For nearly two thousand years, the practice of head (veil) covering during public worship in churches was the norm for Christian women, but not anymore. It is almost indisputable that the decline of the practice in churches generally coincided with the rise of the feminist movement. In fact, head coverings was a direct target of feminism because they believed explicitly that it was demeaning, making women second-class citizens in the church. In 1968, the National Organization of Women (an American feminist organisation) called for a “National Unveiling” where they would burn their head covering as a way to “protest the second-class status of women in all churches.”
While I do believe that most modern Evangelicals are sincere in their belief that head covering is not required, it does seems to be the case whereby the cultural pressure of feminism has pushed the church to largely change its stance. Nevertheless, that does not automatically mean the modern rejection of head covering is wrong, but it should at the least make us careful not to reject the practice hastily as many seems to do today. St. Augustine once said, “If you believe what you like in the gospels and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel that you believe but yourself.” The passage itself is perhaps difficult to understand, and the apostle Paul went through a great bit of trouble explaining the rational for the practice of head covering for us to just casually reject it.
The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians addresses various issues, serious sins and struggles of a church called out of an immoral pagan society. Perhaps, the most serious problem of the Corinthian church was their worldliness. With false teaching on the rampant, the church in Corinth were also excusing sexual immorality, and abusing Spiritual gifts. In 1 Corinthians 11: 1-16, Paul addresses in the letter the issue of head coverings:
- Be imitators of me [Paul], as I am of Christ.
- Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
- But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ.
- Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, shames his head.
- But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, shames her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
- For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut short. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut short or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
- For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man.
- For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man.
- For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
- Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
- Nevertheless, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
- For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman, but all things originate from God.
- Judge for yourselves: is it appropriate for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
- Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonour to him,
- And is not long hair a woman’s glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
- But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
In summary, Paul’s in this passage is emphasizing that men should not cover their heads when praying or prophesying, as they are the image and glory of God [V7]. And on the other hand, that women should have their heads covered because of the creation order [V9], and as a symbol of authority because of the angels [V10]. So, the question then is – How do we determine if this passage written thousands of years ago still apply to Christians today? Many have interpreted these verses to be only culturally binding to the Corinthian church, and thus see it as just a custom (that is – in essence a principle but only applicable to certain people at a certain time in a certain locality).
The “it’s a cultural thing” interpretation simply won’t do. Why? Because Paul says women should wear head coverings “because of the angels.” Although the Bible does not explain the link to the angels in this passage, and thus we may never fully understand the reference, that does in anyway invalid the command nor justify why we may disregard it. How can anyone argue for a male-only church council yet be against head coverings for women? The style of argument that Paul uses against both practices is nearly identical – he ties it to the creation order (1 Timothy 2:12-14). If we let this text in Holy Scripture speak for itself and not read into it what the Scripture does not say, then I think it’s fair to conclude that Paul’s reasons for this passage in regards to why men should not veil and for why women should veil are rooted and grounded in Spiritual order [V7], creational order [V8 & V9] and the angels [V10].
Many Christians also hold to the view that long hair is the only covering required for women based on verse 15, “And is not long hair a woman’s glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” If that is correct, wont the whole passage just be a command specifically for woman to have long hair? I think it is also plausible that Paul here is saying that, since the woman’s long hair is given to her as a covering, thus it is likewise appropriate for her to wear a veil.
To conclude with based on the reasons for head covering given in this passage, I think Paul is emphasizing the importance of holding firm to the practise of head covering as a biblical principle (that is – a teaching or admonition or a precept that is timeless, trans-cultural and applicable to all people in all places in all ages). If Paul wanted to explain or even allude to the culture as the reason for such practise, then I don’t think he would have given the reasons he gave for the practise. We ought to be careful not to treat a principle as a custom. I think the following quote (in paraphrase) often attributed to Thomas Jefferson says it best:
“In matters of fashion and low importance (custom) flow with the stream, but in matters of principle stand like a mountain against the raging river”
“It would be a very serious offence against God to take a principle that he intends to be normative for Christians of all ages and all places and simply dismiss it as a local custom, have no bearing upon us today. To treat a principle of God as something of only having temporary significance is to do violence to the authority of our Lord. And yet at the same time, to take something that was only meant to be of temporary custom and impose it upon all people in every age is to do violence to the people of God, and it’s not easy to solve it.”
– R.C Sproul.
In Christ Alone 