For some years now the question as to whether females should wear a head-covering in worship has been discussed, sometimes quite fiercely. The majority have obviously decided against the matter, and this has left a minority of women who believe they should continue to do so in a dilemma.
First, they do not wish to appear judgemental on those who do not wear head-covering, or to be viewed as self-righteous. Unfortunately, some of them have been be-littled by the non-covering sisters.
So the subject has become controversial, but with respect, it must be asked who has made it controversial? It has been said that if we sent a theologian to 1 Corinthians 11 he would probably find two or three reasons why head-covering is not necessary, but if a new convert is referred to that passage she would come back with a head-covering!
Let me quote from Mary Kenney, a former Daily Mail feature writer and a Roman Catholic. "Even the Church” she wrote, "has joined the anti-hat conspiracy. Until the 1960s it had been a fairly rigidly imposed custom for women to cover their heads in Church, after the imprecation by St. Paul that the heads of women be covered in worship; but the second Vatican Council, summoned by the liberal Pope John in 1962 probably led the way for a change in such custom, when it was declared that St. Paul was out-of-date in these matters. Women need not now cover their heads in Church, and almost overnight the rows of hats in pews turned to rows of bare heads. Last Easter day I did not spot a single hat among the worshippers at Westminster Cathedral".
So where does all this leave us? Obviously, most evangelicals, pentecostals and charismatics have followed suit. Metaphorically speaking, were all those hats blown off by the wind of the Spirit or by thoughtless neglect?
The first epistle to the Corinthians is a very important letter; so important that the latter part of chapter 11 is probably read in nearly every Communion service in our churches, but the reading usually starts around verse 23, from which, the passage is implicitly and unquestionably accepted. Can this mean that the Holy Spirit has wasted His and our time by giving us those first sixteen verses? Are we passing over something that He wants to say to us?
The issue is not whether ladies like to wear hats, or whether they are expensive to buy, or even what they do in America or on the continent. The Scripture must be the final arbiter for all Christian behaviour.
Some would say that it is a matter of eastern culture; but when it relates to angels and the exercise of spiritual gifts, it is surely taken out of any local cultural context and put into the universal.
I do not think that the reference to angels means evil angels because Scripture usually designates such when they are intended. One of the functions of obedient angels is the assisting of God in the administration of the universe, and there are good grounds to regard them as the Holy Watchers in regard to the Church (Dan. 4:13 and Heb. 1:14). They would therefore be responsible for reporting on the good order of the believers in their gathering together.
The female head-covering becomes an important symbol in the Divine scheme of things, and when it is worn, the Christian woman acknowledges the important truths set out at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 11. Head-covering is also mentioned in connection with prayer and the use of spiritual gifts in the Church. In some cases there has been a lack of concern in this, and some, when asking if a woman is 'liberated' have referred to the discarding of the head-covering. A correct understanding of Scripture shows entirely the opposite - the women with head-covering are released to pray and exercise spiritual gifts!
Another question has been asked on this matter, "Is a woman's hair her covering?” A simple transposing of the verses concerned will clearly show that it is not. Let us quote verses 4 to 7 changing the word 'covering' for 'hair': "Every man praying or prophesying, having hair, dishonoureth his head, but every woman that prayeth or prophesieth without hair, dishonoureth her head, for that is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman hath no hair, let her also be shorn, but if it be a shame for the woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair. For a man indeed ought not to have hair forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man”. It will immediately be seen that it does not make sense.
It should also be noted that word used for 'covering' in verses 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13 is 'katakalupto', but the word used for 'covering' in verse15 is changed to 'peribolaion'. This is significant. 'Katakalupto' means to ‘cover up' but 'peribolaion' means to 'cast around' (See Young's Analytical Concordance) and could be equated with the modern hair-do.
The female head-covering also helps to distinguish the sexes. Living as we do in a uni-sex age, we must take note that the Bible maintains sexual differences. Deuteronomy is very clear that there should be no confusion in this matter. What God joins together should not be separated, and what God has separated let no man join!
Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment. Some have limited the meaning of this to a mere transvestite prohibition, but it must mean more than that.
There is something instinctively offensive to the spiritual mind when women try to act or dress like men, and also when men try to act of dress like women. Such behaviour under certain circumstances could constitute grounds for what the Law calls Public Mischief and is it not significant that on most public convenience entrances the sexual differences are symbolised by trousered and skirted figures?