Should christian women wear head coverings?

Across cultures and epochs, the practice of veiling has woven itself into the intricate fabric of societal norms, religious beliefs, and cultural identities. From the earliest recorded civilizations to contemporary times, veiling has transcended mere fashion to embody profound symbolism, reflecting notions of modesty, status, spirituality, and societal roles.

Rooted in the rich tapestry of human history, the tradition of veiling has traversed continents and epochs, evolving in shape and significance with each passing era.

From the Ghoonghat of ancient Indian societies to the Hijabs of Islamic culture, and from the adorned bridal silhouettes of Victorian Europe to the modest mantillas of Christian worship, veiling has manifested in myriad forms, each imbued with its own unique meaning and purpose.

This article embarks on a journey through time and space, tracing the evolution of veiling practices from their ancient origins to their contemporary expressions. Delving into historical records, religious texts, artistic depictions, and cultural artifacts, we seek to unravel the intricate threads of veiling traditions, exploring their origins, transformations, and enduring significance in shaping human societies.

Through meticulous examination and analysis, we aim to shed light on the multifaceted nature of veiling, uncovering its complex interplay with religion, gender dynamics, social hierarchy, and cultural identity. By unravelling the historical nuances and contextual intricacies surrounding veiling practices, we endeavour to deepen our understanding of this timeless tradition and its enduring impact on human civilization.

As we embark on this scholarly exploration, we invite readers to journey with us through the annals of history, where veils have served not only as garments of modesty but also as potent symbols of faith, identity, and societal norms. In doing so, we hope to illuminate the past, present, and future of veiling practices, unravelling the layers of meaning that shroud this timeless tradition.

What is veil and head scarf?

Veiling

Veiling, whether in the form of clothing or hanging cloth, serves the purpose of covering either the head or face and holds significant historical and cultural importance. This tradition spans across European, Asian, and African societies, where it has played a prominent role in various religious practices, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Head scarf

A headscarf is a piece of cloth that covers the top of a person's head and hair, typically worn by women, while leaving the face exposed. It is commonly made from either a triangular or square-shaped fabric folded into a triangular form, providing coverage for the head.

Kinds of veils

Mantle

Bridal silhouette

Hijabs

Shoulder length lace mantillas

Powdered wigs

Mantle  

A mantle is a loose, sleeveless cloak or cape-like garment that is worn over other clothing, typically reaching from the shoulders down to varying lengths. It can be made of various materials and is often used for warmth or ceremonial purposes.

Bridal silhouette  

The bridal silhouette refers to the overall shape or form of a bride's attire, including her gown, veil, and accessories. It encompasses the style, cut, and design of the bridal ensemble, which can vary widely depending on cultural traditions, personal preferences, and fashion trends.

Hijabs

Hijabs are traditional Islamic headscarves worn by Muslim women to cover their hair, neck, and sometimes the upper chest. They come in various styles, materials, and colours, and are worn for modesty and religious reasons as prescribed by Islamic teachings.

Shoulder-length lace mantillas

Shoulder-length lace mantillas are delicate veils made of lace fabric that are worn by women, particularly in Catholic and Spanish cultures, during religious ceremonies such as Mass or weddings. They typically cover the head and shoulders, symbolizing reverence and modesty.

Powdered wigs

Powdered wigs, also known as perukes, were fashionable headpieces worn by men and women in the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly in Europe. Made from human or animal hair, these wigs were powdered with starch or flour to achieve a distinctive white or off-white colour and were often worn as a symbol of social status or authority.

Veils and headscarf  in the history

Veiling holds profound significance in both cultural traditions and religious practices. While historical records are scarce, glimpses of veiling customs can be discerned from ancient frescoes and pottery depictions.

The origin of the headscarf dates back to the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, where individuals utilized linen cloths to protect their heads from the elements and maintain hygiene standards. This necessity led to the widespread adoption of head coverings across Mesopotamian societies.

Formalizing this practice, an ancient Assyrian text from the 13th century BC is among the earliest records mandating head coverings. This text required women, daughters, and widows to veil their heads as a demonstration of piety. Interestingly, it also stipulated that headscarves were prohibited for women of lower classes and those engaged in prostitution.

The consequences for violating these laws were severe, often resulting in public humiliation or arrest. Thus, the headscarf emerged not only as a practical accessory but also as a symbol of social and religious norms enforced by ancient societies.

The earliest documented instance of veiling dates back to 1400 B.C., where elite women in ancient Mesopotamia adorned veils as symbols of social status.

Greece embraced veiling around 550 B.C., particularly among high society matrons, endorsing a hierarchical practice.

In ancient Rome, the wearing of veils by women symbolized a husband's authority over his wife. This era arguably marked the inception of wedding veils, employed to shield brides from malevolent spirits that purportedly sought to disrupt weddings. Following the nuptials, it became customary for women to cover their heads in public spaces.

With the annexation of the Kingdom of Israel by the Roman Empire in 63 B.C., Hebrew women adopted veiling customs. However, Jewish women had long veiled for religious reasons, as evidenced in Genesis 24:65, where Rebekah veiled herself before Isaac.

Hebrews further distinguished themselves by affixing tassels to the corners of their garments, in accordance with Torah instructions. While both genders veiled during prayer, women continued to veil in public settings, emphasizing modesty and adherence to tradition.

In turn, Christian women inherited this custom from their Hebrew ancestors.

Muslim veiling, dating back to pre-Islamic times, includes hijab, niqab, burqa, and chador, varying in coverage. Motivations range from modesty to cultural or religious symbolism.    

Throughout the ages, the veil has undergone a transformative journey, adapting to different eras and cultures while carrying diverse meanings and functions. From the medieval wimple of the Anglo-Saxon period to the opulent Victorian wedding veil, veiling has been a reflection of societal values and norms.

During the latter 12th century Anglo-Saxon period, the wimple emerged as a prevalent head covering for women, embodying virtues of modesty, piety, and submission. It served as a visual representation of societal expectations placed upon women at that time.

In the 19th century Victorian era, the wedding veil experienced a resurgence, assuming various connotations such as modesty and the symbolization of virginity. Wearing a lengthy and luxurious veil became not only a fashion statement but also a status symbol, indicative of social standing and purity.

Additionally, sheer veils emerged as occasional wear, reserved for specific events like funerals or outdoor activities necessitating protection from the sun. While serving practical purposes, these veils also adhered to cultural norms and traditions, contributing to the rich tapestry of veiling practices throughout history.

Veiling in religious context: A symbol of devotion and tradition

Veiling has been deeply intertwined with religious practices and traditions throughout history, serving as a symbol of devotion and reverence for believers across different faiths. Within religious contexts, the significance of veiling extends beyond mere fashion or modesty, carrying profound spiritual meanings.

Veil Colour Symbolism: Reflecting Spiritual States

Traditionally, veils have been imbued with symbolism, particularly in the choice of colours. Married women often wore black or darker mantillas, while unmarried women donned white or lighter veils. This symbolic distinction persisted in religious orders, where novices typically wore lighter veils before transitioning to darker hues upon professing their vows.

Mantillas in Religious Ceremonies: Embodying Modesty and Obedience

Mantillas, delicate lace or silk veils, hold a significant place in religious ceremonies, particularly within Catholic traditions. Rooted in St. Paul's exhortation in Corinthians 11 to cover one's head during prayer, mantillas symbolize humility and submission before the divine. Despite historical debates, veiling remains a cherished aspect of religious observance for many believers.

Revival and Meaning in Modern Times

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in veiling among younger generations, particularly within the Church. Leah Darrow, a former America’s Next Top Model contestant turned Catholic speaker, highlights the spiritual significance of veiling as a testament to faith and prayer life. Additionally, on the Veils By Lily’s website, an anonymous priest underscores the veil's role as a visible sign of a woman's desire to humble herself before God.

Veiling Beyond Modesty: A Testament to Faith

The enduring presence of veiling in religious contexts underscores its significance beyond mere modesty or fashion. Veils serve as tangible reminders of believers' commitment to their faith, embodying values of humility, reverence, and obedience to divine authority.

Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Challenges

While veiling has ancient roots across various religious traditions, its significance has evolved over time. In Christian tradition, veiling was once a symbol of dignity, chastity, and piety. However, the perception of veiling has shifted over the centuries, influenced by societal changes and cultural interpretations.

Despite its historical and spiritual significance, veiling has faced challenges and controversies, particularly in modern times. In Christian countries, veiling has sometimes been associated with radicalized Islam, overshadowing its historical roots in Christianity and Judaism.

Veiling and headscarf in the Christianity

In the fourth century CE, Christianity's ascension to the status of the official religion of the Roman Empire marked a profound shift in societal norms and values. With this newfound status, Christian teachings and beliefs began to permeate various aspects of daily life, including dress practices.

One significant change during this period was the growing emphasis on modesty and propriety in attire, particularly for women. This shift manifested in the adoption of head coverings as a symbol of feminine piety and submission. The catalyst for this change can be traced back to the teachings of the Apostle Paul, whose first letter to the Corinthians contained instructions regarding prayer attire. In 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, Paul writes, "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head."

Paul's directive laid the foundation for the subsequent development of veiling practices within early Christian communities. Other influential figures, such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria, further elaborated on Paul's teachings, solidifying the importance of veiling as a symbol of feminine modesty and obedience.

Clement of Alexandria (c.150–c.215) emphasized the necessity of women being entirely covered, suggesting that they should be veiled even within their own homes.

Tertullian (c.155–c.220) advocated for girls to begin veiling at puberty, further reinforcing the notion of veiling as a marker of maturity and modesty.

John Chrysostom (c.347–407) and Cyril of Alexandria (c.376–444) both regarded veils as essential components of women's attire, with Cyril even describing the covering of the female head as a reflection of natural law.

These early Christian writers presented a unified front on the issue of veiling, portraying it as a religious obligation and a societal norm for modest women. As Christianity gained official recognition and its influence expanded, veiling became increasingly institutionalized within Christian communities.

Scholars commonly attribute the widespread adoption of veiling as a social requirement to the fourth century, coinciding with Christianity's official endorsement by the Roman Empire. This period marked a significant transition, as Christian ideals began to shape societal norms and expectations regarding dress and behaviour.

References:

The Holy Bible, New International Version, 1 Corinthians 11:5-6.

Ferguson, Everett. "Women's Veils in the Early Church: Did They Have a Ritual Function?" Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 47, no. 3, 1993, pp. 217-232.

Clark, Elizabeth A. "The Veil of Moses: Legal and Theological Perspectives on the Legal Status of Women in the Early Church." Harvard Theological Review, vol. 87, no. 1, 1994, pp. 69-96.

Davies, Rebecca. "Veiling and Revelation in Tertullian's De Virginitate." Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 73, no. 1, 2019, pp. 44-65.

Through the middle ages

R.C. Sproul

“Though the many authors differ on various issues associated with head coverings, one important issue upon which they are all agreed is that Paul was not commanding the women in Corinth either to let their hair grow long so as to use their long hair as a head covering in worship, or to neatly place their hair upon their heads as a head covering in worship, but rather to place upon their heads a fabric head covering when they worship before the Lord. This conclusion is reached by scholars from various denominational backgrounds, from different geographical locations, and from many periods of church history. The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church of Jesus Christ which is “the pillar and ground of the truth.””

“I am convinced that when Paul says the women are to cover their heads, he is basing that action on how God created male and female. It would seem to me, using a principle of interpretation of what we call hermeneutics, that if there ever an indication of a perpetual ordinance in the church, it is that which is based on an appeal to Creation. I’m persuaded that the principle of covering the head is still in effect because it was built into creation. And even though it’s not culturally accepted anymore in our society, I still believe it’s principle. I don’t think it matters one bit whether it’s a babushka, a veil, or a hat, but I think that the symbol should remain intact as a sign of our obedience to God.” R.C. Sproul, Now, That’s a Good Question, 48

“It is one thing to seek a more lucid understanding of the biblical content by investigating the cultural situation of the first century; it is quite another to interpret the New Testament as if it were merely an echo of the first-century culture. To do so would be to fail to account for the serious conflict the church experienced as it confronted the first-century world. Christians were not thrown to the lions for their penchant for conformity. Some very subtle means of relativizing the text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought not to be there. For example, with respect to the hair-covering issue in Corinth, numerous commentators on the Epistle point out that the local sign of the prostitute in Corinth was the uncovered head. Therefore, the argument runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a scandalous appearance of Christian women in the external guise of prostitutes. What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and gave no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation, not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul’s stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisogesis. The creation ordinances are indicators of the transcultural principle. If any biblical principles transcend local customary limits, they are the appeals drawn from creation… What if, after careful consideration of a biblical mandate, we remain uncertain as to its character as principle or custom? If we must decide to treat it one way or the other but have no conclusive means to make the decision, what can we do? Here the biblical principle of humility can be helpful. The issue is simple. Would it be better to treat a possible custom as a principle and be guilty of being overscrupulous in our design to obey God? Or would it be better to treat a possible principle as a custom and be guilty of being unscrupulous in demoting a transcendent requirement of God to the level of a mere human convention? I hope the answer is obvious.” R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 110

William Greenhill

“They (the angels) reverence the greatness and majesty of Christ. Though they be high and glorious, yet they see so vast a distance between Christ and themselves, that they cover their faces, Isa. vi. And their bodies, here; they come not into his presence rudely, but with great respect and reverence. As God is to be had in reverence of all that are about him, Psalm 89:7, so Christ is reverenced of all the angels that are about him. Women are to be veiled in the assemblies, because of the angels, 1 Cor. 11:10, to show their reverence and subjection to them being present; and angels are covered, to show their reverence and subjection to Christ. It is an honour to the angels, that in reverence to them the women are to be veiled; and it is a great honour to Christ, that angels reverence and adore him.” Commentary on Ezekiel (Ch. 1:23), by William Greenhill, member of the Westminster Assembly.

Matthew Henry

“It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.” – Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1706

K.P. Yohannan

“Paul’s admonition for women to wear a head covering ‘because of the angels’ removes any doubt that this teaching is universal and timeless.” 

John Lightfoot

Therefore the Apostle requires the vailing of women in Religious worship, by the same notion and reason, as men veiled themselves, namely for reverence towards God. But certainly it may be required, whether he so much urgeth the vailing of women, as reproves the vailing of men. However, by this most fit argument, he well chastiseth the contrary custom, and foolishness of the men: as though he had said, do ye not consider, that the man is doxa theou the glory of God, but the woman is only doxa andros, the glory of the man; that the woman was made for man; that man is the head of the woman: and how ridiculous is it, that men should use a vail, when they pray, out of reverence and shame before God, and women not use it, whose glory is less?~ Commentary on First Corinthians (ch. 11:5), by John Lightfoot, member of the Westminster Assembly.

John Wesley

“Therefore if a woman is not covered — If she will throw off the badge of subjection, let her appear with her hair cut like a man’s. But if it be shameful far a woman to appear thus in public, especially in a religious assembly, let her, for the same reason, keep on her veil.” – John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible

“For a man indeed ought not to veil his head because he is the image and glory of God in the dominion he bears over the creation, representing the supreme dominion of God, which is his glory. But the woman is a matter of glory to the man, who has a becoming dominion over her. Therefore she ought not to appear except with her head veiled as a tacit acknowledgement of it.” – John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes, 1 Corinthians 11:7

Bartel Elshout

There are a number of Reformed denominations in North America and the Netherlands who now endorse women in church offices. The disturbing fact is that it appears that in some cases the pathway toward this unscriptural position began with the rejection of the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 regarding the divinely mandated use of the woman’s head-covering in public worship. Once the symbol of the head-covering was rejected (along with all of its theological implications), a first step was taken that could ultimately lead toward teaching that women should also be permitted to hold positions of authority in the church as office-bearers.

Paul reinforces this argument in verse 7 when he emphasizes that the man’s head may not be covered since he is ‘the image and glory of God’; that is, he is the divinely appointed representative and bearer of authority in the church. Since the woman is the glory of the man, that glory must be veiled, so that only God’s glory be visible in His house. Since that glory is symbolized by her long hair (v15), this glory must be veiled or covered in public worship. In public worship only God’s glory (reflected in the man) must be visible, and man’s glory (reflected in the woman) must be veiled. 

The wearing of the female head-covering in public worship visibly reinforces God’s authority structure in the community of the church – a community that recognizes and submits to divine authority. Paul teaches us here that there is a divine hierarchy that must be observed. That hierarchy is as follows: God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the man, and the man is the head of the woman. Or to put it this way, the divine order is God, Christ, the man, and then the woman. Paul tells us in verses 3 & 4 that if a man engages in public worship with his physical head covered (his hair is not the issue), he dishonours his spiritual head, Christ. In a sinful way he would be challenging God’s established hierarchy. 

Paul is emphasizing that the woman’s position in God’s order of things, also in the church, is rooted in the order in which God created the man and the woman – and in His purpose in creating them in this order. God created the woman to be the man’s helpmeet (ie, a help suitable for him) and his ‘completer’. Therefore to allow women to have a position of equality in public worship is contrary to God’s creation ordinance. This challenge to God’s order cannot be permitted in the public activity of the church, for it defies God’s revealed will. Also in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 Paul uses the creation argument to establish this position when he writes, ‘Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression’. 

Augustine

“It is not becoming even in married women to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands women to keep their heads covered.” ~Augustine, Letter CCXL

Thomas Manton

“In the assembly you meet with angels and devils; angels observe your garb and carriage and devils tempt you. Therefore, be covered because of the angels. The practice of women (who come hither with a shameless impudence into the presence of God, men and angels) neither suits with modesty nor conveniency…(Such boldness) feeds your own pride, and provokes …others of your rank to imitate your vanity. Now we should rather please God than men; better never please men than offend God” Sermons on Titus 2:11-14, Complete Works, vol. 16, p. 138 of Thomas Manton

Christopher Love

“Eighth, the angels are present with us, beholding us in our church assemblies when we come to worship before God. When you are in the worship and service of God, the angels are with you, beholding you, though you see them not. This is hinted at in 1 Cor. 11:10 ‘For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels.” Some refer these words to ministers, who are elsewhere called angels, but we may understand it of the angels themselves because they delight in the things of the gospel. Here the apostle speaks of women not coming into church without covering. Why? Because of the angels, not the ministers. It is meant of the angels of heaven, and therein the women are to take heed how they come into the church, because the angels are spectators and behold how you behave yourselves, they being fellow-worshippers of God with you in church assemblies. And this should make you take heed of your carriage; for although they do not know your hearts, yet they behold your carriage as you come into the presence of God.” A Treatise of the Angels by Christopher Love.

John Bunyan

“For this cause ought the woman to have power”, that is a covering, “on her head, because of the angels” 1 Corinthians 11:10…Methinks, holy and beloved sisters, you should be content to wear this power or badge…”~ John Bunyan (1628-1688)

John Cotton

“How is the public worship of God to be ordered and administered in the church? All the members of the church being met together as one man (i) in the sight of God (ii) are to join together in holy duties with one accord (iii) the men with their heads uncovered, the women covered.”~John Cotton (1585-1652)

William Tyndale

I answer, that Paul taught by mouth such things as he wrote in his epistles. And his traditions were the gospel of Christ, and honest manners and living, and such a good order as becometh the doctrine of Christ: as that a woman obey her husband, have her head covered, keep silence, and go womanly and christianly apparelled; that children and servants be in subjection: and that the young obey their elders; that no man eat but he that laboureth and worketh; and that men make an earnest thing of God’s word and of his holy sacraments; and to watch, fast, and pray, and such like as the scripture commandeth: which things he that would break were no christian man.

Ezekiel Hopkins

“The apostle tells us (1 Corinthians 11:10) that the woman was ‘to have power on her head, because of the angels’. Which place, especially the latter clause of it, is diversely interpreted. But I think all agree in this, that this power which they were to have on their heads was a vail or covering, which at other times, but most especially in the congregation, women ought to wear on their heads…But the men were uncovered in their assemblies, as the apostle tells us (v. 4) to signify that they had nothing over them, but were superior to all visible creatures, and subject only to God.”~ Ezekiel Hopkins (1633-1690)

John Angel James

“If the veil were thrown aside, they might as well cut off their flowing hair, one of the woman’s distinctions from the man, the ornament, as well as the peculiarity of the sex. Constantly and completely Christianity is the parent of order, and the enemy of indecorum of every kind. Why were not the women to lay aside their veils? Because it would be forgetting their subordination and dependence, and assuming an equal rank with man. This is the gist of the apostle’s reason. It was not merely indecorous, and contrary to modesty, but it was ambitious, and violating the order of heaven.” 

Charles Spurgeon

“Do you think you and I have sufficiently considered that we are always looked upon by angels, and that they desire to learn by us the wisdom of God? The reason why our sisters appear in the House of God with their heads covered is ‘because of the angels’. The apostle says that a woman is to have a covering upon her head, because of the angels, since the angels are present in the assembly and they mark every act of indecorum, and therefore everything is to be conducted with decency and order in the presence of the angelic spirits.” 

Robert L. Dabney

“Thus he who stands up in public as the herald and representative of heaven’s King must stand with uncovered head; the honour of the Sovereign for whom he speaks demands this. But no woman can present herself in public with uncovered head without sinning against nature and her sex. Hence no woman can be a public herald of Christ.”

Benjamin Keach

“The thing signified is sometimes put for the sign materially… 1Cor.11:10, ‘A woman ought to have power on her head,’ that is a garment signifying that she was under the power of her husband.” 

Andrew R. Fausset

“1 Corinthians 11:10-power on her head–the kerchief: French couvre chef, head-covering, the emblem of “power on her head”; the sign of her being under man’s power, and exercising delegated authority under him. …As woman’s hair is given by nature as her covering (v.15), to cut it off like a man would be palpably indecorous, therefore, to put away the head-covering like a man would be similarly indecorous. It is natural to her to have long hair for her covering, to show that she does of her own will that which nature teaches she ought to do, in token of her subjection to man.” ~ Andrew R. Fausset (1821-1910), the English one of the three collaborators of the familiar Commentary of Jamieson, Fausset & Brown 

Arthur W. Pink (A.W. Pink) 

“Because the woman has not been given rule and headship her head must be covered, and covered with a double covering: first, the long hair that God has given her by nature, so that even when she is outside the church that covering shall indicate that she is not her own head, but that she is under the dominion of the head of her household: secondly, that when she comes into the house of God there must be the additional cover of the hat because she is also in subjection to her spiritual brethren to whom God has appointed rule.”

What is so solemn in that sixth verse is the word “also.” I want you to notice that the Holy Spirit has there linked two things together. “If the woman be not covered let her also be shorn.”―In other words, God requires a double covering. He has given the woman the long hair to cover her head naturally, so that her head is covered when she is outside the church, to show that she is not her own ruler, her own head, but in subjection to the head of her household; but when she enters the house of God, another covering is required, to show that she is also in subjection to her spiritual head—those who have the rule in the house of God. 

As far as my personal opinion is concerned, I have no hesitation in saying that in many things the woman is the superior of the man: in the finer sensibilities, in the nobler qualities that go to make up character, in patience and powers of endurance, in gentleness, in tenderness, in unselfishness, in ministering to the suffering, in love, the woman is the superior to man. But that is not what is under discussion here. What is under discussion here is the position that God has given unto each and how that position must be owned and acknowledged by the symbol that God has appointed—Because God has placed woman in the position of subordination her head must be covered. 

“Now God has appointed that because man is the head, because headship or dominion or rule has been delegated by God into the hands of man, God has ordained that that shall be symbolically shown forth when he enters the house of God. His head shall be uncovered; his head shall be revealed; his head shall be manifest because God has given to him the headship. But because God has not given headship to the woman, because he has placed her in subjection to man, therefore that must be symbolically shown forth by her having head covered, her head concealed, showing that she is not her own head, and her own ruler.” – A.W. Pink’s Studies in the Scriptures, 1926-27, volume 3, 257-263

James Durham

“It (the veil) hath a threefold use, 1) For decoration, as in Isaiah 3:23. 2) For a sign of modesty, pleaded for by the Apostle, 1Cor.11:6. 3) And mainly a sign of women’s subjection to their own husbands…” (Song of Solomon Commentary). 

Charles Ryrie

“Women should be veiled or covered in the meeting of the church, and the men should not. Paul’s reasons were based on theology (headship v.3), the order of creation (v.7-9), and the presence of angels in the meeting (v.10). None of these reasons was based on contemporary social custom.” – Charles Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible (1976), p. 303

S. Lewis Johnson

“In the final analysis, the hat, or veil, is not the important thing, but the subordination for which it stands. The presence of both is the ideal.” ~S. Lewis Johnson, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1248

Bruce Waltke

“This writer concludes, then, that a woman who prays or prophesies in an assembly of believers should cover her head as a symbol of her submission to the absolute will of God who has ordered His universe according to His own good pleasure… Thus the face with which God chose to reveal Himself to the world is one that the world desperately needs to see, namely, a man who displays the image and glory of God through Christ, and a woman who, despite her ontological equality with the man, submits to him. In the historical process of administering His church, however, God has been pleased with the completion of the canon of Scripture to withdraw the gift of prophecy. In the practice of the churches today the apostolic teaching has relevance directly only to prayer. In this writer’s judgment, however, it would be well for Christian women to wear head coverings at church meetings as a symbol of an abiding theological truth.” – Bruce Waltke, “1 Corinthians 1:2-16: An Interpretation”, Bibliotheca Sacra, 1978

John Murray

The covering is not simply her long hair. This supposition would make nonsense of verse 6; for the thought there is, that if she does not have a covering she might as well be shorn or shaven, a supposition without any force whatever if the hair covering is deemed sufficient. 

“Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (vss. 3b, vss. 7ff.), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance.”

John Calvin

“So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature. Further, we know that the world takes everything to its own advantage. So, if one has liberty in lesser things, why not do the same with this the same way as with that? And in making such comparisons they will make such a mess that there will be utter chaos. So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, `Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?’ And then after that one will plead for something else; `Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also bare this and bare that?’ Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard” 

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

But thus, you see, we argue with Scripture. Instead of taking its plain teaching, we say that times have changed—when it suits our thesis we say it is no longer relevant…The apostle tells them that that’s quite wrong; it’s not only wrong because a woman should have her head covered to show that she is under the authority of the man, but in addition to that he says that she should be covered because of the presence of the angels. 

Brian Schwertley

“Head coverings represent what God teaches about marriage. Therefore, we should not mock or hate this biblical practice, but embrace it wholeheartedly… Culture at the present time in America is becoming increasingly pagan, hedonistic and anti-Christian. Any biblical practice that sets God’s people apart from our culture and sets an example for it ought to be embraced by believers. We certainly do not act as a salt and light to our heathen culture when we reject biblical imperatives relating to covenant headship and instead imitate the world.”~Head Coverings in Public Worship by Brian Schwertley

David Silversides

“The head covering requirement is based on the order of creation. It has been argued that this means that the principle of male headship is permanent, but the particular application of it (i.e. head covering) was cultural. There is no evidence in the passage for this. Indeed, the evidence is in the opposite direction.”

Mary A. Kassian

“Paul taught all the churches this custom (head covering) and he expected them to follow it. In this final statement he cuts off all further argument by appealing to universal Christian usage.” 

Assaults on the practice of head covering

Feminists

As the women’s movement gained momentum, there was a noticeable decline in the practice of wearing head coverings among women. Influenced by feminist ideologies, many women began to view head coverings as symbols of oppression and outdated traditions. In this shift, echoes of the biblical narrative of Eve's rebellion and Adam's capitulation seemed to reverberate, as women rebelled against perceived patriarchal norms and men, lacking a solid grounding in Scripture, yielded to these societal pressures.

The decline in the practice of head covering reflected a broader trend of diminishing emphasis on Scriptural truths and doctrines. With the rise of feminism and the questioning of traditional gender roles, the theological significance behind head coverings was often overlooked or neglected. This created an opening for critics of Scriptural truths to challenge and undermine these practices.

Church leaders, many of whom lacked a comprehensive understanding of the biblical basis for head coverings, found themselves ill-equipped to address the challenges posed by feminists. Some leaders lacked the spiritual courage to defend traditional practices, while others were indifferent or even eager to modernize church customs.

Consequently, head covering gradually faded into obscurity within many Christian communities, relegated to the annals of church history. Those who continued to practice head covering were often viewed as belonging to conservative groups like the Amish or Mennonites, or as relics of a bygone era.

In an era marked by advocacy for equality, women’s rights, and feminist ideals, support for women who chose to wear head coverings as an expression of obedience to their faith dwindled significantly. The Christlike commitment of these women to uphold traditional practices in accordance with their religious beliefs was increasingly marginalized and misunderstood amidst the changing cultural landscape.

Modern ignorant Preachers

In the realm of contemporary Christianity, a dire and despicable trend has taken root: the rise of profit-driven pastors who, in their misguided pursuit of wealth, dare to distort and dilute the sacred teachings of the faith. These individuals, blinded by greed and arrogance, have shamelessly abandoned the foundational principles of genuine spiritual enlightenment, opting instead to peddle their own twisted interpretations of scripture for personal gain.

At the forefront of their reprehensible agenda lies a flagrant disregard for the deeply cherished customs and traditions of the Christian community. Among their egregious offenses is the audacious teaching that women need not wear headscarves during worship—a blatant rejection of a practice upheld by countless faithful adherents across denominations. Such defiance of established norms not only betrays a profound disrespect for the sanctity of tradition but also serves as a brazen assault on the collective identity and unity of the Christian body.

Moreover, these deceitful purveyors of false doctrine actively engage in the deliberate manipulation and deception of their flock. By propagating their pernicious teachings, they lead believers astray, luring them into a treacherous abyss of spiritual confusion and moral ambiguity. Their actions constitute nothing short of a betrayal of trust—a betrayal of the sacred bond between shepherd and flock, built upon the solemn promise of guidance and enlightenment.

What is perhaps most reprehensible about these charlatans is their shameless exploitation of the faithful in pursuit of personal gain. Under the guise of spiritual leadership, they shamelessly pander to the basest instincts of human greed, employing slick marketing tactics and corporate-style strategies to amass wealth and build empires in the name of religion. In their insatiable quest for riches, they have forsaken the humble example set forth by Jesus Christ, instead embracing a path of material excess and moral bankruptcy.

In the face of such blatant hypocrisy and corruption, it falls upon the righteous and faithful to rise up and condemn these money-grubbing impostors for what they truly are: wolves in sheep's clothing, preying upon the vulnerable and exploiting the sacred trust placed in them. Let us not be swayed by their deceitful promises or beguiling rhetoric, but instead stand firm in defence of the true principles of our faith—principles rooted in humility, compassion, and unwavering devotion to the Word of God. Anything less would be a betrayal of our sacred heritage and a surrender to the forces of darkness that seek to undermine the very foundation of our faith.

Is it a Pentecostal’s Rule?

As the 20th century unfolded, Western society underwent rapid and profound transformations, marked by groundbreaking technological advancements, cultural shifts, and artistic revolutions. From the advent of powered flight to the proliferation of automobiles, from revolutionary scientific breakthroughs to the emergence of modern art movements in bustling urban centers like Paris, the dawn of the 20th century ushered in an era of unprecedented change and uncertainty (Sayre, 2015).

Amidst these societal shifts, the realm of fashion, particularly women's attire, underwent significant evolution. The upheavals of World War I brought about changes in clothing styles, with skirts notably becoming shorter, reflecting the changing roles and freedoms of women in society. Concurrently, the necessity of head coverings outside of religious contexts diminished, and hats emerged as a fashionable accessory, emblematic of the shifting cultural landscape, from the 1920s through the 1960s.

In a religious context, the Catholic Church introduced a historic requirement for head coverings for Catholic women in its 1917 Code of Canon Law, marking a significant departure from previous practices. However, with the introduction of the ordinary form of the Catholic Mass during the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s, there was a noticeable decline in the practice of women wearing head coverings, a trend that soon extended to Protestant churches as well.

Despite this shift, it wasn't until the revision of Canon Law in 1983 that the Catholic Church officially abolished the requirement for head coverings, reflecting broader changes within the Church and society. However, in recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in head covering among Catholics, particularly among the post-Vatican II generation. This revival is seen as a symbolic act of reverence and humility, with women veiling their dignity as a testament to their faith and devotion.

Within both the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, all protestant churches and Pentecostals various forms of head coverings continue to be worn by women to this day, ranging from traditional mantillas, which are sheer lace veils, to scarves, hoods, hats, and even handkerchiefs. These coverings serve not only as expressions of religious observance but also as symbols of piety, modesty, and respect for tradition.

Pauls teaching on head covering

The marital bond ought to mirror the divine relationship between God and Christ, emphasizing authority and submission (1 Corinthians 11:3).

In the cultural context, a wife's failure to cover her head is considered shameful (1 Corinthians 11:5b-6).

The act of a man covering his head in lieu of his wife contradicts the intended design of God, who created men and women distinctly (1 Corinthians 11:7-9).

Neglecting proper decorum in this matter is seen unfavourably by celestial beings or messengers (1 Corinthians 11:10).

Furthermore, it is culturally inappropriate with out head scarf during worship in the church. (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)

Conclusion

In conclusion, the practice of wearing head coverings in Christian worship holds deep significance, rooted in the teachings of Scripture and endorsed by the apostle Paul himself. As we have seen from the insights of renowned theologians, pastors, and biblical scholars throughout history, the wearing of head coverings by women in church assemblies is not merely a cultural custom, but a timeless symbol of reverence, submission, and divine order.

From R.C. Sproul to John Wesley, from Augustine to John Bunyan, the consensus among these esteemed figures of Christian faith underscores the importance of upholding this tradition. It is not a matter of personal preference or cultural trend but a solemn acknowledgment of God's ordained hierarchy and the role of women in His divine plan.

In a world where cultural norms and societal pressures often seek to undermine biblical truths, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to honoring God's Word above all else. Let us not be swayed by the false teachings and fleeting fashions of this world, but instead, let us cling to the timeless truths passed down to us by the apostles and the faithful leaders of the early Church.

Therefore, I appeal to you, dear readers, to heed the wisdom of Scripture and the teachings of our Christian forebears. Let us not forsake the sacred tradition of wearing head coverings in worship, but rather embrace it as a symbol of our devotion to God and our submission to His divine authority. May we stand firm in our faith, unyielding in the face of opposition, and committed to upholding the customs of the early Church for the glory of God and the edification of His people.

May God bless you.