Paul Misunderstood: Women in the Church (Part 1)

Did you know that the Apostle Paul wrote, "...he [man] is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man" (1 Corinthians 11:7) and "women should remain silent in the churches, they are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says" (1 Corinthians 14:34)? Is Paul a male chauvinist and a promoter of male elitism? Many in our culture certainly think so. And these verses are used as ammunition to fire the label 'female suppressionists' at the Christian faith. Of course, most people who place this label on Paul and Christians have not studied these texts in any great detail (and usually not in their literary context and original languages!). And so I want to do that here...

PAUL EXPRESSED DIGNITY TOWARD WOMEN
Often overlooked are the unprecedented liberties Paul and the Christian faith afforded to females in the male dominated Roman culture of the 1st century. Women were allowed to pray and prophecy in the church (1 Cor. 11:5, 14:31). And many women were influential co-workers in the church (including Phoebe, Junia, Prisca, Mary who are enthusiastically greeted by Paul in Romans 16)! And Paul even expresses man's codependence on women when he says, "In the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God" (1 Cor. 11:11-12). That's not all! Paul calls for mutual submission between a husband and a wife in Ephesians 5:21 when he instructs the husband to love his wife "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Does Paul sound like a person who lacks respect for women?

But what are we to think of the statement, man "is the glory and image of God; but woman is the glory of man?" After all, this doesn't sound like much of a compliment. But what did Paul mean and what was the context of this statement? Let's find out...

THE MAIN ISSUE
This statement didn't emerge out of thin air. NO. It is part of a greater context. So what is the context? Well, throughout 1 Corinthians, Paul is addressing disorder in the Corinthian church. And this disorder stems from tension between Jesus' teachings and the practices of the popular culture in Corinth: Patronage. Social Classism. Elitism. Pagan Worship. And so Paul is teaching the Corinthians how to follow Jesus in a secular culture full of competing values and practices. And the issue that is raised in 1 Corinthians 11 revolves around head coverings. Specifically, do Christian women need to continue to embrace the cultural norm of wearing a head covering?  

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF FEMALE HEAD COVERINGS
But why would Paul even care about this issue? And why were head coverings such a big deal in the Corinthian culture? Well, head coverings were a symbol of modesty according to Philo. This is why an adulterous woman would have her hair shaved off. This was a public sign of disgrace and shame. Additionally, going uncovered in public was a way for women to give nonverbal clues that they were "available." This is why sexual promiscuity was associated with the uncovered head of a married woman in public. Most husbands probably didn't want their wives "playing the field."

So how might this have factored into the church context in Corinth? Anthony Thiselton summarizes the issue well when he writes, "Public worship was neither the occasion for women to become 'objects' of attraction to be 'sized up' by men; nor an occasion for women to offer cryptic 'suggestions' to men." (I guess this serves as the Biblical basis for ChristianMingle and eHarmony!)

But not only this, a married woman who did not have her head covered in the public setting of the church community brought dishonor to her husband. Why? Sexually promiscuous, married women were the ones walking around with uncovered heads in public NOT modest Christian wives. This is why Paul writes, "Every woman who prays or prophecies with her head uncovered dishonors her head (that is, her husband see 1 Cor. 11:3) - it is the same as having her head shaved" (1 Cor. 11:5).

But if women had to wear head coverings then shouldn't men also? After all, head coverings were a cultural norm in Corinth for men too! But Paul instructs the church in 1 Cor. 11:4, "Every man who prays or prophecies with his head covered (lit. 'having down from the head') dishonors his head (that is, Christ see 1 Cor. 11:3)." Is Paul promoting a double-standard here?

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MALE HEAD COVERINGS
In this passage, many people believe that Paul is disallowing males to have long hair (that is, "hair down from the head") because it effeminates them. This type of hair style that blurs gender distinctions dishonors Christ. While this is a possible interpretation, Plutarch uses this same language to describe Scipio walking through Alexandria attempting to go incognito by "having his garment down from the head." And in fact, it was normative in the Roman culture for males to wear their togas over their heads (and hanging down from the head) at pagan sacrifices as an act of piety and devotion. Based on this cultural understanding, Paul is indicating that such a pagan practice shows disgrace toward Christ in the setting of Christian worship. This is why Paul instructs men not to have anything "down from the head" in worship.

CONCLUSION
So when Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:7 that man "is the image and glory of God; woman is the glory of man," He simply means that males are visible representatives (that is, the glory) of God and women are visible representatives of man (specifically, their husbands). BUT it is important to note that the disjunctive word 'but' present in most English translations is not in the original Greek text. Why is this important? The 'but' makes it appear as though Paul is communicating that women are NOT the "image and glory of God" BUT merely the glory of man. But this is not so! Rather, Paul is communicating that as visible representatives of God, men should not engage in the pagan practice of wearing their togas "down from the head" during Christian worship. This brings shame to God. Likewise, as visible representatives of their husbands, wives should not follow the flirtatious practice of walking around with uncovered heads (especially in worship). This brings shame to their husbands.

APPLICATION
So how does this culturally distant passage apply to us today? Paul is explicitly drawing from a principle: Males and females are representatives of both God and their spouses. Therefore, they need to avoid anything that would bring dishonor and shame to God or their spouses. Is there anything in your life that is bringing shame to either God or your spouse?

So what are we to make of Paul's statement, "Women should remain silent in the churches, they are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says?" Find out in the sequel to this post!