This is the first in a five-part series on head coverings. See the index here.
I’m an Anabaptist, by both practice and ethnicity. Head coverings are (or, at least, were) an established part of Anabaptist tradition. Quite a few of my former classmates and church members wore head coverings. Today, a number of my relatives wear head coverings when in public all the time and for any reason. This includes my own mother. This practice is so unusual that she gets mistaken for a Jew (because some Jewish males wear head coverings).
Normally people adopt the religious and political beliefs of their parents and family. Yet, I had already rejected the mandatory requirement to wear head coverings way back when I was a child studying the scriptures. None of the proponents then, or since, could definitively defend the practice from scripture. Something was always off about the arguments in favor of head coverings. I’ve since written about this topic on a number of occasions.
This is not an important topic, but the Manosphere thinks it is. A lot of people in the Manosphere—who mostly didn’t grow up with head coverings—think that it would be grand if women started wearing them. So I’m writing about it.
A couple years ago I responded to Dominic Bnonn Tennant’s article on head covering in “Hair Is A Covering.” Since then, I’ve discovered that he’s continued to discuss clothing, modesty, hair, and covering.[1] It is a moderately important and prominent set of topics to him, making up at least 15-20% of his content, supporting the overall focus of his blog and podcast. Unfortunately, most of the content on hair and coverings comes from his podcasts—S1E7, S1E7.5, S1E8, and S1E9—which lack transcripts. This means that you’ll have to invest a lot of time if you want to engage with his material directly.
One of the things I found interesting is that Tennant has cited exactly the same two ancient writers that I have used: Tertullian and John Chrysostom.
- Tertullian, On the Pallium in Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers, American edition, vol. 4 (1885), 10.
- Chrysostom, Homilies, 1 Corinthians 11
How can he cite Tertullian and John Chrysostom in favor of head coverings while I cite them in opposition to head coverings? Let’s explore these ancient witnesses and see for ourselves.
John Chrysostom
John Chrysostom was a native Greek speaker from the late 4th and early 5th century. He provided some of the most complete analysis of scripture up until that point in time.
Chrysostom believed in patriarchy and wanted women to wear head coverings. But his reasons and arguments—as I’ve pointed out before—are mutually exclusive with the modern arguments. He says things that would, if you accepted his argument, that would completely invalidate reasoning of the modern head covering movement.
Here is what John Chrysostom wrote in “Homily 26 of First Corinthians” of the women in the early church:
What an astonishing admission that the Corinthian women went around without wearing veils, even when they prayed and prophesied! But perhaps more interesting is that by the dawn of the 5th century, the men no longer permitted the women to prophesy (with or without a veil). The cultural standards had changed and it impacted the female role in the church as well.
Chrysostom said something curious in “Homily 37 on First Corinthians” when discussing 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
For having said,
and
he added,
And where does the law say this?
…and…
Because the woman is in some sort a weaker being and easily carried away and light minded. Here you see why he set over them their husbands as teachers, for the benefit of both. For so he both rendered the women orderly, and the husbands he made anxious, as having to deliver to their wives very exactly what they heard.
Further, because they supposed this to be an ornament to them, I mean their speaking in public; again he brings round the discourse to the opposite point, saying,
That is, first he made this out from the law of God, then from common reason and our received custom; even when he was discoursing with the women about long hair, he said,
And everywhere you may find this to be his manner, not only from the divine Scriptures, but also from the common custom, to put them to shame.
These quotes are very, very interesting with respect to Tennant’s principle of veiling. They establish these things:
First, according to Chrysostom, Paul is not mere addressing women, he is addressing married women.[2] That’s why he quoted Genesis 3:16 regarding the Curse of Eve and a woman’s turning towards her husband (where he explicitly states that it is not about rule or subjection to authority).[3] Whatever Paul was saying about covering, he was addressing it to husbands and wives, not women in general (and he explicitly wasn’t talking about hierarchical authority).
Second, It is a simple historical observation that only married women had to veil. As Tertullian confirmed[4][6] (through his dissent), virgins, widows, and young girls were not required by the catholic—universal—church to veil. Culturally, the act of veiling showed that a woman was not available for other men to marry (i.e. have sex with).[5] No man would dare sleep with another man’s wife, lest he be murdered by her family. Thus, if a woman was veiled, she was left unmolested. But in the Church, married women were using their freedom in Christ to set aside these cultural norms and worship unveiled. Unveiling was a sexually scandalous dishonoring affront to their husbands.
(Note: Tennant debates the historicity of some of these things. We’ll address this in later parts. For now, assume that the diversity of veiling practices in Corinth led to the Trad men in the roMANophere complaining that not all wives were properly covered as commanded by God, forcing Paul to write them to tell them to stop being so contentious and divisive.)
Third, Chrysostom notes here that Paul was not talking about veiling in 1 Corinthians 11:14, he was talking about the length of a (married) woman’s hair. It should be rather obvious that the length of hair only matters if women are allowed to go around unveiled where the length of their hair is visible.
Tertullian
Tertullian is a somewhat divisive figure from the late 2nd and early 3rd century. He was associated with the heretical Montanists, though the extent to which his writings are heretical is debated. He is well-known for creating new theological concepts, a number of which are considered heretical.
Tertullian wrote two centuries before John Chrysostom. Notably, while Chrysostom was a Greek-speaking native, Tertullian spoke and wrote in Latin. He is the father of the Latin church (and its subsequent corruptions). Here, Wikipedia gives these statements illustrating this:
He argues that marriage is considered to be good “when it is compared with the greatest of all evils”.
Tertullian was the first to introduce a view of “sexual hierarchy”: he believed that those who abstain from sexual relations should have a higher hierarchy in the church than those who do not, because he saw sexual relations as a barrier that stopped one from a close relationship with God.
Tertullian had a clear hostility towards normal male/female sexuality and marriage.
This is very important, because Bnonn Tennant only cited On the Pallium which discusses Tertullian’s adoption of the Greek philosopher’s cloak (as opposed to the Roman toga). This is very curious because Tertullian wrote another document entitled On the Veiling of Virgins. Why, do you think, he might want to leave out the one that specifically and explicitly addressed the topic of veiling? Could it be because Tertullian held some… odd… beliefs?[6]
It’s an odd document. If you are brave or looking for something unintentionally funny, give it a read. Tertullian is very sexist and reads like a crazed lunatic at times. As Wikipedia notes, he clearly had an axe to grind with respect to male/female relationships. Most Christians would prefer to act as if Tertullian had never written that. But he did write it, and in the process established a few things:[4]
First, he says that widows that did not veil, a benefit of being officially listed in the Order of Widows.
Second, he states that virgin women—those who were eligible for marriage—did not veil. He conceded that the church as a whole had no single custom regarding the veiling of virgins, and that it was a common enough practice for each virgin to decide for herself whether or not to veil.
Third, he himself exempted prepubescent girls from veiling.
Fourth, Tertullian tried to convince the church that the teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 was about veiling and pertained to all women. He wrote in order to try to change the church’s policy. But as we noted with Chrysostom above, he wasn’t successful. Two centuries later, Chrysostom still understood Paul to be talking about married women and the length of their hair. Moreover, the reasoning that Tertullian used (e.g. the Nephilim) has been rejected.
The point is, Tertullian’s writings inadvertently refute the Tennant’s own position on head coverings.[7]
Summary So Far
Here are the key takeaways:
- 1 Corinthians 11 does not apply to single women or girls. It is addressed to wives, not women in general. This applies even if you don’t think head coverings were a cultural issue in Corinth.
- 1 Corinthians 11 is not about authority.[8]
- 1 Corinthians 11 is not about veiling at all, it is about hair.[9][10]
- Modern teachings that presume the universality of veiling or head covering are not based on the ancient witness of scripture or the writers of the Patristic era.[11] This is so non-universal that proponents can’t even agree on what kind of covering even qualifies as a proper covering (e.g. covering the face; covering everything but the face; a cloth on top of the head) or what contexts it must be worn (in public? in worship? only when praying and prophesying?).
In our next part, we’ll discuss some other early witnesses.
Footnotes
[1] See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
[2] See the discussion in “Paul Addressed Wives” and “Headship Is Still Not Authority:”
For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as you say, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master. For what if the wife be under subjection to us? It is as a wife, as free, as equal in honor.
[3] See the discussion in “Genesis 3:16 Revisited Again:”
Wherefore you see, [Eve] was not subjected as soon as she was made; nor, when He brought her to the man, did either she hear any such thing from God, nor did the man say any such word to her: he said indeed that she was “bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh” (Genesis 2:23) but of rule or subjection he no where made mention unto her.
…
But when she made an ill use of her privilege and she who had been made a helper was found to be an ensnarer and ruined all, then she is justly told for the future, “your turning shall be to your husband” (Genesis 3:16).
[4] See the discussion in “Hair Is A Covering” and “1 Corinthians 14:34-35:”
On prepubescent girls not veiling:
On virgins not veiling:
On virgins choosing to veil and to marry:
On widows not veiling:
[5] See the discussion by Catacomb Resident in “Hair and Veils” where he notes:
Marg Mowczko concurs:
But these same women did not usually wear veils when they were with family and close friends in a domestic setting, a setting not unlike most first-century house church meetings. Lower-class women, on the other hand, were not permitted by law to wear veils.
The veil, especially the palla, was a status symbol in ancient Rome and in Roman colonies such as Corinth, and there were laws governing who could and could not wear it. (It’s unclear how closely these laws were followed.) Furthermore, it offered respectable matrons legal protection. Western-style societies have no such custom of veiling in public and no such delineation of class, and all men and women are potentially protected by law from sexual harassment and assault.
…and again here:
In the first century, Corinth was a Roman colony and its inhabitants were bound by Roman law. Some of these laws governed what men and women wore and how they presented themselves in public. As in other parts of the Roman Empire, Corinthian society was highly stratified and class-conscious, and most of the laws concerning appearance were directly tied to a person’s social status.
For example, only a Roman matron, a respectable married or widowed woman, could wear a stola, a long dress worn over a basic tunic. And only a matron could wear a palla, a garment like a shawl that could be pulled over the head when stepping out of doors. Wearing a stola, and wearing a palla or veil, was a status symbol. These garments signified that a woman was married or widowed and that she was unavailable. Wearing the usual garb of a Roman matron offered women protection against sexual harassment, as it was illegal for a man to harass, ask for sex, or to molest a woman when she was out in public if she was dressed as a matron.
A palla or veil did not signify subordination, as some have suggested. In fact, the most subordinate women in Roman society did not wear veils. It was illegal for slaves, prostitutes, freedwomen, and women from the lowest classes to wear either a stola or a palla. In usual social contexts, they were forbidden by law from veiling their heads in public.
Notice that Paul is concerned with status. Coverings do not indicate submission to authority, they indicate an elevated or glorified social status. We saw something similar in Ephesians 5 where Paul is attempting to grant women greater honor (through her husband’s love) than what society afforded by default.
[6] See the discussion in “Hair Is A Covering” and the modified comment below:
I just finished Tertullian’s “On the Veiling of Virgins”. It is enlightening.
First, he says that widows that did not veil, a benefit of being officially listed in the Order of Widows.
Second, he states that virgins did not veil. He conceded that the church as a whole had no single custom regarding the veiling of virgins, and that each virgin was able to decide for herself.
Third, he exempts prepubescent girls from veiling.
Fourth, he thinks an eligible virgin being unveiled is worse than if she were actually raped.
Fifth, he uses the Nephilim as the biblical proof against the claim made by others in the church that Paul was only discussing wives. He thought that unveiled virgin women were a sexual temptation to angels and that all women were responsible for what their female ancestors did. He was, perhaps, the first person to make the “she shouldn’t have dressed like that” argument (and instance of blaming the victim).
[7] Tertullian—the strongest proponent of all female veiling in all of the Patristic writers—taught that once a girl hits puberty, she must veil. Ironically, Tennant rejects this on cultural grounds (because it’s considered embarrassing these days for a girl to be known to have menstruated).
[8] The concept of ‘headship’ as hierarchical leadership is a medieval anachronism.
[9] Daniel B. Wallace concedes that
He continues by saying
We do not know that Paul was talking about veils, because no veils are mentioned. Veiling is an assumption that some people, like Dominic Bnonn Tennant, place upon the text, but not everyone does so (e.g. John Chrysostom). So while Wallace is correct that hair does not necessarily qualify as a head covering, it’s not clear that this lends support to the veiling argument in any practical way. At best it means that the head covering argument isn’t explicitly refuted.
[10] The only time Paul mentions veiling in his letters is in 2 Corinthians 3:12-18, when he says that all behold the glory of the Lord with unveiled faces. Whether this veil was meant literally or figuratively, it was clearly not a necessity.
[11] In the podcast, Smokey Tennant—Dominic Bnonn Tennant’s wife—claims the following:
…he is not kidding. The practice was so consistently universal throughout church history that it even survived both the Great Schism and the Reformation unscathed. Until the 20th century, I can’t find a single conservative theologian who taught against it.
…and…
Alice Morse Earle observes “One singular thing may be noted in this history, – that with all the vagaries of fashion, woman has never violated the Biblical law that bade her cover her head. She has never gone to church services bareheaded.”
(Amusingly, he allows his woman wife to teach Christian doctrine while ensuring that she veils)
Tennant fails to note that Tertullian explicitly stated that parts of the church disagreed with him on this practice, and that even Tertullian allowed prepubescent females in his congregation to go unveiled! Tertullian’s own words show that the congregations of God had different veiling practices (which included not wearing veils at all). Since the time of Paul until today, women have been worshiping with their heads uncovered, although cultural fashions have caused the practice to wax and wane at various points. The practice was neither consistent, nor universal.
Discussing the view that Paul was discussing hair as a covering (and not veils, Dominic Bnonn Tennant says this:
This, again, is a bafflingly dumb interpretation without historical precedent.
It is not hair, but the doctrine of headship that is without historical precedent in the early church. See a detailed discussion here.
As cited above, Chrysostom did highlight that Paul was discoursing about the length of hair in this passage, and verses 4-6 are also very clearly also discussing the proper length of hair (or, more precisely, whether or not it is cut). Rather than being baffingly dumb, it’s rather obvious that this is the case, especially when it is observed that Paul does not mention veiling at all.
But it’s also a matter of logic. Married women in Corinth were, in fact, worshiping unveiled. This is why people could even see their hair at all. Rather than simply say “Put on a veil so no one can see you” he told them not to cut short or shave off their hair because it would be shameful. If he was instructing truly veiling, going on about the length of hair—and being shamed by having it cut short—makes no sense at all. The shame should be in it being visible, not in its length, if veiling was in view. But it isn’t.
Went to Temple with a Jewish friend in college. I had to sit upstairs with the women, behind smoked glass and wear a head covering. It was a fascinating thing to watch. The Torah, the order of the service. The reading of the Torah, and it was all in Hebrew.
The fellowship afterward was wonderful, the men and women were pleased that someone who was “not a Jew” (nor a practicing Christian at the time) was interested to come, see, and learn.
As for “head coverings” in Christain church. Part of it is that on a cultural level, it just went out of fashion.
Please dont tell me its a “requirement” in the Orthodox church. Its not.
I remember as a boy, on those rare occasions when our family would go to a church service (Episcopal / Anglican) in the 1970’s , only “old ladies” wore a hat.
My undergaduate was a Methodist affiliated college, and chapel on Sundays if you went, only the very old ladies from the local village who came wore a hat.
Men stopped wearing hats on a “cultural norm” in the US sometime in the early 1960’s. Sure, you had the old guys who wore them til their dying day. Yes, some subcultural movements…..a hat is a cool thing to wear (ska traditions, Rudeboy “porkpie” hats) but most men….despite the massive tries over the past few decades to bring them back……….it just has not caught on again.
I own one. its rare that I wear it, but I do bust it out here and there (Christys of London brand) short brim, felt. Warm. Looks great with a nice dark 3/4 coat and Im wearing a tie with it. I bought it in San Francisco in 1998 at “Ms Dewsons Hat Shop”
We keep saying “its a realationship matter” when it comes to Jesus. Its a “heart” thing. Its a “turning away” from sins thing.
yet…..if its something about what women *should* or *must do* well, now its suddenly a requirement to be a Christian.
Some of it is cultural, but with that said, I wish the younger guys in church would take off their ballcaps if we’re going to make “women” submit to holiness and since we’re in Gods house…..a man should remove his hat when entering.
We dont have any manners any more sadly. Culturally or otherwise
“We dont have any manners any more sadly. Culturally or otherwise”
And this is for Christians. Some of the most arrogant people are Christians who sit in a church every Sunday
“We dont have any manners any more sadly. Culturally or otherwise”
And this is for Christians. Some of the most arrogant people are Christians who sit in a church every Sunday
Most people didn’t see ALL this rudeness or bad manners until ALL the ”extreme” stuff in the 90s took over most media like talk shows(even though Morton Downey Jr. was doing this in ’87/’88-as Geraldo started copying him), wrestling(like with ECW, even though ECW-type extremeness had already been in wrestling long before ECW stood/ became extreme championship wrestling instead of eastern championship wrestling, and later on the mid-late ’90s, the WWW internet.
Also relevant:
https://www.quora.com/When-did-in-your-face-rudeness-become-normalized-in-the-USA
Teresa Sweeney
Studied Bachelor of Arts Degrees in EducationAuthor has 314 answers and 240.4K answer views4y
Related
What happened to good manners in America?
They’re out the window. I’m a teacher and I try to tell my students it’s bad manners to wear a hat at the table or in the building and they say they’ve never even heard of that. I ask them to hold doors for their friends behind them and they act like I’ve asked them to climb Mt. Everest. They seriously have never been taught manners and they don’t think it matters. I’ve been teaching many years and I can honestly say my colleagues and I have never seen children so unmannerly as the ones we have today. We never hear an ““excuse me” and rarely a “please” or ““thank yiu”. I believe it’s because they have had everything they want and they don’t know what it’s like to go without or to really need or want something. They back talk the teachers terribly and when parents come in they’re the exact same way. Many of these kids are entitled and there parents have done it to them.
I’ve been teaching many years and I can honestly say my colleagues and I have never seen children so unmannerly as the ones we have today. We never hear an ““excuse me” and rarely a “please” or ““thank yiu”. I believe it’s because they have had everything they want and they don’t know what it’s like to go without or to really need or want something. They back talk the teachers terribly and when parents come in they’re the exact same way. Many of these kids are entitled and there parents have done it to them.
Any of that sound familiar(who has gone on most sites or churches)?
If somebody were a simp for rebellious women, I’d expect them to write something like this.
That’s a nice logical fallacy you’ve got there. Since you are using high school debate tactics, I’ll illustrate the absurdity of your statement by responding with a… thinly veiled… logically fallacious personal attack as well:
I don’t think it is preferable for a woman to be raped rather than failing to wear a head covering, so I don’t agree with Tertullian’s morally bankrupt position on head covering like you do.
In all seriousness, I also don’t think much of John Chrysostom putting words into Paul’s mouth in order to justify his belief that wives should wear veils. I don’t think it is valid to change the words of scripture to develop a doctrine.
The reality is that your position is riddled with scripture passages with variant readings because of how many men wanted to subjugate women and so changed scripture to try to make it so. Your concept of a rebellious woman and simp is one of your own creation.
If you’d like to have a civil discussion, try addressing the points I raised, including why submission wasn’t why the ancients veiled. There was literally nothing for them to rebel against by not veiling, except for cultural standards.
Do you know that head covering, as practiced today, is a rebellion against cultural standards? Women who wear head coverings are the ones being rebellious. Rebellion is why the Anabaptists began their veiling practices in the late 1800s. Head coverings became like tattoos or dyed hair became a century later: a signal of counterculture rebellion that later became commonplace.
I can’t specifically address your points at this time because I really don’t have the time to even read them nor to verify your citations. But many biblical scholars have spent plenty of time doing that already. I’ll copy and paste a few bits below:
Close attention to the original meaning of the words κατακαλύπτω (1 Cor 11:6) and κατά κεφαλής εχων ( 1 Cor 11:4) permits a translation only of a material head covering. These words do not describe the process of letting hair hang down loosely. These words are consistently used in Classical and Hellenistic Greek to describe the action of covering the head with a textile covering of some kind. In spite of sustained efforts by advocates, the long-hair theory still has not succeeded in gaining an entry into standard reference works. The original edition of BAGD in 1957, the revised edition in 1979, and the more recent edition of BDAG in 2000 all support the view that the text of 1 Cor 11:2-16 describes an artificial textile head covering of some kind.
The wearing of fabric head coverings was a nearly universal practice among Christian women until the 20th century. R.C. Sproul aptly asks:
The rebellion I referred to is women’s rebellion against God. God commanded women to wear a head covering (when they pray) in His scriptures, but they all now know better than the living God, what pleases Him. /S And the churches also are happy to worship and therefore serve anybody with an extra unclean hole before omniscient God, breaking the first commandment through their idolatry. There is no fear of God before their eyes, each does what is right in their own eyes. They do not err on the side of caution, nor tradition, but dive headlong into these feminist errors. Each churchman tries to out simp or out White Knight the next, evidencing their pathetic pandering to the perennial defilers of men.
PRESTON T. MASSEY
…
Heh, I just cited Massey in my previous comment as evidence against your position.
You’ve come late to the game. Your comment indicates to me that your viewpoint is biased by your prior doctrinal presuppositions and not based on actual knowledge of—or familiarity with—the arguments in question.
My thesis is already well ahead of your comment. My series is based, in part, on the rebuttal of Massey’s position by A. Phillip Brown II, which you can read here. To wit:
…
Contrary to Massey’s claim, as noted before, the phrase κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων does not occur in the extant literature unless it has an explicit direct object. It is, therefore, illegitimate to claim that it is “understood without the object” to always imply “some kind of garment or cloth coming down from the head.”
…
[W]here else but κατὰ κεφαλῆς (“on the head”) would one wear hair? The fact that Hellenistic writers regularly make use of this phrase in non-veiling contexts, without any qualification to indicate that a material covering is not in view, provides solid evidence that κατὰ κεφαλῆς does not normally denote or connote a condition of having the head covered with anything. Massey, therefore, is incorrect when he states that κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων “always implies some kind of garment or cloth coming down from the head.”
As respected and learned as Preston T. Massey is, two ancient native Greek speakers—John Chrysostom and Epiphanius of Salamis—concluded that Paul meant long hair as the implicit direct object.
After you read Part 3 tomorrow, you’ll see another one of Massey’s errors: his faulty understanding of the mantle as a presumptive head covering.
But even if Massey were correct, the reason that Bnonn Tennant (and the Manosphere) gives for veiling isn’t the same as Massey’s explanation. Thus, we’d be forced to conclude that the Manosphere’s viewpoint is anachronistic, which I’ve done here. So with Massey’s citation in hand, I therefore conclude that…
…”NO!” Your headship view, like feminism itself, is the anachronism. Both are wrong.
This topic interests me, so I’ll offer my .02
I actually thought and was taught, that coverings were an outward act of inward submission. I went through a phase, 10 or 15 years ago, when I really felt I should cover my head. I won’t say it was a conviction because I’m sure I picked it up online.
Nevertheless, my husband was opposed to it. One thing that was crystal clear to me was that I am to submit to my OWN husband, and to rebel against his preference on this would be to undermine the very thing I was claiming to promote.
In The Salvation Army. Members and Pastors wear the classic “uniform” on Sundays and when performing ministry in many cases.
The “uniform” does not make one “holy” or “sanctified” or “saved”
It is a powerful outward expression of a deep inward change…or it was supposed to be. Perhaps it meant more at one time. When I wore the Uniform, I wore it correctly, and I did say to fellow soldiers “wear the uniform correctly, or dont wear it at all”
and of course I was a “pharaisee” and “legalist” for saying such things…..but if you are member of a church that does require standards like this, do them correctly.
Like I said, the Uniform does not make one “holy” or “saved”
Nor does an old babushka or *hot* young girl in the Russian Orthodox church wearing a head covering make her “a submissive wife” or “wife material”
I understand cultural traditions and norms, and I do understand standards or protocol in a church setting (decorum, manners, and behavior in God’s House), and members of that House *should* be an uplifting, loving, demonstrative example to visitors, guests and the like……but “a woman will wear a head covering or she isnt a real Christian / doesnt love Jesus / it means she is going to rebel and upsur your authority as a man” is nonsense.
Many “decorum / tradition” following women have wrecked havoc on their families. The “head covering” doesnt make you submissive r “holy” or “saved”
Lastmod,
I agree fully. Notably, if this was only about decorum, I wouldn’t have had to write this series.
Peace,
DR
Well said!
Elspeth,
This is a good point. You have good instincts. One of the seven reasons for veiling in ancient times was to honor or respect one’s husband:
If my wife had theoretically been so inclined, I might also have forbidden it. I guess I implicitly did when I decided not to pursue and marry such a woman in the first place. Unlike most men in the sphere, potentially marrying a woman who veiled was more than an abstract possibility for me. If arranged marriages had still been practiced, I almost certainly would have ended up with such a woman.
While I’ve long thought that head covering was not required, it wasn’t until much later that I realized that headship submission was an anachronism and not a biblical teaching.
Head coverings, today, are an act of submission, but this is not one of the seven reasons for veiling in ancient times. This is why I personally oppose them, rather than merely tolerate them. Of course I’m forced to tolerate them among those outside my domain.
They are like face masks in that respect: signs of submission (to the government in that case).
Picked it up, yes.
The irony among the Anabaptists is that mandatory head coverings only became a thing in the late 1800s. Before that point, head coverings were a fashion among all women, including the secular. By the late 1800s, adornment and beauty was the only thing of the seven reasons for head covering that was largely still applicable to women. Only once the head covering became unfashionable did the head coverings so clearly associated today with the Plain Folk become a doctrinal thing. Anabaptist women used to look pretty much just like every other woman of the time. Here is an example of an Anabaptist couple from 1917:
…and here is what passed for modern fashion at the time:
In other words, the reason the Anabaptists starting wearing prayer veils in the first place was driven by culture, specifically, counter-cultural rebellion.
Isn’t it ironic that Anabaptists were once known for baptizing adults—in direct obedience to Christ—only to have this be replaced by being known for how they dress? I understand why some people claim that head covering is idolatry.
Peace,
DR
Isn’t it ironic that Anabaptists were once known for baptizing adults—in direct obedience to Christ—only to have this be replaced by being known for how they dress?
Indeed.
Within a culture (and church) which appears rudderless and incoherent, the need to find a unifying principle of modesty, faithfulness, etc is a natural human instinct. Unfortunately, the shibboleths can morph into idols which divide rather than unify.
I sincerely do appreciate the Anabaptist stance on modesty. And I’m not saying that all head covering is idolatry. But I do find it sad indeed that some of the “best” Christians are foremost known by their visual appearance and not their good works (like forgiveness and marital stability).
Still, by covering most of them are trying to do the right thing according to the version of the scriptures they have. And, when you are in Lancaster itself, head coverings don’t stand out. Nobody points and stares. But the outside world looks at it very differently. They don’t see devotion, they see a caricature or image. We’ve lost something important there and the replacement is inferior. Who even knows what Anabaptists stand for anymore?
As an Anabaptist I’ve always struggled with competing notions of what it means to be “the light of the world.” It’s not, as I once presumed, about how others view you when they look at you. But that’s also not completely irrelevant either.
If I submit to my husband in everything, surely, he’ll tell me to rob a bank or to become a swinger, claimed most every woman ever. No, we must obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)
I find it amusing how women reserve the right to defy their husband for the sake of God and reserve the right to defy God for the sake of their husband. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that leaves the woman fully in charge, obeying whichever “lord” best suits her whim.
Schrödinger’s obedience. LOL
Schrödinger’s obedience
🤣 That’s pretty funny, actually. I might use it in the wives’ study I’m doing at church.
Thanks.
It’s funny you say that.
The problem I have with pro-head covering is that its proponent’s have an identity crisis. They can’t seem to understand what their symbol symbolizes. What obedience does a covering symbolize? Is it a wife’s submission to her husband? Is it a woman’s lesser status with respect to men being made in the image of God? Or is it about her hiding her glory so she doesn’t steal it from God?
The problem is that Bnonn Tennant’s view (that all women above age ~13 should veil) is irrational with any of these views.
Bnonn and 99.9% of churchgoers don’t believe what Paul is teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:7. That’s why they have to come up with various alternatives and workarounds.
1 Corinthians 11:7(NET) For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.
Bnonn wrote: “Why, then, is woman the glory of man? Is she not made in the image of God? Any modern Christian who claims not to get at least uneasy reading this passage—and probably tight under the collar—is fibbing. We are so conditioned by feminism we can’t help it.”
The plain text of the apostle Paul’s explanatory verse makes Bnonn uneasy, and makes him seek out another explanation, because he doesn’t like the one given, even though he seemingly recognizes that it is Feminism that has conditioned him to not accept that scriptural truth.
Myron Horst, former Anabaptist, wrote this in his article promoting head coverings:
Many scholars speculate on why something was written and confidently state their speculations as facts. It is part of higher education. Be careful about accepting a line of reasoning as true when you see words like: “it was probably”, “evidently”, “most likely”, “obviously”, etc. It usually is the speculation of man rather than truth.
The formal word that describes this is inference. Your explanation of 1 Corinthians 11:7 is exactly that: a speculative inference. It isn’t derived from what is actually said (that would be deduction) but by what is left unsaid.
There exists no complete doctrine of head covering that is not derived from speculative inference. None at all. Not Bnonn’s, not yours, and not mine. A precious few verses are reasonably clear, and from that we can deductively make a small number of lesser conclusions (although we can also reject a number of minor and major conclusions, like Bnonn’s). That’s it.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:7, here is what I wrote early last year:
You are mistaken. It cannot be my axiom, because I have a literal post on this blog where I present the case that women lost the image of God. Since I’ve presented two mutually-exclusive claims, I can’t possibly hold either of them axiomatically.
I also already addressed 1 Corinthians 11:7 here. Using your own hermeneutical method, we are forced to conclude that Paul did not, in fact, say that women are in the image of the Church, nor does he say that they is not in the image of God. In fact, the only thing it says regarding the image of God is that the husband is in the image of God. It is completely silent on anything else. Remember, we can’t infer anything about what Paul believed unless it states it so explicitly that it can only mean that.
And also here I addressed it by noting that:
John Chrysostom, writing in the late 4th century, agrees with me:
Since then, nothing has changed.
I almost regret that I even brought up Origen’s heresy that men lost the image of God. At that time, I did not guess that (perhaps due to your preference for all-or-nothing thinking) you’d latch onto the idea of taking the image of God away from everyone, if everyone couldn’t have it. I think Origen’s idea is thoroughly falsified by the citing of men still being the image of God in Genesis 9, long after the fall and after the flood. (as Epiphanius also pointed out)
I had no idea you’d adopt such a clearly discredited theory, when I mentioned it.
Heh, “clearly discredited.”
Look, there is no reason for regret. I’m not really a fan of Origen, to be honest. I find his conclusion to be speculative, but I also cannot refute it. For a view that is supposed to be so obvious—that only men were made in the image of God—there is a distinct dearth of evidence pointing towards it. That’s the point I took away from my examination of Origen, not that he was right (or wrong). I’ve just seen no good argument to refute Origen’s claims (the Genesis 9 argument is deeply flawed), which makes the whole thing a bit embarrassing for the traditional viewpoint.
I mostly don’t care because, as Paul says, in Christ we are all (re)made in God’s image. My only hesitation with the traditional viewpoint is the belief that a non-believer can be in the image of God without being united with Christ. This has led to absurdities such as a rainbow church calling itself “Imago Dei” and turning it into a call for wanton inclusivity.
Is it a wife’s submission to her husband?
Well we know that can’t be it because submission to a husband’s rejection of veiling is simply hiding behind the husband to sate her rebellious, usurping nature. Astonishingly, this is true EVEN when she goes uncovered when she really desires to cover. And if said woman decided to cover based on a particular theologian’s understanding of those texts, is that theologian usurping the authority of her husband? What a tangled Schrödinger we weave!
Is it a woman’s lesser status with man’s image of God?
This may be it, although I can’t be sure. Of course, the moon can never outshine the sun, even during its brightest phases.
Or is it her hiding her glory so she doesn’t steal it from God?
But she’s the glory of the man, right? Again if the moon can’t even eclipse the sun, how could she ever eclipse the creator of the universe? One might argue, and I will posit, that woman can wield her beauty with glory-stealing intent.
However, having seen plenty of hijab-wearing women with perfectly done makeup, smoky eyes, red lips and all, covering one’s hair does little to short circuit that in a determined woman, lol.
I think Jason’s commentary here hit the target straight in the middle.
I agree. And, yes, Jason’s analysis is spot on too
Schrödinger’s Submission!
The moral of this riddle? There truly is no substitute for a godly husband.
Schrödinger’s implies a binary, trying to be two contradictory things at once. But the problem is much, much worse.
By my count, separately at least three theological and seven sociological reasons for veiling have been offered at different times and places over the last two millennia (more if you include the Greek Septuagint and Hebrew Old Testament). There are at least four (or maybe five) different groups of females that could, potentially, have different rules regarding veiling. There are also a handful of different explanations for when (what situations) veiling must occur. Then there is the vast diversity in what constitutes a valid head covering.
Those who promote head coverings make little to no attempt to explain why all of these alternatives are obviously wrong and why Paul was obviously only talking about the one thing that they prefer despite him not mentioning veiling at all!
Not even the early writers in the first four centuries of the church could agree, and a number of them were explicitly motivated by sexist and/or ascetic biases. A majority were unmarried celibates. Three of them were even using corrupted scriptures to defend their stances!
What I find most interesting is that Paul never told the wives to do whatever their husbands wanted, let alone what male leaders of the church desired. He told the men that they should let the wives decide for themselves. Of course, wives listening to their husbands is absolutely a valid decision for them to make (and probably the best one!), but it is still their decision to judge.
IMO, the symbolism of veiling only makes sense if the woman is the one making the decision, if the choice to veil is her conscious decision, and act of will freely made.
This is one of the most interesting threads on any topic I have ever read, and I’m not even really interested in the topic of head covering. Just reading.
Well done arguments all around.
Kudos to all participants.
Liz,
The comments in the comment sections have been of high quality.
It is interesting to have a discussion where most of the participants don’t have deep-seated, previously established ideological stances. For example, I’ve been a part of both worlds and for many years could have gone either way. Elspeth has explored the idea of veiling as well. For others here, it simply isn’t relevant at all. Thus, we are free to discuss various ideas without being married to any of them in particular.
I also composed all five articles in advance of the series’ publication, so it’s a bit more formally organized than usual. I think that helps improve its accessibility and quality somewhat. I could do that more often, but it will mean many days where I don’t publish anything while I prepare the whole series.
Another reason it is interesting is because much of the head covering doctrine is steeped in mystery, history, and lore, not all of which is well-known or accurately described. This topic is not only theology, it is sociology and it is an informative historical documentary. The history of head covering and veiling is not nearly as simple as some, like Bnonn Tennant, make it out to be.
How many here knew that Anabaptists looked like normal people for most of their history? How many know that their current distinctive headgear—derived from once-popular fashions—was once considered a horrific novelty? Can you even picture in your mind what a colonial Amish must have looked like:
I wonder if I should write more about this, as the century-plus Anabaptist experiment in altering behavior through enforced dress codes largely parallels Manosphere desires to control behavior through external means, rather than inner change.
Peace,
DR
You’re silly to side against compulsory dress codes, just to oppose the manosphere. My employer has a dress code and does not rely on people’s inner convictions. In my state indecent exposure is punishable by up to 6 months in prison and fines. If indecent exposure is committed in the presence of someone under 16 years of age, it is a felony punishable by up to 13 months in prison and up to $100,000 in fines for a person with no prior criminal history. Even most nudist colonies have rules regarding clothing.
1 Corinthians 11:10(NET) For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Dress is regulated primarily for the sake of others. So that’s why you regulate it regardless of the viewpoint of the offender.
If you may recall, I also protested when folks at a certain manosphere site were foolishly debating why we have to wear clothes.
The Bible recommends discipline (often with a rod) which is by definition “controlling behavior through external means”. Inner change can come later, if it ever comes. You pacifists complicate things for yourself by theologically trying to argue for near zero corporal punishment.
I don’t need compulsory dress codes in church—which are not biblical—to know what nature teaches (and, thus, to judge for myself what is good, proper, and modest, just as Paul said I should do). You should read Lastmod’s comments, which strike an arrow straight at the heart of the matter.
Your reference to discipline is a non sequitur. Parents—not the church, nor schools, nor other men or women—are tasked with regulating what children wear, how they behave, and how they are disciplined. We decide what is best for our children until they are old enough to judge for themselves what is good, proper, and modest. Then they decide for themselves. This is what nature teaches, for even in the animal kingdom the young are raised by their parents and then go on their own way.
This is a simple error: conflation of the symbol (dress codes) with the thing symbolized (modesty; decorum).
There is no biblical warrant for denying fellowship to those who break arbitrary dress codes. The crime is not breaking the symbol, but breaking the thing symbolized. Dress codes lead to legalism, which is itself a sin.
To avoid this problem, you have to do as I do: reject formal dress codes in the church, without rejecting what they symbolize.
If you understood your own church history, you’d know that the plain headdress common among the Anabaptists today was once forbidden because it was a new, worldly, secular fashion trend. As is typical with “conservatism,” they only managed to conserve what was once considered liberal and loose dress. Instead of promoting modesty, they simply locked in a secular fashion trend for a century or so in the name of God. What a victory!
Here is a test. Who is this woman from c.1870?
Is this Rebecca Miller, a Swiss Anabaptist from Holmes, Ohio, or is it Mary Anna Custis Lee, wife of General Robert E. Lee and member of the Episcopal Church? Don’t cheat now!
Have you read Part 3 yet? Your misquotation/mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 11:10 is not convincing me of anything. Paul says that a woman ought to have her own authority over her own head, just as a man has his own authority over his own will. To wit:
Your speculative inferences have no more relevance than anyone else’s opinions, and if you are willing to violate the Greek language so readily (or support those who do) then you can make the Bible say literally anything you want it to say.
No, I haven’t actually read any one of your four currently published parts. I’ve just quickly scanned over them as I quickly scrolled down. I don’t come here to learn simp doctrine, nor to read how you often argue yourself full circle. I don’t know who is in the picture, nor do I know either of the folks you mentioned. I reckon they lived before my time. All the fashions and trends mean little to me. I just think we should try to follow what was actually commanded for us to follow, instead of just making excuses for why we don’t follow it. (‘cuz women want to rebel against control, and you want to White Knight for them)
The way I see it, a covering is commanded for women when they pray or prophesy. Do you agree?
And I believe that they’re not going on for half a chapter just trying to convince women not to shave their heads bald. They’re talking about a covering in addition to women’s hair that Paul also mentions as a natural sign indicating the natural properness of the other required covering.
Furthermore, you seem to say that only children are to be disciplined with a rod. Which is again pacifist foolishness.
Proverbs 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back.
🤦 ← Facepalm Emoji
Talk about missing the point! Anabaptist veiling derives from fashion trends. They rejected the traditional veiling practices! If the Anabaptists had done as you do—where fashions and trends truly mean little—then they never would have required veiling, but would have instead turned out like every other denomination.
No kidding. Who would have thought you were critically underinformed about this topic (too)? Well, anyone reading along!
It’s almost like I wrote a whole series that very carefully addresses that very question, as well as addressing the various ambiguities and nuances.
It’s almost like I address that topic in this series as well (not to mention my previous article on the subject). But you don’t have to take my word for it, you can read Epiphanius (who you seem to like) and John Chrysostom. They both agree with me.
It’s almost like I address that common mistranslation of the Greek in this series as well! But as a self-proclaimed expert in interlinears, you already know that the view you just expressed is based on a mistranslation, don’t you? You didn’t need to read my articles, because your expertise already told you that this was false, and that you would never actually use it this way seriously. Since you are such a knowledgable expert, your misrepresentation must therefore be intentional: either a lie or a test to make sure I know what I’m talking about. Well, I pass your test: your explanation is garbage.
Speaking of “The Bible recommends discipline (often with a rod)” you should read Psalm 23:4 which uses the same word.
What is your point of mentioning Psalm 23:4 where the Shepherd uses a rod(but not the exact same word) (šiḇ·ṭə·ḵā — only 1 occurrence) (club or truncheon) to turn His sheep from error to repentance?
My brother had meat sheep for a while. They weren’t shorn often. Their dense wool padding was usually around 5 inches thick. He would beat them with a two-by-four to control them sometimes. Claiming that they didn’t respond well if you didn’t really wallop them with something that could carry a lot of inertia.
Disclaimer: I make no claim that my brother was a good shepherd. He is hot tempered and in frustration he would throw rocks and sometimes even bricks at his sheep too.
Let me correct you. Here is Proverbs 13:24 (H7626: “his rod” = 3rd person masculine singular):
And here is Psalm 23:4 (H7626: “your rod” = 2nd person masculine singular):
As for the point I am making, I’m not going to answer you. A short while back, you made some unkind and untrue accusations about me. If, for sake of argument, those were actually true and valid, then by definition you must already know what my point was here (based on your declaration about your own skills and my supposed lack thereof). Unless your accusation was a false witness…