This is Part 2 to this discussion on head coverings. If you have not read my first article, please read that one as well, as it covers many questions that I do not re-address in this one.

Allow me to be bold, with love.

I have found that many people, when beginning to investigate this biblical instruction for the first time, approach it with an already decided attitude that this is not something they want to do, so rather than unbiasedly being open to researching and listening to all arguments for the continued practice of head coverings, they only look specifically for arguments against head coverings, to convince themselves that this practice doesn’t apply to them. 

On the contrary, I’ve found that people who are not bias either way—who do not feel uncomfortable by the instruction and simply want to truly know what God’s will is regarding this matter—openly listen to and research all arguments for and against the covering, and these people overwhelmingly come to realize that we were never suppose to forsake the practice and that it should still be upheld today.

I fall under this category. I never had any reason to want to start covering my head in church, nor a strong reason not to. I simply was overtaken by the passage time and time again, and it was finally brought to my attention (*by a scholar in our reformed faith*) that all of church history viewed head coverings as transculturally mandated in church worship in accordance with 1 Cor. 11, so I decided to research it further.

I was (and am still) very open to hearing all arguments—for and against. However, I could not deny that every single argument against head coverings was simply very weak and incoherent, and they all contradicted each other. The more I researched the “non” head covering side (which were all developed these past 100 years), the more I was convinced of how very wrong they are. 

It is significant to realize that these arguments only ever “needed” to be formed over the past 100 years as an attempt to justify no longer wearing the covering due to modern feminism. But if feminists never overthrew God’s Word in this area, we would all still be abiding by this instruction without question or debate. 

It is very worth considering that no one ever argued this passage prior to the past century. Modern commentators often claim that this passage is difficult, but no one thought it difficult for twenty centuries, up until feminists overthrew the practice in the 1900s and a new interpretation was now needed so as to justify not abiding by it anymore.

Modern commentators often claim this passage is confusing, but no one thought it was confusing for twenty centuries. It only got confusing when we tried to make it mean something that it does not mean. That is surely confusing. But if we read the text, faithfully exegete the text, and faithfully uphold what the Reformers and all of church history passed down to us, we have no choice but to abide by the clear teaching. 

I want to emphasize that upholding this practice is not swaying to something outside of our Reformed tradition, but rather, it is keeping to our Reformed tradition. All of our Reformed church fathers taught to abide by this practice, and all of their wives and female church goers faithfully did. I think it is a common assumption that head coverings were only worn in the first century and died out after that, but that is entirely false. The practice was upheld for all of history, by all of our beloved Reformers and all Christian churches, up until roughly 100 years ago. Yet it never died entirely because the truth goes marching on. Today there are many respected scholars within our beloved Reformed tradition (and all Christian denominations for that matter) who still acknowledge the permanent relevance of this teaching and adhere to it. It was from these very scholars within our Reformed faith that I first learned about the permanent continuity of this practice from 1 Corinthians 11. I just want to clear that up, so that it is not wrongly believed that this practice is outside of our Reformed tradition. If we were truly keeping to what the Reformers taught and passed down to us, we would still be covering our heads. 

Something that is also significant to understand is Paul’s use of the term “tradition.” There are two Greek forms of the term “tradition” used in the New Testament. One conveys man-made tradition and one conveys ordinances of God. Paul’s use of the term here in this passage is the one that conveys the ordinances of God. So when he praises the church for keeping to these traditions, he is not referring to mere man-made traditions created by men; he is referring to a God-created ordinance meant to be upheld for all time.

As I continue, I want to reiterate my suggestion to be open to this. If you go into this already deciding that you don’t want to adhere to it no matter what is presented to you, then you’ve already convinced yourself and the subject will probably just make you angry. But I do not think that is how we should approach any passage of Scripture. Now, if you are very open to this instruction, and after much unbiased research you still do not think it applies today, that is fine.

But I truly believe that if you go into this with an open mind, honestly wanting to submit to God’s will no matter what it will cost you (is wearing a covering once a week really a costly thing?), I think you’ll find yourself agreeing with all of church history up until 50-100 years ago when the practice was discarded by feminists that this is not only a relevant biblical instruction to adhere to during the public worship of God, but an important one.

Thankfully I have not heard this assertion personally, but it appears many equate the encouragement of head covering to legalism. Abiding by a biblical instruction is not legalism, it’s being a follower of Christ. Encouraging others to follow biblical instructions (none the least regarding the worship of God) is not legalism. It would be as though teaching Christians that women cannot be pastors is legalistic, which we all know is not. It is being true to biblical doctrine. What would be legalistic is teaching that a certain type of covering must be worn, as there is not a specific type indicated in Scripture, other than it is a fabric covering. Legalism is when man-made traditions and preferences are taught as biblical and required. Legalism is not when biblical instructions are taught as biblical and required. 

It amazes me that so many allow this issue to be one of personal preference all because feminists overthrew the practice out of anger of what it symbolizes. This was never a practice of personal preference for twenty centuries. Twenty centuries of Christians were taught in the churches that this is a biblical instruction to abide by for the glory of God in worship, and no one disputed it. It amazes me that we let the feminist agenda influence our obedience to God’s Word. But we don’t have to. Once our eyes are open to this, we can happily embrace and abide by it again, as so many are doing. The reasons God gives for this instruction are beyond significant. I know there are many who are completely unfamiliar and unaware of this passage altogether, and unaware that it was held to for all of history until very recently. But like many many others, I see no harm in bringing its attention back to the church. On the contrary, I see it as a disservice to the church not to.

We have come to fear men over God. We are way too culturally sensitive when it comes to worship. Yes, when it comes to evangelizing out in the world, we are to become all things to all people, to bring the gospel to many. But when it comes to the holy worship of God, we are not to cater to cultural preferences or even the believer’s preferences; we are to abide by God’s instruction for His own glory and honor.

Church worship is not about reaching the lost. Church worship is for God’s glory and the edification of the saints. It is a gathering of believers for the worship of their King. We have all week to share the good news of Jesus Christ with our neighbors and the lost, and we should be doing so. This is the time to become all things to all people. But worship on the Lord’s Day is the time to bow before a holy God and reverence Him as He has prescribed in His Word. 

And His instructions in His Word for doing so are not arbitrary. They hold very important meaning, symbolism, and significance. We may be tempted to think, Well, the church has been doing fine these past 80 years without the covering… But no, we do not know the hindrance this may be causing. God is certainly gracious and long-suffering, but if we come to realize we have gone astray in this area, it is dangerous to close our eyes to it and refuse to return to obedience in this area. We do not know the blessing and growth we could be missing out on, though the Lord is faithful to us even when we are not. But we do in fact see a major shift in the way biblical gender roles are taught and played out both in the church and in marital life ever since the covering has been discarded. We cannot ignore the correlation of the two. We have to acknowledge that God-ordained symbols contain more significance than we give them credit for.

To write this off as a mere tradition that is okay to be done away with as culture shifts is to allow that excuse for writing off any biblical instruction that gets thwarted with a cultural movement. If all of church history taught and held to the practice of women covering their heads in public worship, and it suddenly came to an end in the West due to a cultural movement (and a sinful one at that) and the church passively went along with it, then we can be sure that the church will also passively accept female pastorship in decades to come, and any other culturally preferred worship style, simply because it is culturally preferred. 

But no, we are to be shaped by God’s Word, not shaped by the culture. We are to follow God’s design and instructions, not cultural preferences that are in direct opposition to Scriptural teaching, no matter how widely accepted. 

Now friends, I truly hope no one thinks that women who cover their heads think of themselves as better than others for doing so. The fact that this even needs to be said is unfortunate. But sadly there are many women who want to cover their heads in church out of obedience to Scripture but refrain out of fear of judgment from others, not wanting to appear as “holier than thou.” While I am all about reverencing the holiness of God, wearing the head covering does not make any Christian better than another. We all know that our white robes come from the blood of Christ, not from how obedient we are. But do we throw off all doctrine then? Do we neglect obedience to God’s Word simply because we know our obedience doesn’t earn us any favor with God? If we are convinced that a passage of Scripture is true, do we refrain from abiding by it out of fear of being seen as a Pharisee? By the way, obeying God’s Word is not being a Pharisee, it’s being a Christian. We are certainly under grace, and praise God for that, but let us never look down upon anyone for following their conscience, for growing in sanctification, or for abiding by Scripture. 

I must point out one last thing, and this is just an observation. The fact that people get so offended by this practice is very telling. People don’t get offended by things that aren’t true. People get offended at truth. This is why Christianity is the only religion in the world that people get angry at and are offended by. Christianity is the most hopeful and loving religion…but it is true, so people hate it. 

If there was no truth in the teaching that women should still be wearing head coverings, no one would get mad. It would be as though a man came to church in a white robe and began insisting to everyone that all Christians needed to wear white robes during worship. We would all think he was silly, but no one would get angry or offended, because we all know what he is saying isn’t true. But people do get angry at things that are true, if they are resisting it, because truth pierces the conscience. I heard a husband once joke, “No man gets angrier than when he is accused of doing something that he did do.” We laugh at this because we know it is true. Men don’t typically get angry if they are accused of doing something they didn’t do; they just laugh it off. But being accused of something they are in fact guilty of? This attacks their conscience and the natural (though sinful) reaction is to get mad.

These are just some things I was thinking while trying to figure out why it is common for women to get so angry at this teaching of head covering. There is no need to get angry if we really don’t believe it pertains to today. 

Of course another reason it could cause anger in some is because of what it symbolizes—submission to authority (God’s ordained authority, to be sure), and that goes back to why it was overthrown by feminists to begin with.

But it is sad that this beautiful, honorable, and honoring-to-Christ practice is so hotly debated and ruffles feathers at all. 

It is beautiful. It honors women. It honors men. It honors Christ. It even honors the angels—the presence of whom is not cultural by the way. Paul’s instruction to consider them while keeping to this practice did not die with the Corinthian church, unless the presence of angels in public worship only pertained to the Corinthian church. Twenty centuries of Christians understood this.

But this is all my stance. No one has to agree with me. I think it is healthy to be challenged and to consider one another and to do so with an open mind, always being faithful first and foremost to the text, and not hostile to anything the Spirit might show us.

In his book A Return to Head Covering: A Needed Symbol in the Contemporary Church, Pastor Carlton McLeod addresses the danger of having a hostile attitude when approaching Scripture in the chapter titled “The Most Dangerous Attitude I’ve Ever Seen.” He points to our beloved Westminster Shorter Catechism Q 103 which asks, “For what do we pray in the third request?” in which we answer, “In the third request (Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven) we pray that by His grace God would make us have the capability and the will to know, obey, and submit to His will in everything, as the angels do in heaven.” We want to believe that we mean this, yet as McLeod points out, we seem to mean this in all matters until we do not like what is before us, such as in head covering. But as we seek to understand any passage of Scripture—and this passage is no exception—we should have a spirit that says, Your will be done; teach me and enable me to submit to You with joy.

But too many people do not approach this passage this way. And Pastor McLeod was one of them. He admits that as he was preaching through the letter of First Corinthians and chapter 11 was approaching, he had a very stubborn and determined attitude that he was going to teach that the head covering instruction in this passage was merely cultural and no longer applied to us today. However, as he prayerfully read the text time and time again and scrupulously studied the history and teaching of our church fathers, he said he simply could not teach his congregation something that was not true. (His sermon on 1 Cor. 11 is available to view online if anyone has patience to listen to an hour long sermon.) McLeod went on to write the aforementioned book, and I admire him for standing with church history and with Scripture, as unwelcome as this teaching is, rather than following modern interpretation. It is refreshing to see more and more pastors returning to this as well.

I think it is also very telling that we do not see anyone fighting against their conscience in order to cover their heads, but it is always the other way around. What I mean is, no one has such a strong personal desire to cover their heads that they do so even against the better judgment of their conscience. I’m sure if any woman really believed that the passage was merely cultural then she would not insist that women should still be covering. I had said earlier that I had no inclination either way regarding the covering, but that is not entirely true. Up until I saw the truth and beauty of the significance of the symbol, I did not want to start covering my head. I love my hair (vain, I know), and I did not want to cover it. I love all women’s hair. A woman’s hair is her glory, after all (1 Cor. 11:15). But how fitting, then, that God would have us cover our glory, because worship is to display His glory, not ours. But point being, I had no incentive to start covering my head in church, nor does any person in these modern times have their own incentive to start teaching and abiding by such a controversial symbol, unless we really believe it is true. On the other hand, I think we can all agree that as Christians we have every incentive to not want to teach that this passage still pertains to today, as we can all see how unwelcome it is by many.  But which is more important, the truth of God’s Word or how welcome a teaching is received? I think these types of passages serve us well to really check our hearts in how we are approaching Scripture and whether we are humbly acknowledging the Lordship of our King.

I’ll end not with my words, but with those of others who I am indebted to for being bold enough to speak honestly on this subject and have given me the gift of seeing this passage with fresh eyes, which I am forever grateful for. 

As another sister in Christ said, I wish someone would have brought this to my attention years ago. 

“The real danger, as I see it, is that many Christians simply ignore what this text says because any form of obedience to it is inconvenient.”

-Daniel Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and leading textual critic and founder of the Center for the New Testament Manuscripts

“It is notable, in the first place, that St. Paul regards this question [about head covering] as worth deciding, and does not brush it aside as trivial. There is a right, and a wrong way of worshipping God.”

-H.L. Goudge, Regina Professor of Divinity, Oxford University

“I do know this, that until fifty years ago, every woman in every church covered her head […] What has happened in the last fifty years? We’ve had a feminist movement.”

-R.C. Sproul Jr., founder of Highlands Ministries and Chair of Philosophy and Theology at Reformation Bible College 

“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 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 Sr., founder of Ligonier Ministries

“When the apostles speak of tradition, they’re not talking about human tradition, but they’re talking about that which has been handed over from the apostles to the church. These were not traditions that were to be negotiated, this is God’s tradition.”

-R.C. Sproul Sr.

“One singular thing may be noted in this history— that with all the vagaries of fashion, woman has never violated the Biblical law that bade her cover her head. She has never gone to church services bareheaded.”

-Alice Morse Earle, American Historian, stated in 1903, in her book, Two Centuries of Costume in America.

“The Christian doctrine of order in creation involving subordination requires the Christian practice of manifesting that order in public worship by the veiling of women.”

-Dr. Charles Ryrie, editor of The Ryrie Study Bible and former professor at Dallas Theological Seminary

“A woman who prays or prophecies 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. The picture of His rule must not be seized by believers into their own hands to shape it according to their pleasure.”

-Bruce Waltke, held professorships of Old and New Testaments and Hebrew at Dallas Theological Seminary, Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Reformed Theological Seminaryin Orlando, Florida, and Knox Theological Seminary.

“The Scripture teaches that when Christians meet together, and when they gather together in prayer, then the angels of God are present, and the women are to be covered when they take part in public prayer because of the presence of the angels. It is a tremendous and  a remarkable thing.”

-Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones, former minister of Westminster Chapel, London

“Because of the woman’s place dictated by creation, she ought to have power on her head (v. 10). The word translated ‘ought’ both here and in verse 7 is a strong term expressing obligation or duty; consequently, there is no option or choice in the matter.”

-Dr. Michael Barrett, professor, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

“Since Paul appeals to the order of creation, 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. […] If the Presbytery becomes convinced that a head covering for women belongs to the decorum governing the conduct of women in the worship of God, then I think Presbytery should declare accordingly.”

-John Murray, professor and co-founder of Westminster Theological Seminary

“Every reason that Paul gives for the head covering is not cultural and yet [modern] Evangelicals frequently say, ‘Oh well, that’s a cultural thing; we don’t have to pay any attention to it.’ The reasons are not cultural. Creational. Woman’s hair itself. Nature itself. Angelic beings are looking down upon us. Those are not cultural reasons.”

-Dr. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., professor at Dallas Theological Seminary

*I want to add here, WSC Q 2 asks, “What rule has God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him?” and answers, “The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him.” Scripture is very clear in this passage of how God is directing us to glorify and enjoy Him in public worship. To go against this is to abide by how feminists have re-directed us to worship, not how God has clearly directed us in His Word to worship. 

“Granted, ‘Let her cover her head’ may not be as important as ‘pour yourself out for the hungry’—if you can call any part of God’s Word unimportant. But I figure if the King tells you to go conquer the hinterlands one day, and tells you to shoe his horse the next day, you should do them both without slacking. He is the king.”

-Andrés Sếu Peterson (Senior Writer, WORLD Magazine)

*I believe that our willingness to do one is often in direct correlation to our willingness to do the other. I also believe the head covering symbol is a lot more important than we realize.

“We are a people of the Scriptures. If the New Testament is offering us counsel on what is appropriate within the glory of God in worship, our part is to humbly hear and then to respond.”

-Dr. Paul C. Edgerton, presbyter of the Reformed Episcopal Church

“The question of how we are to worship must not begin with what we prefer. It must begin with what the Lord reveals and commands. […] 

Disordered worship is reflective of the disordered church that engages in it and of the disordered world that has infected us rather than been changed by God through us. […]

When we are faithful, we do not bend to the tyrannies of contemporaneity and preference and style but rather to the shape of our Scriptural tradition. I must pass on to my family and [congregation] Paul’s sacred admonition for application to their practice [concerning head covering]. In doing so, I follow Christ and bid them follow as well. To ignore this tradition would be to allow a needless hindrance in the way.”  

-Paul C. Edgerton 

“Is it only married women? This in my estimation is a common misunderstanding of the passage. It ends up orienting the passage toward marriage when in fact the passage is not making that kind of distinction at all.”

-Dr. Mark Minnick, Professor of New Testament Studies and Church Ministries, Bob Jones University

*I recommend not using the ESV when studying this passage, as the ESV was not accurate in translating several Greek terms in this passage. (The ESV translates the Greek term for woman into wife, and translates the Greek term for ordinance into tradition, giving the passage a misleading interpretation.)

“Head covering was the ‘universal custom (practice) of the churches.’ They rightly call it an ordinance and say that ‘by man having his head uncovered and by woman having her head covered, all glory points to God in public worship.’”

-Joel Beeke, American theologian and former president of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Now to go further back into history…..

“A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels.”

-Irenaeus (AD 130-220), earliest church father to comment on head covering; bishop of Lugdunum, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John.

“Woman and man are to go to church decently attired…for this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.”

-Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215), theologian and dean of the Catechetical School of Alexandria.

“Let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth.”

-Hippolytus (AD 170-236), presbyter of the Church of Rome.

“I pray you, be you mother, or sister, or virgin-daughter—let me address you according to the names proper to your years—veil your head.”

-Tertullian (AD 155-225), writer and apologist from Carthage; wrote the earliest and longest defense of head covering that we possess today.

“The business of whether to cover one’s head was legislated by nature (1 Cor. 11). When I say ‘nature’ I mean ‘God.’ For He is the one who created nature. Take note, therefore, what great harm comes from overturning these boundaries! And don’t tell me that this is a small sin.”

-John Chrysostom (AD 347-407), archbishop of Constantinople

(Hey guys he said it not me!)

“[Christian women in Egypt and Syria do not] go about with heads uncovered, for they wear a close-fitting cap and a veil.”

-Jerome (AD 347-420), renowned Christian scholar and theologian, best known for translating the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate).

“The apostle commands women to keep their heads covered.”

-Augustine (AD 354-430), bishop of Hippo, author of The City of God and Confessions.

“A woman praying in church without her head covered brings shame upon her head, according to the word of the Apostle.”

-Synod of Rome (AD 743)

“The women must be veiled in church services.”

-Pope Nicholas I (AD 866)

“A veil put on the head designates the power of another over the head of a person existing in the order of nature. Therefore, the man existing under God should not have a covering over his to show he is immediately subject to God; but the woman should wear a covering to show that besides God she is naturally subject to another.”

-Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Italian Dominican Friar, priest, philosopher, and theologian.

“Paul taught by mouth such things as he wrote in his epistles. And his traditions were […] that a woman obey her husband, have her head covered, keep silence, and go womanly and Christianly appareled.”

-William Tyndale (1494-1536), English biblical scholar, translated the New Testament and the Pentateuch from the original languages into English.

“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.”

-Martin Luther (1483-1546), German theologian and catalyst of the Protestant Reformation.

“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. 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 (1509-1564), French theologian, pastor, and reformer in Geneva.

“We know that angels are in attendance, also, upon Christ as their head, and minister to him. When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying, as if he had said, ‘If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels too, will be witnesses of the outrage.’ And this interpretation suits well with the Apostle’s design. He is treating here of different ranks. Now he says that, when women assume a higher place than becomes them, they gain this by it—that they discover their impudence in the view of the angels of heaven.”

-John Calvin

“True it is,” quoting and agreeing with Chrysostom’s writings advocating the practice of head covering.

-John Knox (1514-1572), Scottish clergyman, leader in the Protestant Reformation, key founder of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland.

“The reason why our sisters appear covered in the house of God is ‘because of the angels.’”

-Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), Baptist pastor in London.

 “Now God has appointed that because man is the head, because headship or dominion or rule has been delegated by God into the hands of man, God has ordained that that shall be symbolically shown forth when he enters the house of God. His head shall be uncovered; his head shall be revealed; his head shall be manifest because God has given to him the headship. But because God has not given headship to the woman, because he has placed her in subjection to man, therefore that must be symbolically shown forth by her having head covered, her head concealed, showing that she is not her own head, and her own ruler.”

-A.W. Pink (1886-1952), English theologian and Bible teacher.

So the question is, dear friends, are we going to listen to our beloved church fathers for all of history who have passed this teaching down to us, in accordance to Scripture itself, or are we going to listen to the newly formulated interpretations on this passage that have derived solely from the modern feminist movements?

May we answer with humility and honesty.