Headship and Submission – Pt. 5

Okay, today is the day, application
day. And so would God’s people kindly
turn once again to First Corinthians 11. Back again to our study of
this challenging passage of scripture. As you know, this is now our
fifth week in this passage, verses three through 16. And that of
course has been quite intentional. We wanted to examine this matter
very carefully, given the confusion and the outright mistreatment
of this section of God’s Word. We always want to honor God’s
Word by carefully seeking first to understand it, so that we
can apply what it says to our lives. And we have discovered,
or we’ve been reminded of much already, and we are prepared
to observe and make application of these verses as well. This has indeed for me been an
exacting study, but I’m thankful for the opportunity and for the
time to study and for your patience as well with me as I presented
the discoveries of my study along the way. This particular study,
to me, has served as a constant reminder of some very basic truths
about scripture, that it is sharper than any two-edged sword, that
it is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness, and that is true for all scripture,
including the passage in front of us. We must always come to
Scripture with a yielded, teachable heart. We must always stand ready
to be instructed, to be convicted, to be corrected, to be shaped
and molded by God’s Word. After all, that’s Christianity,
right? We have humbly yielded ourselves
to the truths we have found here already. The whole uncomfortable
matter about headship and submission has, for many people, been quite
convicting and thought-provoking. But we saw, without a doubt,
that headship and submission touches every conceivable human
relationship. And so we yield ourselves to
these principles because we have been reminded that it is a representation
of divine order. God’s design for peacefulness
in every sphere of life, the home, the family, the church,
society, even the Godhead, order. This divine design of order is
precisely what prompted Paul’s address here to the Corinthians. With regard to headship and submission,
things were upside down there in that church. It would not
have been overstated to characterize the situation at Corinth as chaotic. Some of the church’s members,
especially some of the women, were growing rebellious to God-ordained
leadership, both in the home and in the church. For Paul,
this kind of disunifying behavior could not be allowed to take
root in Christ’s church. It must be dealt with and decisively. The Corinthian church was anything
but a model of Christ’s intent for his church. There was disorder
in the home and disorder in the church, a lack of proper submission
to leadership. And that disorder would be bad
enough if it had only been manifested in the home. But the problem
never remains there in the home. It quickly overruns its banks
and rushes in to the church. And in Corinth, from what we
gather, there were women who not only wanted to rule their
homes, but they also wanted to run the church as well, including
having an influential teaching and preaching ministry. First
Corinthians 11, 2 through 16 is one of Paul’s more direct
challenges to this developing crisis. And in order to counter
it, Paul reminds them of the principle of headship and submission. A principle that is woven into
every facet of life. As Paul illustrates there in
verse 3, that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is
the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. It’s a
simple metaphor. the human body, which is guided
and directed by its head. And his three examples, the institution
of the church, the institution of the family, and even the collective
idea of the Godhead, the Trinity, are each governed or guided by
their head. But that head can only properly
function if the body to which it is attached is submitted,
yielded to the direction of its head. Can we even conceive of
the everlasting devastation had Jesus Christ not submitted himself
to his heavenly father in his plan of redemption? Headship
and submission is a vitally important principle. It is a living, breathing manifestation
of divine order. So Paul could not possibly ignore
an affront to the leadership in the home and in the church.
Divine order demands headship and submission. Anything else
is anarchy. Paul reinforces this principle
by reminding the Corinthians that every man is subject to
Christ as the head of the church. And every woman is subject to
her husband as the head of his home. And she is likewise subject
to the leadership of the church. And all of this rests on the
foundation of Christ himself subjected to his heavenly father. The very fact that Paul had to
remind his church of these basic principles tells us how tumultuous
things had become in Corinth. As I pointed out, and I’ll remind
again, the rebellion both in the home and in the church was
really brought about by a lack of male leadership in both of
those spheres. Heads Leaders need to lead and
direct. That is their God-ordained function. And an abdication of that responsibility
leaves a void that will be filled. Men, we must fulfill our duty
as heads by leading, by providing godly direction for our home
and for the church. That could not have been happening
in Corinth. There was a void of leadership and it was being
filled by women. God’s mandate for male leadership
in the home and in the church was being disregarded. Weak,
negligent, ineffective male leaders were being pushed aside by women
who ought to have been in subjection. The absence of leadership by
the men didn’t make what the women were doing right, but it
does help to explain it, that the leadership in the homes and
in the church by these women was weakening these institutions
and thereby harming the church’s witness. And Paul sounds the
alarm. One more time, would you follow
along as I read 1 Corinthians 11 verses 3 through 16. But I want you to understand
that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head
of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has
something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his
head. But every woman who has her head
uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head. For she is
one in the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if
a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut
off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair
cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man
ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory
of God, but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not
originate from woman, but woman from man. For indeed, man was
not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore, the woman ought to
have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither
is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from
the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman,
and all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray
to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach
you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But
if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her. For her hair
is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be
contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches
of God. Please allow me to review the
outline of this section once again. In verse three, Paul gives
his initial reminder of headship and submission. We just reviewed
that. This is followed in verses four
through nine by a powerful address about divine order, in which
he speaks to both the men and the women. And it is here that
Paul introduces his protocol for prayer by means of the head
covering. In verses 10 through 12, as we
considered last Lord’s Day, Paul begins to apply that protocol
and he commends this practice. And then finally, we come this
morning to the last subsection of this passage, a section that
I labeled the preference accommodation. As we have maintained throughout
this study, the divine order is not the head covering. The
divine order is headship and submission. And here in these
final verses, Paul is the most direct with the Corinthians. So if you would, let’s go to
those closing verses, verses 13 and following. Everyone has their limits. And Paul is not content to talk
anymore on this subject. We get that from the words that
he uses, from the tone that he uses. It surely seems to be the
tone and the language that he uses in these closing verses.
He’s done discussing this issue. Instead, he calls the Corinthians
to evaluate the data. Judge for yourselves, he says.
And not content with leaving them with the argument already
offered, in verses three through 12, he offers them yet another
argument for his head covering protocol. He asks them to consider,
to judge, is it proper for a woman to pray with her head uncovered?
And he could have asked that question anywhere along this
discussion. But he does pose the question
here. You be the judge on this matter, he effectively says.
But as I said before, they can evaluate the existing arguments
that he enters. But he does offer one more in
verse 14. does not even nature itself teach you that if a man
has long hair it is a dishonor to him but if a woman has long
hair it is a glory to her for her hair is given to her for
a covering. Paul takes us this time to the
argument from nature. The shamefulness of a man having
long hair and the natural beauty of a woman’s long hair. There
are and there always have been and there always will be significant
questions about this passage. What constitutes long hair? What is considered to be short
hair? And we’re not going to solve
that this morning with any airtight precision. We know that throughout
history there have been those nations and cultures in
which men wore their hair longer. Both Greek and Roman men wore
long hair at times. The Nazarites, remember, of the
Jews were commanded to let the locks of their hair on their
head grow long. Numbers chapter six. They were
prohibited to cut their hair for a season. Well, that impacted
even the Apostle Paul, remember? Paul had long hair, but in Acts
18, 18, it tells us that Paul had his hair cut after he had
fulfilled his vow. Samson, you will recall, avoided
the barber. But generally speaking, because
of battle or work, it was more convenient for men to wear their
hair shorter. And typically, men still wear
their hair shorter than do women. That’s all that Paul highlights
here. It does grow after all. Men do need haircuts from time
to time. It’s not that men’s hair does
not grow as long as women’s hair. If you don’t cut it, it will.
We know that that’s not true, nor is it the case that women’s
hair grows faster than men’s hair. It’s actually the opposite.
But men do have a greater tendency to go bald in some measure. What really is in focus here
is that Paul is merely pointing out the tendency of men to wear
their hair shorter than women do. that at the opposite end
of the spectrum, women occupying a very different role typically
wear their hair longer. Such was, Paul says, her glory. She wore it long and she looked
good doing it. That’s all that Paul says. When
Paul says that her hair was given to her as a covering, he is not
suggesting that hair is the head covering. Otherwise, this whole
lengthy discussion would be pointless. Paul’s point here is that there
is, by the typical difference in hair length, a distinction
between the sexes. God made it that way. Paul is
just pointing out that nature illustrates a distinction. We
see it typically in hair length. It doesn’t mean that this distinction
will be seen with every man and every woman in every age, in
every culture, every situation. He just means that it is generally
the case. Nature indicates a distinction. And in church, within a culture
that was obliterating those distinctions, Paul just points out the most
obvious fact. that even nature indicates a
distinction between men and women. We don’t have to take it any
further than that. And Paul adds one final but very important
thought to his discussion, verse 16. But if one is inclined to
be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches
of God. Paul heads off any further argument
here If one is inclined to be contentious, it speaks of someone
who only wants to argue. He’s a lover of strife. If that’s all we’re doing, Paul
says, the discussion is over. When Paul says we have no other
practice, nor have the churches of God, he is not saying that
the head covering is a universal practice. He’s only saying that
he knows of no other symbol of headship and submission but the
one that was practiced there in Corinth. But there are no
other options. He doesn’t have any other advice
and he has not seen any practice in any other church that could
help them. Okay, so here we are, having
studied this section of scripture extensively. Some may think that
I was even dragging my feet on this. I have not. But we’ve come
to a place where we need to make application of Paul’s head covering
protocol. I was greatly profited during
this study of this section of God’s Word, I was profited from
listening to R.C. Sproul’s thoughts and convictions
on this passage. Sproul points out the need to
recognize the distinction on this issue between principle
and custom. Principles are perpetual. Customs are not. I think that’s
a very important distinction to make. Because a principle,
as he points out, will apply to everyone in any culture. Whereas a custom will vary from
time to time, from people group to people group. And I totally
agree with those descriptions. The question is, how much of
what Paul says here about head covering is principle and how
much is custom? As I’ve said from the outset
of our study, what is in view here in verses two through 16
is the matter of headship and submission. And in the course
of his discussion, Paul is interacting with both principles and customs.
Headship and submission is without a doubt a biblical principle.
The question is, is the matter of head covering a principle
to be honored perpetually by Christian women Or is it a custom
which inevitably varies over time and culture in its application
to the principle of headship and submission? That is a very
important question. And again, how much of this is
a matter of principle and how much of it, if any, is a matter
of custom is a crucial question. Well, R.C. Sproul eventually
says that it is always better to err on the side of over-scrupulousness. That if we can’t determine whether
or not something is a custom or a principle, we are to treat
it like a principle. It would be far better to do
that, he says, than to regulate a principle to a custom without
warrant. And I do agree with Scripture,
or pardon me, with Sproul there as well. You cannot just indiscriminately
decide that simply because something is uncomfortable or inconvenient
or unpopular, that you can brush it aside as cultural. And so, he admonishes here with
this very difficult issue, that one has to decide whether the
head covering is, to use his word, principial or whether it
is customary. And he concludes by saying that
if one attempts to suggest that a head covering is a custom and
not a principle, the burden of proof is on the person who suggests
that. And so, In my attempt to wade
through the piles and piles of discussion and debate on this
issue, I was nudged several times during this study to consider
what other denominations have done or what the church has historically
practiced. Historically, the matter of head
coverings has varied widely, and denominations, as expected,
are all over the map. Head coverings, especially for
women, are still practiced by Orthodox, Mennonite, Brethren
churches and others. But that information, what other
denominations practice, is for me only of passing interest. It really doesn’t matter to me
what anyone else throughout history has done or practiced. The only
question for me is, is it biblical? Let me first tell you what I
do believe about head coverings. First, I believe that what Paul
is addressing here in 1 Corinthians 11 is that a head covering is
to be worn by all women during the corporate worship service
there in Corinth. He’s not talking about the privacy
of one’s home or even in the public marketplace. He’s talking
about church. In our passage here, 11, 2 through
16, is nestled into the larger section that goes all the way
to 1440. And in that larger section, Paul
is dealing with issues in the corporate worship service. Paul’s
concern here is what was being practiced in the worship service.
Second, I believe that the head covering is to be a real and
substantial head covering. A headband or a barrette or even
a small bonnet does not constitute a head covering, not according
to Paul. Paul is calling for a scarf, a shawl, a veil, a hat,
a substantial covering for the entire head. Third, I believe
that this head covering is symbolic. It is to be worn as a sign of
submission to a woman’s husband and submission to the male leadership
of the church. And it’s done so in recognition
of God’s divine order so as not to offend angels in attendance
in the worship service. I do believe that the head covering
of women during the worship service is indeed a great symbol of submission. the best I can imagine. It is
a symbol of proper submission to headship, and it’s an excellent
one. And so if there is a prevailing
problem with headship and submission in the culture, then there is
really no better symbol of a woman’s humble submission than that of
head covering. I believe that it may well have
been the Apostle Paul’s own idea to initiate this in Corinth,
and it’s a great idea. That’s right, I think that the
idea of women wearing head coverings during worship is a great idea. But it is also important to acknowledge
that it is a symbol, and a symbol in itself is relatively ineffective
if it is not attended by that which it is intended to symbolize. In this case, submission. Take,
for instance, the professing believer’s baptism. It’s a beautiful
symbol, but if that symbol is not supported by a transformed
life, then it’s pointless. If the symbol is there, but the
life that it professes is not, then the symbol becomes an empty
mockery. Take a wedding ring. Only if
that wedding ring resides on a finger whose wearer lives a
life of fidelity to his spouse, is it a religious and glorious
testimony. Likewise, a symbol that reflects
the true character of godly submission is powerful. But in the end,
the life lived, not the symbol, is the important thing. So that’s what I do believe about
head coverings, but I do have some lingering questions on our
way toward the application of this practice. And these questions
are questions that must be answered if we are to conclude that a
women’s head covering is universal, a perpetual command. One simple
question is that if Paul’s head covering protocol was a universal
mandate, Why would we be in 1st Timothy 2.9 or in 1st Peter 3.3? Why would either of those apostles
have had to address braided hair? Why would the woman’s hair do
matter if her head was completely covered anyway? That’s one question. It’s not the most important question
on my list. My greater questions revolve
around what is called the rule of faith. You know this rule,
even if you don’t know it by that name. The rule of faith
is the rule of interpretation that stipulates that Scripture
interprets Scripture. Have you heard that rule? It stipulates that passages that
are less clear are interpreted in light of passages that are
more clear. Scripture interprets Scripture. And in that regard, immediately
here we have a problem. Because the subject of head coverings
is not addressed anywhere else in the New Testament. Nowhere. And that presents a major problem
for making head coverings a matter of principle. If Paul’s head
covering protocol was a universal mandate, why doesn’t Paul or
really any New Testament writer even mention it, let alone prescribe,
explain, or defend it? And given the context of some
of Paul’s epistles, it is very significant that Paul himself
does not reiterate the head covering protocol if it is indeed a principle. Let’s consider this for a moment.
Why doesn’t Paul give the same head covering admonition to the
Thessalonians? Paul wrote two of his earliest
letters written only a few years prior to his epistles to Corinth. He wrote them to the Thessalonians,
a church in the same general region as Corinth, about the
same distance from Fort Collins in Albuquerque, Thessalonica
had a very similar culture to Corinth, and Paul, he addresses
a variety of things, sexual sin. He even addresses the lazy man
in church, but he says nothing about head coverings. Why doesn’t
Paul give the same head covering admonition to the Romans? After
all, shortly after writing his letter to the Corinthians from
Ephesus, Paul writes to Rome from Corinth. And Rome was the
chief city of the world at that time, a cosmopolitan but idolatrous
metropolis. Certainly the problems Paul witnessed
in Corinth could not have been greater than those in Rome. Paul writes his epic epistle
to the church in this city very shortly after his letters to
Corinth, the issues of headship and the protocol for head covering
would have been fresh in his mind. The church in Rome is one
of the newest and was positioned to be one of the most influential
bodies due to its size and location. Certainly they, of all churches,
would have needed such instruction if indeed it was a universal
principle. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul does address
submission even to civil government. He addresses areas of freedom.
And then three full chapters, chapters 12 through 14, a section
that I entitled, Sacrificial Living in the Church. But nowhere
in that entire letter does Paul address head coverings. It’s
the same with the prison epistles. Paul doesn’t instruct these churches
about head coverings either. Think of his epistle to the Ephesians.
Ephesians was a large, bustling, beautiful port city, not unlike
Corinth, and it too was known for its idolatry, namely the
worship of the female deity, Diana or Artemis, the goddess
of nature. A temple tour there in Ephesus
was considered to be one of the seven wonders of the world at
the time. The temple was not only grand
and beautiful, but it was adorned with countless pieces of priceless
art. The women in that city were encouraged
to throw off conventional family values and roles. And so it was
to the Christians in that city that Paul wrote his epistle.
Certainly they would have benefited from knowing about such an important
principle for prayer as mandatory head covering. But even though
there is a lengthy section addressing the issue of wives’ submission
to their husbands, 522 through 33, Paul makes no mention of
head coverings to the Ephesians. Neither does he give such instructions
to the Philippians. Philippi was just 200 miles away
from Corinth, just beyond Thessalonica. Philippi was beset by a similar
heathen culture. In this epistle, Paul addresses
unity and the gospel and even two quibbling women, Euodia and
Syntyche, but nothing about head covering. Nor does Paul make
mention of head coverings to the Colossians. In this epistle,
which is the parallel to Ephesians, Paul includes a similar admonition
to the women for submission. Wives, be subject to your husbands. But he makes no mention of the
symbol for that in the head covering. Finally, neither does Paul address
this issue in his pastoral epistles. This is very noteworthy. When
Paul later writes his first letter to Timothy, 1st Timothy, Timothy
is ministering in Ephesus. Here is another opportunity for
Paul to address this head covering issue, and he doesn’t. Paul does
address the issue of women’s submission in the church in 2.9
through 15 and 3.11. He admonishes the women to quietly
receive instruction, but not to teach or exercise authority.
And he even addresses church attire specifically, that they
should adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and
discreetly, not with braided hair. But even here, he makes
no mention of head coverings. Likewise, in his letter to Titus,
residing and ministering on the heathen island of Crete, After
Paul had deposited Titus on this island, he writes back to him
addressing all the categories in the church, older men, older
women, younger women, younger men, even slaves. And he provides them with a lengthy
list of instructions, but he makes no mention to the older
women or the younger women about head coverings. But perhaps most
surprising of all is that neither does Peter take up this matter
of head covering protocol. Peter writes his first epistle
to the Christians in Jerusalem and its environs to the very
orientation point of the entire Christian church. And yet Peter,
even though he addresses the subordination of women and also
the attire of women in 1 Peter 3, He makes no mention of head
coverings. In 1 Peter 3, he says, you wives,
be submissive to your own husbands. In verse 3, your adornment must
not be merely external, braiding the hair, wearing of gold jewelry,
putting on dresses, but let it be the quiet person of the heart,
and yet no mention of head coverings. Nor does Jesus mention the matter
of head coverings in any of the four gospel accounts, Matthew,
Mark, Luke, or John. Neither is it ever addressed
in the book of Acts. The subject is never addressed
anywhere in the New Testament. We saw that the word that refers
to an uncovered head occurs here only, and that twice in 1 Corinthians
11. And so if Scripture interprets
Scripture, then we are left wanting. And if this protocol for head
covering was intended as a universal and perpetual principle, then
these early churches themselves, Philippi, Rome, Ephesus, and
all the rest were left wanting as well. It would have been years,
in some cases decades, before these other churches even knew
about a letter to Corinth and the protocol for head covering
that is addressed there. Were these churches just left
to flounder in sin for lack of instruction? The absence of external support
on this issue is a problem. And the question remains, is
this directive universal and timeless? And my answer to that
is no. I believe that the protocol for
women’s head covering during worship service was localized
to Corinth itself. In Corinth, Paul had observed
a dreadful problem with headship and submission. And I believe
the head covering protocol was a directive that Paul may have
given directly and primarily to the church in Corinth to address
this problem. And that makes the issue of head
covering not a Christianity thing or a denominational thing, but
a local church matter. In other words, I believe that
what Paul is presenting here in 1 Corinthians 11 is a custom
issue, not a universal and perpetual principle to be observed by every
Christian woman in every culture in every church. And I want you
to know that for me to identify something as cultural is very
difficult. And I do so here with great trepidation. Attended with nearly four months
of sleepless nights amid intensive study. But deciding that something
is cultural is not unprecedented. Take for instance, the Holy Kiss. When was the last time you practiced
that in the context of the local church? I’ll be waiting for you
at the back door. Paul is writing here to the Corinthians
about a very Corinthian problem, headship and submission. The
issue of headship and submission has not typically been a problem
in our church. There have come a few families
over the years, families in which the wives proverbially wore the
pants, and those families invariably end up leaving. This church and
her doctrine are not friendly to those who do not honor the
biblical principle of headship and submission as it is to be
lived out in the home and the church. I believe the head covering
protocol was likely even something that Paul implemented during
his time there to help clarify and solidify the male-female
roles that were being impacted by the culture. And given that,
the idea of head covering was and is a good one. Let me say
it here as straightforwardly as I can. If an individual or
a household develops a biblical conviction on this matter and
believe that the woman must be covered in church so as to honor
the Lord, then we are called to graciously accept and support
that. And we have had an example for
more than a dozen years of those who have peacefully maintained
their personal conviction in our midst and not becoming factious along
the way. So I would certainly say that
it is not wrong for a woman to wear a head covering during worship.
And I would go so far as to say that if the elders of a church
deemed that headship and submission was being negatively affected
by the surrounding culture, they could justly implement this practice. If a body of elders observed
circumstances similar to those which Paul observed, a chaotic
confusion about headship and submission, then implementing women’s head
covering during worship would be a good and beneficial symbol. Elders have that prerogative. Now this idea of elders making
rules, makes people uncomfortable at times. I’ve said it before
though, if every possible contingency were covered in scripture, we
would have no need of elders. Our older confessions articulate
this idea very clearly. both the Baptist Confession and
the London Westminster, or pardon me, the Westminster Confession,
the opening chapter contains this statement about Scripture.
Just listen to this. The whole counsel of God concerning
all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith,
and life is either expressly set down or necessarily contained
in the Holy Scripture. He says, it’s all there. Everything
that you need to understand salvation and life, it’s there. But then it adds this. There
are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government
of the church, common to human actions and societies, which
are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence,
according to the general rules of the word. In other words,
elders have the prerogative that if they see a problem that is
perpetuating and becoming worse, this would be a good option for
them to implement in the local church. And so in closing, I do believe
that I’ve honored the Lord. I do believe that I’ve honored
his word in this consideration. And on a much more basic level,
I believe that I’ve honored the demand of my beloved Dr. Sproul. The burden of proof is on me
to suggest that head covering was cultural. I believe that
I presented such. Would you bow with me in closing
prayer?