Headcovering—Just a Tradition? (6)

Rev. C. Sonnevelt, Lethbridge, Alberta

The Unity of the Churches

“Ifind it difficult to question Holy Scripture, but I admit that I do have trouble with Paul sometimes, especially when he says that a woman’s place is with her husband and that she should keep quiet and cover her head in the church. I just can’t go along with that’.’ This quote by Jimmy Carter could be read in Time magazine during his run for the presidency in 1976.The self-professed “born again”political leader did not want to question God’s Word, yet he could not go along with those parts of the Bible that speak about the place of the woman in society and about the need to cover her head in the church.

The voice of conscience

In 1 Corinthians 11:16 the apostle comes to the last verse of his discourse on the head covering for the woman. He writes, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” In church life there will always be people who turn the dearest matters into issues for discussion and bones of contention. We call such people “contentious.” These trouble makers will never miss an opportunity to voice their objections and to express their reservations. The heart bent on rebellion can easily find an argument and readily present excuses which seek to undermine the truth and the Christian lifestyle based on it.

An example of such contentious behavior can be seen in discussions about the head covering of the woman. According to some, the apostle’s argument is merely a cultural one. Women should only grow their hair long and cover their head when this is customary in a specific society. In Corinth, bald-headed women would have run the risk of being labeled as prostitutes; therefore, Paul urged Christian women to distinguish themselves from them. In our present-day world, however, this need is no longer there. That, at least, is the thought of many Bible expositors today.

We have already seen that this way of reasoning is entirely faulty. A bald head was sometimes associated with mourning and shame, but there is no historical evidence that an uncovered head in the Corinthian world was characteristic of women in public. Even when Greek women went to their pagan temples, they did not worship with their heads uncovered. Why are these facts denied or ignored by modern scholars time and again? Why do they try to tailor the facts according to a preconceived theory? Why are they so contentious?

A word with authority

In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul silences the many voices of discord by appealing to his apostolic authority and that of others. “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom...” The word “we” apparently refers to the apostles. While Paul supports the use of head coverings with careful argumentation from general and special revelation, he reminds the Corinthians of his special authority in this matter as an inspired apostle. He does not act as a spineless modern preacher who attempts to ride the fence on controversial issues. Paul demands uniformity in doctrine and practice. He says as it were, “Look, if you want to argue about this matter, if you are against head coverings in public worship, then I want you to know that you are not only contradicting me but also my fellow apostles. We all stand with one accord on this issue.”

It is interesting to see that the appeal to apostolic authority both begins and ends this section of 1 Corinthians 11. In verse 2 the apostle praised the Corinthians for keeping the ordinances which he had delivered to them. In verse 16 he concludes the discussion by referring to the customs of the apostles and all the churches. This appeal should be enough for us. What must we do? We must give heed to this instruction, recognizing that—in the words of Thomas Watson—“to obey is not so much our duty as our privilege.”

What kind of custom?

What actually does Paul mean when he says, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom”? What custom is he referring to in this verse? According to some, the apostle here alludes to the custom he had just commanded—the head covering for the woman. Of course this explanation makes no sense at all. It would portray Paul as saying, “The women in Corinth should veil themselves when they worship God in public, but we as apostles do not prescribe such customs, neither are those customs practiced in the churches elsewhere.” Thus the apostle would flatly contradict himself.

The heart bent on rebellion can easily find an argument and readily present excuses which seek to undermine the truth and the Christian lifestyle based on it.

Others relate the word “customs” to “being contentious.” They believe that when the apostle comes to the end of his argument, he is actually saying, “I do not want to quarrel about this issue, even if you do.” In other words, “If anyone strives over this or causes trouble, then dismiss the whole subject. Let him do as he pleases.” In this view, quarreling about the head covering is considered a greater evil than disobedience to the injunction of the apostle.

It is clear that this, too, is a wrong explanation. Just think about it. Would Paul really write fourteen verses explaining and defending this practice and then at the end say, “But if you do not want to do what I say, you do not have to comply”? Would he first present such strong theological arguments and then overturn his own instruction in the very next verse? Even apart from the fact that this interpretation runs counter to our conviction that the Scripture is inspired by God, it is highly unlikely. Moreover, contention is a habit and an evil one at that, but it can hardly be called a custom.

So we are left with only one interpretation that makes sense. The apostle means, “Let it suffice to say that we as apostles do not have the custom of allowing the participation of unveiled women in public worship, neither do the congregations of God have this custom. In Corinth some may be attempting to introduce such a custom, but this conflicts with the practice of the Christian church in other places.”

A general practice

Evidently there was no difference between the customs of the apostles and those of “the churches of God.” All the congregations in the days of Paul had the same custom regarding the woman’s head covering in the public gatherings of the church. Charles Hodge comments, “The authority here adduced is that of the apostles and of the churches. The former was decisive, because the apostles were invested with authority not only to teach the gospel, but also to organize the church, and to decide everything relating to Christian ordinances and worship. The authority of the churches, although not coercive, was yet great. No man is justified, except on clearly scriptural grounds, and from the necessity of obeying God rather than man, to depart from the established usages of the church in matters of public concern.”

In the early church it was a general practice for women to veil themselves when they attended the religious assemblies. This is clear not only from the testimonies of church fathers like Tertullian and Chrysostom but also from sculptures found in the catacombs. For more than nineteen hundred years the uniform practice of all Christian churches was for men to pray bareheaded and for women to have their heads covered. This practice did not change until the “sixties” of the twentieth century had arrived.

Three cultural factors in particular have produced this disregard for Paul’s teaching: first, the fact that hats and scarves are no longer considered fashionable; secondly, the move for more women’s rights and greater equality with men; and thirdly, an increasing lack of respect for authority. It is modern culture that causes men and women to be contentious about the teaching of God’s Word. Many regard a head covering for women old-fashioned. Instinctively or more consciously they consider it a sign of a detestable submission of the woman and a symbol of hateful oppression by the man.

Great importance

When we reflect on this disregard for Paul’s teaching, we will not fail to see the great importance of our topic. It is true that the use of head coverings in public worship may not be as important as the doctrines of the Trinity, the virgin birth of Christ, or justification by faith alone; nevertheless, it is important for a number of reasons.

The first reason has to do with the authority of the Holy Scripture. If the instruction of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 can be brushed aside as merely determined by culture and history, what will the consequences be for the other admonitions found in God’s Word? What will remain, just to mention one thing, of Paul’s instruction about the sinfulness of homosexual practices? Evangelical and Reformed theologians who accept Romans 1 but reject 1 Corinthians 11 can hardly claim to be consistent. They open the door for a liberal kind of thinking. Ministers in particular should strive to preach the full counsel of God. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

The second reason why our subject is so important has to do with marriage and family life. It is no exaggeration when we say that in our day these institutions are at an all-time low. Consequently, any teaching or practice that supports the loving headship of the man as well as the joyful submission of the wife needs our utmost adherence. This submission does not deprive women of the “opportunity for exerting their peculiar talents, or of using their influence to the greatest advantage” (Matthew Henry). The head covering represents what God teaches about marriage. Therefore, instead of mocking at or becoming slack in this practice, we should embrace it wholeheartedly.

The third reason has to do with our secular society. Our Western culture is becoming increasingly pagan and anti-Christian. It is a culture of entertainment and self-determination. Every biblical practice that sets us apart from this culture and helps us to be an example for others ought to be followed by those who are called after His Name. Today we hear much about the need to witness. Who will deny that such a need is there? However, the question remains, what is the right way to witness? We certainly do not act as the salt of the earth or as the light of the world when we imitate the world. Let us seek grace to know the Lord and to walk in His ways.

Practical questions

We wish to end with a few questions that are often asked. One of those questions is when girls should begin to wear a head covering. To ask this question is to answer it. We might as well ask how old a boy should be to not wear a head covering. The wise King Solomon once said, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6). Let our female children become accustomed to a head covering from the first day when they begin to attend church.

Another question concerns the size of the head covering. How big or long ought the covering to be? Again the answer is not difficult. A head covering should be large enough to cover the head, whether it is a veil, netting, scarf, hat, or another piece of cloth. The apostle used the Greek word “peribolaion,” which signifies an “ample covering.” Invisible nets, tiny bows, and flimsy veils may pass for coverings today but do not serve their purpose. Such “pretend” coverings may perhaps enhance the glory of the woman (their hair) but they do not cover it. A head covering should do what it is meant to do—“cover.” At the same time we want to stress that a hat should be simple. It should not be a “hanging garden” or a fancy “lighthouse.” The head covering is given to the woman as a symbol of her submission to the man, not as a means to show off to the congregation or to outdo other women.

Finally, is not the inward condition of our heart more important than our outward appearance? Yes, it is (1 Samuel 16:7). A woman may wear a neat head covering and yet miss the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit. She may feel better than women who do not follow the “apostolic, scriptural tradition,” and yet she may be a stench before God. Grace for the soul is indeed the most important thing. Nevertheless, when grace is bestowed upon a sinner, it will also reveal itself in her outward appearance. It is very sad that Jimmy Carter did not see that. To be “born again” and “not to go along with Paul” is like talking about a “square circle.” Our confession should be our experience; our walk should match our talk. How is that practiced by each of us in our own life?

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen