Hubbry Logo
Head covering for Christian womenHead covering for Christian womenMain
Open search
Head covering for Christian women
Community hub
Head covering for Christian women
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Head covering for Christian women
Head covering for Christian women
from Wikipedia
An Eastern Orthodox Christian woman wearing a headcovering at church; behind her is an icon of the early Christian virgin martyr Saint Tatiana of Rome, who is depicted with her head covered.
Women who belong to the Hutterite Church, an Anabaptist Christian denomination, wear their headcovering (usually in the form of an opaque hanging veil) throughout the day.

Christian head covering, also known as Christian veiling, is the traditional practice of women covering their head in a variety of Christian denominations. Some Christian women wear the head covering in public worship and during private prayer at home,[1][2][3] while others (particularly Conservative Anabaptists) believe women should wear head coverings at all times.[4] Many theologians of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches likewise teach that it is "expected of all women to be covered not only during liturgical periods of prayer, but at all times, for this was their honor and sign of authority given by our Lord",[5] while others have held that headcovering should at least be done during prayer and worship.[6][7] Genesis 24:65[8] records the veil as a feminine emblem of modesty.[9][10]

Manuals of early Christianity, including the Didascalia Apostolorum and Pædagogus, instructed that a headcovering must be worn by women during prayer and worship as well as when outside the home.[11][12] When Paul the Apostle commanded women to be veiled in 1 Corinthians, the surrounding pagan Greek women did not wear head coverings; as such, the practice of Christian headcovering was countercultural in the Apostolic Era, being a biblical ordinance rather than a cultural tradition.[A][17][18][19] The style of headcovering varies by region, though Apostolic Tradition specifies an "opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen".[20]

Those enjoining the practice of head covering for Christian women while "praying and prophesying" ground their argument in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16.[21][22] Denominations that teach that women should wear head coverings at all times additionally base this doctrine on Paul's dictum that Christians are to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17),[23][24] Paul's teaching that women being unveiled is dishonourable, and as a reflection of the created order.[B][24][32][33] The consensus of Biblical scholars conclude that in 1 Corinthians 11 "verses 4–7 refer to a literal veil or covering of cloth" for "praying and prophesying" and hold verse 15 to refer to the hair of a woman given to her by nature.[34][35][36][37][38] Christian headcovering with a cloth veil was the practice of the early Church, being universally taught by the Church Fathers and practiced by Christian women throughout history,[34][2][39][40] continuing to be the ordinary practice among Christians in many parts of the world, such as Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Egypt, Ethiopia, India and Pakistan;[41][42][43][44] additionally, among Conservative Anabaptists such as the Conservative Mennonite churches and the Dunkard Brethren Church, headcovering is counted as an ordinance of the Church, being worn throughout the day by women.[4][30] However, in much of the Western world the practice of head covering declined during the 20th century and in churches where it is not practiced, veiling as described in 1 Corinthians 11 is usually taught as being a societal practice for the age in which the passage was written.[45][46]

History

[edit]

Scriptural and Second Temple background

[edit]
The biblical figure Ruth depicted wearing a head covering in the field of Boaz (painting by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld)

During the time of Moses, the Bible records that it was normative for women to wear a head covering (compare with: Numbers 5:18).[47][48] In Numbers 5:18, the sotah (meaning "one who goes astray") ritual, in which the head of a woman accused of adultery is uncovered (made parua), is explicated, implying that normally a woman's head is covered; the Talmud thus teaches that the Torah (Pentateuch) commands women to go out in public with their heads covered.[49][50] This head covering worn during biblical times was a veil or headscarf.[51]

In the Old Testament's Book of Daniel, Susanna wore a head covering and wicked men demanded that it be removed so that they might lust after her (cf. Susanna 13:31–33).[52] Genesis 24:64–65 records that Rebecca, while traveling to meet Isaac, covered her head for modesty, demonstrating "her sense of propriety on meeting her betrothed."[53] The removal of a woman's veil in the passage of Isaiah 47:1–3 is linked with nakedness and shame.[54] The biblical book Song of Songs records "the erotic nature of hair from the verse, 'Your hair is as a flock of goats' (Song of Songs, 4:1), i.e., from a verse praising her beauty."[55] Jewish law around the time of Jesus stipulated that a married woman who uncovered her hair in public evidenced her infidelity.[56]

Apostolic period (1st century)

[edit]

Paul first established the Christian community in Corinth around 51–52 AD after arriving from Athens.[57] The church was culturally mixed, composed mostly of Gentiles with some Jewish presence.[58]

During his extended stay in Ephesus (ca. 53–55 AD), Paul received reports of divisions and disorder in the Corinthian church. In response he wrote 1 Corinthians, probably in the spring before Pentecost,[59] and sent it from Ephesus by trusted messengers in the late winter or early spring of 56 AD.[60] In his greeting Paul calls them "the church of God" in Corinth but also includes "all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ," showing that his directives, such as on worship and head covering, were framed for the wider Christian audience (cf. Christendom).[61][62]

Between 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians, Paul made what is known as the "painful" visit to Corinth, which left both sides distressed, and then sent a severe letter now lost.[63] According to 2 Corinthians, Titus later reported that Paul's rebuke produced "godly sorrow," leading the Corinthians to repent and show renewed zeal and loyalty. Paul expressed consolation at this change and even boasted of their readiness to believers in Macedonia, using their example to stir generosity. The letter is also addressed to "all the holy people in the whole of Achaia," and Collins suggests that Christians from other towns in the province may have joined the Corinthian assembly at times, indicating that practices circulated regionally.[64] In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul notes that the wearing of the head covering by women was a feature of all Christian churches throughout the known world.[65][66]

Patristic period (2nd–5th centuries)

[edit]
Fresco in the Catacomb of Priscilla showing a veiled Christian woman praying in the gesture of orans, 3rd century

Early Christian writers broadly wrote on the practice of women's head coverings, teaching that Paul's instructions (1 Cor 11:2–16) applied to both prayer and daily dress. Taken together, these sources present a largely unified patristic expectation that modest Christian women cover their heads not only in worship but in ordinary life. Many scholars infer that, as Christianity gained imperial standing in the fourth century, such clerical ideals increasingly shaped social practice.[67] Some of the reasons by the Church Fathers for covering include: associating a woman's hair with erotic allure; arguing that women should assume the veil at puberty; treating it as integral to women's attire; and appealing to "natural law".[68][67][69]

Early Christian art and architecture indicate that women prayed with cloth veils on their heads; catacomb depictions from the second and third centuries show women praying with head coverings.[70][71]

2nd century

[edit]

Starting in the second century, Irenaeus (c. 125 – c. 202) treats 1 Corinthians 11:10 as authentic apostolic instruction tied to women's prophecy. In Against Heresies 3.11.9 he defends Paul's witness to prophetic gifts "of men and women" in the church, implying that the Pauline regulation on women's head coverings applied in worship.[72]

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), an early Christian theologian, instructed in Paedagogus (written in Egypt c. 190) that women should be fully covered in public and may uncover only at home. He presents this dress as sober and protective against public gaze, argues that modest veiling prevents both personal lapse and provoking others to sin, and states that women ought to pray veiled as fitting the will of the Word.[73]

3rd century

[edit]
With regard to the ordinance of headcovering described in 1 Corinthians 11, the early Church Father Tertullian, writing a century after Paul the Apostle, noted that "at this very day, the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve."[74]

Into the third century, Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 220) in De virginibus velandis addresses a Carthaginian dispute in which virgins, that is, unmarried females who have reached puberty, appeared in church unveiled. Citing 1 Corinthians, some argued that Paul's veiling rule bound only "wives," not virgins. Tertullian replies on three grounds. First through custom: the practice of the major, apostolic churches is veiling; going unveiled is immodest and disrupts ecclesial unity. Second by definition: "woman" is a single gender embracing virgins, widows, and wives; Eve before marriage and Mary (explicitly called "woman") show that virgins are still women. Thirdly by nature and lineage: long hair, cosmetics, and the veil are "testimonies of the body" marking a shared female nature, linked to Eve's transgression and the "daughters of men" narrative; the veil signifies penance and restrains seduction. He reframes the debate from bodily practice to scriptural argument, claims unveiling compromises virginity, and bases the issue in church order: if virgins formed a separate gender they might claim teaching or baptizing. Since they do not perform male functions, they share the same genus as matrons and must remain veiled.[75]

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 – c. 235) while giving instructions for church gatherings said "... let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering."[76]

The apocryphal Acts of Thomas (c. before 240),[77] preserved in both Greek and Syriac versions, includes a "tour of hell" section describing punishments for various sins. In the Greek version, the narrator reports that "those that are hung by the hair are the shameless who have no modesty at all and go about in the world bareheaded."[78]

4th and 5th century

[edit]

Diodorus of Tarsus (c. ? – c. 390), a theologian, states a man is "image and glory of God" and therefore prays with head uncovered, while a woman is "the glory of man" and is veiled. He infers that the veiled one is not the image of God in the same sense as the man, though she is consubstantial with him. He therefore links "image" to the exercise of authority or rule, grounding it in Genesis 1:28 (dominion over creatures). Thus, the veil signifies differentiated authority, namely that male headship is bearer of the image qua rule, and female glory as related to the man.[79]

John Chrysostom (c. 347 – c. 407) held that to be disobedient to the Christian teaching on veiling was harmful and sinful, stating: "... the business of whether to cover one's head was legislated by nature. When I say 'nature', I mean 'God'. For he is the one who created nature. Take note, therefore, what great harm comes from overturning these boundaries! And don't tell me that this is a small sin."[80]

Jerome (c. 342 – c. 347 – 420) noted that the hair cap and the prayer veil is worn by Christian women in Egypt and Syria, who "do not go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostle's command, for they wear a close-fitting cap and a veil."[81]

Augustine of Hippo (354–430) writes about the head covering, "It is not becoming, even in married women, to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands women to keep their heads covered."[82]

Medieval period (5th–15th centuries)

[edit]

By the Middle Ages, going bareheaded carried strong stigma; in southern Italy, uncovered women were visually coded as adulteresses or prostitutes.[83] Across Byzantium and medieval Europe, long female hair was linked with seduction and immodesty, prompting the expectation that women conceal it under veils, hoods, or caps; only virgins could appear publicly with uncovered hair.[84]

Artistic and legal evidence reflects this norm with medieval art depicting veiled women in worship, and sumptuary laws regulated the quality and expense of women's veils as a matter of modesty and social order.[85]

Theologians such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) stated: "they erred in clothing, namely, because the women gathered for the sacred mysteries with heads uncovered; (§586)."[86]

Modern period (16th–21st centuries)

[edit]
An altarpiece portraying the Mass in the Lutheran Church, which illustrates women wearing head coverings

Until at least the 19th century and still extant in certain regions, the wearing of a head covering, both in the public and while attending church, was regarded as customary for Christian women, in line with the injunction to do so in 1 Corinthians 11, in the Mediterranean, European, Indian, Middle Eastern, and African societies.[87][88][89][90][91]

16th and 17th century

[edit]

In early modern and modern interpretation, 1 Corinthians 11 was often read in tandem with 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14.[92]

John Calvin, who saw the wearing of head coverings by Christian women as normative, subsumed 1 Corinthians 11 under the admonition to silence: the veil addresses women who presume to speak, but it does not license them to do so; in the Institutes he treats veiling "within a larger context of understanding the common good".[92]

The Council of Trent (1545–1563), convened by Pope Paul III, responded to the Protestant Reformation by clarifying Catholic doctrine and tightening church discipline. Within post-Tridentine Catholicism, women in religious life were distinguished by their religious habit and the rite of profession was commonly described as "taking the veil."[93]

Cornelius à Lapide (1567–1637), a Jesuit priest, argued in his commentary that Paul's passage on head coverings was intended to distinguish Christian practice from pagan custom. He contended that the Apostle sought to abolish the "heathen" practice where women worshipped "bareheaded, according to the ancient custom of the heathen."[94]

The 1599 Geneva Bible's commentary adds that a woman uncovered in public worship "shame[s] themselves," removing "the sign and token of their subjection," and appeals to "nature" (women’s long hair) to judge appearing bareheaded improper.[95]

Philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) says women at Corinth sometimes "prayed and prophesied" in assembly, but had to remain veiled while doing so. He adds that ordinary speaking in church was to be silent for women "without an extraordinary call," whereas speaking was allowed when it was "by an extraordinary call and commission from God," i.e., by the Spirit’s "immediate motion and impulse."[96][92]

In the 1600s Christian literature, with respect to demonology, has documented that during exorcisms, possessed women have attempted to tear off their headcovering, as with the case of Frances Bruchmüllerin in Sulzbach.[97][98] These instances are tied by some to the enigmatic phrase "because of the angels" in 1 Corinthians 11:10, in which a veiled head is seen as a shield against attacks by fallen angels such as those mentioned in the Book of Enoch.[99]

18th and 19th century

[edit]

Across much of 18th-century Europe, women were widely expected to cover their heads in public and at worship.[100] the practice was often read through 1 Corinthians 11 as signaling female subordination, and bare-headed women could face exclusion or harassment.[101] In Spain the lace mantilla had, by around 1800, become a potent marker of Spanish female identity,[102] while in Venice veiling and masking practices formed part of urban decorum into the long eighteenth century.[103]

Victorian periodicals registered resistance to strict covering norms; for example, The Christian Lady’s Magazine (1855) criticized coiffures and gauzy hats that left hair visible, extending its critique from church to public life.[104]

Many Protestant exegesis held Paul's injunctions as being normative to public Christian worship: H. A. W. Meyer treated covering as a congregational, custom-shaped matter, and Frédéric Godet argued that if a woman appeared prominently (e.g., under exceptional inspiration), the veil should all the more signal modesty.[105]

By the late Victorian period, resistance was more open: Elizabeth Cady Stanton recounted a London church incident in which a woman chose to stay away rather than resume wearing a bonnet after a reprimand.[106] A feminist interpreter similarly sought to limit the passage's normativity by challenging Pauline authorship or transmission: in The Woman's Bible (1895–98), Lucy Stone questioned the authority of Paul's injunctions on women's veiling, attributing them not to divine command but to "an old Jewish or Hebrew legend" that Paul, educated "at the feet of Gamaliel," merely repeated. She thus treated the mandate as culturally derived rather than binding. Stanton treated the veiling as a token of subjection.[105]

Influential 18th–19th-century commentators generally upheld head covering as a normative Christian practice for women.[107][108][109] This position is seen in works such as: as Matthew Henry's Bible Commentary (1706),[110] Charles Hodge's An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1874),[111] Frédéric Louis Godet's Commentary on First Corinthians (1886),[112] Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians (1884),[113] John Gill's Exposition of the New Testament: 1 Corinthians (1746–1748),[114] Henry Alford's The Greek Testament (1857–1861),[115] and Thomas Charles Edwards's A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1885).[116]

20th century

[edit]

In the early part of the 20th century in Britain, wearing a hat was widely treated as integral to women’s public dress and going out bareheaded could be seen as a breach of propriety.[117] Throughout the nineteenth century hats functioned as a cultural necessity in many contexts and that, up to World War I, many women donned a white cap upon rising and wore a hat or bonnet outside the home.[118][119]

From the sixteenth to the early twentieth century, Catholic discipline on women’s attire in worship remained stringent.[120] In 1904, Pope Pius X initiated a comprehensive codification of canon law that culminated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (promulgated by Benedict XV; in force from 1918), which codified long-standing practice rather than introducing a novel obligation.[120]

In regions such as the Mediterranean and the Middle East, many Christian women continued (and in some places continue) to cover in public or at worship;[121] in Ethiopia (netsela);[122] and in the Indian subcontinent head covering as a sign of respect spans Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and Christian communities.[123] However, over the course of the early–mid twentieth century, the practice declined in much of the West; some writers link Western reinterpretations that do not require veiling with broader social changes associated with second-wave feminism.[124][125] In 1968, the National Organization for Women adopted a "Resolution on Head Coverings":[126][127]

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.

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1969, fifteen women from the Milwaukee chapter of NOW protested in St. John de Nepomuc Catholic Church; after taking their place at the communion rail, the women removed their hats and placed them on the communion rail.[128] The following week, the Milwaukee Sentinel published a letter to the editor from "Mrs. M. E., Milwaukee," who called the protest "immature exhibitionism."[126][129] Academic publications have noted that the decline of head coverings in many churches correlates with second-wave feminism and with efforts by organizations like NOW to engage religious institutions.[124]

In the mid-20th century, some scholarship began to read 1 Corinthians 11:3–16 as culturally specific.[130] For example, Pierce, Groothuis, and Fee argue that the covering and its social meaning were context-bound in Corinth and that today the practice is a matter of personal choice rather than universal mandate.[131] William O. Walker Jr. advances an interpolation view of 1 Cor 14:34–35.[132] William Barclay reads 1 Cor 11 with reference to Near Eastern head-covering customs.[132] J. Murphy-O’Connor and A. C. Thiselton construe the passage as marking gender differentiation rather than prescribing a timeless dress law.[133] Hans Conzelmann argues local convention and cautions against universalizing Paul’s rationale.[134] Social-anthropological and cultural-history approaches (e.g., Judith Gundry-Volf; Dale B. Martin) situate the text within Mediterranean honor/shame codes and ancient medical cosmology, interpreting veiling as a practice guarding social and bodily order.[135]

Christian women wearing head coverings at an Easter church service in St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Russia

In the Catholic Church, the 1983 Code of Canon Law replaced the 1917 code in its entirety and contains no head-covering requirement; where the custom persists, it is by local practice rather than universal law.[136][137][138] Though the practice of head covering was normative in many Protestant churches (Lutheran, Continental Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Anglican and Methodist) of the West prior to the 1960s, at present most evangelical churches in the West (apart from those of Conservative Anabaptism) give the practice little emphasis in informal worship.[139][140][130] A number of traditions retain the ordinance of head covering for women: Conservative Anabaptist denominations and Old Order Anabaptist groups (Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites) link 1 Corinthians 11 with 1 Thessalonians 5:17 and have women wear bonnets or white organza prayer caps throughout waking hours, with hair typically long, center-parted, and pinned up; Conservative Anabaptists more generally have retained women’s head coverings and uncut long hair, practices often abandoned by mainline Anabaptists.[130][141] Among the Amish, women typically wear long hair with a prayer covering (white for married women, black for unmarried girls) and add a bonnet and shawl in cold weather.[142] Certain African American congregations also preserve head-covering customs; for example, among Spiritual Baptists "women always tie their head" for worship, including in North American congregations.[143][144]

Since the 2010s, a subset of younger Catholics and Lutherans have revived veiling, in the former case often linked to renewed interest in the Traditional Latin Mass and framed as a voluntary sign of reverence, with clergy noting visible growth and vendors reporting increased sales.[145][146][147] Some nuns of the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican traditions of Christianity still wear the covering as part of their religious habit.[148][149][150]

Styles

[edit]

Early church

[edit]
Fresco of veiled women at a tomb
Dura-Europos, 3rd century
4th century donor portrait mosaic
Aquileia Basilica, 4th century
Annunciation mosaic, triumphal arch
Santa Maria Maggiore, Annunciation, 5th century

From the 1st century AD through Late Antiquity, Christian writers across major centers consistently described head coverings as substantial and opaque, though each region articulated the practice in distinct ways. Many dress/social-history scholars read these texts as norm-making rhetoric amid diverse local "micro-practices".[151][152] Certain scholars argue for a normative, socially enforced régime grounded in Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11.[153][154][155]

Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria urges women to be "entirely covered" in worship, calls veiling "becoming" for prayer, and warns against conspicuous veils (e.g., purple) or uncovering that invites the gaze (Paedagogus III).[156][157]

Bethlehem

[edit]

In Bethlehem, Jerome’s ascetic counsel links female with plain, enveloping dress and restrained deportment: in his letter to Eustochium he urges continuous modesty in public and private (e.g., staying indoors unless necessary, avoiding conspicuous attire, and practicing downcast bearing), and in his later exhortation to Demetrias he prefers simple, concealing garments over fine linen and showy dress.[158][159]

Carthage

Tertullian’s De virginibus velandis specifies a substantial head-covering, "as far as the place where the robe begins," with the "region of the veil… co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound" and criticizes substitutes such as turbans, woollen bands, or small linen coifs that "do not reach… the ears."[160][161] Cyprian’s De habitu virginum likewise advocates modest dress and hair, discouraging braided hair and ornamental display, and warning against adornments that "hide the neck."[162]

Constantinople and Antioch

John Chrysostom reads 1 Corinthians 11 to require women’s head-covering as an ongoing practice rather than merely momentary in prayer. He describes the veil as one "carefully wrapped up on every side for complete enclosure," insisting it be worn continuously as a sign of modesty and order, not just in the liturgy.[163][164][165] He also links the external covering with modesty and order: "being covered is a mark of subjection and authority… [it] preserve[s] entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience"). In a parallel vein, commenting on 1 Timothy 2:9, Chrysostom defines "modest apparel" as "such attire as covers [women] completely, and decently."[166]

Rome and Italy

[edit]

The church order attributed to Hippolytus requires an "opaque cloth," not thin linen, "for this is not a true covering" (Apostolic Tradition II.18).[167] The Shepherd of Hermas depicts the Church "veiled up to her forehead" with a hood (Vision 2.4.1–2).[168][169] Ambrose exhorts consecrated women to cover their hair "take the cap which will cover your hair and conceal your countenance."[170]

Contemporary

[edit]

Christina Lindholm (2012) observes that across Christian traditions, the veil or head covering has encompassed diverse garments, influenced by the culture in which the church is located. In Western Europe, the colour of the veil could mark certain occasions or states of life, such as white for brides or black for widows; religious orders used them as signs of consecration. Eastern Christians use scarves and wraps tied to modesty customs, and Anabaptists favor plain kapps as symbols of obedience. After World War II, hats and headscarves in Western churches declined but remain in use in some locales. Head coverings thus continue to adapt, carrying meanings of modesty, consecration, identity, and belonging.[171] For example, as Christianity expanded in India, converts often adopted religious practices mediated by local custom, including women's dress; where saris or shalwar kameez predominate, churchgoing attire commonly includes a head covering (e.g., dupatta or pallu).[172] In the present-day, various styles of head coverings are worn by Christian women including:

Contemporary styles
Region / community Name Denomination Description Image
Spain, Argentina and other parts of Latin America Mantilla Roman Catholic (especially Spanish Catholic tradition), Plymouth Brethren, and Mennonites (chiefly those in Argentina) A Spanish lace or silk veil worn over the head and shoulders, often draped over a tall comb (peineta). It became a staple of Spanish women's dress and identity by the late 18th to early 19th centuries. Seen in church and religious processions, mourning (often black), weddings and festive occasions; widely seen in portraits and fashion imagery around 1800.[173]
Eastern Europe Headscarf Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Lutheran and Eastern Catholic Churches In contemporary Russia, casual churchgoers typically adhere to head covering norms in church, with stricter styles signaling heightened piety;[174] these norms include veiling as a symbol of Orthodox womanhood.[175] In Serbia, head covering symbolizes submissiveness to husband and church, reinforcing piety through obedience.[176] Broader Orthodox guidelines encourage head coverings in church as a sign of subjection to God, with long hair preferred as a natural modesty marker.[177]
Romania Maramă Romanian Orthodox Christianity A maramă is a traditional Romanian head scarf made of fine, delicate cloth such as thin cotton or linen. It is a long, rectangular veil, typically embroidered with decorative motifs, including geometric lines, floral tulips, or anthropomorphic figures like "Adam and Eve", concentrated at its ends. Traditionally, it was worn by women as an ornamental head covering, often hanging down the back. During economic industrialization, the white maramă was largely replaced by the more urban aframă. It is primarily worn during cultural events or in regions preserving traditional customs.[178]
Moldova Batic Moldovan Orthodox Church A batic is seen as an "umbrella of God" worn by women.[42]
Middle East, Indian subcontinent, Russia Shawl Worn by Christians of various denominations A shawl is a piece of fabric worn by women over the head and shoulders[179]
Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey (Assyrian traditions) Yalekhta Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Catholic Church, Syriac Orthodox Church A yalekhta (Assyrian Neo-Aramaic: ܝܠܟܬܐ, yaa-likh-ta) is a type of square cloth described as a kerchief or handkerchief, carried on the person as an ornament or used as a head covering.[180] In contemporary practice, it is a traditional accessory at Assyrian Christian and Chaldean wedding receptions, consisting of a thin, transparent cloth often decorated with beads or ornamentation. After the church wedding service, guests typically hold and wave yalekhtas in the banquet hall, with the collective display forming a distinctive feature of the festivities.[181]
West Africa; diaspora in the Caribbean and United States Head tie West African Christianity; Spiritual Baptist (Caribbean); also some Pentecostal churches Worn in West Africa (see Yoruba gele as head wrap),[182] and in the Caribbean among Spiritual Baptists, where "women always tie their head" for worship;[183] also noted during wakes;[184] the same norms extend to North American congregations.[185]
Ethiopia, Eritrea Netela Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church; Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church Netela is a wrap-style, transparent cotton garment woven from two joined panels, typically finished with decorative tibeb bands at the ends;[186] among Ethiopian Orthodox it is worn in church, on public holidays, at weddings and funerals, and also in everyday settings. At Orthodox funerals it is first wrapped to cover the head;[186] women commonly wear a qemis (dress) with a netela over it, with embroidery motifs (e.g., crosses) varying by religion;[187] in diaspora settings, worshippers wear the traditional white netela at Ethiopian Orthodox services in Washington, DC.[188]
India, Pakistan Dupatta Worn by Christians in the Indian subcontinent across various denominations Dupatta, a long rectangular scarf worn with salwar kameez, is customarily taken over the head in certain settings (e.g., in the presence of elders), particularly in North India and Pakistan.[189]
United States and Canada Kapp Amish, Mennonites, River Brethren, Schwarzenau Brethren, as well as certain Conservative Quakers Among Ontario Mennonites, the wearing of a white net head-dress for church and a plain black bonnet for outdoor headgear was made a test of membership in the 1920s.[190] Similarly, women in the Schwarzenau Brethren tradition wear a prayer veiling accompanied by a bonnet for public wear as part of their plain dress norms.[191] Mennonite kapp
Hanging veil (sometimes opaque) Mennonites and Hutterites A hanging veil is an headcovering, usually white or black,[192][193] worn by some Christian women as an alternative to the kapp in certain Anabaptist traditions, provided it covers an equal or greater amount of hair as the kapp, which is traditionally defined as being "of ample size to cover most of the hair."[194] Worn in continual obedience to 1 Corinthians 11:2–10,[195][196] its design drapes over the head and hangs down the neck,[197] serving as a practice rooted in modesty, divine order,[198][199][28][200] and early Christian teaching.[201][202] Conservative Mennonite hanging veil Hutterite tiechl
United States Church crown Free Presbyterian Church, Plymouth Brethren, and many congregations within the Black church Church crowns were common among American women until the mid-20th century, they remain an enduring tradition in certain Christian denominations that uphold the practice of headcovering, such as the Free Presbyterian Church, Plymouth Brethren, and many congregations within the Black church.[203][204] A church crown is traditionally a straw hat or fascinator elaborately adorned with elements such as sequins, feathers, lace, tulle, or ribbons. These hats exhibit considerable diversity in their structure, color, and overall complexity.[205]

Denominational practices

[edit]

Many women of various Christian denominations around the world continue to practice head covering during worship and while praying at home,[41][206] as well as when going out in public.[207][42][208] This is true especially in parts of the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and Eastern Europe (such as Western Moldavia).[207][209][210][1][42][208]

Western Christianity

[edit]

At the start of the 20th century, it was commonplace for women in mainstream Christian denominations of Western Christianity around the world to wear head coverings during church services.[211][91] These included Anabaptist,[212][213] Anglican,[214] Catholic,[215][216] Lutheran,[217] Methodist,[218] Moravian,[219] Plymouth Brethren,[220] Quaker,[221] and Reformed.[222] Those women who belong to Anabaptist traditions are especially known for wearing them throughout the day.[223][224]

Western women formerly wore bonnets as their head coverings, and later, hats became predominant.[225][226] This practice has generally declined in the Western world, though head coverings for women are common during formal services such as weddings, in the United Kingdom.[227][228][214] Among many adherents of Western Christian denominations in the Eastern Hemisphere (such as in the Indian subcontinent), head covering remains normative.[41][223][229][2]

Anabaptist

[edit]
Amish women wearing kapps

Many Anabaptist women, especially those of the Conservative Anabaptist and Old Order Anabaptist branches, wear head coverings, often in conjunction with plain dress.[230] This includes Mennonites (e.g., Old Order Mennonites and Conservative Mennonites), River Brethren (Old Order River Brethren and Calvary Holiness Church),[231] Hutterites,[232] Bruderhof,[212] Schwarzenau Brethren (Old Order Schwarzenau Brethren and Dunkard Brethren Church),[233] Amish, Apostolic Christians and Charity Christians.[234][235] Headcovering is among the seven ordinances of Conservative Mennonites, as with the Dunkard Brethren.[4][30]

Catholic

[edit]
Mantillas made of white lace, during a Holy Week procession in Spain
Catholic women in the Philippines prepare to attend Mass (1905)

Headcovering for women was unanimously held by the Latin Church until the 1983 Code of Canon Law came into effect.[236] A headcovering in the Catholic tradition carries the status of a sacramental.[237][238] Historically, women were required to veil their heads when receiving the Eucharist following the Councils of Autun and Angers.[239] Similarly, in 585, the Synod of Auxerre (France) stated that women should wear a head-covering during the Holy Mass.[240][241] The Synod of Rome in 743 declared that "A woman praying in church without her head covered brings shame upon her head, according to the word of the Apostle",[242] a position later supported by Pope Nicholas I in 866, for church services."[243] In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) said that "the man existing under God should not have a covering over his head to show that he is immediately subject to God; but the woman should wear a covering to show that besides God she is naturally subject to another."[244] In the 1917 Code of Canon Law it was a requirement that women cover their heads in church. It said, "women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord."[245] Veiling was not specifically addressed in the 1983 revision of the Code, which declared the 1917 Code abrogated.[246] According to the new Code, former law only has interpretive weight in norms that are repeated in the 1983 Code; all other norms are simply abrogated.[215] This effectively eliminated the former requirement for a headcovering for Catholic women, by silently dropping it in the new Code of Canon. In some countries, like India, the wearing of a headscarf by Catholic women remains the norm. The Eucharist has been refused to ladies who present themselves without a headcovering.[247]

Traditional Catholic and Plain Catholic women continue to practice headcovering, even while most Catholic women in western society no longer do so.[248]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[edit]

In 2019, veiling of women during part of the Church’s temple endowment ceremony was discontinued.[249] That same year, a letter from the Church's First Presidency stated that "Veiling an endowed woman's face prior to burial is optional." It had previously been required. The letter went on to say that such veiling, “may be done if the sister expressed such a desire while she was living. In cases where the wishes of the deceased sister on this matter are not known, her family should be consulted”.[249]

Lutheran

[edit]

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."[250] Some Lutheran women wear the headcovering during the celebration of the Divine Service and in private prayer.[251]

Martin Luther, the father of the Lutheran tradition, encouraged wives to wear a veil in public worship.[252] Lutheran systematic theologian Philip Melanchthon broadened this to the public square, holding that "a woman sins who goes in public without her head covered".[253]

Moravian/Hussite

[edit]
Female dieners in the Moravian Church serving bread to fellow members of their congregation during the celebration in a lovefeast are seen wearing head coverings.

The haube is a Christian headovering that has historically been worn by women who belong to the Moravian Church, at least since the 1730s.[254] Nicolaus Zinzendorf, a Moravian divine, "likened the Haube to a 'visible diadem' representative of Jesus' burial cloth." In 1815, Moravian women in the United States switched to wearing the English bonnet of their neighbors.[254] Certain Moravian women continue to wear a headcovering during worship, in keeping with 1 Corinthians 11:5–6.[255] Additionally, in the present-day, Moravian ladies wear a lace headcovering called a haube when serving as dieners in the celebration of lovefeasts.[256]

Reformed

[edit]
Headcovering in the Restored Reformed Church of Doornspijk

In the Reformed tradition, both John Calvin, the founder of the Continental Reformed Churches, and John Knox, the founder of the Presbyterian Churches, both called for women to wear head coverings.[257][258] Calvin taught that headcovering was the cornerstone of modesty for Christian women and held that those who removed their veils from their hair would soon come to remove the clothing covering their breasts and that covering their midriffs, leading to societal indecency:[259]

So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature...Further, we know that the world takes everything to its own advantage. So, if one has liberty in lesser things, why not do the same with this the same way as with that? And in making such comparisons they will make such a mess that there will be utter chaos. So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead for something else; 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also bare this and bare that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard.[260]

Furthermore, Calvin stated "Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it."[259] Other Reformed supporters of headcovering include: William Greenhill, William Gouge, John Lightfoot, Thomas Manton, Christopher Love, John Bunyan, John Cotton, Ezekiel Hopkins, David Dickson, and James Durham.[261]

Other Reformed figures of the 16th and 17th centuries held that head covering was a cultural institution, including William Perkins,[262] Walter Travers,[263] William Ames,[264] Nicholas Byfield,[265] Arthur Hildersham,[266] Giles Firmin,[267] Theodore Beza,[268] William Whitaker,[269][270] Daniel Cawdry,[271] and Herbert Palmer,[272] Matthew Poole,[273] and Francis Turretin.[274][275] The commentary within the Geneva Bible implies that Paul's admonition is cultural rather than perpetual.[276]

Women cover their heads in some conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches, such as the Heritage Reformed Congregations, Netherlands Reformed Congregations, Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), Free Presbyterian Church of North America and Presbyterian Reformed Church.[204][277][278][279]

Methodist

[edit]

John Wesley, a principal father of Methodism, held that a woman, "especially in a religious assembly", should "keep on her veil".[280][281][282] The Methodist divines Thomas Coke, Adam Clarke, Joseph Sutcliffe, Joseph Benson and Walter Ashbel Sellew, reflected the same position – that veils are enjoined for women, while caps are forbidden to men while praying.[282][283]

Conservative Methodist women, like those belonging to the Fellowship of Independent Methodist Churches, wear head coverings.[284] The presence of headcovering in the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church and Christian Methodist Episcopal Church remains stable among women (additionally, those women commissioned as deaconesses wear a deaconness cap).[285][286][287]

Quaker

[edit]

The Central Yearly Meeting of Friends, part of the Gurneyite-Orthodox branch of Quakerism, teaches that in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul instituted the veiling of women as "a Christian woman's way of properly honoring the headship of men in the church and of making a statement of submission to their authority (vs. 3, 5)."[288] The wearing of a veil is thus "the statement of genuine Christian piety and submission."[288] The same passage, in the view of the Central Yearly Meeting, teaches that in addition to a head covering, verses 14 and 15 teach that "nature has endowed women with a natural covering which is their long hair".[288] Given this, the Central Yearly Meeting holds that:[288]

While there are groups of Christians today who make their statement of submission by wearing coverings in keeping with this passage of Scripture, there are others who feel that in the present culture their long hair is sufficient to make such a statement. While we believe it is for those who wish to wear a covering to do so as a fine and becoming statement of submission, we urge them also to have their long and uncut. We believe regarding those Christian women who do not wear a covering that while it is proper for them to have their hair long, their long hair may not necessarily be a statement of piety since others in the world may have the same. For this reason, we believe that a Christian woman [who does not wear a head covering] makes her best statement of piety and submission by wearing her hair done up in a manner that is both feminine and unassuming.[288]

Conservative Friends (Quaker) women, including some from the Ohio Yearly Meeting (Conservative), wear head coverings usually in the form of a "scarf, bonnet, or cap."[31]

Plymouth Brethren

[edit]

Plymouth Brethren women wear a headscarf during worship, in addition to wearing some form of headcovering in public.[289]

Baptist

[edit]

Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist movement in North America, taught that women should veil themselves during worship as this was the practice of the early Church.[290]

Pentecostal

[edit]
Women belonging to the Samoan Assemblies of God Church, a Pentecostal denomination, are seen wearing hats during worship.

The wearing of a head covering during Pentecostal worship was the normative practice from its inception; in the 1960s, "head coverings stopped being obligatory" in many Pentecostal denominations of Western Europe, when, "with little debate", many Pentecostals "had absorbed elements of popular culture".[291]

Certain Pentecostal Churches, such as the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, Ukrainian Pentecostal Church, and the Christian Congregation continue to observe the veiling of women.[292][293][294]

Restorationist

[edit]

Among certain congregations of the Church of Christ, it is customary for women to wear head coverings.[295]

The Davidian Seventh-day Adventist Church, in its official organ The Symbolic Code, teaches that women are to wear a head covering anytime when worshipping, both at church and at home, in view of 1 Corinthians 11.[296][297]

Female members of Jehovah's Witnesses may only lead prayer and teaching when no baptized male is available to, and must do so wearing a head covering.[298][299]

Shakers

[edit]
The Shakers during a service of worship

In the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing, Shaker girls and women wear a headcovering as a part of their daily wear.[300] These are in the form of a white cap.[300] Historically, these were sewn by Shaker women themselves, though in the middle of the 20th century, the rise of ready-made clothing allowed for the purchase of the same.[300]

Eastern Christianity

[edit]
Women of the Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church wearing head coverings

Among the churches of Eastern Christianity (including the Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Lutheran traditions), it has been traditionally customary for women to cover their heads with a headscarf while in church (and oftentimes in the public too); an example of this practice occurs among the Orthodox Christians in the region of Western Moldavia, among other areas.[42][43][208][301] In Albania, Christian women traditionally have worn white veils.[302][303]

Eastern Orthodox

[edit]

An ancient Orthodox Christian prayer titled the "Prayer for binding up the head of a woman" has been used liturgically for the blessing of a woman's headcovering(s), which was historically worn by an Orthodox Christian woman at all times with the exception of sleeping:[5]

O God, you who have spoken through the prophets and proclaimed that in the final generations the light of your knowledge will be for all nations, you who desire that no human created by your hands remain devoid of salvation, you who through the apostle Paul, your elected instrument, ordered us to do everything for your glory, and through him you instituted laws for men and women who live in the faith, namely that men offer praise and glory to your holy name with an uncovered head, while women, fully armed in your faith, covering the head, adorn themselves in good works and bring hymns and prayers to your glory with modesty and sobriety; you, O master of all things, bless this your servant and adorn her head with an ornament that is acceptable and pleasing to you, with gracefulness, as well as honour and decorum, so that conducting herself according to your commandments and educating the members (of her body) toward self-control, she may attain your eternal benefits together with the one who binds her (head) up. In Jesus Christ our Lord, with whom to you belongs glory together with the most holy, good and life-giving Spirit, now and ever (and unto the ages of ages).[5]

Alexei Trader, the Eastern Orthodox bishop of the Diocese of Sitka and Alaska, delineated the teaching of the Church on a Christian woman's headcovering:[304]

In the Orthodox Church, the act of placing something under or behind a veil sets it apart as special, as something to be revered and respected, similar to the role played by the temple veil of the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem. Thus, there is a connection between a woman's veil with covering and revering that which is precious, such as the chalice that contains the wine that will become the Most-pure blood of Christ. And those coverings themselves also become holy. We can see this in the account of the Byzantine Empress Eudokia who donated her personal veil/head-covering to a monastery for use as an altar cloth. Of all articles of clothing, only a woman's head-covering could become a vestment for the holy altar, for it is already a kind of vestment.[304]

Bishop Alexei further stated that "Every Orthodox woman who wears a veil or head-covering is also blessed by that veil of the Mother of God, which miraculously and repeatedly protected the faithful from so much harm."[304]

Women belonging to the community of Old Believers wear opaque Christian head coverings, with those who are married keeping a knitted bonnet known as a povoinik underneath.[305]

However, in parishes of the Orthodox Church in America, the wearing of the headscarf is less common and is a matter of Christian liberty.[306]

Eastern Orthodox nuns wear a head covering called an apostolnik, which is worn at all times, and is the only part of the monastic habit which distinguishes them from Eastern Orthodox monks.

Oriental Orthodox

[edit]
Coptic Orthodox Christian woman wearing a head covering and harabah (1918)

In Oriental Orthodox Christianity, Coptic women historically covered their head and face in public and in the presence of men.[307] During the 19th century, upper-class urban Christian and Muslim women in Egypt wore a garment which included a head cover and a burqa (muslin cloth that covered the lower nose and the mouth).[308] The name of this garment, harabah, derives from early Christian and Judaic religious vocabulary, which may indicate the origins of the garment itself.[308] Unmarried women generally wore white veils while married women wore black.[307] The practice began to decline by the early 20th century.[307]

The Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches (SCOOCH), which represents the Armenian, Coptic, Syrian, Indian, Ethiopian and Eritrean traditions of Oriental Orthodox Christianity, enjoins the wearing of a headcovering for a woman as being "Proper Attire in Church".[309]

Oriental Protestant

[edit]

Women in the Believers Eastern Church, an Oriental Protestant denomination, wear head coverings.[310] Its former Metropolitan Bishop, K. P. Yohannan teaches that "When a woman wears the symbol of God's government, a head covering, she is essentially a rebuke to all the fallen angels. Her actions say to them, 'You have rebelled against the Holy God, but I submit to Him and His headship. I choose not to follow your example of rebellion and pride.'"[2]

Scriptural basis

[edit]
A young Slavic woman wearing a headcovering during the Divine Liturgy at Saint Petersburg Theological Academy, Russia

Old Testament and Apocrypha/Deuterocanon

[edit]

Passages such as Genesis 24:65,[311] Numbers 5:18,[312] Song of Solomon 5:7,[313] Susanna 1:31–32,[314] and Isaiah 47:2[315] indicate that women wore a head covering during the Old Testament era.[1][316] Song of Songs 4:1[317] records that hair is sensual in nature, with Solomon praising its beauty.[318] The removal of a woman's veil in the passage of Isaiah 47:1–3 is linked with nakedness and shame.[319]

New Testament

[edit]

1 Corinthians 11:2–16[320] contains a key passage to the use of head coverings for women (and the uncovering of the heads of men).[22][321] Much of the interpretive discussion revolves around this passage.

Exegesis

[edit]

Paul introduces this passage by praising the Corinthian Christians for remembering the "ordinances" (also translated as "traditions"[322] or "teachings")[323] that he had passed on to them (verse 2).[15] Included in these apostolic ordinances that Paul is discussing in 1 Corinthians 11 are the headcovering and the Eucharist.[324]

Paul then explains the Christian use of head coverings using the subjects of headship, glory, angels, natural hair lengths, and the practice of the churches.[1][325] This led to the universal practice of headcovering in Christianity.[34][1] Theologians David Lipscomb and J. W. Shepherd in their Commentary on 1st Corinthians explicate the theology behind the traditional Christian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, writing that Paul taught that "Every man, therefore, who in praying or prophesying covers his head, thereby acknowledges himself dependent on some earthly head other than his heavenly head, and thereby takes from the latter the honor which is due to him as the head of man." In the Old Testament, priests (who were all male) wore turbans and caps as Jesus was not known in that era, establishing "the reason why there was no command to honour Him by praying or prophesying with heads uncovered."[326] With the revelation of Jesus to humanity, "Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonours his head (Christ)."[326] In light of 1 Corinthians 11:4, Christian men throughout church history have thus removed their caps when praying and worshipping, as well as when entering a church.[327][328][329] As the biblical passage progresses, Paul teaches that:[326]

God's order for the woman is the opposite from His order for the man. When she prays or prophesies she must cover her head. If she does not, she disgraces her head (man). This means that she must show her subjection to God's arrangement of headship by covering her head while praying or prophesying. Her action in refusing to cover her head is a statement that she is equal in authority to man. In that case, she is the same as a woman who shaves her head like a man might do. Paul does not say that the woman disgraces her husband. The teaching applies to all women, whether married or not, for it is God's law that woman in general be subject to man in general. She shows this by covering her head when praying or prophesying.[326]

Ezra Palmer Gould, a professor at the Episcopal Divinity School, noted that "The long hair and the veil were both intended as a covering of the head, and as a sign of true womanliness, and of the right relation of woman to man; and hence the absence of one had the same significance as that of the other."[330] This is reflected in the patristic teaching of the Early Church Father John Chrysostom, who explained the two coverings discussed by Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:[331]

For he said not merely covered, but covered over, meaning that she be with all care sheltered from view on every side. And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand, but if she be not covered, let her also be shorn. As if he had said, "If thou cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature."[331]

John William McGarvey, in delineating verse 10 of 1 Corinthians 11, suggested that "To abandon this justifiable and well established symbol of subordination would be a shock to the submissive and obedient spirit of the ministering angels (Isaiah 6:2) who, though unseen, are always present with you in your places of worship (Matthew 18:10–31; Psalm 138:1; 1 Timothy 5:21; ch. 4:9; Ecclesiastes 5:6)".[332] Furthermore, verse 10 refers to the cloth veil as a sign of power or authority that highlights the unique God-given role of a Christian woman and grants her the ability to then "pray and prophesy with the spiritual gifts she has been given" (cf. complementarianism).[295] This was taught by Early Church Father Irenaeus (120–202 AD), the last living connection to the Apostles, who in his explication of Saint Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 11:10, delineated in Against Heresies that the "authority" or "power" on a woman's head was a cloth veil (κάλυμμα kalumma).[333] Irenaeus' explanation constitutes an early Christian commentary on this biblical verse.[334] Related to this is the fact that Verse 10, in many early copies of the Bible (such as certain vg, copbo, and arm), is rendered with the word "veil" (κάλυμμα kalumma) rather than the word "authority" (ἐξουσία exousia); the Revised Standard Version reflects this, displaying the verse as follows: "That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels".[335][334] Similarly, a scholarly footnote in the New American Bible notes that presence of the word "authority (exousia) may possibly be due to mistranslation of an Aramaic word for veil".[336] This mistranslation may be due to "the fact that in Aramaic the roots of the word power and veil are spelled the same."[337] Ronald Knox adds that certain biblical scholars hold that "Paul is attempting, by means of this Greek word, to render a Hebrew word that signifies the veil traditionally worn by a married Jewish woman."[338] Nevertheless, the "word exousia had come at Corinth, or in the Corinthian Church, to be used for 'a veil,' or 'covering'...just as the word 'kingdom' in Greek may be used for 'a crown' (compare regno as the name of the pope's tiara), so authority may mean a sign of authority (Revised Version), or 'a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband' (Authorized Version, margin)."[339][340] Jean Chardin's scholarship on the Near East thus notes that women "wear a veil, in sign that they are under subjection."[339][340] In addition to Irenaeus, Church Fathers, including Hippolytus, Origen, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, and Bede write verse 10 using the word "veil" (κάλυμμα kalumma).[334][341]

Russian woman putting a headscarf on before entering her church
Assyrian Christian women wearing head coverings and modest clothing praying in Mart Maryam Church in Urmia, Iran.

Certain denominations of Christianity, such as traditional Anabaptists (e.g. Conservative Mennonites), combine this with 1 Thessalonians 5 ("Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances")[342] and hold that Christian women are commanded to wear a headcovering without ceasing.[343][24] Anabaptist expositors, such as Daniel Willis, have cited the Early Church Father John Chrysostom, who provided additional reasons from Scripture for the practice of a Christian woman wearing her headcovering all the time – that "if to be shaven is always dishonourable, it is plain too that being uncovered is always a reproach" and that "because of the angels...signifies that not at the time of prayer only but also continually, she ought to be covered."[344][28][32] A Conservative Anabaptist publication titled The Significance of the Christian Woman's Veiling, authored by Merle Ruth, teaches with regard to the continual wearing of the headcovering by believing women, that it is:[29]

... worn to show that the wearer is in God's order. A sister should wear the veiling primarily because she is a woman, not because she periodically prays of teaches. It is true that verses 4 and 5 speak of the practice in relation to times of praying and prophesying. But very likely it was for such occasions that the Corinthians had begun to feel they might omit the practice in the name of Christian liberty. The correction would naturally be applied first to the point of violation. Greek scholars have pointed out that the clause "Let her be covered" is the present, active, imperative form, which gives the meaning, "Let her continue to be veiled."[29]

The biblical passage has been interpreted by Anabaptist Christians and Orthodox Christians, among others, in conjunction with modesty in clothing (1 Timothy 2:9–10 "I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God").[345] Genesis 24:65[8] records the veil as a feminine emblem of modesty.[9][10][1] The wearing of head coverings in public by Christian women was commanded in early Christian texts, such as the Didascalia Apostolorum and the Pædagogus, for the purpose of modesty.[11][346]

Verse four of 1 Corinthians 11 uses the Greek words kata kephalēs (κατάIn κεφαλῆς) for "head covered", the same Greek words used in Esther 6:12[347] (Septuagint) where "because he [Haman] had been humiliated, he headed home, draping an external covering over his head" (additionally certain manuscripts of the Septuagint in Esther 6:12 use the Greek words κατακεκαλυμμένος κεφαλήν, which is the "perfect passive participle of the key verb used in 1 Corinthians 11:6 and 7 for both a man's and a woman's covering his or her head [κατακαλύπτω]") – facts that New Testament scholar Rajesh Gandhi states makes it clear that the passage enjoins the wearing of a cloth veil by Christian women.[348][349] Biblical scholar Christopher R. Hutson contextualizes the verse citing Greek texts of the same era, such as Moralia:[350]

Plutarch's phrase, "covering his head" is literally "having down from the head" (kata tes kephales echon). This is the same phrase Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 11:4. It refers to the Roman practice of pulling one's toga up over the head like a hood. ... Romans also wore their togas "down from the head" when they offered sacrifices. This is the practice to which Paul refers.[350]

Verses five through seven, as well as verse thirteen, of 1 Corinthians 11 use a form of the Greek word for "veiled", κατακαλύπτω katakalupto; this is contrasted with the Greek word περιβόλαιον peribolaion, which is mentioned in verse 15 of the same chapter, in reference to "something cast around" as with the "hair of a woman ... like a mantle cast around".[17][351][352][353] These separate Greek words indicate that there are thus two head coverings that Paul states are compulsory for Christian women to wear, a cloth veil and her natural hair.[35][349] The words Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 11:5 are employed by contemporary Hellenistic philosophers, such as Philo (30 BC–45 AD) in Special Laws 3:60, who uses "head uncovered" (akatakalyptō tē kephalē) [ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ] and "it is clear that Philo is speaking of a head covering being removed because the priest had just removed her kerchief"; additionally, akatakalyptos [ἀκατακάλυπτος] likewise "means 'uncovered' in Philo, Allegorical Interpretation II,29, and in Polybius 15,27.2 (second century BC)."[354] 1 Corinthians 11:16[355] concludes the passage Paul wrote about Christian veiling: "But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God's other churches."[15] Michael Marlowe, a scholar of biblical languages, explains that Saint Paul's inclusion of this statement was to affirm that the "headcovering practice is a matter of apostolic authority and tradition, and not open to debate", evidenced by repeating a similar sentence with which he starts the passage: "maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you".[15]

Interpretive issues

[edit]
Orthodox Christian woman in Ukraine. Female believers are required to cover their head when entering churches and monasteries.
A opaque hanging veil worn by a Conservative Anabaptist woman belonging to the Charity Christian Fellowship

There are several key sections of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 that Bible commentators and Christian congregations, since the 1960s, have held differing opinions about, which have resulted in either churches continuing the practice of wearing head coverings, or not practicing the ordinance.[211][356]

  • Gender-based headship: Paul connects the use (or non-use) of head coverings with the biblical distinctions between each gender. In 1 Corinthians 11:3,[357] Paul wrote, "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman." He immediately continues with a gender-based teaching on the use of head coverings: "Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head."[15]
  • Glory and worship: Paul next explains that the use (or non-use) of head coverings is related to God's glory during times of prayer and prophesy. In 1 Corinthians 11:7,[358] he states that man is the "glory of God" and that for this reason "a man ought not to have his head covered." In the same verse, Paul also states that the woman is the "glory of man." He explains that statement in the subsequent two verses by referring to the woman's creation in Genesis 2:18,[359] and then concludes, "Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head" (verse 10). In other words, the "glory of God" (man) is to be uncovered during times of worship, while the "glory of man" (woman) is to be covered.[15]
  • Angels: In 1 Corinthians 11:10,[360] Paul says "Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels" (NASB), also rendered "That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels" (RSV). Many interpreters admit that Paul does not provide much explanation for the role of angels in this context. Some popular interpretations of this passage are:
    1. An appeal not to offend the angels by disobedience to Paul's instructions of women wearing a veil (and men praying with their heads uncovered) as the angels take part in spiritual exercises (Tobit 12:12–15, Revelation 8:2–4)[361][362][363][332][1]
    2. a command to accurately show angels a picture of the created order (Ephesians 3:10,[364] 1 Peter 1:12),[365]
    3. a warning for mankind to obey as a means of accountability, since the angels are watching (1 Timothy 5:21),[366]
    4. to be like the angels who cover themselves in the presence of God (Isaiah 6:2),[367][29] and
    5. to protect against the fallen angels who lust after mortal women and did not stay in the role that God created for them (Jude 1:6).[368][369]

According to Dale Martin, Paul is concerned that angels may look lustfully at beautiful women, as the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 apparently did. Noting the similarity between the Greek word translated "veil" and the Greek word for a seal or cork of a wine jug, Martin theorizes that the veil acted not only to conceal the beauty of a woman's hair, but also as a symbolic protective barrier that "sealed" the woman against the influence of fallen angels.[370] Other scholars, such as Joseph Fitzmyer, believe the angels spoken of here are not fallen angels looking lustfully at women, but good angels who watch over church services. Notably, the author of Hebrews mentions "entertaining angels" and evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests some Second Temple era Jews believed angels attended synagogue services. According to this view, Paul's concern is not that an angel looks lustfully, but simply that the appearance of an inappropriately dressed women might offend the heavenly guardians.[371] A third interpretation comes from Bruce Winter, who theorizes that the "angels" spoken of are not heavenly beings at all, but simply human visitors. Winter notes that the Greek word translated "angels" literally means "messengers" and could refer to a visitor carrying a letter from afar, possibly even the epistle itself. In this view, Paul is concerned that if a visitor to a church service sees a married woman with her head uncovered, he may judge that woman to be promiscuous. Thus, Paul seeks to protect the church community's honour by ensuring that all members appear above reproach.[372]

  • Nature and hair lengths: In 1 Corinthians 11:13–15,[373] Paul asks a rhetorical question about the propriety of head coverings, and then answers it himself with a lesson from nature: "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering." The historic interpretation of this passage, for example seen in Homilies of John Chrysostom, an Early Church Father, reiterates Paul's teaching that since a woman naturally "covers" her head with her natural hair, she likewise ought to cover it with a cloth headcovering while praying or prophesying (cf. conditional sentence).[35][331]

Thus, in the beginning he simply requires that the head be not bare: but as he proceeds he intimates both the continuance of the rule, saying, "for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven," and the keeping of it with all care and diligence. For he said not merely covered, but "covered over," meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side. And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand, "but if she be not covered, let her also be shorn." As if he had said, "If thou cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature." — John Chrysostom[374]

Michael Marlowe, a scholar of biblical languages, explicates the reductio ad absurdum that Paul the Apostle used in the passage:[15]

In the appeal to "nature" (φύσις) here Paul makes contact with another philosophy of ancient times, known as Stoicism. The Stoics believed that intelligent men could discern what is best in life by examining the laws of nature, without relying on the changeable customs and divers laws made by human rulers. If we consult Nature, we find that it constantly puts visible differences between the male and the female of every species, and it also gives us certain natural inclinations when judging what is proper to each sex. So Paul uses an analogy, comparing the woman's headcovering to her long hair, which is thought to be more natural for a woman. Though long hair on men is possible, and in some cultures it has been customary for men to have long hair, it is justly regarded as effeminate. It requires much grooming, it interferes with vigorous physical work, and a man with long hair is likely to be seized by it in a fight. It is therefore unmanly by nature. But a woman's long hair is her glory. Here again is the word δόξα, used opposite ἀτιμία "disgrace," in the sense of "something bringing dishonor." Long and well-kept hair brings praise to a woman because it contributes to her feminine beauty. The headcovering, which covers the head like a woman's hair, may be seen in the same way. Our natural sense of propriety regarding the hair may therefore be carried over to the headcovering.[15]

Paul's discussion of hair lengths was not to command any specific hair measurement, but rather, a discussion of "male and female differentiation" as women generally had longer hair than men; while the males of Sparta wore shoulder-length hair, the hair of Spartan women was significantly longer.[375]

  • Church practice: In 1 Corinthians 11:16,[376] Paul responded to any readers who may disagree with his teaching about the use of head coverings: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." This may indicate that head coverings were considered a standard, universal Christian symbolic practice (rather than a local cultural custom). In other words, while churches were spread out geographically and contained a diversity of cultures, they all practiced headcovering for female members.[15]

Contemporary conclusions

[edit]
Shawls have been used as a headcovering by Christian women in various parts of the world, such as in this photo at Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, Russia; they were worn by the females at the church in Corinth during the era of early Christianity.[179]

Beginning in the 20th century, due to aforementioned issues, Bible commentators and Christian congregations have either advocated for the continued practice of wearing head coverings, or have discarded the observance of this ordinance as understood in its historic sense.[2][356] While many Christian congregations, such as those of the Conservative Anabaptists, continue to enjoin the wearing of head coverings for female members, others do not.[46][377][356]

  • Some Christian denominations, such as Anabaptist Churches and Orthodox Churches, view Christian headcovering as a practice that Paul intended for all Christians, in all locations, during all time periods and so they continue the practice within their congregations. This view was taught by the early Church Fathers and held universally by undivided Christianity for several centuries afterward.[34][2] This historic interpretation is linked with the God-ordained order of headship.[378] Conservative Anabaptists and Old Order Anabaptists hold that because "the testimony of headship and the angels apply to all times of the believer's life, not only church services", in addition to biblical injunctions to "pray often, even continually (Acts 6:3–4, 6; 12:5; Romans 1:8–10; Ephesians 1:15–19; 6:18–20; Colossians 1:3–4; 5:17; 2 Timothy 1:3–6)", women are called to wear the headcovering throughout the day.[379] Sociologist Cory Anderson stated that for those Christian women who continually wear it, the headcovering serves as an outward testimony that often allows for evangelism.[379]
  • A modern interpretation is that Paul's commands regarding headcovering were a cultural mandate that was only for the 1st-century Corinthian church. This view states that Paul was simply trying to create a distinction between uncovered Corinthian prostitutes and godly Corinthian Christian women, and that in the modern era, head coverings are not necessary within a church.[46] Church historian David Bercot criticizes this view as early Church writings do not evidence this reasoning.[46]
  • A recent interpretation, first formulated in 1965 by the Scandinavian theologian Abel Isaakson, purports that Paul stated that the "hair" (specifically "long hair") is the sole covering mentioned in the entire passage; 1 Corinthians 11:15 (NRSV) reads "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."[380][381][34][282] However, some have taken issue with the fact that the Greek word used for covering in verse 15 (περιβόλαιον) is a different word than the form of the word used for veiling/covering in verses 5–7 and 13 (κατακαλύπτω), the latter of which means "to cover wholly" or "to veil".[35][351][349][352][382] Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) John W. Keddie contended that if hair was the covering Paul was talking about, then verse 6 would read "For if the women have no hair on her head, let her also be shorn", rendering the passage to be nonsensical.[35][381]
[edit]

In the United States, an Alabama resident Yvonne Allen, in 2016, filed a complaint with the federal court after being forced to remove her headscarf for her driver's license photograph.[383][384] Allen characterized herself as a "devout Christian woman whose faith compels her to cover her hair in public."[383][385] In Allen v. English, et al., Lee County was accused of violating the Establishment Clause and a settlement was negotiated that gave "Allen a new driver’s license with her head covering".[386]

In 2017, after a prison warden associated with the United States Penitentiary of Atlanta forced Christian prison visitor Audra Ragland to remove her headscarf, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sent a letter to the Federal Bureau of Prisons that asked for an action plan to ensure that the same would not occur again and that otherwise, the Federal Bureau of Prisons would be exposed to legal liability.[387] Audra Ragland cited 1 Corinthians 11 as the reason behind the practice of Christian covering and noted that she felt "exposed and embarrassed as she had to walk in front of so many men whom she did not know" and that she was "sickened that she had to potentially compromise her faith" in order to visit her brother.[387] The ACLU noted that the prison warden's coercion constituted "religious discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons' policy governing visitors' religious head wear and the U.S. Penitentiary of Atlanta's policies."[387]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Head covering for Christian women refers to the biblical mandate in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, where the Apostle Paul directs that a praying or prophesying should have a of authority on her head, contrasting with men who pray uncovered, to signify proper order in creation and angelic witness. This practice, entailing a or cloth distinct from described as a natural covering in verse 15, symbolized female subjection to male headship and in settings. Historically, the custom was universally observed in the early Church, as evidenced by catacomb frescoes depicting veiled women in prayer and endorsements from like , who linked it to piety and dignity. It persisted through patristic, medieval, and eras in both Eastern and Western traditions, with Roman Catholic enforcing it until 1983. In the , adoption of hats transitioned to abandonment in Protestant and mainstream Catholic contexts, coinciding with broader cultural shifts toward , though it remains obligatory in Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and conservative Anabaptist communities such as and . The practice sparks ongoing exegetical debate: whether Paul's instruction is a timeless apostolic ordinance rooted in creation order and unchanging principles of authority, or a culturally contingent to first-century Corinthian norms of propriety and social signaling. Proponents of its enduring validity emphasize the passage's , angels, and universal church practice, while critics argue archaeological and literary evidence ties it to Greco-Roman veiling customs for married women, rendering it non-binding today absent similar societal cues. Despite such contention, adherence in observant groups underscores its role in maintaining distinct gender roles and liturgical decorum.

Scriptural Foundations

Old Testament and Jewish Context

In the Old Testament, direct references to women's head coverings appear in narrative contexts rather than as explicit commandments. In Genesis 24:65, Rebekah veils her face upon first seeing , her prospective husband, signaling modesty and respect in the presence of a potential marital authority figure. This act aligns with ancient Near Eastern customs where veiling denoted bridal propriety or deference, though it does not prescribe universal covering. Similarly, Isaiah 3:17–18 describes divine judgment on haughty women in by uncovering their hair and removing ornaments, portraying unveiled hair as a form of , which presupposes that head covering was a normative expectation for women in that cultural milieu. A key inferential text is Numbers 5:18, part of the sotah ritual for a suspected adulteress, where the explicitly "uncovers the head" of the before presenting her offering. This procedure implies that married women's heads were customarily covered, as the act of unveiling served to expose and , equating uncovered with akin to a shaved head (Numbers 5:18; cf. Deuteronomy 21:12 for similar implications in captive women's assimilation). No verse mandates head covering for all women, but these passages reflect a cultural baseline of where exposing violated social norms tied to marital fidelity and propriety. In post-biblical Jewish tradition, rabbinic authorities formalized hair covering for married women as an eruv (fence) against impropriety, deriving it from the sotah narrative in Numbers 5. The Talmud (Ketubot 72a) infers that since the priest uncovers the sotah's head to publicize her suspected infidelity, routine covering must have been standard for married women to maintain modesty and distinguish marital status, preventing hair from inciting lust. This practice, observed in Orthodox communities into modern times, emphasizes hair as ervah (potential nakedness), requiring scarves, wigs, or hats post-marriage, though enforcement varies and lacks direct Pentateuchal warrant beyond interpretive extension. Such customs provided the Jewish cultural backdrop for early Christian communities, where headship symbolism in worship drew on analogous modesty principles without identical legalism.

New Testament Mandate in 1 Corinthians 11

In 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, the Apostle Paul addresses the Corinthian church's worship practices, commending their adherence to traditions while issuing directives on head coverings to maintain order and propriety. He establishes a of —"the head of every man is Christ, the head of a is her , and the head of Christ is "—and applies it to visible symbols in and : men must uncover their heads to honor their divine , while women must cover theirs to avoid dishonoring their head (understood as the husband or the authority structure). Paul explicitly states that "every who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven," equating uncovered participation to a sign of associated with or in the cultural context. The mandate ties the covering to a woman's "" ( in Greek, rendered as "power" in some translations), which she should have "on her head because of the angels," suggesting a visible emblem of delegated authority observable by spiritual beings during assemblies. Paul grounds this not solely in Corinthian customs but in creation order: woman was made from man and for man, distinguishing her glory from man's direct reflection of , and in "nature itself," which teaches that long hair serves as a proxy dishonor for women but not a full substitute for the covering. He reinforces universality by appealing to "the custom of 's churches," indicating the practice's apostolic norm beyond local . Interpretations vary, with some scholars arguing the directive was culturally bound to first-century Mediterranean norms of and prostitution markers, rendering it non-binding today. However, the text's appeals to transcultural elements—creation sequence, angelic witness, and pan-church practice—support readings of it as a timeless principle of distinction in , rather than a disposable custom, as affirmed in conservative exegeses emphasizing Paul's intent to regulate disorderly innovations. Egalitarian analyses often reframe kephalē ("head") as "source" rather than authority and prioritize women's prophetic role over the covering, but these overlook the passage's explicit linkage to subordination and shame avoidance. Such views, prevalent in modern academic , reflect broader institutional tendencies toward minimizing biblical hierarchies, contrasting with patristic and affirmations of the mandate's normative force.

Broader Biblical Principles of Authority and Modesty

The biblical principle of , as articulated in 1 Corinthians 11:3, establishes a hierarchical order of headship: "the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." This structure reflects functional rather than ontological inequality, mirroring Christ's voluntary submission to the Father while maintaining equality in , and it grounds headship in creation itself, predating the Fall (1 Corinthians 11:7-9). In the context of , a woman's head covering serves as an external of this , signifying her recognition of headship and preventing dishonor to her own head (understood as her or the created order), thereby upholding divine order "because of the angels," who observe and enforce cosmic hierarchies (1 Corinthians 11:10). Complementing authority is the principle of modesty, which emphasizes restraint in appearance to prioritize inner virtue over external adornment. In 1 Timothy 2:9-10, women are instructed to "adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works." This directive counters cultural excesses, promoting sobriety (Greek sophrosyne, denoting sound judgment) and shamefacedness (a demeanor of propriety) to focus attention on godliness rather than sensuality. Deuteronomy 22:5 further reinforces gender distinction by prohibiting cross-dressing, as "a woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God," ensuring visible markers of created sexual differences to maintain societal and divine order. These principles intersect in the head covering mandate, where the functions not merely as apparel but as a modest of submission, aligning external conduct with internal submission to and warding against practices that blur roles or provoke disorder in assembly. Theological views this as timeless in principle—honoring creation ordinances—though cultural expressions may vary, with the embodying both authority's acknowledgment and modesty's restraint against ostentation or rebellion.

Historical Continuity and Evolution

Early Church and Patristic Enforcement

![Early Christian orant from Priscilla's catacombs][float-right] In the immediate post-apostolic era, the practice of head covering for women during prayer and worship was codified in liturgical instructions attributed to early Church leaders. The Apostolic Tradition, ascribed to Hippolytus of Rome around 215 AD, directed that "all the women should cover their heads with a pallium, and not simply with a piece of linen, which is not a proper veil," specifying an opaque fabric covering for participation in baptismal rites and communal prayer. This reflected enforcement of 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 as a normative requirement, distinguishing Christian women from pagan customs where uncovered heads might signal availability or status. Tertullian of , writing circa 200-211 AD in On the Veiling of Virgins, extended the mandate to unmarried women post-puberty, arguing that demanded veiling as a of authority and modesty, irrespective of marital status. He critiqued emerging practices among some virgins who appeared unveiled in church, insisting that failure to cover dishonored the head and invited angelic observation of disorder, directly invoking 1 Corinthians 11:10. 's treatise aimed to enforce uniformity, portraying non-compliance as a deviation from scriptural and customary norms observed in Corinthian churches even a century after Paul. Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata composed around 200 AD, affirmed that women ought to veil their heads in public and worship, interpreting Paul's directive as requiring a fabric covering rather than mere , to signify subjection and propriety. This patristic consensus portrayed head covering as an ecclesiastical discipline, with non-observance equated to shaving the head in shame per 1 Corinthians 11:6. Later patristic enforcement intensified, as seen in John Chrysostom's Homily 26 on First Corinthians (circa 390-407 AD), where he exhorted women to cover during or to avoid dishonor, emphasizing the veil's role in maintaining divine order and warding off disruption from angels. Such writings indicate active pastoral correction, with universally teaching and communities practicing veiling as a visible emblem of gender hierarchy and reverence, persisting without recorded dissent until later centuries.

Medieval and Reformation Adherence

In medieval , head covering for Christian women was a normative practice reinforced by theological interpretation and ecclesiastical custom, extending the patristic emphasis on 1 Corinthians 11 into daily and liturgical life. , in his commentary on the epistle, argued that women should maintain a covering over their heads during and as a of subjection to male authority, rooted in the creation order where woman was formed from man, rendering the practice perpetual rather than merely cultural. Church norms, influenced by earlier councils like that of in 506 which prescribed veils for women in worship, extended to public appearances, where uncovered hair signaled scandal, , or widowhood, with married women donning wimples, veils, or kerchiefs to embody and . These coverings, often substantial or constructions, served practical roles in and weather protection while symbolizing female before and hierarchy. The era witnessed sustained adherence among both Catholic and emerging Protestant traditions, with reformers invoking scriptural authority to preserve the custom amid broader liturgical reforms. viewed head covering as a wifely duty in public worship, comparable to household responsibilities, and his wife Katharina exemplified it by veiling during services, reflecting Lutheran continuity with medieval piety. , expounding on 1 Corinthians 11, contended that an uncovered woman praying or prophesying dishonors her head—equated to her husband or Christ—equating it to shaming equivalent to shaving, thus mandating veils or caps in assemblies to uphold divine order and decorum. In Reformed contexts, such as Scottish practices, women routinely covered in church into the post-Reformation period, distinguishing the godly from secular influences, though enforcement relied more on conscience than papal decree. This theological affirmation ensured the practice's persistence, countering narratives of universal decline by grounding it in creation-based headship rather than transient customs.

Modern Decline and Secular Influences

The practice of head covering among Christian women, once nearly universal in Western churches into the mid-20th century, experienced a sharp decline following , accelerating dramatically in the amid broader cultural upheavals. In Catholic contexts, the explicitly mandated that women cover their heads in church (Canon 1262), a norm observed consistently until the post-Vatican II era. Although the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) itself did not alter this requirement, the subsequent liturgical reforms and abrogation of the 1917 Code in the 1983 revision effectively rendered it optional, coinciding with a rapid abandonment as women assimilated mainstream fashion trends emphasizing bare heads. By the late , even Vatican statements reaffirming the tradition, such as a 1969 insistence on head covering, failed to stem the tide, with veiling becoming exceptional outside traditionalist circles. This decline paralleled the rise of , which framed head coverings as symbols of patriarchal oppression and female subjugation, prompting many denominations to reinterpret or jettison the practice to align with egalitarian ideals. Radical feminists in the late publicly campaigned against veiling, influencing Protestant and Catholic congregations alike to view it as incompatible with women's liberation, leading to its discontinuation in most Western evangelical and mainline churches by the 1970s. The aversion to visible signs of male headship, rooted in 1 Corinthians 11's theology of authority, was recast through secular lenses as outdated cultural relic rather than timeless divine ordinance, with pastoral leadership often yielding to societal pressures over scriptural fidelity. Secular influences extended beyond feminism to include liberal theology's emphasis on cultural relativism and assimilation into modern society, eroding adherence in favor of symbolic gestures of equality over distinct roles. In evangelical circles, the shift correlated with broader , where lack of doctrinal teaching on the practice left congregations vulnerable to prevailing norms of and . By the 1980s, head covering had become marginal in mainstream , persisting primarily among conservative Anabaptist groups like the and , or in isolated traditionalist Catholic and Orthodox communities, underscoring a causal link between de-emphasizing and adopting secular mores. This abandonment reflects not mere change but a deeper theological concession to anti-hierarchical ideologies, prioritizing contemporary relevance over historical continuity.

Theological Rationale

Symbolism of Headship and Divine Order

In 1 Corinthians 11:3, the Apostle Paul articulates a hierarchical structure of , stating that "the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is ," which undergirds the requirement for women to cover their heads during or as a visible emblem of this divine order. This headship principle reflects a pre-fall creational , where male precedes and patterns , analogous to Christ's submission to the Father without implying inferiority in essence. The covering thus serves not as a mark of inferiority but as an acknowledgment of relational , ensuring that worship maintains distinctions rooted in God's design rather than cultural norms. Paul grounds this symbolism in the order of creation, noting in verses 8–9 that "man was not made from woman, but woman from man" and "neither was man created for woman, but woman for man," positioning the practice as timeless rather than transient custom. The head covering, therefore, externalizes the woman's derived (Greek exousia, "" in verse 10), worn "on her head" to honor male headship and avert dishonor to the man as the " and glory of " (verse 7). Theologians interpret verse 10's phrase "she ought to have over her own head" as the covering itself signifying her place within the authority structure, protecting the assembly's propriety under divine oversight. The reference to angels in verse 10—"because of the angels"—further emphasizes the covering's role in upholding cosmic order, as these beings witness corporate worship and expect adherence to God's creational hierarchy, akin to their observation of Edenic roles. This interpretation aligns with patristic views, such as John Chrysostom's fourth-century commentary, which saw the as a safeguard of propriety before angelic beholders, reinforcing headship without . In essence, the practice symbolizes the interdependence of verses 11–12 ("woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman in the ") within a framework of ordered submission, preserving gender distinctions essential to theological . Such symbolism counters disruptions to divine order, as uncovered by women would blur these lines, dishonoring the source of authority.

Connection to Prayer, Prophecy, and Worship

In 1 Corinthians 11:4–5, the Apostle Paul instructs that "every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven." This directive explicitly links the practice of head covering for women to the spiritual exercises of prayer and prophecy, which occur within the context of corporate worship in the early church assembly. Prayer here refers to vocal supplication to God, often aloud in the gathered congregation, while prophecy denotes the public declaration of divine revelation or exhortation under the Spirit's inspiration, as described in 1 Corinthians 14:3–4. Both activities were integral to New Testament worship, where believers edified one another through spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 14:26). The requirement for head covering during these acts underscores a theological emphasis on maintaining visible distinctions in roles amid spiritual . Paul argues that a woman's uncovered head in such settings disrupts the symbolic order of creation, equating it to the of shaved hair, a cultural sign of or (1 Corinthians 11:6). This covering serves as "a of on her head" (1 Corinthians 11:10), affirming her submission within the divine , Christ, man, woman—while enabling her participation in without dishonor. The phrase "because of the angels" in verse 10 indicates that heavenly beings, who observe and participate in (as in 1 Corinthians 11:10 and Psalm 138:1), witness this order; disorder in human conduct during divine service dishonors the cosmic angels uphold. Early patristic interpreters reinforced this connection, viewing the covering as essential for women's prophetic and ful roles in to preserve modesty and . (c. 200 AD), in On the Veiling of Virgins, insisted that women during to avoid and honor angelic observers, interpreting Paul's words as a universal mandate for decorum. Similarly, (c. 390 AD) in his Homilies on 1 Corinthians explained that the covering prevents women from appearing as usurpers of male when exercising gifts like , ensuring reflects God's creational design rather than cultural inversion. These interpretations align with Paul's broader concern for orderly , where spiritual gifts like must not undermine distinctions (1 Corinthians 14:33, 40). In Reformed theological traditions, the practice symbolizes the church's submission to Christ during congregational prayer and exposition, with women's coverings visibly enacting the headship principle amid the Spirit's manifestations. This rationale persists in groups emphasizing biblical literalism, where head coverings during worship services affirm that prophecy and prayer—vehicles of divine communication—demand adherence to authority structures for authentic spiritual expression. Failure to cover, per Paul, equates to rejecting this order, rendering women's contributions in worship symbolically ineffective or rebellious (1 Corinthians 11:13–15).

Gender Roles and Distinction in Creation

In the creation account of Genesis 2, God forms from the dust of the ground before creating from , establishing an order that theologians interpret as indicative of male headship and female complementarity rather than mere sequence. This sequence underscores 's role as a suitable helper (Hebrew 'ezer kenegdo), a term denoting strength and correspondence to man without implying subordination in essence but distinction in function, as affirmed in appeals to the same narrative. The absence of a corresponding creation of man from woman reinforces this asymmetry, positioning the relational dynamic as foundational to prior to the Fall. Paul explicitly grounds the principle of headship in 1 Corinthians 11:3—"the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is man"—by referencing Genesis, stating that "man is not from woman, but woman from man" and "nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man" (1 Corinthians 11:8–9, ESV). This creation-based rationale transcends cultural norms, as Paul argues it reflects divine order observable even to angels (1 Corinthians 11:10), who witness and the maintenance of gender distinctions. Complementarian interpreters, such as , emphasize that this order prohibits blurring gender markers in , with the head covering serving as a visible of woman's under male headship, distinct from man's uncovered head symbolizing his direct accountability to Christ. John Calvin, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11, concurs that the veil functions as a sign of subjection rooted in creation's , not inferiority, paralleling Christ's submission to the Father without compromising equality in the . This framework posits gender roles as ontologically tied to creation's —man imaging in authority, woman reflecting relational glory—rather than egalitarian interchangeability, a view Paul reinforces by analogizing to the Trinity's eternal relations. Thus, the head covering mandate affirms these pre-cultural distinctions, countering any assimilation of male and female roles that would obscure the Creator's intent for differentiated yet interdependent humanity.

Contemporary Practices

Denominational Variations in Western Christianity

In the , women were required to cover their heads in church under the , which prescribed a or as a sign of reverence and modesty during worship. Following the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the omitted this mandate, and a 1976 clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith affirmed that head coverings are not obligatory, leading to a sharp decline in the practice across mainstream parishes by the 1970s. Nonetheless, veiling persists among traditionalist Catholics attending the , where it aligns with pre-conciliar rubrics, and has experienced a modest revival since the among younger women in ordinary form Masses, often as a voluntary expression of devotion amid broader liturgical experimentation. Mainline Protestant denominations, including Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed bodies, generally do not require head coverings, viewing the Pauline directive in 1 Corinthians 11 as culturally contextual to first-century rather than a perpetual ordinance. In the , coverings are treated as an adiaphoron, permitting individual choice without ecclesiastical enforcement, though some women adopt them for personal symbolism of submission. Anglican and Episcopal churches historically encouraged hats for women in services until the mid-20th century, but post-1960s secular shifts rendered the custom rare, confined to occasional personal piety in conservative parishes. Conservative Reformed and Presbyterian groups debate the issue more vigorously, with some congregations, such as certain Reformed Presbyterian churches, mandating veils in worship as a visible of divine headship derived from creation order, while others reject it as non-essential. Baptist and Pentecostal traditions typically eschew cloth head coverings as mandatory, prioritizing long uncut hair among Apostolic Pentecostals as the natural fulfillment of biblical covering for women during or , per 1 Corinthians 11:15. Independent fundamentalist Baptist churches occasionally promote veiling in services to underscore gender distinctions, but this remains exceptional rather than normative. Anabaptist denominations, particularly and conservative Mennonite communities, maintain stringent adherence to head coverings as both daily and worship practice, with women donning white kapps (prayer caps) indoors and bonnets outdoors to signify , , and obedience to scriptural authority—a custom codified in Mennonite Brethren resolutions as early as 1878 and upheld uniformly to preserve communal separation from worldly fashions. This contrasts sharply with the broader erosion in other Western Christian groups, where and interpretive shifts toward have marginalized the tradition since the early 20th century.

Practices in Eastern Christianity

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, women traditionally cover their heads during , prayer, and other worship services, adhering to the scriptural directive in 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 that a woman praying or prophesying with uncovered head dishonors her head. This practice, rooted in patristic interpretation and conciliar tradition, symbolizes authority, humility, and respect for angelic presence in worship, and has been continuously observed since early Byzantine times. Common forms include or headscarves, shawls, or mantillas, often worn upon entering the church . Observance varies by jurisdiction and cultural context: it remains nearly universal in Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian, and Romanian Orthodox churches, where uncovered heads are rare and may draw disapproval in traditional parishes. In Greek Orthodox communities, particularly those influenced by Western secularism since the mid-20th century, the custom has waned, becoming optional in many urban or diaspora settings, though still encouraged in monastic and conservative environments. No ecumenical canon mandates head covering, positioning it as a pious discipline rather than liturgical necessity, with parish priests occasionally providing scarves for visitors. Eastern Catholic Churches of the , such as Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Melkite Greek Catholic, exhibit similar variability, with head covering practiced by devout women in line with Orthodox heritage but not enforced, reflecting autonomy in liturgical customs post-Union of Brest in 1596. In these churches, the emphasis lies on fostering and divine order, though adoption has declined amid broader Catholic liturgical reforms. Among Oriental Orthodox traditions within , such as the , women veil during services to signify obedience and participation in heavenly , maintaining the practice as a safeguard of feminine .

Recent Revivals and Movements

In the early , renewed advocacy for head covering among Christian women has emerged primarily within conservative Protestant circles, particularly Reformed and evangelical communities , as a response to perceived cultural shifts toward and . This revival emphasizes a literal reading of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, viewing the practice as a timeless symbol of male headship and female submission rooted in creation order rather than cultural custom. Proponents argue that the decline in head covering paralleled the rise of in the mid-20th century, which eroded traditional gender distinctions in church settings, prompting a counter-movement to restore biblical practices for and . Central to this revival is The Head Covering Movement, an online initiative that disseminates resources, biblical exegesis, and personal testimonies to encourage women to veil during prayer and prophecy, not limited to church services. Launched in the 2010s, the movement has produced articles, videos, and study materials asserting that head covering combats modern idols of autonomy and promotes spiritual authority, with content updated as recently as 2025 including testimonies from adopters like Hope Agustin, who credits the practice with fostering personal freedom amid cultural pressures. Its influence extends through digital platforms, where women share experiences of adopting mantillas, scarves, or hats as acts of obedience, often in non-denominational or independent Reformed congregations. Parallel developments appear among traditionalist Catholics attending the Latin Mass, where young women have revived veiling as a sign of reverence and , distinct from mandatory habits but aligned with pre-Vatican II customs. This trend, noted in personal accounts from the onward, reflects broader liturgical traditionalism post-2007 , though it remains voluntary and not enforced by the Vatican. In broader evangelical contexts, blogs and forums document individual revivals, with women citing enhanced focus in prayer and resistance to vanity as motivations, though adoption remains sporadic rather than institutionalized. These movements prioritize scriptural fidelity over societal norms, often critiquing mainstream evangelical silence on the issue as concession to feminist influences, yet they lack empirical data on scale, with participation estimated in thousands via online engagement rather than mass conversions. Critics within dismiss such revivals as legalistic, but advocates maintain they restore worship integrity without imposing extra-biblical rules.

Interpretive Debates and Controversies

Cultural Relativism vs. Timeless Command

The debate over 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 hinges on whether Paul's instruction for women to cover their heads while praying or prophesying reflects a transient cultural accommodation to first-century Corinthian norms or an enduring mandate grounded in theological universals. Advocates of posit that uncovered female heads in Greco-Roman contexts often signaled moral looseness, such as among temple prostitutes or rebellious women, and Paul aimed to enforce visible propriety to prevent the church from appearing disreputable to outsiders. This view interprets the passage's references to "" (v. 14) and as a covering (v. 15) as shorthand for prevailing hairstyles that denoted distinction and , rather than a literal requirement transferable across eras. New Testament scholar Gordon D. Fee, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, argues that the directive pertains to culturally specific adornment during public worship, where women's participation in necessitated conformity to societal markers of respectability to maintain the gospel's plausibility, without implying perpetual obligation. Similarly, some exegetes contend the text's awkward progression—from headship to creation to angels—reveals Paul's rhetorical adaptation of local customs, with "covering" potentially denoting arranged hair rather than fabric, as direct head-veiling was not uniformly mandated for respectable women in Corinthian art or literature. These interpretations, often advanced in egalitarian-leaning academic circles, prioritize historical contextualization to discern transcultural principles like mutual respect over the form of observance. Opponents, favoring a timeless command, counter that Paul's rationale explicitly invokes the pre-cultural creation sequence—woman derived from man, not vice versa (vv. 8-9)—and the authority structure symbolized by the covering (v. 10), positioning it as a visible affirmation of divine hierarchy applicable whenever women engage in formal worship. The appeal to angels as observers (v. 10), interpreted as heavenly witnesses to earthly order, and nature's inherent shame for men with long hair (vv. 14-15), further anchor the practice in ontology rather than expediency, as these elements lack dependence on Corinthian ethnography. Verse 16's declaration of no alternative "practice" among "the churches of God" underscores universality, implying enforcement beyond local mores, consistent with apostolic traditions delivered church-wide (v. 2). Patristic evidence reinforces this, with Tertullian (c. 200-220 AD) prescribing veiling for women in as apostolic norm, and (c. 150-215 AD) upholding it as decency mirroring creation distinctions, practices that persisted across diverse regions until the 20th century's feminist shifts eroded them in Western contexts. Theologians like David Silversides argue that dismissing the command as cultural overlooks its integration with headship theology (v. 3), which parallels non-negotiable doctrines like male-only eldership, rendering selective relativism inconsistent with scriptural that privilege creation norms over societal flux. While cultural arguments risk subordinating text to conjecture amid sparse archaeological data on Corinthian veiling, the timeless framework coheres with Paul's broader emphasis on reflecting eternal realities over ephemeral conventions.

Hairstyle Theory and Alternative Exegeses

The hairstyle interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 maintains that Paul's directives address gender-distinctive hair lengths and arrangements rather than artificial veils or cloths, equating a woman's "covering" (Greek katakalyptō) with her long, unbound as a natural glory and safeguard against cultural associations with prostitution or impropriety in first-century . Proponents, including biblical scholar B. Payne, argue this view aligns with verses 14-15, where Paul states that nature itself teaches long distinguishes women as their "glory" and "covering," rendering additional fabric redundant and emphasizing innate over imposed symbols. This posits that disruptions in Corinthian worship arose from women adopting short or scandalous hairstyles akin to temple prostitutes, prompting Paul to reinforce creation-order distinctions (vv. 3, 7-9) through hairstyle norms rather than veiling mandates. Critics of the hairstyle theory contend it conflates distinct concepts in the text, as verses 5-6 differentiate an "uncovered" head from shaved by prescribing a separate covering to avert , implying an external object beyond mere coiffure. Exegete Larry G. Overton notes that katakalyptō typically denotes veiling in Hellenistic contexts, as evidenced by contemporary sources like , where it contrasts with hair-related terms like komasthai (to let hair hang loose); equating the two overlooks Paul's hypothetical of a woman cropping her hair short and then veiling it, which presupposes fabric as the remedial act. Furthermore, verse 10's "authority" () on the woman's head—depicted as a literal due to "the angels"—suggests a tangible of order, not , aligning with Jewish and Greco-Roman customs where veils signaled marital or social propriety during . This critique highlights that reducing the passage to aesthetics ignores its theological anchoring in headship (v. 3) and angelic witness (v. 10), potentially diluting prescriptive elements for church practice. Alternative exegeses emphasize artificial coverings as enduring symbols of divine and , interpreting the as a visible token of woman's derivative creation from man (vv. 8-9) and subordination to male headship, thereby honoring 's in differentiated roles. In this view, Paul's appeal to creation order and nature transcends Corinthian culture, mandating veils in prophetic or prayerful assemblies to maintain propriety before and angels, who enforce cosmic boundaries. Some scholars propose a sociocultural lens, arguing veiling countered pagan excesses like unveiled female oracles in Dionysian rites, restoring order without universal application today, though this risks relativizing the text's universal appeals to creation and praxis (vv. 16, "we have no such custom"). Egalitarian readings recast "head" (kephalē) as source rather than , framing veils as women's self-chosen sign of prophetic empowerment, but this faces resistance from lexical data favoring hierarchical connotations in Pauline usage. These interpretations underscore ongoing , with traditionalists prioritizing textual grammar and historical veil customs over modern egalitarian predispositions in biblical scholarship.

Egalitarian Critiques and Hierarchical Defenses

Egalitarians interpret 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 as addressing situational propriety in Corinthian rather than establishing a timeless symbol of female subordination, arguing that head coverings prevented cultural perceptions of impropriety during women's prayer or , which Paul affirms as legitimate ministries equal to men's. They contend that "head" (kephalē) denotes source or origin rather than , drawing from pre-Christian Greek usage, thus framing male "headship" as primacy in creation order without implying hierarchical rule over women. Verse 10, where a woman "ought to have " (exousia) on her head, is seen as granting women to veil for honor in that context, countering patriarchal by linking covering to protection under male kinship rather than enforced submission. This aligns with egalitarian commitments to full mutuality in church roles, rejecting any inference of inherent as a misreading influenced by later traditions rather than the text's pneumatic emphasis on and glossolalia accessible to all believers. Such critiques often prioritize archaeological and extrabiblical evidence of first-century veiling customs among married women in Roman Asia Minor, positing Paul accommodated these to safeguard the gospel's advance amid societal norms equating uncovered heads with or , without endorsing them as divine imperatives. Egalitarians further argue that appeals to nature (verses 14–15) refer to as a natural covering, rendering artificial veils redundant today, and dismiss angelic observation (verse 10) as hyperbolic rhetoric for church order rather than warranting perpetual symbols. However, this approach has been challenged for selectively culturalizing elements like creation order (verses 8–9), which Paul invokes explicitly as transhistorical, unlike variable customs such as footwashing. Complementarians and hierarchical interpreters defend head coverings—or their symbolic equivalent—as manifestations of -ordained male headship, rooted in the creational priority of over , which Paul cites to underscore enduring gender distinctions in worship assemblies. They maintain that the covering visibly enacts verse 3's over Christ, Christ over man, man over woman—preventing dishonor to the man's head (Christ) and affirming submission patterns mirrored in the , applicable beyond due to universal appeals to nature, angels, and praxis (verses 13–16). In this view, dismissing the practice erodes biblical complementarity, where women's veiling signals , marital , and , countering egalitarian flattening of roles that, per critics, ignores empirical patterns of male leadership in Scripture and . Traditionalist groups, including Eastern Orthodox and Anabaptist communities, uphold veiling in as obedience to , viewing egalitarian reductions as concessions to modern over scriptural realism. These defenses emphasize causal links between visible symbols and doctrinal stability: uncovered prophecy by women risked blurring created distinctions, inviting angelic rebuke in worship where orders are observed (verse 10), a rationale deemed timeless since tied to rather than mere . While some complementarians adapt the symbol (e.g., suffices per verse 15), they insist the underlying structure persists, critiquing egalitarian exegeses as anachronistically projecting equality ideals onto texts that prioritize divine for ecclesial harmony. Empirical continuity in traditions like Mennonite veiling—practiced consistently since the —supports this, contrasting with egalitarian dominance in mainline denominations where such practices waned post-1960s alongside broader role .

Styles, Materials, and Customs

In Anabaptist traditions such as and communities, women's head coverings primarily consist of the "kapp" or prayer cap, a close-fitting fabric cap for married women and adult unmarried females, often pleated or gathered at the back and secured with straight pins or bobby pins. These kapps are constructed from lightweight materials like cotton organdy, Swiss dot, or starched linen to ensure opacity and durability, with styles varying by settlement—such as heart-shaped in , or rounded in other regions. Young girls typically wear black kapps until around age 11 or , after which they transition to as a marker of maturity and marital eligibility. dictate wearing the kapp during prayer, services, and often throughout daily indoor activities to symbolize submission and separation from worldly , though outdoor sunbonnets of straw or fabric supplement for protection. Roman Catholic women favoring traditional practices employ the , a triangular or rectangular in black (for mourning or general use) or white (for weddings or purity), draped loosely over the head and shoulders during or Eucharistic adoration. Made from fine , silk, or for elegance and breathability, the mantilla's style echoes Spanish colonial influences and is pinned or held in place without strict tying. Post-Vatican II (1960s), veiling became optional rather than mandated by norms, yet customs persist among Latin Mass attendees, where it signifies reverence and feminine modesty during liturgical prayer. Eastern Orthodox Christian women observe head covering through scarves or shawls, typically square or oblong , , or pieces fully enveloping the and tied under the or at the to prevent slippage during prostrations. Colors range from solid black or navy for solemnity to patterned florals in Slavic traditions, with materials chosen for season—lighter in summer, heavier in winter. While not canonically required, customarily worn in church services across jurisdictions like Russian or Greek Orthodox to embody and adherence to 1 Corinthians 11, the practice remains widespread in monasteries and conservative parishes, often removed upon leaving the .

Historical Restrictions and Bans

During the , revolutionary authorities implemented policies aimed at eradicating religious influence, including the suppression of monastic orders and the prohibition of clerical and religious attire in public. , who traditionally wore habits incorporating head coverings such as veils, were compelled to abandon these garments as part of the dechristianization campaign; the republican regime viewed habits as symbols of feudal oppression and sought to "liberate" women from vows and distinctive dress, with decrees in 1790-1792 dissolving convents and enforcing secular clothing. This extended to lay Catholic women in some regions, where local committees discouraged traditional headscarves associated with piety during festivals, though enforcement varied and primarily targeted institutional religion. In Mexico, the 1917 Constitution's anti-clerical provisions, intensified by President ' enforcement laws in 1926, banned priests from wearing clerical garb outside churches and led to the closure of religious institutions, indirectly restricting nuns' habits that included mantillas or veils. These measures sparked the (1926-1929), during which religious women faced persecution for visible signs of faith, including head coverings, as authorities raided convents and enforced secular dress to diminish Church influence; fines and imprisonment were imposed for violations, though the focus was broader rather than headwear alone. The Soviet Union's anti-religious campaigns from the 1920s onward, codified in the 1929 Law on Religious Associations, prohibited religious propaganda and restricted monastic life, effectively banning habits for Orthodox nuns—which featured headscarves or klobuks—and discouraging lay women's traditional head coverings in rural areas as markers of "backward" . Persecution peaked in , with thousands of nuns arrested or sent to labor camps for refusing to remove religious attire, aligning with state atheism's goal to eliminate visible faith expressions; similar pressures applied in satellite states post-World War II. While not always explicitly targeting lay headscarves, the regime's promoted unveiled, "modern" Soviet womanhood, leading to restrictions in education and workplaces.

Modern Cases Involving Religious Freedom

In the United States, a prominent case arose in when Allen, a Christian resident of , sought to renew her while wearing a required by her faith to cover her hair in public settings. Department of Public Safety officials initially refused, citing a policy prohibiting head coverings except for medical reasons, prompting the to file a federal lawsuit alleging violations of Allen's First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The case settled with the department agreeing to allow Allen's headscarf in the , affirming that state-issued identification must accommodate sincerely held religious practices absent compelling security needs. Similar tensions emerged in correctional facilities, as illustrated by a 2017 incident at a where officials barred visitors wearing Christian head scarves, deeming them unrecognized despite permitting equivalent Muslim hijabs or Jewish kippahs. The policy was challenged as discriminatory under the First Amendment and , with advocates arguing it imposed undue burdens on Christian observants while selectively accommodating others; the prison ultimately revised its approach following legal scrutiny to avoid litigation. Under Title VII of the , employers must reasonably accommodate religious attire like head coverings unless it causes undue hardship, a standard reinforced by the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., which addressed claims involving religious garb—principles applicable to Christian women despite the case centering on a Muslim applicant. Christian adherents from denominations such as Apostolic Pentecostals have invoked these protections in employment disputes, though documented suits remain infrequent compared to those for other faiths, reflecting lower incidence of overt conflicts or greater of such practices. In , neutral workplace policies banning visible religious symbols have occasionally implicated Christian head coverings, as upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases like Achbita v. (2017), which permitted employer neutrality rules potentially affecting nuns' veils or conservative Protestant coverings. However, enforcement has predominantly targeted Islamic hijabs, with Christian claims rarely litigated due to voluntary compliance or less visibility; for instance, no major decisions specifically address Christian women's headwear bans as of 2023.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.