On Headcoverings
The question of women covering their heads in church has emerged on several online forums lately. There is quite a range of opinions on this issue, and it is more of a traditional liturgy thing than a contemporary worship thing. I’m not really seeing a lot of women veiling in churches that have stages, rock music, and dancing girls. But in traditional, liturgical churches, one does see a minority of women who are covering their heads in worship.
The topic was covered by The Gottesdienst Crowd in an August 2022 interview with the Rev. John Koopman. I also spoke on 1 Cor 11:1-16 in a September 2022 interview with the Rev. Phil Booe on Thy Strong Word.
This is a trend that is not limited to Lutheran Christianity, but is seen in all of the historical communions, as well as among some Reformed and Anabaptist groups (in the case of various sects of Anabaptists, like Mennonites and Amish, women have been covering their heads - and not just in worship - for centuries). There is a small but stubborn resurgence of this practice.
I believe it is a good trend and a helpful custom (and my own wife has veiled in worship for some 20 years) - especially given the countercultural nature of the church in a day and age where we are increasingly pressured to speak of “birthing persons” and to acknowledge that some women can get other women (or men!) pregnant. I believe anything that confesses the order of creation in times such as these is a desirable thing.
The reality is that women covering their heads - whether with a chapel veil, a mantilla, or a hat - was the universal custom among Christian women of every denomination until the revolutionary days of the 1960s. Until 1983 (when it was quietly revoked), the Roman Catholic Church technically required women to cover their heads during Mass under canon law . All one has to do is pull up old photos of women in churches - from Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, High Anglican, and Lutheran, to Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, and Pentecostal - and you will see all, or nearly all, women with heads covered. And it is likely that they will also be wearing skirts and maybe even gloves.
The 1960s were a time of social and religious revolution. Vatican II radically changed the Mass as well as the role of women in the Roman churches - and many of these changes quickly filtered into our own. The sexual revolution removed longstanding social conventions.
In 1968, the National Organization for Women started a campaign to abolish headcoverings for women in churches, rightfully understanding the confessional nature of the practice (vs. mere fashion):
“WHEREAS, the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a custom in many churches and whereas it is a symbol of subjection within these churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a “national unveiling” by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman immediately. At the Spring meeting of the Task force on Women in Religion, these veils will then publicly be burned to protest the second class status of women in all churches.”
One year later, NOW held a protest during Mass at a Roman Catholic church in Milwaukee, as a group of women made their way to the communion rail (this was obviously before their all-but-banishment by Rome), and uncovered their heads, leaving their headcoverings on the rail.
Not long afterwards, headcoverings would be largely seen as a relic of former times.
It should surprise no-one that headcoverings have now re-emerged in some circles as a confession directly opposite to what NOW’s protests were themselves confessing as befitting for women. It should also surprise no-one that this is more of a youth thing than of the older generation. It should also surprise no-one that not a few older women - who swim in the waters of feminism whether they realize it or not - are offended by this practice.
There is no need for this to become divisive in our churches. This is an analogous situation to C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters in which the demons cause division in churches by pitting those who cross themselves against those who do not. I have heard complainers from both sides, with both sides pointing fingers at the other for being divisive.
I offered a simple solution: “If a woman covers her head, leave her alone and focus on Jesus. If a woman doesn’t cover her head, leave her alone and focus on Jesus. Now there is no problem.”
So where does this come from in the first place? Interestingly, though veiling - not just in worship but at all times - seems to be normative in the Old Testament, there is no command under the Law for a woman to do it. Obviously, we see this same practice among stricter Muslim women, who cover their heads whenever they go out in public - continuing the Old Testament practice. Some Anabaptist and Pietist sects continue with the same custom today. But it is the New Testament where Paul instructs women to cover their heads, namely in his first letter to the Christians at Corinth:
“2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.”
Again, there are Christians who believe this is a law that all women must follow at all times. There are some who believe it is a law that women must follow, but only in public. There are some who believe this is a law that all women must follow, but only during worship. There are also Christians who believe this is a custom that is indicative of hatred of women, and must be abolished. There are some who believe the practice is bound to a specific culture and definition of modesty. There are some who believe this is an adiaphoron. There are some who believe this is a noble but voluntary practice.
Believe it or not, this issue is taken up in the Book of Concord, in the Augsburg Confession under Article 28 - Of Ecclesiastical Power. This is the only time that Paul’s exhortation concerning headcoverings is quoted in the Lutheran Confessions. Why “Of Ecclesiastical Power”? Article 28 deals with the limits of clerical authority, and it is the last of the seven practical reforms that “our churches” had implemented that are explicitly enumerated in the Augsburg Confession. Article 28 defines and delineates the authority of “bishops or pastors” to implement “ordinances” (Ordnungen) in the churches. So do pastors and bishops have the authority to implement ordinances? The short answer is “yes.” We have to have order in the church, so our bishops and pastors can command the use of certain lectionaries, feast days, matters of scheduling, and yes, even things like a dress code. Ecclesiastical authority is there for the purpose of keeping good order.
But there are limits.
Ecclesiastical authorities cannot equate their “ordinances” (we might use the term “regulations” today) as equivalent to a command of the Law. For example, churches almost all command Sunday (Lord’s Day) worship, as opposed to Sabbath worship. This is not by either Dominical or apostolic command. It is rather by apostolic example. Sunday worship is a matter of good order, is Biblical, and our pastors have the authority to set Sunday as the church’s day for worship. But consciences are not to be burdened, and it is not a sin to “break” such an ordinance. For example, a church may have a good reason not to worship on Sunday, and may worship on Saturday or Thursday instead. They are not sinning. They are not breaking the law. They are not to have their consciences bound.
The Roman Catholic Church, by contrast and by way of example, declares Sunday to be a Holy Day of Obligation. We Lutherans do not have this concept. We see it as not only an overstep of ecclesiastical authority, but also of legalism. A Roman Catholic would have to confess missing Sunday Mass (or its Saturday night loophole) as a sin - even if he attended Mass from Monday through Friday. Despising God’s Word is a sin, but attending a Wednesday Evening service (as my congregation offers) instead of attending on Sunday is not a sin. Consciences are not bound. Perhaps attending on Sunday is a “more excellent way,” and there may be pastoral reasons for me to encourage it - but I cannot bind consciences or declare someone to be sinning for attending on Wednesdays as opposed to Sundays.
A similar thing can be said for fasting by not eating meat on Friday. For centuries within the Roman church, eating meat on Friday was considered a sin throughout the entire year. At some point, canon law was changed to make it only a sin during Fridays in Lent. The comedian George Carlin mused on the last guy to go to hell for eating a hamburger on Friday. We Lutherans would say that the bishops have the right to set fasting regulations, but they are not binding upon consciences, nor is it a sin to break them.
This is the kind of thing Article 28 addresses, and it is here that 1 Cor 11:5 on headcovering is quoted (the only instance in the Book of Concord). The entire article is worth a read. It is not long. But for the purposes of headcoverings, here it is in context:
“50 Since, therefore, ordinances instituted as things necessary, or with an opinion of meriting grace, are contrary to the Gospel, it follows that it is not lawful for any bishop 51 to institute or exact such services. For it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty be preserved in the churches, namely, that the bondage of the Law is not necessary to justification, as it is written in the Epistle to the Galatians 5:1: Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 52 It is necessary that the chief article of the Gospel be preserved, to wit, that we obtain grace freely by faith in Christ, and not for certain observances or acts of worship devised by men.
53 What, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them 54 without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11:5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14:30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc.
55 It is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion, 1 Cor. 14:40; comp. Phil. 2:14 . 56 but so that consciences be not burdened to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin when they break them without offense to others; as no one will say that a woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered provided only that no offense be given.”
The Pauline ordinance in 1 Cor 11:5 about women covering their heads “in the congregation” (“in der Versammlung”) is an Ordinance (“Ordnung”) - and thus “consciences” are not “to be bound,” nor is it “a sin to break” such ordinances so long as there is “no offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor 11:5, that women should (sollen) cover their heads in the congregation,” etc. Ordinances (or regulations) exist so that we “do not offend another.” And again, as paragraph 56 asserts, we treat churchly ordinances the same way that society treats a woman who “goes out in public (ausgeht) with her head uncovered, provided that no offense be given.”
So, according to our Lutheran confessions, feminine headcovering - whether in the church service or in public - is not a matter of sin in and of itself. Nor is it a matter of binding consciences. It is not a law. Rather, it is an example of clerical peace-keeping, in the same way that we have customs and mores that provide social cohesion in public settings.
Just a few paragraphs down, we see another example of an apostolic command that is an ordinance, not a law, and that has to do with the decree of the Jerusalem Council. As Melanchthon writes, and as we Lutherans all confess:
“65 The Apostles commanded Acts 15:20 to abstain from blood. Who does now observe it? And yet they that do it not sin not; for not even the Apostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such bondage; but they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense. 66 For in this decree we must perpetually consider what the aim of the Gospel is.”
The apostolic decree not to eat blood (as well as to ensure that livestock was slaughtered without strangling, see Acts 15:20), is an example of an ordinance, not a law. Unlike Jews and Muslims, we do not certify meat and slaughterhouse procedures. We don’t instruct farmers not to wring the necks of their chickens. The purpose of ordinances is, again, to keep order and to avoid giving offense. Blood and certain kinds of slaughterhouse practices were offensive to Jewish Christians. But there are almost no Jewish Christians in our congregations today. In the same way, perhaps if a particular congregation was comprised of converted Jews or Muslims, we may well forego the ham sandwiches at a potluck out of love for those who would consider it gross. These matters are not law, but pastoral discretion (ordinances) - in the same way that St. Paul ordered Timothy to be circumcised, but also ordered Titus not to be.
The bottom line is this: the Lutheran understanding of feminine headcovering is that it is an ordinance, not a law. It is not to be used to bind consciences or to be considered sin - unless it is a matter of giving genuine offense. If not covering were considered a sin, then very few Lutheran women can be expected to have salvation, and most of our pastors and churches around the world are leading people to hell. But by the same token, there are good reasons for women to take part in this laudable custom and beautiful ritual of the assertion of Biblical femininity. Covering the head in worship connects women to their godly forbears in a tradition and confession of the order of creation, and an act of solidarity with the church, as she existed before the days of Betty Friedan and the national Organization for (the destruction of) Women.