Thomas Schreiner on the Head Covering Part 1

I thought it might be a good idea to take up particular arguments about the head covering that couldn't be covered in detail in my research discussions. I'm going to start with Thomas Schreiner's chapter in the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, A Response to Evangelical Feminism, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem.

I want to say up front that of all the material I read when I was researching the head covering, this particular article by Thomas Schreiner was the hardest to get through, almost impossible to read. I find it to be a confusing piece of writing that imposes his own views on the text so that it's almost impossible to keep track of a logical thread that actually relates to the Biblical text itself. I think people who read this without difficulty are uncritically accepting his terminology without recognizing that it misrepresents the Biblical text. The main ways he does this are, first, by the use of the term "custom" to describe Paul's frame of reference for the head covering although Paul himself nowhere uses the term or says anything that justifies Schreiner's use of it; and, second, by the use of the term "adornment" to describe the head covering. I will discuss this below.

Chapter 5
HEAD COVERINGS, PROPHECIES AND THE TRINITY

1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16
Thomas R. Schreiner
Introduction

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you. 3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. 11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things 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 long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God.
First Corinthians 11:2-16 has some features that make it one of the most difficult and controversial passages in the Bible. 1 For instance: How does verse 2 relate to verses 3-16? What does Paul mean by the word head in verse 3? Can we identify the custom regarding the adornment of women in the passage? In what sense is woman the glory of man (verse 7)? What does Paul mean when he says that the woman is to have authority on her head (verse 10)? Can we comprehend the reason why a woman is to have authority on her head, namely, because of the angels (verse 10)? And finally, what does the word nature mean in verse 14?

Dr. Schreiner goes on to answer his first question in a way most agree with: That is, Paul is complimenting the Corinthian church on their conscientiousness in obeying the traditions insofar as they have done so, before going on to criticize them for certain failures of obedience, in this particular passage concerning the head covering and the Lord's supper.

He discusses his third question about the "adornment" for some reason before he discusses the meaning of "head" but to respond first to what he says about the head, he is apparently answering a feminist contention that the Greek term for "head" means "source" rather than "authority," and I agree with him and those who say it means "authority," and I believe this meaning is clear from the context without getting into the Greek background. So on these two subjects there is no disagreement, he makes the case.

As for his third question,

Can we identify the custom regarding the adornment of women in the passage?

I have to comment that here he seriously begs the question of the meaning of the whole passage, by calling the head covering an "adornment" and referring to it as a "custom," since neither term appears in the passage and his use of them here imposes a conclusion of his own on the passage for which he has given no justification.

We do not know as we read the passage whether Paul is talking about a custom or not, or if he is, which culture's custom, since there were three or four cultures intersecting in the Corinthian church, or whether custom has anything at all to do with his recommendation for the head covering. It is possible that it is not a custom he has in mind at all but an entirely new practice the apostles are requiring of the churches, and since this is the conclusion I and others have come to, we must object that this use of "custom" leaves no room for our conclusion while forcing Dr. Schreiner's on us.

And is the head covering an "adornment?" That term is not used in the passage about the head covering either, though it may be implied in describing the woman's long hair, which is called her "glory," but it is not part of the description of the head covering itself. To adorn is to beautify or decorate. Are shoes an "adornment?" In fact is clothing in itself an "adornment?" As I read the Biblical passage, the head covering is a covering, as clothes are a covering, a utilitarian functional piece of cloth for covering the head as clothes cover the body. Clothes are not in themselves an "adornment," they are a necessity for covering the body. And that is also the way the head covering is presented in this passage.

To start off in this way by using terms that beg the question is unfortunately likely to prejudice the entire discussion and I think that is probably what has happened by the time we get to the end of it.

The difficulties with this text could lead one to say that it should not be used to establish any doctrine or teaching on the role relationship of men and women. Indeed, one might claim that only clear passages should be used to form a doctrine, and this passage is too obscure.

In my own study of this passage I finally came to the conclusion that the difficulties we encounter in it at first are mostly caused by our own expectations and prejudices and not really difficulties in the passage itself. It takes determined study and continual prayer to clear our minds of these preconceptions.

But another major reason for the difficulty is that it is very easy to get caught up in secondary elements of the argument, things we don't really need to know in order to understand what Paul wants us to do. These are very interesting concepts in themselves it would be good for us to understand, and I would say they reflect Paul's deeper spiritual understanding of the things of God than most of us have. This implies that perhaps we should aim to spend more time with the Lord so that they might become clear to us too; nevertheless I don't think we have to understand them in order to grasp what Paul wants of us.

For instance, we don't really need to know what it means to say that the woman is the glory of the man; we can understand what Paul wants us to do even if we don't quite understand that particular reason for it. We also don't really need to understand what Paul means by having authority on the head in order to understand that a cloth covering is the way this is to be expressed. We also don't need to understand what is meant that we are to do this "because of the angels," as long as we are clear WHAT we are to do because of them, and I think it is really not so hard to understand that what we are to do is cover our heads. We don't even really need to know what Paul meant by "nature" in verse 14 to understand that he is saying that women everywhere generally wear their hair longer than men do, and that since nature covers our heads this is a further reason he's giving that we should cover our heads as well. This parallels his point about men that since men's hair is shorter by nature -- and scantier by nature as well if you think of natural male balding -- this is a reason why they SHOULDN'T cover their heads. In fact the way Paul argues for men's NOT covering their heads with an additional covering is probably the strongest clue that he means that women ARE to cover ours.

So I would eliminate all these questions from Dr. Schreiner's list of difficulties with the passage as it is not necessary that we answer them in order to understand the practical point of Paul's exhortation.

No one, or at least few people, would argue that women should be adorned with veils today, leading some to say that this passage is culturally bound and no longer viable in the twentieth century.

This is apparently an error in logic that should have been caught by an editor. It is very confusing as it stands, as if to say: Since few would argue for wearing a head covering today, therefore the passage is culturally bound. It should at least be reversed to say that Since the passage is considered by most to be culturally bound, therefore it is regarded as no longer viable in our day, and therefore few would argue that women should cover their heads, and this is quite true: the passage IS considered by a majority to be culturally bound and therefore not applicable to our day, and therefore we have the situation in which the majority of commentators deny that we are to cover our heads.

Dr. Schreiner goes on to say he disagrees with this position:

In contrast to this position, I will argue that the central thrust of the passage is clear. There are difficulties, but some of the key issues are not as difficult as it has been claimed, and the issues that remain obscure do not affect the central teaching of the passage. Also, while wearing head coverings no longer speaks to our culture, there is an abiding principle in this text that is applicable to the twentieth century.

Although he disagrees with it, he agrees with it to the extent that he accepts the judgment that "wearing head coverings no longer speaks to our culture." He does, however, find an abiding principle in Paul's intention, a principle that transcends any particular culture and applies to all, which will be his solution to all the problems of the passage at the end of his discusion.

Of course I'm still stuck back on "no longer speaks to our culture." Here is the question-begging in full swing. He's simply assumed that speaking to our culture is the main thing about this teaching, that the head covering was merely a cultural custom. He hasn't said one word to try to prove this, he merely assumes it, despite all the reasons Paul gives for it in the text that have nothing whatever to do with culture.

From this point he then goes on to take for granted that the head covering Paul is talking about is an "adornment," which I've answered above, but I'm going to respond to his whole argument here piece by piece because if I don't it's easy to get tripped up by it, not realizing that he's simply following out an idea of his own that he's imposing on the passage which is not in the passage itself.

I'm going to end this post and take up the rest in a separate post as I'm finding it too difficult to keep juggling the code with all the quotations involved.

TO BE CONTINUED.