This Custom is Contested by no Other Church
The Corinthian church alone contested the symbol of power. “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” (verse 16.) Those who look for a way around the ordinance often cast their eyes here for an escape. They bash the KJV for its old English; but they are positively wild about it here because of its peculiar diction and syntax. They try to suppose that Paul, who wrote ‘the commandments of the Lord’ (14.37), is now repealing all of his anterior arguments in order to accommodate a contentious temperament. Happy with this preposterous interpretation are contentious Christians who will be convinced by no argument, even one that says Paul would never prove the keeping of a tradition by brilliant argumentation, only to dismiss, in the last verse, the tradition that he labored to prove. At first glance the KJV seems to allow contentious Christians to never mind the tradition. But the definition of the word ‘custom’ proves that Paul is doing the opposite: pressuring the contentious to obey. ‘Ordinances’ in verse 2 means ‘traditions,’ while ‘custom’ in verse 16 means ‘mutual habituation,’ the entertaining of a moral or immoral habit. The same word is used in John 18.39 to identify another bad habit. Paul uses the Greek word translated ‘custom’ here in 1 Corinthians 11.16 to distinguish it from ‘ordinances’ in verse 2. Therefore, ‘we have no such custom’ does not mean ‘we have no such ordinance, or tradition.’ It means, ‘we have no such bad habit.’ And so the sense of the verse is, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such bad habit of being contentious, and neither do the churches of God.” The teaching is that Christians not in the habit to contend do not contest the tradition. The church at Corinth is being encouraged by peer pressure to imitate the other churches of God. The substance of verse 16, in modern translations, is, “We have no tradition other than the one just delivered.” This is surprising and good, given their liberal tendencies, for this interpretation at least admits that the tradition is not, at this place, left to one’s personal judgment. But the more precise sense may be gleaned by a diligent study of words, as I have somewhat shown. The liberal sense of the verse is, “We do not necessarily hold to this tradition.” That this is wrong is plain, if only from the fact that this would mean that the apostle is granting an exemption to Christians who wish to be contentious.
The scope of the tradition is known by the word ‘churches.’ Paul’s frequent use of this word—fourteen times in his two epistles to this one church—conveys the universality of his orders. The symbol of power is meant for the churches of God then and now: them and us. No time limit is set down; it is for every church always. Even when he uses the word ‘church,’ he often means every church. The tradition, or ordinance, is one of Paul’s ‘ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church’ (4.17.) And notice that he addresses the men: ‘if any man seem to be contentious.’ He addresses the men; it is for them to enforce what the apostle has laid down, and to not be prevailed upon, or dominated, by women. There is little point in arguing with contentious women about the validity of Scripture. Paul knew that; and so he closes what he has to say on the matter by addressing the men. They have the mandate from God to be in charge and to take charge. The men are the principal ones to be confronted; the women are to be corrected and taught. Our churches are populated with chicken-hearted, henpecked men—weak men who are in cahoots with contentious women. They need to strengthen their weakened knees, for they are obliged to enforce the symbol of power. They are duty-bound to know it, to teach it, and to make sure that it is carried out. Militant feminism is in the visible church. This is abhorrent to members of the militant church, who, thankfully, upon becoming members of the church triumphant, will be separated forever, as wheat from chaff, from militant feminists and hypocrites generally. Weak-kneed pastors should remind themselves of this; they should be strengthened by the prophecy that all chaff will soon be driven away forever (Psalm 1.4.)
Most men no doubt believe that they uncover their heads in church for no better reason than that a man is supposed to do it upon entering a room, like a library or a café, for example. But this is not a matter of etiquette; it is a matter of authority and glory. If a man uncovers his head for the right reason in church, and beside him sits a woman who has her head bare, he is dishonored, and the tradition, and therefore God, is disobeyed. If a man refuses to uncover his head in church, he is no more at fault than a woman who refuses to cover hers. Because churchgoers are ignorant, though, the covered man would be upbraided, while all the uncovered women would be let alone. But what about after it is known what this passage of Scripture teaches and requires? Churchgoers who are in the habit of being contentious will not receive the doctrine. But they ought to judge in themselves; that is, we hope, with their enlightened reason, whether or not the custom of debating what the Holy Ghost has written through the Lord’s apostle is holy conduct.
Why are churches of God powerless today? Has it not got something to do with their disobedience to—even ignorance of—the symbol of power? Will authority proceed from pulpits when something as basic as God’s designated pattern of authority is in disarray? Will a church make mountains move when its faith won’t even heed God’s ladder of authority? How can a church move forward when its members won’t even line up in proper order? What kind of an army is that? ‘Onward Christian soldiers’ indeed! Churches that won’t march at God’s command are contentious; they need to be chastened more than blessed. Blessings must come through chastening when the church’s temperature is lukewarm. “I have no need of this symbol of power!” What is this attitude but the Laodicean claim to be in ‘need of nothing’? (Revelation 3.17.) Churches need what God says they must obey. This passage in 1 Corinthians on the symbol of power is so minutely explained by God’s apostle that it may be understood, I think, better than it was understood by Aaron that he had to wear a bonnet on his head during holy ministrations. He didn’t question the need of that; we should not question our need of this.
In this marvelous, though neglected and even hated, passage of Scripture, the apostle has argued from the present to the past, delving back in time a little farther with each argument. He began with culture in verse 6, receded to the creative order of man and woman midway, then back still more to angels in verse 10. By verse 13 he was all the way back to reason, and challenged the Corinthians to use that to judge whether or not his position on this matter conformed to human nature (verses 14, 15.) The only argument we should need is the one in verse 13, the one that appeals to common sense: “Judge in yourselves” (verse 13.) By reason alone we should know that it is proper for a woman to wear long hair and that this hair is given to her as a glorious covering. From this common sense knowledge it should be easy to see that the veil is as spiritual as the woman’s hair is natural. The apostle’s arguments from creation, angelology, nature generally, and reason particularly, collapse the house that heretics have built on the foundation of culture. The symbol of power may not be dismissed on the basis that it is passé. If the matter were confined to first century culture, there would be no reason for the arguments that are used, and there would be no reason for the Holy Ghost to include the passage in the New Testament.
One cannot go farther back than Saint Paul did in support of what he was moved by the Holy Ghost to commission. He argued in the sequence that he did in order to stack his arguments up in the most convincing manner possible. His main arguments for the maintenance of the tradition are not limited to culture nor epoch, for man is still made in the image and glory of God, the natural order still obtains, angels still exist and observe, nature still teaches, and human reason still informs us of what is proper. What is fundamental to each argument is the fact that the hierarchy established by God has not changed: God, Christ, man, woman. Until it changes, the symbol of power should be in effect. The apostle’s intention was to cement the tradition in the churches of God until the end of the age. There are great themes in this passage: honor, glory, equality. But the main theme is authority. Will the churches of God submit to their Almighty Father by respecting his order of authority? By having ‘power on her head,’ God’s authority design is honored, his glory is exposed and uplifted without rival, the angels are not offended but taught, and the churches of God are humbly bowed before the God that they owe adoration to. “In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair short” (Marvin Vincent.) This is the picture that the first half of 1 Corinthians aims to paint in all the churches of God.
