Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rev. Joseph Greenmyer's avatar

I concur that modesty is an often neglected topic among us. Immodesty is certainly a more pressing matter and degrading force in our churches and society than not veiling in the Divine Service.

It should be noted, however, that Paul's argument for Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 is primarily about a woman's submission to her head, and should only secondarily be brought into conversations about modesty. In other words, those advocating for headcoverings are (or should) be dealing primarily with headship, not modesty. There's no competition at all between arguing for headcoverings and arguing on a more basic level for modest dress, because these are distinct (but certainly related) issues. Thanks again for all you write!

Expand full comment
Rev. Joseph Greenmyer's avatar

AC 28:53-57 is really where we ought to focus after we have examined 1st Corinthians 11:2-16. I think the following is an exhaustive list of options for interpretation.

Women in the Church today

1) cannot cover their heads.

2) should not cover their heads

3) can cover their heads.

4) should cover their heads.

5) must cover their heads.

Options 1 and 2 are clearly excluded by the words of Melanchthon. He makes plain that St. Paul established this ordinance in paragraph 54 and that it is proper for churches to keep such ordinances. Lutherans should not (and have not historically) said that women cannot or should not cover their heads in church.

Option 5 is also excluded, at least considered in itself (per se) without any mitigating factors such as Paul had in Corinth. AC 28:50-52 and 57 make clear that women covering their heads is not something they do to earn salvation, nor is it a sin to go uncovered (considered in itself). It can become a sin depending on the reason for which women don't veil. Paul had to rebuke the women in Corinth for not veiling because of secondary circumstances (prophesying while disrespecting the order of creation). Melanchthon gives the qualifier in paragraph 56 that if anyone is offended, then the woman has sinned by not having her hair covered. It's a very different circumstance if a woman doesn't veil because she has never learned the custom or even having learned the custom she struggles with it because very few women practice it vs. a woman who won't veil because she disagrees with male headship.

Keeping in mind 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and AC 28:50-57, your options are really 3 and 4. That is

Women can cover their heads in church.

Or

Women should cover their heads in church.

I believe option 4, that women should cover their heads in church. The reason for this is the broad preservation of this custom in Christendom regardless of denomination into the 20th century, the unique anger and rebellion against this custom given by 2nd wave feminists (look up NOW, Elizabeth Farians, and the Easter Bonnet Rebellion), and the positive statements made in the private writings of Luther, Melanchthon, and Liturgical writings from the LCMS commending the practice in the 19th and 20th century. It is always positively spoken of and encouraged, without being made necessary for salvation. Furthermore, our own confusion in the world regarding gender and headship should only further commend female headcovering to us as a, "laudable custom based on a Scriptural Injunction," to use the language from the General Rubrics of the Lutheran Liturgy published by the Missouri Synod as the Altar Book for The Lutheran Hymnal (1941).

Expand full comment
59 more comments...

No posts