So this has sort of been in the works for a while as I've been struggling through 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and the topic of head coverings, which you should probably read before you read this post. I think I've pretty much got it squared away in my head, and since it's been such a major topic for me as of late, I think it'd make for an excellent post.
My thesis concerning this passage is that, according to the plain reading of the text, St. Paul has set out a universal mandate for all time that Christian men ought to leave their heads uncovered and women ought to have their heads covered, both in the context of worship and prayer.
I have a lot in my head on this topic, so I think a roadmap would be helpful for the both of us: first, I will explain what in the text leads me to think this issue transcends culture and why such an interpretation is very important for the way we view many other issues in the holy scriptures, then I will give my analysis of the only place in the scriptures which discusses the topic, and finally I'll get a bit mystical and try to explain the beautiful imagery of the head and its covering. Also, I would like to note, if it sounds like I'm harping on women's head coverings more than men's, that's because I am. For whatever reason (starts with an F, rhymes with "bleminism"), even as women are encouraged to reject head coverings, we nonetheless generally still forbid men from wearing hats in church or while praying, so it's not fruitful to talk about it. So let's get into it!
Counterarguments & Significance
The most common response I see to my own view is that St. Paul was not intending to set a rule necessary for anyone at any particular time except the Corinthians around the mid-50s AD, and thus that the only thing for us to get out of it is that we need to confess male headship. If this sounds like an assertion, that's because it most often is or else the assertions are themselves justified by more uncited assertions.
In one case (from one of our own LCMS sources, which I critiqued here), it was argued that St. Paul uses very specific phrases like "in every church" (1 Cor. 4:17) when he refers to a practice meant for all people at all times. This is a rather strange argument for a few reasons. For one, it is rather arbitrary. I can't think of any teachings in the epistles which St. Paul advocates for in the way he would have head coverings, supposedly commanding them but only in the right cultural context. Perhaps him circumcizing Timothy but not Titus could count this way, as could his command to submit to the weaker brother. However, this does not read like any such texts. While in those he is talking about becoming all things for all people, in 1 Corinthians 11, he is explicitly and passionately defending the practice of head covering, not as a concession but as a command. The worst part about this argument for me, though, is that he does use a similarly explicit phrase:
'If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.' (16)
Assuming he's correct, this opponent would, from this, be exegetically forced to contend that St. Paul's words are for all times and all places without cultural distinction.
However, this passage is not the only issue for the culturally relative crowd.
'For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ' 11:7-9
In this passage, the Apostle explicitly argues from the order in creation that such a practice is necessary, and this should not be skipped over. If the order of creation is true for all people, which it would have to be if we are children of Adam and Eve, then such a conclusion would be binding for us as well. I would also caution, we must be very careful about our answer. On two different occasions, I have heard folks argue that we can't be completely sure about rejecting women's ordination, since St. Paul's argument is from the order of creation and obviously the same argument was only cultural in 1 Corinthians 11. What's more, many of these arguments can equally be used in confirmation of things like homosexuality, saying that his condemnation was only for the Corinthians because of their abusive manner or something.
There's another passage I must mention:
'Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. ' (13-15)
This is an especially interesting passage because of his appeal to natural law, which even some commentators opposing the practice nonetheless acknowledge (even if it isn't seen as worth talking about much). In this passage, St. Paul argues that the practice is a kind of extension of the natural covering of hair that women already have. It's important to use this precise language. I have heard some try to argue that the hair is, itself, the covering he requires, but this is obviously absurd, since the Apostle uses hair to argue for head coverings, not for them being obsolete. In this way, he says that hair points to such a practice, once again arguing from the creation in which we all share. The final point worth mentioning here is the least clear passage, but it's related giants so I have to bring it up:
'That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.' (10)
This is a notoriously unclear verse, mainly because he doesn't elaborate on the topic whatsoever, so this is all we have to go on. The earliest interpretation, which comes from Tertullian (155-220 AD) in his treatise On the Veiling of Virgins, is that this is a reference to the Nephilim. The idea is that as in Genesis 6, the angels can fall because of lust and that the display of a woman's hair during worship may tempt the angel into such sensuality. While I find this difficult to get out of the text itself, the prominence of the story in the history of salvation (as well as the prevalence of books like Enoch) could contribute to him feeling no need to explain. A difficulty with this view is that the topic of unlawful sensuality, though common in 1 Corinthians, is not at all mentioned in the passage in question. In a sermon of his on the ascension, St. John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) does not say much on the topic, but he does at least confess that the angels in question are a reference to the actual spirits in heaven which we think of when we think of "angel." I say that because such a view is not unanimous. Folks like Ambrosiaster (400s AD) believed that it referred to the bishop or another church leader, since the word for angel can simply refer to a messenger. I don't like this view because, as is my case with the letters in Revelation, I prefer to interpret "angel" as a reference to a spiritual being unless I have a very strong reason to believe otherwise. As long as you hold that it is a reference to a spiritual being, though, that would mean that such a practice must transcend culture, since the angels are not bound by our cultural norms.
The final point I would like to make is about the washing of feet in John 13. For whatever reason, both LCMS commentators seem to enjoy comparing it to the washing of feet, in which Christ said "If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet." (13:14) and we nonetheless did not keep the practice going and still do not. However, there's a massive difference between the two. Firstly, the command in both passages are very different. In John 13, our Lord is speaking to the disciples telling them to wash each other's feet, immediately after a dispute about which of them is the greatest (Luke 22:24-30) and which clearly follows the structure of one of his parables (issue, parable, confusion, explanation) from a teacher who often spoke in parables. St. Paul's argument, on the other hand, seems to follow a more argumentative, thesis-based structure, which makes sense, being in an epistle. What's more, the witness of the church that foot washing was not normative is certainly relevant, as the same confession certainly cannot be said of head coverings.
Confessions
Another point people make against my view is that it's ridiculous to say that the wearing or not wearing of something on someone's head is sinful. To that I say that I agree but that does not accurately portray my view. I don't think it is a matter of sin and salvation in itself, but rather it is a matter of love, peace, and submission to St. Paul, the apostle/bishop to the Gentiles (that's us). To see this, I would point to an excellent argument made indirectly in the Augsburg Confession (pardon the long quote):
"How, then, should Sunday and other similar church ordinances and ceremonies be regarded? Our people reply that bishops or pastors may make regulations for the sake of good order in the church, but not thereby to obtain God's grace, to make satisfaction for sin, or to bind consciences, nor to regard such as a service of God or to consider it a sin when these rules are broken without giving offense. So St. Paul prescribed in Corinthians that women should cover their heads in the assembly [1 Cor. 11:5], and that preachers in the assembly should not all speak at once, but in order, one after the other [1 Cor. 14:30-33]. Such Christian regulation belongs rightfully in the Christians assembly for the sake of love and peace, to be obedient to bishops and pastors in such cases, and to keep such order to the extent that no one offends another--so that there may not be disorder or unruly conduct in the church. However, consciences should not be burdened by holding that such things are necessary for salvation or by considering it a sin when they are violated without giving offense to others; just as no one would say that a woman commits a sin if, without offending people, she leaves the house with her head uncovered." AC 28:53-56
This is, to my knowledge, the only passage in the confessions that talks about head coverings, but it's very significant and makes a beautiful argument. Article 28, the origin of this passage, is on the power of church leaders. In this way, he starts off talking about Sunday worship and other "church ordinances and ceremonies" which do not contradict the scriptures but rather uphold them. Melanchthon makes it very clear that there is absolutely no sin involved in the carrying out of these practices themselves. However, that doesn't mean we aren't still bound to keep them. In fact, such ordinances ought to be kept for the sake of love, peace, obedience, and good order, all of which are goals of the Christian. This is a really interesting argument, especially in the examples he uses: head coverings in the church and speaking in good order, as well as the overarching theme of Sunday worship. In this way, the reformer ends up comparing the two, and this is incredibly valid. All three are external practices not inherently connected to any of the Ten Commandments, which makes sense if they are not matters of sin and salvation. However, we all would agree that having one person speak at a time in church and worshipping on Sunday are practices we ought to keep, but the only one there which we now reject is the head coverings. This is rather nonsensical, in my view, because I would argue Sunday worship is even less binding than head coverings, since at least the practice of covering the head is explicitly taught in scripture by an apostle himself.
Another supporting point to make is to reference the very last sentence. In it, St. Paul says that such practices are not matters of sin and salvation, "just as no one would say that a woman commits a sin if, without offending people, she leaves the house with her head uncovered." This passage made absolutely no sense to me for a while, but I think I finally have it down: If this was truly a moral law, then such a rule wouldn't only be mandatory in worship, but would be mandatory at all times, since it confesses something that is true at all times. However, all Christians, to my knowledge, agree that a woman with an uncovered head, so long as it brings no offense, is not sinful in normal life. Thus, such a practice is standardized for ecclesiastical use but is nonetheless not a matter of sin and salvation.
Head Coverings and Christ's Passion
My girlfriend and I have been talking with one another for a while about this, and once in the car we were riffing about it while driving home, so I'll attempt to put some of it down here.
To us, it's true, the covering of the head doesn't seem to mean much. However, that doesn't mean there isn't beautiful imagery we can take from the scriptures about it. Remember, the relationship between man and woman is the type which conveys the mystery of Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:32). Thus, we can look at head coverings the same way. One of the most recognizable parts our Lord's passion is the infamous crown of thorns. Such a symbol is powerful, immediately calling back to the curse of Adam (Gen 3:18), where the Lord condemns Adam to toil and painful thorns. Thus we see our Lord, the New Adam, bearing the curse of his father according to the flesh in the crown of thorns as well as the thorns of Tubal-Cain which bore into his hands and feet. There's also the Lord's prophecy to Eve, the protoevangelion of Gen. 3:15 which he fulfills by being the seed who will crush the serpent, but I would contend there's even more going on. Though Mary is the new Eve because she bore the seed, the Church is also the new Eve because she is the "mother of all the living" (Gen. 3:20). And because she is His bride and His own body, our Lord also takes her curse upon himself, being the ultimate example of "bearing one another's burdens" (Gal. 6:2). In the spear that plunged into His blessed side, He too bore the Church from water and the blood--a new birth also through suffering. What's more, he also takes upon Eve's curse of tyranny, for "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth." (Isaiah 53:7) Just as His mother before Him, He subjected Himself to the will of mankind. The ultimate image of this is in the submission of His human will to the Trinity's divine will when he says "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done." (Luke 22:42) What's more, in this image of submission, there is a connected image--a foretaste of the crown of thorns in the sweating of blood from His brow (22:44). This is because the head covering is a sign of submission, and thus, Christ completes His parents according to the flesh, taking, in the crown of thorns, both the curse of Adam in the thorns and the curse of Eve in the submissive covering.
I would argue that, in the woman wearing the head covering, they are showing their participation in the Lord's suffering. Just as he wore His crown of thorns, submitting to be wounded by men and smitten by God, so these women confess that they too submit to their husbands as to God and are willing to take up their cross for the sake of following Christ. What's more, there's a theme in many of the head veils with designs on them: flowers. You could chock this up to feminine fashion conventions, but I think it is significant that Christ's crown of thorns is met with flowers on our women's heads. It's as though the sufferings of this life are, in Christ, beautiful flowers to adorn His bride, just as the tree of Aaron's high priesthood sprouted flowers and even fruit in the midst of testing.
Comments