Radical Feminism, Male Chauvinism-Pt. 2

Radical Feminism, Male Chauvinism-Pt. 2

“Radical Feminism, Male Chauvinism”—Pt. 2
(1 Corinthians 11:2-16)
Series: Chaos & Correction (1 Corinthians)

Rev. Todd A. Linn, PhD

Henderson’s First Baptist Church, Henderson

•Take your Bibles and join me in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11 (page 772; YouVersion).

If you’re visiting with us we are preaching verse-by-verse in our expository series through the book of 1 Corinthians. We have preached through the first 10 chapters and we are picking up again in chapter 11.

Chapters 11 through 14 Paul concern three main areas relating to public worship. The first matter concerns the wearing of head coverings—and we’ll return to that topic in just a few moments—as we read verses 2 through 16. Then, Paul will address concerns about the Lord’s Supper, that’s verse 17 through 34. And finally, Paul will discuss the matter of spiritual gifts, chapters 12 through 14. So that’s where we are headed in the weeks to come.

Last week we broached the topic of so-called “head coverings” in 1 Corinthians. This passage, verses 2 through 16, address the appropriateness of women praying and prophesying with their heads covered and why they are to do this in Corinth and why a man does not pray or prophesy with his head covered, and so forth. Let’s read the passage first and then we’ll study it together.

•Please stand in honor of the reading of God’s Word.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

•Pray

Introduction:

The title of our message this morning is “Radical Feminism, Male Chauvinism.” The sermon title reflects what I believe are the two unfortunate results of coming to a passage such as this one and doing either one of two things: 1) ignoring it, or 2) wrongly interpreting it—so we end up with either radical feminism or male chauvinism.

Radical feminism insists there is no real distinction between the genders of male and female and opposes traditional gender roles of the two sexes. Male chauvinism is the wrong idea that man is superior to woman and woman inferior to man.

So if we ignore biblical texts such as this one—a text that teaches a clear distinction between the sexes—if we ignore texts like these we may well find ourselves being swayed by popular notions of radical feminism. Or, if we approach a text such as this and wrongly interpret it, reading into it false notions of superiority or inferiority, then we may find ourselves embracing the error of male chauvinism.

The word of God corrects us. Our series of messages in 1 Corinthians is entitled “Chaos and Correction” because the chaos at Corinth was corrected by God’s Word and—if we will follow it’s teachings for today—the chaos in our lives will also be corrected by God’s Word.

Well, we’ve got a lot to do this morning so let’s jump right into our study. Still have your Bibles open, right? Good. Buckle your seat belt. Fasten it tightly around your waist, we’ll be heading into some turbulence this morning. In the unlikely event that cabin pressure changes, an oxygen mask will automatically drop down and you can use it!

First, let’s review what we learned last time. We said that verse 3 is the theological underpinning that drives the application of this passage. Verse 3 provides the theological foundation for verses 4 and following. Verses 4 and following teach what we should or should not place “on” our heads, verse 3 provides the right thinking that should be going on “in” our heads, right thinking about male and female role relationships.

So, without going back and resurrecting last week’s outline, let me give you a new outline this morning that begins at verse 3. First thing Christians must know about men and women, number one:

1) Men & Women Have Different Role Relationships (3)

3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Verse 3 teaches three relational roles, first God the Father (who has authority over Christ), Man (who has authority over woman) and Christ (who has authority over man).

So verse three indicates that there are different role relationships of men and women and that the relationship between man and woman reflects the way God relates to Himself. So we had this statement last week:

**The way men and women relate to one another reflects the way God relates to Himself.

There is a hierarchy in the Trinity. God is one in three persons. He is one, and yet there are three persons within the Godhead. There is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The three persons are essentially equal or ontologically equal, that is equal in their nature or being. So all that is in the Father is in the Son and all that is in the Son is in the Holy Spirit.

Yet the three persons of the Holy Trinity have different roles or functions. The Father has authority over the Son and so, for example, the Father sends the Son into the world. The Son submits to the Father. We never once read in Scripture of the Son leading or commanding the Father. The Son graciously submits to the leadership of the Father. And then the Holy Spirit submits to both Father and Son.

So while there is a hierarchy in the Godhead, a hierarchy among the Persons of the Trinity, there is equality among the Persons. No one Person of the Trinity is either superior or inferior. This is an especially important point as Paul teaches that the way men and women relate to one another is a reflection of the way God relates to Himself.

While there is a hierarchy in terms of the roles or functions of men and women, the man leads the woman and the woman submits to the man’s leadership, this in no way suggests superiority or inferiority. Both man and woman are equal in essence, equal in nature. Like the Persons of the Trinity, there is equality of Personhood, but different roles and functions.

Now that was largely last week’s point, but we review it here as it is vital to rightly understanding everything else Paul has to say here.

Men & Women Have Different Role Relationships. Number two:

2) Their Differences are Reflected in Church and Home (4-6)

In church and home the different roles of men and women should be evident. One should see in both home and church that men and women are living in accordance to their biblical roles of headship, males leading in home and church, and submission—women following the leadership of the men.

Now, we’ve already noted that this does not mean that one is superior and one is inferior. And we’ll come back to that point yet again later in the passage. The man’s role is a serious role. In the home, for example, a husband is “head” of his wife the way Christ is “head” of the church (Ephesians 5:22-33). The husband provides self-denying, sacrificial love for his wife. And his wife graciously submits to her husband by helping him, trusting his leadership and deferring to his judgment as together they follow the Lord.

By the way men, be encouraged today on Father’s Day, because many of you feel like, “Well, I don’t know how to begin to lead my family or take my wife’s hand and pray out loud, this is all new to me.” Let me just encourage you. Because God set things up this way, know then that He will give you grace to lead. He will honor your weakest efforts because it is right. Just begin to lead and watch Him guide you.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

Paul says two things here about the Corinthians as they engaged in public worship. He says that men ought to pray and prophesy without having their heads covered and that women ought to pray and prophesy having her head covered.

Before we even talk about the “head covering” itself, please note that women were liberated to have a much more active role in worship than that to which they had been accustomed. With the coming of Christ and the advent of Christianity, women were blessed with a much more active role in worship.

While the office of pastorate and the teaching of men is limited by Scripture to a man (1 Timothy 2:8-15), women were free to teach other women, to teach children, to preach to other women and to preach to women and children, to pray in public worship, and even to prophesy which, as we’ll see more fully in later chapters, concerns the speaking of God’s words to build up the congregation. So it’s important that we note in these verses that women were free to pray and prophesy in public worship.

And yet, while free to worship in this way, the distinction between male and female needed to be preserved. In Paul’s day, in the Corinthians’ day, a woman indicated that she was acting under authority by wearing a head covering. The head covering was a cultural indicator that a woman accepted the role of male headship and had a submissive demeanor.

Some think Paul is not talking about a physical head covering but is actually referring to the hair itself, that a woman is to wear her hair up as in a bun. This interpretation is largely because of what Paul goes on to say later about a woman’s long hair. I feel the better interpretation is to understand Paul’s talking about an actual covering.

It is highly unlikely that this covering was a veil like that worn by women of Islamic faith, but rather a small shawl that would have covered her head. So the head covering was a way in which Christian women 2,000 years ago communicated by symbol the God-given relational roles of men and women.

Consider the placement of the covering: the covering was worn over the head to demonstrate that she was entirely “under” this covering, her entire being was under this symbol of authority.

The man did not wear a head covering and the woman did. In fact, Paul says in verse 4 that were a man to wear a head covering it would dishonor his head. It would bring dishonor upon himself, shaming himself and his Lord. And why is that? Because the head covering was something not to be worn by man, but by woman. It would be as though a man were trying to be like a woman.

Similarly, in verse 5, Paul teaches that a woman’s refusal to wear a head covering would be like having all of her hair cut off. She would then look like a man. Verse 6:

6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

Paul is saying that when a woman fails to cover her head she may as well be bald, something that would be shameful for a woman. A woman in Paul’s day would be embarrassed to be seen in public with her head shaved and thus looking like a man.

Add to this other historical notes, such as the fact that prostitutes in Paul’s day wore their hair loosely and that slave women had their hair shorn, and we can understand all the more the kind of shame that would come to a woman who refused to wear a head covering.

Paul is clear that women in Christian worship should adorn themselves in such a way as to look like women and that doing so indicated their embrace of different relational roles for men and women. A woman wearing a head covering demonstrated her gracious submission to male headship. Thirdly:

3) Their Differences are Rooted in Creation (7-10)

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

The word “glory” here is best understood as “honor.” Both man and woman are equally created in the image and glory of God. And yet, as Paul goes on to explain, the man was created first and then the woman was created to accompany and to help man. In this sense, the woman was created “to honor” man. She honors him by being his companion and by helping him.

8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

Paul is alluding to the creation order in Genesis 2. After creating Adam, God says in Genesis 2:18, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” So God created Eve, Genesis 2:20, “a helper comparable to him.”

This is what Paul means in verses 8 and 9 when he says “the woman was created for man.” In this sense, the woman honors man by being his helper comparable to him, helping him in his tasks, and being his companion.

And the greater point Paul is making is this, “The differences of men and women insofar as role relationships are concerned are differences that go all the way back to Genesis 2. Their differences are rooted in creation.”

So while the culture may change—like wearing a head covering—the differences of role relationship and function do not change. And they do not change because they are part and parcel of the very fabric of God’s created order.

Then Paul adds this statement, verse 10:

10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Nobody really knows what Paul means by this statement. The other night I actually dreamed I was preaching this passage and when I came to this verse I said, “And if you think I’m going to explain that, forget it!”

My best guess is that Paul is reminding us that the angels are always present in worship. Angles were there at the beginning when God created man and woman. And angels like order and wish to see that order maintained. They are aware of the essential equality of the Godhead—Father, Son, and Spirit—essentially equal with different roles—and like to see that reflected in public worship, equality of man and woman with different roles.

Now, we’ve noted this fourth point earlier, but we see it again:

4) Their Differences Imply Neither Superiority nor Inferiority (11-12)

Paul is saying that while there are role relationships that differ between man and woman, these different roles of headship and submission do not suggest in any way that man is superior or that woman is inferior.

11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Paul pauses for a moment to ensure that no one misunderstand what he’s been saying. Just because man was formed first and after him, woman, ever since that woman was created both man and woman come from woman. In other words, man is not some superior species over woman. Nor is man inferior. And woman is neither inferior nor superior.

Indeed, both are interdependent in the Lord. Neither sex can boast of being the superior one. As Paul says at the end of verse 12, “all things are from God.”

Finally, number five:

5) Their Differences are Obvious in any Culture (13-16)

What Paul does in concluding this passage is to appeal to our natural sense of things. We are inherently aware of gender differences and distinctions.

13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

And I think the idea there at the end of verse 15 is that a woman’s hair when it is long serves as evidence of the need to cover her head. It’s like Paul is saying, even the very fact that most women have long hair proves that they should wear a head covering.

16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Paul is saying, “This is the way it is in all the churches” of his day. This is the custom. This is the cultural norm.”

Here’s a good summary of these latter verses by Tom Schreiner. He writes:

Nature teaches, then, in the sense that the natural instincts and psychological perceptions of masculinity and femininity are manifested in particular cultural situations. Thus, a male instinctively and naturally shrinks away from doing anything that his culture labels as feminine. So, too, females have a natural inclination to dress like women rather than men. Paul’s point, then, is that how men and women wear their hair is a significant indication of whether they are abiding by the created order. Of course, what constitutes long hair is often debated—what is appropriately masculine or feminine in hairstyle may vary widely from culture to culture.

And I think this is an important clarification here. There is something unchanging in this passage and there is something that is changing. What does not change is the principle of male headship. That men are to lead and women are to graciously follow that headship is a truth for all time no matter what cultural setting because this is a truth rooted in the created order. Male headship goes all the way back to Genesis 2.

The reversal of those gender roles played a major part in the Fall, and that role-reversal has been largely the growing result of the fall, continuing to result in the breakdown of families the blurring of gender distinctions, and the consequent sexually identity crises we are seeing throughout the world today.

Male headship goes all the way back to Genesis 2. Cultural norms, however, change throughout time. We don’t wear head coverings today in church because we don’t take them as symbols of submission as was the case in Paul’s day.

On the other hand, when our team goes to Toronto next month, we will take care to observe cultural customs among the Muslims concerning appropriate dress and attire. Most Muslims, for example, regard a woman’s legs being visible as being sexually promiscuous and offensive. So our ladies will take care to observe that cultural custom.

In most Christian assemblies today, head coverings no longer convey the principle of headship and submission. But the principle of headship and submission is still in force. So a woman who prays in church or prophesies in church or teaches in church, will still do so in a submissive manner and a man will humbly lead in both home and church.

Schreiner is helpful again as we consider the contemporary application of this passage. He writes:

Today, except in certain religious groups, if a woman fails to wear a head covering while praying or prophesying, no one thinks she is in rebellion. Lack of head coverings sends no message at all in our culture. Nevertheless, that does not mean that this text does not apply to our culture. The principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership. Clearly the attitude and the demeanor with which a woman prays and prophesies will be one indication of whether she is humble and submissive. The principle enunciated here should be applied in a variety of ways given the diversity of the human situation.

Moreover, both men and women today should dress so that they do not look like the opposite sex. Confusion of the sexes is contrary to the God-given sense that the sexes are distinct. For example, it would be wrong for a twenty[first]-century American male to wear a dress in public. It would violate his masculinity. Everything within a man would cry out against doing this because it would violate his appropriate sense of what it means to be a man. The point is not that women should not wear jeans or pants,

—and we would add here that it’s also not whether men have long hair or women have short hair—

but that in every culture there are certain kinds of adornment which become culturally acceptable norms of dress for men and women.

So we end here on Father’s Day by celebrating the differences between men and women. Besides, we know, don’t we, men:

Everyone knows that women are better than men—at being women. And men are better than women—at being men.

•Stand for prayer.

 

COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: The text contained in this sermon is solely owned by its author. The reproduction, or distribution of this message, or any portion of it, should include the author’s name. The author intends to provide free resources in order to inspire believers and to assist preachers and teachers in Kingdom work.