Moving on from discussions about meat sacrificed to idols, Paul goes on to tackle the subject of ‘propriety in worship services’ in the next chapters of 1 Corinthians (11-14), with 1 Cor 11:2-16 looking at the subject of head coverings, a passage which has proved remarkably contentious over the years since it looks at the age-old debate of gender issues as well as propriety in worship. For centuries, this passage has provided the basis for how men and women dress in church meetings, with women encouraged to cover their heads (with veils, shawls or hats) and men encouraged not to wear anything on their heads. Movements such as ‘The Head Covering Movement’ continue to support this reading of the text, believing that a literal understanding of this passage is the best way forward. Yet in many Western churches, it is unlikely that women will be found wearing head coverings anymore and we have to dig deeper as to why this should be. Is it just because wearing hats is no longer fashionable in our society? Have our biblical views of women gradually been eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church, as R. C. Sproul believes? What is this passage really talking about?
Polarised views on this passage abound, as they do on so many other passages of Scripture. Paul makes it clear to Timothy that ‘all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work’ (2 Tim 3:16-17), so we cannot simply dismiss portions of Scripture that are hard to fathom on the grounds that they’re difficult, nor should we necessarily apply a literalist view to everything we read unless we’re prepared to be totally consistent in that interpretation (and I’ve not met anyone who’s literally gouged their eye out or chopped off their hand, despite Jesus’s words in Matt 5:29-30.)
In the past fortnight, I’ve read countless commentaries on this passage, written by Christians from a variety of denominations, some of whom are absolutely convinced of the rightness of their interpretation and some of whom are unyielding in their denunciation of anyone who does not agree with them. In these, I’ve been condemned for having short hair and made to feel utterly inadequate for praying with my head uncovered on the one hand, and made uncomfortable by some commentators’ simplistic dismissal of Paul’s arguments as ‘obviously merely culturally relevant to Corinth’ on the other. I’ve wrestled with the notion that I am rebellious and unfeminine on the one hand and squirmed when people are adamant that we can ignore chunks of Scripture solely on the grounds that these don’t square with our current notion of gender issues on the other. As always, both extremes of interpretation leave me uncomfortable. Surely the truth cannot lie in either extreme?
John Stott reminds us that ‘there are two hermeneutical principles which are important when seeking to understand a biblical passage and to apply it to today’s situations.’ (see 1 Timothy and Titus in The Bible Speaks Today series (IVP, 1996), pp 74-81). These are ‘the principle of harmony’ (whereby when interpreting a passage, it is important that we view it in the light of the whole of the Bible, not taking it in isolation) and ‘the principle of history’ (seeking to understand the cultural context and times for which it was written, since the Bible ‘contains eternal truth which is universal and normative’, but which also has a cultural presentation which is ‘local and changeable.’) He writes, ‘The challenge is to be able to distinguish between the two and decide what teaching is universal, normative and applicable to today, and what is cultural and so not relevant to our day.’ This is not as easy as it may sound, as the extremes mentioned above make clear. We all bring our own world view to everything we read; as Clare Hendry points out, ‘The challenge is to keep an open mind and not let one’s own agenda overly influence one’s reading of the passage.’ (‘The Gender Agenda’, Lis Goddard & Clare Hendry)
In previous chapters of 1 Corinthians, especially 1 Cor 8-10, we have been looking at the whole question of how to exercise Christian freedom without leading others into sin and have been searching for Christian principles which can shift cultures and time frames without being unfaithful to the Biblical text. Paul’s mantra has been the need to use our freedom to serve others (1 Cor 8:9, 1 Cor 10:24, 1 Cor 10:31-33); his emphasis is that although we may be free in Christ, ‘we have significant responsibilities towards one another.’ (Lis Goddard, ibid.) In many ways, I believe this is the key to understanding this passage. How we behave towards one another, in this instance in circumstances which reflect gender issues (again, highly topical in today’s society), is fundamental to our gospel message. ‘When our relationship with God is restored, it inevitably affects relationships within the body of Christ.’ (Lis Goddard, ibid.) Men and women bring diversity to the body of Christ and have differing gifts and roles, but the overarching message of the Gospel is ‘so in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.’ (Gal 3:26-29)