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. 

First, let’s look at I Corinthians 11:3-5, 7:

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... 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. 

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

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 submission, and being under an umbrella of protection.

V. 5 says that women could lead in a prayer, or could 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.

V. 5 says that a woman should have her head covered in service.  This is because she is the “glory of man.”

My question is, have you ever heard a sermon pointing out the obvious facts of submission in these verses?  I doubt it. 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 mentioned in the many sermons (I was a member).  They realized that head coverings were a symbol of women's acknowledgement of this Scriptural truth.  Many women, even in progressive Plymouth Brethren churches, refused to cover; perhaps they did not even have a clear idea what the covering was for.

Next, let’s go to I Corinthians 14:33-34, 36-37:

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...they are to be submissive, as the law also says....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. 36 has an interesting phrase, “…Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?”  This suggests that they knew the Word, yet kept it down and listened to another word—a culturally acceptable word. In V. 34, it also gives the women’s role: “they are to be submissive.” This 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 I Corinthians 11 above. Getting back to I Corinthians 14 again:

Vv. 34: “Let your women keep silent in the churches…”  A command from God.  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 over men. (Note: in 2024, St. Andrew’s Chapel, in Sanford FL, whose pastor was the great RC Sproul, left the Presbyterian Conference—because the PCA would not totally support women not having a role in teaching men.)

Vv. 36-37:  Paul’s tough words here suggests that the Corinthian church was in violation of this; they had a superior attitude, it appears.  Maybe they even called themselves "progressive" on this, advancing women's worldly cause.  But they were teaching the opposite of God's clear word to Paul.  They were thus challenging that his words came 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 God's rules of order are violated by those who were supposed to believe in them.

Why this "dictator" order?  Why is the Bible "sexist?" Perhaps is to preserve unity at home.  What if father wants to discipline the children differently than the wife?  Today, she feels she has the right to perform opposite from his thinking.  That brings up many problems of lying or deception.  What it also might do, is develop children who learn how to manipulate two parents to get what they want.  Play one parent off against the other.  They grow up with this.  But this is not a Christian response to how your relationship with your spouse should be. Another one:  what if both parents have jobs?  Both enjoy their productivity.  One gets a hard offer to move to another location.  Shall they move? This will cause a great number of problems. Someone will feel resentment.  Related to that is, if the wife is working, she gets pregnant, is she going to have someone else watch her children grow up 9-10 hours a day?  Does a small child develop the proper attachment to mother with such a massive absenteeism?

Now, are THESE problems being preached on today?  And their solution, under God--the wife should submit. Again, I suspect, No.  Is Paul (or God, actually) "sexist?"  No, His rules are always for our best, because He loves us more than we know.  Don't ask me to agree with you if anyone is making accusations like that to our loving, sovereign God.  He has His reasons for doing what we now call "sexist."  Don't even wonder why, don't look for escape from the rule by twisting His Word—or His character.  Just trust that He does all things for His children out of total love.  These were--and are--the best guidance for our lives as married couples.

Next, I Timothy 2:9-12:

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. .

Vv. 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, even if she dresses sexy. Possibly being sexily dressed does lead to more rape--though porn is more likely at fault.)  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 learn more about 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. Do we yield to cultural authority, or God’s Word?

Vv. 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) is driving home this point several times.

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.

Vv. 1-2 Anothe reason given for submitting to husbands:  it’s an evangelistic effort to win an unbelieving husband to Christ.  I can't believe that 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 particular problem 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 the sin of not obeying His commands, enough to cause her to submit herself to His commands.  I have a blog on “Fear of God” that point out that this attitude toward God is beneficial to the possessor. P.S: Many men, when their wife finally trusts him, will do an amazing turnaround and act more responsively and away from their weakness. Many will also become Christians.

V3:  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 and godly, was an adornment to God.  And we are in business to please God, right?  (as a Catechism says,   

Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?
A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.)

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 that I've heard, 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.  (Simple example:  Wife thinks only of higher position in her field, so she indicates at work that she is willing to move. THEN, when such an offer presents itself, she offers an ultimatum to the husband, who doesn't agree--let's move, or we must separate. “The kids will get used to it”).  The result of this opposition to God?  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 changes have happened--NONE affecting any major doctrine.

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 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.  But 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" (in the fullest definition of that word) is a movement away from God. Trust Him.

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?  That's on a slippery slope toward Judgment Day.

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 fully God's 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 (BLS), the percentage of working mothers with children under 6 (not a good time to avoid bonding) achieved its greatest growth—it quintupled—from 12% of all working age women to a horrendously high 60%. A straight-up chart. In May 2025, it was slightly higher yet—68%. To me, that means that 68% of young 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 actual unemployment rate for the same period is a roller coaster, up and down, for the 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, from 1973 to 2012, women went from contributing 26% of family earnings to 37% of family earnings (again from BLS data). 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.  I'm not saying ALL women, just the total of women from one date to the next.

So if you were thinking, the earlier 60% could be minimum hours a week, just some pin money added, on average, not a real sacrifice for wives—but these data will disabuse you of that notion:  wives in 1973 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.  But that wasn't good enough--as of 2012, the wives contribute 37% of family income. Yet a greater sacrifice of children to greed for money.   Scripturally, in the interest of real family, this is going the wrong way.

Do the husbands want to fight this upward trend?  Apparently not.  The data also so that men are dropping out of the labor force in a bigger way (from 87% participation to 72% from 1950 to 2019).  This is before Covid came along to screw it up.  A steady drop. (I'm sorry this website won't let me show the charts). The women participation in the same period rose, then flattened--almost like they're re-thinking whether this was a good idea. It looks like some 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.

It would help to know that if there were a real revival, and women dropped out of the labor force, then what would happen? Men would take the available jobs. With more jobs needed than men available, the wages would rise faster. A simple economic fact of supply and demand. This would draw additional men off the unemployment rolls, to perform their duties as a breadwinner for their family. Incomes per household don’t take a big hit after all--the 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 might not need a second car, they would spend less on child care, less on clothing and eating out, less on paying Uncle Sam.  but this would work only if a substantial number of women realized the importance of bonding with their child. All the more reason to preach this aspect of God’s Word.

Full time parenting would be an exploration for these women. Hopefully, they would really love their growing children more. Who knows? Maybe they would have more of them. The present trend of having children is so low, it is gradually snuffing out Western civilization.

Moms could have other goals besides isolating herself and the children at home.  Consider the state of public schools (again, non-Covid).  They teach evolution, and refuse to allow Bibles or prayer; they ban lots of t-shirts that don't toe their party line.  Well, why not use your talents to rescue your kids from this godless wasteland?  Go back to the way this country was educated in the early 1800s—by families or paid teachers--teachers that meet the families’ approval. Ideally, independent of government interference. Have you ever read the letters that common men in the Civil War wrote home? Unbelievably great grammar, critical thinking--two key elements missing today with public “education.” So think about home-schooling too.  It's getting downright dangerous to be in school.  Homeschooling wouldn't be so bad, considering how bullyness, rebellion, and anti-learning kids are rising in schools.  Kids are so poorly trained in school, that they often fail in college, or lose their purpose in life and Christian faith among all the immorality and agnostic teaching. And let’s not forget the student debt monster.

Getting back to my point: this trade-off.  They might even do a lot more things around the house as a family, like dinners or games together.  What’s wrong with family talks at dinner, reading the Bible together?  Throw out the multiple phones, multiple TVs and have the computers and pads close for monitoring.  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, while the TV is going nearby, he can put on silencers—or the TV watchers can.  Anyway, less porn results, less dangerous connections.  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.  You’re not going to tell me that “money buys me happiness” when divorces, child suicides and even genetic confusion are at all-time highs.  Teenage grads of high schools are not sure if they like men, even. A Pew study in 2023 revealed: a third of 12th-grade girls saying they either have no intention or have "no idea" if they'll marry. Girls don’t find lasting satisfaction in messing with sex. 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, as families.  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.  Yes, we need more men to step up.  Another subject for another blog.

May God help us to obey ALL His commandments.