Of late, the issue of head coverings has come up in my circle. Okay...my cousin and I have been discussing it, but the point is, the issue has been bouncing around my head for the past few days. It is a topic that I have avoided for some time. Every time I read through 1 Corinthians, I would tell myself, "We'll get around to that." The reality is that I didn't want to be "that guy"...that guy who people view as a chauvinistic jerk who wants to make sure everyone--especially his wife--remembers that he's the head of his home. I think I'm beginning to respect "that guy"--those men who have cared enough to stand for what they believe.
Let me be clear that I am referring to head coverings for women (those old enough to leave them on...) DURING CORPORATE WORSHIP. I am not advocating head coverings at all times. Though I see nothing necessarily wrong that practice, I don't see any command for it either.
So, here's my list of reasons for my recent inclination towards head coverings (these are generally in order from least important to most important):
#1: So that my wife will be conscious of my headship over her. I know, this is the part where I sound like a real jerk, but, as a husband, it is my duty to provide an environment that is spiritually beneficial for my wife. Encouraging her to wear a head covering reminds her of her Biblical role and duties.
#2: Doing so places us in the historical majority of Christianity. Head coverings have been almost a universal in the Christian church. Even in the early 1900's they were worn by women of many different denominations. Tradition is not reason enough to do something, but it can be a source of comfort and confirmation when deciding to embrace a practice.
#3: To remind me of my duties as a husband. Seeing the emblem of my authority over my wife should not make me feel good about myself. It should not reinforce my manhood in a chauvinistic way. Instead, it should remind me of the responsibilities that come with marriage and parenthood. It should be a sign to me, like my wedding ring, that I am spiritually accountable for my wife's spiritual development and well-being.
#4: To remind me of Christ's headship over me. The head covering is a sign of the spiritual hierarchy, you might say. I am the head of my wife, and Christ is the head over me. My uncovered head and my wife's covered head are both reminders that I (along with my wife and children) are under Christ. Just about anything that reminds me of that is good idea, I think.
#5: Finally, because God said so. Parents often say, "Because I said so." That may or may not be a valid reason, but God certainly has that sort of prerogative. In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul speaks about the spiritual order of authority and the emblem of that authority--the head covering. The Bible specifically commands the wearing of head coverings, and, if the Bible is our standard, we must comply.
Now, don't think that I am arrogant enough to declare something as clear and simple when there has been significant disagreement over it among Christians. This is a difficult passage. Beyond the exegetical complexities, there is also the valid argument over whether or not this is a cultural sign for the 1st century or whether it is a lasting sign. If you believe this was specific to Paul's culture and that, because head coverings no longer have such a meaning, this doesn't apply to us, so be it. So long as you seek to obey the spiritual truths revealed here, I respect your conscience. I will love you and fellowship with you as a brother/sister in Christ.
I guess I've decided to default with doing what the Bible says. I don't want to sound pretentious when I say that, though I know I do. All I mean is that, when the Bible says something and I am unsure of whether or not it is cultural or not (and I am still unsure), that I would rather do what it says, even if I don't have to, than not do something that I should be doing.
Some would say that I am living in fear--that I am trying to make sure I don't condemn myself unwittingly. That's not it at all. I know that my family's salvation is not dependent on our use of head coverings. However, as a Christian, I want to do what pleases God. Should I not err on the side of caution? Shouldn't I do something acceptable than not do something commanded?
At the very least, this is a beneficial spiritual practice, even if it isn't mandatory. Too often our attitude is, "Well, this won't send me to hell." Our attitude should be, "What is God's best for me?" Having a physical sign that symbolizes spiritual truths is a valuable thing. It provides opportunities for communicating spiritual truths to our families, churches, and neighbors.
Many times these signs become routine. They lose any spiritual impact. In fact, they can become a source of hostility and pride among brethren. These abuses should not, however, discourage us from using this spiritual tool given to us by God. These same abuses have been committed against communion, baptism, preaching, singing, etc.
As I have already stated, I would not want this to be a fellowship-breaking matter. I don't want to appear judgey or anything like that. I just want to share my thoughts and journey on this matter to encourage you to think about the issue. I think there is much to be benefited from returning to a practice that has 1800 years of practice in Church history. What you choose to do is between you, your family, and God. God bless.
"I guess I've decided to default with doing what the Bible says." You decided, but what about your wife? You haven't mentioned anything in your post about how your wife feels about it, yet you don't want to be "that guy". This entire post is all about you and not the person who actually has to wear the head covering.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your thought. I should've been more inclusive with my language. This was certainly a topic approached as a couple.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, though I don't have to wear the head covering, I do feel as though it is an issue that I, as a husband, am responsible for, especially when it comes time for my daughters to wear them.
It was certainly a family issue and a family decision though. Thanks for the issue.
Comment...not issue...
ReplyDeleteOne point to consider is that grammatically (at least in English) the word "cover" is used in a verbal connotation in verses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 13. However, in verse 15, it is used in a nominative form. A following point follows then, I believe: that verse 14 and 15 rather clearly identify the nature of the "covering."
ReplyDeleteYou're suggesting that the covering is the hair?
ReplyDeleteYes. The husband's shorter, and the wife"s longer.
DeleteI've heard that reasoning. I don't see it, personally. I think there are lessons regarding hair in this passage, but hair is clearly (IMHO) being used as a line of proof regarding the propriety of the head covering.
ReplyDeleteThere's been a perennial debate about whether Paul is really talking about an "artificial" covering at all, or whether he is saying that long hair is the covering. Note that he says "God gave women long hair in place of a covering." On the one side are those who make that very obvious point. On the other are those who argue that the phrase that clearly means (in Greek) "in place of" actually means "to prove that she needs one." Its an untenable position and one that shows extreme disrespect for the actual wording of the text.
ReplyDeletePaul clearly says that women are given long hair as a covering. It makes little sense to me, however, to think that this is instead of an artificial covering. Paul seems to be using the natural hair covering as an argument from nature in favor of the artificial hair covering.
ReplyDeleteYour logic isn't logical at all. "Paul clearly says that women are given long hair as a covering." Case closed.
ReplyDeleteYour synopsis make sense when the verse is taken in isolation from the rest of the passage, which is how I had it presented to me many times. It was not until I thoughtfully read the entire passage that I understood the flow of Paul's argument. Paul, it seems to me, is using nature's gift of a natural covering as one of several lines of support for his command for an artificial covering. That is my take. Call it illogical if you please, but the "the hair is the covering" interpretation leaves several questions unanswered. Unfortunately, I've found pretty much every interpretation of that passage does, including my own.
ReplyDeletePaul clearly intends for women to wrap their hair around their faces, as the word "covering" literally means "veil" here and in the verb form "to wrap around." He's not talking about a hat or covering the top of the head. And "because of the angels" is probably a reference to Isaiah 6:2 "Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew."
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I've never heard that explanation. It's interesting. I think it leaves some thing unanswered though when dealing with the actual case being built by Paul.
ReplyDeleteStronger than most Protestants would admit, is the fact that until the advent of Western feminism (the 1960s+) the unbroken tradition was that women ALWAYS wore head-coverings in church. If you're willing to say that for 1900+ years all Christians were wrong in their application of the commands here, and finally--you alone have the REAL meaning of the Greek(!)--the weight of the argument is for head-coverings during worship. Paul even says in the passage (v. 16) that all the churches then....had no other practice (thus obliterating the cultural, applied only to Corinth then, argument.) Another strong argument: There is no other extended passage in the New Testament (the New Covenant) which is ignored by bible-believing Christians today. Since we are still in the New Covenant, why should we feel free to ignore commands by the Apostles in the New Covenent's (the NT) book? We do not do that with any other passage. Other than feminism's hag-ish head having risen up in the latter 20th C., why would we disobey/ignore this passage?
ReplyDeleteI think you're absolutely right. It seems a little bit too coincidental that the decline of head covering coincided with the rise of Feminism. It's part of a much bigger reevaluation of the validity/applicability of the NT writings. Unfortunately, many Protestants don't really care about the first 1900 years of Christian history.
Delete