A Presumption of Impiety? A Response to Dr. Joel Biermann
Lutheran ladies at Divine Service at Zion Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Detroit
Dr. Joel Biermann is a professor at Concordia Seminary - St. Louis. I attended Concordia Theological Seminary - Fort Wayne. I was never Dr. Biermann’s student, but I did attend his lecture a few years ago in Pensacola, Florida (shout-out to the wonderful folks at Immanuel Lutheran Church, including the Rev. Randy Blankschaen and his family - what a great congregation!). Dr. Biermann spoke on the issues of male and female in our culture and in the church - and it was superlative! His bibliography on this topic was pure gold, and he introduced me to Emmerson Eggerichs’s Love & Respect - a must-read for anyone who is married or plans on getting married - as well as for pastors who serve married couples. So that’s just about everybody. Take it up and read!
So I do like a lot of what Dr. Biermann has to say. And I do somewhat agree with him on the issue of headcovering, though I think he oversimplifies matters. But sadly, I believe he is giving advice in his capacity as an ordained man (I don’t know if he is serving as a pastor anywhere in addition to his service as a seminary professor) that I believe is regrettable. I respectfully disagree with his advice regarding adiaphora, and I will explain why.
Dr. Biermann’s analysis in this twelve-minute video is straightforward. He argues that 1 Cor 11 is a “cultural manifestation” of the first century Greco-Roman world that “doesn’t apply to the twenty-first century in the west.” He dismisses the practice as mere “fashion.” He argues that since it is an adiaphoron, a woman who practices headcovering out of a sense of piety or scriptural fidelity must “check her motives” by not doing it on occasion.
First of all, yes, headcovering is an adiaphoron - as our confessions themselves aver that it is (AC 28:50-56), and that it is not necessary for salvation (if there is a Lutheran woman out there who thinks that headcovering is necessary for salvation, you may have found something rarer than a unicorn - see the FAQ at Lutheran Veils, question 10). But Dr. Biermann makes the common mistake of assuming that in matters of adiaphora, anything goes, and all options are always equal at all times. It is the consequence of living in our western, twenty-first century, postmodern, feminist, and pro-choice culture of individualism. But our Book of Concord (FC SD 10) explains how we are to treat adiaphora. They are not necessarily all equal, and in some cases, a matter that is an adiaphoron in one context will not be one in another. Moreover, just because something is an adiaphoron doesn’t mean that there is not a “more excellent way” among alternatives - or that individuals cannot embrace one practice or another out of a sense of personal piety. One person eats vegetables, another does not (Rom 14:1-12). It is not our job to play motivation policeman and to investigate motives for such matters, but rather to encourage all things to be done “in honor of the Lord.”
Dr. Biermann seems to forget that both covering and not covering the head are adiaphora. But notice that he doesn’t advise women who attend services bareheaded to check their motives. Could they be resisting headcoverings because it would make them feel submissive to their husbands in a way that they find viscerally uncomfortable? Certainly, if a woman can be covering for an impious reason, so too could a woman not cover for an equally impious reason. A similar argument could be made for crossing oneself. It is true that this can be a pious act, or it can also be done for sinful reasons. And ditto for the equally adiaphoristic refusal to cross oneself. Would Dr. Biermann advise crossers to abstain once in a while, or to compel non-crossers to do it sometimes, out of a desire to root out wicked motivations? In my opinion, this is an imbalance between theory and practice, and we parish pastors must take theology from the classroom and apply it in the real world. The advice of a parish pastor may well be different than the advice of a professor. And while this may reflect theological ignorance (comparatively speaking) on the part of the pastors, it may also reflect the experiential instincts of wisdom that one hopefully develops over time in applying theory to practice in the parish.
Moreover, if a woman covering her head in accordance with 1 Cor 11 is an adiaphoron, so also is a man not covering his head in accordance with 1 Cor 11. But Dr. Biermann doesn’t give the same advice to bareheaded men in worship as he gives to headcovered women, namely, every once in a while to, say, wear a ballcap to Holy Communion. Has he ever done this? Does he ever do this? Will he ever go to the rail with head covered in order to check his own motivations? If he truly considers 1 Cor 11 to be adiaphoristic, the adiaphora should be equally applicable across the board: men wearing hats, women not wearing hats - and everyone should check his or her motives for impurity. Why does he only single out women who cover their heads?
I believe that Dr. Biermann’s consideration of this practice becoming rare in our day and age overlooks how and why this was. He never mentions that this was not a shallow matter of “fashion” for some nineteen centuries, but was rather the ordinary pious feminine modesty in practice. And this tradition was virtually universal, from the Anabaptist sects, to the Roman and Eastern churches. Even in Baptist churches, women ordinarily wore hats to worship services well into the twentieth century. The impetus for change to the current paradigm came in the form of a radical and hostile agnostic feminist (Betty Friedan) - who was also pro-abortion and pro-pornography - attacking feminine headcovering precisely because it is a biblical expression of female submission. The abolition of headcovering was the goal, and the result, of a largely successful campaign by the National Organization of Women (NOW) in 1969, known as the Easter Bonnet Rebellion: the “National Unveiling of all women in all churches throughout the nation.” The prior year, NOW passed an anti-headcovering resolution that included the following verbiage:
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.
Dr. Biermann’s omission of this context is telling. And the fact that anti-feminist women are today intentionally rejecting the feminist standard likewise goes unmentioned. For them, the adiaphoron has become a point of confession. And this is a topic that is indeed addressed by the Formula of Concord, Article 10. I find it hard to believe that he didn’t know about any of this history. The Wikipedia article “Head Covering for Christian Women” has an interesting subsection regarding Lutheranism:
The General Rubrics of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, as contained in The Lutheran Liturgy, state in a section titled "Headgear for Women": "It is laudable custom, based upon a Scriptural injunction (1 Cor. 11:3–15), for women to wear an appropriate head covering in Church, especially at the time of divine service."[149] Some Lutheran women wear the headcovering during the celebration of the Divine Service and in private prayer.[150] Martin Luther, the father of the Lutheran tradition, encouraged wives to wear a veil in public worship.[151] Lutheran systematic theologian Philip Melanchthon broadened this to the public square, holding that "a woman sins who goes in public without her head covered".[152]
The cultural differences between men and women covering their heads is stubborn and persistent, even in our current feminist, egalitarian age. For men still remove their hats at certain times, even though women do not. Such times include prayer, and showing civil respect to the flag. In some places, men will still stand at attention, bareheaded, for a funeral procession. It also bears noting that the Christian custom of feminine headcovering is found all around the world, especially in Europe, Africa, Asia, and in South America. It is so much a part of the order of creation, that it is even found among many pagans. The ubiquity of this messaging certainly nuances the adiaphoristic nature of headcovering, and makes the situation a bit more complex than simply “Do what thou wilt.” It certainly should give a pastor pause before discouraging women from engaging in it, trying to enforce a kind of convenient uniformity for his own comfort. It certainly does make the pastor’s job easier if all women simply show up to church bareheaded, and we don’t have to deal with one person eating vegetables and another abstaining. If he can twist a few arms and get all the gals to eat their peas and carrots, he can focus on more important things, I suppose.
In my own ministry as a chaplain, headcovering is a practical matter. For when our squadron assembles outside, some uniforms require all airmen to wear a cover. However, when I am asked to pray, I remove my cover - and so do other men in attendance. I lead the prayer, and then re-cover. I do the same at outdoor committals if I am wearing a hat in the cemetery. I’m not going to do as Dr. Biermann’s principle of motive-checking suggests: that I leave my hat on to pray sometimes in order to verify that I’m being pious and not impious. By way of analogy, in 21 years of service as a pastor, I have never celebrated a Mass without a stole. I don’t believe it to be sinful to omit the stole, nor do I think the stole is necessary for salvation. But the stole is my personal commitment and piety, and it is not negotiable. I will not omit it for anyone - not even for a beloved seminary professor. In the aftermath of hurricanes, and faced with loss of power, I have celebrated without other vestments, but I insist on wearing a stole as my personal piety, as a confession and reminder of my office.
My wife has been headcovering (either with a hat or a mantilla veil) at worship for more than twenty years. It is her piety. Nobody has ever given her grief for it, not even when we have visited other churches. If I were to order her not to wear it, she would submit to my authority. But what kind of cad or tyrant would I be in such a case? Perhaps Dr. Biermann is suspicious of my wife’s motives, but he has no authority over her as either a husband or pastor. I will continue to encourage my wife’s piety in this matter. I will also not discourage a woman from attending Divine Service in my congregation with head uncovered if that is her piety. Again, I’m not the motive police. If Dr. Biermann feels this strongly about testing motives in matters of adiaphora, maybe he orders his own wife to wear a veil once in a while to test her motives. If he does that with her, that’s his business. But I will not do such a thing with my own bride. I have no authority over others’ wives or others’ congregations. I am husband and pastor only to one woman and one congregation.
We should be also be careful not to impose moral injury on people, binding their consciences by demanding that they fall on one side or another in matters that are truly adiaphora. My wife and I both had such things imposed on us during vicarage. I will not engage in it with my parishioners. Dr. Luther famously testified that violating one’s conscience is “neither right nor safe,” thus prefiguring the modern concept of moral injury.
My advice for brother pastors would be to put the best construction on their parishioners’ piety, whether they cover or not. Unless there is a reason to believe the coverers are impiously bullying the bareheaded, or the bareheaded are impiously bullying the coverers, or that either one is in a state of impenitent rebellion - leave them alone. My personal opinion is that this is mainly a phenomenon among the young, and I do think it indicates a generational paradigm shift in a good direction in rejecting the world’s feminist and egalitarian rebellion against the order of creation - including godly patriarchy - as well as a pushback against the culture’s mockery of tradition and piety. I will not discourage any woman, young or old, from voluntarily poking the devil in the eye by embracing her grandmother’s church.
You can read more about headcovering from Gottesblog here. You can listen to The Gottesdienst Crowd on this topic here. A couple years ago, the Rev. Larry Peters addressed this issue as adiaphora here. Here is a 2010 paper written by our own Fr. Mark Braden concerning headcoverings in his parish. And here is a link to Lutheran Veils, who had a display table at the latest Bugenhagen Conference.
