Headcovering in Asia

An itinerant Taoist wears a small traditional head covering called a “pagoda,” which is a small oriental imitation of a temple or sacred building. During the fall and winter, Taoists will wear a protective hat or head covering. Why? This is not only because of the Taoist religion, but also have some relations with health preserving. According to Taoists, the head is one of the most important parts of the body, and they believe the hat is a protection to their head.

According to F. Roy Willis of the University of California—women (and probably men) of ancient Sumerian civilization (around 2500 B.C.) wore head coverings of wool and leather—Sumerian priests, however, would not wear any head gear (and would go bald) as a desire to be regarded as humble, as many serious Buddhist monks and nuns do today.

Chinese Buddhist monks and nun will, however, cover their heads for certain ritual/ceremonial purposes and for warmth. There are different types of the hats they wear depending on their status and the occasion.

Shinto priests of Japan wear various forms of headgear (eboshi) depending on their hierarchical rank. The “kammuri” hat is worn only by the highest-ranking priests. It is the same type of hat worn by emperors, court nobles, shogun, and daimyo (feudal lords) of pre-modern Japan.

Iceland

 

Iceland only has 320,000 people living in it. It is a beautiful country , with a rich Norse heritage.

A translation of the Bible was published in the 16th century. Important compositions since the 15th to the 19th century include sacred verse, most famously the Passion Hymns of Hallgrímur Pétursson, and rímur, rhyming epic poems. Originating in the 14th century, rímur were popular into the 19th century, when the development of new literary forms was provoked by the influential, National-Romantic writer Jónas Hallgrímsson. In recent times, Iceland has produced many great writers, the best-known of which is arguably Halldór Laxness who received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1955. Steinn Steinarr was an influential modernist poet.

Iceland has also been called the land of the elves.

Why was the veil lost?

 

Why was the veil lost?

The veil lost meaning with many, and fell out of fashion. I believe those that continued to try and wear the veil felt discouraged, and under attack by other persons who felt challenged by their action, and they therefore dropped the practice. This God-ordained headship order is looked upon with distain and discontent by many today. Many men have neglected or abused their authority; while many women say they feel degraded and deprived.

"Liberated" woman have exchanged their position of honor, as given by God, for a position of “independent equality,” – wrongly thinking that equality is something more than God’s perfect plan. In exchange for a few new freedoms, they sacrifice their place of protection under man's authority. This attitude of independence is cautioned against in verses 11 and 12 of 1 Corinthians 11. God desires men and women to be dependent on each other, man needs woman, and woman needs man.

By God's grace, a leading, providing husband and a submissive, supportive wife become building blocks for a stable, happy family. Stable families, in turn, build solid, caring churches and a healthy society.

Conversely, as men neglect their leadership, and women spurn that authority, the family begins to deteriorate and our society experiences repercussive social ills. Men and women become bound by the freedoms they sought, and children suffer immeasurably.

Should Christian women wear head coverings today?

We need to examine the Bible to answer such a question. Please read I Corinthians 11:1-16. First we must ask ourselves, “What did I Corinthians 11:1-16 command its original readers to do?” It instructed women to place a piece of cloth or fabric (a.k.a. head covering or veil) upon their heads when praying or prophesying. The size, shape, and color of the head covering is not specified. It is designed to cover the head (vv. 5, 6, 10) and has a function similar to that of hair (vv. 14-15) (although hair, after the fall of man, no longer fulfilled the original purpose as a headcoverning).

This passage also instructed men to pray with their heads uncovered. Men should not pray or prophesy with hats, prayer shawls, skull caps, or any other object that covers their head. The code of good manners in North America still reflects this tradition, which is why men remove their hats for prayer at sporting events, graduation ceremonies, etc.

When should women cover their heads and men not cover their heads?

Paul instructs women to wear a head covering whenever they pray or prophesy (vs. 5). Similarly, men are instructed to keep their heads uncovered when praying or prophesying (vs. 4). At a minimum, this means women should have their heads covered (and men uncovered) when the congregation is gathered for prayer, edification, and worship.

Some Christians point to the second half of 1 Corinthians 11 (which deals with the Lord’s Supper) and argue that the context for both instructions seems to be formal public gatherings of the Body of Christ. Accordingly, these Christians conclude that the instructions in 1 Corinthians 1:1-16 are applicable only in public meetings of the church. This seems a reasonable position, however, women pray throughout the day and in many locations. Women often speak God’s Word to children and friends outside of church settings. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 does not specify a situation that only occurs in public church meetings. This is a reasonable and defensible position. Both Old Testament Hebrew women and Christian women, throughout church history, wore head coverings all the time, and not at worship services only. For these reasons, we may conclude that women should indeed wear head coverings always, and not only in church meetings.

Doesn’t a woman’s long hair qualify as a head covering?

No. This argument is ridiculous: firstly because the Bible is referring to a piece of cloth or fabric when it commands women to wear head coverings (and commands men not to do so). According to Dr. Robert Spinney, it wasn’t until the beginning of the late nineteenth century, that some argued (based on verse 15b) that Paul is instructing women to have long hair and that the so-called head covering is nothing more than long hair. If this “long hair equals head covering” interpretation is true, then we should be able to substitute the phrase long hair for the word covering in this passage and retain the passage’s meaning. For example, if covering means “long hair,” then vs. 6 would mean that the women who do not wear long hair (but only shorn) should have their hair shorn, which doesn’t even make sense, because it is already so. Likewise, vs. 4 would mean that men should go bald all the time! – I don’t think so, do you?

This is why the Greek word used in verse 15 for the covering of a woman’s hair (peribolaion) is different from the Greek word used in verses 6 and 7 for the covering of cloth (katakalupto, which is derived from kalumma, a word that means “a covering, a hood, or veil”). The two Greek words are not interchangeable.

When Paul says in verse 15b that a woman’s long hair is given her as a covering, he is not defining the nature of the covering. By the time he reaches verse 15, the inspired apostle has already presented his argument at length. His readers know what he is talking about, viz. a piece of cloth called a head covering or veil. He is now bringing to bear additional considerations for his listeners to weigh. One such consideration is how our innate sensibilities tell us that women’s heads ought to appear different than men’s heads. Our own natural sensibilities, says Paul, tell us that women’s heads should be more covered than men’s. This is what Paul means by his reference to hair in verse 15b.

It is only in the past century that some commentators have attempted to make this “hair equals head covering” argument. Whether we look at Hebrew women in the Old Testament or Christian women through the ages (and in a variety of different cultures), God’s people have always understood that the head covering is a piece of cloth or clothing worn upon the head and not merely a woman’s long hair.

Is the veil a just commandment for the Corinthians due to their culture, and therefore not applicable today?

Probably the more common explanation of this passage is that it is merely a cultural commandment. (It is amazing how far people will go out of their way to avoid the head covering.) According to this view, the passage is understood as a culture-specific response to a prostitute problem in 60 A.D. Corinth; female prostitutes were easily identified by their uncovered heads, unlike virtuous Corinthians women (or so the explanation goes), prostitutes did not cover their heads. Therefore Paul is telling the Christian women to head cover because it is wrong to go around looking like a prostitute.

According to this view, if this passage was just for a Corinthian problem in 60 A.D., then there is no need for Americans, or any modern culture to wear it today.

I certainly agree that it is not good for Christian women to look like prostitutes, nor do I disagree that Corinth had a prostitution problem. However, there is no indication in I Corinthians 11:1-16 that this instruction is given because of a bare-headed prostitute problem. There is no suggestion in this passage that cultural factors in Corinth prompted this instruction. Nor is there any indication that this commandment is only for Corinthians Christians in their specific cultural setting.

If anything, this is a commandment for all time and for all peoples. Paul doesn’t just tell the women to wear the head covering; he tells them why women should cover their heads. Each of the reasons are timeless spiritual realities, not Corinthian cultural practices. By providing eternal truths for head coverings, the Bible makes it clear that wearing the head covering is applicable to all Christians at all times.

What is I am partially but not wholly persuaded?

What if I agree, but am not morally convicted in my conscience?

These words from R. C. Sproul, Sr. are helpful: “What if, after careful consideration of a Biblical mandate, we remain uncertain as to its character as principle or custom? If we must decide to treat it one way or the other but have no conclusive means to make the decision, what can we do? Here the biblical principle of humility can be helpful. The issue is simple. Would it be better to treat a possible custom as a principle and be guilty of being over scrupulous in our design to obey God? Or would it be better to treat a possible principle as a custom and be guilty of being unscrupulous in demoting a transcendent requirement of God to the level of a mere human convention? I hope the answer is obvious.” (Knowing Scripture, pp. 11-12)

Is there any basis for wearing the veil?

In Christianity, the Scriptural basis for this practice in I Corinthians 11:1-16. The headship veiling is a symbol of God's complete order of authority.

Men and women are different in many ways but divinely created with equal value (Galatians 3:26-28). Due to the differences between man and woman, and as a result of mankind's fall into sin, God has established an order of authority. Thereby lifestyles are simplified and differences are complemented. This beautiful order of authority, commonly called "headship order," is stated in 1 Corinthians 11:3. "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." In this scripture head may also be interpreted authority. Christ is the Head, or authority, of mankind. Even though He holds this lofty position, and shares in the Godhead, Jesus Christ submits to the authority of God, His Father (John 8:16; 14:28; Mark 13: 31-33)

Similarly, men and women hold equally important positions; but God asks women to be submissive to the authority of men. Married women are under the authority of their husbands. Single women are under the authority of their fathers or church leaders.

Why should women submit and the men provide leadership?

The answer is two-fold. First, woman was originally created to be a "help-meet" for man. (Genesis 2:20-23) She was created from Adam's rib to be his companion, in the loving embrace of his protection and leadership. Woman was created as "the glory of man"; "of the man" and "for the man" (1 Corinthians 11:7, 8, 9)

Secondly, when Eve yielded to temptation, and enticed Adam to sin as well, God pronounced curses on the serpent, the woman and the man. Each had to bear the consequences of their sin (Genesis 3:14-19). Man, thereafter, needed to work hard to provide food for himself and his family. Woman, thereafter, was to be subject to her husband and experience sorrow in childbearing (Genesis 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:9-15; Ephesians 5:23-24).

Does that allow men to be tyrants?

Of course these scriptures, addressing the headship order, do not mean that husbands and fathers are to be tyrants, or rule over their wives and daughters in a disrespectful manner. Balanced with other scriptures (Ephesians 5:21, 25, 28; 1 Peter 3:7), men are taught to provide loving, non-oppressive leadership in the way that God intended.

It has been said that headship is not "lordship," but is rather a shouldering of responsibility. When a man shoulders his responsibility, it enables the woman to find security and gives her opportunity to reach her greatest potential.

What did the Church Fathers and Reformers think about the veil?

All the Church Fathers and Reformers agreed on one point: the headcovering mentioned in 1Co 11:4,5,6,7,10,13 was a fabric to be worn on the head by the women in worship. There may be differences among the theologians as to the application of the headcovering, but they are all consistently in agreement that Paul's reference to women being covered in worship was to a fabric headcovering, not to the hair of a woman. Below are some witnesses cited concerning the headcoverning – and who all are famous men in Church history.  

According to Tom Shank’s, “Let Her Be veiled”, the catacombs, which were used by the early Christians to assemble for worship, have many paintings that reveal the uniform dress of women in worship. The paintings show the women covering her head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.

Clement of Alexandria understood the words of the Corinthians passage to refer to a veil of fabric and not a woman’s hair; he said: "Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happens to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled." (The Instructor.)

Jerome (345-429 A.D.) said: "It is usual in the monasteries of Egypt and Syria for virgins and widows who have vowed themselves to God and have renounced the world and have trodden under foot its pleasures, to ask the mothers of their communities to cut their hair; not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command."

St. Augustine, who lived in North Africa: “Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, for so much as he is the image and glory of God…Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head.”

In Europe, we know that Martin Luther’s wife, Katherine, wore a head covering. We also know John Knox (from Scotland), in his "The First Blast Of The Trumpet Against The Monstrous Regiment Of Women," (1505-1572) said: "First, I say, the woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him. As saint Paule doth reason in these wordes: 'Man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. And man was created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of man; and therfore oght the woman to have a power upon her head,' (that is, a coverture in signe of subjection)."

John Calvin, from France (1509-1564), a theologian of the Reformation, preached three sermons on I Corinthians 11:2-16 and said: "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. . . . 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.”

R.C. Sproul, an American theologian from our time, said: “The apostle makes the point that the veil, as a symbol of authority, is inconsistent with the position of the man, but it is required for women, who are subordinate to men. If they appear in the public assemblies with their heads uncovered, then they are acting in such a way that challenges the authority of men because they have removed the symbol that they are under masculine authority.

It is obvious from this comparison between men having their heads uncovered and women having their heads covered, that the covering is not hair. For if the covering in this context were hair, verse 6 would make no sense in the context of this passage.”

For a long time, nobody disputed the headcovering—regardless of where they lived—Europe, Mid-East, North Africa, or the Far East.