The Most Ignored Doctrine in the Bible

I would like to take four sections of Scripture and analyze them together, since they are all on the same subject—namely, the woman’s role in the family and in the church.  A hot topic, for sure.  Scripture is crystal clear on several points, but churches and families are not being taught this by their pastors.  The question is, Why?

First, let’s look at I Corinthians 11:3-8:

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. ⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. ⁶ For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. ⁷ For a man indeed 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 is not from woman, but woman from man.

Here are the facts clearly taught regarding the role of women from these verses: 

1.       Verse 3  “the head of woman is man.” This says the man is the head of the home.  This is affirmed by v. 7, where the man does not cover his head, but she does, since covering is a sign of an umbrella of protection--from him. V. 5 says that women could lead in a prayer, or prophesy in church, in their weekly meetings.  The earliest church had services which encouraged congregation participation—someone could lead in a song, another could lead in a prayer of intercession, protection, etc; another could speak in a tongue—and another could “prophesy.”  Prophecy is not just foretelling the future; it’s also, as Vine puts it in his Expository Dictionary, “telling forth the divine counsels”—i.e., as I Corinthians 14:3 says, speaking “edification and exhortation and comfort.”  These two gifts, prayer and prophecy, had great meaning in the early church—but the prophetic gift has fallen into disuse, along with congregational participation. Vv 5-7  says that a woman should have her head covered in service.  This is because she is the “glory of man.”  It was important enough that if she didn’t do it, it was “shameful,” it “dishonors her head,” or as bad as if she shaved off all her hair.    

My question is, have you ever heard a sermon pointing out the obvious facts in these verses?  I doubt not; they seem weird when first looked upon. Have you ever been to a church where the women covered their heads?  I’ve visited a Mennonite church (so said the online yellow pages), but they hired a Baptist pastor and only one very old woman was covered.    I’ve been to a Plymouth Brethren church, which only had maybe five women covered, and covering wasn’t stressed in sermons.  They realized that head coverings were a symbol of women's acknowledgement of this truth.  So the way they avoided controversy was by assuming that women obeyed the truth of this Scripture and did not need a head covering to show that fact. But many women, even in this Plymouth Brethren church, refused to cover, perhaps had no idea what the covering was for, and "followed" their man like the average woman in secular society.

Next, let’s go to I Corinthians 14:33-37:

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. ³⁴ Let your  women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. ³⁵ And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. ³⁶ Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

          V. 34 gives the women’s role: “they are to be submissive,”  as is also taught             in Ephesians 5:22-23a: 

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife…” 
This confirms #1 in I Corinthians 11 above

V. 34-35  “Let your women keep silent in the churches…”  Yet we saw above that women could pray or prophesy in church.  What this verse means, then is that in accordance with submissiveness, women were not to be teachers or take on any speaking sermons, or leadership role.  Again, there’s that word “shame” if she disrespects that.  

    V. 36-37  Paul’s tough words here suggests that the Corinthian church was in violation of this; he considers it a challenge to his getting inspiration from God.  He took that very seriously.  I think his opening sentence in v. 33 about “confusion” has to do with this—confusion is what happens  when these rules are violated. 

Now, are THESE verses being preached on for their obvious meaning?  Again, I suspect, No.  It is another Scriptural command, is it not?  I've heard people call Paul a "sexist guy."  But Paul wrote what God inspired.  So, is God a "sexist" God?  Don't ask me to be around if anyone is making accusations like that to our loving, sovereign God.

Next,   I Timothy 2:9-14:

In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, ¹⁰ but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. ¹¹ Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. ¹² And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

V. 9-10 The women are urged to be “modest” in their apparel, with “propriety” (another version reads “discreetness”).  This suggests not rousing up lustfulness in men.  (Hey, I'm not saying women are at fault in rape.)  Not using “gold or pearls or costly clothing” suggests that they are expressing that their thoughts in life are sober and God-fearing, not gaudy or worldly. So the men hopefully could look at them for their spiritual beauty, instead of being attracted by worldly lust. Unfortunately, it’s true that if a church or youth leader were to teach about sober-minded clothing to teenage girls (along with these other verses on submission to men), the keening and whining would be big and the youth group would be small.  You’ve got to be “sexy,” says the modern young women. Youth group leaders should do everything they can to disabuse that thought and train the opposite. 

V. 11-12 She is to “learn in silence with all submission,” and “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” confirms our earlier discussions.  Paul (or, really, God, right?) is driving home this point several times. 

V. 14 The fact that Adam was not deceived doesn’t actually speak well of him, I think. By the way, I'm not suggesting that his being un-deceived means he didn't sin; future verses make heavy consequences on him for his sin.  Lucifer convinced Eve to doubt God’s goodness, as well as hinting that God was a liar, a great sin for her to think that (see Genesis 3).  If you say, “she should have never believed a serpent, or snake,” keep in mind that the serpent wasn’t cursed to crawl until later.  Keep in mind that all this was brand new, and she didn't know what capabilities God had created each creature with--maybe some creatures He created could talk.  Satan might have looked like an elegant upraised shining light when speaking with her.  What I’m saying is, she had “excuses.”  But Adam fell just because Eve talked him into it.  It wasn’t deception.  Maybe he just did it because he wanted to please her more than pleasing God.  But that was a sin too.  He lost his immortality as she did.  In fact, HE gets chief blame elsewhere in Scripture for this event (see Romans 5).  

Finally, let’s look at I Peter 3:1-6: 

Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, ² when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. ³ Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— ⁴ rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. ⁵ For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, ⁶ as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

V. 1-2  One side reason given for submitting to husbands:  it’s an evangelistic effort to win an unbelieving husband to Christ.  But this idea is a huge “turn-off” to so many women; but that reaction suggests how far we are from the spirit of sacrifice that real Christianity demands.  I might add that you could oftentimes avoid this fate if you obey another Scripture that says not to marry an unsaved person.

V 1-2 Wives are to “be submissive,” be in “chaste conduct,” (no flirting) and “accompanied by fear.” This is NOT fear of the husband; it is a fear of God's judgment on sin, enough to cause her to submit herself to His commands.  I have a blog on “Fear of God” that point out that this attitude is beneficial to the possessor. 

V. 3  Again, Scripture is against outward adornment, “arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel.”  Our women are urged to be God’s adornment, the “hidden person of the heart…beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.”  Being submissive to husbands, and the beauty you show because you are gentle, was an adornment to God.

Sarah was given as an example of proper womanhood, calling her husband “lord.”  I’m not saying we should do THAT, but the woman’s mind should have the same vibe. 

Note that in all four of the Scriptures above, which are all focusing on the teaching on the role of women at home or at church, emphasizes submissiveness, being under his headship—that quality is stressed every single time. Thus it is a crystal clear commandment of God.  But, in all honesty, it is never stressed in sermons, or else watered down beyond all efficacy.  This subject is without question the most ignored important doctrine today.   

If men or women read their Bible with the intent to obey it, it would be clear to them as well, so they too are at fault when they casually ignore it.  The symptoms of this disease?  Confusion over leadership at home.  This results in fights over leadership, and marriage is stressful.  A family with two heads (especially working heads) doesn’t work in a situation, let's say,  where the decision is extremely important to both, and they differ in opinion.  The result?  As every current study shows, divorces are the same high percentages in “Christian” homes as they are in pagan homes.  Yet we should all know,  God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16)—and provided narrow guidelines where it was allowed.   Divorce is never the best solution; it is only allowed.

So here’s what I’m saying in response to this elephant in the room that nobody sees:  Do you believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible?  That phrase means, every and all words are as if written by God—it is written exactly as how He intended it.  Now you could argue that Scripture has been changed over the years due to flawed copying, but examples from the Dead Sea Scrolls and others show that only a few occasional, minor, un-damaging changes have happened. 

If you do believe in God-breathed inspiration, then you can’t accuse Paul as being a sexist for writing what he did, because the words he wrote came directly from God.  It wasn’t like a dream, where God gave him the general idea and let him fill in the rest—and then he did so crudely.  We’re saying, every meaning was really from God. 

So, you say, OK, based on these “rules,” then God is a sexist.  We're so culturally past submission, you say.  If you believe that God, or Paul, wrote every Scripture as biased males, then you don’t really believe in the all-goodness of God.  His commands are for one purpose:  For everybody to live our lives to the fullest.  As Jesus said in John 10:10:

I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly

This is certainly what God, who loves you beyond your mother, your husband, even you, could ever love you, wants.   Would you reject that intense love?  You say you want to live your own life as a female, make your decisions based on your perspective?  This “revolution of independence” is not new. Any such independence is a movement away from God, in this subject.

Here’s a little different argument you may have.  You believe that the Bible has many truths, but many indefensible culturalisms (like its position on womanhood).  But you say that relationship to men has evolved beyond that ugly culture, so you will choose which Bible verses are proper to live by, and which are better for you to ignore.  In response, I say this:  First, you are denying that the Bible is God’s Word for all time.  Secondly, for you to pick and choose your verses that are "culturally relevant," that means you are judging God.  You are a better judge of what’s moral than God?  

It is amazing to me that so many people claim they believe the Bible, but in a critical situation, they cave in to self-will.  I Will decide this one, they say, since this one is important, and the solution seems obvious--never mind what Scripture commands.  But this is sin; this is doing the same thing Eve did, doubting the goodness of God.    Consider I John 2:3-4:

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

The role of women outlined here is clear--and it is a commandment of God.  So does I John 2:4 apply to you? But are you aware what the Scripture says about the eternal destination of those who continually live a lie, and do not embrace the truth?

To get back to the question I posed at the very beginning:  Why don’t pastors preach on this?  Why do pastors refuse to stand with Scripture—and don't encourage men to step up and act like leaders at home?  I have a theory as to the reason.  The theory is surrounded by greed, covetousness, and self-gratification.  This whole thing started with women going to work and making some serious money.  From 1950 to 1990, according to the 1996 Green Book, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of working mothers with children under 6 achieved its greatest growth—it quintupled—from 12% of all working age women to a horrendously high 60%.  To me, that means that 60% of mothers have walked away from their main job, supporting and bonding with the kids, in favor of making more money for the family to spend.  I realize I’m stomping on some nervous threads here, but let’s get it all out:  They’re saying, “I have money!  Now, let’s buy, buy!  Yes, enjoy life more, and we'll give the little ones toys and entertainment, not empathy or closeness when they need us.  Yes, Possessions are more important."

If you’re thinking, well, since there are unemployment males, the women have to pitch in to support the family--but that doesn't explain this huge move.  The unemployment rate is a roller coaster, up and down, for the 1950-2006 period—between 3% and 7.5%.  That certainly does not explain why the women-with-small children chart is straight up, no pauses or backing up.  It's not like women are supporting the men, getting jobs when they're off, then dropping that gig when husbands get back to the grindstone.  If that were the case, both charts would be acting like a roller coaster—but no, it's straight up.  They get caught in the greed of wanting the extra money all the time, and the kids are left behind.

For another slice of data, please observe the chart below.  What do we draw from it?  Women are contributing more to family income.  But is this good?  Consider: The wives have more "skin in the game;" so, they could simply feel that that entitles them to make their desires known on important decisions, whether conflicting with their husband or not--again, ignoring Scripture.

If you’re thinking, that chart does not represent serious labor; that could be minimum hours a week, just some pin money added, on average, not a real sacrifice for wives—the chart below proves that idea wrong.  In 1974, wives contributed 25% of family income; that's not "pin money," that's a significant percentage—and a significant sacrifice to family time and their well-being.  As of 2012, the wives contribute 37% of family income. Yet a greater sacrifice to family support.   Scripturally, in the interest of real family, this is going the wrong way.

Do the husbands want to fight this upward trend ?  Apparently not.  Look on the following chart.  The yellow bars (the men's participation) are in a steady drop. The women rose, then flattened--almost like they're re-thinking whether this was a good idea. Now, it looks like both charts are down.  It looks like the men are willing to stop fighting with the women, give up and drop out of the rat race and let the wives be the primary breadwinner, and she's not sure if she likes how all this is turning out.. 

   

Of course, the reason for this trade-off from men to women might be talent.  I have no problem giving the women that.  But that great talent should be used at home.  Maybe we could get more home-schooling.  It's getting downright dangerous to be in school.  Home schooling wouldn't be so bad, considering how bulliness, rebellion, and anti-learning kids are becoming socially.  They're so poorly trained in school, that they fail in college and lose their Christian faith among all the immorality.  

Or, it could be “men dropouts.”  The weed.  Shame on them. 

If you ask me, either possible reason for this trade-off is not God's plan.  If the women were to go home, we’d have better kids.  Secondly, if they went home, then jobs would suddenly be screaming for people, so more men could work, and the lack of men in the labor force means they could demand a raise in their average pay.  Of course, their total family incomes would decline, but not as much as you think (especially after taxes). With one person at home, they wouldn’t have to spend as much—they wouldn’t need a second car, they would spend less on child care, less on clothing and eating out, less on paying Uncle Sam.  They might be forced to spend less on vacations and fancy possessions; they might want to spend more time looking at discounts.  They might even do a lot more things around the house as a family, like dinners together.  What’s wrong with family talks at dinner,  family games, reading the Bible together?  It’s certainly less expensive.  Throw out the multiple phone pads, multiple TVs and computers.  “Together” is socially beneficial.  Have one computer in the house, in a major traffic area, if you ask me.  If a child wants to do his homework from it, he can put on silencers—or the TV watchers can.  Anyway, less porn results.  Let the kids develop normal thoughts about people of the opposite sex. 

You’re not going to argue here, to tell me that the trends in kids and young marrieds are terrific, so you want to defend the status quo rat race.  You’re not going to tell me that “money buys me happiness” when divorces, child suicides are at all time highs.  You’ve got to take the long view on this, and  train everybody to endure the peer pressure for an upstanding lifestyle. 

Getting back to my original theme, God really does know what’s best for you, ladies.  Forget the grab for more dollars—grab for the husband.  Submit.  Yeah, he might be churlish and make lots of dumb mistakes.  But that’s where you can ask God to fight for you, rather than nagging the husband.   God won’t kill him, like you want on some days (there is virtue in patience), but God is very effective in answering prayers of righteous women.  Oh--and righteous men.

May God help us to obey ALL His commandments.