Propriety in Communal Worship

As I read the instructions regarding head coverings for women, I wondered why we don't observe that command today? I also wondered what the reason behind the command was, as this is a practice far removed from our modern culture.

Though there are certainly churches today that believe this to be currently applicable, most commentaries I read agreed that this passage held cultural relevance but not universal significance. In like fashion, the instruction to "greet all the brethren with a Holy Kiss" is obsolete, as is Jesus command to the first evangelists to "take an extra pair of sandals". These practices are obsolete but the principles are to be followed today (we should warmly greet our brothers and sisters in Christ and we should be prepared to go the extra mile to share the gospel).

So, what is the principle behind the head covering? For women in that day, appearing unveiled would have been disrespectful to her husband. It would have been viewed as a rebellion against the "natural order" as pertaining to the roles of men and women. In other words, it would have been tantamount to a declaration of rebellion against her God-given place in creation. An unveiled woman in our culture does not make the same statement. A woman is still expected to respect and submit to her husband (a topic for another day), which is the principle. But the practice looks different today. We show our respect and submission by our words and our attitude. Because women did not have as much of a "voice" as we do today, they showed their respect not with words but in their appearance.

We can assume that Paul was addressing the Corinthians on this topic because they were violating it in some way. Given that they were chastised with regard to abusing their Christian "freedoms", it is likely that they were ignoring the rules of propriety and causing chaos and confusion in the process. He seems most concerned with preserving the Biblical hierarchy between men and women (also part of that "topic for another day" category), which would have been blurred by women rebelling against the custom of head coverings. As with the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols, Paul does not impose Scriptural imperatives but rather cultural norms to form his position. This is because there is nothing inherently shameful about a woman without a head covering, and yet the message that it sent, in that day and time, was destructive to the expansion of the church.

In the same way, Paul mentions the significance of women keeping long hair and men wearing it short. The length of hair also reflected order and hierarchy, as it was considered "unnatural" if these norms were not adhered to. In fact, prostitutes wore shorter hairstyles and women found guilty of adultery were forced to cut their hair off. A woman's hair was her "pride and joy" and to be stripped of it was to bring shame upon herself.

Neither of these societal norms have any meaning to us, therefore observing the custom would be unnecessary. Many people want to dismiss other Biblical commands that are unpopular by ascribing the same logic...that the mandates are no longer relevant to us today. Premarital sex, homosexuality, and divorce are good examples of condemned practices that many Christians today want to ignore as outdated. Of course, this is a very slippery slope and ultimately a means to justify sin. The difference between these examples and the head covering issue, is that one regards a "practice" while the others deal with "principle".

Tomorrow's reading: 1 Cor. 14:1-15:58