Head Coverings - Change of View

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

What do we make of the decline of the use of head coverings in most confessional churches today?

It’s my understanding that it was a near universal practice from the Reformation onward.

What changed?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

It was still a custom for women to wear hats to church into the 20th century. I don't recall since it is getting close to 20 years ago now, if it gives much history, but see Richard Bacon's piece on this that ran in my old church's newsletter I edited in the 1990s into the 2000s before it evolved into The Confessional Presbyterian journal here (part 1) and here (part 2, PDFs).

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Thanks I will check it out.

 

[arapahoepark]

I could be off, but likely the interpretation of the application of 1Cor. 11 changed. I haven't seen a lot in the way of defending headcoverings in modern times. It has mostly been geared toward not dressing like the opposite sex.

 

[Jie-Huli]

I could be off, but likely the interpretation of the application of 1Cor. 11 changed. I haven't seen a lot in the way of defending headcoverings in modern times. It has mostly been geared toward not dressing like the opposite sex.

I think in most cases the “interpretation “ changed because people already wanted to arrive at a conclusion more amenable to the age. Head covering is still practised In most conservative Reformed churches in the UK, as far as I am aware, including the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the Free Church (Continuing), the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, the Church of England Continuing, Strict Baptist churches, various 1689 Churches, and probably others with which I am less familiar. There are various pamphlets explaining/defending the practice that have been published, as well as sermons.

One can see vestiges of the practice in formal church occasions even in the Church of England (see the Royal Family). In this latter case I am sure it is often due to tradition more than a conviction from I Corinthians 11; yet that is where the tradition itself has its roots, of course.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

While I do believe most modern evangelicals are sincere in their belief that headcovering is not required, it does seem to be a case in which the cultural pressure of feminism pushed the church to largely change its stance.

That doesn't automatically mean the modern rejection of headcovering is wrong, but it should certainly make us careful not to reject the practice hastily as many seem to do today.

 

[Jie-Huli]

To the opening post’s question of “What changed?” -

It is almost indisputable that the decline in the practice of head covering in the churches generally coincided with the rise of feminism and consequent aversion to signs of male headship and distinctions between the sexes.

I am not saying that all Christians who do not practise head covering today are consciously supporting that movement. But perhaps they are inheriting it without realising it.

 

[Logan]

I think the simple answer is that people in general stopped wearing hats in about the 1940s. Men as well as women so I don't know that it can be pinned mostly to feminism. Prior to that, most of women (and men) of European descent wore some kind of scarf or head covering as it was seen as improper to be without it.

In that historical context it would be quite extraordinary for a woman to change that week-long that habit while going to church.

In the post WWII historical context, it would be a change in your week-long habit to do that while going to church.

Over time, that affects behavior. I think that answers the why it happened question, but not the should it have question.

I have always found it intriguing to read in some of the Puritans and Reformers about how the custom for the men is different in their day than it was in the first century church. Calvin defended men wearing hats in church, particularly in cold weather. Others defended men wearing hats as a sign of authority in their present culture. I just find it interesting that they treat the men's headgear (or lack) as cultural.

 

[Andrew35]

I think the simple answer is that people in general stopped wearing hats in about the 1940s. Men as well as women so I don't know that it can be pinned mostly to feminism. Prior to that, most of women (and men) of European descent wore some kind of scarf or head covering as it was seen as improper to be without it.

It was a bad move.

Read old literature and you'll see random comments dropped about, e.g. someone being so distraught they sat out in the hot sun "bareheaded," as though it were something unusual. Farmers wore straw hats working out in the field. Etc.

If I had worn hats more when working out in the midday sun, I've no doubt I would have avoided my bout with basal cell carcinoma.

Kids on the forum: Wear hats when you're out in the sun. Even if you think it looks stupid.

 

[greenbaggins]

Head coverings was a directly explicit target of feminism. They believed explicitly that this was demeaning, making women second-class citizens in the church. I didn't know this until I read Jeremy Gardiner's excellent little book. Very winsome in its case, and I highly recommend it. The fact of the matter is that head coverings went away with the advent of second wave feminism in the late 60's and throughout the 70's.

As a side note, although Gardiner's book was convincing for me, anyone seeking to introduce it into a church that does not currently practice it needs the wisdom of Solomon on the matter. It can be done very divisively, or it can be done winsomely.

 

[Scynne]

It’s my understanding that it was a near universal practice from the Reformation onward.

I was under the impression that it was universal practice from Moses onward.

 

[PaulCLawton]

Head coverings was a directly explicit target of feminism. They believed explicitly that this was demeaning, making women second-class citizens in the church. I didn't know this until I read Jeremy Gardiner's excellent little book. Very winsome in its case, and I highly recommend it. The fact of the matter is that head coverings went away with the advent of second wave feminism in the late 60's and throughout the 70's.

As a side note, although Gardiner's book was convincing for me, anyone seeking to introduce it into a church that does not currently practice it needs the wisdom of Solomon on the matter. It can be done very divisively, or it can be done winsomely.

I would hate for a thread on head coverings to go by without linking to the following article, which was written by Rev. Bartel Elshout, published in the Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth Magazine and (if memory serves) adopted as a kind of position paper by one of the HRC churches, if not the federation. It may not convince the outright opposed, but I have found it to be a very helpful resource for the genuinely inquring.

The Wearing of Head-Coverings by Women during Public Church Worship Services | Christian Library

www.christianstudylibrary.org

 

[Jake]

I was under the impression that it was universal practice from Moses onward.

Well, it may have been the practice of women to cover their head, but it was not the universal practice from Moses onward for men to not cover their head ("For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." -I Corinthians 11:7 KJV). In some cases it was required under Moses, such as the high priest wearing a mitre.

 

[Scynne]

Well, it may have been the practice of women to cover their head, but it was not the universal practice from Moses onward for men to not cover their head ("For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." -I Corinthians 11:7 KJV). In some cases it was required under Moses, such as the high priest wearing a mitre.

Right on, fair point. I was thinking specifically of women and head coverings. But that is interesting that the practice changed with regards to men's heads but not women's under the institution of the new covenant. I've never thought about that before, and don't know what to make of it.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

I haven’t had the chance to read this thread much, but thank you for the responses thus far.

 

[therussellhome]

I find myself wondering if it is one of these small steps down the slippery slope? Several years ago my wife and I were convicted regarding head coverings (partly through the help of Puritan Board threads). Looking back, it is amazing how similar the defense of "it's cultural" overlaps with the "it's cultural" arguments claiming homosexuality in not a sin.

One of my friends, a pastor in the presbytery, (who does not hold with head coverings) claims it's talking about hair. My middle son likes to point out to him that he hasn't shaved his head.

 

[Parakaleo]

This is a good one to read: "Is Headcovering Biblical?" by David Silversides

A quote near the end of the paper attempts to answer the original question posed above:

Female head-covering was the norm in the majority of churches for centuries. The comparatively recent change of this state of affairs is, we suspect, not due to greater exegetical insight or true scholarly advance, but concession to the spirit of the age in which we live.​

 

[aaronsk]

It was a bad move.

Read old literature and you'll see random comments dropped about, e.g. someone being so distraught they sat out in the hot sun "bareheaded," as though it were something unusual. Farmers wore straw hats working out in the field. Etc.

If I had worn hats more when working out in the midday sun, I've no doubt I would have avoided my bout with basal cell carcinoma.

Kids on the forum: Wear hats when you're out in the sun. Even if you think it looks stupid.

I would like to add a modifier here that the baseball cap is useless (outside of style). Wear wide-brimmed hats specifically when outdoors.

Isn't it thought that head-coverings had something to do in relation to the pagan temple prostitutes who sported shaved heads. So the covering in worship ought to be worn when converted to Christ until their hair grew back as a covering? I think there was an old thread that trended this direction. I can't find it at the moment but my question would be: is that interpretation considered a recent discovery that may have contributed to the decline of head-covering use for women? My wife doesn't wear a covering and I support that based mostly on this reasoning.

 

[Jie-Huli]

I would like to add a modifier here that the baseball cap is useless (outside of style). Wear wide-brimmed hats specifically when outdoors.

Isn't it thought that head-coverings had something to do in relation to the pagan temple prostitutes who sported shaved heads. So the covering in worship ought to be worn when converted to Christ until their hair grew back as a covering? I think there was an old thread that trended this direction. I can't find it at the moment but my question would be: is that interpretation considered a recent discovery that may have contributed to the decline of head-covering use for women? My wife doesn't wear a covering and I support that based mostly on this reasoning.

I would commend to you the articles and books that have been recommended in this thread. I don’t think the view you have mentioned was a cause for people suddenly abandoning the practice, more like a post hoc justification. And in any event I do not believe it can be established from Scripture - indeed, if you look at Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians carefully it directly contradicts that view.

 

[bookish_Basset]

Has there been a decline in headcovering in non-Western Christian contexts? I'd be curious to know.

Looking forward to reading the articles, etc. shared so far. I've changed my practice on this matter recently, though I fully admit there are interpretive questions I'm still not confident about. But the shift in conviction is strong enough that it's troubled my conscience to not wear one; so, that's where I am.

The first time I saw headcovering practiced in a Reformed church was when we attended an RP congregation for a while (it wasn't universal there, but not uncommon, either). In my PCA church, I'm usually the only one (with one or two exceptions occasionally). I'm not particularly self-conscious about that fact, though curious if anyone will ever ask me about it.

 

[Jie-Huli]

I think the simple answer is that people in general stopped wearing hats in about the 1940s. Men as well as women so I don't know that it can be pinned mostly to feminism. Prior to that, most of women (and men) of European descent wore some kind of scarf or head covering as it was seen as improper to be without it.

In that historical context it would be quite extraordinary for a woman to change that week-long that habit while going to church.

In the post WWII historical context, it would be a change in your week-long habit to do that while going to church.

Over time, that affects behavior. I think that answers the why it happened question, but not the should it have question.

I have always found it intriguing to read in some of the Puritans and Reformers about how the custom for the men is different in their day than it was in the first century church. Calvin defended men wearing hats in church, particularly in cold weather. Others defended men wearing hats as a sign of authority in their present culture. I just find it interesting that they treat the men's headgear (or lack) as cultural.

No doubt the general decline in standards of dress post war contributed. I don’t think it is necessarily “either /or”; these were both part of the same downward cultural trend. But I do not think it is the case that women wore hats to church only because they were wearing them other days of the week anyway. After all, men wore hats and took them off in church, while women kept them on. This was due (consciously or not) to the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11. No doubt there was a portion (maybe a large portion) of women that had just worn them “culturally”. But as far as I understand, many Christian women did continue wearing hats/coverings to church even after it was no longer de riguer to wear them on other occasions. And I do think that the move away from the practice in the subsequent generations (particularly from the 1960s onward) was very much influenced by feminism.

As an aside, as I am sure you know, John Calvin did support head covering for women. I am aware of his commentary on 1 Corinthians where he allowed that ministers could wear caps “to avoid catching cold” . . . But only after first removing them in the sight of the congregation as a sign of his authority. One can quibble about his apparent pragmatism, but I do not think he can be adduced as a proponent of the cultural argument when looking at his commentary on the subject as a whole.

Incidentally, I don’t think it is a bad idea for men to wear hats on the way to church today so that they can remove them before entering . . . Though obviously not a law.

 

[Physeter]

It was a bad move.

Read old literature and you'll see random comments dropped about, e.g. someone being so distraught they sat out in the hot sun "bareheaded," as though it were something unusual. Farmers wore straw hats working out in the field. Etc.

If I had worn hats more when working out in the midday sun, I've no doubt I would have avoided my bout with basal cell carcinoma.

Kids on the forum: Wear hats when you're out in the sun. Even if you think it looks stupid.

I cover when outside and I do where a covering in church. I am just old fashioned that way. My sister made me some beautiful head coverings.

 

[lynnie]

Hi OP. I've been meaning to respond for a few days.

I've been wearing a headcovering to church for about 40 years. When I started we were in a charismatic church that had several people who went to WTS in related churches, but I wasn't around confessional churches back then. By the time we ended up in the PCA I think I was the only one wearing it to services, although with two morning services I don't know for sure. At the time people wanted the bible and sound doctrine and we were not associated with any of the modern charismania word of faith teachings. (It was sort of like what the Sovereign Grace Churches tried to be later on, without their legalistic rigidity, and without so called apostles.)

Anyway, back then in the exciting days of the Jesus movement and revival, a lot of women believed in head coverings. People also wanted to talk about it and often approached my husband or me with the subject. I would say at least three dozen people, including men and pastors believed in them. But the general sorts of responses we got were " I believe in them for today but........

-my wife won't wear one
- my pastor is against it
-my elders don't believe in them
-I don't want to be divisive
-people think it is legalistic
-It is legalistic even if the bible says it"

On number of occasions I pressed it a little bit. I'd say "are you telling me you believe this is a new testament command?" " Yes"

"But you won't wear it (or preach it) for reason XXXXXX?

"Yes"

To this day I don't understand how people can do this mental gyration. It is one thing if you think that command no longer applies today. It is another when you think it does, but won't do it. This is the NEW Testament!!!

It was hilarious-a pastor in another church didn't know we believed in them and was troubled because women in his church started wearing them. He respected my husband's scholarship and asked him to write up a paper on it for him, and why it isn't applicable today.

Hub wrote one up with all the main points. His first page said something to the effect of: dedicated to Balaam, who was asked to speak against something, but when he consulted God, he found out God was for it.

My opinion is that people in general were casting off authority, any authority. The Viet Nam protests for example ( not that they were wrong, but it was a rejection of former patriotic support for government). Historic authority of morality and that sex is for marriage. Parental authority. Traditional authoritative teaching that you can't kill unborn babies. The covering is a specific sign of a husband's authority, and people were throwing off outside authority other than their own choices, in every kind of sphere. It wasn't just feminism although that was one major manifestation of rebellion.

As far as the discussion about culture, it is a sign to the angels. Period. Not the culture. If the angels have changed, well, questionable position in my opinion. I am aware of ( good) angels sometimes at church when I wear it. Yeah, subjective, yeah, some Reformed would stomp on my saying that. But I am.

Verse 2 and 23 use the same Greek word for coverings and communion. Both were handed down or delivered over or tradition. Depends on translation. We know communion came from Jesus, so who was/were coverings handed down from? It doesn't say, but the fact is, in any basic literature class, looking at this you would say the author is using the same word and command for both. One didn't cease while the other became a sacrament.

You get a lot of the long hair thing, or at least I used to back when there was more interest. Paul clearly uses a different Greek word for the hair given as a covering, than the word he repeatedly uses for covering as a sign of the husband's authority.

This is my opinion, but we think the passage is clear that this is for wives, but you can't push it on every single woman or little girls. Maybe some churches have rejected it because it was forced beyond the bible? I don't know; I suppose that is possible. A husband has authority over a wife, but church authority is for everybody, as is civil government. A head covering is unique to marriage and wives. Wives submit to husbands, but not to all men.

RC Sproul believed in them. Other men used to, and preach it as well, but nowadays it seems to have fallen off the wayside.

Anyway, I hope it comes back more broadly. I think it would bring blessing to the church and to marriages and to wives.