What’s A Church To Do?
Studies in First Corinthians
28^th in the Series

The whole question of authority in our age is an interesting one. Our culture has always been in a state of flux and change, and in America we have seen a great deal of social change as it relates to the question of authority in the last several decades.

Some people linked this change to the events surrounding Watergate. Others say it began at some point during the Vietnam War. It became a time of questioning authority. When it became apparent that those who were in authority could not be trusted, the rebellion against authority was on. The faith of the people in their leaders was shaken. And the pendulum swung in the opposite direction–– even to the extreme, where we now have developed a distrust in all authority. It is the spirit of our age.

Of course this plays to our ego. We like to think we live in an age of advanced thinking, an age of sophistication, an age of independent thinkers who rely on rational thought and are skeptical of anyone in power. We are the center of our universe and everyone has the right to do as he or she pleases, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, of course. And so we resist authority and even rebel against it when we please.

In our society today, we have elevated the individual’s right to choose to the level of our highest virtue. We have sanctified the idea of choice and made it the most sacred of all rights. We certainly see it clearly in the feminist agenda as they ferociously fight to preserve "a woman’s right to choose." They don’t finish that sentence, because to finish it would be to make clear the effect of that choice. You see, to finish the sentence would be to say they want to preserve "a woman’s right to choose to kill the baby growing in her womb." Now they wouldn’t characterize it that way. They would say that a woman has the right to choose to terminate her pregnancy–– that she has the right to control her body. But however they characterize the act, it is clear that to terminate is to kill, and the pregnancy is a human baby. Of course, they do not want to put it that way because that sounds bad. It is bad. In fact, it is worse than bad–– it is a tragic and horrible sin against life.

As we come to our text today, the apostle Paul will be dealing with this question of authority or headship. It is really a question of order–– God’s order for the home and the church. And it is one of those texts that many preachers would like to avoid if they could. But since we are committed to teaching the word by preaching through books of the Bible in an expository way, we have to deal with the hard topics as well as the easy ones.

We find four important teachings outlined in our text. We will see that there is a divine principle of order and authority, as well as a cultural practice to consider, a mutual partnership of teamwork that makes it all work, and a consistent picture that obedience to God’s plan paints for the world to see.

There is a God, and he has given us a handbook for living. It is called the Bible, and it contains principles for living–– divine principles. We ignore it to our peril. And furthermore, as Christians, we cannot simply pick and choose the parts that we want to obey and the parts that we want to leave off. God has given it all to us and he expects us to obey all that he has told us to do.

Here in verse three is the key verse for our study today. Notice several of its central truths. It says that the head of every man is Christ. Now we have no problem with this. In fact, we are quick to admit that Christ is the ultimate head. Christ is our ruler. He is our leader, our guide, the one who is over all. Jesus Christ is Lord. That is the central affirmation of the Christian Church. So we have no problem submitting to his leadership and lordship.

The verse goes on to say that the head of Christ is God. We have no problem with this affirmation either. We understand that God the Father sent to God the Son on a divine mission to redeem humankind. Jesus left heaven’s glory and laid aside his divine prerogatives and became a servant. He voluntarily became subservient to the Father during his earthly ministry. One day, when he delivers the kingdoms of this world over to his heavenly Father, he will take his place once again in glorious splendor and perfect unity as the second person of the triune God.

It is important for us to understand that Christ voluntarily submitted to the headship of God the Father. Was he equal with God in terms of his divine nature? Yes. But in the role that God had assigned to him as Redeemer, he recognized the headship of the Father. There is even order and the Trinity.

Verse three goes on to say that the head of the woman is man. Here is the rub! Wait just a minute now. What do you mean that the head of the woman is man? Our culture has come to the place where this just does not sit well with women. Just 50 years ago, most women would have not had any real problem with this. But because of the influence of the feminist ideology, women have been told that this kind of thinking is an assault to their personhood. Chuck Colson has stated that there is a politically correct feminist assault that is doing everything possible to erase any distinction between the genders at all. He is right.

But it is obvious to any person that men and women are different. That is certainly obvious physically. Why is it such a leap to think that the one who created men and women created them to be different in other ways as well? But that is not the popular view these days. There are theologians who are doing their best to redefine traditional roles. The Greek word for head used in our text is kephale and many of these theologians have tried to reinterpret that word to mean anything but "head over" or "one in authority over" another. They say that it is used metaphorically–– that it really means "source." But the plain truth is that they engage in exegetical gymnastics in their attempt to do so. The truth is that kephale simply means head in terms of authority. It is not the first time that theologians have attempted to explain away something they did not like, and I’m sure it will not be the last.

To defend his view, Paul makes an appeal to creation. Turn your attention to verses 7-10:

God, as creator, put into place a divine principle of order by the very act of creation. We see that man was created first. Now don’t get mad at that–– he did not volunteer. It was God’s choice. Our text says that the woman is the glory of man. And the reasoning given it is that man did not come from woman, but woman from man. In other words, God created the man first, and from him created the woman from the man. She is his crowning glory because she came from him by the creative act of God. We continue to read that neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. So, God created man, then he created woman for the man. I can hear the feminists screaming!

This is an appeal from the created order that God did what he did in creation with a divine purpose in mind to show us that there should be a certain order in the way things function and relate to one another. We read that, because of this, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. What does this mean? Some churches have taken this to mean that a woman ought to have her head covered, and so they wear little hats, some of which look like doilies. I think we will see that this is not what was in mind. Because of the cultural climate, this was seen as a symbol or sign of authority–– that is, being under authority. Therefore, for the woman it was a recognition of the divine order.

The cultural practice of that day needs to be taken into consideration in interpreting this whole business of head covering. Our text speaks a woman who prays or prophesies. So it is evident that women had been elevated to the status of being able to participate in the divine worship of God. This was in no small deal. Contrary to the shrill cries of the feminists who accuse the apostle Paul in particular and Christianity in general of depreciating the value of women, Christianity liberated women from the status of being mere property. Here we see that they could pray or prophesy in the meeting of the church. In the Jewish synagogue, they could not even sit with the men, but had to sit behind a screen and could only watch.

In that day, prostitutes wore their hair cut short and did not wear any covering over their head. This was to demonstrate that they were under no man’s authority–– that they had no husband. Long hair and a head covering was a symbol that they were under authority. And remember, everyone should be under authority. The man is under authority. According to our text, Christ himself was under authority. That is why our text says that a woman dishonors her head if she ministers with her head uncovered. Paul goes on to say that if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. The cultural context was important because the liberty that had been granted to Christian women could have quickly degenerated into a poor testimony for the Church of Jesus Christ. Our cultural context is quite different, and that is why there is no need for women to cover their heads today. But we must not miss the point that we are not all the same and we must acknowledge our God-given roles.

An important truth is that we are engaged in a mutual partnership together. We do not live in isolation. We are in this together. Here in verse 11, we read that the woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. A man and a woman are of equal value in the sight of God. They are of equal worth. They are not independent of one another. Rather, they are interdependent. They need one another.

Although man was created first, and we read that woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. One cannot do without the other. But while we need each other, we must understand that everything comes from God. We have a mutual partnership, first with God, then with one another. We are in it together.

The picture that is being painted here is one of divine order and differing role. It is one of voluntary submission to authority. It is one of interdependence rather than demanding certain rights and living in rebellion.

When he poses the question of whether it is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered, he is obviously appealing to the cultural considerations of the day. But there are timeless truths contained in those considerations. He says that nature itself teaches us that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair. You may be asking by now, "What are these timeless truths?" It is that we are submissive to God and to his created order. We respect the way God created things to work, both in the home and in the church. We testify to the fact that we are not all the same. In fact, we celebrate the differences.

We want to men to be men and women to be women. Indeed, we are thankful that we are not all the same, and we are thankful that we are not all responsible for the same things.

Gloria Steinem, one of the significant leaders of the women’s liberation movement, made an interesting statement around twenty years ago. She said, "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, rear our children to believe in human potential, not God." It seems as if God is an obstacle to women being really free.

On the other hand, Mona Charen, a very sharp, intelligent, and insightful commentator and columnist assessed the women’s movement in these words: "In dispensing its foils, women’s lib has given my generation high incomes, our own cigarettes, the option of single parenthood, rape crisis centers, and free love. In return, it has effectively robbed us of one thing upon which the happiness of most women rest... men."

God is not trying to put us down or keep us down. He is just trying to show us how it should work. The manufacturer is telling us how to make the most out of the product he has given to us. The product is life. He knows how we should live it. The real question of authority is whether you and I are willing to submit to God’s authority or not. It’s not about the head, but rather about the heart.

Copyright © 2004 J. David Hoke. This data file is the sole property of the copyright holder and may be copied only in its entirety for circulation freely without charge. All copies of this data file must contain the above copyright notice.

Except for the use mentioned above, this data file may not be copied (except for small quotations used with citation of source), edited, revised, copied for resale or incorporated in any commercial publications, recordings, broadcasts, performances, displays or other products offered for sale, or made available on the Internet without the written permission of the copyright holder. Requests for permission should be made in writing and e-mailed to J. David Hoke, at David@JDavidHoke.com.

Return to Sermon Page

Return to Homepage