A Rather Boring "Brief" on a Rather Controversial Topic (Part 4 of 4)

< Back to Part 3

You want me to put what on my head?

K. P. Yohannan, the founder of Gospel for Asia, tells this story:

Yohannan | I know of a man from India who was traveling in the United States and had an interesting encounter at a church. As he walked in, an older woman gestured to his head and said, “You are going into the worship service; you need to take that thing off your head.” He had forgotten to take off his hat! Of course, immediately he took it off, knowing that the Bible says men should not wear a head covering during a spiritual gathering. But when he went inside, he was surprised to find that none of the women wore a head covering even though the Bible teaches this truth in the same passage.

Often, the hardest things to accept in the Bible are not those things which are obscure or hard to understand, but those things which seem to fly in the face of cultural common sense.

Daniel B. Wallace also notes this tension:

Wallace | The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically (emphasis his).

What are these men talking about? They’re talking about a passage found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 | Now I praise you because you always remember me and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that Christ is the head [root: kephale] of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered [root: akatakaluptos] dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. So if a woman’s head is not covered [root: katakalupto], her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered [root: katakalupto]. A man, in fact, should not cover [root: katakalupto] his head, because he is God’s image and glory, but woman is man’s glory. For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. And man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why a woman should have authority on her head, because of the angels. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering [root: peribolaion]. But if anyone wants to argue about this, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Perhaps the most famous evangelical feminist argument on this passage is that the word for “head,” kephale, means “source” rather than “head.” But it seems the evidence for this interpretation is surprisingly weak, and ultimately, a moot point. Words don’t hang in space waiting to be given a meaning. Even if this word did mean “source,” it wouldn’t change much. We are given a pretty good idea of what kephale means in the following verses:

Ephesians 1:22 | And He [God] put everything under His [Jesus’] feet and appointed Him as head over everything for the church.
Ephesians 5:22-24 | Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.
Colossians 1:18 | He [Christ] is also the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He might come to have first place in everything.
Colossians 2:9-10 | For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ, and you have been filled by Him, who is the head over every ruler and authority.

Kephale implies authority. Even here in verse 3, we see this:

• God is the kephale of Christ. God is Christ’s authority (1Co 15:24-28).
• Christ is the kephale of man. Christ is man’s authority (Mt 28:18).
• Man is the kephale of woman. Man is woman’s authority (Eph 5:22; 2Tm 2:11).

The reader of the passage very quickly becomes aware that some type of physical symbol is involved here. Paul is not only concerned with female submission and male headship in principle; he also wants Christian men and women to recognize physical symbols that point to the authority structure within the church.

This is not a new concept to the well-versed reader of the Bible. We already note that we practice the physical symbol of baptism upon belief in Jesus Christ (Rm 6:3-10; Ac 2:38; 10:47-48; 22:16; 1Pt 3:21; Mt 3:11; Gl 3:27; Mk 16:16; etc.), as well as the physical symbol of the Lord’s Supper (Jn 6:50-57; 1Co 11:17-34; Ac 20:7; Mt 26:26-29; Lk 22:19, etc.). In fact, we see closer parallels than that. Jesus, in His baptism, gave glory to His Head, His Father in heaven—in Matthew 3:17 we read: “And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased.’” The church gives glory to her Head in the remembrance of His death: “’Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1Co 11:26). Likewise, the woman gives glory to her head through the symbol of the headcovering: “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1Co 11:5).

Additionally, we note that these symbols aren’t intended to be a message to unbelievers so much as they are intended to remind the Christian of biblical principles. Also, rather than being a legalistic tradition, the practice of the headcovering is an apostolic tradition rooted in Scripture. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 we read: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, either by our message or by our letter.”

Paul gives his first reason for the practice of the headcovering in verse 3: because of the example of divine authority structures. He details the order: God, Christ, man, woman. In verses 4-6, the second reason is given: the glory of man and woman. What brings glory to a man? To have an uncovered head. If he covered his head, he would be acting like a woman, dishonoring his own head, Christ. What brings glory to a woman? To cover her head. If she uncovers her head, she acts like a man and dishonors her own head, man. Just as it naturally tends to disgrace women to cut their hair short, so too, it disgraces them not to cover when they are praying or prophesying, which usually occurs during the public gathering of the body of Christ.

The third reason Paul gives comes from creation order in verses 7-9. In the beginning, man was created imago Dei, in the image of God. Furthermore, man is God’s glory—God takes delight in man. Because of this, his head ought to be uncovered. Woman, as part of man, shares in being made imago Dei as well as being God’s glory and delight. However, she is also man’s glory—man takes delight in woman. Because of this, her head ought to be covered. Paul notes two facts from creation which uphold this: woman was created for man and from him. The fourth reason Paul gives, in verse 10, comes from angelic example. Perhaps if any created beings understood authority structures and hierarches, it would be the angels, among whom we find seraphim (Is 6:2), cherubim (Gn 3:24; Rv 4:8; Ez 10:5), archangels (1Th 4:16; Jd 1:9), and angels (Gn 19:1; 28:12; Mt 4:11). Women are to have authority (exousia, either their own authority to pray and prophesy, granted by the veil, or their husband’s authority; cf. Mt 8:9) on their heads because of the example of the angels.

All throughout biblical writings, we notice the paradox between ontological equality and functional role difference. Here Paul brings it up once again in verses 11-12, reminding the two sexes of their mutual interdependence through the example of female childbirth—an ultimate reminder, in case any gender think the other is worth less, that both men and women come from God.

The fifth reason comes from nature in verses 13-15. “Judge for yourselves”—the ordinance of the covering or the uncovering of the head fits in very closely with the pattern of nature. Even nature teaches us that long hair is disgraceful on men and graceful on women. In fact, female hair is already given as a type of covering. Paul’s sixth and final reason comes from universal church practice: If any wanted to argue, this custom was practiced in all the churches of God, which spanned a wide geographical and cultural range. If anyone wanted to propose a new custom, the response was: “We have no such custom [like you have proposed], nor do any of the churches of God.”

Must Christian women wear fabric headcoverings today? Overtime, several reasons have been propounded as to why this is not so:

The hair is the covering. Verse 15 says: “For her hair is given to her as a covering.” There it is, black and white, right? Not quite. There are several reasons why Paul is not referring to the hair when he talks about women covering their head. First, the word used for “covering” here in verse 15, peribolaion, is a completely unrelated word to katakalupto, which is used everywhere else in this passage. Second, this statement finds itself in the context of the argument from nature, which implies that the verse means that hair is a natural example, given “as a [type of] covering” rather than “[in the place of] a covering.” Finally, it is hard to read verse 6 with a straight face if the hair is to be considered the covering, since one would have to read it like: “So if a woman’s head is not covered [i.e., her hair is cut off], her hair should be cut off.”

The hair pinned up is the covering. Leviticus 13:45 reads: “The person afflicted with an infectious skin disease is to have his clothes torn and his hair hanging loose [para], and he must cover his mouth and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean!” In the LXX, this word para is translated into our Greek word akatakalyptos. Thus, it is argued, akatakalyptos means “loose, unkempt hair.” However, this simply seems to be a bad translation of the word. Furthermore, if we are going to be consistent, than men would need to have their hair “loose and unkempt” while praying or prophesying, which seems to contradict the command for men to have short hair. Finally, there is no evidence of any of the early church fathers interpreting the command in this way; all understand it to mean a fabric veil.

The head covering is cultural. While I admire many complementarian leaders for their serious biblical interpretation when it comes to other texts, yet I am disappointed at where they stop when it comes to this text. Note what John MacArthur has to say about 1 Timothy 2:11-15: “Some leaders and writers ... teach principles that attempt to redefine or even alter biblical truths to accommodate the standards of contemporary thinking in the world. To do that, of course, they have to believe that the apostles sometimes taught culturally determined customs rather than divinely revealed standards” (emphasis mine). John Piper and Wayne Grudem run along a similar vein, as well, when it comes to cultural arguments about other passages: “In demonstrating the permanent validity of a command, we would try to show from its context that it has roots in the nature of God, the gospel, or creation as God ordered it.” Thomas Schreiner also takes a similar view.

I agree with them—I just think they fail to heed their own words when it comes to this passage. All of them, in some way or another, attempt to hold the principle of male-headship intact without holding its symbol intact as well, with the reason given being that the custom of headcoverings was the cultural norm in Corinth at that time, while it isn’t today. Here’s why I don’t think we can do that:

• It’s inconsistent to hold to the physical symbols of baptism and the Lord’s Supper without holding to the physical symbol of the headcovering. Our culture also doesn’t recognize or practice water baptism, or the physical consumption of food and drink during the Lord’s Supper. Does that mean we may abandon those as well?
• Any appeal to cultural background ultimately takes the ability to understand biblical truth out of the layman’s hand and places it in the hands of “experts.” I’m not saying that we should never seek to know what cultural was like to better understand the Bible, but I am wary of using some offhand reference to “that’s just how things were back then.” In doing so, we subtly began to interpret inspired words based upon our scattered, faulty knowledge of uninspired words, rather than vice-versa. Note R.C. Sproul: “It is one thing to seek a more lucid understanding of the biblical content by investigating the cultural situation of the first century; it is quite another to interpret the New Testament as if it were merely an echo of the first-century culture.”
• Appeals to culture are often used simply as a guise for people who don’t want to do what a text calls them to do. The question may be raised, if you put so much emphasis on cultural understanding of that era, would you be willing to change your lifestyle tomorrow if your understanding of that era changed? The unspoken answer for many is simply no.
• Appeals to culture always assume that one’s own culture is “better.” They did things that way, but that was only because their primitive, uncivilized culture dragged them down. Here, in enlightened America, we do things this way—our culture is “better.” We understand things better. (In actuality, might it not be American culture that needs a “kick in the pants,” so to speak?)
• Neither Paul nor any of the other biblical writers ever appeal to culture when it comes to gender issues. Ever. Think about that. How ironic is it that the vast majority of American Christians assign to the biblical writers the one reason that they never give on this issue? Particularly here, none of the six reasons Paul gives in this passage for this physical symbol (divine authority structures, male-female glory, creation order, angels, nature, and universal church practice) have any relation whatsoever to culture. We patronize Paul when we assign his reasoning to cultural custom, and we extrapolate his meaning and intentions.
• Further, it would seem that Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians actually went against Corinthian custom. Milton Vincent (TMS) notes that “The overwhelming evidence is that Roman men would cover their heads just as Roman women would do when they ... were involved in a very active religious exercise” (Corinth was a Roman colony). Bruce Terry affirms this: “In the first century among the Romans, both men and women worshiped with the head covered; among the Greeks, both men and women worshiped with the head uncovered; and among the Jews, men covered their heads and women uncovered theirs when they worshiped. Thus Paul is introducing a new Christian tradition, which he grounds, not in the social customs of his day, but in theological arguments.” In his research article The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, (yes, it’s a long title!) David Gill notes that: “As Paul seems to have been encouraging men not to appear capite velato [literally ‘with covered head’], yet asking women to do the opposite, there might be different reasons for the two pieces of guidance [other than culture].” If this is indeed true, then Paul’s command for women to cover their heads and men to uncover would have been just as counter-cultural then as it is today.

Finally, I appeal to the testimony of church history. Drawings on the catacombs show Christian women with headcoverings on. One hundred and fifty years after the Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, early church father Tertullian writes this: “In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.” The veil was worn by Christian women in Northern Europe during the fifth through the eleventh centuries. The Catholic Church has long held to the tradition of wearing the veil, as have many Protestant streams, including Anabaptism. From the first century up until now, many theologians have affirmed a current practice of the headcovering, including, but not limited to:

Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Severian of Gabala, Basil of Caesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Guillaume Durand, Heinrich Von Langenstein, Hugh Latimer, Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin (for the young, restless, reformed crowd), David Dickerson, John Cotton, Anthony Sparrow, George Gillespie, William Quelch, John Bunyan, Matthew Henry, Johnathan Edwards, John Wesley, Roger Williams, Petrus Nakskow, Frederick Godet, A. R. Fausset, M. R. Vincent, G. G. Findlay, Joseph Beet, William Tyndale, C. C. Walker, A. T. Robertson, William Barclay, John Murray, Thomas Wall, J. Vernon McGee, Charles Ryrie, Charles Spurgeon, John Darby, Albert Oepke, Bruce Waltke, Robert Culver, Henry Morgan, Charles Coates, Watchman Nee, John Phillips, Milton Vincent, R. C. Sproul, R.C. Sproul Jr., Bruce Terry, and K. P. Yohannan.

This quote from R. C. Sproul to sum up:

Sproul | The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church...?

Translation and the cringe factor

Yes. I get it.

It’s weird. It’s not normal to have a piece of fabric on top of your head. And for many women, it would make them cringe in public. Who am I, a guy who never has to worry about this, to say women should do one thing or another?

Fair enough.

So, some have asked, can we translate the physical symbol of the headcovering into something more meaningful in our culture? Wallace, for example, writes this:

Daniel B. Wallace | The early church practice of requiring the women to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying would not have been viewed as an unusual request. In the cosmopolitan cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head coverings were everywhere ... Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women—even biblically submissive wives—resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfill the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.

He has valid points. By definition, physical symbols allow some flexibility. When we partake of the Lord’s Supper, we cannot partake exactly in the manner that Jesus and His disciples did, nor can we baptize people in the Jordan River exactly like John did with Jesus. Also, nobody wants to humiliate women. Wallace suggests that perhaps a modest dress could function as a translation for the head covering; others have suggested that perhaps a wedding ring could stand in place of the head covering. However, while I sympathize with this view, I also would raise some issues:

• It doesn’t seem that the symbol of the head covering is meant to be meaningful to the culture around us; only to those in the church. Paul does not seem concerned with the effect the covering will have on unbelievers, but on believers.
• There seems to be a lack of suitable alternatives. The wedding ring option a) is hardly visible, b) would require all men not to wear wedding rings, and c) wouldn’t account for single women. A modest dress seems closer to the spirit of 1 Corinthians 11, but Paul seems pretty clear that something needs to be on the head, especially because the head is analogous with authority.
• It would need to be a visible symbol immediately recognizable to Christian men and women, and to be uniform to all churches (11:16).
• While it sounds harsh, humiliation is not always avoidable for Christians. Additionally, that which feels humiliating isn’t always. Growing up, the family rule happened to be that little Driver boys were not to wear shorts. Also, while swimming, we were often required to wear shirts as well in order to be modest. I remember feeling very humiliated when I was the only who wore pants while my friends were wearing shorts, or the only one wearing a shirt while swimming. But I soon came to realize that I was only humiliated because of my own self-consciousness—my friends weren’t teasing me, I just felt odd. I’m not saying that women would never receive humiliation from any outside sources, but I am saying that I think we as Christians have the power to stand graciously in the face of humiliation.

Nevertheless, there is always the ever present danger of requiring too much from the biblical text. Paul doesn’t specify the size, length, color, transparency, texture, shape, etc. of the head covering. Is it possible to have different types and styles of head coverings? Certainly, I think. Would a headband make a suitable headcovering? What about a handkerchief? Or a hat? Perhaps even a modest dress?

I leave it to the discretion of the reader.

Why the kiss is not the covering

Perhaps the most common question that is raised in response to an applicable view of the headcovering is the question of the holy kiss: which is mentioned four times in the New Testament:

Romans 16:16 | Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send you greetings.
1 Corinthians 16:20 | All the brothers greet you. Greet one another with a holy kiss.
2 Corinthians 13:12 | Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the saints greet you.
1 Thessalonians 5:26 | Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss.

The question is this: If you hold the headcovering to be applicable today, than why do you not also hold the holy kiss to be applicable today? Both are New Testament commands given to believers by Paul. It would seem inconsistent to hold to one without also holding to the other. Additionally, if you use cultural arguments to avoid practicing the holy kiss (which is mentioned four times in the Bible), than aren’t you simply failing to hear your own words spoken against cultural arguments when it comes to the headcovering (which is only mentioned once)?

However, I think there are several indications that come from the text itself and not from an extraneous knowledge of surrounding culture:

• First, however, even though I do think there are textual indications, just for the record, it seems much more likely that a kiss of greeting was a more common cultural practice than the practice of simultaneous female-head-covering/male-head-uncovering.
• Second, if a Christian brother sincerely wished to greet me with a holy kiss, I would not turn him down. The burden of proof always lies with the one who holds that a mandate given is not applicable today, rather than the one who holds that it is.
• Thirdly, though the holy kiss is mentioned four times, the sum of the statements is only four verses, much different than the cohesive, unbroken fifteen verse prose given for the head covering.
• Fourthly, Paul actually gives a logically ordered argument with six reasons for the headcovering (none of which are rooted in culture), which strongly suggests that he did not, in fact, primarily ground his reasoning from culture there. Meanwhile, he gives no reasons for the holy kiss, which suggests that he may have, in fact, primarily ground his reasoning in culture.
• Fifthly, Paul always gives the command to greet one another with the holy kiss and the end of his letters (yet before his benedictions, which are often universal), while the outline for the headcovering is laid out right in the middle of his letter. This accords with how we naturally understand teaching to be communicated to us, whatever the medium, (whether through letter, sermon, or recorded audio). For example, think of a pastor preaching a sermon. The meat of his content is in the middle of his sermon, and he probably intends it to be applicable to all audiences everywhere. Now imagine if at the end, he says: “Let’s pray now for the fellowship meal. I want you to form four orderly lines when you go downstairs.” Even a child understands that the pastor is not saying that everyone everywhere has a moral obligation to form four orderly lines whenever they happen to go downstairs, but rather, his directive is only applicable to the here and now.
• Sixthly, along this similar vein, the context which surrounds the directives to practice the holy kiss suggests that Paul means for his message to be received by his immediate audience. For example, note some verses which appear close to the holy kiss directives at the end of Paul’s letters: “So you should welcome her [Phoebe] in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and assist her in whatever matter she may require your help” (Rm 16:2a). “Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them” (Rm 16:5). “The report of your obedience has reached everyone” (Rm 16:19). “On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside and save in keeping with how he prospers, so that no collections will need to be made when I come” (1Co 16:2). “The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, along with the church that meets in their home” (1Co 16:19). “This is why I am writing these things while absent, that when I am there I will not use severity” (2Co 13:10a). “Brothers, pray for us also” (1Th 5:25). “I charge you by the Lord that this letter be read to all the brothers” (1Th 5:27). It is clear that none of these verses directly apply to us today.
• On the flip side, the similarly sustained arguments found in the middle of 1 Corinthians, surrounding the argument for the head covering, suggest that Paul intends his message in a more universal manner: The need for church discipline of immoral members (1Co 5). The prohibition against lawsuits among believers (1Co 6:1-11). The directive for sexual purity (1Co 6:12-20). The mutual interdependence and honor given in marriage (1Co 7:1-16). Directions for single Christians (1Co 7:25-40). The right of church leaders to take a wife and a salary and their call to be an example (1Co 9). The warning against idolatry (1Co 10:1-13). The physical symbol of the headcovering (1Co 11:2-16). The physical symbol of the Lord’s Supper (1Co 11:17-33). Spiritual gifts (1Co 12). Love (1Co 13). Prophecy (1Co 14). The necessity of the resurrection (1Co 15). These sections do apply to us today.

Of course, there will be commands that we take as universal next to the holy kiss directives (see Rm 16:17-18, 20, 24; 1Co 16:13-14, 22-23; 2Co 13:11, 13; 1Th 5:12-24, 28). And there will be sustained arguments which contain cultural elements (like food offered to idols: 1Co 8; 10:14-33), but on the whole, we recognize solely from the text that Paul’s directive to greet one another with a holy kiss is much different than his directive to practice the covering or uncovering of the head.

Why is it all important?

Ok, Josiah. You’ve covered a very large span. You’ve gone from a high-profile Christian music artist to an agnostic feminist to divine fiction to the Garden of Eden to Junia to Lebron James to the headcovering to the holy kiss. And while women and men are being oppressed everywhere, and social injustice is happening on a national scale, and people are sick, cruel, and depraved towards one another—you’re worried about making sure women put a piece of fabric on their heads?

I do not deny that many of the world’s women have suffered sometimes terrible abuse at the hands of men. I do not deny that men have selfishly used their physical strength and often greater rank to hurt and even humiliate women. And of course I do not deny that we should try to help these women.

But I do deny that feminism is the answer. I am concerned about the philosophy we employ when doing so. Because, you see, I am convinced that to rescue women and children out of abusive patriarchy and into feminism...

...is only to take them out of one form of slavery and place them in another.

It is only to rescue them from the abuse of male-headship in order to place them into the abuse of femininity. Rather than to bring healing and wholesomeness, it is to reinforce their conclusions that there are no men whom they can trust to protect them, to lead them, to love them. It is to reinforce their conclusions that they cannot, at whatever the cost, be vulnerable—they must be strong, independent, unbreakable. It is to tell them that they cannot enjoy the delicacy, gracefulness, and muliebrity that so mysteriously distinguishes their gender from its opposite and makes them unique, but rather must seek to attain power, authority, and prestige at all costs, even if it means sacrificing that distinction which is so inherently valuable in them.

It is to release them from enslavement to others, only to enslave them to themselves.

R. J. Rushdooney | The alternative to submission is exploitation, not freedom, because there is no true freedom in anarchy. The purpose of submission is not to degrade women in marriage, nor to degrade men in society, but to bring to them their best prosperity and peace under God's order. In a world of authority, the submission of the wife is not in isolation, nor in a vacuum. It is set in a context of submission by men to authority; in such a world, men teach the principles of authority to their sons and daughters and work to instill in them the responsibilities of authority and obedience. In such a world, interdependence and service prevail. In a world of moral anarchy, there is neither submission to authority nor service, which is a form of submission. (emphasis mine)

In a culture where civil-rights is king, and “equality” is increasingly becoming the mantra under which to stand, the Bible’s words have also become increasing prevalent. Among all the differences among humans today and in history, we are reminded that there was only one difference ordained by God at creation:

The difference between a man and a woman.

And it is only when we abide by biblical role distinctions that we will know true freedom as men and women. Our culture has long endured the erosion of these differences. One generation has chinked away the ordinance of the headcovering; never in a million years intending to undermine the foundation for male-female role distinctions. The next generation chipped away a little more; doing away with male-female role distinctions, never intending to open the door to same-sex marriage. Our generation has knocked away the distinction between men and women sexually, though we would never intend, of course, to open the door for bestiality or “intergenerational love” (pedophilia). Do we really think that the generation following us will be “responsible” with how we’ve treated the Bible, and not let it “get out of hand?” Do we really expect the following generation not to learn from our example?

(Yes, it’s a slippery slope argument. I don’t care. Our culture is sliding, scrambling, and tumbling down a slippery slope, only catching our breath long enough to yell: “Slippery slope argument! Slippery slope!”)

Taylor Cadwell notes: “The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women.”

This is why it’s so important.

And just to show that I’m not against women, I’ll end with two quotes from a very talented, spiritual, and gracious one:

Elisabeth Elliot | It is a naive sort of feminism that insists that women prove their ability to do all the things that men do. This is a distortion and a travesty. Men have never sought to prove that they can do all the things women do. Why subject women to purely masculine criteria? Women can and ought to be judged by the criteria of femininity, for it is in their femininity that they participate in the human race. And femininity has its limitations. So has masculinity. That is what we’ve been talking about. To do this is not to do that. To be this is not to be that. To be a woman is not to be a man. To be married is not to be single - which may mean not to have a career. To marry this man is not to marry all the others. A choice is a limitation. (emphasis mine)

Elisabeth Elliot | To me, a lady is not frilly, flouncy, flippant, frivolous and fluff-brained, but she is gentle, she is gracious, she is godly and she is giving. You and I have the gift of femininity... the more womanly we are, the more manly men will be and the more God is glorified. Be women, be only women, be real women in obedience to God.