Introduction
Here is a question I bet everyone would give the same answer to: What value do Americans hold the highest? Freedom, of course. We became a nation because of the desire for freedom to govern ourselves. Our history could be narrated along the lines of how freedom has been played out over the years. And our controversies over social issues can boil down to the question of what should people be free to do. As we come to our Christian kin in the Corinth Church, it helps to understand that they shared this American kindred spirit.
The Corinth Church presented a unique challenge to Paul. Throughout his career as an apostle, Paul had been dogged with the criticism that he was too free-spirited. This former Pharisee whose life was devoted to keeping the Jewish laws, became just as devoted to pronouncing freedom in Christ from having to keep all these laws. His letter to the churches in the territory of Galatia present the trouble he was given by men he called false teachers who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus (Galatians 2:4). Paul made even the solid leaders in the early church uneasy with his ministry to the Gentiles because he seemed to too easily set aside accepted Jewish practices.
Paul preached freedom. We are free from having to observe the Law in order to gain acceptance with God and win our salvation; we are also free from having to observe many of the old Jewish regulations that mark us as belonging to God’s people. Circumcision is no longer required; keeping the Jewish feasts are not needed; there are no longer rules about what one may eat or not eat; no more priests and no sacrifices to take to a temple; and so on.
So Paul comes to Corinth with his preaching about freedom. He did preach to Jews and we know from the account in Acts 18:1-17 that a number believed. But the majority of his converts were Gentiles who came to faith in Christ out of their pagan religions. Whereas for Jewish converts who would have needed much coaxing to give up the idea that keeping the Law was still a necessary part of keeping right with God, the Gentile converts were more than happy to embrace the idea of freedom.
Here is something else Paul would have taught them. Christ’s redemption and the coming of the Holy Spirit had inaugurated a new age, so to speak. Believers belong to a new covenant; indeed, they are new creatures in Christ. They possess a spiritual union with him. They have received the Spirit of God who marks them as new creatures in Christ, unites them to Christ in a mystical union, gives them extraordinary gifts, and enlightens them about God. They no longer belong to the world and its old order.
Not only does Paul teach them abut the Spirit, but they experience the Spirit’s power. They speak in tongues; they prophesy. They like what they experience. It makes them feel important. Far from being reticent to test their freedom in Christ, as their Jewish brethren would be, they are eager to throw off any old garments that might entangle them. They test their freedom in what they may do sexually; they test the boundaries and relevancy of marriage; they test how much they can flirt with their old religious practices.
Whereas in other churches Paul has had to stir up his readers to relinquish old ways, with the Corinthians he has to impress upon them their limits. They cannot be free sexually. Their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and they must keep to the moral laws. The institution of marriage remains in place and marital vows are to be honored. As to their old religions, though there are in truth no other gods that exist, nevertheless, getting entangles with old practices leads to very real idolatry.
Text
Now they are testing their freedoms in the exercise of their spiritual gifts and practices. In our particular text, the issue is how women may exercise their spiritual gifts. Does the old rule of woman being under the headship of man still apply, or has the new freedom found in Christ removed that order? That is what’s behind this matter of head covering.
The answer is that the order of relations remains. The reason it does is that it is founded on the way God set things to be when he created the world. Furthermore, an order of hierarchy, in which someone is under the headship of another, is the order that exists within the very Godhead of the Trinity.
I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God…8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
The concept of authority and submission originated out of creation and out of the nature of God; thus it remains valid in the new age of the Holy Spirit. Thus, as explained in Ephesians 5:22ff, the husband is the head of the wife: 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. And as stated in 1 Timothy 2:12, a woman is not to take a position of spiritual authority in the church: I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. This last statement reinforces the order. Satan brought our downfall by bypassing the natural order of headship and appealing to Eve.
Therefore, when a woman does practice an activity that carries with it a measure of authority, she is to wear a symbol of being under authority. That is the purpose of the head covering. And that is why it is not necessary for women to wear head coverings merely to attend worship. The issue addressed is not whether women may appear in public or in public worship without a sign of authority, but whether they may participate in practices that carry authority without proper symbolic attire.
That raises other questions of what may a woman do in worship? If she can do nothing other than speak or sing with the rest of the congregation, head covering is a mute issue. You may be disappointed to know that we won’t get into participation until we get to 14:33-35. Even then, supposing there are particular activities she may do publicly, must she wear a head covering? How do we decide?
In a Presbyterian church the elders must make a judgment call. Here are the factors that for our day and time make it so. One, the customs of our day no longer make head covering an obvious symbol of the nature of things. As a Jew, Paul may not have made the same matter of fact statement that a man dishonors his head by a covering; the reason is that over the past centuries Jewish culture has enforced head covering for men in worship, teaching that to leave his head uncovered is to show disrespect to God. As Calvin noted, Paul appealed to the customs of his day about length of hair. He could not point to such customs today. It is questionable that if the church were started today that head covering would even be considered.
Another thing that has changed is the tradition of the churches. Again, no appeal can be made today of what is the common practice in the other churches. Whether this is good or bad, it does make a decision about what should be mandatory a bit harder to determine.
Let me give an example that would have been an issue 100 years ago. If we were a congregation meeting in 1904, and a woman walked into our sanctuary wearing pants, we would consider such an action a scandal. In our eyes, she would be acting contrary to nature. We might say, Does not nature itself teach you that it is fitting for a man to wear pants, but disgraceful for a woman? We would disapprove of her wearing a sign of being the man in her household or at least ignoring a custom that distinguishes between men and women. Today we don’t take such fashion as a statement of independence or of removing gender distinctions.
But what the elders – what the whole church – must discern are the truths that need to be preserved and communicated. Paul thought the matter of head covering important. Why would someone known for casting aside customs be protective of this custom? Because of the theology he discerned as being at stake. By removing head coverings, the Corinthians were making a statement that distinctions between male and female were now removed for those who are in Christ. Headship was no longer a status given to men in the church or home, and perhaps there were to be no distinctions in any scenario.
Here is the statement that he wants the Corinth Church to clearly make. The majesty and mystery of God is very great. Who is like God who is three persons in one: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? See how wonderful they relate together. The Son delights to do his Father’s will; indeed, so marvelous is his love and obedience to his Father, he gave up his glory in heaven to become our servants even unto death. See how the Spirit goes forth as sent by the Son to give life to those whom the Father has chosen. Their positions of order as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has brought forth wondrous good for us.
See how God created man and woman. They were both made in his image; both share the same substance of flesh and soul, equal in value before God. See what was meant to be: the great bond between them like that of the Father and the Son, each finding blessing and be great blessing through their God-given roles. What could have been if not for the fall? What would men and women be like without the curse of sin that feeds jealousy, that makes both men and women proud, greedy for power?
We have a glimpse of what it should have been like. That glimpse is the gospel. See on the cross what could have been. There Christ showed such love for the Father as to pay the greatest price to carry out his will. There Christ showed his love for his Bride, the Church in that he give 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 (Ephesians 5:25-27).
Paul told the Corinthians that he resolved to preach nothing “except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (2:2). Do you see what is bound up in the cross? It is the ultimate statement that we are to live for the glory of God, whatever the price may be; that to do his will is more fulfilling, more delightful than “getting my due.” Indeed, God has no interest in giving us our due; that is not good enough to manifest his glory. What he gives then are the riches of his glorious inheritance (Ephesians 1:18). This is the way it works with God; humility is but the pathway to glory. Submission is but the badge of honor one wears as he or she follows the path of our Lord to the glory he has now and that we will share in someday. Submission, obedience, humility – these are not shameful words for the Christian who’s Lord bore such traits.
Our marriages and churches are intended to express this theology. Husbands are to be like the Church’s Husband Jesus Christ. They are supposed to show his sacrificial love to their wives as their heads, taking the role of protector and nurturer. Wives are to show such respect that build up their husbands and enable them to bear their responsibilities. Men are to exercise godly leadership in the church in ways that reflect Christ as her Husband (Ephesians 5:25) and as her Good Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4). In their homes and in the church, women should feel secure, should know that their welfare is taken care of, should be growing in love and devotion for their Lord because of the godly manner in which their men exercise their responsibilities.
Application
(Before I go to further application, let me state now that at best I am dealing with broad principles. Some of you are really suffering over this issue. You may be being abused by your “head.” Some of you in headships feel overwhelmed. Get help…)
1) Freedom in Christ does not mean freedom from responsibility. As Romans 6:15ff makes clear, we have been set free from sin that we may become slaves of righteousness. Furthermore, our freedom lies in our standing before God, not in our standing before anyone else. What these statements mean is that we will find fulfillment and contentment not by having to demand that we have equal opportunity in everything, but by submitting (men and women) to the roles God created for us to have and which the Trinity models.
2) The challenge for each marriage, and for us as a church, is to work out how men and women are to fulfill their respective roles. It is not simple, but at least we need to discern the different approaches that those of the world take from what ought to be those who belong to Christ’s kingdom. Let me give an example. I was once visited for counsel by a young woman who had moved to Philadelphia with her husband because of a job opportunity for her. Here was her dilemma. She was unhappy in her work. I recommended she quit her job. She replied she would feel guilty because of her obligation to provide her share of income in the marriage. From the world’s perspective that is a logical position. Women and men should share equal financial responsibility. From the perspective of Christ’s kingdom, that is a mixed up view. Man is the provider and should not enter a marriage relying on his wife to provide her share of funds. He should not begrudge his wife for not earning enough income to keep up their standard of living, just as Christ does not begrudge us for not doing our share of the work of salvation.
When it comes to church and responsibility, again, there are many positions and activities that women may fulfill. But they are not to be placed in positions where they must take the heat for what is taught and practiced. We have a congregational meeting this afternoon to discuss a weighty issue. The responsibility of the Session in making a decision about worship is enormous. It weighs heavily upon the elders to make the right decision that honors God and serves the welfare of the congregation. We want the input of the congregation, both men and women. But we do not want anyone else having to carry the same burden of responsibility that God did not require of them. We certainly do not want our wives or any other women bearing the same weight. And whatever decision we make, we will not go back to anyone, especially to the women, and say that the results lie upon your shoulders.
3) I’ll tell you what we will do and have done. Turn to God in our need. It is hard to fill the role of headship, either as husbands or church leaders. It is hard to be wise enough, godly enough, and whatever else enough. It is hard to fill the role of being under headship. The world looks down on it. It is a precarious position because all heads are sinful and have limited wisdom. Whether we have headship or are under headship, living out our roles to the glory of God is the most challenging task before us. But it is also the most exhilarating as we learn to trust him to provide for us whatever the circumstance.
We have a Lord who knows the struggles we go through, because he went through them in the flesh as well. In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated by God a high priest (Hebrews 5:7-10). We know that we will be heard because of our Lord’s reverence, because our Head, Jesus Christ, is there for us.
