Introduction
      Paul addresses three abuses in worship raised in a letter sent to him by members of the church in the Corinth. i] The head-covering of women while praying and prophesying, 11:2-16. ii] The poor having nothing to eat at the Lord's Supper, 11:17-34. iii] The abuse of tongue speaking, ch.12-14. Our passage for study, 11:2-16, is extremely difficult to interpret as we don't quite know what was going on in the church. The passage is also very complex. We know that the church at Corinth was affected by a group of "spiritual" believers who acted as if they lived in the last day (a realized eschatology life-style). They were putting their marriages aside and living as ascetics, and it would seem some of the women had departed from the customary distinctions between males and females. These "spiritual" members believed they were like the angels. Now living in the new age, sexual distinctions, along with sex, were abandoned. While praying or prophesying in church, they had either stopped wearing the customary female head covering (possibly a shawl), or were no longer putting up their hair in the customary female braid, or had cut their hair short to resemble a male hairstyle. Paul's concern for their action is probably related to the offence this may cause the gospel. Outsiders would not easily understand their actions and so would be wary of the church and its message. Paul argues in favour of sexual distinction (for this age), and does so from scripture. He concludes with a note that such distinctions are practiced in all the other Christian churches, and so should be maintained in Corinth.

The passage
      v2. Paul begins by praising the Corinthians for keeping the "traditions" of Christian worship passed on to them by his mission team. Having affirmed them in general, he then goes on to deal with those particular areas where they have failed to retain that pattern of worship.
      v3. The first problem, covered by our passage for study, concerns the behaviour of certain women who have failed to maintain sexual distinctions during worship. To deal with the problem Paul establishes a theological principle of male/female interdependence. To argue his case he uses the term "head" in a figurative way (later in a literal way). At first glance it seems to be used to refer to authority. God is over Christ, Christ over man, man over woman. Yet it is more likely used in the sense of source. Christ from God in the incarnation (used without affecting Christ's eternal being - eternally one with the Father), man from Christ in the creation, and woman from man's rib. Thus Paul is establishing a relational link between woman, man, Christ and God. Each party serves to express the glory of the other. Woman, by being female, expresses the glory of man, for from man she was taken. By this theological construct Paul can then go on to argue for the necessary retaining of distinction between the sexes.
      v4. To support his case against the women who are blurring the distinctions between the sexes, he illustrates how men who "having down the head" (a literal translation) in Christian worship bring dishonour to their "head", ie. Christ. The Corinthians would obviously understand and agree with this observation, but we are left totally in the dark. Murphy O'Connor argues that it is a reference to long hair artistically prepared by homosexuals to give a female look.
      v5. So in a similar way, a woman who is "uncovered as to the head" (a literal translation) in Christian worship brings dishonour to ("shames") her "head", ie. man. Again the Corinthians would understand what "uncovered as to the head" meant, but we don't. Whatever it is, it is as if "the head were shaved". The shaved look destroys a woman's natural feminine quality, her distinctiveness. So probably the girls have cut their hair short, taken on a boyish look, a mannish haircut (possibly even a lesbian "butch" look). By blurring the male/female relationship they dishonour themselves and the men in the congregation.
      v6. If they are intent on retaining this "uncovered" look, they may as well go the rest of the way and shave their heads and complete the dishonour of their own sex and that of the men as well. This is of course a cultural perspective. Each culture defines the sexes with different hair styles. In our culture the "boyish" look is seen as quite feminine.
      v7. Paul now sets out to support his contention that men should not have feminine hair styles (cross dress etc.), nor women masculine hair styles. (Remember we are unsure of the specifics, but at least we can be sure Paul is concerned with the blurring of the male/female created difference.) Arguing from the creation, he asserts that the woman, taken from Adam, bears the "glory" of man. The woman, although fully human and fully of the image of God, displays a particular aspect of man taken from the original unisex man to form her, which when again reunited to him in marriage, empowers the greatest of all God-given qualities, namely love. There is "glory" in the "rib", for when returned "the two become one". It therefore follows (although Paul does not restate the point) that it shames the man when his glory is denied, ie. when the woman's unique femininity (her rib-like quality) is purposely suppressed and made male-like. The same is true when men, bearing the "image" (Gen.1:26-28) of God and thus displaying his "glory", shame God (Christ?) by denying their maleness. The shift from man/Christ to man/God is driven by Paul's use of the creation story to support his argument.
      v8-9. Paul now explains from Genesis 2:18-20, 23, how it is that the woman, coming out of the man and created for his sake, is man's glory. In the creation the original unisex man was found alone. The animals could not meet his created need for relationship. Thus from his being, bone of his bone, was taken women. When he saw her he sang of her glory. She was the only suitable companion for him, and he would never be at ease until he found union with her again (until he regained his missing rib). Thus man is the woman's head (the source of her origin), and the woman is the "glory" of man - the only being fit to commune and unite with him. Thus it brings shame to the man for a woman to dissolve the male/female difference which supports the two becoming one.
      v10. This verse is next to impossible to translate. Whatever Paul means by the words, his intention is obviously to further his argument and thus his prohibition on these women taking on male characteristics (hairstyle). The best guess is to make it the beginning of a new paragraph. "Because you women think you are as angels, you feel you ought to have freedom over your hair styles to do as you wish. However, in the Lord (in this age), a woman is not independent of a man....... v7. Traditionally this verse is interpreted to mean that a woman should wear something on her head as a sign that she is under the authority of her husband. This is not a very sound interpretation.
      v11-12. In v10 Paul probably states the belief of the Corinthian women that as children of the new age they have freedom over outward sexual distinctions. In this case probably hair styles. As we are still "in the world" sexual distinctions still exist, and so Paul in v11 restates his own position, but with a qualifier in v12. Woman has come from man and was created for the sake of man (to empower relationships). She is not independent of man. None-the-less, a woman is not just an adjunct of man. In the end both man and woman are mutually dependent on each other for the development of intimate relationships. And in any case God is the source of all things. He is the ultimate source and focus of love.
      v13. Paul now gets back to dealing with the issue of appropriate head-covering in worship. He asks a rhetorical question. Is it appropriate for a woman to lead in worship (in prayer and prophecy) groomed as if she were a male? Propriety (Gentile and Jewish culture) says no.
      v14-15. "Nature" also says that long hair for a man (homosexual grooming) or short hair for a woman (boyish, possibly lesbian "butch" grooming) is a disgrace. By "nature" Paul probably means "a law of nature". He is thinking of the marked difference that exists between the sexes in any one animal species. If the birds maintain their sexually distinctive plumage, shouldn't we? It is natural for a woman to have long hair. It distinguishes her from the men and is her splendor. It was given as a natural covering over her body, and so should be retained.
      v16. Probably in the end Paul knows that his argument is something less than a "word from the Lord". A "butch" haircut may be culturally offensive, but it can't ultimately offend God. These may be the last days, but we are still in the world and so sexual distinctives, for the present, need to be maintained. This is particularly so in Christian worship which is so open to misunderstanding by the the wider secular society. So Paul's final word is an appeal to custom - "in any case, it's what they do in the other Christian churches and you should do the same."

Appropriate behaviour
      A group of fellowship members were socializing outside the church after the morning service, and the Rector's wife came up to one of the young girls who was not wearing a hat. She was in serious trouble. She had not covered her head in church. Of course this was back in the 50's, and all that was soon to change.
      The wearing of something on the head by the ladies was once a law to be obeyed. Some thought it was worn out of respect for God. It was wrong to come into his presence with the head uncovered. For some it was a sign of authority. Woman were under the authority of men and so, as a symbol of submission, the ladies were to wear head-covering of some sort. In the 60's and 70's it was often understood in quite a different way. A young girl's hair displayed her beauty and if it was left down it could provoke the young men to sexual thoughts during the service. So buns, plats or scarves, beanies etc. were the order of the day. Now the ladies usually come to church with their hair uncovered, but we do still wonder if God does want us to wear something on the head.
      Our passage for study concerns propriety. The specific is appropriate grooming, appropriate in the sense that it maintains the distinctiveness of the sexes. We are not told why propriety is a good thing, but we can assume that impropriety not only shames others in our fellowship, but shames the church before the world.
      Propriety is most often a cultural thing. Paul's argument from Genesis and the natural order of creation, reminds us that it is still appropriate to maintain sexual distinctives. While in this world, the "giving and taking in marriage" is still the order of the day. The family remains the fundamental relationship in society and so male/female distinctive should be maintained to encourage the "one flesh" union of marriage. None-the-less those distinctives are often very cultural. In Western society fashion dictates are constantly changing and external distinctives are very flexible. Probably only obvious homosexual and lesbian cross-dressing would raise the eye these days.
      The bottom line is that believers in a secular society, even though they have one foot in heaven, must still live "in the world". We must maintain the natural order of creation and behave in an appropriate way, such that our behaviour does not undermine Christ before the world.