Rev. D. A. Ross
NOT so long ago, it was common practice in most churches for women to have their heads covered during public worship; now it is common to see hatless women in many church services. More and more Churches condone women worshipping in public with their heads uncovered, and even some Churches which profess to be Reformed permit it.
Were it not that the Word of God stipulates how we are to conduct ourselves in the house of God, head covering would not be an issue. However, God does require, as is shown in 1st Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 1 to 16, that in public worship the man should have his head uncovered, but the woman should have her head covered.
There are professing Christians who acknowledge that 1st Corinthians 11 has specific requirements for men and women regarding head-covering, but who go on to argue that it is not a matter of great importance and may therefore be left to the judgement of individual worshippers.
A wrong, because it is less heinous than a greater wrong, does not on the account gain some kind of approval. Thomas Witherow says, “Every Divine truth is important, though it may be that all Divine truths are not of equal importance. The simplest statement of the Bible is a matter of more concern to an immortal being than the most sublime sentiment of mere human genius.” (The Apostolic Church – Which is it? p. 13).
Moreover, it can hardly be the case that the question of head-dress is inconsequential when it is God the Holy Spirit who is directing the Apostle Paul to expose and correct the errors in the Church regarding this matter. It would be presumption on our part to push aside what is dictated by the Holy Spirit as practice for public worship.
The fact that wrong practice regarding head-dress is put alongside the more serious faults of unworthy partaking of the Lord’s Supper, drunkenness, and divisions in the Corinthian Church shows that these wrongs are treated equally (in the sense that they are all regarded as wrong and censurable), and that we are to take notice of the least wrong with a view to rectifying it, as surely we are to take note of the more serious wrongs and rectify them.
Paul, in dealing with this subject of head-covering in 1st Corinthians 11 says in verse 5, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” Wrong practices regarding head-dress grieved the Apostle and, under divine inspiration, he writes to the Church to correct these faults.
At the time of public worship in Corinth certain women did not wear a head-covering. It appears that this fault took place when these women prayed or prophesied in public. This suggests to me that those women in the congregation who were not engaged in these exercises did in fact have their heads covered.
We may note in passing that although God gave gifts of prophesying to women as well as men in the early church, as we see from Acts 2:16-18 and Joel 2:28, it is clear from three chapters later in this very same epistle to the Corinthians that it was wrong for women to exercise these gifts in public worship. “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law,” 1st Corinthians 14:34.
However, in 1st Corinthians 11:1-16, it is the matter of head-covering in public worship that concerns Paul. He states that on such occasions men ought to have their heads uncovered while the woman was to have her head covered.
The reason for the women covering her head is understood from verse three: “…the head of the woman is the man.” The head-covering was a symbol which indicated that the woman was under the divinely appointed authority of the man, especially in public worship.
Not only did the head-covering on the woman indicate to the worshippers the woman’s submission to God’s creation order for the man and the woman, but also to the angels present at public worship, (1 Cor. 11:10). It would have been intensely offensive to these holy beings, who were familiar with God’s order in creation, to see it ignored in the place where God was worshipped.
Paul also argues the propriety of the woman wearing a head-covering by referring to the woman’s natural covering of her long hair, which also made a distinction between the woman and the man, (it being a shame for a woman to have short hair, as it is a shame for a man to have long hair). It was therefore altogether reasonable that God should require the added head-covering for the woman during public worship to indicate her submission to the authority of the man.
Finally, as I have already said, the need for the woman to cover her head in public worship was not merely the concern of the Apostle Paul but a rule given by God. The Most High prescribed the manner of worship for Old Testament worshippers, and does likewise for New Testament worshippers. Therefore, it was required in the Church of Corinth that the fault be rectified.
It is also evident that what was regarded as proper practice for believers in Corinth must be required practice for the Christian church today. To disregard this part of the Epistle as irrelevant today, is to position oneself to ignore any part of the Bible we wish. To offend in a small part of the worship of God is to offend in much, because it is God who is the author of His own worship. “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much.” Luke 16:10. ●