The Head and the Neck - 1 Corinthians 11:1-15

One tool that I’ve found to be helpful when dissecting the scriptures is to go back and re-read the last part of the previous chapter before moving on to the next one so that I can have some continuity when moving on. The scriptures are divided into chapters and verses for our benefit now, but when they were originally written, I would imagine that they would have been more like a block of text. So when I start a new chapter, looking back at the previous topic helps me a lot. In the case of chapter 11, it helps to consider that Paul was counseling the saints in Corinth to make their decisions based on how it would help or hinder God’s work. Paul tells them, “give none offense” and that he seeks to “please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.” I don’t think that this means that Paul does whatever it takes to make people like him, but like we discussed when he said that he tries to “be all things to all people,” he adapts his behavior so that those around him will be more comfortable and see how the gospel can fit into their own lives.

Chapter 11 begins with Paul’s plea that the saints in Corinth “be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” This might seem, at first, to imply that Paul is trying to get people to follow his own personal teachings, but just moments ago he clarified that nothing he does is for his own personal gain. Paul notes the importance of the “ordinances, as I delivered them to you” and the article from gospeldoctrine.com notes “if only early Christianity had followed this advice from Paul! If only they had kept the saving ordinances as instructed! By so doing, they would have avoided so much confusion; they would have kept the power of God among them; and could have avoided apostasy.”

I don’t know if Paul just wants to clarify some stuff about the ordinances or if he was addressing some of the concerns brought to him specifically, but he goes into some interesting topics about how men should pray with their heads and faces uncovered and a woman should pray with her head covered. These instructions are specific to Paul’s time period and local customs, so while it shines some light on interesting rituals, ultimately it is not doctrine. The article quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie as noting about these instructions, “In the eternal sense it is wholly immaterial whether a woman wears a hat or is bear-headed when she prays. In Paul’s day the bare head was irreverent; in our reverence and respect are shown by removing the hat. In other words, gospel principles are eternal, and it is wise to adhere to the passing customs which signify adherence to that course which adds to rather than detracts from the great and important revealed truths.”

Again, I don’t know if he’s continuing the explanation of why the heads should and should not be covered or if he’s changed topics completely, but Paul begins a discussion about men and women in relation to their roles in the church and within marriage. Just reading the verses with no context really irritates the strong, independent woman in me with all the talk of “for the man is not of the woman; but the woman for the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” This, of course, makes it sound like women were created to be the servants of men, and we all know that homie don’t play that here.

But this sentiment reminded me of something that I heard years ago that I unexpectedly agreed with concerning a woman’s right to vote. It was something along the lines of “if a man truly loved his wife in a Christ-like manner, she wouldn’t need to vote because the only way he would vote would be in her interest.” I thought that that was a true statement, but the caveat here is that unfortunately that’s not the world we live in, therefore, every person should have the right to have their vote counted. But I think that Paul’s statement is something along those same lines, if a woman is supposed to follow a man, and a man is supposed to follow God, then what a great responsibility is placed on that man.

It’s kind of like as a parent, when my job is to guide my children back to God, the responsibility to perform that task is incredibly pressing. I kind of skipped over verse 3, but here Paul says, “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” If we are to take all emotions out of the equation and look at a marriage/family relationship from a purely organizational stand point, it really wouldn’t make sense for there to be two equal partners communicating with God on what’s good for the family. Let’s look at how other groups are organized within the Church, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, all 15 men hold the same priesthood keys, but only one of them is in a position to receive revelation for the church as a whole.

The other 14 men are to maintain a strong relationship with God and receive their own witness about the validity of what the prophet receives, but they don’t individually come up with guidance for the church as a whole because that would create an atmosphere of competition. That’s not to say that the prophet doesn’t ask for the help of the others in deciding things or help in praying for him to know what to do, etc. I don’t for one second think that any of those 15 men are only passive contributors in the process of revelation. 

I think it would work similarly in a righteous marriage relationship. The man can be the head, but just like they said in “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” the man is the head, but the woman is the neck and we can turn the head whichever way we want. The article notes, “a divine organization as important as the human family must be organized in a divine fashion. The Lord would no more create the family with two heads than he would create and elephant with two heads. Such an organizational structure just doesn’t make any sense. The Lord created the man as the head of the family. This concept is not threatening to faithful women.”

The article goes on, “Rodney Turner noted, ‘obviously, a wife’s righteous submission to her husband should stem from her husband’s righteous submission to Christ. When this occurs, a divine triangle exists with Christ at its apex.’… When husband love their wives ‘even as Christ… love the church,’ wives never complain about the arrangement. Indeed, the world’s most raging feminist would gladly submit herself to her husband is only she were treated with the love, compassion, empathy, sensitivity, and sacrifice with which Christ has treated the church. Unfortunately, so many Brethren fail to live up to this ideal.”

This sounds really down on men, and I don’t think it is meant to come across like that, but the fact is that we are all human here and relationships are hard. It would be a very difficult task to be responsible for conveying God’s will to other people, to be stewards over them, it’s not easy task and I think that any one who is trying has earned some respect for that. It’s really an interesting concept, how much different marriages would be if BOTH partners made it their only goal to make their spouse happy. There is a lot of self-defense that happens because we’ve all been hurt before, and our toxic behaviors are often just ways that we protect ourselves from future injury, which is well intentioned but ultimately can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It goes back to the whole “temptation” thing, we act a certain way to fill a need, we aren’t as loving as we could be because we don’t want to put it all out there and be hurt again, so we pull back just a little bit, which injures our partner because they don’t get all of us. How that relationship plays out is anyone’s guess, but the Lord commands us to love each other as He loves the Church, and when we do that, even though it might be uncomfortable at first and doesn’t guarantee that we won’t ever be hurt, but if we are hurt, then we are that much stronger to endure it when it does come, and we can know that it wasn’t part of our doing at all, and that peace of mind is priceless many times.

But verse 11 ties it all together, the whole man is the head, woman is the neck, who is in charge of who, etc. saying, “nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” This really is the whole thing right here, all the instructions and words and power struggles come together in this sentiment, we aren’t meant to be alone, we are made to be in pairs. This doesn’t mean soulmates or anything like that, because soulmates aren’t real, well, you don’t find your soulmate, you make your souls mate. And again, it doesn’t mean that we should run off and marry the first person to come along and pay attention to us, we need to have standards and become strong and great people within ourselves.

I’m guilty of this myself, being a divorced, single, not dating anyone woman, I can get snippy about the concept of marriage, and I’ve very recently had to come to terms with the fact that I have a toxic view of men and therefore treat men in a certain manner that is not healthy. It’s been a real kick in the face that I am meant to have a second person in my life that I have to love and make an effort for. I’m not going to just let that guy be anyone, but you’d be surprised to know just how restrictive are my standards of single, temple worthy guy with a job. Anyway, I digress, I feel like I have a lot of my own issues to work through but like I heard once that I really liked, I will just start running towards God and if there’s a man who can keep up, then I’ll marry him.