There is a controversy as to whether or not women should cover their heads while engaged in the public worship of the Church. No less a conservative publication than the Irish Baptist Magazine (in 1971) carried an article strongly biased in favour of a more liberal approach to the question and giving licence to the women-folk to discard their traditional head-coverings claiming that the "hair" of the head is a sufficient "veil" and all that is necessary for the fulfilling of the scriptural injunctions of 1st Corinthians chapter 11.
We strongly challenge this view, and purposely refer to it as "a more liberal approach," because we see it as a symptom of the worldliness of the church of the present day. For too long the church has been caught up with an idea of "worldliness" that has been superficial in the extreme and has completely missed the point that worldliness is also the contamination of the mind of the believer by the thoughts and standards of the age in which he finds himself. These are the days when the world's women are clamouring for what they call "female liberation"; the equality of the sexes is the great battle-cry of many in our day, and women must be counted on a par with men in every aspect of life. While speaking in glowing terms, however, of the men and the women being "one in the Lord," the relevant scriptures, nevertheless, make havoc of the current notions of equality and deserve the thorough study of every Christian woman who may have, even unconsciously, imbibed the spirit of the age and forgotten that as "the head of every man is Christ," so "the head of the woman is the man." (See 1st Corinthians chapter 11 verse 3)
Now, it's on this verse that the whole of Paul's argument concerning the covering of the head in 1st Corinthians rests. He is dealing with the proper approach to the matter of prayer and prophecy when the church gathers together, and whether or not the head should be covered or uncovered, both in the case of the man and of the woman. And, being the apostle Paul, he never begins an argument half-way through, but invariably goes right back to first principles. Hence his opening statements in verses 2 and 3 of the chapter. "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
He has a word of praise for the Corinthians, as you can see in that verse 2, in that they have kept "the ordinances" as he had delivered them to them. But he is now going to deal with a few matters (including their awful abuse of the Lord's Table) that they have neglected. Hence his "BUT," at the beginning of verse 3: "But I would ye should know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." And it's in the light of that great principle, that the Corinthians had obviously overlooked, that Paul then draws his conclusions regarding the covering or the uncovering of the head in the next two verses. "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head …"
The meaning is surely abundantly clear. If a man covers his head while he is praying or prophesying, he dishonours his head. That is, he dishonours Christ; for Paul has just stated that "the head of every man is Christ." By the same token, then, the woman who prays or prophesies with the head uncovered "dishonours her head;" that is, the man, for, "the head of the woman is the man."
What follows then, is a description of those women who fail to honour the man in this way, and an appeal to consistency on the part of the apostle. If the woman prays or prophesies having her head uncovered, says Paul at the end of verse 5, "that is even all one as if she were shaven." The shaving, or shearing of the head was apparently the mark of the woman of loose morals who counted herself under no man, nor honoured no man. In the Old Testament, a woman even suspected of dishonouring her husband by unfaithfulness was brought before the priest, "And the priest," it says, "shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head …" Paul, then, in verse 6 in an apparent effort to show the gravity of women dishonouring the men in praying or prophesying with uncovered heads, draws out the consistent course of their behaviour: "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn …" If she really wants to appear "free" from the headship of the man, let her be consistent, and go ahead and show that liberty in the most brazen fashion of all. "But," comes Paul again, "If it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven (and every Christian woman at Corinth, and elsewhere, would know that it was a shame to look like one of these women that Paul brings before them) let her be covered." Let her evidently show forth her glad subjection to the man, in the Lord.
In verses 7 to 9 the apostle returns to the theme of the priority of the man in the purposes of the Lord. "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man." And, it's on account of this, says Paul in verse 10, that the woman ought to have "power on her head, because of the angels."
That this is a difficult verse is beyond question; but in the total context of the verses we must hold fast to the most obvious interpretation. The word translated "power" is the same word that is also translated "authority" in other places. So, the woman is to have "authority" on her head. And as Paul has been speaking about the man being "the head of the woman" we must infer that the covering of the head on the part of the woman bespeaks the man's "authority" over the woman in the church. On account of the fact of the "woman being for the man," and being "created for the man," "For this cause ought the woman to have (the sign of the man's) authority on her head, because of the angels."
"Angels" translates the Greek word "angeloi" which means "messengers." In this case, either the messengers of the church - the officials of the church - or simply, as it stands, the angels of God who are with the church when she meets in her Redeemer's name. The emphasis is on the comeliness of public worship, and it is, therefore, unseemly, both in the sight of men and of angels for a woman to discard that covering which shows her subjection to the man in the Lord, and in the Lord's church.
The next two verses serve as one of Paul's great counter-balances to any thought of tyranny on the part of the man: "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." And then comes his appeal, both to the woman's good sense, and to the very ways of nature itself: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man hath long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." And it is that verse 15 that appears to have become the rallying point for those who would eliminate the practice of the covering of the head by the woman at the means of grace. "Her hair is given her for a covering," they say, quoting this verse, "therefore, no other covering is necessary." But, we answer, that her hair is given her for a natural covering: "Doth not even nature itself teach you …?" But the Christian woman is one step above nature in that she is spiritual, and Paul makes his appeal to her spiritual senses by directing her attention to the very course of nature itself. If nature has provided her with a glorious covering that distinguishes her womanhood, how much more should her spiritual womanhood be distinguished by her glorious subjection to the man under the Lord?
If the hair of the head is the only covering referred to in this passage, then, we are forced to ask - with our tongue firmly planted in our cheek - "What about the bald women with no hair?" For, says Paul, "every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (that is, with no hair, according to this modern view) dishonours her head." And, planting our tongue even more firmly in our cheek, we are forced to ask, "What man has a right to pray who hasn't first visited the barber and had his head made to resemble a billiard ball?" For, says Paul again, "Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered (that is, with hair on his head, according to this modern view) dishonours his head."
We fear, brethren, this is too much to stomach. We resolutely refuse to reduce the mighty apostle to the Gentiles to a dithering old man who would spend 15 precious verses of Holy Scripture to an exhortation that amounted to nothing more than that only bald men may pray and prophesy in the church, and bald women may not! Why should Paul say that the woman "ought to have power (or authority) on her head because of the angels" if she already has such power or authority by nature? Better to have written, "For this cause she already has power on her head because of the angels." Quite obviously, Paul is pointing to something quite apart from the natural covering of the hair, to a covering that bespeaks a great spiritual truth which the woman is exhorted to display, as ready acknowledgement of her divinely appointed station in the Lord.
Please note that I have not mentioned "hats" as such, but coverings. Some hats, we fear, are more of an adornment than a covering, and a head-scarf would probably meet the purpose far better. But, be that as it may, we believe that the injunction is clear and that it calls for the covering of the head in the public worship of the church - and in our day, covered adequately and modestly. We believe that the injunction applies to our day and was not simply addressed to the first century church at Corinth. We note that Paul draws his confirmation, not from Corinthian national dress or usage, but from "nature" - "Doth not even nature itself teach you?" And we note also, and have noted, that Paul goes back to first principles: "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man."
We would desire that the church today would likewise return to first principles in so many things, including this matter in hand.
Paul's closing word in verse 16 is decisive, although sometimes misunderstood in our reading of our Authorised Version: "But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." The Amplified New Testament, together with the Revised Standard Version etc. more readily draws out Paul's closing emphasis and shows that he viewed his position to be beyond dispute and in harmony with the whole church of God: "Now if any one is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognise no other custom (in worship) than this, nor do the churches of God generally."
We have taken more space than is normal for the "Pastor's Letter" in this edition but feel that the present climate in the churches up and down the land with regard to this question have necessitated the foregoing thoughts. We commend them to you for examination in the light of the scriptures mentioned.
Sincerely,
W. J. Seaton
August 1971
This Page Title – Women and their Headcoverings The Wicket Gate Magazine "A Continuing Witness". Internet Edition number 76 – placed on line January 2009 Magazine web address – www.wicketgate.co.uk |