Head Coverings: Yes, but Perhaps We Should Start Below the Neck
Pursuing Modesty in an Immodest World
The head-covering debate has been rampaging through the LC-MS for the last few years. Those in favor have the zeal of new converts; those opposed are pretty zealous, too. Accusations fly from both camps and Christian charity is left out in the cold.
I’m in the middle. I agree in principle: Scripture says it, and Scripture is correct. However, I don’t think St Paul would be as worried about what’s on top of our heads as what’s not covering the rest of our bodies. He was writing for a culture where the rest of the woman was already covered up. We have so much to redress before we get up there.
I took my youngest daughter to the mall a few weeks ago to search for Christmas dresses. We started at Macy’s, worked our way to the other department stores, and, after finding nothing appropriate, went to the smaller shops. One shop claims to wear its beliefs on its sleeve and stocks some clothes with Christian-sounding slogans on the labels. I doubt the commitment because many dresses, T-shirts, and trousers are missing large chunks of fabric.
The clothing is scanty, or as the young’uns say, skanky. In other words, it’s enough to make a call girl blush. On top of that, quality has collapsed. The stitching is terrible, and you can see the item would fall apart or fade badly after several washes. The prices are exorbitant, especially if you calculate it per square inch of material used!
Why do we let these companies dictate how we dress ourselves and our children? The clothes our kids are subjected to are fit for red-light districts and certainly not for church or anywhere requiring moderate modesty. Our girls are pushed into skirts and pants that show everything, tops with the midriffs cut away, and jeans that have been shredded to flaunt their legs. Modesty is so out of fashion, and “everyone else” is wearing it, so our poor kids are manipulated to follow the crowd or give up because the shops carry no options.
It’s not just our girls who suffer because of this. Our young men are already visual creatures, and now they have added temptations because of how the young ladies dress. I tell my girls to dress modestly out of love for our fellow Christians. This sentence would get a million responses from women telling me that it’s the guys who should be controlling themselves and that the girls can and should wear anything they wish. Once again, Christian charity and common sense are left out in the cold.
The problem is, where does one find such items? We came home from the store with nothing to show for our efforts. My poor kid wore a hand-me-down that I had worn, then our oldest, and now her. It was feminine and suitable for company, covering all the parts that needed covering, even if it wasn’t sparkly and new.
I wish that someone would start producing clothing that is stylish, made to last, and beautiful again. But until then, we will not be participating in the culture’s degradation of our sex.
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!
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).