Her Hair is Given as a Covering

I have been asked a question about whether or not the woman’s hair replaces the covering, since hair is given to her as her ‘glory’. In my previous post on the objections and excuses people raise for not wearing a covering, I addressed this question in part. In case people can’t find it, or don’t have the time to go and look, I will repeat here what I said previously and then address the other part of the question.

“Hair is the covering.
I have some sympathy for this view, given that Paul states, "her hair is given to her for a covering" (v15). However, let's look at the logic of that idea. If hair is the covering, then we should be able to replace the word 'covering' with the word 'hair'. This is what the passage then looks like, starting at verse 4:

"Every man praying or prophesying with hair on his head, dishonours his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies without hair on her head, dishonours her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman has no hair on her head, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her have hair on her head. For a man indeed ought not to have hair on his head since he is the image and glory of God."

I have stopped there because already we can see that this is nonsense. If a woman has no hair let her be shaved? Men ought to have no hair in order to pray?

Furthermore, the word for 'covering' in this verse (v15) is a different word in the original Greek from the word used for covering elsewhere. If Paul were saying that the hair is the same as the covering he has just been talking about, surely he would have used the same word? Had he done so, there could be no ambiguity - clearly the woman's hair would have been sufficient to cover her. But as it is a different word, it is clear that Paul is talking about something different, a different type of covering.”

If you wish to read the whole article, which addresses more than just this one point, you can access it here:

http://almost-amish.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/coverings-objections-and-excuses.html

In an article, ‘The Woman’s Head Covering’  by H B Taylor (1920), writing about 1 Corinthians 11v2-16, the author states:

“In this passage of Scripture three things are clear and plain.

(1) The hair is not the covering that God com­mands a woman to wear "in sign that she is under authority" to the man who is her head. This is plain for three or four reasons.

a. Why should Paul have mentioned the matter at all if the hair was the covering that God required?

To suppose or argue that the hair was what Paul was speaking of makes Paul guilty of writing the veriest non­sense; For it makes him take sixteen verses in a letter to a critical church to exhort and enforce the ex­hortation with the arguments to prove that women ought to wear their hair to the house of God, when they could not help but wear it everywhere they went. Paul's argument wasn't about the hair but about the covering in addition to the hair.

b. Again, the "ALSO" in vs. 6, is the indisputable proof that Paul was talking about a covering in addition to the hair.

Note the language. "If the woman be not covered, let her ALSO be shorn." Suppose the covering was the hair, what then? Then Paul is guilty of making the silly remark that if a woman hasn't any hair, let her also be shorn. How could she be shorn if she had no hair?

What Paul really said, and what makes good sense, was: "If a woman does not have a covering on her head in addi­tion to her hair, let her hair be cut or head shaven as a badge of her shame fullness.

c. But says someone: "Doesn't Paul say in vs. 15 that the hair is given for a covering?" No, he does not. The word for cover in verses 6 and 7 is katakaluptetai. Greek word pronounced ka- ta-ka-lup-te-tai. In verse 15 the word for cover is peribolaion, pronounced per-ib-ol-ah-yon. This latter word is used in only one other place in the New Testament, and that is in Hebrews 1:12. Here it is used of the heavens, and is trans­lated "vesture". In verse 15 and in Hebrews 1:12 it is used of what is put on by God Himself such as hair in verse 15 and vesture in Hebrews 1:12. It is something that cannot be put on and off.

The covering enjoined in verse 6 is a veil or hat or something the woman can put on herself. One thing sure and plain is that the hair is not the covering enjoined by God. The covering God enjoins is one they can and are to voluntarily put on as a sign they are under authority.”

The complete article can be found at http://www.anabap.com/headcovering.htm

Her hair is her glory

In verse 15, the Apostle says, ‘But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering’.

I must confess to having had some considerable trouble with this verse myself, before coming to an understanding of what it means and submitting to the wearing of a covering that is separate from my hair.

Verse 15 needs to be taken together with verses 7-9: ‘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. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man’. These words do not sit comfortably today since the arrival of feminism, where woman see any authority by men as oppressive and seek to be equal (or more than equal) with men everywhere, including in their own homes. However, they are in the Scripture and we cannot just ignore them because we might not like them. There is a hierarchy, not of oppression, but of orderliness, where man is the head of the household and woman is voluntarily submissive to him (not subservient, but voluntarily submissive). The roles of men and women are different; this does not mean one is more important than the other, but that they complement one another in their respective roles.

Thus the passage tells us that man is the glory and image of God and woman is the glory of the man. If a man covers his head he is covering God’s glory; when a woman leaves her head uncovered, she is revealing the glory of man and no man should glory in His presence. In other words, we should not come before God waving our own merits and worth, but showing our submission to Him. The woman has the responsibility of wearing a covering to show her submission to God’s authority through her husband.

“This is an important warning to us men who often come up here and speak arrogantly. As we look back and see the covered heads of the sisters, it is a solemn warning that our glory is covered and that no flesh should glory in God’s presence...In today’s modern meetings...instead of God’s glory, they see man’s glory. Instead of the foolishness of the cross, they see the wisdom of man. If we are to glorify God and not the flesh, then our worship meetings should be such that man’s glory is covered and God’s is uncovered. The meeting should be such that if the Lord Jesus stood among us as pictured in John’s vision on the isle of Patmos, we would not be ashamed”

http://www.biblebeliever.co.za/Brethren%20Assemblys/Head%20Covering%20-%20The%20Glory%20of%20Man%20or%20The%20Glory%20of%20God.html

We have already seen that God is Head over Christ; Christ is Head over man; and the man is head over the woman. This can be described as a social hierarchy. For a man to be covered and a woman uncovered, Paul says that this would be to disgrace one’s social head – the man would be dishonouring Christ; the woman is dishonouring the man. A covering on a man, veils the image of Christ; a woman without a covering displays her desire to be positionally equal with the man before God, usurping the glory that belongs to the man, as given to him by God.

Thus, to summarise, a covering is something separate from the hair. It is given to a woman to show her voluntary submission to the man and to God. To leave her hair uncovered dishonours the man and indicates that the woman wants social equality with the man, regardless of the social order that God has imposed.

Coverings - objections and excuses

Most people today do not wear a covering, not even when they go to church. There are a few churches where a hat is required when in church, but there are virtually none where it is required all the time. So what are the reasons women today do not wear a covering?

From the Amish perspective, wearing a covering holds significance in three respects. First, they want to obey the commands of Scripture; second, it ensures they are separate from the world, which, in itself, is being obedient to a Scriptural injunction: 'do not be conformed to this world', Romans 12v2 and third, wearing a covering gives the Amish woman an added sense of identity - all the other Amish women wear one too. So have they got it wrong? They are, after all, in something of a minority.

Let's look at some of the common objections and excuses that women today use for failing to adhere to this particular Scripture, as found in 1 Corinthians 11v2-16.

It was only for Paul's day.
This is the cultural excuse. But if we can write off this passage on the grounds of culture, then which other passages can we leave out as irrelevant today? Perhaps the one about loving your enemies? Take a look at 1 Corinthians 1v2 to see to whom Paul addresses this letter:
"To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours"
Clearly Paul did not intend his letter to be confined to just those in Corinth. Does that sound like it was meant only for that culture? I don't think so.

If we ought to wear a covering, then it is only for church.
Why do we think that to be the case? Well, Paul himself in the very passage under discussion says that women ought not to 'pray or prophesy' with their heads uncovered. Surely that indicates that he is talking about the church meeting. Really? Are women not supposed to pray at other times, apart from in church? Are they not also bound by the injunction to 'pray without ceasing' 1 Thessalonians 5v17?

Let's take a look at the following verses:
"For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you" (1 Corinthians 11v18). Paul has now changed the subject; he is going to address the way in which the Corinthians are misusing the communion service. And he prefaces it with the words "when you come together as a church". That seems a clear indication that everything that has gone before is not confined to when they come together as a church. Therefore it can be concluded that coverings are not just for times of corporate worship; they are to be worn at all times.

'Let her be covered'. The Greek tense of the verb is 'present continuous'. This means the verse could be written 'let her continue to be covered.' Again, this would indicate that Paul intended women to continue the practice of wearing a covering. And not only to continue the practice, but also to wear a covering all the time - continually.

Furthermore, if we confine the argument of coverings only to prayer or church, we are missing the point about coverings. They are not coverings for prayer only; they are a symbol of women's acceptance of the divinely appointed order, where man is head of woman, Christ is head of man and God is head of Christ: "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head" (v10). Is Christ only man's head when he is in church? Are women to be submissive only when they are in a church meeting? If submission is for all time, then so is the covering.

We are not under law but under grace.
This is the excuse that suggests we have no rules to follow as New testament Christians. If that is the case, then what did Jesus mean when He said, ' If you love me, keep my commandments' and 'He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me' (John 14v15 & 21)?
On the other hand, it is true that we have freedom in Christ. No longer do we have to try to fulfil the law in order to please God. However, if we love Him, we will want to please Him and we will want to keep His commandments. We are free from the power of sin, death and Satan. We now belong to the Kingdom of God; we are free to follow our King. We do not have freedom from God's order; we have freedom in God's order. God's Kingdom is not anarchy. Before we were saved, we were slaves to sin and death; now we are free to follow Christ and keep His commandments. Why should the commandment regarding coverings be an exception?

It seems that the Christians in Corinth were so enamoured with their newfound freedom in Christ, they were throwing off everything that pertained to their former lives. Paul is writing this letter to correct their errors. Therefore, if they had ceased to cover their heads, then there was something amiss.

Hair is the covering.
I have some sympathy for this view, given that Paul states, "her hair is given to her for a covering" (v15). However, let's look at the logic of that idea. If hair is the covering, then we should be able to replace the word 'covering' with the word 'hair'. This is what the passage then looks like, starting at verse 4:

"Every man praying or prophesying with hair on his head, dishonours his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies without hair on her head, dishonours her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman has no hair on her ehad, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her have hair on her head. For a man indeed pought not to have hair on his head since he is the image and glory of God."

I have stopped there because already we can see that this is nonsense. If a woman has no hair let her be shaved? Men ought to have no hair in order to pray?

Furthermore, the word for 'covering' in this verse (v15) is a different word in the original Greek from the word used for covering elsewhere. If Paul were saying that the hair is the same as the covering he has just been talking about, surely he would have used the same word? Had he done so, there could be no ambiguity - clearly the woman's hair would have been sufficient to cover her. But as it is a different word, it is clear that Paul is talking about something different, a different type of covering.

We have no such custom.
Ah, surely this final comment of Paul indicates that there was no such custom of wearing a covering in the rest of the churches and therefore Paul was making this rule especially for the Corinthians, to take it or leave it as they chose? I don't think so! For 14 verses (v2-15) Paul has been at pains to explain as logically as he can the reasons why a covering is necessary. Is it likely that he would then contradict himself in his last sentence? In point of fact, the most simple understanding of this verse is that if anyone is contentious, ie they oppose the wearing of coverings, then 'we' (the apostles) and the rest of the churches of God do not have a custom that supports that opposing view. The custom is that the churches were following already what Paul has been saying in the previous 4 verses.

For some further reading on the subject of 'no such custom' see:

http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/headcovering4.html

http://www.oldpathspaved.org/?p=156

 

 

Coverings – Prayer and Headship

You will have noticed in my last post, I mentioned that the coverings worn by the Amish are sometimes called prayer coverings and sometimes headship coverings or veils. This gives an indication of the two reasons Amish women wear a covering.
 
Headship: The Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, starts out by explaining the different roles between men and women. He sets this in the context of the relationship between God and Christ: 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.
 
Therefore a woman wears a covering to indicate her voluntary submission to her husband or her father, or the elders of the church. The passage does not say ‘husband’ specifically; therefore it can be assumed that as men are given roles of leadership in the church and family by God, that women are to submit to that authority and leadership.
 
Many women today do not want to accept this teaching. They say they are not inferior to men and therefore why do they need to submit? No-one would state that Christ is inferior to God; they are equal. Yet the passage clearly states that God is head over Christ. This is not a statement of superiority/inferiority, but is an indication of the differing roles that each has. This is also true of men and women. God has given them different roles within their relationships.
 
A woman who wears a covering does so voluntarily and by wearing it, she indicates her acceptance of her different role and her voluntary submission to husbands, church leaders, fathers and, ultimately, to God, as it is He who said she should wear a covering.
 
It might be said that the Amish teach their daughters to wear a covering all their lives. Indeed, when baby girls are first taken to church at the age of about 6 weeks, their heads are covered. The practise differs between the different Amish groups – some have their children wear coverings all the time; others have them wear them when they are out and about in public; yet others do not have their children wear coverings at all, except for church. So how can it be said that an Amish woman takes the covering voluntarily?
 
Most people, even in British society, have heard of the rumschpringe, though what is seen on our televisions is not the whole story. When she reaches the age of about 16, she is allowed more freedom to explore the beliefs and practices of the Amish faith and culture. As the young girl matures, it is for her to make her own decision as to whether she wishes to be baptised or not and join the Amish church. If she does, one of the things she agrees to is wearing the covering. The vast majority of Amish youth do get baptised into the faith and the Amish church. Those who do not are free to discard the wearing of the covering if they so wish.
 
Prayer: the passage under consideration also states: every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head.
 
Now this verse can appear complicated at first – until it is realised that two types of ‘head’ are meant here. She “dishonours her head” indicates that she dishonours the man who has been given the position of leadership or authority over her. She “covers her head”, indicates that she is wearing something on her physical head. It would be absurd if it were to mean she covers the man! Or even that she dishonours her physical head!
 
Because the covering is mentioned here in the context of 'praying and prophesying', many today have concluded that the covering, or the wearing of a hat, is only for such times as a woman is in church. [More of that on another occasion]. The Amish woman clearly wears her covering all day long, whether it is Sunday or some other day of the week; whether she is in church or not. That is because she has learned from the Bible that she should always be ready to pray, always in an attitude of prayer: Pray without ceasing, 1 Thessalonians 5v17.
 
Culture: There is a cultural element to wearing a covering too. Ever since Bible times, women have covered their heads. It was only in the 20^th Century that women began shaking off the so-called shackles of former times. Even as late as the 1940s, women were rarely seen outside their homes without a hat on their heads. And right into the 60s, 70s and even today, many women will not go to church without wearing a hat, though they may never wear one at any other time.
 
If you want to read a brief history of coverings, see Head Covering Through the Centuries
 
In my next post, I will take a look at some of the reasons it is not more widely practised today.

Coverings - the reasons why

One of the things the Amish are known for is their distinctive way of dressing, in particular what they wear on their heads – a little white cap, made in a lightweight fabric in white, black, or sometimes navy blue, known as a covering, a prayer covering, or sometimes, the headship veiling.
 
Since the Amish are so keen not to draw attention to themselves, there surely has to be some reason why they would wear something like a covering which only seems to serve to get them noticed. So why do they wear them? Is it just cultural? Or is there something deeper? Has the church today missed something, or has the covering been rightly discarded as irrelevant to modern Christian life?
 
Over the next couple of posts, we will explore the custom, if it can be called that, of coverings, the reasons for wearing them and the reasons Christains today who are not Amish give for not wearing them.
 
To begin with, we need to take a look at the particular verses from the Bible which speak of coverings one’s head:
 
1 Corinthians 11v2-16 (NKJV)

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 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. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonours his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 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. For a man indeed oufgt not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this reasonthe woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonour to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."
 
We will look further at what the Amish believe in future posts. In the meantime, what are your views on this passage? Is it for today, or was it something cultural for Paul’s day only? Do you think the Amish practice of wearing a covering is outdated, or quaint and oldfashioned, or is it a vital part of their faith?

Coverings - my personal journey

In my last post, I mentioned head coverings – and the fact I was wearing one. In this post, I want to share just how that came about.

When I ordered some curriculum and story books from Rod and Staff for my children, one of the things I noticed straight away was the odd little ‘hat’ things the women wore on their heads in the pictures. I later discovered that these were called coverings, prayer coverings or headship coverings. There were also some leaflets/booklets about it in the pack of tracts. One of these was called ‘The Significance of the Christian Woman’s Veiling’ by Merle Ruth, which explained in clear detail the reasons behind having one’s head covered.

There is an online copy of that leaflet available here:
http://www.anabaptists.org/tracts/covertrc.html

I had always followed the custom of wearing some kind of hat at church on Sundays. Many years earlier, while on a summer evangelistic team, I had come across one person who put on a headscarf when she read her Bible in her private study times too. Having moved house several times, I had also moved churches and some encouraged wearing a hat, some didn’t. In like manner, I sometimes had and sometimes hadn’t.

 While reading the booklets, in conjunction with the Bible, I became convinced that not only should I wear something while at church, but that I should wear it all the time. Of course, I did not have a ‘proper’ covering, like the ones I had seen in the pictures, and I had no way of getting one at that time, either. So in an attempt to be obedient to what I had read in the Bible, I compromised and started wearing a beret. The Bible clearly taught that a woman should be covered, in 1 Corinthians 11.

 I guess I could have timed it better from the family’s point of view. Our daughter was away on a summer evangelism team and our son was in Sweden with the scouts. That meant I had no opportunity to explain to either of them what I was doing and why. It came as a complete shock to them. When we went to visit our daughter on the team, I was wearing the beret. As a teenager, she was less than impressed. It is always harder to explain why you are doing something after the event than before; I don’t think our daughter ever really accepted me wearing a covering. In more recent years, there have been times I did not wear it, but when I reverted to wearing it, I explained to her what I was going to do and her reaction was one of dismay, saying it was a symbol of repression and oppression. I assured her I was wearing it because I wanted to and believed it to be right and she was satisfied with that response, but she is clearly still not happy about it.

After some time, I was sent a pattern for a hanging veil type of covering and also one readymade in white. That brought with it its own problems – for one thing, I was often mistaken for a Catholic nun. Being firmly of a Protestant persuasion at that time, it was unhelpful to be associated with a different way of thinking. My husband asked me to do something about it, so I made some coverings in navy blue and started pinning them at the back so they covered my hair even when the wind was blowing.

What I wear now is a snood type of covering, made from a pattern I found on the internet. It is basically the same as before, in navy blue, but I don’t have to pin it at the back any more. I and my husband are both happy with this form of covering. I get my patterns from Candle onthe Hill

Soon after I started wearing a covering, circumstances meant we moved churches. The new church did not encourage even wearing a hat for prayer on Sundays, which meant I really stood out. It also soon became clear that I did not just wear it at church, but was wearing it all the time. They began to get a bit funny with me because of it, to the extent that I began to feel criticised and pressured to stop.

One deacon commented what a shame it was that no-one could see my ‘lovely curly hair,’ while the minister frequently preached about not drawing attention to ourselves for the wrong reasons, for example by the way we dress, and not setting ourselves up as better than others! When we spoke about it, he simply said that I ‘must be under conviction’ to stop. He even suggested I had fallen prey to some kind of cult. Yet I was absolutely certain that God meant what He said in the Bible and that we could not just decide to ignore subjects because they didn’t fit with our preconceived ideas, or were uncomfortable for us. I didn’t make a big deal of it and, unless I was asked specifically, I did not speak about it. It was not my place to convince people of what I myself had been convinced of; the church did not teach the wearing of a covering and I did not want to undermine the church leaders. So I kept quiet.

The church we now attend teaches that women should be covered for the church services. They know I wear my covering all the time and they accept that I do. Again, I don’t emphasise my own convictions; it is not my place to teach them, or to criticise them for not wearing a covering.

But how I long for a church or community like the Amish, where everyone wears a covering all the time and support one another in so doing. It is very hard being ‘different’.I can well understand how the Amish must feel when tourists stare at them, as if they are exhibits in a show of some kind.