This article advocating the use of head coverings in worship by women, and the following article taking the opposite position, wee inspired by a friendly public debate of this issue that took place in Pittsburgh, PA.

The subject of bead coverings for women in worship is controversial. Because of this, it is important to approach the subject with much charity and with the measure of humility that should accompany a doctrinal position on which godly people disagree. I will be the first to say that this is not the issue upon which the Church stands or falls, and it should not be the cause of division among God’s people Nevertheless, the Word of God directly addresses the subject, and the people of God should always be open to rethinking their doctrine and reforming their practice in the light of His truth. It is my hope that this short article will result in just that.

The portion of the Scriptures which concerns us here is I Corinthians 11:3-16.

Paul begins his discussion of head coverings (1 Cor. 11:3) with the important and transcendent foundation for all that is to follow, namely, the governmental relationships between the Father and the Son and between men and women. In the economy of redemption, Christ is made subject to the Father’s authority, and woman is made subject to man’s authority. This, not any socio-cultural condition, is the basis for the doctrine that follows. The apostolic command concerning head coverings is based on the divinely instituted chain of authority: God, Christ, man, woman. It has nothing to do with cultural peculiarities.

In 1 Corinthians 11:4 men are commanded to pray and prophesy with uncovered heads. This may be the break with tradition that Paul seems to signify in the transition from verse 2 to verse 3. By Christ’s propitiatory work, man can now approach God with uncovered head. Jewish men of this era worshiped and prayed with a covering called a tallith on their heads. With the blood of Christ as our permanent and all-powerful covering, man can stand bareheaded in the presence of the Almighty. We can say with the Hebrew writer: “Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:19). Tertullian (153-222 AD.) said, “We pray bareheaded because we blush not.”

Paul then introduces the apostolic practice for women praying and prophesying (1 Cor. 11:5-6). What exactly is meant by “praying anti prophesying”? Suffice it to say (without going into the cessation of prophecy after the apostolic age) that what is in view here are acts of worship. Verse 17 suggests that corporate acts of worship are in view (“when you come together”), but we need not insist on that. Worship is worship and prayer is prayer, whether you are at home or in church, with a few people or many. The command for women to cover their heads while praying applies, of course, and at least, to prayer in public worship.

Verses 5 and 6 state that a woman’s head ought to he covered while engaged in these acts of worship. It is very clear. The question is, with what? Is long hair the covering that Paul has in view, or is it some other kind of covering? These verses make an important distinction between long hair and a head covering. “For if a woman is not covered (katakatupto), let her also be shorn (kiero).” Katakatupto is “something hanging down which covers,” and kiero means “to cut or shear’ as one would cut hair or shear sheep. Therefore, long hair as a covering teaches the principle but does not fulfill the requirement to be covered.

Look at verse 6 again. “If a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn.” lf Paul had in view long hair as a head cover-ing, this verse would make no sense. He would be saying, “if a woman has short hair, let it be cut.”

Verses 7-9 lay another important foundation for this doctrine based on the order of creation (again, not on culture). The need for a woman to he covered is based not only on the economy of redemption (v. 3) but also on the economy of creation. How is it that woman is the glory of man while man is the glory of God? Clearly both are created in His image (Gen. 1:27), but the woman is the image of God most fully as she functions in her place alongside man as his helper. She is not at all inferior to man—she is equal—yet she is called in creation and redemption to be subject to his authority as Christ is to the Father. Ultimately, the covering she wears is a sign of her submission to God and not merely to her husband. In this, women have the singular honor of being Christlike in their submission.

“Because of the angels” is a much disputed and debated reason in 1 Corinthians 11:10, but it is another spiritual (not cultural) reason given. Probably the most simple interpretation is that angels are the church’s audience, and because of their watchful eyes the church must be concerned with this propriety. To add balance, Paul now stresses in verses 11 and 12 the interdependence of men and women in the church and in life. The order of authority that is expressed in head coverings is part of the harmonious function of the body of the church, in which women play an essential part.

In verse 13, Paul gives a clear challenge to reflect deeply on the truths presented and whether or not head coverings are a natural application of them. “Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her bead uncovered?” As with all of Paul’s rhetorical questions, the implied answer is no.

Verses 14 and 15 are crucial: “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given for a covering.”

Paul appeals to “nature” and says that nature itself teaches us that women should have long hair and men should have short hair. By “nature” (phusis) is meant “instinct, or native sense of what is right,” as in Romans 1:26. Even instinct tells us that there should he natural, outward distinctions between the sexes, and those outward distinctions are a scriptural in junction as well (Deut. 22:5). The length of hair is to be a primary witness to the distinction of the sexes, and it is the thing that teaches us that a woman should he covered, not the thing that fulfills the command to be covered.

That last statement requires proof. After all, Paul says that “her hair is given to her for a covering.” So, is he really saying that long hair is the head covering in view, after all? No, and here is why.

First, if long hair is the head covering in view, then verse 6 would amount to a contradiction, saying, “If a woman is not covered (by long hair), then let her be shorn (her hair be cut).”

Second, remember that Paul says a woman must he covered while praying and prophesying. If long hair is the covering in view, why specify the particular actions in which a woman must be covered? If her hair was long she would always be covered, whether praying or not. He could simply say. Let women’s hair be long.” But Paul has in view a specific covering for a specific activity.

Finally, Paul is clearly using “natures’ example of long hair to buttress and elucidate the principle of women wearing head coverings in worship. A woman’s long hair is a glorious and beautiful expression of her femininity and a sign of the natural relationship between men and women. A head covering is the sign of the spiritual relationship that she hears toward God and her husband, of which the natural relationship is a clue. Her hair is a “covering.” but not the one commanded in light of the redemptive order of authority. Long hair is the natural basis for the injunction for women to cover their heads. It is not the fulfillment of the injunction. To be quite honest, those who say that it is are usually not vocal proponents of long hair for all women (as they should be to remain consistent). Long hair is something advocated even less often than head coverings.

In verse 16 Paul is not now abolishing every principle that he just laid down! He is referring to and answering the question he asked in verse 13. That is, “we have no such custom” of women praying to God with uncovered heads. He is flatly commanding the church at Corinth and “all who in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus” (1:2) to step in line with universal apostolic practice. The fathers of the early church and the reformers of the 16th Century unanimously (as far as I can ascertain) take this practice to be a universal and binding principle.

It is my hope that women of God will reconsider this important passage and rediscover the real beauty that is theirs in the honorable place of being under Christ and under their husbands in Christ. A head covering is a badge of female glory, and of the faith that Christ exemplifies in His submission to the father.