What about "headship"?

Continuing the conversation of William Witt's new book

William Witt, Icons of Christ – a book that comprehensively discusses and defends the ordination of women – has an excellent chapter on the ever-lurking passage of Paul’s from 1 Corinthians, chapter eleven.

O yes, questions do abound in interpreting 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, so many that I want to post the entire passage here and then include the questions after that.

1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.  4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.  5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.  6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man 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 did not come from woman, but woman from man;  9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

The questions include: Is this about hair or some kind of headcovering? What does “head” mean? What’s the God-Christ-man-woman relation? Is this passage about husband-wives or men-women in general? What does “authority” mean in v. 10? What’s this sudden appearance of angels about? And “nature,” what’s that about? Is that some cultural perception or something normative? V. 16 is its own issue: “we have no other practice” or “no such practice”? (Makes a huge difference.) We cannot discuss all these but perhaps we can engage a bit in the comments and conversation.

One issue Witt doesn’t discuss in his questions but mentions in the five views below is one that wrecks many an interpretation: Who is saying what? Is this all from Paul? Or, is some of this citation from some men in Corinth making their own claims? This use of the words of others happens not a few times in 1 Corinthians. After all, he’s responding to questions from Corinth.

Witt briefly sketches five views:

1.    hierarchical,

2.    paradoxical [one half is subordinate, the other half interdependent – see the 5th view too],

3.    egalitarian [distinct but mutually interdependent],

4.    revolutionary subordination [reciprocity, mutual subordination],

5.    and modified egalitarian [more-than-one-voice view; the Corinthians are demanding head coverings, Paul is responding; Lucy Peppiatt has a recent book that proposes this view].

The context of the passage in 1 Cor: women exercised ministries, including prophesying, and Paul is in favor of that; the passage – from chps 8-14 – is about public worship at some level. Women praying and prophesying then are public acts of women in worship. Something was either not happening or it was happening, and the folks in Corinth has opinions and questions that Paul addresses here.

What about head coverings? Witt thinks one can’t discern with clarity if this is about head coverings or hair itself. It points to some kind of appearance that attracts (at least some kind of) discussion. The gender marker of that context was ignored or flouted (ignored basic codes, not the same as flaunted). SMcK: again, this could be something that was not being done that some in the church wanted or something being done that some in the church did not want to be happening.

What about headship? I sketch here two views discussed by Witt, the Hierarchical-Authoritarian view and the Egalitarian view.

Hierarchical-Authoritarian: the emphasis is on the ordered relationship of authority in v. 3, and Witt focuses on both Wayne Grudem and George Knight. As the Son is subordinate to the Father so the woman is subordinate to the man by virtue of creation order. Thus, distinction in sex is distinction in role. Whatever was on the head (hair, headcovering) implied authority under. Thus, the covering means the man has authority over the woman who expresses male authority by the hair/headcovering. (The text does not say this: it says the headcovering is the authority and this is then tied to the angels.)

What about headship in this view? Grudem’s side thinks it means authority over but Witt shows that Grudem’s database is biased in favor of LXX and Philo. Grudem offers nothing from contemporary Greek lit where authority over is the meaning. Plus, the vast majority of the uses of “head” in the LXX (translating the Hebrew rosh), when it means authority, is translated with archon, “ruler,” and not kephalē, “head.” Phil Payne shows that the majority of Greek lexicons don’t even include “authority over” in their meanings!

I have followed this conversation for decades and from the start I thought it was a rigged discussion in that Grudem set up a strong either-or and if there was any question whatsoever about “source” it meant “authority over.” Had he played the same game of “any question at all” with “authority over” he would have landed on the other side. (Frankly, what rigged it all was the passing of the ERA.)

Further, Paul was the only person in the ancient world who used the term “head” for men and women; it was a military term but the military register is not the man-woman register. The political examples are “one to many” relations and not one-to-one relationship: a ruler over a people vs. a husband and wife. (I would say the same about “head” of a river as source; neither is it the man-woman relationship.)

Here’s an instance of rigging: v. 10 has “a woman/wife ought to have authority on her head” (my trans.); the ESV has “a symbol of authority.” Where did the ESV get “symbol”? From its belief that the authority is the man’s.  Witt thinks then that “authority over” is not accurate.

Egalitarian: “source” was common enough in the ancient world, though it must be noted again that Paul was the one who first used this term between man and woman. More to the point is the very context in this passage: vv. 8-9 and v. 12 mean source: 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;  9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man … 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. These verses have been for me “game, set, match” at times. Witt thinks this also makes the best sense for v. 3: But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. And some think this order  in v. 3 is not authority over but chronology in salvation history (Fee, Payne). And “glory” is not a term in the register of subordination.

Authority in v. 10, again, is the woman’s when we read a woman ought to have authority over her own head. The headcovering/hair is her authority.

Witt sees values and problems in both the revolutionary subordination and the two-voices view, which I won’t summarize here.

Here are his final conclusions:

First, both men and women are to engage equally in the practice of leading in worship and speaking in the public assembly. Paul’s concern in the passage is not to restrict the public role of one sex or another in worship but to stipulate that worship should be conducted in a manner that does not create public scandal.

Second, “in the Lord” man and woman are not separate from or independent from one another, but interdependent with one another. Paul’s use of “head” language has nothing to do with a hierarchy of men over women, or with “role relationships” of authority of men over women.

Third, if man is the source of woman in the Genesis creation narrative, he is only the instrumental source. Woman is the instrumental source of man through childbearing and God is the ultimate source of both man and woman, who equalizes their standing in Christ

Fourth, that woman is man’s glory does not mean that she was created for his purposes or utilitarian ends, but that men and women both need and are mutually dependent on one another.

Finally, even in the new age of redemption in Christ, sexual and gender distinctions are maintained. That does not mean that one sex is subordinate to the other, but that both are interdependent and need one another.