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” says he is the head of the home. This is affirmed in v. 8, “for man is not from woman, but woman from man.” It is also affirmed by v. 7, where the man does not cover his head, but she does.
2. V. 5 Women could lead in a prayer, or prophesy in church, in their weekly meetings. The earliest church had services which allowed 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.” This 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.
3. Vv 5-7 A woman should have her head covered. 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. In fact, and I realize the third point is not as major as the other two, 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.
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.
1. V. 34 The women’s role, “they are to be submissive,” 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.
2. V. 34 “Let your women keep silent in the churches…” In accordance with submissiveness, women were not to be teachers or take on any speaking, or leadership role. Again, there’s that word “shame” if she disrespects that. But they could, as we saw in I Cor. 11, pray or prophesy in church.
3. V.36-37 Paul’s tough words here suggests that the Corinthian church was in violation of this. 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.
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? I'm not around 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.
1. V. 9-10 The women are urged to be “modest” in their apparel, with “propriety” (another version reads “discreteness”). 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.
2. 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.
3. V. 13, “Adam was formed first, then Eve,” affirms an earlier point.
4. V. 14 The fact that Adam was not deceived doesn’t really speak well of him, I think. 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. He might have looked elegant when speaking with her. Keep also in mind that perhaps it was not a surprise that animals talked—after all, this was a whole new world for everybody. 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). Verse 14 is not saying that Adam was not into transgression. His simply had a different “excuse” than deception.
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 whining would be big and the youth group would be small. You’ve got to be “sexy,” says the modern young women.
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.
1. V. 1-2 One 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.
2. V 1-2 Wives are to “be submissive,” be in “chaste conduct,” and “accompanied by fear.” (Fear is mentioned in verse 2 as well). This is NOT fear of the husband; it is a fear of God, submitting yourself to His commands. I have a blog on “Fear of God” that point out that this attitude is beneficial to the possessor.
3. 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 beauty because you are gentle, was an adornment to God.
4. 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-- submissiveness, being under his headship—is stressed every single time. Thus it is a crystal clear commandment of God. But it is never stressed in sermons, or else watered down beyond all efficacy. It 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. This results in fights over leadership, and marriage is stressful. A family with two heads doesn’t work in a situation 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. Never the best solution, 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 plenary inspiration of the Bible? That phrase means, every and all words (of the original manuscripts) 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, undamaging 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 word 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. But would you reject that? 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, and increases the likelihood that you are denying Him—not a great position to be in at God’s judgment seat, besides making your life less than it could be under His loving wing. Guess what rules He uses to decide who is on His side, and who is on the devil’s side? Why, the Bible, of course. That would be the Bible that you rejected for being sexist. Our “sexist” God decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell--and that depends on us following His Biblical commands. So where does that leave you, who decided it was cooler to make up your own rules and ignore this Bible rule? Will that get you to heaven? I have read the Bible many times, and have never seen a verse where God rewards the “willful, independent thinkers” to heaven. It’s the opposite, obeying God to the letter. Consider the prodigal son (Luke 15). God rewards obedience, and those who repent from disobedience. That’s a big part of love.
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, you are judging God. You are a better judge of what’s moral than God? Again, not a good status as you approach the judgment seat of God someday.
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, never mind what Scripture commands. I can figure out the best solution for this, they say. This is sin; this is doing the same thing Eve did, doubting the goodness of God. Can they go to heaven, when 90% of the time under stress, they ignore His commands and prefer their own? I say no. 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.
So, if we do not know God, by not keeping His commandments, we can be denied heaven.
To get back to the question I posed at the very beginning: Why don’t pastors preach on this? Why do men go along with this, and refuse to stand with Scripture—and refuse to stand up to their wives, acting like so many milquetoasts? 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 abandoned the home 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, “Let’s buy, buy! Yes, sacrifice the little ones for our idol, named Possessions.”
If you’re thinking, well, this chart’s rise could mostly be the increase in welfare moms, with no husband, they need this money to survive. That would only be true if the percentage of such “welfare moms” has quintupled in the 40-year period. Sad to say, not true. The percentage of “welfare moms” has less than doubled—from 9.2% in 1950 to 16.8% in 1990. The rest of the quintupling is made up of women with a husband. If you think this data gets better if it’s updated, you’re wrong. In 2006 (the Bureau of Labor Statistics works slow, I guess), 71% of married women with kids under 6 were working (1). That’s higher yet than the 60% indicated above for 1990.
If you’re thinking, well, the unemployment rate is getting higher, the women have to pitch in to support the family, that’s what’s doing it, you’re wrong again. The unemployment rate is a roller coaster for the 1950-2006 period we’ve covered—between 3% and 7.5% (except for two years). That certainly does not explain why the chart above is straight up, no pauses or backing up like a roller coaster—if that thought were correct, it would be a roller coaster too.
If you’re thinking, that’s not 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, a significant percentage—and a significant sacrifice to family time and their well-being. As of 2012, the wives contribute 37% of family income. To me, this is going the wrong way.
Do the husbands want to fight this upward trend ? And I say this sadly, apparently not. In fact, based on the following chart, maybe it looks that way because they’re willing to drop out of the rat race and let the wives be the primary breadwinner.
In the chart just above, in 1950, 87% of men were in the work force. In 2015, it’s 71%. A 16% drop. In the same period of time, women went from 34% to 60%. A 26% rise. I don’t think that’s coincidental.
Of course, the reason for this trade-off from men to women might not be “men dropouts.” It could be that the labor force can’t hold all the men and women who want jobs, so in many cases, it gets competitive—and the women got the job over the men.
If you ask me, either possible reason for this trade-off is warped. If the women were to quit, and go home raising kids, in the first place, we’d have better kids. Secondly, if they went home, where jobs would suddenly be screaming for people, more men could work, and they could raise 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, God forfend, do a lot more things around the house as a family. What’s wrong with family talks at dinner, family games, reading the Bible together? It’s certainly less expensive. Throw out the multiple cell phones and IOS 7’s, 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.
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.
(1) American Families: 75 years of Change; J Wetzel, 1990, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Charts also from the BLS.
