The Scarlet Letter
By: Nathaniel Hawthorne Modernised and edited by Jim McGuiggan (2004)
By: Nathaniel Hawthorne Modernised and edited by Jim McGuiggan (2004)
back to Questions Readers Asked
A reader asks about women preachers in light of 1 Corinthians 11. Here's something of how I presently view 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. A woman's "role in the church" is most often considered in terms of "what is she allowed to do as part of the church 'structure'?" The vast areas of personal service that are open to all Christians (outreach, benevolence, community service, business honesty and integrity, and so forth) are taken for granted. The issue won't be settled anyway soon. Brilliant scholars are prepared to see women "bishops" justified by the NT. If they can go that far then maybe the biblical material and what flows from it is not as definitive as many of us would like it to be. The covenant scriptures are not "neat" and we tend to like things neat. We frame our questions (most often), I think, expecting a definitive answer because we view the scriptures in a particular way. Churches of Christ, and many other biblicist movements like us, see the scriptures structured in a given fashion so we look for "authorisation" in ways that fit with our expectations. Mostly (I judge) we think we have an exhaustive blueprint that only needs to be followed, even if it takes a bit of a hermeneutical wrestling to do that. We don't like the notion that they leave us to "think theologically" to some conclusions because it seems to leave too many things up for grabs. And besides, your theological thinking might not lead you to the same conclusion as mine and we are not always prepared to put up with that. Bible writers often assume that the readers know much of what lies underneath or behind the texts that they're writing. "Now, about the questions you wrote to me..." (1 Corinthians 7:1) followed by his answers give us some clue as to the questions; but the answers leave so much unexplained. As far as I know (from my reading in the area) I'm the only one that thinks Paul is defending the right to celibacy in the opening pericope of 1 Corinthians 7 (that should make me wonder about the correctness of my view). But how can I come up with such an understanding?—correct or not, it seems obvious enough to me. I take it that Paul could have phrased his responses more clearly but his readers probably didn't need that. Paul could be misunderstood (see 1 Corinthians 5:9-10). All of this and more enters reflection on 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. I would have thought that most evangelicals a hundred years ago (especially urban and working class) would have thought Paul was zeroing in on head coverings. But the opening verses of 11 show (I judge) that he is concerned with the divine order and inner fellowship as reflected in the gospel concerning Jesus Christ. Because there is "neither male nor female" in Christ and because God gave the prophetic word and leadership to females as surely as males, some females were denying gender distinction and were casting off the established markers of femaleness. These established markers existed before the NT church came along; they were cultural and social markers (as women in some generations would have died before wearing men's trousers) and not something new, introduced by the Holy Spirit as part of structured worship. Paul would have thoroughly disapproved of much that he saw in his world that "put women in their place" but he certainly believed that how God created Man (male and female—compare Genesis 5:1-2) and the sequence of their appearance had profound significance (compare 1 Timothy 2:8-15). Something of the "divine order" and fellowship was reflected (see 1 Corinthians 11:2-3). Nothing of inferiority is intimated. Knowing that God in Jesus Christ saw "all flesh" (slaves, free, males, females, Jews and Gentiles) as equally heirs of life (compare 1 Peter 3:7 and see Acts 2:17-18), some women were obliterating gender distinctions. And this is a denial of the nature of Man, whom God created not just male, not just female, not just male or female, but male and female. To obliterate gender distinction is to deny a creation aspect of humankind and obscures truth about the inner fellowship and purposes of God. One of the ways in which these Christian ladies protested gender distinctions was to leave off one of the essentials of female attire (the veil). [We have no reason to think this was confined to worship assemblies so we have no reason to think this section is speaking only about "during the assembly" behaviour.] There were/are various kinds of veils in use then and now but people knew what a female veil was as distinct from male "coverings" that males used to cover their heads (think of Jewish prayer-shawl, the tallit). The male equivalent of women defying an accepted marker of femaleness, suggests Paul, would be for a male to have "long hair" (11:14)—that is adorning his hair as a female would. The word used for hair in that text is not the anatomical term but one that speaks of adornment. The issue isn't simply length. Paul wouldn't have thought that a Nazirite would have been doing something shameful in not cutting his hair. The word kamao is used a couple of times in Josephus. It's used of Herod deliberately offending and provoking the Jewish Sannhedrin by his "dolling up" his appearance and it's used of rebels during the uprising against Rome in AD 70. Some rebels dressed like women and engaged in gross wickedness.)I understand Paul to be saying that for a woman to deny her womanhood would be as shameful as a male denying his maleness. This instruction is not confined to assembly behaviour! Women gathered (see Acts 16:13 and compare Exodus 15:20) for prayer and such. Women taught women (Titus 2:3-5) and prophesied (Acts 21:9). I think in the women's gatherings these ladies were taking off their veils and asserting something they should not have asserted. It's true that there's nothing in 1 Corinthians 11 to say that this was a women-only meeting but that's how I "harmonise" this qualified approval in 11:5 with the prohibition in 14:34. Chapter 14 is a mixed gathering for corporate worship and the female is to remain silent (that is, not to take the lead) whereas in 11:5 (I judge) it is an all-women meeting and there she is urged to speak but still acknowledging her femaleness and its role in the divine order. There are other ways to "harmonise" or not harmonise 11 and 14. For example: say he forgot what he said in 11 and when he later put the letter together he contradicted himself. Or, say: the 14:34 prohibition related only to prophetesses who were abusing their privilege. (I've said a little about this in my little thing on 1 Corinthians.) I think profound truths are proclaimed by the relationship between male/female that far outweigh questions like has she the right to pray in a devotion, be a bishop, lead prayer in a Sunday evening gathering, walk the aisles and pass the emblems. I don't say these questions are silly! Not at all. But I do think they arise because we have remained ignorant in and unconcerned with other profound matters. How men and women see themselves and one another as part of the image of God will affect their outlook and behaviour at fundamental levels. The abuse that entered at the Fall—a part of the curse, click here,—has certainly affected the world since then.
