The issue of the roles of women in the Church has become a divisive topic in recent years, one that is tied to other volatile topics such as feminism and Critical Theory. This series of blog posts is designed to address the issue and answer the common objections to biblical gender roles in the Church. This particular post answers the question of consistency related to head coverings and the prohibition of women in pastoral roles.
Head Coverings?
Is the prohibition for female pastors cultural? Are head coverings cultural?
Another argument set forth by the egalitarians is that even complementarians treat the use of head coverings as a cultural issue, leaving room to treat prohibitions of female authority as cultural as well. This argument also falls in on itself.
Note that the focus of 1 Cor. 11 is that women are to be under headship. Prayer and prophecy are mentioned. Neither function bears with it the authoritative role of teaching and both are to be done in submission. The passage specifically mentions head coverings while praying or prophesying (they are not required at all times).
The astute complementarian will respond with a hearty affirmation that women should wear a head covering when publically engaging in either of these practices as it is what is clearly taught in Scripture. However, there is room for the interpretation that her long hair may be considered a covering for this purpose (though I myself do not hold to that interpretation). In any case, the principle of submission is clear. The only question is the application. Thus the passage should be obeyed in principle at the very least, leaving no room for overturning both 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Timothy 2 on “cultural” grounds.
Note that in both the 1 Cor. 11 passage and the 1 Timothy 2 passage, Paul appeals to the created order (how God made us male and female). "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:13-14) He doesn't appeal to newfound freedom or to abuse. He appeals to how God created men and women.
This is one thing that makes this issue so important. The biblical doctrine of humanity (Image of God) is at stake. If we ignore teaching on gender roles, especially teaching that appeals to God's order of creation, we open the door to all forms of gender dysphoria, homosexuality, and similar abominations. This is why every denomination that has made the change the Christian and Missionary Alliance is making soon begins affirming homosexuality. The battle in each of those denominations was lost when they abandoned God's commands for the roles of men and women in the church. It is no accident that this is the issue at hand for our church while the culture is abandoning all concepts of human gender.
As I mentioned, there is evidence that a woman's long hair may serve as her head covering (the term means "down from the head") so, women may consider their hair as a head covering in Church gatherings in obedience to 1 Corinthians 11. While I think it is better to be cautious and wear an additional covering, I do not believe it is essential given the reference to her long hair being a covering. Our ladies are in obedience to the passage. Notably, our men similarly follow Paul's direction by not wearing hats in the meeting.
Is Her Hair A Covering?
Her hair may be a covering, though that is not the natural read of the text.
There is a secondary issue on the topic in that 1 Timothy 2 provides a clear prohibition ("do not permit") whereas 1 Cor. 11 uses the language of "ought" and "should" to address what is proper. While both passages should be obeyed, one is a command (1 Tim. 2) that must be obeyed while the other is a strong suggestion for the sake of honor and the avoidance of disgrace (1 Cor. 11).
The notable and indisputable principle at play in both passages cannot be ignored in any case. Both passages clearly teach that women are to be in submission not authority over men, and both passages appeal to God's created order on the matter.
I've noticed that the complementarian position tends to be placed on the defensive position on this matter when in fact the burden of proof is on the egalitarian. The historic position that is plainly taught in Scripture is that women are not to serve in positions of authority over men. Ask the egalitarian: Do you think you could make a case from Scripture for a woman in the New Testament serving in an authoritative position over men in the Church? Are there any women elders mentioned? Does Scripture mention any women pastors? If not, isn't it eisegesis to seek to make them pastors now?
In the next post, we will answer some of the arguments made by egalitarians.
