Uncovering the Headcovering Movement, pt. 3

When exploring the practice of headcovering, it is of utmost importance to deal with the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11. Part 2 of this series attempted to do just that. By process of elimination, we were able to determine which interpretations are the most biblical and which ones are lacking in biblical evidence. It is my position that 1 Corinthians 11 in no way requires headcovering as a universal command for the church.

Beyond 1 Corinthians 11, headcoverers frequently appeal to history to defend headcovering. Indeed, some headcoverers focus on this aspect more than the biblical aspect. If your position on headcovering doesn’t match the historical consensus, it can be disregarded right away. “Two-thousand years of church history can’t be wrong,” you might hear. Or, “All Christians were pro-headcovering until the 1960s.” Are these claims accurate? The history isn’t as simple as you might think.

Female (and male) coverings, and not just in church

Yes, it was very common for women throughout history to wear headcoverings (scarfs, hats) as part of their regular attire. There is much evidence for this – written and photographic – even into the early 1900s. The claim is true, as far as it goes, and we need not say otherwise. But merely asserting this truth does not justify the headcovering movement. There are problems with this line of thinking.

First, the evidence shows that women wore coverings as regular attire in daily life. Headcovering wasn’t only for Christian activities, which works against the headcovering position. Most headcoverers do not require coverings all day, every day. They acknowledge that Paul was not teaching such in 1 Corinthians 11. Instead, they limit the practice to corporate worship. But this exposes the inconsistency of their argument: They are appealing to historical practice without actually following historical practice.

Second, the fact that women wore coverings does not tell us why they wore coverings. Women of all backgrounds and religions wore coverings, not just Christian women. It would be presumptuous to conclude that 1 Corinthians 11 was their reason for doing so. Did the rise of Christianity cause headcovering to spread from culture to culture? That can’t be the case, since headcovering predated 1 Corinthians 11. Women in the old covenant – Jews and Gentiles alike – wore coverings for style and utility (not commanded), whereas Paul’s command was unique to the new covenant. Other options should be considered for why women wore coverings. What about shade from the sun? Warmth from the cold? What about hygiene and fashion? Imagine a world in which there was no central heating and air-conditioning, and no indoor plumbing. Washing the hair frequently and using hair products wasn’t as possible as it is now. Once those things change in society, it makes sense that headcovering would become unnecessary.

Third, and most important, is that everyone wore headcoverings, not just women. Headcoverers tend to leave this fact off, which obscures the record. Men also wore coverings throughout history into the 1900s. Men used to wear hats as a daily accessory, just as women did. Why did they stop? For many of the same reasons women stopped.^a Both genders wearing coverings is proof that they were not doing it to obey 1 Corinthians 11. Using Paul’s logic, if women have to be covered all the time, then men have to be uncovered all the time. Clearly, this is not what former societies believed.

Feminism and immodesty

Headcoverers claim that the feminist movement of the 1960s ended headcovering in America. If it weren’t for feminism, everyone would still be covering. To be anti-covering means you have adopted feminist thinking. Hopefully you can already see how problematic this narrative is. While I’m sure feminism contributed to the decline of headcovering, it was by no means the only cause. Many things were changing in society at that time. Some good, some bad, and people had different reasons for doing different things. Truth is, some women stopped headcovering prior to 1960. Men were stopping, too. Did the men view their hats as signs of male oppression? Surely not.

Let me add that not everything associated with feminism was bad. Some feminists stood against pornography and the objectification of women, which are biblical principles. It is illogical to say that something is wrong just because feminists do it. Christians must stand against unbiblical views of men and women, absolutely. But it’s a scare tactic to label anything you don’t like as “feminist.” We must be better than that.

What about immodesty? Headcoverers claim that immodest clothing and behavior is due to the decline of headcovering. Once women took off their hats, they were emboldened to take off everything else. Hence, many women think headcovering is a matter of restoring modesty to society. They see the covering as a protest against feminism and immodesty. Not only is this view completely absent from 1 Corinthians 11, it doesn’t compute with biblical standards of modesty.

Biblical modesty is fundamentally about keeping private what God says is private (i.e. the sexual and reproductive parts of the human body). A woman’s head, hair, and face are beautiful, but they are not private and therefore not required to be covered. In the Bible, not even face-veils are about modesty. Two passages from Genesis are helpful here.

Genesis 24:65, 67 — Rebekah said to the servant, “Who is this man walking in the field to meet us?” The servant said, “It is my master.” So she took a veil and covered herself…Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent; and he took Rebekah and she became his wife, and he loved her.

Genesis 38:14, 15 – Tamar took off her widow’s garments, covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place…When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, because she had covered her face.

Both of these passages pertain to face-veils but in two different contexts. In the first instance, the veil was for the purpose of a wedding ritual. It could not be about modesty since Rebekah was unveiled prior to Isaac’s arrival. She was unveiled in the presence of Abraham’s servant and any other men they encountered on the journey. In the second instance, the veil was a sign of prostitution. Surprising, right? Tamar disguised herself as a harlot by putting on a veil. Veils at a wedding symbolized purity (good), veils in the public square symbolized sexual immorality (bad). In neither case was the purpose to be modest around men. Rebekah’s veil was only for her wedding and Tamar’s veil was used for seduction.

The face-veil, which concealed a woman’s facial beauty, was not for the purpose of modesty. How is it that a headcovering, which covers less of a woman’s beauty, is the hallmark of modesty? This view cannot stand under scrutiny. Until 1 Corinthians 11, there is no evidence in the Bible that women were required to cover their head for any reason, let alone modesty.

The testimony of church fathers

Headcoverers claim that headcovering was the universal practice of the church until the 1960s. It is presented as if every theologian in church history was pro-headcovering. There is some truth to that, but it’s not as simple as headcoverers want it to be.

If you look up the earliest commentaries on 1 Corinthians 11, you will likely find an argument in favor of covering, or at least a brief comment. But this is curious, because Irenaeus refers to the covering as a “veil” (Greek: kalumma). Comparing to scripture, kalumma is used nowhere in 1 Corinthians 11, but it is used in 2 Corinthians 3:13 for Moses’s face-veil. Paul uses the word to denote a face-veil, not merely a covering of the head and hair. Later theologians followed Irenaeus’s translation, teaching that the woman’s covering was a face-veil (Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and more). Likewise, John Wesley in the 1700s taught that the woman’s covering was a veil “on her face.”^b

This information indicates that the earliest fathers believed women were to veil their faces, which is not what headcoverers are advocating for. They only cover the head and hair as Paul instructed. This is another example of the history not lining up with the headcovering position. While some fathers spoke of covering the “head,” many of them spoke of covering the face. It is misleading to say that headcovering was the universal practice of the church when the practice was not uniform, and in some cases, a radical departure from scripture.

Furthermore, it simply isn’t true that every theologian thought headcovering was an on-going command. Scholarly work has demonstrated that many theologians in the Reformation period believed Paul’s teaching was based on cultural customs. The Lutheran Augsburg Confession (1530) recommends headcovering for good order, but says it is not a matter of sin and not something for women to be burdened by. Lutheran theologian Friedrich Balduin (1600s) wrote that Paul’s use of “nature” was the “custom of that time and people.”^c

The evidence extends to the Reformed and beyond. Zwingli (1529) said, “To be sure, Paul is not laying down everlasting and unchanging laws; instead he is giving instructions as to what is customary and honorable…That which maintains public decency and is customary should not be defiantly disregarded.” Men of the 1600s such as George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, Francis Turretin, and Matthew Poole believed Paul’s teaching was based on changeable customs. Indeed, customs had already changed considerably in Scotland.^d Matthew Henry’s commentary (1700s) says the custom in Corinth was “contrary to the custom” of his own day.

Westminster divines, Daniel Cawdrey and Herbert Palmer, taught that the woman’s covering was a “temporary” institution, “agreeable to the customs of those places and times.” This explains why the Westminster Confession of Faith, nor the Directory for Public Worship, list any requirements for headcovering. At least a majority of the drafters did not interpret 1 Corinthians 11 as an on-going command.

I hope you can see that when headcoverers appeal to history, they make exaggerated claims that obscure the full truth. There is a mountain of evidence that refutes their position. When that evidence is known, the historical argument loses its strength. It is not the case that all theologians held to headcovering until the 1960s. It certainly isn’t the case that feminism was the root problem. Are we to imagine that the fathers of the Reformation had feminist tendencies? Some things are too unbelievable to entertain.

Honoring traditions

The resources above should not be taken as a total denunciation of headcovering. It is possible to maintain that (1) Paul was not giving a universal command and (2) cultural customs should be followed within reason. I’m not aware of any reformers who were calling women to get rid of their coverings. There are many customs that arise in society that are fine and proper, even if they have no theological purpose. It would be prudent to uphold these customs for the sake of being polite. We ought not be rebellious unless we have a biblical reason to be.

But what happens when the customs change? When a tradition fades away, it can be impolite and rebellious to try to bring it back. This is especially true when it’s made into a biblical requirement and a matter of obedience. Since the text of 1 Corinthians 11 is not clear enough to require headcovering, the reasons for reviving the tradition will be subjective, arbitrary, and man-made. Don’t be surprised when people react negatively to this strategy.

I highly recommend Steven Wedgeworth’s article here, which addresses this topic. Cultural customs are good to follow, but not once they’ve become obsolete.

Potential dangers of headcovering

Finally, we must discuss the potential dangers of headcovering. Please note that I am not accusing any and all headcoverers of these things, but they are legitimate concerns.

While it is not a sin to wear a headcovering, and women may do so for style and fashion, covering because of biblical reasons is problematic. If you believe headcovering is a biblical command, then logically, not covering would be a sin. You’d have to conclude that all women who don’t cover are in sin. Sinning in ignorance? Perhaps, but sinning nonetheless. It would be inconsistent to say otherwise. We should all be concerned about not falling into legalism, which is when we take man-made laws and turn them into standards of holiness. We’ve established that headcovering cannot be proven with certainty from the Bible, therefore it cannot become a standard of holiness. When you turn it into that, you’ve become legalistic. (This is not the same as being strict with doctrines that are clear and provable from scripture, such as infant baptism and more.)

Headcovering is a visible and public practice, which makes a statement to everyone around. It isn’t a private belief in your heart. When a headcoverer worships at a non-covering church, the message is this: “I wear this covering out of obedience to Paul, and you are in disobedience.” That would be the inevitable conclusion if you think covering is an apostolic command. A visible statement of this sort has the potential to breed sectarianism and division in a church body. Headcoverers will say that they have no intent to cause division and will not proselytize the members. Good on them, but wearing the covering is itself a form of proselytizing. Non-covering women will start to doubt their obedience to scripture and wonder if they should also be covering. Wearing a covering says, “You should be doing this, too.”

If headcoverers believe they have discovered a forgotten law in the Bible, the temptation is to be prideful about it. They are the faithful minority, after all. Instead of a sign of submission, the covering becomes a sign of self-righteousness. Instead of being “modest,” it becomes showy. It draws attention to oneself and becomes a focal point of discussion and controversy. Some people thrive off of that kind of attention, which is not good. That will damage your walk with God and your Christian witness. Some headcoverers take modeling-type photos of themselves and post them on the internet. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but what is the intention? They are treating headcovering as a fashion, even though they say it isn’t about fashion. Vanity must always be guarded against.

What about idolatry? Regular idolatry is when you take a man-made image and give it religious devotion (bowing to it, praying through it, kissing it, etc.). That’s forbidden by the second commandment. Headcoverers are not committing this type of idolatry, but the heart is prone to idolatrous tendencies. Anything can be turned into spiritual or inward idols, even good things. When we take a good thing and become dependent on it, especially something religious, we’ve made an idol out of that thing. Headcovering is a matter of religious devotion. Women can’t attend worship without a man-made fabric. What effect will that have on the human heart? That’s not a trivial question. If the thought of going uncovered is repugnant to you, now might be a good time for a reassessment.

Conclusion

History doesn’t prove what the headcoverers want it to. There is truth to many of their claims, but they do not give the full truth (unintentionally, I presume). Headcovering might appear to be a harmless and innocent practice, and it is if done for style and fashion. But covering for biblical reasons comes with serious dangers to be avoided.

In every matter of doctrine, scripture must be the final arbiter of truth. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what Christians have believed or practiced throughout church history. What matters is if those things are required by scripture or not. We do not begin with how we want society to be – an idealized view of the olden days – and search for supporting passages in the Bible. We start with the Bible and allow it to determine how society should be. When we do this, we do not arrive at the headcovering position.

1. Many books and documentaries have explored the question of why men and women stopped wearing coverings. The contributing factors are numerous and fascinating.  (back)
2. All citations can be found in this essay by Philip Brown.  (back)
3. Cited here.  (back)
4. All citations can be found in this paper by Greg Price.  (back)

headcovering