Why Women Are Not Pastors Pt. II

I recently branched out to a new social platform to gain traffic and hopefully encounter more discussions about my blog posts. The new platform I signed up for is called, Reddit. I was immediately impressed with the amount of traffic and interaction I received. Within a few hours, I had over 100 new views and over 100 comments on a couple of trial Reddit posts. This put my current favorite platform (Twitter) to shame.

The first linked post I used on Reddit was one of my most controversial blog posts—Why Women Are Not Pastors. I probably should have eased my way into the new platform.. Oh well.

Before continuing in this part-two post, I recommend reading the first post on the matter.

I expected to get a quick yay or nay from Reddit users, or maybe some up-votes or down-votes. But they came with questions. Seeing all the questions flood in got me so excited! I thought, “Wow, some people really do care! They are curious!” I became inspired after conversing with many people on the first post that I decided to compose this part-two post on the subject.

What about head coverings?

Expectantly, I got all kinds of pushback from the first Why Women Are Not Pastors post. It was pretty incredible how personal people attack online. I mean, they don’t even know me or my church but made all kinds of wild claims..

The few good conversations I did have were strictly about the Bible texts (which is my goal, by the way). One of the common objections to the conclusion that women are not to take on pastoral positions dealt with Paul’s teaching on head coverings..

Yep… head coverings. Not pastoral positions. Head coverings. But I rolled with it.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (ESV) states:

Head Coverings
[2] Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. [3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [6] For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. [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. [10] That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. [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. [13] Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? [14] Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, [15] but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. [16] If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Now, interestingly enough, this text was brought to me to say, “Don’t you ignore this today? Isn’t it outdated? You probably ignore this teaching, so why hold to his other teaching about women? It’s outdated too.” To which I respond, “I like what it says… Yep, this passage is good too. I don’t ignore it. I’ll take both please, and an ice-cold Dr. Pepper.”

They brought this up, assuming that I disregard it, so they can lead me to disregard what Paul said about women pastors too. But I don’t disregard either text. I hold them as true and relevant.

I agree… We don’t get to pick and choose.

People came to me with this text to convince me that I somehow pick and choose which Bible passages to follow after I told them women at our church may have short hair or dress without head coverings. I think it’s all true. But when we learn more about the Bible, we must also learn how to obey the Bible.

If you miss the context, history, and purpose you will likely misapply and abuse the passage.

This is a rich, difficult, and complex chapter. Someone brought the text before me to prove that women can be pastors by trying to convince me that we tend to disagree with Paul on things. Since we disagree, it’s okay to forget some things he said because they’re outdated, or because Paul is wrong in his view.

When you find yourself disagreeing with the Bible, that doesn’t mean we get to dismiss what it says. We need to keep the Bible over us, not us over the Bible.

It’s the Word of God. What it says is what God would say if he were in the room (see more about this here). We probably have a simple misunderstanding about what it says, or don’t understand how to properly apply it.

Verse 16 was brought up over and over and over and over again… “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” (Go re-read the passage above.)

The reason this verse was brought up so much is that it states there’s no leeway with his view. The Apostle Paul’s stance is one that can’t be tampered with. You either agree with him on this or hit the highway, buddy. All the churches even agree with his view. We all like the sound of this, by the way. We all agree. That’s how we see the whole Bible. So how do we apply this? What did Paul mean? What is he saying? What are we not allowed to contend against Paul about?

Head coverings were a symbol, not a law for the church.

Paul said, “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head.” Paul is not mandating a law for the New Testament church here. He is teaching in this entire section what verse three says—”But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” This universal truth is evidenced through the exercise of women wearing head coverings. This symbol points to the creation order, and it’s a beautiful thing.

Verse three’s teaching can be seen all over the New Testament. Head coverings, though, not so much. We don’t have tons of history on this subject, but I enjoy reading whatever I can find. In short, for the Corinthian church it was culturally normal for women to wear coverings to display their submission and authority given to their husband. When a woman would rebel, they would pray and prophecy with their head uncovered and their hair cut short. Removing their coverings showed a lack of submissiveness.

This act would notify the church that a woman was displaying herself as equal with the men, as it regards her role in the church. Paul teaches that women do not have equal roles. They are equal in importance and equally valued by God and the church, but men and women have distinct roles. (See part one blog post.)

Today, it is perfectly suitable and reasonable within the confines of Scripture to not wear head coverings, nor have long hair, while remaining submissive to church authority. I do not feel threatened by any women in our church, at CrossPoint Lindsborg, who do not wear head coverings or have short hair. Why? Because of our culture and the times. In Paul’s day, this act would’ve made a pastor-elder feel threatened.

The symbol may change from culture to culture, but the theology it points to does not. The way women show their submissiveness to men may vary from tribe to tribe. Symbols change, but the creation order does not. So we still obey Paul’s teaching today.

How does this relate back to women pastors?

“So doesn’t this mean you’re ignoring verse 16?” No.

After learning how head coverings were used in the Corinthian church, look what Paul said at the end—”If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” 

Redditors screamed, “Either obey all of what Paul said and make the women wear head coverings, or dismiss his teachings about women! Let women preach and teach if you’re going to dismiss them of using head coverings…”

However, what Paul is saying in verse 16 is NOT, “If anyone is contentious, always make them wear head coverings.”
What he’s saying IS, “If anyone is contentious, the men always lead the women.” Do you see what he’s really getting at here?

It’s not about the head coverings. It’s about submissiveness. And about this, Paul is saying it’s his way or the highway, buddy. And I agree. Paul isn’t saying our custom is about head coverings. Our custom is “that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

This is the New Testament standard. Men lead the women. The coverings are merely a symbol of this (cf. v.10). Women are not forced to wear coverings or keep their hair long today because that’s not a New Testament law. The symbols of submissiveness come in other shapes and forms depending on what culture you’re in.

Show reasonable, respectful submissiveness out of reverence for Christ. Both men and women are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, not just the women. And when this gets tampered with, church discipline is necessary. Paul is not contending for universal head coverings, but universal submissiveness in the church.

Nice try…

So this passage doesn’t really relate to women eldership, but it’s used by many to try to get there. We aren’t throwing this Scripture out. We are not going to dismiss anything! We’re going to learn how to rightly apply all his instruction.

This topic of head coverings is a separate issue for the whole church, not just church leadership like pastors. Pastors are held to a different standard. And it remains, the pastoral position in the local church is for men, not women.

In summary, this doesn’t give any support to dismissing Paul’s instruction about pastor-elder positions. This is another passage that gels nicely with it actually. These Bible passages are not given to us for divisiveness or discrimination. They are given to us to instruct us how to bear witness of Christ to the world.

When we learn and rightly apply the Bible’s instruction, our witness to the world increases. I pray these posts do not divide the church, but unify it in the truth for the glory of God.

“Let’s seek the truth. Let’s share in Christ.” 

 


If you would like to partner with us, visit here → Partner

 

10 thoughts on “Why Women Are Not Pastors Pt. II

  1. Another excellent job, Payte. Being quite a bit older than you, I’ve heard the “head covering” argument quite a few times over the years. You did another great job explaining the difference between the woman pastor and head covering issues, and “rightly divided” the Word of God. I’m hoping some of the objectors had ears that were willing to listen.

    Keep up the great work!

  2. As a woman I actually agree with both your posts, as far as women not being Biblically allowed to take pastor/elder positions in the church but still being called to lead and spread God’s good news in other ways. Different roles but equal value 🙂 This is such a hard and touchy subject to address. Thank you for trying to be humble and respectful about it. My question is then within context of the texts you provided in post 1 what is the role of women in the church? Are they only supposed to find husbands to ask their questions of? Are they only good for making babies? Both of those things are beautiful and have great value don’t get me wrong! But, how do those fit in to women’s role in the church and how should single women apply these texts? Sorry if this sounds like a loades gun question, I am absolutely open to any genuine Bible based answer you are willing to give.

    1. That’s a great question! Thank you for asking/commenting. This is exactly the kind of conversations I sought to have when writing. In the first post, I mentioned Titus 2 which gives lots of insight for women’s roles in the church. You’re right about having more purpose than raising children. In fact, many use raising children as a cop-out from The Great Commission. Women are encouraged to teach other women and children. There’s plenty of room for teaching and pastoring in this context. At our church women co-lead Bible Studies with men so they can help shepherd other women in the group. It’s absolutely Biblical for women to lead and teach this way. This is separate from the pastoral position at a local church.

  3. After getting a notice you had subscribed to my blog, I naturally wanted to visited your 🙂

    After reading one and two of why women are not to be pastors, (agreed), I went on to this one. So, I figured I’d share a link to an old post from 2011 on the subject.

    Stay blessable, on fire, and unburnable!

    Live for the King! …it’ll make it easier to die for Him…

  4. Hi Payte! Thanks for dropping by my blog. So I usually steer clear of these kinds of posts and debates cause they are often riddled with influences from the thinking of today’s common society or the opposite extreme, but your post was very clear and balanced. Someone close to me explained it as a symbol of Christ as the Head of the church and how women in the church have the privilege of displaying that.

  5. I admire your courage in being faithful to the role of Pastor. So many are backing down from God’s true word these days. But to maybe bring a little different angle on this, just for thought, we don’t talk much about the lust of the eyes in our current culture. It’s pretty much completely out of control. And then we men face the same thing even in church. It’s as if women don’t realize the power they have. I think Paul realized the dangers involved. Our modern church over looks a lot, it seems. I’m not sure we’ll ever get all the toothpaste back in the tube, but it is an issue. My opinion any way. A woman may be very gifted, but if she’s not modest while in the limelight, concentration may be conflicted. It’s not a struggle a godly man really wants to have in church. To me, we have other issues of dress code before we even worry about a head covering. How far have we slid? Or am I barking up a wrong tree? To me, it relates.

    1. Modesty and purity are definitely important. Head coverings, however were not for the purpose of modesty. They were a symbol of submission—a symbol of authority from women given to the men. Seems archaic to many of us today, so the symbol may change, but not the principal or pastoral position.

Leave a Reply