ordinary christianity for the world.
Corinth, A Church Divided
Poetic Praise
Covering
1 Corinthians 11:1-7
Monkey see, monkey do. That was Paul's advice to this church whose leaders were engaged in apostasy and immorality. "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (v. 1). The KJV translates the word (mimetes) as followers, suggesting that followers imitate or mimic the one they follow. Follower's are to reproduce the leader's behavior, and sometimes even his looks. Paul was not so concerned with how the Corinthians looked — though he had some concerns about clothing styles that will come up shortly. Rather, his concern here was behavior. At the same time, Paul was not unconcerned about how they looked because one's dress, one's style, one's mannerisms are all part of one's behavior, and all are a reflection of one's values, beliefs and morality.
Paul was engaged in the ministry of modeling. He was a model Christian. He set himself up as the one to emulate. Paul saw himself as a trend setter in the Christian church. He understood himself to be a foundation stone for a social movement that would utterly change the world — and it did!
What does it mean to imitate Paul? How do we do that today? Can we do that? Is it important? Paul answers these questions in the next verse: "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you" (v. 2). Paul commends the Corinthians. He has trust and confidence in them in spite of the fact of their apostasy and immorality. He has confidence that the body of believers will be corrected and strengthened by the Spirit of Christ — saving some and casting some out. His confidence is not simply in them as individuals, but in Christ and in Christ's power to save and sanctify all of His people. Christ is not stopped by apostasy and immorality. His truth marches on, healing and correcting the sin that He encounters. Sin does not stop Jesus Christ — not at all! He came to conquer sin and death, and is eager to confront it.
Normally, when something dirty touches something clean the dirt is transmitted and pollutes what was previous clean — sometimes a lot, and sometimes a little. However, when Christ touches a thing His cleansing and purity are transmitted. The dirt and pollution do not accrue to Christ, rather His purity and righteousness accrue to the thing touched. The point is that in Christ the normal transfers of purity and pollution are reversed. When Christ interacts with apostasy and immorality their unrighteousness does not flow to Him. Rather, His righteousness flows to them. The touch of the Lord purifies what He touches.
Paul commends the Corinthians because they remember him. They remember Paul's faithfulness, Paul's model. And they don't just remember him now and then. It is not an occasional thoughtfulness of Paul, but they remember him "in everything" (pas). Clearly, Paul is speaking to those who do in fact remember him in everything, but he is also speaking to the whole church and calling them all to remember him in everything, and to imitate him in all things. Paul was speaking to the whole Corinthian church, some of whom were faithful and some of whom were not. The moral imperative of obedience applied to them all.
Note also that there are three English words used to translate the Greek (paradosis) — traditions, doctrines and ordinances. Paradosis means objectively, that which is delivered, the substance or content of a teaching. Secondly, it refers to the body of precepts, and ritual(s) associated with various precepts. In other words, it refers to doctrine, but not merely doctrine. Rather, it includes the social practices associated with doctrine. The Old Testament often prescribed various social rituals with various doctrines as a way to give life to the doctrines, and to help people keep various teachings in remembrance. Paul used the word paradosis to suggest a passing on of something important by word of mouth, and it included both knowledge and the practice of cultural norms.
Paul tells the Corinthians to "maintain the traditions" (v. 2) of faithfulness. He is not talking about the "traditions of men" (Mark 7:8, Colossians 2:8), but the religious practices and habits of faithfulness that are biblical, those which have been instituted by Jesus Christ regarding worship and ordinary life. He is speaking in particular about the traditions that he — Paul — had given to them, and which he now goes on to clarify.
The first thing that he does is to ground his clarification in a discussion of headship or authority — the power or right to give orders and make decisions. In a court of law the very first issue that is raised is the issue of jurisdiction. Does this particular court have the right and authority to adjudicate in this particular matter? Before a court does anything, it must determine whether it has the proper jurisdiction. That is what Paul is doing in his discussion of headship.
"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" (v. 3). Paul is describing a kind of chain of command or jurisdictional order. It is important to note that Paul's language is universal, Christ is the head of every man. Not some men, but every man. We might be tempted to limit the context to the Corinthian church, and say that Paul meant that Christ was the head of every male church member. But we can only make such a determination by speculation that doesn't agree with Paul's actual words. Can we limit Paul's meaning like this? I don't think so, because Jesus said that "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to" Him (Matthew 28:18). If all authority was given to Jesus Christ, then He would indeed be the head of all.
The fact that Jesus is Lord does not mean that His Lordship just applies to people who agree with Him. Jesus is Lord of all, or He is not Lord at all. Paul penned one of the earliest Christian creeds in Romans 10:9, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." The earliest and most consistent understanding of this creed was that it is universal. It applies to everyone, and at the same time it is conditional. If you confess.... Not everyone will, in spite of the universal imperative.
Paul continues, "the head of a wife is her husband." Just as Jesus is in submission to God the Father, so the husband must be in submission to Jesus the Son. Remember that Jesus did not do what He wanted to do, he did what God wanted Him to do. "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done" (Luke 22:42). "So Jesus said to them, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me'" (John 8:28). In other words, all authority is authority in submission, with God the Father at the top of the heap. Thus, the husband has limited authority over his wife because he must live in submission to Christ. He has authority to follow Christ.
So, the chain of command is: God, Christ, husband, wife. But we must understand that authority is not the same as status, and furthermore that Christian authority is not the same as worldly authority. "Jesus called them to him and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many'" (Matthew 20-25-28). Christian authority — headship — is, then, service and responsibility, not domineering power.
God is the head of Christ, who is the head of every man. And the husband is the head of his wife. Christian headship is, then, a biblical family office to which men are called and elected by God. In addition the office of headship is a double bind. Husbands are under Christ and in service to their wives. Husbands are bound by the authority of Christ and by loving service to their wives, who by virtue of their marriage concur with God's calling and election of their husbands. Husbands are responsible to Jesus Christ for themselves, for their wives and for their children. Wives are responsible to their husbands for themselves and for their children. And children are in the process of learning Christian service and responsibility. That's the model.
Paul now begins a discussion about the tradition of Christian worship, as he understood it. Differentiating between husbands and wives, Paul said that "Every man who prays or prophesies" (v. 4) does one thing, or does it one way, "but every wife who prays or prophesies" (v. 5) does it another way. Before we get into the different ways that husbands and wives attend to their various responsibilities in worship, notice that both husbands and wives are both described as praying and prophesying. This has nothing to do with worship leadership, but everything to do with worship participation. Paul is not discussing worship leadership responsibilities, but family or common responsibilities in worship. From the earliest times Christians prayed and sang together.
To see the ordinary way that this played out requires us to understand what Paul meant by prophesies (propheteuo). The Greek word can mean to foretell events and to divine, as in using divine powers to know things not knowable through the ordinary senses. Of course, Christians know God through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit through regeneration. And though Jesus spoke things that are difficult to understand, He did not teach mystical prognostication as practiced in pagan religions. Though there are mysterious things about Christianity, Christianity is not a mystery religion. Rather, in the context that Paul uses this word, it is better understood to mean "speaking under inspiration." Again, we are not talking about some magical or mysterious thing, though the process remains mysterious because we don't know how it happens, other than attributing it to the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.
I want to suggest that Paul is talking about the ordinary things of worship — praying, singing, reading scripture, etc. All of these things occur under the influence and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and both men and women do them. Both men and women are to live and worship under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and both will at times speak under the influence of the Holy Spirit in prayer and song.
At the same time, we must not limit our understanding of worship to mean an hour on Sunday mornings. True Christian worship is a way of living in thankfulness and faithfulness to God in all things — all things, not some things, all the time, not just some of the time. Thus, worship must be at the very center and heart of everything that we do. Worship effects the way we live our lives, not just what we do on Sunday mornings, though it has a particular focus on Sunday mornings.
All that having been said, it seems most likely that Paul was discussing some of the cultural norms — Christian cultural norms — of worship participation, which effect Sunday mornings and often spill over into our everyday living. Paul called attention to the social norm that men who participated in Sunday morning worship with their heads covered dishonored their head — Christ. And the opposite was true for women. Paul's comments testify that such a norm was in existence at that time. That may seem odd at this point in history. But the traditional practice up until the 1960s in America was for men to take their hats off when they came into church, and for women to wear hats to church — and not just in America, but universally, virtually everywhere there was Christian worship.
What has happened since the 1960s is interesting. Women seldom, if ever, wear hats to church, regardless of their denomination. Things have changed for women in response to the Women's Rights Movement. Nonetheless, men still remove their hats in church, if they wear them to church. I doubt that God ultimately cares whether or not people wear hats. That is not the issue. Rather, the issue is honoring the principle of headship, and doing so in various cultural ways. Paul simply cited a particular cultural practice of the day that was in use to symbolize the idea of honoring authority. And that cultural practice continued from the First Century to the Twentieth. Styles of hats (head coverings) changed with national and historical trends, but the basic rules of hat wearing in church did not change for twenty centuries, until Women's Liberation became popular.
I had jury duty a couple of weeks ago, and before the judge came into the room the bailiff instructed all who were present to remove their hats. Something of this biblical cultural practice regarding hats and authority still survives. There is power in cultural norms.
Paul's point was that it was important to honor authority, and that because men and women had different kinds of authority they showed that honor in different ways. Men, husbands, who were in direct authority to Christ came to church "hat in hand" so to speak, in visible submission to Christ. And women, who were in authority to Christ through the authority of their husbands, kept their heads covered in honor of the authority of Christ through Christ's representatives — their husbands. Head covering symbolized authority and power, service and responsibility. There is some good symbolism in all of this, and I think that Paul's point was to honor God through various cultural practices or norms.
The issue is not women's rights or male domination, both of which are manifestations of pride and self-concern. This misunderstanding is not new. The issue is God's honor and authority. The disciples themselves had misunderstood Jesus' authority, and asked to "sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory" (Mark 10:37). The story continues:
"Jesus said to them, 'You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?' And they said to him, 'We are able.' And Jesus said to them, 'The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.' And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. And Jesus called them to him and said to them, 'You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many'" (Mark 10:38-45).
The point is that the disciples misunderstood what Jesus was doing. They thought that He was conferring status and wanted to be at the head of the line. But Jesus was not conferring status, at least not as they understood it. He was conferring obligation and responsibility — servanthood. They had been interested in getting the honor and status of association with Jesus Christ. But Christ was interested in serving the Lord Himself and enlisting others to serve the Lord in His stead. They wanted to get, He wanted them to give. It is a classic problem in the life of the church. People come to Christ and to His church with the wrong hopes and dreams. People want what is best for themselves. Christ wants what is best for God.
