Other Books at Freedom's Ring

Chapter 8

Equal but Unequal?

There is no other passage in Paul's writings where he points out the equality of men and women in the Christian era more than he does in I Corinthians 7.

The Corinthian church had written Paul a number of questions about marriage. He approved the single life. He wrote, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," and "It is well for them to remain as I." But he approved marriage and sexual intercourse. He stated that those who marry "sin not," and that they were to be allowed to marry (verse 36). As he instructed the Corinthians, he said a lot about the equality which existed between Christian husbands and wives, not the superiority of man. The entire chapter is devoted to those contemplating marriage, or who were already married. One can't help but recognize the equality which the text emphasizes. Incidentally, it is a kind of marital equality which heretofore had not been alluded to in all Holy writings or allowed by Jewish or Gentile traditions.

Here are the verses in I Corinthians 7:

7:2 - "Let each man have his own wife." Likewise, "Let each woman have her own husband."

7:3 - "Let the husband render unto the wife her due. Likewise, also the wife unto the husband."

7:4 - "The wife hath not power over her own body." Likewise, "The husband hath not power over his own body."

7:10-11 - "That the wife depart not from her husband." "That the husband depart not from his wife."

7:12-13 - "If any brother hath an unbelieving wife," "If any man hath an unbelieving wife," "the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband." "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife."

7:16 - "For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?" "How knowest, thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?"

7:33-34 - "He that is married is careful how he may please his wife," "She that is married is careful how she may please her husband."

Paul made it clear that husbands and wives are equal in all these matters. He did not put the wife in an inferior position to her husband. Nor did he suggest that the husband is her overlord. In this passage, it is quite clear that husbands and wives were quite equal in these marital matters. Contrary to the opinion of many, this passage would suggest that Paul was a champion of wives, not one who put them down.

It should be noted that, even today, many states will not charge a husband with rape if he forcibly takes his "due." If he does, he faces no criminal penalty. Is there a Christian leader who would dare to argue that these laws are just, because a wife is to be "in subjection to her husband?" Or that women are to be in "all subjection to men?"

At what point would a Christian scholar ascertain that enough is enough in a husband dominating his wife or in men dominating women? Who can draw the line? Yet, men feel perfectly free to draw the line in their dominance of women in church activities.

In verse 39 of chapter 7, Paul stated that a widow is "free" to marry whomsoever she will, "only in the Lord." There is no male domination suggested in this choice, and it is a rejection of the "law" which requires her to be passed along to a brother of the deceased (Deuteronomy 25:5). It should be noted that there is a vast difference between saying that the "husband is the head of the wife," and saying that "the wife is inferior to her husband." A wife voluntarily submits to her husband, not because he is superior, but because she loves him. But, she is free to resist his headship any time she feels he is wrong or treating her wrongly. Only she can draw the line.

Most damaging to our submission rules are verses 10 and 11: "That a woman depart not from her husband, but if she departs, let her remain unmarried." Corinthian wives did not have to stay under the dominion of their husbands, no matter how much doing so seems preferred by us.

Someone will argue that husbands and wives have different roles in the home, so why not in the church, even if there were an equality of sorts. I know of no distinctive Biblical roles in the home for which only men are responsible. Wives give birth and some nurse children. But men vacuum, wash dishes, feed babies, iron clothes, make beds, write checks, pay bills, and paint houses. They discipline children, fix toys and mow lawns. They work for pay, drive trucks, repair cars, etc. Women also do all of these things. God does not define the things only women or men can do in the home. Why then would we think God did so in the church? He didn't. Man does.

The clergy of the Christian world and other dominant male leaders in the church have relied upon a few verses in I Corinthians 11-14, along with I Timothy 2:8-15, to build the doctrine of an all-male clergy and of men dominating all so-called leadership roles in the worship and life of the church.

A closer look at these two passages might render an interpretation just the opposite of the dictates of traditional church practices. Many spokespersons of the modern women's liberation movement have accused Paul of male chauvinism and of ugly prejudice against women. It is possible that they, too, have failed to understand what Paul really taught.

There is general agreement among almost all Biblical scholars that Paul deals with the assemblies of the church from chapter 11 through chapter 14 of I Corinthians. We shall see in this study that he teaches about husband-and-wife relationships in both chapter 11 and chapter 14, rather than man-and-woman relationships in the church. He gave instruction on the importance of wives respecting their husbands by wearing a sign of authority on their heads during worship in 11:3-16. In 11:17-34, he gave instructions on the proper observation of the Lord's Supper. The use and abuse of spiritual gifts are covered in Chapter 12. In chapter 13 he deals with the problem of exercising gifts without the motivation of love. In chapter 14 he points out the dangers of confusion and the importance of peace and order in worship services while spiritual gifts are being exercised.

I have taught the I Corinthian letter in adult classes and college classes at least twelve times in my lifetime. When a class is studying I Corinthians 11:1-16, the subject of the head-covering of women during church services has always been the focal point. Discussions centered around questions about a veil, the proper length of Christian women's hair, what was too short, what shorn meant, and whether a scarf, hat, or doily of some kind would suffice to meet Paul's instruction. We always emphasized the fact that men were to always remove their caps or hats during Bible studies, worship services, and during prayer anywhere. We also discussed whether to do so was dictated by custom or by law. I know of Christian colleges where this scripture was used for a basis of forcing young men to remove caps and hats in chapel services.

In my early church experience during the 1930's, as well as now, men were always hatless in church, but then women were always covered. Preachers made it very clear, as did other men leaders in the church, that the law of I Corinthians 11 required both the wearing of hats by women and the removal of hats by men during worship. But of late, it has merely become a "custom," not a law, to be conveniently altered by church leaders. Women may now come to church without veils, hats or any covering. They come with long hair, short hair and medium length hair. But when have any of us seen a man wear a hat or cap in worship? What would we do if he did? Was it tradition, custom or law that the church in my childhood required women to always have their heads covered during worship services, while requiring men to worship with heads uncovered? Is it the law or custom which now permits women to attend assemblies with their heads uncovered and shorn? Catholic churches, Mennonites, and a few small sects are the exceptions on maintaining this practice.

Paul said, "in the churches of God there is no other custom" or practice (verse 16). The R.S.V. states, "If anyone is contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God." This is very similar to the statement in I Corinthians 14:33, "as in all the churches," women were to "keep silent in the church; for it was not permitted for them to speak." Our interpretation of this passage hasn't changed much. Why is the custom of veils, long hair, hats, or whatever, representing a sign of authority by the women in "the churches of God" in Chapter 11, not just as applicable as the silence rule in chapter 14? Both rules were to be respected in the "churches."

But, this study does not specifically deal with the covering of the head or the length of hair, but rather with what happened during the church services that Paul described in chapters 11-14. But, we must ask, "How could we conclude that the 'churches' in chapter 11 are not less inclusive than the 'churches' of 14:33-34?" If hats, long hair, veils, uncovered heads, etc., were mere customs to be followed to conform to the local practices and not applicable today, why were Paul's instructions on women being silent any less subject to the argument that this was also just a practice or a custom? Both passages mention the "churches," not just in Corinth.

I have heard it argued by some that if a brother is contentious about women having to wear a veil, the church of God had no such custom or requirement. Thus, they conclude that if women do not want to wear a covering or wear long hair, no "obligatory" custom or law prevails. But I have yet to meet a Greek scholar who argues that this is the clear meaning of this text. Paul says that a man must pray and prophesy with his head uncovered to show honor to Christ, his head, and that a woman must wear a veil to show honor to man, her head, while she prays or prophesies. The concluding verse of this passage literally says there is "no other" custom or practice in the "churches" of God.

Some excuse women from being veiled or from having long hair because it was simply a custom. But I have yet to find a Christian church which will allow men in the pulpit or in the pew to pray or prophesy with their heads covered. Why the difference, if it is just a custom? I merely call for consideration of this inconsistency. For a variety of motives and reasons we accept this inconsistency without blinking our eyes. Still we try to maintain some quite convoluted consistency on the "silent" passage in chapter 14. Why? We will answer this question in succeeding chapters. But one thing is certain. We do not try to enforce in the church today the teaching in I Corinthians 11 about women's hair and veils. Yet, we still try to enforce in the church traditional treatments of I Corinthians 14. It is because women have refused to follow the male standards on coverings and length of hair. However, we have not yet demanded that men allow women to exercise their God-given talents in the public life of the church.

Many elderships decided that pant suits, slacks, and blue jeans were immodest dress in the assemblies during the late 60's and early 70's. They put out creedal edicts and backed them up with scripture. Today, in the same churches, pant suits, slacks and blue jeans are as "in" as head coverings are "out." If preachers, elders, and Bible scholars were so wrong about these issues, isn't it possible that they could be wrong about their traditional views on other women's issues in the church? This should make us humble enough to inquire and study further.

This study seeks to find out what women actually were allowed to do and what they did in the early church, covered and with long hair.