# Hair given to women as a covering



## Reformedfellow (Mar 23, 2013)

Though we already know that Paul would not write a lengthy argument for a practice in worship only to turn around and demolish it, how would you explain this verse to others on hair given as a covering in DEFENSE of the biblical mandate to further cover the whole head?


----------



## Mushroom (Mar 23, 2013)

My view is that longer hair is given as a covering to women in the passage, but I respect the views that others may take, and would never broach the subject with them. If any are offering unsolicited opinions on the matter I would consider it rude and intrusive and leave it behind me. If it's not their business it's not their problem.


----------



## Kim G (Mar 23, 2013)

I wrote a blog post about this five years ago when I first studied the issue and became convinced I needed to wear one. I have the outline here, which includes my personal assessment of the argument from nature. (This was before I did much external study, so it may not all be theologically sound, as I haven't re-read it since then.)



> *The Principle of Headship (v.3)*
> 
> *God* is the head of
> *Christ*, who is the head of
> ...


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 25, 2013)

As you delve into the Greek and etc., do you come to the conclusion that a woman should cover her head when praying? Since we are to "pray without ceasing," it seems to me that if that is the case women should have their head covering on virtually always. It seems to me the Mennonites are consistent about that. I see the women wearing those little white caps. Thoughts on this?


----------



## Manuel (Mar 25, 2013)

What Paul is saying is that it is so obvious that women should cover their hair for public worship that even nature TEACHES us a lesson by giving them hair as a covering. In other words: the fact that nature gave women a natural veil teaches us how appropiate it is for them to wear a veil during the service.

1Cor 11:14-15 Does not even nature itself TEACH you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame to him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Mar 25, 2013)

> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> > As you delve into the Greek and etc., do you come to the conclusion that a woman should cover her head when praying? Since we are to "pray without ceasing," it seems to me that if that is the case women should have their head covering on virtually always. It seems to me the Mennonites are consistent about that. I see the women wearing those little white caps. Thoughts on this?
> ...


We believe the same. I cover for corporate gatherings (worship, Bible studies, and prayer meetings).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 25, 2013)

Reformedfellow said:


> My wife is the only woman in our church to cover her head during public worship. Sometimes the other women will comment in passing to my wife about why is she wearing a scarf on her head, and sometimes the comments are directly opposed to why she covers. When we discuss 1Cor 11 with people we at most times will refer to the opening and closing verses in Paul's exhortation on head covering which praises those who follow his instruction on the matter and frowns upon those who might be "contentious" on the matter. One of the most frequent arguments we hear which is sometimes difficult to answer is Paul's statement that a woman's hair is given to her as a covering. The argument goes something like; since the hair is already given as a covering there is no need to further cover in any way.
> 
> Though we already know that Paul would not write a lengthy argument for a practice in worship only to turn around and demolish it, how would you explain this verse to others on hair given as a covering in DEFENSE of the biblical mandate to further cover the whole head?



If Paul's intent was to say that a woman's hair IS the only covering required in public worship, then it would stand to reason that since a man is to pray with his head uncovered, that his head should be shaved in public worship. However, I don't hear anyone advancing that argument.


----------



## Mushroom (Mar 25, 2013)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Reformedfellow said:
> 
> 
> > My wife is the only woman in our church to cover her head during public worship. Sometimes the other women will comment in passing to my wife about why is she wearing a scarf on her head, and sometimes the comments are directly opposed to why she covers. When we discuss 1Cor 11 with people we at most times will refer to the opening and closing verses in Paul's exhortation on head covering which praises those who follow his instruction on the matter and frowns upon those who might be "contentious" on the matter. One of the most frequent arguments we hear which is sometimes difficult to answer is Paul's statement that a woman's hair is given to her as a covering. The argument goes something like; since the hair is already given as a covering there is no need to further cover in any way.
> ...


So then as long as a woman is wearing a hat or doily, that means it's OK for her to wear her hair shaved?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 26, 2013)

No. As Paul makes clear, nature itself teaches us that it is shameful for men to have long hair or women to have shaved heads. A woman's long hair is her "glory" (v. 15). A man's "glory" is the woman (v. 7). And so, in the public worship of the church, the woman's hair is to be covered so that only God's glory (of which man is the image, v. 7) is seen.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Mar 26, 2013)

I am struggle with this issue and appreciate all that has been shared in this thread thus far... 

For a while, I was covering my head during worship with a head covering that one of the ladies at church knitted for me to wear (most women in my congregation/denomination wear head coverings) but I have stopped wearing it because my husband ("my head") is not convinced that what is now being practiced "as head covering" fits the context of the passage of Scripture in question. I respect his leadership as well as his observations and conclusions. And will share a couple below...

*1)* The head covering for women in first-century Roman society was a sign of marriage.
My husband has asked that I not adorn myself with ANY jewelry EXCEPT for my "wedding band" (a small golden ring) which is the sign of marriage in the 21st-century American society we live in.


> *Miss Marple*:
> "Since we are to 'pray without ceasing,' it seems to me that if that is the case women should have their head covering on virtually always"


*My wedding band* (as the equivalent of the head coverings worn in the first-century Roman society) *is the "head covering" that I wear* virtually always!

*2) *The extravagant hats and doilies that are being worn [more as a fashion statement than as a statement of submission] are very distracting in worship. 
In worship "all things should be done decently and in order."

*3) *All of the women who wear head coverings in our congregation have very short hair (whereas *my hair is halfway down my back*).
The Scripture they use as a command to wear what they consider to be "head coverings" also demands "LONG" hair and says that short hair is disgraceful for a wife to have. 

*4) Church history (including the years during and immediately following the Reformation) is inconsistent concerning head coverings.*
I am sure that there are many thread here on the PB that make this point better than any example I can give but off the top of my head, I believe it was John Calvin who would take his hat off only for a moment to acknowledge that his head shouldn't be covered during worship but would put it right back on for fear of illness from the cold.

*5) *Ironically, the most common argument used for wearing head coverings in worship ("Read 1 Corinthians 11, it says it clear as day") comes across as the same _literal woodenness of interpretation_ that is used to argue for the use of the uninspired Hymns of men in worship ("The NT says we should sing Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual songs! Read Ephesians 5:19 & Colossians 3:16").


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 26, 2013)

Dear Jess,

I commend you for your submission to your husband on this matter. But I would like to interact with some of your thoughts. 

1) In your first statement you claim that head covering was the cultural sign of woman being married and that 1 Cor. 11 is fulfilled if women wear a wedding ring today. The problem with this line of reasoning is that Paul does not base his arguments on culture but creation. Therefore the implications of of 1 Corinthians 11 are perpetual and universal. 

2) Your second point is that there are people who abuse the practice by wearing hats that draw attention to themselves and this is wrong. I will readily concede that there are people who misuse and abuse this practice with immodest hats or coverings. However that does not therefore mean that the wearing of a headcovering is unbiblical. In other words, the right thing done in the wrong way does not make the thing itself wrong or unbiblical. And this is true of any practice in the church. 

3) To your third point, again, I'll agree. Women should not be wearing their hair like men. But neither should they be uncovered in the public worship of the church. Two wrongs don't make a right. 

4) As to your point on church history and the Reformation, I would altogether dispute your claim and ask you to provide some evidence for it. The history of the church is overwhelmingly consistent in its requiring of women to have their heads covered in public worship. As for Calvin, we must remember that his health was poor and he lived in a time before central heating and air. During the winter months, the inside of a church could still be bitterly cold. The danger of exposing himself to sickness was real and that may have been the reason for his practice. But after all that has been said, church history is not our final authority, Scripture is.

5) Your fifth argument I find a little surprising. Most of those who affirm the practice of using uninspired hymns in worship would accuse the Exclusive Psalmody crowd of having the "literal and wooden" interpretation; not the other way round!

At the end of the day, regardless of your church and their sinfulness of practice, regardless of church history or what the reformers did, you only have two options in front of you. Either Paul was instructing the women of the church to cover their heads in public worship; or he wasted precious ink and parchment on sixteen verses that have absolutely no bearing on you or the church today. Which do you believe is more likely?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 26, 2013)

Let me add to Christopher's fine answers given above: the problem with the wedding ring argument (Tom Schreiner makes such an argument somewhere) is that 1) it would mean that single women would have no "covering" available to them for worship under that rubric and 2) it would not distinguish men from women in worship, since men tend to wear wedding bands themselves. i am sympathetic to the view that it is a cultural sign of submission of sorts (for married women), but I don't think it satisfies what Paul is saying in the passage.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Mar 26, 2013)

Marrow Man said:


> Let me add to Christopher's fine answers given above: the problem with the wedding ring argument (Tom Schreiner makes such an argument somewhere) is that 1) it would mean that single women would have no "covering" available to them for worship under that rubric and 2) it would not distinguish men from women in worship, since men tend to wear wedding bands themselves. i am sympathetic to the view that it is a cultural sign of submission of sorts (for married women), but I don't think it satisfies what Paul is saying in the passage.



"the head of a wife is her husband" ... does this mean that single women have no head?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 26, 2013)

To say that Paul is only concerned with a woman having some kind of a symbol of authority to her husband (e.g. wedding ring) is to insert it into the text and to ignore what's plainly stated concerning a woman's hair. At what's more, headcovering was NOT a practice for married woman in greco-roman culture. It was a counter-cultural practice unique to the church.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Mar 26, 2013)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> At what's more, headcovering was NOT a practice for married woman in greco-roman culture. It was a counter-cultural practice unique to the church.



Rev. Sheffield: 

Do you have a cite or citations for this point? As I recall, this particular issue was much debated when I last looked at the issue. I would appreciate any information on the point. 

Best Regards,
Mark


----------



## RobertBruce (Mar 26, 2013)

irresistible_grace said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > Let me add to Christopher's fine answers given above: the problem with the wedding ring argument (Tom Schreiner makes such an argument somewhere) is that 1) it would mean that single women would have no "covering" available to them for worship under that rubric and 2) it would not distinguish men from women in worship, since men tend to wear wedding bands themselves. i am sympathetic to the view that it is a cultural sign of submission of sorts (for married women), but I don't think it satisfies what Paul is saying in the passage.
> ...



Wouldn't it mean she should be under the headship of her father?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 26, 2013)

RobertBruce said:


> irresistible_grace said:
> 
> 
> > Marrow Man said:
> ...



In some cases, correct. Exceptions might be if she is older and no longer has a living father.

My greater point was that a wedding ring does not suffice for all women, although a head covering would.


----------

