The Evangelical Burka - Part 3

What's a Woman to do? Does the Bible forbid women preachers? Are we shrouding women in an invisible Evangelical Burka by ignoring vital context and clear contradictions?

Oct 16, 2025

person in black hijab standing on brown field during daytime

As I have already stated, if we misinterpret and thereby misapply passages such as 1 Tim. 2:12, and 1 Cor. 14:34, which both state that within the context of the assembled Church, women “should be silent,” the stakes are high regarding the fulfillment of the Great Commission to preach the Gospel and “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19-20, and Mark 16:15). Moreover, by wrongly suppressing women from ministry roles for which God has ordained and equipped them, we risk “quenching the Holy Spirit’s” moving within and working through His Church (1 Thes. 5:19).

Shortly, I will address the above verses in their context—both exegetically and culturally—but first, we need to discover Paul’s underlying motivation behind his teachings to these Gentile Churches. Then, in Part 4, we will consider a key biblical principle and two enlightening examples.

FOR GOD’S SAKE

In the closing words of Paul’s first letter to Pastor/Elder Timothy in Ephesus, we read these words: “So that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered” (1 Tim. 6:1). In fact, not less than four times in 1 Timothy do we see the Apostle calling believers to conduct themselves in such a way that unbelievers would not have a reason to slander them nor the message of the Gospel (3:7, 5:7 & 14, 6:1). He believed that the very integrity of God’s nature and Truth would be honored or ridiculed by unbelievers based on how the Christians publicly lived out their faith. He was correct then, and he is correct now.

PAUL’S CONSISTENT CALL TO THE CHURCH

Throughout the writings of the Apostle Paul, you find a consistent call to Christians to conduct themselves in ways that bring glory to God and the Apostles’ teachings in the eyes of unbelievers. For example, he bemoaned the consequence of the blatant double standards of the Roman Christians by pointing out that “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Rom 2:24). Similarly, his words to “Pastor” Titus saying that the primary reason for the Christian men and women to live righteous lives was so that “in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive” (Titus 2:10).

Even within the congregation, Paul knew that the extent of love, kindness, patience, and mercy shown among believers influenced how the pagans around them perceived Christianity. To the Corinthian believers, he spoke about not “causing your brother to stumble” by what they ate or drank in the context of buying meat from the market that had been sacrificed to the pagan idols in their city (1 Cor. 10:23-33). And then again, in Romans 14, Paul speaks at length about caring for the weaker brother and the importance of giving deference to others so they will not stumble: “…make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way” (v. 13b).

Paul’s most well-known statement on this subject is in 1 Cor. 9:22, “…I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” Similarly, the Apostle Peter had the same concerns for the way fellow Christians lived among their pagan neighbors, as evidenced by his words in 1 Peter 2:12, “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us” (and 1 Pet. 3:16).

Without question, one of the most consistent concerns expressed in Paul’s teachings to the early Church was the importance of behavior that reflected well upon Christ and the message of the Gospel. Spoiler alert! As we continue this journey, I believe we will discover that Paul’s deep concern about believers not needlessly offending the values of the current pagan culture, where there is no contradiction in Scripture, influenced his instructions in his day. These instructions were not intended to create a universal practice for all people at all times. Paul does not negate the differing roles of men and women, but instead, builds upon the current Greco-Roman Household Codes [1] of the day regarding authority within the home and society. Those codes established the relationships within the household, with the elder father/husband as the head, followed by the wife, children, and slaves.

A KEY PRINCIPLE AND TWO EXAMPLES

Principle in Modern Missions And Paul’s Day

In 1 Timothy, Paul’s concern is the same as in current foreign mission efforts today –to carefully consider the cultural context, religious history, and community standards of the chosen region, tribe, or nation. These Missionaries then determine which cultural values do not contradict the essential truths of the Gospel as they prepare to reach out. Long-standing mission-sending agencies know full well that disregarding people’s highly valued cultural standards, as long as they do not violate biblical standards, would create an unnecessary “stumbling block” to the unbelievers’ willingness to hear the message of salvation.

Therefore, the followers of Christ would include these acceptable practices in their expression of faith and living for Christ, within the context of their ministry, but not as a universal command for all nations and all times. An example of this would be women wearing head coverings in certain cultures. While not intended to make it a universal requirement for all believers in all lands, in certain cultures, Christian women would submit to wearing head coverings out of respect for their traditions and because it would be acceptable within the teachings of Scripture.

The underlying motivation for incorporating certain acceptable cultural practices was to prevent creating an unnecessary “stumbling block” that would offend the native people by the missionary showing a lack of respect for their community standards and traditions. This disregard for their culture would cause the people to slander God’s Name and reject the Apostles’ teaching (The Gospel). Today’s approach to foreign missions is identical to Paul’s and has proven to be practical and effective in proclaiming the saving message of Christ within a pagan culture.

An Example From Corinth

Speaking of head coverings, let us consider Paul’s stern command to the Christian women in Corinth to have a head covering as a sign of being under authority, and when they pray or prophecy in the Church:

“And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. (6) If 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… (10) For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.” (1Co 11:5-6, 10. NIV84 )

This is not about what Paul instructed regarding women in the Ephesian Church, but instead what he did not instruct them. There is no such command to the women in Ephesus regarding head coverings. The absence of this command in 1 Timothy is very significant when one considers the harsh judgment the Apostle suggested for the woman who does not cover her head in the Corinthian Church. Did he forget? Not likely.

Different cultures have a variety of standards for dress and gender roles that do not necessarily conflict with biblical standards. These lesser community standards are applied solely within the culture where they are most valued. It is logical to assume that Paul did not include the requirement for head coverings in the Ephesian Church because that was not a significant part of their Greco-Roman culture.

Someone may argue that the discrepancy between these two passages is not significant because head coverings were not being neglected in Ephesus; therefore, Paul did not need to correct them. If that is so, then with some exceptions, why don’t these present-day pastors and denominations enforce the wearing of head coverings for their women as well?

An Example Regarding Timothy And Circumcision

One final example that will come to bear in a later chapter is Paul’s teachings about circumcision for Gentile believers. In a general statement, he declares that “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1Cor. 7:19). He is saying that under the New Covenant, the requirements of the Mosaic Law about circumcision no longer apply to the followers of Christ. And yet, when he meets Timothy on his second missionary journey (AD 49-51) and is determined to have this vibrant young believer join him, he first circumcises him (Acts 16:1-3). From this point on, Timothy appears to have become Paul’s regular companion.[2]

We can conclude with fair certainty two things: First, Paul recognized that circumcision was still a valid part of the Jewish heritage, just as he continued to observe the annual feasts that were central to the Jewish culture, without making these requirements for Gentile believers; Second, Paul had Timothy circumcised because his mother (but not his father) was Jewish. If Paul had not done so, Timothy, a Jew, would have been a distraction, or worse, to the Jews’ ability to hear the message, for they would consider Timothy to have betrayed his heritage. Once again, Paul strategically navigates through the cultural customs and practices to remove any unnecessary stumbling blocks that do not contradict the essential truths of the Gospel.

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?