Headcovering (Part One)

(This article has been revised, due to deeper study.)

It's amazing, how certain groups emphasize specific passages of Scripture. And often, those passages are seen as rather obscure and quite unclear, by most Bible Scholars.

Disclaimer: This article will seem to some people to be laughably ridiculous.
But to those who grew up as I did, this may push you to do some thinking of your own...

I grew up thinking we Conservative Mennonites interpreted and applied 1 Corinthians 11:1-15 absolutely literally, and therefore, correctly.  The net coverings were carefully pleated and sewn to a crescent band on the front, with a narrow bias strip applied to finish the edge. Each head is slightly different, and each hair bun unique, so each lady needed to experiment, to find her own size and shape of covering. When I was pre-teen, we all made our own coverings, as we made our own dresses. Of course, some were not crafted well. Others looked much neater.

As I grew into my teens, our church became slightly more sophisticated about our net coverings; we began to order them from a seamstress in Mississippi, who turned out really professional-looking caps. They were standardized by size, so a new covering was suddenly easy to obtain. Instead of struggling with creating something presentable, we were able to have one exactly like our friends wore. Of course, we teen girls also learned from one another new ways to get our buns shaped correctly for our flatter coverings.

And then, the trend began toward slightly smaller caps. I remember my mother grieving over this "worldliness" creeping in. At the same time, heels got a bit higher, and belts a bit wider... it was the late 1970's, folks! And prints got a bit larger: anything over about an inch per flower, my mother thought was a bit "loud." (That was around 1980, of course.) All of this created a good bit of tension in the church. The young folks were seen as unruly and unsubmissive to church leadership... those wide belts and those large prints were rocking the boat.  And outsiders moving in, bringing new ways of doing things, were seen as a bit of a threat.

All of this drove me to dig deep, to try to figure out what I really believed. After all, I wanted to please God. I didn't fit in with the young people who were pushing the envelope. My conscience was too strict for that. I truly wanted to obey God.
...................

So, do the Conservative Mennonites actually obey 1 Corinthians literally, as they claim?
Well, they believe they are to cover their hair... but frankly, I've never seen a Mennonite with her hair completely covered.

In my lifetime, in many churches, the cap (and now, the veil) has slid back further and further, until it's barely hanging off the back of the head, and now usually only partially covers the bun. In the cases where an attempt is made to cover most of the head, it still cannot cover the entirety of the hair, because that makes it impossible to secure the veil with bobby pins to the hair. Of course, it is possible to straight-pin the veil to bobby pins in the hair underneath... but do you see the legalism in all this?

It's very much like the Pharisees, trying to figure out how to keep the Sabbath more correctly, outlawing dragging a chair across the lawn (plowing!) versus lifting the chair and carrying it to a different spot. Since the law forbade plowing, but not moving a chair, they arrived at a solution which was actually more work!

Which reminds me of a point I made in an earlier post: You know something is seriously wrong when the church puts a heavier burden on women than the Law of Moses ever did. Furthermore, it's very telling when it's the men who make heavy rules for women... like the Pharisees who bind heavy burdens on others; burdens which they themselves do not bear.

As to net "coverings"... who are we kidding?
If those women would make sleeves from such netting or lace, the church would decry them as "uncovering" their arms. Either that fabric covers, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
......................

What I was taught, as I was growing up, is that women are supposed to wear "a symbol of a covering."
Problem: That is a direct twist of the words of the passage.
The wording is this:
1Cor 11:6  "...let her be covered."

Another verse used is this one:
1Cor 11:10  "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."
So, I was told that means she is supposed to have a symbol of power on her head...
But... that's not what it says.

If you're going to claim literalism, then stick to the literal wording, okay?
The actual wording says literally she is supposed to be covered... and that literal covering is power on her head.


I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies in the way I was taught, while growing up.
It took me years to recognize and come to complete honesty about this. And my journey while grappling with the subject led me to do some very unusual things. I honestly was trying to obey the Scriptures literally... and what I learned was that this can lead into a deep, dark hole of legalism. How I thank God that He can lead us out of such places!

There was a while that I actually concealed every hair under a heavy veil wrapped tightly around my head. And I was surprised to find I was ostracized by my Mennonite culture. Why? Because I dared to think for myself. I was different, so I was not accepted.

That taught me something crucial: they verbally taught us to do this, so that we might please God - but the actual operative motive was 'group-think' obedience to church leaders.  If the actual motive were to please God, then one who pressed into more literalness would have been encouraged, instead of discouraged.
...............................

So, let's get down to the meat.
There are several ways to interpret this passage honestly.
(1) A woman must wear a cloth over her hair, to hide that hair from view.
(2) A woman's long hair is her covering.
(3) This passage was talking about a cloth covering, but is no longer culturally relevant.
(4) This is an obscure mixture of questions quoted from the letter from Corinth, and Paul's answers back to them.

I would like to deal with each of these.
...............................

(OPTION 1) A woman must cover her hair with a cloth, to hide it from view.

Notice, this is about praying and prophesying. Now, we are told to pray without ceasing. I know of Mennonite women who feel they cannot pray, unless they have their prayer veiling on. This means no prayer while washing the hair. It means a cloth covering must be worn to bed, pinned to the hair, no matter how it pulls, or how it is crushed during the night. Otherwise, her prayers during the night have no power... and worse, actually dishonor Christ, by dishonoring her male "head."

Which brings me to another point: If this means a cloth covering, then what cloth qualifies? Must it be a cloth designated by the church authorities as "symbolic"? If so, then why don't the Scriptures say that? The actual wording does not point to that at all. This is simply 'head-be-covered.' If it's a cloth, then Scripturally and literally, any cloth would do. Color and style do not matter. (Unless, like the Catholics, we elevate religious tradition to the level of Scripture!)

Which is why in my youth, a winter scarf qualified. Naturally, a woolen scarf crushes a flimsy net cap, so the cap was removed when the scarf was put on, to go out to do barn chores. And we felt the head was covered sufficiently.

But look at the passage: if a man prays with his head covered, he dishonors Christ!
Isn't dishonoring Christ far more serious than dishonoring a husband or dad?
Why then doesn't the church strenuously stress every man's responsibility NEVER to cover his head, so that he may pray without ceasing?
(Or does the church actually care more about women honoring men, than those men honoring Christ?  Oh dear... this could be a very messy can of worms...)

If a winter scarf qualifies to cover a woman's head for prayer, then a man's hat ought to disqualify and prohibit prayer!
Of course, based on human tradition, men in our culture usually remove their hats to indicate respect.
But if this is what it means, then it ought to apply across all cultures, in all climates.
Of course, this is ridiculous.
God isn't into frostbite, to prove our submission to Him!
Can you imagine a man hunting in the far north, and suddenly a bull moose turns to chase him?
He must remove his headgear as he tries to flee, desperately trying not to pray until he gets it off!

Yet, this is the exact burden that is put on women, in the reverse: If she's washing her hair, and slips and falls in the shower, she will automatically try to find a washcloth to put over her head, before praying! That is, if she really believes she's supposed to cover her head with a cloth, before she prays.

Of course, all of this is rather comical.
But it gets more serious when magical powers are ascribed to that religiously-designated cloth on her head.

I was raised to believe a woman's "having power on her head" while wearing a covering meant she would be protected from danger.  I - along with many other Mennonite girls - were taught that they wouldn't be raped as long as they wore that cap at all times.  Folks, this is deeply flawed thinking. Our protection from evil does not come from a clothing item. Even if we are wearing that item to please God.

I know of several young Mennonite women who were raped while wearing their caps.
Those caps are not magical.

Yes, there are stories of men who intended harm to Mennonite women, but who felt strangely prohibited from touching them. And they thought it was the caps that were protecting the girls. But that's natural. There was something different physical: the caps. So the non-spiritual men thought that's what was protecting them.

But there are also many stories of non-Mennonite women being protected from rape.
In both Mennonite and non-Mennonite cases, it was God protecting them. Not any magical clothing item.

And yes, I am choosing my words carefully. "Magical" is the precise term.
Because any physical item we think has spiritual power becomes an object of reverence... and by repetitive use becomes a way to access God somehow. 

This way lies idolatry and witchcraft! This is the way a witch attempts to manipulate the spirit world - through rituals and sacred objects! God's power is not something we access or manipulate via some religious icon or clothing item.

........
In conclusion of the first point, there are many problems tied to the idea that Paul was saying women ought to wear a cloth to cover her hair.

Actually, it doesn't say to cover the hair. It says the head.
Suppose you would say a sleeve covered the arm... but it only covered to the elbow, would that be an actual arm-covering? Not really.

You see how attempting to be literal leads to Pharisaical hair-splitting?
Yet, if this is as important a matter as conservative Mennonites have made it, then that's exactly where we have to go.  If we're honest.
.....................................

But there are other ways of interpreting this passage.
Let's try out the second one.

(OPTION 2) The woman's long hair is her covering.

Honestly, this could make more sense to me than the cloth covering interpretation, if we are going to build a literal interpretation on Greek word definitions.

First of all, verse 15 says,
"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

Can it get any plainer than that?
If you're going for literalness, this actually fits very well.

And when you dig into the Greek, it fits even better.
First of all, the term "long hair" isn't exactly that in the Greek. The term literally means "decorative tresses"... which makes more sense, considering that the early church kept the law... which included Nazarite vows... which meant long hair (probably dreadlocks: see Judges 16:13) for men.
Paul himself took a Nazarite vow on himself, just before he was arrested in the Temple.

Therefore, we cannot say the New Testament absolutely forbids long hair on men.
This passage is the only one that seems to say it... but only in our English translation.
The original Greek only speaks of "decorative tresses"... which is much different than long hair on most guys... especially dreadlocks!


Let's look at another Greek term in the passage.
There are actually two Greek words here that are translated into the English, as "covering."
Those two terms are "katakalupto" and "peribolaion."

"Katakalupto" is the root word "kalupto" which simply means "to cover", combined with the prefix "kata-".  That prefix strengthens the root word, and adds a sense of "down."
Therefore, "katakalupto" literally means, "to cover down."

It does not mean "to cover by lying up against" (as in the case of a back-of-the-head veil.)
Nor does it mean "to cover sitting on the top" (as in the case of a cap.)
There are other Greek words for those concepts.

Katakalupto literally means "to cover, but by length, by hanging down."
I know, this might be splitting hairs, but if we are going to be literal, then let us be literal.

"Peribolaion" on the other hand, means "a covering, thrown around, as a mantle or cape."
Scripture says, "Her hair is given to her for a peribolaion."

One must acknowledge that long hair, allowed to hang, gets thrown around one, as a mantle or cape.

But the  most important aspect of these two Greek words is this:
Katakalupto" is a VERB. It is never used to designate a specific thing.
There is NO SUCH THING as "A katakalupto".
In Greek, it simply can't happen.

That would be like saying, "an eat"... as if "eat" were an item of food.
That's improper English.
And "a katakalupto" is improper Greek grammar.
Proper Greek is "to katakalupto." Because it's a verb. (As, "to eat.")

In the first part of the passage, where this word is used, the "covering" is not identified at all!
All that is being discussed, is that a woman ought to "be covered."
It's discussing the verb.
Not the noun. And this is very important.

The noun is "peribolaion."  This is the only Greek noun in the passage translated into "covering."
This is an item that is thrown around one, as a mantle or a cape.
Her decorative long hair is thrown around her, as a mantle or a cape.
And in this way, the woman's head is "katakalupto (-ed)."

The peribolaion (noun) does the katakalupto-ing.(verb)

...............

And now, look at the entire passage.
If Paul was saying a woman was supposed to put her hair up in a bun, and cover it with a cloth, can you tell me how these three verses at the end are a conclusion to the matter?

1Cor 11:13  Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15  But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Again, Paul was highly educated. He knew how to create a cohesive, coherent argument.
Wrapping up a discussion enjoining women to wear the hair up in a bun, covered by a cloth, with these three verses makes absolutely no sense.

If the hair is up in a bun, it's not "peribolaion."
There's another Greek word for folding, or wrapping up into a ball: "helisso."
 But Paul said "peribolaion," not "helisso."

Of course, Paul is not making a pharisaical rule here, saying that women must never put up their hair.

The overall point of the discussion is that God created a difference between the sexes.
Satan always tries to destroy what God has created.
That's why, when a homosexual spirit invades a culture, you will have cross-dressing, and a push toward androgynous (neither male nor female) fashions. 
But God wants women to be feminine! He wants men to be masculine!

God said in the Old Testament that men and women ought not to be wearing clothing that pertains to the opposite sex. Because that's an abomination!

And God doesn't change.
What was once an abomination to Him, will always be an abomination.
I think the American church has, in general, forgotten this.
We are allowing worldly fashions to define for us what's okay and not okay.
But Scripture ought to be our guide in all things, including clothing, and hairstyles.
Not Paris, Hollywood or New York.
...........................

The conservative Mennonites have only one objection against the long hair being a woman's headcovering. Verse 6:

"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:
but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn OR shaven, let her be covered."

They point out that if a woman's hair is removed, then she cannot also be shorn.

However, if you dig a bit more into the Greek, it becomes clearer: the Greek word translated 'shorn' (keiro) does not mean simply "cut."
The word means "cut very close to the skin, as in shearing a sheep."

In fact, the Septuagint, which was the Greek translation quoted by Jesus, uses the term "keiro" in Song of Solomon 4:2, in talking about a flock of sheep newly shorn.
Even today, in Greece, "keiro" is the term used to speak of a newly-shorn sheep.

The Scriptures bear this out.
"Keiro" (shorn) and "xurao" (shaven) both produce the same end result: bare skin.
Need proof?

The Law required the removal of all the hair by shaving, when the Nazarite vow was concluded. Numbers 6:18

And in Acts 21:24, that's exactly what was intended to be done by Paul, at the end of his Nazarite vow. His head was xurao: "shaven."
But in Acts 18:18, Paul was doing the same thing... but this time it uses the term, "keiro", translated "shorn."
Think about it. "Shorn" fulfilled the law's requirement just as much as "shaven."

Which means... "shorn" is removing the hair with shears.
And "shaven" is removing the hair with a razor.
The end result is the same: a bald head.

So, isn't a man's haircut called "shorn"?  No, not in the words of Scripture.
The Biblical term for hair cut short, but not to skin-level is, "polled."

David's son Absolom "polled" his hair once a year. He cut it off, but not to the skin.

Also, in Ezekiel 44:20, God reveals how he wanted the priests to cut their hair:
"Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long;
they shall only poll their heads."

.........................

That about wraps it up for (2).

It is very important to remember this is not a salvation issue.
It is absolutely wrong to pass judgment on any women, based on her appearance. That's Pharisaical thinking.
Jesus had big problems with judging by outward appearance.

There's one more aspect of this point of view I must deal with.
This passage NEVER prohibits a woman trimming her hair.
To make it say that, you have to add to the Word, which carries a heavy penalty!

Her hair was given TO HER. It's HER glory. She owns her hair as a gift from God.
What she does with it, how she styles it is up to her.
God never prohibited her trimming off split ends.

That way lies judgmental Pharisaism, again.
"Binding heavy burdens, too heavy to be borne." is how Jesus put it.
I've known women who had severe headaches, due to pounds and pounds of hair on their heads.
I've also known women who had hair that dragged on the ground.

God never meant for woman to be in bondage to her hair, any more than he meant for man to be in bondage to the Sabbath.

He made the Sabbath for man, not man for the Sabbath.
And He made long hair for women, not women for long hair.


This blog post is already entirely too long... "Part Two" is coming up.