First Corinthians chapter 11. I don't think I probably need to tell you that there is huge debate and controversy about the roles of men and women. within society, but not just society, also within our homes and the church. Christians often find themselves holding to one of the following kind of big two viewpoints or some form thereof. There's something called egalitarianism. Maybe you're familiar with that term. It's the viewpoint that there are no gender-based distinctions or restrictions on ministry in the church. Maybe distinctions, sorry, but not restrictions on ministry in the church. And there's another term, complementarianism. Another view is the viewpoint that God restricts women from serving in certain church leadership roles, and instead calls women to serve in equally important, but we might say complementary roles, hence the term complementarianism. And part of that larger discussion is the place of women in public worship in the church. What actions and activities can they be involved in, and what posture or demeanor should they take or convey in that process? The role of men and women in worship is very, very easily misunderstood on multiple levels. And that has been the case for a very long time. In fact, it's this misunderstanding that seems to have prompted our text this morning, 1 Corinthians 11, verses 2 to 16. I want to begin by looking at verse 2. Paul says to the Corinthians, now I commend you, I praise you, because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them. to you. Paul is praising the Corinthians because they are following many of the apostolic world teachings that had been relayed to them. And that's how truth was very much spreading that way in the early church. But over the next few chapters, what Paul is going to do after praising them that they're getting a lot of things right, he's going to address a few areas of concern and correct some things where they're doing things wrong in worship, like head coverings, which we'll look at today, chapter 11. He's going to move on to the Lord's Supper. The Corinthians had some problems with what they were doing there. And then spiritual gifts in chapter 12 and following. And he starts in chapter 11 with head coverings. And it appears that in the worship gatherings of the church, women were praying and prophesying, according to verse 5, without their heads covered. And for some reason, that was a problem. Interestingly, the concern doesn't seem to be that they were praying or that they were prophesying, but that they're doing those things without their heads covered. So the primary function of this text is not what worship and ministry activities ladies can be involved in, but more the way in which they should do it and why. And that's what we'll focus on here today. And then next week, what I'd like to do is come back and look at the role of women in worship as pertains to their activities, because this text is, in some ways, addressing that. There are maybe three texts in the New Testament that deal with it. One is here in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, one in chapter 14 of the same book, and there's one other passage as well. And next week, what I'd like to do is let's just kind of look at these, try to synthesize them, harmonize them, and I think you'll find them very, very helpful. It's something I've received some questions about. and thought, you know what, we're gonna get to this stuff in 1 Corinthians, it'd just be a great time to talk about those things. All right, with that in mind, let's look here at this text today, beginning in verse two, I wanna read all the way down through verse 16. Paul writes, now I commend you because you remember me in everything. I maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you, but I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, But woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman from man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman. For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves. Is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him? But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory. For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God." What an interesting text that is. I wonder what your thoughts are on head coverings. As we work through this text together, we're going to ask three questions about head coverings. The first question, what is the head covering for women in this passage? What on earth is Paul even referring to? And the second question, why should the head covering be worn? And thirdly, how does this apply today? So we begin with the first question about head coverings. What is the head covering for women in this passage that Paul is even referring to? Well, you should know that there are several views, none of which, by the way, is without its difficulties. I'm going to give you three of the most popular views here this morning and just give you a little bit of the lay of the land. One of the most common views, I think even the traditional view, would probably be called It would be wearing a fabric or material head covering of some kind. And this could have been some kind of veil. More than likely it would have been something like a shawl that would have been draped over the head. And if this traditional view is correct, what it would be implying based on this text is that some of the women in Corinth were likely discarding their shawls or whatever other head covering they would typically wear for worship. However, skeptics of this view are quick to point out the phrase in verse 15 that says that her hair is given to her for a covering. The Greek preposition there that's translated for, for a covering, is elsewhere commonly translated instead of or in the place of. So basically the idea would be that her hair is given to her instead of a covering. That reading of verse 15 has led to a second possible major view that the head covering could simply be wearing long hair. And according to this view, women don't need to wear a material head covering. A long hair is that head covering. If this view is correct, it would imply that some of the women in Corinth were likely cutting their hair short, maybe like men. I'm not really sure, but they were going against maybe what was traditional in their culture of having long hair. However, skeptics of this view are quick to point out that if you look up at verses 5 and 6, Paul argues that if the women aren't willing to cover their heads, if they're not willing to do that, then they should cut their hair short or shave their heads. And all of a sudden you go, oh, that kind of presents a problem, because if you already cut your hair short, why would Paul be telling you to do it? So those verses present a huge, huge problem to the long hair view. There's a third view that's maybe a variation of that second one. It could be wearing your hair up on your head instead of down, flowing down. Some make a case that having her head uncovered meant she was wearing her hair loose or down instead of perhaps up and bound on top of her head. It's argued that in the first century, wearing your hair down like that was a sign of shame. And this view probably has more difficulties than either of the first two that I gave you. The historic cultural evidence for this view is not clear, and it's also unclear how this would contrast with some of the things that God tells men to do in this passage. So that view has several, several difficulties. and inconsistencies with the text. So that's a bit of the lay of the land. So what's the head covering? Well, to be honest, I'm not 100% certain. You can look at all the arguments for the different views yourself. There is an immense amount of study that you could do on that and come to your own conclusion. Personally, I'm kind of a fan of the traditional view that what Paul is talking about here most likely is literally a fabric head covering of some kind. It seems to be referring to a fabric or material head covering. That's my best understanding of the passage. If you disagree, I think that's great. When I was in university, I visited a church that was, I don't know, maybe 500 to 700 people, that one of my close friends was attending at the time. And one of the first things that I noticed when I walked into that church was that it was a head covering church. All of the ladies were in some form of head covering. Some of them were wearing hats on their heads. Others had doilies kind of pinned on the top of their head or handkerchiefs, that sort of thing. And I had never witnessed anything like it before. I had never been in a church where that was practiced, and I wasn't quite sure what to make of it. I mean, if you went to church there every day, every Sunday, you probably wouldn't think much of it. But for me, it was the thing that was on my mind, because it was so different than my own experience. And I think I felt that way, not sure what to make of it, because where else in our culture would you see women adorned like that? And I think the answer is, well, nowhere. That's kind of culturally unique. But in the first century world of Corinth and the surrounding regions, it was very different. It was customary for women to cover their heads at times, and apparently it meant something very, very significant. So we're left asking this question, why did Paul argue that the head covering should be worn? Apparently there was some major, major significance to what Paul is arguing for. And I would submit that getting down to the answer to that question is what this text is really, really about. If you read this text and you think it's just simply about dress or what a lady wears on your head, oh no, there's way, way more to it than that. I don't even think that's a primary focus of this text. Behind the head covering custom is a timeless principle, and perhaps we could even say principles. And so that leads us to a second big question about head coverings. Why should the head covering be worn? And the text is going to offer several reasons. The first reason is because of the headship principle. Look at verse three with me. Paul writes, but I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ. The head of a wife is her husband. and the head of Christ is God. The Bible teaches this principle of headship, and headship implies authority. Many have debated the sense in which head is used in this verse. Is the word head used to communicate source? For example, we might talk about the head of a river, and the head of the river, it's really the source from which the river's flowing. Or is the word head here used to communicate authority? We sometimes would use head in this way. We might talk about the head of state, or the head of household, or the head of some organization. We use the word in more than one sense. So which is it here? Well, head is consistently used in the New Testament to indicate authority, particularly as it's used in the marriage relationship. For example, why don't you turn with me over to the book of Ephesians, chapter five. And look with me at verses 22 to 24. The context here is the relationship between a husband and wife and the various roles that God has given each of them. And I just want to read verses 22 to 24. Look for this word head and notice how it's used in the passage. Is it indicating source or is it indicating authority? Paul writes in verse 22 of Ephesians chapter 5, wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. Why? For the husband is the what? The head of the wife. Even as Christ is the what? The head of the church, his body. And is himself its savior. Now as a church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything. to their husbands. As you look at that passage, one would be hard-pressed to say that the husband is the wife's source in that verse. The context is not indicating that at all. The context is indicating authority. God intends for the husband to lead his wife lovingly and sacrificially as the head. And that is not to be selfish or dictatorial, but the very opposite. And Ephesians 5 fleshes that out, that this is a loving, sacrificial leadership and headship, something that has often got wrong. So back to 1 Corinthians 11, headship here in this verse, verse 3, implies authority. However, headship need not imply superiority or inferiority. The three headship relationships given in verse three come in a, I think, an unexpected order. The head of every man is Christ. The head of a wife is her husband. The head of Christ is God. That order is not sequential. Why? Why did this verse come to us in that order? And my guess is so that after hearing that the head of a wife is her husband, we would hear this, that the head of Christ is God. And that that would refine our understanding of this idea. God doesn't want us to come to wrong conclusions here. The third example of headship clarifies the second. When we read that the head of Christ is God the Father, that makes us stop and start thinking about some things. According to verse three, and think about this, according to verse three, there is authority, subordination, and submission within the Trinity. Is either person of the Trinity superior or inferior to the other person of the Trinity? Are the members of the Trinity somehow different in essence? No, no, no, and no. In fact, if you wanna try to say otherwise, we would all have to label you a heretic. You cannot go down that road without entering the realm of heresy. The Bible teaches that while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal, In essence, the Son, Jesus Christ, took the role of functional subordination to God the Father and submission to the authority or headship of the Father. For example, I can demonstrate that scripturally. John 3, verse 17, we read how God the Father sent the Son into the world. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. The Father is sending the Son. First Corinthians 15, 28, we see the son subject to the father and submission and subordination to him. When all things are subjected to him, we read, then the son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all and all. We have this wonderful example in the Trinity that's a reminder to us that yes, headship does imply authority. but it need not imply superiority or inferiority. And I think that clarification is very important. So, why head coverings? Well, the first reason that we're given is the headship principle. And culturally, the head coverings seem to convey that. A second reason for the head covering is because of, I guess we could just call it the shame principle. Look at verses four to six. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered, dishonors his head. But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. On the one hand, for a first century Christian man to engage in worship with a shawl over his head would have been shameful because of what that would have conveyed or implied in that culture. And that's what the women were to do in that culture. And on the other hand, it would have been shameful for a woman to discard her head covering in that setting for what it would have conveyed. Paul compares the shame to what a first century woman would have felt if her head was shaved. So he's saying to the ladies, if you remove your head covering, that's the same type of shame that you would have if you just shaved your head in your culture. If you're not going to wear a head covering, Paul is arguing, you might as well shave your head because it's just as shameful. And I think that's verse five and six. And as we look at that, we go, wow, there are some strong cultural things at play here. Don't miss Paul's point though, in the middle of all that, I think it would be something like this, that headship reversal and gender reversal in relationships brings shame. And he's making that point in the worship context. And God warns here of two shameful reversals that could take place. And one seems to be the idea of men abandoning headship. That's verse four. And another one of the ideas would be women wrongfully assuming headship or failing to affirm it in the way that verse three teaches. And whether it be in the workings of the home or the worship of the church, women often assume headship because men have abandoned it. Oftentimes men aren't there to lovingly lead, or they don't want to, or they don't see a God-given distinction between the roles. In these verses, men and women, we see they're doing the same thing. Both are spoken of as praying and prophesying. Women are praying in public worship, and as I said, apparently that's not the problem. It's the way in which that's being done. It's being done without the cultural symbol that demonstrated a recognition of headship. So God warns of two possible shameful reversals. One, something that the men could do and abandon their headship, and one, the other side of that would be the women assuming it. And also in these verses, God warns of two heads that could be shamed. In verse 4, the man brings dishonor or shame on his head. And in verses 5 and 6, the woman brings dishonor or shame on her head. And in both of those instances, I think that we could argue that there are actually two heads being dishonored. What I mean by that is when a man abandons his God-given roles, and his headship, he not only brings shame on his own head, his head being used, the part for the whole, he not only brings shame on himself, but in the immediate context of verse three, that man has been, we could say, a metaphorical head. Who is the man's head? It's Christ. And so as a man abandons what God has called him to, that is not only shameful for himself, it dishonors and it does not bring glory to his head, Jesus Christ. And on the flip side of that, when a woman does not recognize the headship of her husband, she not only brings shame on herself, but she also dishonors her head. And who is that according to verse three? It's her husband. It appears that in the first century, the head covering was some kind of visible symbol that conveyed recognition of one's headship relationships. In some way, it conveyed a cultural acknowledgement of those dynamics. God now turns our attention to what in many ways is the opposite of shame, and that is glory and honor. And here Paul gives us a third reason for the head covering, because on the flip side we could refer to the glory principle. God uses the concept of glory and honor both for women and men in this passage. In verse seven we read that man is the glory of God. Look at verse seven, it says, for a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God. When God created Adam, God made him in his image, and we read in this verse that he is God's glory. The verse is a reminder that man was made for God, and his pleasure and his glory, and so that everything that we do is intended to honor and bring glory to our creator. And then the text goes on to assert that woman is the glory of man. In what sense or in what way, we might ask? And Paul is going to clarify, he's going to explain that idea in two ways. First, in what way is woman the glory of man? Well, she came from the man. Look at verse eight. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. And of course, that is referring to the fact that God fashioned the woman from one of Adam's ribs, not the other way around. And Paul is trying to just remind everyone here, listen, that it happened in that order and not the other way. She came from the man and also she came to complete the man. Verse nine, neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. Now, obviously a verse like that could be taken and twisted and abused and misapplied. and we certainly don't want to do that. What is God getting at in those verses? Well, as Adam looked around the Garden of Eden, there was no match for him. One translation of Genesis 2.18 reads that, then the Lord God said, it is not good for the man to be alone. God has created everything, and it's all good. And then there's Adam. And God says, there's something about what's going on here that's not good. He's all alone. And so the verse says, I will make a helper as his compliment. God made Eve to compliment Adam. She was Adam's equal in essence, but she was different in role by God's design. And because the woman came from the man and was made by God to complete the man, verse seven says, the woman is the glory of man. And it seems one of the things that God is getting at there is that by God's design, the wife is to show her husband honor. And going back to the creation account, Paul is arguing for the head covering, which would have conveyed honor and respect for the role and headship of her husband. And when that was taken off, it communicated the opposite. Look at verse 10. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head. According to verse 10, the head covering symbolized in some way the honor and respect for authority that God requires. And again, we look at this and we go, wow, there's some very strong cultural forces at play. But as Paul spoke into that culture and that time, this was important. There in verse 10, you probably, well, maybe you noticed another argument that Paul makes for the head covering at the end of the verse, the angels. That's a fourth reason for the head covering, because of the, let's call it the angelic principle. What's the angelic principle, you might ask? I'd say, I don't know. That's a great question. It's a really good question. Verse 10 just says, because of the angels, and it offers us no further explanation. Various interpretations have been offered. One writer says the best solution is probably that the angels are good angels who assist in worship and desire to see the order of creation maintained. That's one possibility. I think we could talk about several other possibilities there. The Bible does teach that the angels look at what God is doing in the church and they marvel and they praise God. And I would imagine as well, as we seek to obey the Lord and follow the guidance that he's given us, that the angels look at that and the end result is praise to God. In verses 11 to 12, Paul goes out of his way, though, to clarify something, lest we walk away with a very bad idea and a very wrong idea. What he does here in these verses seems similar to what he does at the end of verse 3, but this time he's clarifying the absolute interdependence of male and female. Look at verses 11 and 12. In the Lord, woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman. For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman, and all things are from God. I think most of the time that we get things wrong on roles in our culture, what's just spoken of in these verses we get wrong. The Bible teaches that men and women depend upon each other. Men depend upon women and women depend upon men. Yes, God says Eve was fashioned from Adam's rib, but now every single man ever born is brought forth from a daughter of Eve, every single one of them. And he's just highlighting the way that we are absolutely interdependent. And again, I think that the Lord is just beating into our heads that while men and women may have different roles and functions by God's design in the home or the church, they are equal in essence. There is no superiority, inferiority in God's design. Men and women are entirely interdependent, and that is a good and a beautiful thing. And as soon as we try to say we're not, we start running into all kinds of problems. Another reason for the head covering in this passage is because of the propriety principle. What is proper? Look at verse 13. Paul writes, judge for yourselves. Is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Paul invites you. He invites the Corinthians. He said, I want you guys just to look around. Based on what you see, you can judge what's proper on this head covering thing. And again, we're looking into a different culture. But Paul invites you to look in two directions, and I think there's some timelessness to what he's gonna say next. First, he invites you to look at nature. Look at verses 14 and 15. Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. There's much that could be said about these verses, but one of the central ideas is that we have a God-given sense that men are different than women. Nature itself testifies to that. Nature itself teaches us to distinguish between the sexes. One of the ways that manifests itself just very practically in almost every culture is the different ways that men and women dress and adorn themselves. And in most cultures, women tend to have longer hair than men. I'm sure that's not quite the case everywhere, but probably in almost every culture, that is the case. That's just kind of what we do. And in most cultures, a woman's hair is her glory. And if you doubt that, oh, well maybe you should just go around and start asking, we should start asking the men this morning how much time they spend on their hair. And then we could turn around and ask the women. This morning for me, after drying my hair off with a towel, I took about three seconds and kind of ran my hands through my hair just to make sure it was mostly laying in the same direction. And I was done. I took about three seconds. What about you ladies? I mean, we won't ask for a raise of hands, but did any of you ladies spend three seconds on your hair this morning? That's unlikely. Maybe some of you did. But I think just looking at something like that reminds us, yes, even by nature we see God has made us different by his design. So Paul invites us to look at nature, and then he invites us to look at universal church practice, and that's verse 16. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. If first Paul invited the Corinthians to look at nature, now he invites them to look at universal church practice in the first century. Paul essentially told the Corinthians that they would not find another church where the women were discarding their head covering. So why should the head covering be worn? Well, Paul roots it in things like headship and nature and the creation order and other things as well. And so we arrive now at one more big question about head coverings. How does this apply today? I mean, isn't that kind of like the million dollar question? In what sense is this text applicable today? What we have seen in this passage is a first century custom. that's tethered to principles. So, what we really have, I think, is two questions. Does the custom apply today? And then the second question, does the principle apply today? Does the custom apply today? Should we insist that our ladies come to worship on Sundays with a literal head covering of some kind on their heads? Would it be appropriate for us to dismiss the head covering idea and go, well, you know, that was just cultural. Would we do that with anything else in Scripture? And, well, that's just cultural. We don't need to do that. Well, maybe I can get you thinking a little bit. 2 Corinthians chapter 13, verse 12, Paul's writing to the same group of people, and he says to them, greet one another. But he doesn't stop there. He says, greet one another with a holy kiss. Now that command of the Corinthians contains a timeless principle, doesn't it? What's the timeless principle embedded in that verse? Well, it would probably be something like this. You should welcome and you should receive one another lovingly and compassionately. The principle was given to the Corinthians in the custom of their day and culture. Greet one another with a holy kiss. that seemed to communicate something in their culture that was very, very positive and good. Okay, here's the question for you. Let's decide next week you're not gonna be here, and maybe you're out of town, and you're gonna visit some other church. I just wanna maybe ask the men a question. If you visited a church next week with your wife, and your kids, your sons, and your daughters, and you walked in through the doors of that church, and all of a sudden people started greeting you, and men were kissing your wife, and mid more kissing your daughters, would you feel welcome? Quite the opposite. I think you'd say to your wife, run, get out of here. This is a retreat. This was a huge mistake. You'd feel the very opposite of welcome. With the holy kiss, we affirm the timeless principle behind it, practicing without practicing the cultural custom. I think that foot washing would be very, very similar. Things culturally are just very different, but there's something behind that foot washing idea. Are head coverings cultural like the holy kiss? Well, I think wisdom would say that that is something that each household should work through before the Lord. I personally would feel very uncomfortable recommending head coverings to our people as I would tend myself to see it as cultural. However, if you look at this text with your household, with your family, and thought that it was best to wear head coverings, I would not just understand that, I would also respect it. Does this principle apply today? Well, regardless of your view on the custom, The principles behind it are timeless. For example, what if anything about verse three is cultural? What about that is cultural at all? Nothing. Headship and authority are timeless. Blurring gender lines and roles are dishonorable and shameful. That is not cultural. That is timeless. Men and women are equal in essence and yet different in function, timeless. These are things that we must affirm and demonstrate and the manner in which things are done in our worship should affirm that. And honestly, I think a lot of that comes down actually, not even so much to the externals of things like clothing, but to our attitudes and our understandings and our demeanors, more than almost anything else. When you have a proper understanding of the biblical principles and an accompanying right attitude, you're probably gonna get the cultural manifestations of all that right. That's probably not going to be the struggle. Some of you might be wondering, though, how something like this relates to how men and women dress for worship, if at all. And I think getting into the nitty-gritty application details of that can be, honestly, just extremely opinion-based versus text-based. And because of that, I don't really want to go in that direction. What I'd like to do is maybe just give some really big ideas to guide all of our thinking. Here's one of them. I would caution you from dressing in such a way that seriously, seriously blurs gender roles and lines and distinctions. And I say that recognizing that as with the culture and Corinth and our own culture, there is a high, high degree of subjectivity to that. And it varies from culture to culture. And sometimes it even changes over time. To further clarify, I would encourage you to ask a question like this, is my adornment a head-turning statement on gender and headship? I don't think that what was going on in Corinth in the first century was like the question that some people might get in today or perhaps have gotten to over the last couple decades of, well, you know, should women wear pants or should they wear skirts? I don't think that's what's going on in this text. What was going on in Corinth was the type of thing that if someone from another church, one of the churches mentioned in verse 16, would have shown up in Corinth and visited, it would have caused them to turn their head and probably then start whispering to the person next to them. Because by discarding the head covering, a statement was being made and it was a big one. So how does this apply today? Well, I think, as I've said, that more than clothing related, this is more even attitude and demeanor focused. And the principles behind all that, and do we get that, and do we affirm those things? And yes, it probably is going to have some impact, perhaps, on the way that we dress. But I think we just simply want to say, God, what does your word say about all these things? We're in a culture where our culture's constantly speaking to us about these things. And we're hearing all kinds of things, but at the end of the day, we wanna just keep going back to scripture and say, well, God, what do you say? And whether that's culturally affirmed or not, whether that's popular or not, I think at the end of the day, we wanna go, God, you're always right. You're the one who designed all of this, and we can trust that. And so by God's grace, we wanna do that. You need to fulfill your God-given gender role. I want to invite you to close your eyes at this time and bow your head with me if you would.