Warning, to those disinterested in the finer points of “Biblical Manhood & Womanhood”, 1 Corinithians 11, or hermeneutics in general, you may wish to skip to the last 2 paragraphs.
Aaaand, here’s yet another blog-post, this time, on church today.
I’m touchy on many topics about which I’ve heard only one side. Not that I’m against everything being said from that one side. And I say I’m always attempting to hear the various things the audience could be hearing, through playing with each term through it’s domain.
Generically, the first concern I always have is with logical fallacies (from false-analogies to straw-men). The second (if not actually the first!) is context. Sadly, I tend to perceive people to be disinterested in either of these valuable items. A third concern is a new one for me, one which I’m trying to understand: content, form & function. The fourth concern is still only 3 weeks old: conflation of multiple-value-scales. This last one may of course be the same as ignoring contexts.
All this to say, when I come to a confusing or often misrepresented passage or idea, it’s important to look at whether the issue being discussed is in the arena of all of life (natural), personal/relational life, social-religious life (church), or spiritual (relationship to God). In particular to 1 Corinthians 11, these 4 contexts are “praying and prophesying” (in church), “in the Lord” (spiritual relationship), “woman” (nature, applying to all), “wife” (personal relationship). Notice a context which is missing (there may be more): non-spiritual, everyday, pragmatic life. (But wait! All life is spiritual! We can debate this later..)
I find this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 amusing and sadly confused by many — it’s not as hard as it is made out to be. It is the same genre as Ephesians 5, yet people seem to understand Eph 5 much easier. Perhaps it is the cultural concretes which people cannot see beyond in the analogy.
My thesis for this passage (which I’m stating more than supporting), simply put: the headcoverings (or lack) are only half the context/analogy: they are concrete, evidential markers of the state of a personal-spiritual relationship (See this compared with the “simple” explanation at the end of this article). Note the 2 halves: the spiritual relationship a each person has with Christ is not to be hindered (generically). Second, particular to Corinth, this relationship to Christ was being hindered by humanity’s interest in sinful things.
I say “each person” because (a) both men & women are called out for their generic interest in sinful stuff in the whole book, and (b) in this passage, men and women are equally united & related “in the Lord.” This is at least an egalitarian starting point; whether it is also the finishing point, we’ll concern ourselves with later.
Likewise the egalitarian semantics involved a “head-as-source” anthropology/theology. This is often derided with semantic and logical arguments, but it does offer an interesting point of unity: if this passage is in regards to men and women being out of fellowship with Christ (and the religious consequences), then there will be no supernatural glory, love, truth or life in one’s thoughts, affections or behaviors; only that weak kind which is naturally birthed. If this is the case, then this passage deepens before us again, speaking to those who are in a religious context, performing religious activities, but are without any spiritual connection, including any supernatural “spiritual authority” from God. But this topic is foundational, and Paul is stopping one step from this, instead, focusing on something between wives and their husbands.
Another point of contextual confusion is that of women praying publically vs. privately. This is not private, personal, silent, American prayer. This is corporate, out-loud, leadership-prayer (since, as so many are willing to remind us, this text is about leadership). Further, and more precisely, this text is about church-order: prayer and prophesy are mentioned not just together, but more frequently than any other term (especially authority, leadership, submission or glory).
All these reasons lead me to understand verse 13 as “Judge for yourselves: Is it a disgrace for a woman to lead-in-prayer when she is in sin, disconnected from God in her personal spiritual life?”
Having a clarifying lens of “uncovering=disconnection” for wives & “covering=disconnection” for men, we can go through and check our understanding. The earlier text (verse 5) could be understood as simple-replacement: “Every woman who prays or prophesies without a covering dishonors her [head] husband.” Yup, that is more or less in-line. First, sociologically, my wife and I will reflect each other’s values and nature. If my wife is troubled in sin, and she is prophesying, doesn’t this disconnect reflect on me? Verse 7, likewise, can be read as “a man ought not be disconnected from God or hide his glory[relationship to Christ]“. The second half of verse 7, I tenatively logically consider that man is the glory of Christ (like Eph 5: church, body of Christ, glorious).
Still, there are admittedly many questions remaining: angels? “woman is the glory of man”?
All this to say there is a simplest explanation: “good Corinthian wives had head-coverings.” To be a good Christian wife in Corinth, you should actually follow the culture, so ppl don’t think you are able to be both a whore and a Christian.” In this scenario, a wife would dishonor her husband by calling public attention to herself praying/prophesying in front of people) and give them the impression she wasn’t married, or even worse, dressed up like a whore. I believe this is the simple interpretation and application I have heard growing up for general conservative dress amongst Christian wives. But the application was off: the analogy of all women’s clothing “in the world” as equal to “whoring” is hardly the case.
Finally, the worst crime I consistently see is not just a return to cultural norms after learning “Biblical” values, but an enforcement of cultural norms with the weight of God. Using God as your wrecking-ball/bull is never a good idea, and will only kill people. What do I mean by this? Here, I am attempting to counter the false-analogy of “women have children, and I don’t, so of course we’re different.” That’s not just a conflation of roles & scales.. That there are functions which my wife performs better than I do, and vice versa is not the question or concern. But what if she is better at (and enjoys more than I!) earning an income? More importantly, am I unwilling to learn and change to improve our situation, not just pragmatically, but even for the gospel? The worst example is “women should stay home with kids.” Really? For thousands of years men worked near the home, and the boys did their chores around the home, learning directly form the father. Most importantly, is there directly a verse which says “all men must not raise their children”? All that to say, 1 Corinthians 11 speaks much about culture and wives, but whether I am in any authority over her, Paul later addresses that we are each in authority over one another, to submit to one another, and where she excels, I would be just plain dumb (independent of unspiritual) to not let her live out who God has created her to be.
Am I treading a fine line between two heated sides? Yes, and I will continue to do so gladly, since few others seem willing to.
)