and fill a variety of other roles generally reserved in such churches for men, even though those roles have nothing to do with teaching or exercising authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12).

On the other hand, against the prevailing feminization of certain parts of our society and of our Christian community, it is at least arguable that Paul would have seen the church built along the lines of the family, so that male headship should be modeled in both contexts. If women can and should preach, it does not necessarily follow that they can or should be appointed to the office of elder or to the role of senior pastor (see further under 14:33–38). Or if Paul has exclusively husbands and wives in view, then perhaps he would perceive a problem only if married women were given offices of authority in the church that placed them in positions “over” their husbands.34

One of the most compelling models of ministry today, balancing the concerns of hierarchicalists and egalitarians is that practiced by John Stott, in which church leaders function as a “team” of equals, including both men and women, but the team leader remains male. Yet even then his leadership is one of empowering others on the team for ministry rather than “lording it over” them.35

Far more common, sadly, are models that forbid all pastoral roles to women or ones that assume women should do anything men can do.36 The issue is usually compounded by beginning the debate with the question “Should women be ordained?” This question can only be answered, however, once one replies to a counterquestion, “Ordained to what?” And it is unnecessarily digressive even then, since there is little biblical support for a very developed concept of ordination in the first place.37 Better to ask what roles are appropriate for husbands and wives in light of Paul’s principle of male headship.

A passage such as 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 reveals the need for all believers to have a relatively sophisticated grasp of principles of biblical hermeneutics, so that they can sift through historical-cultural background, understand the meaning of key terms and grammatical interrelationships within a passage, and fit this passage in with Paul’s other teaching on the topic. Even then, interpreters who show great exegetical common sense elsewhere often say downright silly or irresponsible things when issues as emotional or volatile as this one come into play.

We all need regular reminders of the role presuppositions play in our interpretation, and we must moderate our opinions with healthy doses of humility. We must study all of the Scriptures relevant to a topic like men’s and women’s roles and affirm a position that we believe does adequate justice to all of the biblical data. In short, we must agree to disagree at times.

Biblical feminists and moderate traditionalists are generally closer to each other in practice than the rhetoric of their theoretical disagreements might suggest. We must leave room for one another’s models in case we ourselves are wrong. But we also must draw the line to exclude more strident or more dangerous forms of hierarchicalism and egalitarianism. When most of a certain hierarchicalist’s arguments sound indistinguishable from the arguments used to support slavery in pre-abolition days, we must beware.38 When most of a certain egalitarian’s arguments closely resemble those used to support homosexual behavior, we must shrink back.39 But in between there is a wide berth in which we can continue to study the relevant texts together in love, trusting that none of us has yet received ultimate illumination.