Q:   Does your congregation believe that women are able to pray and worship with uncovered heads?

A:   Thank you for your question. A simple "yes" or "no" answer from us is obviously inadequate. The "covering question" has been an item of much debate and discussion for ages. You can no doubt find numerous articles about this on many websites, but we put forward here what we think the Bible is teaching on this subject.

We will begin, as we often do, with a reminder that we have no congregational doctrine. We do not mean to sound argumentative about this; it is simply necessary to establish at the outset that our only teaching is that which God has revealed in Scripture. This is the way we encourage people to look at religious doctrine. The question is not "what does our church teach?" but rather "what do the Scriptures say?"

Your question has its apparent origin in 1 Corinthians 11:5, "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved." It would seem that a simple "there's your answer" would suffice, but this disregards context and hermeneutics, and it brings up some problems needing to be resolved. Inevitably, a response to this question will require some investigation of the text.

The epistle of 1 Corinthians deals with several problems in the early church involving Christians who came from differing cultural and religious backgrounds. For example, many of them were acclimated to practices in Judaism or Paganism. In addition, daily life was flavored with traditions of heritage and local social norms, and they had to realign their thinking to accommodate the law of Christ to which they had subjected themselves. Notwithstanding, many of their traditional practices were lawful for them to continue, as long as their understanding was correct in light of the gospel. This is better seen in examples.

One point is the matter of circumcision. The Law Of Moses required this rite. Christians coming out of Judaism were previously accustomed to this requirement, and much trouble resulted in the early church over a reluctance to give it up as a religious rite. Nevertheless, if a Jewish Christian wants to circumcise his male child, he has every right to do so, as long as he understands it is not a requirement of the law of Christ and does it only as a personal choice from cultural or hygiene motives. Paul touches on this in 1 Corinthians 7:18 and 19; it is neither here nor there.

Another example involves the eating of meat sacrificed to idols. Christians coming out of Paganism were previously accustomed to honoring false gods by eating meat sold at the market which came from animals that had been ceremonially sacrificed to an idol. Nevertheless, if such a Christian wants to eat that meat, he has every right to do so, as long as he now understands that the idol is nothing. However, if his conscience is harmed, he should not eat it. Paul deals with this in 1 Corinthians 8:1-8; as long as one understands, it is neither here nor there.

An important facet of this matter is born out in 1 Corinthians 8:9-13, which involves how our actions, as innocent as they may be, can lead others into sin. One may have full knowledge that the idol is meaningless and eat the meat, but if someone sees him and does not understand, he may eat the meat honoring the idol in his heart, and the one has actually encouraged him to do so! It will be important to note later how actions that are intrinsically innocent can sometimes give clear wrong impressions about us, and to do so is sin. The apostle picks this up again and reinforces it in chapter 10, verses 18 - 33.

These matters have many applications for us today, though our specific circumstances are probably not circumcision or sacrificial meats. For example, it is well known in our culture today that a certain pornographic magazine has as its logo a distinctive bunny head. There's nothing intrinsically evil about a picture of a rabbit's head, but if one displays this image on their car, it is not presumptive to conclude they condone the publishing of lewd photos. A Christian must not display such an image, though it is intrinsically innocent.

In chapter 9, the apostle develops the underlying principle at play in these things: submission. Paul describes a wonderful selflessness we should all strive to emulate. He sums it up in verses 19 - 23:

In chapter 10, the opposite of subjection, rebellion, is discussed. He explains that the nation of Israel in Moses' time refused to submit to God's rule, and they were severely punished for their rebellion. He ends the chapter returning to the concept of being in subjection one to another (verse 32, 33):

This gives us some context as we examine chapter 11, where submission is further exemplified. He reviews submission from three perspectives. First, he explains that Christ is the head of man. Such being the case, man is to show himself to be in subjection to Christ, his leader. Second, he explains that man is the head of woman; thus the woman is to show herself to be in subjection to man, her leader. Third, he explains that God the Father is the head of Christ; thus Christ subjected Himself as well. Apparently, the Corinthians were having trouble with submission, as is often the case today. Women today frequently chafe at the notion that they are to be submissive, nevertheless, the apostle leaves no doubt about the matter, taking us all the way back to the sixth day of creation to make his point.

Submission is the main thing the apostle is trying to teach us here. It may be easy for us to miss this point if we place our focus upon the veil. The veil wearing of women is simply the way Paul illustrates the principles of subjection and selflessness with a practical application.

Chapter 11 reveals some things about the behavior of harlots and shameless women in those days. It was traditionally fitting in certain circumstances for a woman to wear a veil in public. Even though the veil has no intrinsic value regarding submission, nevertheless, in their culture, it had come to indicate submission. Any woman who would not wear the veil when appropriate was deemed rebellious, and such behavior was typical of harlots. In verse 6, it is compared to the shame of a woman with her head shaved, which was also a sign of rebellion, much as it still is today. In verse 13, he challenges them to make a personal judgment for themselves whether it seems fitting that a woman should be seen praying (which signifies submissiveness) with the customary veil not worn (which to them would signify rebellion).

Veil wearing was simply part of their culture. It originated from man and was being practiced by women well before Paul writes this epistle. Not even the Law Of Moses ordered women to wear a veil as such. Because the apostle mentions it and makes a lesson on subjection from it does not mean that it thus becomes a divine ordinance for us. A study of religious authority or hermeneutics (the study of interpreting Scripture) will require us to make a distinction between what man has originated and what God has appointed. Similar questions have come up about required foot washings (John 13:14), kissing as a greeting (Romans 16:16), therapeutic use of ointments (James 5:14), and medicinal use of wine (1 Timothy 5:23). All these things originate from men, not from heaven (Matthew 21:25). Simply because the New Testament writers mention these traditions and often teach a lesson from them does not mean that these human traditions have become binding divine law.

However, the divine ordinance for us is this: in any way that I may behave or appear to others that would suggest some rebellion in me based on cultural or traditional norms of the society in which I live, I HAVE SINNED, even if the action is right in and of itself. In the context of Paul's day, if weak people see me eating sacrificial meat, I tempt them to sin, which is itself sin. If my failure to wear a veil when culturally appropriate sends the message to others that I delight in rebellion, I HAVE SINNED. As suggested, the application of these principles today will involve other specific things pertaining to the cultural norms of our current society, of which one example was suggested. However, the veil wearing of women in North American culture today has no such indication of submission, and likewise, not wearing it has no indication of rebellion. Therefore, the application of these principles to these specific matters loses its meaning. However, in some middle-eastern regions, these traditions may still be in practice. In such regions, a godly woman will wear the veil, accommodating the cultural norms to avoid that others get the wrong impression, though at its intrinsic value, it is actually nothing.

The apostle gives further admonition. In verse 15 he indicates that God has given the woman her hair a covering, and it is to her glory that it be visibly longer than the man's. Women who would cut their hair short to blur the lines of gender distinction are rebelling: tampering with the God-ordained roles uniquely given to men and women.

Verse 16 has been much debated, but in this writer's humble opinion, he is calling down anyone who would make these matters a point of contention. For example, someone might say "I don't care what other people think, I know there's nothing actually wrong with what I'm doing, so I'm going to keep doing it anyway, and others will have to accept it." Paul is saying this spirit of contentiousness is not characteristic of Christians, and it has no place in the church. There is no love manifested in that behavior. The apostle has something to say on this later in the epistle (13:2):

We need to say something here about someone who might still have a different opinion about the matter even after this explanation is presented. Any woman who would yet feel like she ought to wear a veil at worship services does not sin if she does so. Those who would practice it for conscience sake do not sin. They can hold to that personal practice if they feel the need to do so and worship with a clean conscience in peace. In fact, it would be sin for them to violate their conscience and not wear the veil (Romans 14:22, 23). This is so important that Paul devotes the entire 14th chapter of Romans to deal with it.

In addition, Romans 14 states at the beginning that we are not to judge or condemn others who have different opinions on matters of judgment. It would be the highest form of contentiousness if we were to throw people out of our assembly who would wear or not wear the veil because of disagreeing with the reasoning of others. This is certainly nothing to divide churches over; we should be able to worship God and serve with one another regardless. We can easily accommodate others' feelings in the matter; this is what submission demands.

Though the foregoing should sufficiently answer, as mentioned earlier, there are some issues that would require addressing if one holds that the veil is a binding ordinance. To begin, nothing in the context stipulates that the veil would be limited to public worship assemblies. Therefore, if this view is taken, any time a woman might pray she must be wearing a head covering, or she is sinning. This would include that a woman praying in a hospital bed, in a car wreck, or having fallen into a pit would need to find some piece of cloth for her head. A woman in prison stocks (Acts 8:3) cannot pray unless she can somehow get a covering for her head. This does not seem to wash out with what James calls a "law of liberty" (James 1:25). The privilege of priesthood (1 Peter 2:4, 5) is that all have at all times the access of prayer (Hebrews 4:16), regardless of headdress, even in a fish's belly (Jonah 2:1).

Our explanation has been set forth as our best effort to harmonize Scripture on the subject. Admittedly, there are some other ideas that can be heard on the matter. Some have even suggested that, since women are not permitted to take a leadership role in prophesying or teaching over a man (1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35), Paul is instructing here that a woman can do so if she wears a veil to conceal her identity as a woman. This reasoning is considered unacceptable. The instruction can be otherwise harmonized, so there is nothing that forces us to the conclusion that Paul is issuing an exception to the rule regarding the silence of women in church.

One last observation: 1 Corinthians 11:10 makes a puzzling statement about angels, which has generated much speculation. Though we will not claim to have the definitive explanation on this, returning to the true matter at hand, submission, may help our understanding. Perhaps this speaks to the example of submissiveness that angels can observe in us, as they are also free moral agents who can fall if they rebel. Or, perhaps this is a call for us to follow the example of angels, who, though a little higher than us, are yet submissive (2 Peter 2:4, 11). Maybe it's both.

This might be more answer than you expected, but as virtually nothing was on our website regarding this somewhat controversial subject, we decided to expound. We hope this helps. Thanks for asking. May God bless your efforts to seek truth.