PART FOUR: TWO RECOMMENDATIONS

Much in this work may be new to the reader and will on that account need to be thought through rigorously before it can be acted upon. I simply ask that the reader follow the example of the noble Bereans of old and search the Scriptures to see whether these things are so (Acts 17:11).

Implicit behind every objection to the teaching of the New Testament on the headship of man is the belief that "there are no conclusive theological objections to the ordination of women to the priesthood." This work has sought to answer this objection.

Two implications flow from this paper.

6.1 OUR APPEARANCE IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD IS IMPORTANT

God was concerned in the Old Testament Church that his priests appeared in the right clothes before Him, and laws were given to prevent their nakedness being seen while performing their duties in the open air and in the sight of all His people. Yahweh is a God who delights in good order and seemliness. He even instructs His womenfolk, "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this" (Deut 22:5). No doubt this detestation is still in force.

God has also laid down how men and women are to appear before Him in the New Testament Church, and we should not ignore His command. In the case of male members an uncovered head has spiritual significance in His sight. In the case of female members a covered head has spiritual significance in God's sight. Once this truth has been grasped by the mind it gives every member a settled sense of relationship with the spiritual world and with God.

Those who see nothing wrong with a woman having an uncovered head in church should logically see nothing wrong with a man having his head covered in church. If it was only a custom for women to be covered it is only a custom for men to be uncovered. If some brave woman had to be the first to break the custom why may not some brave man be the first to break his custom? Why are men still bound by custom today but women are free&emdash;and free to have her head covered or uncovered as she pleases? There really can be no objection to men wearing their hats (or any head-gear) in church if there is no spiritual significance in an uncovered head. Indeed, it might be a good thing for men to wear some head-gear in church just to remove any superstitious, or misdirected, reverence that may have attached itself to the custom.

It must be admitted that many people would think it irreverent if a man came into church without taking his hat off. Irreverent? In whose eyes? It is only a human custom that must change eventually, so why not begin now? Jewish men and Moslems pray to God with their heads covered, so why may not Christian men? It would only appear strange for a few weeks, then people would get used to it, and wonder what all the initial fuss was about. Then men and women would be equal in having the choice either to keep their head gear on or take it off, when they come into church.

On what grounds could the Elders come to a man in the congregation and request him to remove his headgear/hat? Because it is the custom? If they appeal to custom they are on shaky ground because the man's wife sitting next to him has managed to break free of her custom, and no one attempts to reimpose it upon her, particularly now that the Catholic church has ruled: "These prescriptions [on head-coverings] are no longer obligatory." The only grounds on which Elders can make their request for men to remove their covering is theological, namely, that, "Every man who prays and prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head" that is, he dishonours the Lord Jesus before God and the angels. And, similarly, in the case of an uncovered woman's head "who prays and prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head," that is, she dishonours Man in general, and her husband in particular (if she is married), in the presence of God, Christ, and the angels. In both cases the grounds for covering or not covering the head are spiritual, not cultural.

If a Christian bishop deliberately ignores the Scripture which says, "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head," and prays to God with a covered head, he dishonours Christ. It is possible that such a man has a reputation for godliness and sincerity, and he may find some circumstance that will justify his practice, nevertheless he brings dishonour on Christ his head. Could such a man really be sensitive to the presence of God in his prayers when every time he prays he causes grief to the one he professes to love? Would not the Lord turn away in disgust from such a man as soon as he sees him bending his knees? Is it not ironical that every act of prayer becomes for Jesus an act of dishonour before the Father and the angels? How can such prayers bring joy to Jesus' heart? How can such a man expect to have his prayers answered?

The same thing applies to the sisters in Christ. To her who knows what she ought to do, but does not do it, to her it is sin (Jas 4:17). Where is the first love that promised Jesus it would do anything for him, or go anywhere for him? How can such love refuse to obey Jesus' explicit command that they cover their heads in his presence?

As the Lord views his congregations today how sad and disappointed he must be to find so few who take his Word seriously, or show any deep concern for good order in his Church. Every man and woman seems to be doing that which is right in their own eyes. It seems that what is unacceptable in Christianity can be ignored, especially when every one else is ignoring it. We are prepared to accept beliefs, but not always the way of life Scripture demands, especially when this clashes with our non-Christian cultural conditioning. It is not difficult to find some excuse for rejecting any doctrine or practice in the New Testament once we have lost our love for Christ.

One of the commonest excuses as far as women are concerned is that the custom of wearing a covering belongs to Eastern culture, we are told, and is, consequently, foreign to our Western culture. We have shown above (at 1.3 & cf. 4.4.9) that whatever pagan or cultural significance this custom had before Christ was born, it received a new significance under the New Covenant. Whatever cultural significance circumcision had before Abraham was born, it received a new significance under the Abrahamic Covenant. We do not go back to the pre-Abrahamic significance of circumcision to understand the significance of Abraham's circumcision, so neither should we go back to the pre-Christian significance of covering the head to understand 1 Corinthians 11:7-10. In both cases these ancient customs were given a new spiritual meaning by God, and surely it is this new meaning that we must keep our eyes on, and not the old, social significance which no longer applies to Christian women, whether they live in East or West.

Before Noah was born the rainbow could be seen in the clouds and the mists. But after the Flood it received a spiritual significance, which it has to this day.

Before the last Passover the bread and the wine on the table did not have the significance that Jesus gave them in the night in which he was betrayed. Yet these four signs, or symbols, are meaningless until they are accompanied by a word of explanation. To most people today the rainbow is merely a rainbow&emdash;a scientific phenomenon. But to the Christian it speaks of God's covenant with Noah never to destroy the world again with a flood (Gen 9:14-16). Circumcision is given its new meaning in Genesis 17; and the bread and wine are given their new meaning in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. The new meaning of the head covering, in the case of women, and the uncovered head, in the case of men, is given in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. Christian baptism is different from Jewish baptism and even John the Baptist's baptism.

It is the duty of teachers and preachers to explain the spiritual meaning that attaches to each of these five symbols: the rainbow, circumcision, bread and wine, baptism, and head covering, otherwise they are meaningless. Yet when we examine the commentaries on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 in very few of them is there a clear distinction made between the new spiritual meaning given to the covering (or uncovering) of the head and its previous social or secular meaning. Following each other, they omit the spiritual meaning with disastrous consequences. Sometimes they give only the social significance of veiling in the Middle East and draw out its cultural implications, and then think they have expounded the text as far as they can. When this happens Christian men and women rightly reject the cultural meaning as not having any relevance today, and consequently, the practice associated with it. And who can blame them? If you set up a false teaching, parading it as the biblical one, and then "expose" its falseness, who can be blamed for rejecting the "biblical truth"?

Nevertheless, the blame for the present disorder in Christ's Church, and the perpetual dishonour shown to Christ in its services, rests with the Elders, Ministers, Pastors, etc. It is their responsibility to teach the spiritual significance of these things. Yet in their desire to be all things to all men, they have neglected their duty to Christ, their Chief Shepherd. They permit, and in some cases actively encourage, young women to leave the station that God appointed for them and go against the teaching of the New Testament, such is their contempt for the Head of the Church. Bishops and Archbishops think it nothing to pray with their heads covered like women. They can no longer say with Paul: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ;" at least not to the men, though they may be an example to Christian women.

Another excuse put forward for not covering one's head in public is that one would have to be consistent and wear a covering every time one prayed to God. This means that a woman would always have to carry a scarf with her in case she wanted to pray. But would this really be a difficulty for the spiritual woman? Where there's a will there's a way.

We showed earlier (1.3 & 4.4) that the criterion for being uncovered or covered rests on the distinction God made between man and woman in the beginning: "male and female created he them" (Gen 1:27). It is because man "is the image and glory of God" that&emdash;

he ought not to cover his head; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason and because of the angels, the woman ought to have authority on her head.

It is on this solid, theological foundation, which reaches right down into the fundamental distinction between men and women, that they either cover or uncover their heads. It does not matter whether they are rich or poor, Jew or Greek, slave or free, married or single, since the distinction is between male and female worshippers. We may be all one in Christ as regards the means of salvation (faith and baptism, Gal 3:28), but we must also retain the God-ordained distinction between male and female worshippers. To use one text, taken out of context, to destroy either of these two truths, becomes a pretext to destroying both.

On the practical side, if a man covers his head, either in public or private prayer, and approaches his Creator in this manner, is he not denying the fact that he is "the glory of God"? And similarly, if a woman approaches her Creator with an uncovered head, is she not renouncing the fact that she is "the glory of man"?

Are we to make a distinction between public and private prayer? Surely man is still "the image and glory of God" whether he prays in public or in private. Would this not lead to some form of spiritual schizophrenia, and to a theology marked by believing one thing but doing another?

Can we tell new Jewish and Moslem converts to Christianity that they ought not to cover their heads in public prayer (which both religions do), and then encourage them to conduct family worship with their heads covered? What kind of theology would led to this inconsistent practice?

Of course there is always the danger of legalism creeping in. For example, it might be argued that a miner who has to wear a safety helmet must not pray to God during his working hours; and likewise, that a woman must not pray to God spontaneously in the course of her work unless she covers her head. But since God sees the heart and knows the mind and attitude of all His saints, He can discern the genuineness of each case whether the opportunity to conform to His will existed or not, or was impracticable. Are we to say that a trapped miner cannot call out to God for help just because he is unable to remove his safety helmet? That is sheer legalism.

But perhaps there is another practical approach to the problem of what to do during one's private prayer times, and that would be for men and women to obey God in the public assembly of His people, and come before Him as He has prescribed. In this way, and reminding oneself why one is conforming to Scripture, and the significance behind the covering or uncovering, the incongruity of praying to God, in the case of men, bare-headed in church, but covered at home, will become apparent, and men will allow the church practice to spill over into the home. Eventually a consistent practice will emerge, and there will be no dichotomy between church and home practice, between public and private prayer.

The incongruity in the case of the women would likewise be resolved, and a consistent practice would pervade the whole of their prayer life. Perhaps, then, the truth will be found through obedience to what we already know of the Lord's mind on this matter.

Naaman was indignant when the prophet told him to wash in the Jordan seven times. He retorted: "Are not Arbanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the rivers of Israel?" It was below his dignity to wash in the Jordan&emdash;to obey God's word&emdash;simple and clear though it was. His pride, his dignity, stood in the way of his being healed. Eventually he did obey God's word and was healed. It may well be that there are some men and women who feel it beneath them, and an affront to their dignity to obey the Lord Jesus in the matter of how they approach Him in worship. Women, particularly in the Western world, having once got used to being bare-headed will find it virtually impossible to conform to God's express will for them. Those who do will have undergone a deep, spiritual recommitment of their lives to Christ. And those who wilfully and deliberately throw off the covering, and the teaching that goes with it, as too humiliating for them to accept will lie under God's displeasure.

What we have to contend with is the pride that rejects obedience and the acknowledgment of headship in all relations. The obedience a wife owes to her husband is rejected, perhaps as frequently by men as by women, because it is obedience itself that is rejected, above all the obedience that man owes to God. . . . Christ is indeed Master and the Church looks up to him; but what kind of Master? He "gave himself for it" on the Cross; so must the human husband be willing to give himself for his wife, as she in turn looks up to him.

Lastly, while many are taken up with the theory that sexist language contributes to keeping women in a position inferior to that of men, it should be noted that it is God who has created the distinction among mankind of male and female beings. He has also determined that this distinction be maintained in the worship due to His Son.

It would seem that man has an innate tendency to do the opposite to what God requires of him. Of marriage God said, "And they shall be one flesh," but man regularly puts asunder what God has joined together. He does the exact opposite in the case of creation, for we read: "male and female created he them," but man now joins together what God made distinct, and he substitutes "human persons," or "human beings" instead. Yet it would seem that it was expressly in order to maintain the creation distinction between male and female that God requires males to be bare-headed in His presence, and females to be covered in His presence. In this instance I would prefer to obey God rather than man.

Our appearance before God is indicative of our attitude toward Him. If He has commanded us through the Holy Spirit to come before Him in a certain way, and we ignore that commandment, then we are in a situation of open rebellion against Him. Coming together in church in a defiant mood not to conform to His declared standards of dress deserves nothing but His contempt for us and our so-called worship.

Jesus said, "How hard it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." The corollary for the woman is, "How hard it is for the feminist woman to enter the Kingdom of God." Where does "rich" and "feminist" begin? How rich or how feminist do you have to be to be disqualified from entering heaven? Isn't it the mindset that is the barrier; the sense of being independent of God's control that is the issue?

The Western Christian woman feels this barrier when she contemplates taking a headscarf, putting it on her head and appearing in Church with it on for the first time. She won't. She rebels at the thought. And at that point she comes up against Jesus' "rich barrier." She now knows what He means because she experiences indignation and rebellion. She feels demeaned, humiliated, insulted at the thought of appearing in public covered. At that point she realises she is too proud, too independent, to accept the position that God has appointed for her, as a female, in this life. She feels it is beneath her dignity to accept the headcovering as a sign of her total surrender, as a female, to God's will. What will others think of me when they see me praying in public with a headcovering on? They will feel that I have let the feminist cause down; that I have given in to male domination.

Until she can accept that the covering is an acceptance symbol of her place in God's world and this produces a truly submissive spirit in her she will never get close to God, because He says this is how you get close to Me (either in private or public prayer). The acceptance-submission is not only to God's will but to her husband's will. She is bound to do his will as he is bound to do Christ's will. This is the essence of headship. She is to set the example for him and he is to set the example for her in their respective headship relationships. A relationship with these goals can never break up.

His uncovered head is an acceptance-submission symbol in relation to Christ, his Head. He is to be as fully committed to doing the will of Christ as his wife is committed to doing his will. For both of them following Christ is to be a complete way of life, not something tagged onto their lives. It should completely dominate all their waking moments. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength" does not leave any room for anyone or anything else to get a look in. Meet such a person and you will meet the nearest thing to a clone of the Lord Jesus walking again on the earth. But this is the goal for every man. Without His prayer life; without His holiness, man will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. "Your will be done," must be a complete way of thinking put into practice. Get started, it is a marvellous journey and experience, with a marvellous outcome both in this life and the next. The sacrifices, the jeers and the sneers, will be worth the ages of joy in Heaven with your Lord and Saviour. Stick to the ancient, straight paths and let the feminists and compromisers go down their own crooked by-paths and by-passes to the motorway leading to destruction and Hell. There is nothing you can do for them. They were destined for that end as you will conclude when you encounter them thrusting headlong in a headstrong manner away from Christ's clear teaching blinded by their own brilliant insight into a new, feminist interpretation of Christ's Gospel. They promise the 'water of life,' but are clouds without water. They promise 'Christian fruit,' but are trees without fruit. They promise 'life,' but are twice dead themselves, foaming up their own shame, wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever (Jude 12-13). Keep away from such, lest your pure, white garment of Truth becomes soiled with their corrupting doctrines and practices. "You have a few names . . . [in your local church] . . . who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white [says Jesus], for they are worthy" (Rev 3:4). Feminism in any shape or form is a defiled garment. Recognise it by its distinctive creed of "sexual equality," accompanied by its distinctive practice of an uncovered, female head when praying to her god. Flee from both innovations as you would flee the plague and mark carefully the middlemen of the Serpent. These middlemen, using very moderate, smooth, scholarly talk, first challenge the Truth, "Did God say to women, cover your head?" in their scholarly commentaries and monographs. Next, they substitute a different interpretation, and the end result of their smooth talking is an opposite practice: "Do not cover your head." By their fruit (practice) you will recognise them, not by their "evangelical" label, reputation or denomination.

The Serpent's agents (apologists) are found in all walks of life and professions, but the critical density is greatest within the leadership class of the main denominations. Two out of every three Bishops of the Church of England are middlemen, to go by the 1994 vote in the House of Bishops for women's ordination. Virtually 100% of all evangelical ministers, of all denominations, are middlemen, either through ignorance (the default position) or they have been deceived by the agents' arguments. Virtually every evangelical minister has to be a middleman today to make a living out of the Gospel. The irony is that this is legitimate if he preaches the true Gospel. They are making a living at the expense of the true Gospel which is robbery. These ministers and lecturers are thieves&emdash;temple robbers. The Lord's monies are financing the Serpent's agents inside His own Church!

You can easily recognise the churches of these middlemen. They have two very unmistakable and distinctive marks: (a) women speak in the public worship services, and (b) the women in the congregation pray to God (or should it be "to a god"?) with an uncovered head. These are the marks of disobedient, feminist churches where, not unexpectedly, a sense of worshipping God is often absent, and the 'show' is kept going by a strong appeal to the physical senses of pleasure, entertainment, and variety (and a lot of noise which drowns out the still, small voice that yearns for the quiet silences of meditation allowing faith to sense the presence of God in the midst of His people). Fellowship is more horizontal than vertical. In this lies its mesmerising attractiveness.

If you are a member of such a church, contribute nothing toward the salary of the staff. Do not allow God to be robbed of His money. Instead, give it to those on the mission field who are preaching the true Gospel, and go on quietly challenging feminism wherever you encounter it in the church. Remain faithful to the Traditions of the Early Church and the Reformation Churches no matter what the personal cost may be to you. Today's feminist trend will pass but not without taking the majority of Western Christianity with it. Seven thousand out of an estimated two to three million Hebrews, or 1 in every 300 (0.35%) members of the Old Covenant Church refused to bow the knee to Baalism. This means that 299 out of every 300 did bow the knee. Be that one person in every 300 who will not bow the knee to feminism&emdash;the modern form of Baalism.

6.2 OUR DEMEANOUR IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD IS IMPORTANT

Here we are concerned with the place men and women occupy in the worship service of the church. The teaching is clear enough, "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches" (1 Cor 14:34); and, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (1 Tim 2:12-14). The custom of silence was as universal as the custom of covering the head. These were the two distinctive marks that characterised the place of women in Christ's new society. One's reactions to them is indicative of one's relationship to Him. Hatred of one, is hatred of the other.

Behind the New Testament practice of silence lies a solid, theological foundation, the principle statement being: "the head of the woman is man." In sections 2.1 to 2.4 we showed that the New Testament teaching on submission rests on:

1. The Order of Creation&emdash; The Priority of Man

2. The Origin of Woman&emdash; Created for Man

3. The Original Sin&emdash; The Priority of Woman in Sin

4. The Order of the New Creation&emdash; The Headship of Man

Now, only by rejecting this solid, theological basis is it possible to reject the New Testament practice. Can we reject the practice but hold on to the theology? If there is a change of practice, there must, of necessity, be a change of theology to undergird it (Heb 7:12). Christians are entitled to examine the new theology before accepting the new practice which amounts to a new Gospel&emdash;the Gospel according to the Feminists.

It is interesting that the inspired writer uses the same word to describe the shame that a bald woman feels, and the shame he felt when a woman spoke in church. Perhaps the nearest parallel to Paul's sense of shame is to be found in the Orthodox Jewish synagogue. Having attended such a synagogue for about one year, I can appreciate the sense of acute embarrassment it would cause to everyone there&emdash;men and women&emdash;if a woman began speaking in public: it is unthinkable. Yet all the women join in the communal aspects of the worship and join with the men in reciting the long prayers and in singing the Psalms. The "silence" enjoined on women by the Lord Jesus would, then, only refer to the individual woman speaking in the church, and not to her participation with the men in the communal singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, as well as the prayers. If so, this would agree well with the statement that Christian women "must be in submission, as the Law says," and, "if they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" (1 Cor 14:34-35).

The conclusion is that the New Testament Church had two universal customs. First, men uncovered their heads, and women covered theirs, when they were praying and prophesying.

Second, women were not permitted to speak in the church, or to teach, or to have authority over men.

These two theological customs (to mention but two) were firmly grounded in theological statements, as we have shown conclusively, and not in prevailing, man-made customs.

In essence, the issue boils down to this: Do we accept the spiritual significance given to these two universal customs, as clearly taught in the Bible, or are we to search for their original, pagan, or cultural significance, to explain the practice throughout all the New Testament churches from Jerusalem to Rome, in every place where Paul established churches and ordained Elders?

A parallel situation would be: Do we accept the spiritual significance given to Abraham's circumcision as set out in Genesis 17, or do we ignore that chapter and search for the significance of Abraham's circumcision in its pagan, or cultural significance?

I think that most Christians would agree that we must make the new spiritual meaning our starting-point in any discussion of these customs, and their relevance for today. It is a red-herring, and an irrelevancy, to resurrect the old pagan or cultural idea about these customs in order to explain the New Testament practice. Our understanding of the New Testament practice must be based solely and entirely on the theological statements of the New Testament itself. We do not require to understand the original significance of head covering before New Testament times, any more than we require to understand the original significance of circumcision before Abraham's day. The Scriptures alone are sufficient to explain both practices and how they should be understood.

Our demeanour before God is indicative of our attitude toward Him. If He has commanded His women worshippers to be silent before Him in Church, and they refuse to be quiet, then they are in open rebellion against Him, however spiritual their verbal contribution may be regarded by others. Underlying their preaching, and threaded through it, is a note of defiance not to be silent. Such defiance is sinful and will justly be met with contempt by God and all righteous men and women who know what God's standards are.

The covering of her head, and her acceptance not to speak in church, is the mark of a woman who acknowledges her feminine role in God's created order, and is determined to remain in it to the glory of God.

Likewise the uncovering of the head, and the full involvement and participation in the worship service is the mark of a man who acknowledges the responsibility that God has placed upon him in the created order, and is determined to remain in it to the glory of God.

6.3 THE WAY FORWARD: WHAT OF THE FUTURE?

A comparatively recent innovation has been forced on the Church&emdash;the ordination of women&emdash;and other innovations have silently enveloped the Western Church (e.g., the uncovered head) and the promotion of women to active participation in the worship service. In the light of this there can be no stranger proceeding than to pray to the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, while we ignore the guidance which the Holy Spirit has given persistently and consistently in the 2,000 year-long experience and practice of the Christian Church.

The Western Church is a schismatic church. Authority to change world-wide customs does not lie in the national portion of the Church. The national, or local church, cannot lawfully override or contradict the universal, of which it is but a part. This is the lesson from the Corinthian church.

This work will have one of two effects. Some will search diligently to see whether these things are in agreement with the letter and the spirit of the Word, while others will refuse to look through this work, like those who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, lest they see with their own eyes what they have become convinced is not there or does not exist. But there is something liberating about Truth and the way it prompts the searcher "this is the way, walk in it." To know for certain what is the will of God in any given situation or doctrine brings a unique peace and assurance into the soul. No wonder Paul's desire was that his converts would be filled with the knowledge of the Lord Jesus (cf. Col 1:9-10; 2 Cor 4:6), and come to a full knowledge of the truth (cf. 1 Tim 2:4).

It is a little ironic that if we did not have the deviations from the Truth in the early churches of the New Testament we would be in greater confusion today than we are. As a result of combating wrong theology and correcting wrong practices the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles into all Truth. If we did not have their written works then we would be without objective evidence to combat error. It would have been a case of "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" over the introduction of every false doctrine and practice into the heart of the Christian religion. But we have a sufficient defence of the Apostolic order in the New Testament writings to enable us to extract the principles they used to combat any deviant behaviour or doctrine and it is these principles (as regards the specific issue under scrutiny here) that have been set forth in the theological section of this work.

How can the conclusions of this work be put into practice? It is my understanding that once a church has departed from the universal practice of the New Testament Church it seldom returns to it. I would not attempt to reform such "dead" churches, i.e., the mainline churches. The situation will soon be reached where whole denominations will be in a 50-50 situation as regards the ratio of male and female vicars, ministers, pastors. But in these denominations there is often a two-thirds majority voting system before a change can be introduced. Now if in the future 50% (or more) of the clergy are women and, as Demetrius candidly stated, "by this business we have our income" (Acts 19:25), they are unlikely to vote themselves out of their living. Therefore, there is no possibility, short of a wholesale reformation of the Church, that any denomination with a 50-50 gender split will ever return to Christ's practice of appointing men to teach men. That denomination is dead to His voice. It has lost its distinctive identity by ceasing to abide in the Vine. It may have a name that it is "alive," and produce bright services and be pleasant and welcoming, but this all masks the fact that it is dead in the eyes of the Lord, because it has become detached from its Head.

The Old Testament Church was so distinct in its system of worship and laws that Yahweh predicted they would be the marvel and envy of the nations around them, if they would obey Him (Deut 4:6-8). Great stress is put on Israel being different from all other nations in their beliefs and practices (Ex 33:16; Lev 18:1; 20:23, 26; Deut 14:1-2). But that is the one thing Israel did not want to be. They were embarrassed to be so different, and the trend was always to become like their neighbours after each restoration. They fraternised with other religions which led to friendships, which led to mixed marriages, the very thing God warned them not to do (Ex 34:2, 16; Deut 7:3). Yahweh frequently appealed to them to read His laws carefully and follow every detail of them (Lev 22:29; Deut 5:32; 6:17) and blessing would follow (Deut 6:25; Josh 1:8).

It is unlikely that the present major denominations are ever likely to return to New Testament principles again, or to the meaningful universal practices that arose from them. The present structures are probably too dead, and inflexible to contemplate, or undergo, a return to the theological foundation of the Early Church and its practices. If new wine requires new skins to contain it, then maybe these new skins could come in the form of house churches, or house fellowships, led by men who know the Scriptures, the Creeds of the Church, and the biblical languages.

These fellowships, while remaining within their parent denominations, could enable their members to make a fresh start and apply New Testament theology and practice to their lives. In this way, Christians within the major denominations will be able to by-pass the present trend of encouraging Christian women to take up positions of authority over men in God's flock.

These fellowships could be semi-autonomous and provide a means of being faithful to God's Word even though the denomination to which they belong is steadily moving further away from Scriptural principles. As the situation within the denomination becomes more and more intolerable, disaffected Christians may look to these house-churches for fellowship, instead of leaving the denomination altogether to join some other sect or denomination.

If in time the major denominations begin appointing women bishops, archbishops, pastors, ministers, clergy, or moderators, these house-churches may wish to become completely independent, and become the new, fresh growth of the Vine whose husbandman is the Father. Every branch that does not bear fruit He takes away, and casts into the fire. "This is my Father's glory," said Jesus, "that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples . . . . If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love . . . . You are my friends if you do what I command . . . . This is my command: Love each other" (Jn 15).

The nucleus of the house-churches must be the family. Their stability will largely depend on the stability of the family unit. Each family unit should recognise the headship of the father/husband. If that can be achieved then there will be fewer problems with the appointment of Elders from among those heads of families who lead their own houses well.

If the family is a micro-form of the church, and the building-block of the macro-form, then it is essential that its head knows how to lead his own house well.

In these house-churches one man will not dictate how the service should be conducted. All men will be free to contribute as and when they are moved to do so in the meeting. All men will be equal and leadership will arise spontaneously through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Elders will arise by virtue of their gifts. No office should be filled by paid officials because of the abuse that this has led to in the past: all men will do the disciplining (as was the case in Corinth, 1 Cor 5:4) and ordering of their services (1 Cor 14), making due allowance for those whom God has clearly gifted with teaching His word. The days are over when young men can buy their way into office in the church by doing a three-year course of so-called theological training and then take over the care of an assembly of God's people. This is an unnatural route into the ministry and must be avoided in future. After such theological training, young men should work alongside those older in the faith in their local church setting (compare the relationship between Paul and Timothy) before being set aside for a work that they show evidence of having the gift for. Pastoral work should be the work of all the men in these house-churches, and not left to one paid individual. Only evangelists should be paid members of any house-church, apart from funding 'faithful men' (2 Tim 2:2) who have shown an aptitude for teaching God's Word in order to keep the biblical languages alive in the Church. All others should give their time at their own expense and out of love for Christ (not love of money).

Although the immediate practical consequences of this book will be seen and felt in the weekly gathering of God's people to worship Him through Jesus Christ in a visible distinction between men and women as regards the head-covering and in the silent participation of women in the service, it is the long-term effect on the family unit that will benefit most by the recovery of the biblical doctrine of headships.

When men adopt a totally submissive attitude toward Christ, their head, then we will see a new man emerge who will be capable of loving his wife and family as Christ did, and one who will have an evangelical zeal to transform the rest of mankind.

When women adopt a totally submissive attitude toward their heads, their husbands, then we will see a new woman emerge who will devote her life to the one she loves. In giving she will enjoy the trust and honour that such devotion brings and deserves.

Both new man and new woman have the new Adam as their model of what is involved in true, loving submission. The natural man and the natural woman cannot understand this model, because it is spiritually discerned, but only by being in harmony with God's good headship order will men and women experience peace and happiness in the human family.

6.4 OVERVIEW AND EPILOGUE

Another title would be: "A Defence of the Traditional Doctrine of Headship and its Theological Practices."

The traditional practice of the universal Church in the apostolic period was for men to conduct the public worship of God's people. The same tradition was preserved in the post-apostolic period. The same tradition was confirmed in the Reformation Churches and was practised until the beginning of the twentieth century. Wherever missionary churches were set up in all the continents of the world the practice was retained.

Throughout the twentieth century this tradition came under attack with the rise of the feminist movement. By the end of the twentieth century the tradition was all but lost in the rich, affluent, western denominations This change in Church order was then gradually exported to the missionary denominations throughout the world.

Is this world-wide trend of God or of man? The conclusion of this paper is that it is of man. We are in a period of deception. The analysis of this work is that in the apostolic period the doctrine and the practice were understood. Through time, these became separated and just the practice continued. Unfortunately, the theological reasons were lost.

This state of affairs might be likened to a car whose engine became clogged up and stopped working, but because the car had sufficient momentum this was not noticed for a long time until eventually it came to a halt. Only then did the occupants discover that they were sitting in a vehicle that they knew had come from the apostolic period but why it was not still moving forward they had no idea. The shell of the car is the Church itself. The engine was the Gospel and its inseparable theological traditions that had once moved the Church forward. The car having come to a halt a hitch-hiker, Miss Sexual Equality, got on board and she is presently sitting comfortably in the front driving seat holding the wheel of a Church that is going nowhere. It is stuck in a vast, barren, godless desert where its hope is slowly ebbing away mesmerised by the mirage of sexual equality. (Paul taught "sexual quality"&emdash;same moral image, but not the same sex!)

The purpose of this work is to restore the original powerhouse doctrines that gave the apostolic Church its life and vision and strength to turn its world upside down. Once the engine is repaired it is up to the rightful occupants of the car to take over the wheel again and get moving forward in its task of taking the original, unadulterated, undiluted Gospel with its inseparable theological traditions into all the world. A little feminist leaven has completely altered the shape of the Gospel. The twentieth-century should be looked upon as a roadside breakdown&emdash;a temporary hiatus&emdash;and nothing more. A reformed Church should get the car going again and continue on its Christ-honouring journey of freedom and love and happiness toward the day when the original Gospel will cover the earth as the waters cover the seas, and harmony and good order will once again characterise the lives of God's people.

REPAIRING THE DAMAGED DOCTRINE OF LOVE-HEADSHIPS

Throughout this work reference will be made to a work which I have put on my web-site entitled, "Good Order in the Church: the Head of Man is Christ&emdash;the Head of Woman is Man" (hereafter GOITC) where a fuller treatment and sources will be found under section (§) marks.

The web-site is: http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12

Such was the universality of the practice for men to conduct the public worship of God's people that the Roman Catholic commission on Women's Ordination noted (§5.2):

The Catholic Church has never felt that priestly or episcopal ordination can be validly conferred on women. A few heretical sects in the first century, especially Gnostic ones, entrusted the exercise of the priestly ministry to women: this innovation was immediately noted and condemned by the Fathers, who considered it as unacceptable in the Church. . . . But over and above considerations inspired by the spirit of the times, one finds expressed&emdash;especially in the canonical documents of the Antiochian and Egyptian traditions&emdash;this essential reason, namely, that by calling only men to the priestly Order and ministry in its true sense, the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.

The same conviction animates mediaeval theology, . . . Since that period and up to our own time, it can be said that the question has not been raised again, for the practice has enjoyed peaceful and universal acceptance. The Church's tradition in the matter has thus been so firm in the course of the centuries that the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a law which was not challenged. . . .

The same tradition has been faithfully safeguarded by the Churches of the East. (§5.2)

DEFINITION OF HEADSHIP

Headship can be defined as a relationship between two persons in which one person voluntarily submits to do the will of the other.

Only three known headships of this kind are revealed in Scripture, they are between God and Christ, Christ and Man, and Man and Woman (1 Cor 11:3). Each is a mirror image of the other pairs. Each pair throws light on the others and shows what is involved in such a relationship.

All headship relationships are obedience relationships, but not all obedience relationships are headship relationships, in the same way that all virgins are girls, but not all girls are virgins, or all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples (GOITC, Chart 1).

The relationship of a son to his father is an obedience relationship but the head of the son is not his father, but Jesus Christ because the head of every man is Christ, not his earthly father. Jesus obeyed his parents. He was submissive to them (Lk 2:51). As he grew up he was aware that God was his head not his earthly father.

Under the old covenants, and especially the Mosaic Covenant, all men everywhere had God as their direct head, not the Lord Jesus (GOITC, Chart 3). Only among His chosen people did God dwell in a Tabernacle or Temple. All male Israelites approached God through the levitical priesthood with their heads covered. God's headship operated from Adam until Christ so that all men related directly to God. Then something new happened: God handed over His headship to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. He now became the mediator between God and Man. From now on God revealed that all men should approach Him through His Son. This was a completely new way into the presence of God and from now on the only way. From now on the head of every man would be Christ, not God.

In recognition of this handover of headship and the transfer of total power to the Lord Jesus for the duration of mankind's time on earth, all men were to come before God with an uncovered head. This was a completely new tradition for Israel to adopt and the majority could not accept it because of unbelief and went on coming before God with a covered head. This was an insult to the new Head of humanity. "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonours his head [i.e., Christ]" (1 Cor 11:3).

But the Incarnation also elevated mankind. From now on Christ was in man, and man was in Christ (Jn 17:2). Christ, the express "image of God" and man, "the image and glory of God," shared one thing in common, they both had God's image of headship. It was now inappropriate to cover the image of God in Christ and in Man. This was the second reason for Man appearing before God with an uncovered head.

The change of tradition heralded a new era in the relation between God and Man. Jesus, not God, would be the One who would judge all men on the final Judgment Day. When Jesus has completed the task of redemption and judgment he will hand back the headship to his Father and the original relationship of Son to Father will be restored, which is an obedience relationship, not a headship relation (1 Cor 15:28).

When man formally appears before God in prayer or in God's name preaches the Gospel, he must do so in the manner prescribed for his sex. He must be careful to pray and preach with an uncovered head. This apostolic tradition was based on theology not local custom. It rests on two permanent, universal facts, namely, that Man is "the image and glory of God;" and that the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of all men everywhere and in all ages. This tradition cannot be changed by any decree of the Church in any age. It is set in concrete for all time, in all continents, in all cultures. It is distinctively Christian both in concept and symbol.

WORSHIP IS CONDUCTED THROUGH AN ALL-MALE PRIESTHOOD

When God set up His worship through the laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai, He deliberately focused the attention of every male on Himself, to serve Him with all their heart and soul and mind and strength. When He worded the Ten Commandments He has only males in view. (The principle that if it applies to men then it will also apply to the women and children under his care is taken for granted in Scripture.) When He directed who should bring the nation's offerings into His presence, He restricted it to a male priesthood. When He directed who should sing in His choirs, He restricted this to males. When He gave instructions who should prepare the different layers of skins, cloths and curtains to construct the Tabernacle, He gave the work to males only. The preparation of the perfumes was given to males. Everything to do with the construction and service of the Tabernacle and Temple was the work of His servants, the males. They also carried it and reassembled it throughout the forty years of wandering in the wilderness. The total burden of God's worship fell squarely on the shoulders of the men.

What special part did His female worshippers have in all this worship (cultus)? None. They were silent and adopted a supporting role to their menfolk, knowing that God had placed the full responsibility on the shoulders of their menfolk. It was not a shared responsibility with a distinctive female input. There was no division of functions. All was the work of their husbands, brothers and sons. They accepted this as God's will for them. It was how God wanted it and planned it. It was also done with an eye to His Son's Church worship. Men could not pass their responsibility on to their womenfolk.

The Spirit sanctioned and safeguarded this God-ordained arrangement with the universal injunction, "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" (1 Cor 14:34).

The Spirit points out two things. First and negatively, permission has not been given to the women to take any part in the worship of God under the New Covenant. They worship through their menfolk as the Law says. The assumption is that the exclusion of women having a direct, individual input into God's worship has not been changed by God. There was no positive directive overruling her past position "in the Law." Consequently, her position has not been changed.

Second and positively, the Spirit points out that she is to adopt the same posture and position as she had in relation to God's worship under the Mosaic Covenant, "but they are to be submissive, as the Law also says" (1 Cor 14:34). She is to have no direct input into the New Covenant services any more than she had under the Mosaic Covenant. She is not left in any doubt what her relationship to the menfolk is under the New Covenant. God, once again, puts the focus and responsibility fully on the shoulders of His male servants. They, and they alone, have been given permission to speak in the churches, to teach and edify one another, and to evangelise the nations.

The Spirit's ruling shows that the Law continues in force unless it is specifically changed. The Spirit reveals that nothing has changed as regards the position men and women are to play in God's worship services. Their responsibilities are the same under both Covenants. There is continuity of male-only directed worship in this regard. Discontinuity would require a directive from the Lord. Has He given it yet? If not, then women have no authority to speak in His churches. They are being disobedient if they do so. (This will be looked at in greater depth below.)

Man was made directly to serve God. Woman was made directly to serve Man. This difference in their creation explains why God focuses on Man to worship and serve Him, because He has given Woman to serve Man, and through her service she fulfils the purpose of her special creation. If she fails to serve Man as God intended, then she has failed to serve Him. She is a disgrace to Him. Her service to God is indirect, in that it comes through fulfilling the chief design of her creation, "Man was not created for the Woman, but Woman for the Man" (1 Cor 11:9).

In working out her headship relation to Man, she should focus on the Lord Jesus' example and his words, "Not my will but yours be done," and say this in her heart to her husband daily and hourly until it becomes a deep-seated attitude of total, joyful, complete, submissiveness, governed by a deep desire to do the will of her husband in everything, "wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). "Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything" (Eph 5:24). "Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands . . . for in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are . . . ." (1 Pet 3:1-6).

Through these statements the Spirit teaches the apostolic Church that the headship relation that obtained under the Old Covenants has not been changed: Man is still the head of Woman.

Thus the Spirit teaches two fundamental truths. First, under the Old and New Covenants nothing has changed in regard to God's worship: men, and men only, are given permission to speak in the congregations of God's people. No permission has been given to women to speak in the church. It is irrelevant whether women played a direct part in Greek or Roman religions in Corinth. The Spirit is following his own agenda which is based on God's specific positioning of women 1500 years previously.

Second, the headship relation between Man and Woman has not been changed. Consequently, the Hebrew Scriptures can be a great source of teaching on both topics. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17).

If Man fails to serve God directly, he is a rebel and a disgrace to His Creator, because he has failed in the chief design of his creation. What was said of the wife, vis-à-vis her headship relation to her husband, applies to man's relation to Christ, namely, his service to God is direct (hers was indirect), in that it comes through fulfilling the chief design of his creation, "Man was not created for the Woman, but Woman for the Man." The corollory is that Man was made for God, not for Woman.

In working out his headship relation to Christ, he should focus on the Lord Jesus' example and his words, "Not my will but yours be done," and say this in his heart to Him daily and hourly until it becomes a deep-seated attitude of total, joyful, complete, submissiveness, governed by a deep desire to do the will of Christ in everything, "Serve the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength."

HEADSHIP IS AT THE HEART OF MARRIAGE

Doing the will of another person is what headship is all about. It is a very special relationship and applies only to three pairs of persons. We know about them only through special revelation, consequently, the natural man and woman do not have the key by which to regulate their marriages resulting in predictable break-downs because two selfish wills are competing all the time and eventually one stubborn issue will result in separation and divorce.

In Christianity, the Christian marriage cannot break up unless the doctrine of headship is set aside. Where it is not set aside then the wife will see in the model of Christ's obedience to the Father's will, how she ought to obey her husband's will. She will also see in the example of her husband's total obedience to Christ's will, how she ought to respond to his will. Likewise the husband will see in his wife's voluntary submissiveness to him a living example of how submissive he should be to his Lord in everything. The husband will also see in Christ's submissiveness to His Head a model for him to emulate, and he will see in Christ's love for his bride, the Church, how he ought to love his wife.

How can such a marriage relationship ever break up? It cannot. Sin would have to enter and destroy the doctrine of headship first before it could destroy such a love-headship relationship. The threat to every Christian marriage comes through a hairline crack. In the case of the wife it will come when she starts to disobey her husband in small, insignificant (in her opinion) ways. In the case of the husband it comes when he starts not to love her in small, insignificant ('minor,' in his opinion) ways. Then the cracks get wider and wider, and feed off each other.

Christian marriage counsellors have the key to understanding why any marriage (Christian or nonchristian) breaks up, and they have in the doctrine of love-headships the key to their restoration. There is no other key to lock-in the love between two complementary genders in this beautiful of all human relationships. Marriage is used as the model of Christ's relationship to his Bride, the Church, because love is as strong as death and a man will lay down his life for his betrothed one.

LOVE-HEADSHIPS AND FORCE-HEADSHIPS

There are two sides to headship: a love side and a force side. God will be God. He will be head of His world including Christ's world. Christ will be head of his world including Man's world. Man will be head of his world including Woman. Thus there is a hierarchy of headships, with God head over all (1 Cor 15:28)

Before the Incarnation, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit were in an obedience relationship to God the Father. They were not in a headship relationship. They were not created beings. They were three distinct Persons sharing one nature. Before the Incarnation they were equal in nature but not in function. The Father could send the Son and the Holy Spirit, but not vice versa.

All other angelic beings were created to do God's will. There was no need for force. God's love-headship reigned in heaven until one powerful archangel rebelled and sought to de-throne God. God retained control of His world through force and Satan and a third of the angelic beings were "put in prison" until the Judgment Day. This rebellion brought out an aspect of God's nature that had not been seen up to that point. Only His love-headship side had been seen. Now His force-headship side was seen for the first time in order to retain control of His world. This is a reserve power in the three headships.

For God the Son to change his relationship to God the Father and come under God's headship, like all His created males, was quite a come-down from his obedience relationship to his Father. But he accepted this new relationship in order to come under the same relationship that all men bore to God, namely, that of coming under God's headship which was a new experience for him. While this new headship experience might be seen as an exaltation in Jesus' status, it was in fact a humbling one in the eyes of all the angels in heaven, because Jesus was made a little lower than the angels in heaven (Heb 1:7) but it was a humiliation that Jesus took on voluntarily in order to put himself in the place of man and, as a man, bear man's sins in his own human body on the cross to satisfy the Father's justice. As a man, he obeyed the Law of Moses so that he could obtain the righteousness of God to give to every man who asks it of him in faith. Salvation would henceforth be by faith alone followed by acts of faith, not by works of the Law. Jesus accepted the headship of Man in order to accomplish Man's redemption. (The principal that the greater includes the lesser means that the salvation of women and children are included in the offer to Man.)

Jesus' new, headship relationship to his Father involved three things. First, it meant that Jesus came under the same relationship that Adam had to God: God had control of his life and goals. Second, he took on the experience of being one of His Father's created beings. This was new for Jesus who was an uncreated being. He had to learn obedience as Adam had to learn it (Heb 5:8). This was new for him as a man. Third, he had to do the Father's will. This was new for him who was equal to the Father in all things. He and the Father were always one (Jn 10:30). Now Jesus subordinated his will to do the Father's will. "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" was the goal that dominated all he said and did on earth.

It is from Jesus' headship relation to God that we get not only our definition of headship but its practical outworking in someone's life. We see headship in its full, earthy expression in the life and work of the man Christ Jesus. He becomes the model, the only paradigm, for all men to follow. Every man has been born to do the will of the Lord Jesus Christ. If he does not pray the prayer, "Your will be done in my life," he is in a state of rebellion against his head and we need look no further than God's reaction to see "the prison" that awaits all who do their own will.

The love-headship of God can be seen in the love, care and blessings He showered on Adam and on Israel. His force-headship can be seen in His anger toward Adam and Israel. He expelled Adam from the Garden of Eden and He expelled Israel from the Promised Land, a land flowing with milk and honey, because both showed a rebellious spirit. This He can do because of His headship relationship over them. He will remain in control of His world either through his love-headship or His force-headship, the latter being a means to regain the former, preferred relationship.

Just as there is a love-headship side to the Lord Jesus, there is also a force-headship side to him that is awesome and terrifying. For the moment this is not revealed, but the Book of Revelation speaks of the wrath of the Lamb as well as of his graciousness. It shows him prepared to shut down churches that will not return to their first love.

Earth is presently in a hiatus state. A day of grace has been declared in which mankind is given an opportunity to avail itself of the free offer of forgiveness through the Son's sacrificial giving of himself for all men. The day of grace will pass and the opportunity to submit to the headship of Christ will be removed forever.

HAS THE SPIRIT GIVEN PERMISSION FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN CHURCH?

Liberal evangelicals and feminists have pointed to 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:26 as proof that apostolic permission has been given in practice (if not in word, Gal 3:28) for women to have a direct, individual input into the worship service. There are serious objections to this possibility apart from the discontinuity this would involve with her role in the past, arising as it did out of her headship relation to man.

(1) It sets up a contradiction over teaching men between 1 Cor 11:5 and 1 Tim 2:12; 1 Cor 14:26. Scripture is set against Scripture if 1 Corinthians 11:5 condones what 1 Timothy 2:12 condemns because according to Paul's own definition of prophesy in 1 Cor 14:3 this involves teaching, commanding and counselling men in the church meeting. Paul also says, "whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation" (1 Cor 14:26).

(2) It assumes that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 took place in a church meeting.

(3) It sets up a contradiction over speaking in church between 1 Cor 11:5 and 14:34-35.

(4) Even if a woman could pray in public she must do so with her head covered. The dress-codes are gender-specific, theological, and as permanent as their natures.

Regarding the first point, there are two assumptions here.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26 the feminist assumption is that Paul is talking about men and women making these contributions. They have overlooked the very simple, contextual fact that Paul is specifically addressing the male members only, not only here but in all his epistles (§4.3.3.). This removes the alleged contradiction in Paul. In 1 Tim 2:12 women are not to teach their husbands and, by extension, men in general, and in 1 Cor 14:26 only males bring "a teaching."

The second assumption is that 1 Corinthians 11:5 took place in a church meeting. If so, this would contradict 1 Cor 14:34-35. In the view of some, in 11:5 Paul tells the women how they are to dress in church whenever they are about to prophesy and then, when he gets to 14:34, he drops the bombshell that he knew all along, when he was writing 11:5, that they were never permitted to prophesy in the first place. This seems a very odd scenario.

But there is no contradiction if 1 Cor 11:2-16 is dealing with an out-of-church situation where women can pray and prophesy (covered) in their own homes. We know from Acts 2:17-18 that all of God's people&emdash;male and female&emdash;could prophesy. This was a universal gift that accompanied the gift of the Spirit. When we examine 1 Cor 14:31 we see that the same outpouring of the Spirit is still a common feature in the Christian community. But in this context the gift of "prophesying" is said to be on all the men in the church. Paul, addressing the "brethren," says, "For you can all prophesy one by one." Having said this, the Spirit then explicitly excludes the sisters from speaking in the public worship service with the words, "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."

The ban on women speaking (Greek lalein, which is the general word for any kind of verbal communication, including prophesying) in church is anchored in God's wisdom when He set up His worship under the Old Covenant. The worship service of the New Testament Church was not set up in a cultural vacuum. Hundreds of synagogues existed all over the Roman Empire. Wherever Jews lived there were synagogues. The first congregation in Corinth consisted largely of ex-synagogue members. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, became a Christian with all his family.

The synagogue was modelled on the Temple in Jerusalem in that men and women sat apart from each other, replicating the Court of the Men and the Court of the Women in the Temple. All its functioning office-bearers were male. Women were not permitted to speak in any public meeting. God never asked any of His prophetesses to go to the Temple to deliver a message to His people as He did with Jeremiah and the other male prophets, including the twelve Apostles (Acts 5:20). Prophetesses, like Huldah, prophesied in their own homes to whoever came to visit them.

Now, since all women (whose direct head is man, not Christ) are explicitly excluded from speaking any kind of individual contribution in the New Covenant church, the reference to women "praying and prophesying" in 11:5 could not have taken place in the public meeting, otherwise there would be a contradiction with 14:34 and, more significantly, a break with God's theologically-based tradition from the time of Moses at least. These activities would have taken place, in the case of women, in their homes or in a non-church context, as this was the case under the Old Covenant period. So unless Paul has contradicted himself (or is confused) he has the community (not the church meeting) in mind when he goes on to set out the attire the men and women are to wear (or not wear, in the case of the men) whenever they "pray and prophesy."

Men are permitted to "pray and prophesy" audibly inside and outside the church. Women were permitted to "pray and prophesy" audibly only outside the church meeting and, given the place of women in society at that time, in a seemly context usually meant at home.

Consequently, there is no contradiction because if Chapter 14 is explicitly stated to take place in a church meeting, and no place is explicitly stated in 1 Cor 11:2-16, then 1 Cor 11:2-16 must be set in a general or unspecified context. The reason why Paul did not place 1 Cor 11:2-16 in a specific context is because he is appealing to universal principles which apply both inside and outside the church meeting, as we shall see.

On the fourth point it should be noted that even if 1 Cor 11:5 permitted women to pray and preach in the public meeting, whenever the men "pray and prophesy" they must ensure that they do so with an uncovered head, out of respect for their new Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. The women, on the other hand, must ensure that they cover their heads out of respect for their position among the "powers and authorities" that exist in the universe. Their power (or authority, 11:10) differs from the power that men have been given through their headship, and also from the power that angels have, who, looking on, know this.

THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF GENDER IN GOD'S WORSHIP

Liberal evangelicals and feminists regard the head-covering as an optional extra. Paul gives a sound theological explanation why women should, indeed, must cover their heads when engaged in spiritual exercises (§4.10.3).

Question: When can the woman's artificial covering be discarded?

Paul's answer: When women can discard their natural covering of hair.

Another way of putting it would be: When it becomes natural for all Christian women to appear before God completely bald-headed, then it is appropriate for them to throw away the artificial covering (1 Cor 11:5-6). In Paul's theology the two stay together or are thrown away together.

At the design stage, hair on a woman was given a different function to that on a man. In the case of woman her hair not only covered her shame (baldness) but God designed it to be her glory (1 Cor 11:15). It is not so with men who do not dread baldness in the same way that women do. God planted a dread in every woman to avoid appearing in public without her covering of hair, and this instinct goes back to the drawingboard stage of her design. Paul notes that just as God has covered her physical baldness (i.e., her shame) with a physical covering of hair to hide it, and this covering makes her acceptable and "normal" in the physical world, so the artificial covering has a mirror function in the spiritual world and makes her acceptable and "normal" in the eyes of the multitude of onlooking and ministering angels. What her natural covering of hair does for her in the physical world of men, the artificial cover does for her in the spiritual world of the angels. She needs both types of coverings to be "normal" in these two different spheres. Both men and angels are repulsed at the sight of an uncovered woman. The angels, because she has the dress-code of a male, and the man, because she is unnatural and grotesque and distinctly not "the glory of man" at that visual moment in time.

God purposely used this instinctive dread to ensure that the dress-code of 1 Cor 11:2-16 was anchored in His design (and not, as most seen to think, in local culture). The link cannot be broken because the instinct is located in the woman's femininity, in Eve's genes, where it cannot be altered. That is how secure the doctrine and the practice of headcovering is for all time.

If the artificial covering had been coupled to something changeable, such as the local custom in Corinth, then there might have been a case for changing the symbols down through the centuries. But God, in His wisdom, has coupled the head-covering with her purposely designed dread to ensure that her natural covering of hair and her artificial headcovering would remain permanently locked together for all time to differentiate the sexes when they appeared before Him. This designer-truth goes back to Eden not to Corinth. It goes back to Eve from whom all women are descended in Paul's concept of gender solidarity.

Consequently, for Paul, the artificial covering is not an optional extra: it is absolutely essential if a woman wants to be accepted in the spiritual sphere (i.e., when praying and prophesying). It is as essential as the uncovered head is for males. They are both theologically-laden practices. They are not empty, culturally conditioned, fashions.

To ignore the new, theological significance given to men with uncovered heads and to women wearing a head-covering when in the presence of God, and to revert to giving hers, in particular, a secular/cultural meaning and then throwing that out because it is deemed local and transient is mischievous. It would be on a par with a Jew throwing out the rite of circumcision (which was given to Abraham with a new, spiritual meaning) on the grounds that it had previously been a secular rite whose significance was now deemed to be local and transient!

The rainbow had no theological significance until one was attached to it by God. There were many types of baptisms in Jesus' day but the water of Christian baptism had no theological significance until it received it from Christ Himself. Similarly, the bread and wine have no inherent spiritual significance. In none of these Christian symbols, or those of the Old Testament Covenants, is the spiritual or theological significance obvious. The meaning is brought to the symbol by revelation and has to be constantly brought to it otherwise the symbol takes over and becomes an end in itself.

When men remove their head-covering on entering the presence of God they should constantly remind themselves why the Spirit of Jesus has commanded them to appear in this manner. In this way the symbol of an uncovered head will have an abiding influence on his life and remind him of his creation responsibilities before God. It is not without good, sound spiritual reasons that Jesus, the Head of the Church, has given different symbols to men and women to remind them of their different status and different powers for the upbuilding of the Church and to maintain good order in His Kingdom.

Paul is so adamant about the essential, spiritual nature of the symbols that he tells the women who will not cover themselves while praying and prophesying that they should shave off their hair so that the physical and the spiritual spheres will mirror each other exactly. Shame in both worlds, or glory in both worlds; but not a mixture, as we have it today. Shame is experienced in heaven and in the minds of godly men and women when a woman formally appears before God in the same dress-code as a man. It is a violation of the Law that the sexes are not to be confused.

Because shame is felt by the godly husband and among the ministering angels when a wife appears without an artificial headcovering in open defiance of Christ's specific directive, and shame is similarly felt on earth when a woman appears in public without hair, God has linked these two shaming experiences permanently through her dread of baldness. He has provided her with a natural covering of hair for the one, and an artificial covering for the other.

This is a very powerful argument from nature and it takes the feet from under the argument that the gender dress-codes are based on local culture. It is interesting to note that if angels do not die, then their sense of decorum will remain the same over the millennia. So if a woman's uncovered head was not "natural" to them in Corinth 2000 years ago, it is still not "natural" today. They know what happens to those who usurp headship powers having witnessed Satan's overthrow in their own lifetime. Women should not muscle in on men's territory.

Paul does not often get angry, so that when he does there must be something important at stake. Here, in 11:16, he will not give way. The theological dress-codes are not up for discussion. They are universal customs, cutting across all cultures. They borrow from none and they give way to none. They are set in theological concrete for all time, in Paul's theology.

In Near and Far Eastern societies newly converted women find it less of a culture shock to cover their heads in religious worship, so that 11:5 would present less difficulty to them. This also applies to their standards of modesty in dress when compared to the West. It is becoming fashionable for young women (in particular) to appear in skimpy holiday clothing at church services to the applause and encouragement of happy-clappy vicars and ministers who preach that God looks on the heart and not on the clothes, little realising the end that such a trend leads to.

So much for the culture shock that obedience brings for the Western woman who is too closely identified with the decadent fashion of the West, whose dress fashion is obsessed with how little a woman can wear and get away with it.

Paul's argument is that men should not cover their heads because all males are created in "the image and glory of God" (11:7). It is a theological, not a cultural argument. The question arises: When does man cease to be in "the image and glory of God" (so that he can cover his head when praying and prophesying)? The answer is: at no time. He bears the "image and glory" of God until he dies. Whether he conducts worship at home or in the public meeting he remains the same person. It follows from this that a man can never formally pray or preach with a covered head. So the issue whether 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is set inside or outside the church does not arise. Paul is stating a general principle that does not depend on place but on the nature of man.

The next issue relating to men is: Does God make a distinction between praying to Him in public and praying to Him in private? The answer is No, because man is "the image and glory of God" at all times. Consequently, whenever a male formally enters the presence of God to pray to Him, he must come in the manner prescribed for his sex. He must not come in the dress-code of a female as this would be abhorrent in God's eyes (Deut 22:5).

The corollary with the woman brings out the following theological insights. We know from 1 Corinthians 14:34 that no woman can "prophesy" in church, let alone speak. This is not in dispute by any major denomination: it is the natural reading of the text. It was how the Early Church Fathers read the text (§5.2). It was how the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Reformation Churches read it. It was how it was understood for 2000 years.

The question arises: When does woman cease to be "the glory of man" (so that she can pray and prophesy with an uncovered head)? The answer is: at no time. She is the "glory of man" this side of eternity. She cannot change her Eve-image. It follows from this that a woman can never formally pray or "prophesy" with an uncovered head. Now the place a woman can freely and appropriately "prophesy" is at home or among other women or in a non-church setting, and when she does so she must do so in the manner prescribed for her sex. She must not adopt the dress-code of the male, which would be repulsive in God's eyes (Deut 22:5). God has reserved the uncovered head for males, therefore she should be careful never to come into His presence looking like a male. Her distinctive dress-code is permanent because it is based on the permanent nature of woman and the revelation that she is "the glory of man." It is her divinely-created gender, not local custom, that determines her dress-code whether she is a virgin, single or married. The female's dress-code does not depend on whether men are present or not, but on whether God is present or not.

The next issue relating to women is: Does God make a distinction between praying to Him in public and praying to Him in private? The answer is No. Consequently, whenever a female formally enters the presence of God to pray to Him, she must come in the manner prescribed for her sex. The tradition is permanent because it is theologically based, not culturally conditioned. The message Paul conveys here is that dress-codes are gender-specific, theological, and as permanent as their genders.

Outside the times she is praying or prophesying, Christian women can go bare-headed like any other women, unless the culture she lives in demands that she cover her head, in which case she should conform to the culture in the interests of not giving offense, "Give no offense either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God" (1 Cor 10:32); "Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, reverence to whom reverence, honour to whom honour is due" (Rom 13:7). Care, however, should be taken not to confuse the Christian woman's theological dress-code with her native costumes which might coincide with it. Costumes and customs may change; her theological dress-code will never. Unfortunately, in the West headcoverings went out of fashion and with it went out the theological dress-code because they were not kept distinct.

The setting for 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 cannot be the church meeting in the woman's case, otherwise the Spirit of Jesus condones in 11:5 what He condemns in 14:34. An interpretation which puts Jesus in contradiction with Himself cannot be the right interpretation. He commands His female followers in 1 Cor 14:34 to be silent (14:37b). They are not on the same level as men nor do they approach God on the same terms as men. They dress differently because their genders are taken into account by God, their Maker, and their God-ordained functions within the worshipping community are different as a result. They are not equal in God's sight with respect to their assigned place in His worship. This is how it was during the 1500 years of Temple worship. God gave the primary role in His public worship to the male members. The women were active but silent participators during all that time. That is how it was then and that is how it is to continue to the end of time ("as the Law says/teaches"). It is as permanent as the Law (i.e., as God's Word). Jesus, the Head of the Church, continues to say to His twenty-first century Church through Paul, "I have not permitted them to participate audibly on the same terms as men in My Church." Who are we to overthrow this directive? He says to His Church, "If you love me you will obey my commandments." His expressed will is that He wants the theologically-established, New Covenant traditions to be adhered to, to the end of time.

SUMMARY

It should be remembered that Paul stayed in Corinth for 18 months (Acts 18:11) and so the pattern of church life would have been well-established by the time he left. It is hard to envisage Christian women deliberately attempting to "prophesy" or speaking (i.e., asking questions) in the church meeting knowing it was not the custom.

We can conclude from this study that Paul is dealing in 1 Cor 11:2-16 (due to its placement within his epistle) with a situation where women are "praying and prophesying" outside the church context, which they are permitted to do. So spiritual activity, per se, is not the problem. The problem is not even where they may exercise this spiritual activity. So location is not the problem. So we can rule out content and location.

The problem being addressed in 1 Cor 11:2-16 is connected with a relaxation of the tradition that women should "pray and prophesy" with their heads covered. Some women were refusing to abide by their theological dress-code. Although this breach was taking place outside the church meetings&emdash;in the community&emdash;nevertheless it could have implications for their conduct in church, because there should be consistency in their respective dress-codes when it comes to "praying and prophesying." Men, it would appear, were abiding by their dress-code inside and outside the church meetings, hence the brief reference to them. The longer focus on the women's proper dress-code suggests that the problem lay with them.

The crucial point is: In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 the issue is about headcovering outside the church meeting and not about praying and prophesying in church. In chapter 14 the issue is about praying and prophesying in the church meeting and not about headcovering.

Once the issues are clearly identified it can be seen why 1 Cor 11:2-16 appears at the end of 7:1&emdash;11:1 (which deals with the Christian in his relations with his secular environment, i.e., out-of-church issues) and before 11:17 (the start of the list of internal church disorders which begins with 11:17, "For first of all, when you come together . . . . [v. 18]" and ends at 15:58)(for the full outline of 1 Corinthians, see §4.3.6.). 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 lies at the interface between these two distinct blocks of material. This analysis now explains why 14:34-35 is placed where it is; it is an internal church matter.

If both chapters are the Word of God then there can be no contradiction between 1 Cor 11:5 and 14:34. The contradiction is avoided if in 11:5 Paul is addressing the issue of women "praying and prophesying" in the wrong manner outside the church meeting. They should have been doing so with their heads covered because they are not males. Nature, not nurture; cultus, not culture; genes, not generations, underlies Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14.

The Early Church Fathers bear witness to the Apostolic tradition that women did not speak, preach, or prophesy, or have any leadership role in the Church. Women prayed silently while in the church meeting. The Fathers held to the revelation that women were created to be a helpmeet to man, not to take the lead in any aspect of his life. She is a true helpmeet when she remains silent and compliant when accompanying him in the church meeting&emdash;her beauty being her gentle and quiet spirit which is very precious in the sight of God (1 Pet 3:4).

From the beginning God gave her a personal, one-to-one role in His world, to serve her husband in a love-headship relationship, not to preach to, or lead in prayer, some other woman's husband, or other single men. Her role in God's good order is single-minded devotion to one man&emdash;her husband&emdash;her head. She is called to excel in this calling. If she fails there she fails everywhere.

At home she can enquire about her religion (1 Cor 14:35).

At home she can speak in tongues and prophesy (1 Cor 11:5).

At home she can pray with her family (1 Pet 3:7).

At home she can teach the younger women to be submissive to their husbands so that Christianity will not be brought into disrepute or laughed at (Tit 2:4).

At home she can be a teacher of good things (Tit 2:3).

At home she can bring her children up to know the Lord, as Timothy was by his mother and grandmother (1 Tim 1:5).

So highly valued was the wife's role in the home that she was likened to the great altar on which the nation's sacrifices were offered to God because she sat still (like the immovable great altar) in her house and was not wandering about in the houses of the faithful, dissipating her energies in tittle-tattle (so Polycarp and the Didascalia Apostolorum). The wife in Proverbs 31 is still the model of industry in the home for women today and Sarah is still the model of a submissive, loving wife (1 Pet 3:6). Both models lived approximately 1000 and 2000 years respectively before Peter's day which suggests that these are permanent models in the man-woman relationship which we ought to imitate today to achieve our God-ordained goals to His glory.

The Church, in evangelising the nations, must not compromise its cardinal doctrines and theological traditions, hence it will require all males, from whatever religions they come from, to bow their head to Christ's lordship and headship of their lives with an uncovered head. The Church has no authority to waive this important, theologically-laden act, in order to facilitate the move from one religion to another.

Likewise, for the benefit of Western cultures where women worship their different Protestant and Catholic gods with an uncovered head, the Church will require all females from whatever religions they come from to bow their head to Christ's lordship and headship of their lives with a covered head. The Church has no authority to waive this important, theologically-laden act, in order to facilitate the move from one religion to another.

These gender-distinct traditions are not optional extras but the outward evidence of a submissive mind and heart bent on pleasing God and the Lord Jesus Christ no matter what the cost. The call to all is to remain in the gender in which you were created, and remain in the calling in which you were called. This will result in good order and maturity in the Church.

To sum up in three couplets:

Man is to obey Christ in everything;

Woman is to obey Man in everything.

Man is to bring Man's worship;

Woman is to bring silent worship.

Man is to uncover his head;

Woman is to cover her head.