A Defense of Headcoverings

A Defense of Headcoverings in the Lutheran Church

by Rev. John Henry Koopman

“Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.”

“It is a laudable custom, based upon a scriptural injunction (1 Cor. 11:3-15), for women to wear an appropriate head covering in Church, especially at the time of divine service.”

I.

Considering the issues which the church faces in our day, the matter of women wearing headcoverings during the Divine Service seems to be insignificant. However, many of the issues we are faced with today have a common source, and the present situation of very few Lutheran women wearing headcoverings during the Divine Service stems from that common source. What is that common source? Feminism. Therefore, the matter of women wearing headcoverings during the Divine Service is a matter pertaining to our current dilemmas and is also therefore worthy of our consideration as we seek to ameliorate our current ills.

While a thorough description and definition of feminism, along with its inherent evils, go beyond the scope of this paper, it would be prudent to at least lay some groundwork to impress upon the reader how headcoverings are connected to feminism. Feminism has as its core aim the establishment of equality among the sexes. At first glance this appears to be a noble pursuit, but upon further examination it is a satanic lie. It is true that both men and women are equal in respect to God’s love and the richness of His grace toward them (see Gal. 3:28). However, in many other respects, men and women are not equals. God created men and women with unique and important characteristics distinct to each sex. Obviously there are biological differences, but our differences do not stop there, since God created men and women to exist within a created order.

St. Paul describes this order when He instructs who may lead public worship: “I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

The Table of Duties in the Small Catechism describes the differences between the sexes by quoting 1 Peter 3 first to husbands: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” Then to wives: “They were submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.”

This ordering of men and women was established by God in the garden and this order continues to this day. Among the chief good works directed to women is the command to be submissive to their husbands. This command is frequently read in the scriptures: “Train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.” “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.” “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

Headcoverings are a visible manifestation of this divinely created order between men and women. “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God…For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” 

The direct teaching of scripture is that there is a created inequality between men and women, and that this inequality is visibly represented in the Divine Service where men do not cover their heads and women do cover theirs. This divinely created order between men and women is precisely what feminism is designed to overturn. That feminists recognized that headcoverings are symbolic of God’s created order is made evident when feminists actively sought to rid Chiristian churches of headcoverings. In 1968 the National Organization for Women (NOW) published a Resolution on Head Coverings: “Whereas, the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a custom in many churches and whereas it is a symbol of subjection within these churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a "national unveiling" by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman immediately. At the Spring meeting of the Task force on Women in Religion, these veils will then publicly be burned to protest the second class status of women in all churches.” Thus, women not wearing headcoverings in the Divine Service is one of the many fruits of feminism within our parishes.

Conservative/Traditional Christians will often speak about the evils of feminism and its impacts upon family life and the church. We have rightly defended against the ordination of women. Likewise we talk about the issues with women lectors, elders, communion assistants, congregational presidents, voting at congregational meetings, etc. All of those are significant issues and it is worthwhile to discuss them. If those are all worth discussing, then it is even more important to discuss headcoverings since this topic is directly taught about in scripture and St. Paul writing in the Holy Spirit thought it significant enough to spend 15 verses on this one matter.

II.

Now, turning to those 15 verses from 1 Corinthians 11, should a Lutheran woman today wear a cloth covering upon her head in the sanctuary during the Divine Service? Let us answer that question by examining the text in closer detail and considering common arguments against headcoverings.

“Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (11:2). Here St. Paul writes about maintaining the traditions (παραδόσεις) which he has delivered (παρέδωκα) to the saints. This language of handing down the traditions is applied later in chapter 11 to refer to the Lord’s Supper (“I received (παρέλαβον) from the Lord what I also delivered (παρέδωκα) to you”) and also in chapter 15 referring to the death and resurrection of Jesus (“I delivered (Παρέδωκα) to you as of first importance what I also received (παρέλαβον)”). Thus, this teaching of headcoverings is handed down to us just like the sacrament of the altar has been handed down and the teaching of Christ’s resurrection has been handed down. Headcoverings may not carry the same weight as the Lord’s Supper and the Resurrection, but this teaching is handed down to us nonetheless, and therefore is not merely a temporary cultural custom only applying to the church at Corinth but to the church at all times and in all places.

The apostle Paul continues: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors (καταισχύνει) his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors (καταισχύνει) her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven” (11:3-5). St. Paul anchors headcoverings in the topic of headship. He says the head of every man is Christ, for this reason St. Paul says that a man dishonors his Head (Christ) when he covers his physical head. “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God” (11:7). Women, on the other hand, are to wear a headcovering, because the head of a wife is her husband and “woman is the glory of man” (11:7). Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head (both her physical head and the head of her household ie. her husband or father). For her to pray with her head uncovered is just as shameful as if she had her head shaved. 

A man does not wear a headcovering and a woman does wear a headcovering because “man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (11:8-9). A woman wears a headcovering directly as a result of the order of creation. St. Paul does not establish this teaching because of cultural norms, rather he establishes it because of the order of creation. In fact, a woman wearing a headcovering would have been counter cultural in ancient Corinth. “To be sure, the veil was not unknown in Greece. It was worn partly as adornment and partly on such special occasions as match-making and marriage . . ., mourning . . ., and the worship of chthonic [underworld] deities (in the form of a garment drawn over the head). But it is quite wrong that Greek women were under some kind of compulsion to wear a veil in public.” However, in the East women did cover their heads. “In general one may say that etiquette as regards the veil becomes stricter the more one moves east.” Thus, the custom of women wearing headcoverings is not a matter of doing what the culture prescribes, because the matter of women wearing headcoverings varied greatly depending on the locale. Rather, St. Paul handed down this teaching on a universal truth based on the created order, not on cultural expectations.

What kind of headcovering is St. Paul mandating? A common objection to headcoverings meant to explain away these verses is that long hair is meant to be the headcovering, not a piece of fabric. “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering” (11:14-15). So does this mean that women are not obliged to wear a fabric headcovering and instead they must have long hair?

No, that does not follow. Here are a few reasons. First, in v. 4 what is translated “his head covered” (κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων), literally means “having down on [his] head.” It is referring to an external article which has been placed on his head, not referring to the hair on his head. Secondly, the word used for hair as a headcovering in v. 15 (περιβολαίου) is an entirely different word used for headcovering in v. 6 (κατακαλύπτεται); thus St. Paul is making a distinction between the two different types of headcoverings. Thirdly, if the covering in vv. 5 & 6 is hair, then those verses do not make sense; why would St. Paul say that a woman who does not have long hair should have her hair cut? Fourthly, St. Paul is making an argument for headcoverings by appealing to natural law when he says that men have short hair and women have long hair. It is not that their long hair is the covering he is urging, rather he is arguing based upon their natural knowledge that it is right for women to have long hair, and just as they know by nature that women should have long hair so ought they to know by nature that it is right for women to wear headcoverings during the Divine Service. “Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?” (11:13) This is a rhetorical question with the expected answer being “no.”

Next, we come to v. 16: “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” Some use this verse as a final objection against women wearing headcoverings, supposing that St. Paul is throwing in a final disclaimer that if people are going to be contentious, then the women do not have to wear headcoverings because it is not our practice/custom nor the custom of the churches. So is that what this verse means?

No, it would not make any sense if St. Paul spent all of this time arguing for headcoverings only to conclude that if people were contentious about it then they can do whatever they want. St. Paul is actually saying the opposite. It is as if he is saying: “If you do not like it and I have not convinced you yet, then tough, this is just how the church does it.” Women wearing headcoverings is apostolic teaching, it is not merely Paul’s preference, rather it is the practice of the church at large.

When St. Paul says: “we have no such custom (συνήθειαν),” to which “custom” is he referring? He is referring to the custom of women praying with uncovered heads. Thus, v. 16 could be read as such: “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such custom of women praying with uncovered heads, nor do the churches of God.” St. Paul had already made an argument for headcoverings on the basis of the order of creation and natural law, and now he simply concludes on the basis of churchly uniformity.

III.

So, what is the application of what St. Paul writes regarding headcoverings? Certainly the tradition of the church has been that women wear headcoverings during the Divine Service in the sanctuary, and this tradition remained until approximately the 1960’s. Based upon ancient art (see examples below) depicting Christian men and women at prayer it is obvious that they understood St. Paul to mean that men should pray with their heads uncovered and women with their heads covered. 

Additionally, based upon the writings of the early church fathers, it was also their understanding of St. Paul that women were to wear headcoverings during prayer. For example, Tertullian in On the Veiling of Virgins, argues not only that women/wives should cover their heads, but that virgins should as well. Also Hippolytus writes: “And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth.” John Chrysostom argues for it, saying: “It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority.” Or in Chrysostom’s sermon for the Ascension he writes: “The angels are present here. Open the eyes of faith and look upon this sight. For if the very air is filled with angels, how much more so the Church! ...Hear the Apostle teaching this, when he bids the women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels.” Augustine also writes: “What the apostle meant to signify is plain, and in so far figuratively and mystically, because he was speaking of covering the head of the woman.”

In Article XXVIII of the Augsburg Confession, regarding Church Authority, 1 Cor. 11:5 is commented upon: “What, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11:5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14:30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc.”

Thus, the matter of women wearing headcoverings during the Divine Service is not a matter of righteousness nor sin. A woman wearing a headcovering is not more righteous because she wears a veil, nor is a woman necessarily sinning when she comes to church with her head uncovered. Rather, it is a good, right, and salutary custom for a woman to cover her head during the Divine Service. This says nothing of her righteousness or lack thereof, it is quite simply a good and wholesome custom for her to practice. Just as it is a good custom for a pastor to wear an alb and chasuble in the Divine Service, that does not necessarily mean that a pastor is sinning if he were to wear only a business suit. A custom can be good without its absence invoking God’s wrath or its performance meriting righteousness.

Ultimately the reason that this custom of women wearing headcoverings in the Divine Service is good is because of the greater truth pertaining to the order of creation which her headcovering symbolizes. “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God” (11:7-12).

When a woman wears a headcovering in the Divine Service, she wears it as a symbol which points ultimately to Christ who is the head of man, and to the Father who is the head of Christ. The headcovering is reflective of a woman’s glory, since she is the glory of man, just as man is the image and glory of God. When a man covers his head in prayer it is shameful because his head is Christ and Christ is glorified when a man prays without a headcovering, since man is the image (εἰκὼν) of God. When a woman does not cover her head in prayer it is shameful because her head is man. 

The matter of women wearing headcoverings is controversial today, not because hats and scarves are controversial, but because headcoverings worn in respect to 1 Corinthians 11 are symbolic of male headship and the inequality between the sexes. Thus, the root issue at play in our discussion regarding headcoverings pertains properly to anthropology and what it means to be a man or a woman. Simply because a woman wears a headcovering that does not necessarily mean that she is living in submission to her husband, it may just mean that she likes the aesthetic. More important than wearing a headcovering is a woman’s faith in Christ as the head of the church and her humble submission to her earthly head, be it father or husband. And so a woman who has usurped her husband’s headship and otherwise embraced feminism is not behaving like a Christian simply because she wears a headcovering to church. The issues are much deeper than her attire. 

However, just because the issues are deeper than her attire that does not mean that her attire is unimportant. Headcoverings are a beautiful symbol of what it means to be a woman and can be very helpful in understanding her relationship to man, just as Christ’s bride the church understands her relationship to Christ. Christian women, whether old or young, married or not, who love their Lord Jesus and understand their special and holy role in creation as mothers and daughters and sisters would do well to heed the apostolic injunction regarding headcoverings in the Divine Service as a good and salutary custom.