Head Covering in Modern Times

Status
Not open for further replies.
Poimen said:
I have written a few articles on this subject.

This one exegetes 1 Corinthians 11 but from a different perspective: should men not cover their heads in public worship? https://kingandkirk.com/2019/10/20/...-god-unveiled-in-the-assembly-of-gods-people/
Click to expand...
"In such a context I felt comfortable wearing my hat, even though the conference was taking place in the church’s sanctuary. However I was reprimanded by an older man who thought this to be inappropriate. I respectfully disagreed with his reasoning but did not don my hat again, lest I cause my brother offence."

I don't think he was wrong necessarily--depending on how he was framing the issue. Traditionally, and in many cultures around the world, wearing a hat indoors is disrespectful. That's true whether you're in a church or a school or your cousin Agatha's house. Again, I feel like we've kind of lost this because we're no longer a hat-wearing culture, but the older generation often still preserves some sense of this.
 
Chris M said:
I found this report very helpful - https://www.reformedpresbytery.org/wp-content/uploads/Headcoverings-RPNA.pdf especially the historical section which found that head coverings was not the absolute norm in reformed churches until the mid 20th century as is often claimed
Click to expand...
This is interesting - did I read your sentence correctly? Contrary to what is often claimed (head coverings were the norm until the 20th century) - the historical section shows that head coverings were never the absolute norm in Reformed churches?
 
Logan said:
The linked thread I posted at the beginning covers that as well. I think it would be helpful if we recognized that the history is more nuanced than that and move beyond "the church universally practiced and no one thought this was cultural until feminism" because that's simply not true. Yet it's repeated multiple times in every conversation.

For example, out of two dozen Puritan and Reformed (1500s/1600s) commentaries I looked at, not a single one said that a man praying with his head uncovered was required except by custom. So are you certain they are saying the opposite of the women? Why? What was their historical and cultural context? Go back and read the sources. It might surprise you that the "custom" position may have been the almost universal position, although that is masked by the custom of the times matching for women (and sometimes for men).

The cultural argument (at least the Reformed one) does not dismiss the passage at all, it applies the principle more broadly than just restricting it to a female covering during corporate worship.

I've listened to Rom's and Todd's sermons and read Silversides' articles, I'd encourage others to read Fentiman's paper linked above to round out your understanding of the history.
Click to expand...

Hello Logan, Three thoughts/questions based on what you've said here, if you would be so kind to answer at your earliest convenience:

1) Thank you for showing me that there has been historical debate on the doctrine and practice in the Puritan and Reformed churches - that not all Reformed churches practiced head covering and uncovering until feminism. I'm going to read the links you posted as I study further.
2) Paul appealed to creation order, male headship, the natural covering, and the angels - all four of which are timeless not cultural - you mentioned applying the principle today - I'm curious if you could also link solid sources on applying the principle for men (uncovering) and women (covering).
3) To add to the previous question, any thoughts or links on Paul speaking of male headship and having power or authority on her head and the practice being a veil that literally covered the head - as a reason that we should keep the veil as the symbol for that reason?

To be clear, I'm researching BOTH sides of the historical debate/research from the Puritan and Reformed perspectives. I've heard all of the other points shared in this thread over the past seven years and have researched those as well, so now I'm coming into some new questions, in part inspired by things you've shared here. Thank you for your time! I appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
GospelAdorned said:
I would like to ask if you would share Puritan and Reformed links on the practice of men and women uncovering and covering in 1 Corinthians 11. I have been researching the subject for quite a few years (since God saved me as an adult who grew up in pagan culture). I am gathering studies and commentaries on the subject, for myself and to help others study it for themselves. I would love any content new and old (the only modern Reformed well-known preachers I know who spoke extensively on head covering are RC Sproul and Alexander Strauch). Thank you for your help!
Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 - The Wearing of Head-Coverings by Women during Public Church Worship Services | Christian Library

www.christianstudylibrary.org www.christianstudylibrary.org
 
Something a little humorous. From the Primer of Politeness, 1883:

An American lady, recently, in London, went to church in a hat, not knowing the English prejudice concerning that article being worn in the sanctuary. All her friends looked at her gravely, and spoke coldly. She could not imagine what was the matter, and asked her husband if there was anything wrong about her head. He scrutinized her, and told her no; but still she could see that it was the object of attention, and that many looked at her askance. Glad when church was out, and not satisfied that something was not out of place or awry, she stopped in at a friend's who had lived lately in London and told her of her embarrassment.

"Why," said her friend, "it is that hat."

"The hat! What is the matter with the hat?" said the young wife, taking it off her head. "My bonnet did not come from Paris, and the hat is a real beauty."

"So it is," was the reply; "but it is a highly improper head-covering to be worn in church, -- an abomination to English women. Your wearing it was a serious misdemeanor, the veriest miss is not allowed to wear a hat to service. Seeing that your hat was wrong, people supposed something was wrong with you. You can wear a hat almost anywhere else, but if you want to go to church in England and be thought respectable, you must put on a bonnet."
 
MW said:
Something a little humorous. From the Primer of Politeness, 1883:

An American lady, recently, in London, went to church in a hat, not knowing the English prejudice concerning that article being worn in the sanctuary. All her friends looked at her gravely, and spoke coldly. She could not imagine what was the matter, and asked her husband if there was anything wrong about her head. He scrutinized her, and told her no; but still she could see that it was the object of attention, and that many looked at her askance. Glad when church was out, and not satisfied that something was not out of place or awry, she stopped in at a friend's who had lived lately in London and told her of her embarrassment.

"Why," said her friend, "it is that hat."

"The hat! What is the matter with the hat?" said the young wife, taking it off her head. "My bonnet did not come from Paris, and the hat is a real beauty."

"So it is," was the reply; "but it is a highly improper head-covering to be worn in church, -- an abomination to English women. Your wearing it was a serious misdemeanor, the veriest miss is not allowed to wear a hat to service. Seeing that your hat was wrong, people supposed something was wrong with you. You can wear a hat almost anywhere else, but if you want to go to church in England and be thought respectable, you must put on a bonnet."
Click to expand...
I remember my mother (this would be in the 1960's) distinguishing between "conviction" hats and "fashion" hats...
 
So interesting from you both! I prefer to wear a modest hat to cover my head, while the majority of women in my denomination wear a scarf. Hats are just simpler for me! I do notice that the women in Scotland appear to mostly wear hats; not sure about England, Ireland, etc.
 
iainduguid said:
I remember my mother (this would be in the 1960's) distinguishing between "conviction" hats and "fashion" hats...
Click to expand...
I saw a book of church cartoons (something akin to political cartoons but poking fun at how silly some church drama can be) with one showing a family trying to see beyond some gigantic, gaudy hat a woman in front of them was wearing.

I was talking to my wife about this very issue (showy hats and attire), and I said that the braided hair passages (drawing undue attention to oneself) very much spoke against that kind of head covering.
 
Jeri Tanner said:
So interesting from you both! I prefer to wear a modest hat to cover my head, while the majority of women in my denomination wear a scarf. Hats are just simpler for me! I do notice that the women in Scotland appear to mostly wear hats; not sure about England, Ireland, etc.
Click to expand...
The béret is also quite popular in Scotland for women.
 
I favor the wearing of head coverings. But I have to confess that I can’t make heads or tales out of the passage of scripture. I have no idea what it means when it says for the sake of the angels. It seems to me that when the scripture isn’t clear, we shouldn’t bind the consciences of others. It seems to me that in this case, it would be a much greater sin to cause disunity in the body of Christ than to argue for either position.
 
The other day I was at a church service where the only headcovering women was a non-Christian visitor.
I truly wonder what the angels thought. I also wonder what effect it may have had on her, and generally how these kinds of errors effect visitors from religions other then modern liberal atheism. (In general, I am truly saddened by just how much in that service seemed like a taylor-fitted stumbling block to the religion that women seems to have come from).
 
Sorry for the long read, but I promise it’s worth it :pilgrim:

I was tossed back and forth, with one person saying this and another saying that about head coverings. I struggled with the issue, especially because I was one of the few who wore a head covering in my Baptist church. This situation prompted me to conduct extensive research on the topic. I discovered that the use of head coverings varies significantly. In the Netherlands, it was surprising to find that as churches became less confessional (minder bevindelijk gereformeerd), the practice of wearing head coverings diminished. Some women, who came from a strict church background, exhibit the opposite behavior; they abandon wearing head coverings altogether. I was surprised to learn that Bible-believing churches in other countries also said no to head coverings. And also saying "no"to long hair for the woman. This led me to a deeper examination to understand the intentions behind the apostolic teachings.

I feel like a beginner in this, but...I’ve come to realize that praying and prophesying during assemblies hold greater significance than previously thought. Ephesians 5:18-21 emphasizes that our gatherings should be led by the Spirit and include mutual encouragement through 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.' Similarly, 1 Thessalonians 5:11 advises, 'Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.'

The Greek text uses 'λαλοῦντες' (lalountes), meaning 'speaking,' followed by 'ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες' (adontes kai psallontes), meaning 'singing and making melody.' This indicates that both speaking and singing play a role in the shared communication among believers. Who knows, maybe someone with more knowledge of Greek can say more about it.

Assemblies in Paul's time were quite different from contemporary practices. They involved communal meals, mutual encouragement, and were not solely centered around preaching. What we experience today often seems like a diminished version of those early gatherings. When I attended another small Baptist church that lasted for hours and was actively organized by church leaders, I wondered if this resembled the assemblies of the early church more closely. The service was conducted in a friendly but well-organized manner, with no (sacred) chaos. The leaders made sure to clearly explain the order of the service to those who were attending for the first time.

People encouraged one another in various ways: someone read a poem, another led a song, and others offered different forms of encouragement. Married women, including myself, wore head coverings, which aligned with the participatory nature of the service. Although not many women prayed aloud, a few young girls did so in Russian, ( ah... now I understand the need for translation, similar to the considerations for speaking in tongues). The encouragement was an integral part of the service before the preaching began, and the service concluded with a communal meal. The entire service lasted from 2 to 6 PM.

In conclusion, I am still reflecting on the practice of head coverings. Women are permitted to encourage, pray aloud during communal prayers, but should do so with their heads covered, as Paul instructed in his letter to the Corinthians.

I am curious to learn how other Baptist churches around the world and also Presbyterian churches approach this practice.
 
Last edited:
RC Sproul in his sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:

My problem with that is this: If the Apostle gives an injunction and doesn’t give a reason for it, it’s certainly fair game to speculate to some degree, looking at the contemporary culture and saying, “Maybe the reason the Apostle gives this injunction is because of this problem in the contemporary culture.” However, Paul gives a reason. And if there’s anything that’s transcultural, it’s that which is rooted and grounded in creation—and the reason he gives for this is rooted and grounded in creation.

So, I think it’s a mistake to just dismiss this as a contemporary custom that is not applicable today. Now, I’m in a minority in that point. I give the minority report there.
 
Aretha said:
Sorry for the long read, but I promise it’s worth it :pilgrim:

I was tossed back and forth, with one person saying this and another saying that about head coverings. I struggled with the issue, especially because I was one of the few who wore a head covering in my Baptist church. This situation prompted me to conduct extensive research on the topic. I discovered that the use of head coverings varies significantly. In the Netherlands, it was surprising to find that as churches became less confessional (minder bevindelijk gereformeerd), the practice of wearing head coverings diminished. Some women, who came from a strict church background, exhibit the opposite behavior; they abandon wearing head coverings altogether. I was surprised to learn that Bible-believing churches in other countries also said no to head coverings. And also saying "no"to long hair for the woman. This led me to a deeper examination to understand the intentions behind the apostolic teachings.

I feel like a beginner in this, but...I’ve come to realize that praying and prophesying during assemblies hold greater significance than previously thought. Ephesians 5:18-21 emphasizes that our gatherings should be led by the Spirit and include mutual encouragement through 'psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.' Similarly, 1 Thessalonians 5:11 advises, 'Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.'

The Greek text uses 'λαλοῦντες' (lalountes), meaning 'speaking,' followed by 'ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες' (adontes kai psallontes), meaning 'singing and making melody.' This indicates that both speaking and singing play a role in the shared communication among believers. Who knows, maybe someone with more knowledge of Greek can say more about it.

Assemblies in Paul's time were quite different from contemporary practices. They involved communal meals, mutual encouragement, and were not solely centered around preaching. What we experience today often seems like a diminished version of those early gatherings. When I attended another small Baptist church that lasted for hours and was actively organized by church leaders, I wondered if this resembled the assemblies of the early church more closely. The service was conducted in a friendly but well-organized manner, with no (sacred) chaos. The leaders made sure to clearly explain the order of the service to those who were attending for the first time.

People encouraged one another in various ways: someone read a poem, another led a song, and others offered different forms of encouragement. Married women, including myself, wore head coverings, which aligned with the participatory nature of the service. Although not many women prayed aloud, a few young girls did so in Russian, ( ah... now I understand the need for translation, similar to the considerations for speaking in tongues). The encouragement was an integral part of the service before the preaching began, and the service concluded with a communal meal. The entire service lasted from 2 to 6 PM.

In conclusion, I am still reflecting on the practice of head coverings. Women are permitted to encourage, pray aloud during communal prayers, but should do so with their heads covered, as Paul instructed in his letter to the Corinthians.

I am curious to learn how other Baptist churches around the world and also Presbyterian churches approach this practice.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply! Yes, regarding prophesying, Paul said women are silent in the context of judging prophesies (1Cor 14) and covered when praying and prophesying (1Cor 11). And church meetings are much more than just listening to a sermon! If you have any Puritan or Reformed links you'd like to share that have helped you, please do!

johnnycanuck said:
RC Sproul in his sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:

My problem with that is this: If the Apostle gives an injunction and doesn’t give a reason for it, it’s certainly fair game to speculate to some degree, looking at the contemporary culture and saying, “Maybe the reason the Apostle gives this injunction is because of this problem in the contemporary culture.” However, Paul gives a reason. And if there’s anything that’s transcultural, it’s that which is rooted and grounded in creation—and the reason he gives for this is rooted and grounded in creation.

So, I think it’s a mistake to just dismiss this as a contemporary custom that is not applicable today. Now, I’m in a minority in that point. I give the minority report there.
Click to expand...
Yes! Paul appeals to four things that are timeless and not cultural: creation, male headship, nature and the angels. RC made a good point in that Q&A - I'll link it here for others as I intended this thread to be a source for research!
 
Last edited:
I don't think it is safe to make a blanket statement about church practice in "Paul's time" as being normative when Paul was correcting errors in his time. There is developing revelation in the New Testament letters, including how to observe the Lord's supper, what to do with spiritual gifts, etc. It is clear from the New Testament that women were not to speak in the churches. That is a blanket rule which comes from the law of God.

With this in mind it appears straightforward to me that Paul is not giving women permission to speak in the church in chapter 11, but is bringing an argument why they should not speak. It would require them to take their covering off, and that would be a shame for them. Because they are to be covered, and the covering is a sign of subjection, it is obvious that they should not be speaking in the church.
 
MW said:
I don't think it is safe to make a blanket statement about church practice in "Paul's time" as being normative when Paul was correcting errors in his time. There is developing revelation in the New Testament letters, including how to observe the Lord's supper, what to do with spiritual gifts, etc. It is clear from the New Testament that women were not to speak in the churches. That is a blanket rule which comes from the law of God.

With this in mind it appears straightforward to me that Paul is not giving women permission to speak in the church in chapter 11, but is bringing an argument why they should not speak. It would require them to take their covering off, and that would be a shame for them. Because they are to be covered, and the covering is a sign of subjection, it is obvious that they should not be speaking in the church.
Click to expand...
Can you share sources to your opinions here regarding head covering? I'm confused by what you mean when you say women don't speak on the Lord’s Day. We know from Scripture they do not hold any church offices of leadership (Eph 4:11) and they do not judge prophecies (1Cor 14).
 
Last edited:
GospelAdorned said:
Can you share sources to your opinions here regarding head covering? Of course women speak on the Lord’s Day. We know from Scripture they do not hold any church offices of leadership (Eph 4:11) and they do not judge prophecies (1Cor 14).
Click to expand...

Noel Weeks, “Of Silence and Head Covering:” https://www.galaxie.com/article/wtj35-1-03

John Murray's letter: https://www.the-highway.com/headcovering_Murray.html

Sherman Isbell, Headship and Worship: Notes on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16: https://www.westminsterconfession.o...ip-and-worship-notes-on-1-corinthians-112-16/
 
When our Session explored this topic years ago and ended up requiring the practice by the wives and daughters of our church's officers only (to be an example to the congregation but never required beyond officers' families though most ladies then and more recently now worshipping with us have followed the example of their own accord without ever discussing it with us), these are the resources we worked with and shared with our congregation before and following our decision:
Many other resources besides the above of articles, sermons, and websites devoted to the topic can be found under the subheading, "Gender Relations," scrolling down to where the links in that section begin to be by "Femina Sola Gratia" at our church's website page (practice: duties required) here: https://puritanchurch.com/about/doctrine-and-practice/practice-what-duty-god-requires-of-us/
 
Grant Van Leuven said:
When our Session explored this topic years ago and ended up requiring the practice by the wives and daughters of our church's officers only (to be an example to the congregation but never required beyond officers' families though most ladies then and more recently now worshipping with us have followed the example of their own accord without ever discussing it with us), these are the resources we worked with and shared with our congregation before and following our decision:
Many other resources besides the above of articles, sermons, and websites devoted to the topic can be found under the subheading, "Gender Relations," scrolling down to where the links in that section begin to be by "Femina Sola Gratia" at our church's website page (practice: duties required) here: https://puritanchurch.com/about/doctrine-and-practice/practice-what-duty-god-requires-of-us/
Click to expand...
Thank you, Pastor Grant, for taking the time to share all the links and how to research more! I have not seen these before!
 
Jeri Tanner said:
Yes, I agree that the apostle has all women (and men) in view, married or not. Her last point is interesting re: women not 'using and seeking the best gift' i.e. praying and prophesying. I'm not sure exactly what she's saying- does she mean praying/prophesying aloud in public worship (and what would she mean by prophesying?)
Just to offer a thought on this- the singing of Psalms in public worship is the venue women have for offering public prayer and for participation in prophesying. And one great argument for covering our heads! That the Lord may soon restore the singing of Psalms in public worship!
Click to expand...
Jeri, I saw another post of yours on head covering from 2018 and you were asking about sources for the singing in church being considered prophesying as well. And I wanted to tell you John Gill's commentary on 1 Cor 11 mentions this, if you haven't seen it yet!
 
If anyone has sources specifically on unmarried men and women uncovering and covering in 1Cor 11, please share! Maybe it's just assumed it's for all men and women, so it's not discussed? Thank you.
 
I don't have a resource right now but will just throw it out there that it's a creation thing, a male and female thing, as opposed to just showing a wife's submission to her husband or father thing. I'll see if I can find something on that.
 
I wish I had bookmarked my sources when I was working through this issue because for many years I was convinced of the doctrine but was led to believe that it didn’t pertain to me, an unmarried woman. I think I was confused by the way wife/woman is used in some translations.
 
Susan777 said:
I wish I had bookmarked my sources when I was working through this issue because for many years I was convinced of the doctrine but was led to believe that it didn’t pertain to me, an unmarried woman. I think I was confused by the way wife/woman is used in some translations.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm dealing with now. I've studied 1Cor 11 for seven years and didn't organize my notes or save my sources so I'm going back to what I remember and gathering more that I missed, so that I have everything in one place now. Of course I'm always learning, so this time around I'm also looking for more on the unmarried vs married for men and women (and let's remember this is about both men and women so if it was not for unmarried women then it's not for unmarried men, either).

Jeri Tanner said:
I don't have a resource right now but will just throw it out there that it's a creation thing, a male and female thing, as opposed to just showing a wife's submission to her husband or father thing. I'll see if I can find something on that.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm seeing and I guess I've always assumed, but now I'm curious what has been said about it. I would love to include them in my document of research, if you find some links!
 
If I'm not mistaken, it's the chi-rho - the first two letters of Christ, in Greek, overlaid on each other.
 
My wife wears one. She wears a headband and not something completely covering because at the same time, she doesn't want to cause a stumbling block or distraction for others. I am with Dr. Sproul in that the passage appeals to creation that it's not referring to a Roman Palla, etc.

There is something about a physical act to represent a spiritual one. Obviously the sacraments, but things like praying on your knees, head coverings, etc. are physical signs of the posture of submission to God / your husband in you heart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Blood-Bought Pilgrim
  • Locked
WCF, LBCF, and Head-Covering
Replies
6
Views
944
mpinckard
M
D. Paul
  • Locked
Federal Head
Replies
8
Views
3K
BaptistCanuk
B
erickinho1bra
  • Locked
Can Satan Put Thoughts In Your Head?
2
Replies
41
Views
10K
py3ak
py3ak
T
  • Locked
Mere Head Knowledge
Replies
10
Views
3K
jwithnell
jwithnell
A
  • Locked
Head / Heart Dichotomy
2
Replies
53
Views
10K
Magma2
Magma2
Back
Top