Month: Nov 2023

Preaching, Prophecy and Creation

When the Church of England agreed to consecrate women bishops, in 2014, the measure that was passed said that ministry at every level in the Church of England was now open to women alongside men. For many this was the end of a very long road in ecclesiastical female emancipation. The first female presbyters had been ordained twenty years earlier in 1994. What had been agreed, in effect, was that the ministries of men and women were now ‘interchangeable’. Whilst we must recognise that ‘interchangeable’ is not the same as ‘indistinguishable’ (that’s a subject for another day), the change represented an anthropological and ecclesiological milestone. The debate in General Synod, as is so often the case, was largely informed by social justice and secular values. This is not, in itself, invalid, of course, but we must also consider theological and biblical ideas when we assess the veracity of the conclusion for God’s church. There is a great deal of convergence between social, theological and biblical values, but not complete coherence. Where there are inconsistencies, the biblical and theological must be given priority in assessing questions of ecclesiastical polity. So what does theology and biblical studies teach us? A thorough treatment of this question would fill volumes, indeed it has! If you search theological libraries you will find many volumes, articles and papers on this subject. For our purposes here, though, I will focus on one key passage. 1 Corinthians 11v2-16:

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

Paul commends the Corinthians. This may seem a little odd in the context of a letter where he seems to be spending the majority of his time castigating them for their errors, particularly errors where they have deviated from his teaching. It is hard to imagine, though, that they were bad in every respect. Paul is simply giving praise where it is due and, at the same time, preparing his readers for his harsher words to follow. This verse, then, forms an introduction probably to the entire section that follows in chapters 11 to 14 in which Paul deals with questions of church order.

3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Paul introduces this section by indicating that he is going to talk about the relationships between men and women. Two concepts are brought together here that need more investigation if we are to understand the rest of this passage. Our understanding of this verse will dictate our understanding of what follows. The questions we need to consider, then, are:

  • What does Paul mean by the word ‘head ‘?
  • How does the analogy with Christ and God (the Father) work?

First, is Paul is the word ‘head’ in the sense of ‘source’ or ‘origin’ in the same way as we might talk of the source of a river as its ‘head’? Thus, man is the ‘source’ of the woman in the sense that woman was made from man (cf. v8). So, there is no subordination, he is merely indicating origination. However , this view is not convincing. Partly because it is difficult to see why Paul should be making this point in this way here, when he makes it far more clearly and unambiguously in v8. But also because there is no way to see God (the Father) as the source of Christ (the Son) without falling into the Arian heresy (an early heresy that denied the doctrine of the trinity).

 

So, it is most convincing that Paul uses the word ‘head’ to mean ‘authority over’ and is thus introducing a concept of subordination. This may sound a little hard to our twenty-first century mindset, but please bear with me. This view is shared by most older commentators and an increasing number of more recent ones. It is also certainly the way Paul uses the word elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Eph 1:22, 5:2324, Col 2:10). The comparison with the relationship between the father and the son provides an understanding of the way this subordination works. Clearly Paul is not saying that a woman is ontologically (ie. in her being) subordinate to a man, this would be heresy when applied to the Trinity, the Father and the Son are clearly ontologically equal. What he is saying, though, is that there is a functional subordination. Jesus was under the authority of the Father despite being of the same essence (being), in the same way the woman should be under the authority of the man though they are equal in God’s eyes (cf. Gal 3:28). For us we may have difficulty separating being and function, but ‘We are what we do’ is not a Biblical concept. We are what we are in Christ.

4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head

5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonours her head it is the same as if her head were shaven.

6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.

First we need to ask, what is the nature of the covering? It seems to be something that was normal for women but abnormal for men. Paul is thus saying that men should be like men and women should be like women before God.

The second question is, who is being dishonoured? Is head here used in an anatomical sense to refer to ones-self (in this sense we might say ‘be it on your own head‘) or in the figurative sense of v3? I think the answer could very easily be both. For a woman to appear in public with her head shaved would have been shameful to both herself and her husband because she would have looked like a man. For a man to cover his head would be for him to shamefully depict himself as a woman which would dishonour God. This explanation is borne out by v7.

Paul is saying that he wants women to wear head coverings while praying and prophesying because to do otherwise would be to confuse the sexes and give the shameful impression that women are behaving like men. As Christians, of course, this is not necessary, men and women can both equally come before God as themselves. In Judaism, only the men were allowed to pray.

7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)

This section adds further reasons to Paul’s previous argument. The principal is that one should always honour and respect the source from which one came. The structure is:

A    v4 – a man should not cover his head

B    v5-6 – a woman should cover her head

A’    v7a – why a man should not cover his head

B’    v7b-10 – why a woman should cover her head

 

The woman was not only made from man (and equal with him) but also to help man (and so functionally subordinate to him), this is supported in Genesis 2, it is the created order and it should be respected in worship.

10 That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

It is unclear here whether the reason is what has gone before, or what follows. It could easily mean both and this is how most translations render it. The real difficulty with this verse is the word translated veil. Literally it means authority. The best understanding is that the woman indicates that she is under the authority of her husband and is so maintaining God’s created order of which the angels are guardians. This understanding is supported by FF Bruce, one of the twentieth century’s most respected New Testament scholars.

11 (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;

12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.)

Paul wants to make absolutely clear that men and women are equal in Christ. Clearly, any talk of authority could lead to misunderstanding and the resultant undervaluing of women in the church.

13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

14 Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him,

15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Paul further reinforces his argument from nature. For a man to wear long hair in Corinthian culture is contrary to nature because it makes him look like a woman. For a woman to pray with her head uncovered is not right because she is taking the place of a man.

The last part of v15 is quite difficult to understand here. It is important to note, however, that the word for covering is different from that used earlier. The best sense may be that nature itself has given woman a covering thus indicating that she should be veiled (cf. FF Bruce).

 

16 If anyone is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

This is the final ‘nail in the coffin’ for anyone disagreeing with Paul here.

In this passage, then, Paul is making a very clear point. He introduces his argument about functional subordination between men and women and supports it by reference to the relationship between Christ and God (v3). He then goes on to support his argument from the prevailing culture (v4-6), from creation (v8-10), from nature (v13-15) and from the developing Christian tradition (v16). Alongside this Paul argues that men and women are ontologically equal (v11-12) in the Lord. Thus men and women are both free to pray, prophesy and participate in worship in the church so long as the gender roles are maintained. Men must be men and women must be women, and they are different.

What, then, is the place for women in worship today?

Unlike the synagogue, where women were not allowed to take part, Paul indicates that women are free to take a full part in prayer and prophecy within the congregation, but maintaining due respect for their gender. Women must not try to become like men in order to take part in worship, and men should certainly not try to be like women. The only caveat to this is that Paul does not permit women to hold a position of teaching authority over men. Women must be in functional subordination to men whilst at the same time exercising their is ontological equality and freedom in Christ.

What about women preaching?

This is something of a debated issue among complementarian churches (those who hold a doctrine of functional subordination). I think the answer to the question hinges on what we consider preaching to be. If it is teaching, then it seems clear then women should not be permitted to preach when men are present. This is view help by many. But is ‘preaching’ coterminous with ‘teaching’? I believe that while preaching may contain teaching, this is not all there is to preaching. Preaching in the New Testament is the application of God’s word to current situations. It is by preaching that souls are drawn to God in repentance, and closer to God in relationship. Preaching is enabled and empowered by God’s Holy Spirit. Otherwise it would be simply lecturing! Reading those last few sentences again I think it is plain that effective, anointed preaching is ‘prophecy’. It is God speaking to his people through His Word.

If preaching is prophecy, then clearly women are free to take part (cf. v5). The instruction to have their head covered (a cultural custom) is to show they are under the (functional) authority of their husband. This is a wonderful privilege for the whole church as we, together, exercise our freedom in Christ in worship, whilst retaining the creation order of men and women.

So, how does this ‘map’ onto Church of England polity?

This is a huge subject that can’t treat fully here. However, for me the outworking is: Women may be ordained deacon, but not Presbyter (or consecrated bishop). Women may be lay readers because they are operating under the authority of the incumbent (as, in fact, is anyone who occupies the pulpit). This is to set men and women free to exercise their God given gifts whilst, at the same time, maintaining God’s ordering in creation. When the creation order is broken then other errors soon result. But that’s another subject.

Church of England Foundations

When a new bishop is consecrated, the following statement is made:

The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

The question is then asked:

In the declaration you are about to make, will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care?

The key points to which they asked to assent are:

  1. The Church of England is not a autonomous organisation, but is part of the ‘one holy, catholic and apostolic church.’ This means we have:
    1. a history going back to the apostles,
    2. a heritage of doctrine and Christian understanding,
    3. accountability to the wider, trinitarian, church of God.
  2. What we believe is:
    1. revealed in the Scriptures. This is expressed at ordination where the ordinand is given a Bible as a symbol.
    2. expressed the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian creeds. These three creeds can all be found in the Book of Common Prayer.
  3. Specifically, the Church of England expresses truth is three foundation documents:
    1. The thirty-nine articles (found in the Book of Common Prayer and reproduced in our service books at St Botolph’s and ST Edmund’s).
    2. The Book of Common Prayer (1662). Notice that the BCP is considered doctrine, Common Worship (the main services used by the church since 2000) is not.
    3. The Ordinal. This is the form of service used for the ordination of deacons and presbyters, and the consecration of bishops.

Important matters of belief and practice in the church are codified in the Canons (church law). The Canons express clearly how the church is to be ordered and are, like any legal document, legally binding. You can find the Canons here. For our present considerations section A is of most interest.

What this provides is a framework with a huge amount of expression, and a range beliefs on secondary matters. This results in a church that is united around core truths, yet broad and open on secondary issues. This is the Church of England! And the bishops have all promised to support and defend it.

In November 2023 the house of bishops, though divided, led by both archbishops, failed in this responsibility.