It has been joyful for me to find that most people have been pleasantly curious and genuinely interested in discussing why I (and others) have come to the firm conclusion that the practice of women wearing head coverings in church is still for today. Few have made it apparent that they have made all the wrong assumptions that I had feared would be made upon wearing a covering in church, but I am content in knowing that I am not aiming to please man but God. I have had such relief and joy in knowing that I am following my conviction of Scripture on this matter, that any confusion or judgment from others does not discourage me. However, because confusion is not a good thing, I thought I’d write out my reasons for why this practice of head covering is of great importance to me—of more importance to me than I will probably even express—as an accessible reference for anyone wondering. I pray I can compose a clear and thoughtful presentation, as I find this practice of such value to hold the utmost consideration which I wouldn’t want to squander.

So to begin…

My inquiry of 1 Corinthians 11 is not new. For years it has been my practice to read through the entirety of Scripture each year. And each year as I’d come upon 1 Corinthians 11, it always appeared plain to me that Paul is teaching all women to cover their heads in corporate worship without dispute. It always seemed odd to me that looking around, no one does. So, just like I’m assuming many Christians do, they shrug it off and move on because there are simply other priorities in their lives—both practical and academic—that they are focusing on rather than head coverings. There are often more “essential” Christian doctrines occupying our minds, and for the sake of not majoring on the minors, we simply accept what we see in culture around us and don’t question it. It is often in our minds to not turn secondary issues into essential issues, so we guard against over analyzing a passage of Scripture. But this line of thinking leaves much of Scripture to be taken lightly. I firmly believe all of Scripture is to be taken seriously, not to be brushed off as “not essential for salvation so not necessary to discuss or obey.” I must be clear— head coverings are NOT necessary for salvation, nor are they a means to earn God’s love and favor. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Christ’s atonement for our sin on the cross was all that was necessary for our salvation. And He loves us because of who He is—not because of anything we do.
That being said, does that mean we are not to grow in obedience? Are we not to grow in our understanding of Scripture? Is God not sanctifying us? Does He not tell us to love Him with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength? Nothing we do is ever to earn God’s love or favor or salvation, nor is anything that I am presenting here. But this isn’t about salvation; this is about rightly discerning God’s Word and upholding it. So that being stressed, let’s discuss this passage.

1 Corinthians 11:1-16

1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

This passage is so clear to me (and to many others) that I often wonder why women—or even men—want to fight against it. The most common reason, I believe, is that looking around no one else seems to hold to it (in America anyway), so they don’t want to be thought of as weird. As Christians, we should be used to people perceiving us as weird, as that’s how the whole world sees us for living our entire lives devoted to a God we cannot see, clinging to the message of an antiquated book that no one takes seriously anymore. But I do see how it’s different when others within our own faith wrongly judge us. It is more hurtful than when the world judges us, because we are supposed to be united in Christ, so there should be a brotherly unity and love among us. But everything we do should come down to pleasing God, not pleasing man. We should not be seeking the approval of man, but God (Gal. 1:10). We are to live according to Scripture by faith, not live according to the surrounding culture… all the more especially during worship on the Lord’s Day. As R.C. Sproul reminds us, “Worship must not be designed to please the unbeliever or the believer. Worship should be designed to please God.”

I am highlighting a few preconceived ideas about this passage prior to getting to the main dissection of it because it is common for people to have a veil over their eyes and ears when approaching a controversial topic if they have preconceived arguments in their minds that they are waiting to bring to the surface. So rather than waiting to the end of this discussion to address counter arguments, which is usually the protocol in writing, I am addressing them first, in hopes that the reader will clear their mind of them so as to more openly listen to and consider what I aim to present.

I have noticed that many—without giving much thought to the rest of the text—people are quick to magnify verse 16 (and distort it), using it to brush off any actual examination of the text and simply say “Well, we’re not called to be contentious about this and Paul says the church has no such custom if people are contentious so I’m just going to use that as an easy out of obeying everything Paul says in this passage.” It seems very odd that Paul would take the time to not only give this instruction but to carefully and thoroughly explain why women are to cover their heads in public worship for what takes up 15 verses, all to just brush it off in the end and say “Buuut you know, if you don’t really want to that’s ok…” That doesn’t make much sense, and actually it is not what Paul is saying in that verse at all. It makes a lot more sense to understand that Paul is saying in verse 16 that there are contentions arising in the church where women are not wanting to cover their heads (this is the whole reason he wrote the passage) and he is saying here “We have no such practice,” that is “We have no such practice of women not covering their heads and being contentious over this…so cover your heads!” Rather than it being an excuse to not listen to Paul’s instruction, it’s actually a strong exhortation to not take it lightly. “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” —Read: “We have no such custom of being contentious…” NOT of covering our heads. One commentator writes, “This is a sobering statement, especially in light of what we see today. What does it mean for the churches of our day who have completely thrown off this command? I am not the one who can say. The Lord is the judge of all the earth. But we cannot deny the clarity and finality of the last statement that Paul made in this passage.” I will note here, though this is a point I will elaborate more on later, that all of church history understood Paul’s meaning of verse 16, and never used it to free anyone from obeying Paul’s instruction, up until the 1900s. But this emphasis is for later.

Another popular excuse for the quick dismissal of this passage is a misinterpretation of verse 15, where many quickly, without knowing what they are saying, exclaim, “See, there it is! A woman’s hair is her covering, so there is no need for any of this discussion of cloth coverings.” Well, that is entirely false and not what Paul is saying here at all. Not only are two different Greek terms used in this passage to differentiate what Paul is conveying, but the entirety of the passage would not make coherent sense if verse 15 implied that Paul meant a woman’s hair is what he has been referring to all along. In verses 5-6, Paul says that if a woman does not cover her head, it is as though, and even worse than if her head were shaven. That would be to say, if assuming the incorrect interpretation is true, that “if a woman does not shave her head, it is as though her head were shaven.” That is incoherent, and so disqualifies the interpretation that Paul is speaking of a woman’s hair being her covering in public worship. Going back to the Greek, throughout this passage there is a certain Greek word (katakalupto) that is used for covering the head, and it conveys a cloth covering. But in verse 15 when the covering of long hair is mentioned, a different word is used (peribolaion), indicating that Paul is differentiating between these two coverings. The purpose for Paul using this term in verse 15 is to make his argument from nature (which we will get into), as one of the reasons why women need to cover their heads in corporate worship. He is pointing out that women have distinctively long hair to show “what nature teaches” of evident distinctions between men and women, using this as support for why a woman covering her head is consistent with nature. Joel Beeke, in his commentary on this passage, writes, “After arguing from creation, Paul argues from what is known in the natural order. God has made men and women to be different, and hair is one distinguishing marker between them.” Further and once again, it would be dishonest to ignore the fact that all of history understood that Paul was simply making an argument from nature here to support his instruction on cloth covering, and that he was not suddenly saying that he had been talking about a woman’s hair being a sufficient covering this whole time. The “hair is her covering” is a somewhat new interpretation, which is more of an escape rather than an interpretation at all. R.C. Sproul rightly summed up, “I am highly skeptical of the ‘her hair is the covering’ argument. It strikes me that if that were the case, Paul wouldn’t have had to say anything. As messed up as the Corinthian church was, I don’t suspect there was a strong husbands-with-bald-headed-wives contingent there needing to be rebuked.” There most likely was not, and again, no one—up until very recently (not more than 150 years ago)—ever suggested that that was the case. Everyone in the church understood Paul’s instruction to be referring to a cloth covering…and everyone abided by it.

Now that we can put some popular misconceptions aside, let’s look at what Paul is saying in the text.

First, and as we have just discussed, he is clearing instructing Christian women to cover their heads with some sort of cloth covering during the gathering of corporate worship as a symbol of authority on her head. This understanding is consistent with the understanding and practice of the universal church throughout history. Paul gives three reasons for this practice:

1. He appeals to creation
2. He appeals to the angels
3. He appeals to nature
   

As a preface for these appeals, Paul addresses three relationships in verse 3: Christ and man, man and woman, and God and Christ. As Christ is the head of the man, so man is the head of the woman. And just as the Son of God submitted Himself to the will of the Father, so the woman submits herself to the man, as the man submits himself to Christ. (The ESV translates the Greek term for woman here as wife, but the term is actually woman and remains so in most translations.) The structure of these relationships forms the basis for what Paul will go on to instruct.

(Verse 4 seems to be nearly universally understood to refer this passage to acts done in corporate worship, as it fits with the rest of the context. Few take it to mean literally every time a woman prays, whether inside or outside a public worship service, though this is a standing view as well.)

Appeal to Creation

Paul’s point in verses 7-9 is on the order of creation. He points out that man was created first and then woman was created after the man and for the man. As Beeke so beautifully explains this passage, “Man reflects God’s glory and the woman reflects man’s glory. By man having his head uncovered and the woman having her head covered, all glory points to God in public worship.” This is so crucial that the prior verses (5-6) disclose that the woman dishonors her husband in worship by having her head uncovered. Such shame would have been akin to having her hair shaven in that day. (Sadly, women no longer feel shame in shaving their heads, as the distinctive male/female characteristics have been detrimentally undermined, but the reality of the spiritual shame is still there, whether we acknowledge it or not.)

This appeal to creation for the first reason Paul gives for women covering their heads is of utmost importance. Modern day commentators will typically try to use the historic context of the Corinthian church to back door their way out of adhering to this passage today. They will point out how Corinth was a sinful promiscuous city and Paul simply wanted the Christian women to be distinguished from the prostitutes of that day so he told them to make sure to cover their heads (Notice real quick that none of these arguments align with each other. If this argument is true then the “her hair is the covering” argument doesn’t stand. If that argument is true then this argument doesn’t stand. Once again, it seems these are all more like excuses than true arguments. Which is sad, because this is actually a very beautiful practice full of beautiful meaning that God has set in place.) Acknowledging the error of this argument, R.C. Sproul states, “There is sometimes certainly room for examining the context of a situation in Scripture and making an argument based off of that situational context… but where God gives a specific reason for His instruction, you never never never replace that reason with another one! And Paul doesn’t say ‘Have the ladies cover their heads because of the prostitutes,’ but in fact, he appeals to creation! And if ever there was a reason for a lasting ordinance, it’s an appeal to creation.”

John Murray, professor at Princeton Seminary who later helped found Westminster Theological Seminary, writes, “Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (vs. 3b, vss. 7 ff.), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising therefrom.” The universal witness of church history can again attest to this understanding and practice.

*Side note worth addressing here: Another popular and yet otherwise recent counter argument to this passage is the question as to why Old Testament priests wore head coverings yet now Paul is appealing to creation in favor of the woman being covered and not the man. David Gooding (Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Greek, Queen’s University) explains this perfectly: “Short answer: In Old Testament days, they didn’t have Christ. They served God, but they had no personal relationship with Christ. The reason why Paul says that men should not be covered in 1 Corinthians 11:3–4 is that the head of every man—that is, every male—is Christ. That alters the Old Testament position completely, and every man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonours his head—that is, he dishonours Christ. Even in modern synagogues, the men wear hats of one kind or another. Orthodox Jews, when going about their daily work, wear a skull cap, in case they should come across the word God in print anywhere. And for that reason, in the synagogue itself, where God is to be praised, they are very scrupulous about men wearing some head covering, a hat or otherwise. It is different with Christianity because we are related not only to God but to Christ; and we are told that, if any man praying or prophesying covers his head, it is a shame. He dishonours his head—that is, Christ. In your letter, you draw the analogy between priests in the Old Testament who were representative of the people, and as representatives of God were for the glory of God, and yet they wore hats; and you ask why Christian men in the church would be different from that, since they surely are representatives of God on behalf of the people. The straightforward answer to your question is again the matter of the Messiah, Christ. A man in the church does not merely represent God, he represents Christ; and that is the difference.”
If anything, seeing the importance to God of the symbol of the head covering decorum should show us that this is something that God does not take lightly. In the Old Testament He required it of the priests. In the New Testament He arguably requires it of women, as we now have Christ as our head. There is no contradiction of the Old and New Testament texts here. We are simply in a new covenant.

Appeal to the Angels

After appealing to creation, Paul then appeals to what I believe is an undermined yet powerfully significant reason for women covering their heads in public worship: the angels. Verse 10 in this passage reveals that the woman is to have this symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. Beeke once again beautifully explains, “Angels were witnesses of creation (Job 38:4,7) and are witnesses of God’s wisdom in the church (Eph. 3:10). They would observe the dishonoring of God’s created authority structure in the church.” The sake of the angels is something that I believe should not be taken lightly, and I do not stand alone in this…

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) wrote, “The reason why our sisters appear in the house of God with their heads covered is because of the angels. The apostle says that a woman is to have a covering upon her head because of the angels, since the angels are present in the assembly and they mark every act of indecorum and therefore everything is to be conducted in decency and in order in the presence of the angelic spirits.” 

John Bunyan (1628-1688) agreed, “For this cause ought the woman to have power, that is, a covering, on her head…because of the angels. Methinks, holy and beloved sisters, you should be content to wear this power or badge.”

Martin Luther (1483-1546) shamelessly taught that “The wife shall not rule over her husband, but be subject and obedient to him. For that reason the wife wears a headdress, that is, the veil on her head […] the wife should put on a veil, just as a wife is duty-bound to her husband […] Women should be covered with a veil for the sake of the angels.”

Though often brushed over in confusion over this verse, church fathers seemed to be in agreement that reverencing the angels in this matter should be held in high regard. It’s interesting to me that so many in the Confessional Reformed church—that which holds so dearly to the Regulative Principle of Worship—disregard this very explicit instruction of how we are to worship. Isn’t that what we prize so dearly—worshipping God according to how He lays out for us to do so in His Word? Why is this very clear instruction on how He wants us to worship Him so quickly passed over, given the very weighty reasons Paul generously provides for us?

Finally, Rev. Sherman Isbell (Free Church of Scotland) further elaborates: “The mention of the angels refers to their presence in the worship assemblies of God’s people, as seen in I Timothy 5:21 and Psalm 68:15-17. The sensitivity of angels to the decorum and sanctity of God’s worship is apparent in Isaiah 6:2-3 and Revelation 4:6-8. (The word which Paul appropriates in I Corinthians 11:5, 6, 7 and 13, to speak of heads covered or uncovered is that which the Greek Septuagint uses in Isaiah 6:2, of the seraphim reverently covering their faces and feet with their wings in the presence of God.) It is unhappily characteristic of much of American life that egalitarianism displaces respect for authority structures in divinely-ordained institutions. As an act of decorum in worship, the woman is to wear the sign of the man’s authority.” Perhaps I stand alone (well, clearly I do not), but I do not want to insult our holy God’s celestial angels by being careless with this instruction. It clearly holds great importance to the Lord, and given the text along with the witness of church history I have no good reason to fight against it.

Appeal to Nature

After arguing from creation and appealing to the witness of the angels, Paul then makes an argument from what is known in the natural order (vv. 14-15). Where many here have tried to distort the text, as we have previously discussed, Beeke discerns that Paul is simply showing here that “God has made men and women to be different, and hair is one distinguishing marker between them.” In our post-feminism, post-modern times, it is unpopular to celebrate the unique differences that God has assigned to the sexes, and so this argument from nature which highlights the natural differences between men and women is not a favorable one. Nevertheless, it is there in the text and so should be happily embraced. As Paul appeals to nature, so I will appeal to more church fathers who agree with him…

A.W. Pink (1886-1952) wrote, “Observe, first, there is nothing in this verse (or in any verse of Holy Writ) which limits the injunction to any particular time or place […] In other words the divine requirement to have some ‘covering’ over her head holds good at all seasons and in all places.”

Augustine (354-430) wrote, “It is not becoming [for women] to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands women to keep their heads covered.”

John Chrysostom (349-407) addressed to the man: “Neither do thou, not being covered, pray before God, lest thou insult both thyself and Him that hath honored thee.” Conversely to the woman he wrote that she should add a cloth covering to her hair “that not nature only, but also her own will, may have part in her acknowledgment of her subjection.” For her to go without a covering would be an “indecency.”

Tertullian (160-220) agreed, “The Christian man is under no obligation to wear a covering,” but the woman’s head “is bound to have a veil.”

And to quote Luther once more, “The wife has not been created out of the head so that she shall not rule over her husband, but be subject and obedient to him. For that reason the wife wears a headdress, that is the veil on her head, as St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians in the 11th chapter, that she is not free but under obedience to her husband.”

Once again, it is no surprise that, given the egalitarian society we live in, this practice has been abolished. The idea of women being in subjection under man is not a favorable one today, let alone embracing a symbol that recognizes this structure. Yet how much more is this symbol needed to restore what has been lost. Christ’s Word stands true even when society tries to overthrow what it teaches. My argument here is not simply that this symbol is needed, but this practice of head covering is biblically instructed and should have never been lost to begin with (and thankfully hasn’t in most Christian churches all over the world aside from Canada and the United States). Churches have been faithful for twenty centuries to uphold this practice, and it has only been erased in some places due to the rise of feminism among the past 150 years. But feminism is not a valid reason to overthrow a Scriptural practice. It is since the rise of feminism that people have tried to use the closing verse of this passage to say “See, if anyone is contentious we have no such custom! Therefore, this is not a mandated custom!” But once again, it makes no sense that Paul would go in detail about the importance of this instruction he is giving, all to throw it away in the end and leave it entirely up to the whim of individual conscience as to whether it should be upheld. Rather, as Beeke clarifies, “The behavior of the Corinthian church quarreled with this universal custom (practice) of the churches, that the men were to worship with their heads uncovered and the women with their heads covered,” and Paul is warning against any contention that would interrupt this practice. Yet behold the contention in the 1900s which largely overthrew the practice altogether. As feminism rose, a Canadian pastor propelled the advancement of the removal of the practice of head covering when he publicly declared, “Support the feminists, mail in your head coverings!” This saying (and adherence to it) trickled down to America, which is why many countries outside of Canada and America still uphold the head covering practice in church, while Canada and America—so heavily indoctrinated by feminism—largely do not. 

It is evident that a very probable reason American women do not want to obey this text today is out of utter disregard (or rebellion against) biblical gender roles. After all, one of the very reasons Paul gives for women covering their heads is to acknowledge and symbolize our submission under male authority, which *beautifully* reflects man’s submission under Christ’s authority. But as we have discussed, this is the very reason why, after twenty centuries of women universally obeying Paul’s instruction here, women stopped covering their heads in church—because under the Women Empowerment Movements dominating most prominently in the mid 1900s women no longer wanted to submit to male authority—let alone symbolize it in the church. This actually is the very thing that finally sealed the deal for me to submit to God’s Word in this area—realizing that all of history could not have been wrong, and that it could not be the case that suddenly empowered feminists in the twenty-first century were biblically enlightened to what the text actually means. The text had been clear to me for years, but I just kept thinking there must be something I’m missing if no one—not even my admired pastors—seem to be reading the text as I am. But once the history of it all came to light, and I realized I was not alone in what I was seeing in this passage of Scripture, but in fact all of church history agrees with me, I could no longer ignore it or brush it off as irrelevant. It is extremely relevant. If the only reason women ever stopped covering their heads in church is because they no longer wanted to submit to male authority (and that is, in fact, the only reason they ever stopped), then that is not a valid nor biblical reason to stop the practice. Christian women should still, then, be covering their heads in church. To say this is a Corinthian church-only instruction does not align with the rest of history. To say this was a cultural first-century-only instruction does not align with the rest of history. If it was only meant for the first century, why then did the church for twenty centuries universally follow it? I have yet to hear a good answer for this. The only explanation is that Paul meant it for all churches in all cultures for all time. 

I love R.C. Sproul’s bold observance when he said, “The wearing of fabric headcoverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church of Jesus Christ which is ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’?” 

I agree with Anna Grace Wood (Femina Sola Gratia) when she says, “It disturbs me that the custom or the tradition of the woman covering her head in America did not pass away until we saw a cultural revolt against the authority of the husband over the wife not just in the home or in the church but in the whole of culture and it frightens me that we’re taking our cue not from the Scriptures but from the culture or the fashions where we live.”

R.C. Sproul Jr. also addresses this reality when he writes, “I’m happy to boldly suggest that virtually every Christian, from the time of Paul’s epistle to about half a century ago, agrees with me on this issue […] What potent interpretive insight, I wonder, did the church miss all those centuries? Isn’t it just a bit curious that all believers believed the same thing on this issue until the rise of feminism?” 

Yes, it is indeed a bit curious, and though this historical reality shouldn’t matter more than the text itself, it is comforting to know we are not alone, even today, in keeping to God’s Word on this matter, though we may be in the minority.

Now this is probably my least favorite reason for adhering to the practice of head covering, but perhaps worth mentioning. Sproul Jr. makes note that “having our wives cover their heads at corporate worship is certainly not a sin. Failing to do so, on the other hand may be a sin. By resistless Pascalian logic, the choice should be obvious. That is, if choice A is certainly not a sin and choice B possibly could be a sin, isn’t it clearly safer and better to choose A?” Now, I do not cover my head for this sake of “What if I’m wrong?” and merely to cover my bases. I cover because I am truly and fully convinced of the text and of the consistency of church history with the text. Nevertheless, his logic here is valid.

Recently people have called this restoration of the practice of head covering the “Head Covering Movement.” I think that is silly and inaccurate because a movement refers to something new—but head coverings are a timeless biblically instructed practice that should have never been lost. The real “movement” was when they were forfeited via the Women’s Empowerment Movement. We are simply trying to restore something that has been lost, but never should have been (and thankfully still hasn’t been in most places around the world).

I am a proud American, but I am not proud at how the feminist revolution has seeped itself into every corner of American society, including the church—corrupting ideologies and destroying beautiful God-ordained practices. We don’t have to follow in its steps! We just have to be clear-minded enough to see through it, and bold enough (or rather, faith-minded and Christ-minded enough) to adhere to God’s Word rather than to destructive cultural mentalities.

The ripple effect of foregoing biblical principles is evident. One obvious example is the newly modern acceptance of female pastors among many Christian churches. This acceptance was never embraced prior to the removal of head coverings. As Dale Partridge accurately notes, “When the symbols for authority are eliminated, the qualifications for authority are forgotten.” I think we don’t realize how far the truth of this statement can actually go.

So why wouldn’t I? After coming to realize it’s evidence in history and its clarity in Scripture, why would I still not cover my head? The only reason would simply be because it might be awkward at first since no one else does (in my church anyway). But that is not a reason. Or possibly because I don’t prefer how it looks. That is also not a valid reason. “To him who knows to do good but does not do it, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). It comes down to, I have no good reason not to. I have every reason to obey Scripture on this. I’ve come to be content with being thought of as “weird” by some (though I’ve happily found that the people I admire and look up to most are the ones who do not consider me weird for this). I personally think everyone else is weird for following in the steps of feminists rather than following in the steps of Calvin and Luther and all of our own historic church tradition. But I am not being contentious. There are things I wish people taught me earlier in life but did not out of fear of being offensive. There are too many times people have said to me, “Why didn’t you tell me?” when they’ve come to realize something the hard way on their own when I knew the truth on the matter the whole time, but didn’t say anything out of fear of coming across as offensive. I’ve come to realize that being offensive isn’t a bad thing. The gospel itself is offensive. Being insulting and argumentative for no reason is a very bad thing. But telling the truth out of love is a very good thing. It simply usually comes at the cost of being offensive.

Again, being offensive for the mere sake of being offensive is wrong. That’s what being contentious is. But speaking truth and it being unwanted and therefore offensive is not wrong. Truth is always offensive when it is not wanted. But it is truth that we should care about…not what people prefer to hear. 

“Peace if possible. Truth at all cost.”

-Luther

“When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.”

-Abraham Kuyper

But let it not be forgotten—and this is important—that abiding to truth will always lead to our utmost joy, not to our detriment. I think we are prone to forget this, and so we foolishly cling to things or ideas that we think will make us happy but will actually cause us harm. God loves us. All that He instructs us is for our good and His glory. We can trust Him. We cannot trust our hearts or our own ways that do not align with His.

I would like to emphasize again that not this topic nor the whole topic of biblical gender roles in general nor of femininity and masculinity are of more importance to me than the gospel itself or of knowing and loving Christ. People are very quick to brush aside “secondary” topics simply because they are not the gospel itself. But certain times call for a greater emphasis on certain topics than others. During times of slavery it was necessary to focus greater attention on teaching the equality of human worth among all races. Once abortion became legalized and so widespread, it became necessary for Christians to stand up for the right to life of babies in the womb. And our current society which has moved so far away from the biblical created roles and purposes for men and women calls for a greater emphasis on restoring gender roles back to how they should be in accordance with Scripture. I am not one to long for “the way things used to be.” That is not what this is about. Times change, and every era has its problems. BUT, that does not mean we are to ignore evil or changes to biblical thinking and living when we see them. One of my favorite quotes by Edmund Burke is “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” … or… “for good men to keep silent.” I think he’s said both, and they both relay the same thing. 

So while I am not trying to bring God’s kingdom to earth (I am not postmillenial nor dispensational), I do highly believe in upholding to Scripture and not catering to the culture when the culture has sinfully drifted away from biblical values and teachings. 

The paradox is that it’s actually usually the people who treasure the gospel the most—who meditate daily on the beauty of the gospel more than they do on anything else—who see the importance in honoring God in every aspect of their lives, and who care deeply about the things that others brush off as “not important,” because they know that everything is important to God, and they want to honor Him in every way possible. Ironically, those who brush off secondary issues because “it is not the gospel” typically don’t meditate much on the gospel at all. (I am saying this as a general rule; there are always exceptions of course.) Hence the beloved theologians and pastors whose entire lives are fixated on the beauty of Christ have so much valuable insight concerning secondary issues and write extensively on them, because they know they are important as well.

Finally, if it takes so much out of us to be obedient in such a small way, how could we ever expect to be obedient in times of serious hardship and persecution? Let me emphasize I am not making up an arbitrary rule and binding it to the consciences of man. There are silly man-made “rules” that float around on the internet and other places such as the instruction to “Repost this if you really love Jesus or else you really don’t love Him.” That is not only silly but it is sinful. There is nothing biblical about that. We are not called to create our own laws and bind consciences to them. But that is not what is happening here. I am making a defense for something that is in fact biblical and that many theologians and biblical scholars—indeed, virtually every reformer and every Christian throughout all of history—agrees with me upon, up until modernity convinced us otherwise. So my encouragement is, let us not be hesitant to obey the Word of God when it costs us nothing. There may be times when our faith will cost us a lot, and we cannot expect to be faithful in those times if we cannot be faithful in much smaller matters. Let us rather embrace with joy the honor of wearing a covering, as it holds great value to our Lord and honors what He has wisely ordered.

So in light of all of this, a very short answer to why I cover my head in church could be one or all of the following:

-to honor God

-to honor God’s Word

-out of obedience to God’s Word

-because of the angels

-because Paul tells us to

-because it is a creational ordinance, not a cultural one

-to honor male headship 

-to honor my husband

-because I am not a feminist

-to continue the practice of all of church history

May I respectfully ask… why not cover?

In all of this, my heart is full of love and grace. I love my sisters in Christ SO MUCH, regardless of whether they cover their heads in church. But I have made my case. I obviously believe it is an important practice, or else I would not practice it.

“A woman who prays or proph­esies in an assembly of believers should cover her head as a symbol of her submission to the absolute will of God who has ordered His universe according to His own good pleasure. It would be well for Christian women to wear head coverings at church meetings as a symbol of an abiding theological truth.”

-Bruce Waltke

May God grant us wisdom in our understanding, and joy in our obedience 🤍.

(For anyone wondering where my husband stands on all of this, I will tell you. I asked him last year, after doing much of my own research on this issue, what his thoughts were on 1 Corinthians 11. He plainly said, “Paul is instructing women to cover their heads in church. This instruction was meant for all time. Women just don’t want to do it anymore, but they 100% should.” 

I said to him, “What? You’ve already known this? Why did you never tell me?” and he said, “I do not know. But you should be covering your head. It is what Paul teaches.” Leave it to my husband to have all the knowledge bound up in his head but keeps it to himself haha. I can happily say we agree with each other on this issue.) 

Addendum

Since writing this, I have been presented with several scholarly and non-scholarly articles regarding this passage, primarily in defense that Paul is not giving a transcultural instruction in 1 Corinthians 11. These articles have further confirmed my convictions that that view is wrong, due to the multiple fallacies and contradictions these articles contain. It is here that I want to address these fallacies.

Very briefly I want to point out the obvious—Yes, I am aware that I am writing an argument which seemingly is contrary to the vast majority of my denomination—scholars and non-scholars alike. It must appear humorous that I think I am correct on a topic that my own credentialed pastors (who I LOVE)—as well as many other pastors and scholars within my reformed faith—disagree with me on. But the thing is, I am not alone—even within our reformed tradition—on this matter. In fact, I have all of church history for 20 centuries on my side, as well as many scholars in our reformed faith as well. It seems to be the case that most people are unaware of this, due mostly to lack of research or lack of concern.

I have always, my whole life, been the odd one out in whatever setting I have found myself in, in regards to beliefs. When I attended an Evangelical Mega Church for 6 years, everyone thought I was crazy because I believed in the Regulative Principle of Worship and that pastors should need to go through seminary and be called/ordained as a minister. (Why I stayed there for 6 years is for another day haha.) When I attended California Baptist University I was again the only one in my classes who held to the Regulative Principle of Worship. I wrote my senior paper on the topic and my professor loved it, all while saying I was wrong. I was the only one there who believed that the Church started with Adam and not at Pentecost. We would have debates about this in class and everyone thought I was crazy. And of course, I was the only one in my classes who held to infant baptism. I would write papers about it and debate the topic with my professors. In that setting it also probably appeared humorous that I thought I understood the matter better than my professors did on a Scriptural topic. Many of them were pastors! But the thing with them was, they could not agree with me or else they would lose their teaching position, as it is required to be a professing Baptist in order to teach there. But that is not the case with holding to the trans-cultural view of head coverings within the Confessional Reformed faith. One of the early founders of Westminster Seminary himself teaches that head coverings were meant for all time. I believe it necessary just to put this on the table because after speaking with many on this topic, I’ve found that most people don’t realize that there are many Reformed scholars today who teach what all of history held to—that Paul’s instructions on head covering were meant for the church for all cultures for all time. I feel the need to emphasize this so that at least we can acknowledge that this conversation deserves a seat at the table and that I am not out in left field on this matter, even within our beloved Reformed faith. There are many reformed scholars who take heed to this head covering practice, as much as Heidelblog might suggest otherwise.

So let’s get into what Heidelblog, as well as other scholarly journals and articles, has to say. Several people have sent me the Heidelblog’s 4-part series on head coverings written by Harrison Perkins. It seems to be the go-to consensus within my church. And who can blame them? R. Scott Clark (the founder of the blog) is a phenomenal reformed scholar. I love his writings and his teachings. I find him very wrong on this matter, however.

In this article by Perkins, we see this false statement right off the bat: “No real consensus has emerged across the centuries about this passage’s major argument and application.” This is entirely false, and even contradicts several other articles I have been sent that I don’t even agree with. The consensus of all of church history has been to wear the covering because that is what Paul is trans-culturally instructing. This is common history knowledge. All one has to do is google “When did women stop wearing head coverings in church?” and even AI will tell you the practice was held universally up until roughly 60/70 years ago. Now of course that is not the best method of research, so of course we can and should also look historically into the practice of churches with more in-depth study, but my point is that it is such common knowledge that even a quick google search acknowledges it. This is why, to quote R.C. Sproul on this again, Sproul says, “The wearing of fabric headcoverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church of Jesus Christ which is ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’?” 

It is dishonest and misleading, then, for this author to suggest up front that there has been no historical consensus on this matter. Many people today have not researched this matter on their own, and so reading such a statement will give them a false assumption that will sway their analysis of the text.

Perkins makes another blanket statement which is simply untrue: “Whether women should still wear head coverings is ancillary to Paul’s main point.” It almost shocks me that scholars are even suggesting such an idea, let alone teaching it as fact. I read a statement like this and wonder, Did you even read the text? The wearing of head coverings is not ancillary to Paul’s main point… It is Paul’s main point. And very few prior to 150 years ago (I’m being generous) ever suggested otherwise. I think we need to step back from the era we’ve grown up in and look at the timeline of history as a whole. My husband always says, “We don’t realize just how strong the Spirit of the Age is… how much it has veiled our eyes.” I think this is an example where that is so true. If we look at history from the First Century up until the Twentieth Century, we find that virtually all Christian churches upheld Paul’s instruction on fabric head covering. There are no church fathers or scholarly theologians who ever suggested that perhaps Paul’s main point was not on keeping to fabric head coverings but a “general concept” instead. The only reason modern commentators started to suggest such an idea is because feminists overthrew the practice, and so a new understanding of the text was now sought in order to not have to keep women accountable to this practice. 

Perkins goes on to state that “The main point from the passage is to maintain Christian modesty and propriety in relationship.” Again I want to say, Did you read the text?? No, that is not the main point at all. That is a point that supports Paul’s very specific instruction of head coverings. This author is taking the liberty to entirely dismiss the instruction and only support some of Paul’s reasons for the instruction. The whole point of the head covering is that it points specifically to male headship, which reflects the headship of Christ. To say this passage is about Christian modesty is to entirely miss the point. Head coverings do not symbolize Christian modesty; they symbolize male headship and the headship of Christ, which is why it has to be a symbol that goes on the head… not just any cultural preference of dress. 

This author also claims that “Paul omitted his typical clear logical connections.” Again, not true. Paul gave very clear and concise reasons for his very clear and concise instruction. No one in history seemed to be confused by what he was teaching, until modernity labeled it confusing.

Perkins further makes the claim that Paul’s instruction in this passage is “not a public ordinance.” This goes against the majority consensus on the matter, and again, goes against historical practice. He makes this claim because he takes the liberty to read the text as saying “husband and wife” rather than “male and female,” though the Greek does indeed use the terms “male and female” in this passage. Assuming the “husband and wife” interpretation, Perkins then claims the purpose of this text to be about propriety within the marital relationship, and not about head coverings at all. He is getting us further and further from what the text actual says, but let’s follow him for a minute. If this passage is about honor and respect and propriety within the husband-wife relationship, and Paul is clearly saying this should be symbolized somehow (though apparently not in public worship), how then is this being symbolized? Paul gave clear and very purposeful reasons for why a symbol is needed. What, then, is this symbol our culture is holding to? The answer, again, is that there is no other symbol, because it has to be a symbol that goes on the head in order to convey what Paul is teaching about the roles of authority. According to this author, women should be wearing the covering all the time at home, if we are going to be true to what he is suggesting. But there are further errors to what he claims. He also says that it is wrong to try to claim that this passage is about public worship when Paul clearly states that it is specifically when women are praying and prophesying. I must ask, then, why is he applying that logic to this verse and not to the passage as a whole? To be consistent with himself, he needs to also apply that to Paul’s very clear and specific instruction of wearing a fabric head covering. He does at least acknowledge that he is in the minority for claiming that this ordinance is not pertaining to public worship. The error here is that one must sustain this assumption in order to hold to the rest of what he claims in his article, which, for me, disqualifies the rest of his claims.

I would like to add here that Perkins is highlighting the marital relationship and its distinctive roles within—that being, the husband is the head and the wife must submit to her husband. Yet as one gentleman in my church said to me, “Good luck getting any woman these days to wear a symbol of authority on her head at church… They can’t even respect their husbands at home!” I think this speaks volumes to the actual weight that symbols hold. Perhaps if women were still wearing their symbol of submission on their head at church, they would be reminded of their place, and not be so quick to disrespect and dominate their husbands outside of public worship. Symbols have always been of high importance throughout Scripture. They are not arbitrary. I think we undermine the effective significance of what God has implicated here. Overthrowing it leads to more detrimental consequences than we realize.

I had mentioned this earlier in my post, but to reiterate again, it was only with the removal of fabric head coverings that the acceptance of women pastors began. Perhaps if American women never discontinued this practice, they wouldn’t have forgotten their lack of qualification on the position.

Finally, Perkins sums up his analysis with the question and answer, “What do we do in these situations? We submit ourselves to God’s Word to be instructed as far as we can.” To be instructed as far as we can here in this passage is to wear the covering. Perkins is making a principle to abide by and yet not abiding by it. I actually agree with his principle! Let’s submit ourselves to God’s Word on this matter as far as we can. That would quickly settle a lot of unnecessary modern debate.

Moving on to another article that was presented to me, “Going On A Bear Hunt: Head Coverings, Custom, and Proper Decorum” written by Steven Wedgeworth, I find more issues remarkably worth addressing. To start off, Wedgeworth acknowledges the historic unanimity of the understanding of this topic up until recently: “If the text of 1 Corinthians 11 describes literal coverings for women’s hair, and if this was a universal practice until the 20th century, then what should we make of its extreme rareness today, at least in Western churches?” The answer is obvious, but Wedgeworth disappointingly concludes, “I don’t know the definitive answer.” Many other historians know the answer, and that is feminism. It is no wonder, then, that the majority of other countries still uphold this practice up to this day, apart from the two countries where feminism has dominated: namely, Canada and the United States. (Also, these are the two countries who seem to care more about offending others than they do about upholding valuable traditions and practices, which is why you will find—when visiting other countries—that those who practice their religion actually live by it…even to the point of death…without concern for offending outsiders, because their faith means more to them than surrounding culture. Much of America has lost this virtue. Again, this is also why most other countries still have high regard for male/female roles, whereas America is primarily driven by the boss-babe mentality of “gender equality” in role playing more so than anywhere else in the world. And America is also the number one country to disregard head coverings. There is no coincidence in that.)

Now, I will say that I greatly appreciated this author’s emphasis on the importance of distinct gender apparel and appropriate decorum in church in general. This seems to be something that has been lost in American society as well. The author writes: “1 Corinthians 11 teaches us that godly customs in practice should be retained, and it teaches us to investigate our customs to see what message they are sending. Intelligible customs that signify male headship or the glory of godly femininity should be respected and promoted.” To this I say Amen! Yet the error in this is that it completely eliminates the specific instruction that Paul provides for us in doing so. Wedgeworth’s claim once again begs the question, What, then, is this new custom of replacement in our culture that signifies male headship that we are practicing? All commentators seem to agree that Paul is making a very weighty argument based off of creation that there needs to be some sort of symbol acknowledging the authority structure laid out in creation. But no one has an answer for what that symbol is, if it is not head coverings anymore. In that case, we are sinning for not upholding any symbol at all. But again, we do not have another symbol because there is no other symbol that represents male headship. It has to be the head covering. 

Wedgeworth continues, “Were the custom still dominant, it would be pious to respect and retain it,” to which I say—Wow, that is a terrible principle to adhere to. We should never adhere to God’s Word according to if it is dominant or not. Again, I wonder sometimes how such considerations are even published. To follow this principle, we would then have to apply it to the acceptance of female pastors and many other sinful accepted practices that we see. It is becoming more and more accepted in our society for women to be pastors. It is offensive to many women to teach that Scripture is clear that women cannot be a pastor. If, say, in 50 years it is the common practice and acceptance that both men and women can hold a pastoral position, and it would be offensive to the majority to insist otherwise, would it then wrong for Christians who are in the minority to still teach that women should not be pastors? According to this author, it would be wrong, simply because the practice is no longer dominant.

He attempts to give a relevant example using the apparel of dark suits. He explains how the wearing of dark suits in public events was appropriate 100 years ago, but is irrelevant today. The obvious problem here is that dark suits are not prescribed in Scripture; head coverings are. Dark suits hold no creational nor angelic value to the conversation; head coverings are prescribed for the very purpose of reflecting God’s creational authority structure and respecting the angels.

I will say that if we can glean anything from Wedgeworth’s article, it is that proper decorum in church and as well as in public to represent and respect the beauty of male/female roles is significant. This is a matter that seems to be very undermined in America. Another gentleman in my church recently expressed to me his embarrassment when traveling to other countries due to the fact that others look down their noses at Americans for how poorly and undignified we dress. It’s almost, to others, as if we are trying to make a statement that we do not value ourselves, with how unbecoming we present ourselves. This reality is pretty sad, and I am happy that this author at least recognizes that this should be addressed. However, this is not the main point of 1 Corinthians 11. Paul is very clear in his instruction in this passage. All of history understood it. Most of the world still holds to it. Canada and America have unfortunately overthrown it for the most part, but theologians still have no answer as to what cultural practice we now have in its place to acknowledge male headship, if indeed the main point was only a principle and not a specific practice. I will emphasize again that they do not have an answer because there is no other symbol that can convey such a specific and significant meaning. Only the head covering can convey the creational ordinance of authority. As David Silversides observes in his highly esteemed article “Is Headcovering Biblical?” (SemperReformanda), “The idea that we must find ‘culturally relevant’ ways of expressing male headship becomes obviously absurd in a culture like ours where every trace of male leadership is being eradicated.” Silversides is further honest to acknowledge that “Our feminist culture certainly does expose the church to the temptation to abandon the Scriptural sign of acceptance of male and female distinctiveness,” and how vital, then to uphold that “The God-ordained sign of a fabric head-covering, when understood and conscientiously practised, is the Divinely appointed expression of acceptance of the Divinely appointed principle of male leadership.” Overthrowing this sign leads to the evident overthrowing of divinely appointed gender roles. It only takes a brief look at American society to see this reality.

Silversides concludes with the critical appeal to creation and the absence of any cultural reference in the text: “The headcovering requirement is based on the order of creation. It has been argued that this means that the principle of male headship is permanent, but the particular application of it (i.e. headcovering) was cultural. There is no evidence in the passage for this. Indeed, the evidence is in the opposite direction.” May we not replace Paul’s reasons with our own preferred ones, and instead be diligent to abide by Scripture “as far as we are able.” 

Finally, I will address again that I see how easy it is to look at the teachings of R. Scott Clark and Michael Horton and many others on this topic and say, “Well, they said it so it must be the right way to view this.” Don’t get me wrong—I LOVE R. Scott Clark and Michael Horton. I will recommend their teachings on almost anything. Yet I think it’s overlooked that the argument can also go the other way: That just because R.C Sproul, Joel Beeke, Bruce Waltke, A.W. Pink, John Murray, Dr. Michael Barrett, Tim Bayly, Gerald Bilkes, Robert Culver, S Lewis Johnson Jr., David Gooding, Wayne Jackson, Dr. Elliot Johnson, Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Witness Lee, William MacDonald, Watchman Nee, Derek Prince, Charles Ryrie, Dr. W Andrew Smith, Alexander Strauch, Dr. Bruce Terry, Milton Vincent, H.A. Ironside…and perhaps more honorably noted Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Augustine, John Calvin, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, John Bunyan, Charles Spurgeon, and many many others back up the teaching that head coverings were meant for all cultures for all time, automatically means this view is correct. Applying this logic would actually hold more weight for the pro-head covering understanding. But I do not believe we should adhere to Scripture merely according to what any particular person teaches on it. I am bringing up these church figures and theologians to merely show that there is significant weight to what I am suggesting about the text. I did not come up with my understanding out of thin air, but precisely because of a scrupulous study of what both sides of the argument presented. I had no incentive to want to start wearing a head covering out of nowhere. I simply began to see that many respectable church figures taught that the practice of head coverings is transcultural, and that this teaching actually lined up with all of church history. On the contrary, those who oppose the teaching do have all the incentive to not want to hold to the practice, as that would mean introducing a scriptural practice that many women would be offended by. But again, are we seeking to please man or God? There is actually nothing offensive at all about the practice, unless one does not agree with God’s ordained roles of men and women. And if that is the case, that is an issue that deserves to be addressed all on its own.

—

“So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature…Further, we know that the world takes everything to its own advantage. So, if one has liberty in lesser things, why not do the same with this the same way as with that? And in making such comparisons they will make such a mess that there will be utter chaos. So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, ‘Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?’ And then after that one will plead [for] something else; ‘Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?’ Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard”

-John Calvin, Sermon on 1 Cor 11.

Oof, if that wasn’t a prophecy, I don’t know what is.