1 Corinthians 11:2-16
This may be the most obscure and challenging passage in Paul’s entire letter. Before reflecting on its meaning for us, let me briefly state my own opinion as to what I think Paul is probably saying.
Many translations say that the woman should wear a “veil” on her head. This is puzzling because wearing a veil was not customary for women in Greco-Roman society. The Greek word is actually “covering,” and may not refer to a veil. In fact, verse 15 explicitly calls the woman’s long hair a “covering.” Some commentators conclude, and I agree, that Paul is not saying that women should wear a veil, but that their long hair should be bound up on their head (for instance, in a bun) as a “covering” for their head. This is in keeping with general custom in Greco-Roman society.
Why does Paul believe that women, in worship, should have their hair bound up on their head? Perhaps for two reasons. First, loose hair may have been associated with prostitution. Even today in our culture, women’s hair in a bun is associated with modesty, and loose hair with sexuality. “Let down your hair” still means to loosen up, become more wild.
Secondly, Paul thinks it is important to maintain gender distinctions. Men are supposed to have short hair that is loose, and women are supposed to have long hair that is bound. Paul says if a woman lets down her hair in a loose fashion, then she’s wearing her hair like a man, and she might as well cut her hair short–which for Paul would be shameful. Paul goes into a lengthy argument about how men and women are created differently, and he clearly wants that distinction to be honored.
Unfortunately, part of Paul’s argument seems to be that men and women are in different positions on the created heirarchy. Man is created first, and woman out of man; man is the direct image of God, but woman is the image of man. I don’t think Paul is making this argument in order to say that men are superior or more spiritual than women. Indeed, in verses 11-12 he overthrows such assumptions by showing that men and women have equality in God. So I think his point is not so much about male superiority or “headship” as much as it’s about distinction. I think Paul’s point is simply this: in Christ, men and women are indeed spiritual equals, but they are still distinct genders, and that distinction should be recognized and honored by how they wear their hair.
Why is Paul so concerned to maintain this distinction in how men and women wear their hair in worship services? He seems to be afraid that the Christian community is going to shame itself in the eyes of the larger society (and in the eyes of the angels that oversee the churches). To use a modern example: most churches would not want all of their men coming to worship wearing skirts and lipstick–looking like women. Whether that would be morally wrong or not is beside the point; it would be such a violation of our society’s customs that it would cause unneeded confusion, shock, and offense. Or consider the simple fact that in most churches men are not supposed to wear hats (but women–on special occasions–may). For some reason this is considered disrespectful. I don’t know why, but it is. Just as there are certain words that have highly negative and emotional meanings–and so we avoid saying them (especailly in worship!), so there are certain actions and types of clothing that have emotional and negative meaning. The same was true in Paul’s day.
Looked at in this light, Paul’s instructions don’t look so bad. He is wanting to guard the dignity of the church and not cause unnecessary offense. Churches today do well to do the same thing. Paul’s argument, though, ultimately falls back on what he thinks is “natural” (verse 14), and on custom (verse 16). But, of course, our customs are not the same as Paul’s customs, or the customs of Greco-Roman society. And our sense of what is “natural” is not the same as his. (Do we believe nature teaches us that long hair for men in degrading? What about all our pictures of Jesus!)
We should also note that Paul makes a theological-biblical mistake in his argument. He says that men are the image (“glory”) of God, and women of men. But Genesis 1:27 clearly affirms that men and women together are the image of God. His mistake has been unfortunate since it has helped perpetuate male hierarchy in the church–even though Paul’s larger argument is that, in Christ, that heirarchy no longer exists (verses 11-12, and Galatians 3:27-28).
So we are going to use different markers than Paul used in his day. We no longer think a woman needs to have her hair in a bun in order to maintain proper modesty. We no longer think that men need to have short hair in order to maintain proper modesty. We no longer think it unseemly for a woman to have short hair. And we are not as bothered by mixing men’s and women’s fashions as people in Paul’s day were.
But what about Paul’s instinctual sense that it is improper to break down gender distinctions? On this point, I think Paul’s guidance was helpful for churches in his own time, but this counsel is not as helpful today. We know a lot more about gender identity today than he or his culture knew. We know about chromosomes and some of the other bases for gender identity. We know that some people are a biological mix of genders, and that some people have genitals of one sex but the emotional disposition of the other sex. Unlike Paul’s culture, we allow people to talk more openly about their sense of gender. We are more accepting of people who feel trapped in a body that is not their self-perceived gender. We have the capability to medically reassign a person’s gender. We may also have the grace to let people express their own self-perceived gender indentity.
Paul could not have imagined any of this. We live in a different world with different knowledge, abilities, and sensitivities. Just as Paul had to be sensitive to the culture his churches were in, we have to be sensitive to the culture our churches are in–and it’s a changing culture. Certainly we must not let cultural fads undermine basic ethics. For me, ethics mostly boils down to “don’t do harm.” If we pursue Jesus’ principle of love, and the overarching biblical principle of justice for the weak, I think we will be on the right path. The transgender community is a tiny one, politically weak and vulnerable, and often subject to ridicule and rejection. Is this how the church should treat them as well?
