Yesterday, in my post about the Trinity [1] I intentionally left two loose ends in my discussion for later commentary because I was in a hurry and did not have the time to do justice to the subjects, so I only mentioned them in passing. The first of these issues I would like to discuss is the biblical doctrine of the chain of being. To discuss this subject properly, it is necessary to understand several different contexts. One is a historical context, both of the (mis)use of the doctrine of the chain of being in right ring political contexts as well as the historical context of gender relationships in the early Christian Church, and the other is a scriptural context of why Paul talks about potentially dicey issues of male/female relations.

Let us therefore begin by tackling this context before we attempt to comment on the scripture itself. First, let us look at the concept of the chain of being as it was viewed historically. The great chain of being [2] was a strict hierarchy where everything in creation had a fixed place based (supposedly) on God’s divine order. The view of society promoted by such a view was extremely rigid, such that while mankind struggles between the fleshly (sinful) and spiritual (righteous) natures within us (see Romans 7:1-25), mankind’s position is essentially fixed based on the accident of birth. If you’re a woman or a peasant, you drew the short straw. If you are a male, or a king, or an aristocrat, you drew a better lot and a higher role in God’s order. Movement along the chain of being was very closely limited, because those who held to this belief preferred a static social order with limited to no flexibility in movement except along a moral level (not a positional level). Is this the kind of chain of being that Paul has in mind here?

Let us also note something about the gender politics of Paul’s time (and today) in examining this passage (and related passages in scripture). Since we know that to God there is no importance placed or partiality shown to someone based on gender or ethnic origin or social class (see Galatians 3:26-29, James 2:1-13), this must not be referring to how people are seen in the eyes of God but to other factors. Therefore, we need not be sexist in either a feminist or male chauvinistic way about this passage. In Roman society (in a view largely taken from the Greeks), men were considered to be vastly superior had extensive power over women [3]. We must understand that Christianity as a religion was strictly opposed to anarchy and rather desired to change society from within and gradually, without violence. This was true both in terms of slavery as well as gender relations.

So, with that context, let us understand what Paul is saying in the scriptural context of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Even though we are mainly interested in verse three, let us quote the whole passage for the immediate context of what Paul is saying: “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep to the traditions just as I have delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays and prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man comes through woman, but all things are from God. Judge among 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 dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”

This is an exceedingly touchy passage, but if we want to understand the chain of being as the Bible presents it, we have to deal with it, as contentious as the subjects it raises are. We at least ought not to shy away from any genuine teaching of the Bible, no matter how controversial it is in our own time and culture. For in the modern Church of God culture this passage is controversial in at least two aspects. For one, let us note that the passage clearly points out that men are to have authority over their own wives, and that women are to have their head covered, either with long hair or some kind of sign of the authority of their husbands. Needless to say, the recognition of male authority in households is not popular with women in this day and age (I have more to say about this subject below and what it means, though, so I hope those who are offended bear with me.). In addition, the way this passage calls long hair dishonorable for men is one of the reasons why the Church of God culture as a whole has tended to be unfriendly concerning long hair for men, and is one of the reasons I try to keep my hair cut relatively short personally. However, the most controversial aspect of this passage as a whole may not be that men are placed in authority over women, but that Paul states pretty clearly that there are women preaching and praying in services in Corinth. After all, since Paul gives them requirements to have their head covered when a woman prays or prophesies (see 1 Corinthians 11:5), it assumes that they are doing so. Under what circumstances we do not know, but we know that it was done in such a way as to show that the woman so doing was under the authority of a man, but also that she could have scriptural wisdom to share with men as God has given her. In that sense, women of the first century church seem to have had greater freedom of roles within church services than their modern counterparts.

Having said that, let us note the grounds on which Paul says that women are subject to men. There is a chain of being here. God (the Father) is the one God and Father of all. Even Christ (who is Lord of all else) is subject to Him. Men are subject to Christ, as the Word, and therefore also limited by the biblical commands as to the way in which they serve in the office of husband. In this manner, the wife is subject to the husband. Within the family the divine order is copied. Wives obey husbands just as Christ obeys God. And also the relationship between the divine and human order is seen: Just as Christ sacrificed Himself for the Church, so husbands are to (if necessary) sacrifice themselves for their wives (see Ephesians 5:22-33). We must be clear to understand that women are not subject to men because they are lesser in the eyes of God, but rather because God requires that authority and chain of command be respected. After all, Christians are a part of God’s army, and there are clear protocols of respect that need to be followed as a result.

But we need to be very clear the major distinction between the belief in the Great Chain of Being as it has been preached in the world and the biblical conception of the chain of being. The Bible does not use the chain of being as a way of subordinating women to men as lesser beings, or of considering rulers as greater than ruled. In God’s eyes all are equal (see Galatians 3:26-29, Deuteronomy 17:20). However, there is also always order and decorum (and therefore “offices”) within godly institutions so that there are clear lines of authority to prevent anarchy and contentions. Those who hold such offices are to lead as Christ led, as servant leaders not as bossy tyrants (see Matthew 20:25-28). Leading is being given a solemn duty and a great responsibility; it is not being given power to lord it over others. Nonetheless, holding such offices makes us worthy of respect simply as a result of holding those offices (though our judgment will be harsher should we fail to behave worthy of the respect given, see James 3:1).

We must therefore remember that God is both a God of equality and of order. The positions and offices that people hold are to preserve order and discipline and to prevent chaos. We learn to submit to heavenly authority by learning to submit to (highly imperfect) human authority. This is a task that is particularly difficult for me personally, and I do not assume it is any easier for anyone else. Nevertheless, the fact that we submit to authority in families, congregations, and societies does not in any way deny the basic equality between people at large. Children grow up (God willing) to become husbands and wives and parents of children themselves. Members become ordained as deacons and elders, and if they are removed from their offices they become members again, equal with the brethren once again. God raises and lowers people as He sees fit, according to His purposes and His plans, without changing their equality before Him in judgment. Let us therefore neither be tyrants in offices bullying others because of a mistaken view of the divine right of our offices, nor let us be rebels against legitimate authority because we are unable to accept others in authority over us, for we will always have authority over us–even Christ does, after all. Instead, let us lead with love and self-sacrifice, and submit to authority with respect and honor and grace, knowing that we are called both to submit to authority and to rule in God’s kingdom.

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/on-the-trinity-and-logic/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being

[3] James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World Of The New Testament: Exploring The Background Of Early Christianity (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsityPress, 1999), 241-247.

[4] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/the-implications-of-philemon-on-the-process-of-cultural-change/