One Woman's Journey | A Call To Reflect, part 1: head coverings
In this new blog series, our first anonymous contributor describes how her Bible studies, conversations and personal experiences lead her to re-evaluate women's roles in the church.
One Woman’s Journey
A Call to Reflect
part 1: head coverings
I come from a strongly complementarian ecclesia in North West England. Sisters were not allowed to speak at all in any mixed meeting. They weren't permitted to discuss at Bible Class or at business meetings. Though they could write questions and comments for brothers to read out - this never really happened in my experience. I occasionally passed questions or comments to my brother to read out - but he didn't always understand what was written in haste, and by then the conversation had moved on. Sisters could also write a Bible Class paper and have it read by a brother - but I have only heard of one sister who did this.
Apparently, sisters had always contributed to business meetings until the 1950s, when a blanket ruling banning sisters from participating at business meetings was voted in. This was because one outspoken sister allegedly spoke harshly - and the blanket ruling silenced her, and every other woman, in one fell swoop. This remained the case for the next 70 years, long after the “offender” had fallen asleep.
At the time I accepted all of this as a right and proper interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2: 11-15.
We also wore head coverings for pretty much ALL events held at the hall: breaking of bread, Bible Class, Sunday School, Sunday School parties and preaching meetings held at different venues. Even most of the unbaptised girls wore head coverings. Again, I accepted this as a sound interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.
I was baptised at 17 and had a good Christadelphian friend from Scotland. Together, we went on campaigns and a range of Youth Weekends, some of which had a different ethos from what I was used to. In the late 1980s and 1990s, we also went on the German youth holiday at Steibis - which I absolutely loved.
On one of these holidays, we were discussing head coverings with a Dutch brother, who pointed out: “Our sisters don’t pray or prophesy in the ecclesia, so how are head coverings relevant to us?” This simple question really rocked me, and I remember being in tears, as it challenged my black and white world of certainty. It made me realise that I had been reading into the text my own preconceived ideas - as per the square brackets: “any woman who [listens to a brother praying] or [listens to a brother who] prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head.”[1] It was suddenly abundantly clear to me that women had themselves, vocally, prophesied and led prayer in the first century church. Potentially two great ironies now presented themselves: I belonged to a community which, in the main, did not believe that anyone currently had the spirit gift of prophecy - so there was no chance of women prophesying in the ecclesia. Further, it is also largely believed that sisters should not offer prayer on behalf of a mixed congregation. So on that basis alone (without going into whether this instruction was purely cultural or had a universal application) head coverings seemed irrelevant in our present day context.
Nonetheless, I continued to wear head coverings for most ecclesial activities, as I felt it taught a beautiful lesson in typology concerning creation and salvation (again not explicit in the text) and I didn’t want to distract anyone from their remembrance of Christ.
In 2000, I found an article by Michael Ashton to be very compelling. He argued:
For a long time after this, I wore a head covering at ALL meetings, being keen to show “the ecclesia’s submission to Christ” and the “righteous covering for sin provided by our Lord.”
On reflection though, this interpretation is in no way explicit in the text. Paul does not expressly say that a woman’s head covering is a symbol of the covering for sin provided by our Lord. Moreover, Paul does not instruct women to cover their heads for “worship” but when they, themselves, are praying and prophesying in the congregation.
So my position on head coverings has now changed, and I believe strongly that sisters should be free to exercise their conscience either way as to whether they cover their own heads. It isn’t right to wield power over each other to force our opinions on others (Romans 14, Luke 22:25-27). I feel strongly that gatherings which stipulate that head coverings must be worn are overstepping the mark in a community where there is no central power or priesthood and all are equal. For some sisters, they’re being asked to violate their conscience and intellectual honesty in wearing a head covering - which for them would be sinful (James 4:17). And if they persist in not wearing a covering, after being asked to do so, they may be regarded as rebellious or having a “bad attitude”… bad HATtitude…
I am not saying that sisters should not wear head coverings and I am not saying that sisters should wear head coverings. I am suggesting that women should be allowed to choose for themselves either way and that their decisions are respected.
Whether one wears a covering or not, everything must be done to honour our Lord. Is it possible to transfer Paul’s arguments about holy days and meat offered to idols? Could we say: “Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who... [wear a head covering, wear] it in honor of the Lord...while those who [do not wear a head covering] abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God” (Romans 14:5-6).
Apparently, sisters had always contributed to business meetings until the 1950s, when a blanket ruling banning sisters from participating at business meetings was voted in. This was because one outspoken sister allegedly spoke harshly - and the blanket ruling silenced her, and every other woman, in one fell swoop. This remained the case for the next 70 years, long after the “offender” had fallen asleep.
At the time I accepted all of this as a right and proper interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2: 11-15.
We also wore head coverings for pretty much ALL events held at the hall: breaking of bread, Bible Class, Sunday School, Sunday School parties and preaching meetings held at different venues. Even most of the unbaptised girls wore head coverings. Again, I accepted this as a sound interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.
I was baptised at 17 and had a good Christadelphian friend from Scotland. Together, we went on campaigns and a range of Youth Weekends, some of which had a different ethos from what I was used to. In the late 1980s and 1990s, we also went on the German youth holiday at Steibis - which I absolutely loved.
On one of these holidays, we were discussing head coverings with a Dutch brother, who pointed out: “Our sisters don’t pray or prophesy in the ecclesia, so how are head coverings relevant to us?” This simple question really rocked me, and I remember being in tears, as it challenged my black and white world of certainty. It made me realise that I had been reading into the text my own preconceived ideas - as per the square brackets: “any woman who [listens to a brother praying] or [listens to a brother who] prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head.”[1] It was suddenly abundantly clear to me that women had themselves, vocally, prophesied and led prayer in the first century church. Potentially two great ironies now presented themselves: I belonged to a community which, in the main, did not believe that anyone currently had the spirit gift of prophecy - so there was no chance of women prophesying in the ecclesia. Further, it is also largely believed that sisters should not offer prayer on behalf of a mixed congregation. So on that basis alone (without going into whether this instruction was purely cultural or had a universal application) head coverings seemed irrelevant in our present day context.
Nonetheless, I continued to wear head coverings for most ecclesial activities, as I felt it taught a beautiful lesson in typology concerning creation and salvation (again not explicit in the text) and I didn’t want to distract anyone from their remembrance of Christ.
In 2000, I found an article by Michael Ashton to be very compelling. He argued:
Lest we misunderstand what this action portrays, it is necessary to state categorically that it does not show woman’s inferiority to man. This has been a serious and mischievous mishandling of the passage. When sisters wear a headcovering its primary function is to show the ecclesia’s submission to Christ. For this reason it has been the practice amongst us for sisters to wear head coverings whenever the ecclesia meets together to worship, so that the submission of the whole congregation to Christ can be plainly manifested… If the principle of Headship is accepted—that male and female believers together represent the Christ-body and its subjection to the word of God—it will be perceived that wearing a head covering is a great privilege, for it symbolises the righteous covering for sin provided by our Lord. [2]
For a long time after this, I wore a head covering at ALL meetings, being keen to show “the ecclesia’s submission to Christ” and the “righteous covering for sin provided by our Lord.”
On reflection though, this interpretation is in no way explicit in the text. Paul does not expressly say that a woman’s head covering is a symbol of the covering for sin provided by our Lord. Moreover, Paul does not instruct women to cover their heads for “worship” but when they, themselves, are praying and prophesying in the congregation.
So my position on head coverings has now changed, and I believe strongly that sisters should be free to exercise their conscience either way as to whether they cover their own heads. It isn’t right to wield power over each other to force our opinions on others (Romans 14, Luke 22:25-27). I feel strongly that gatherings which stipulate that head coverings must be worn are overstepping the mark in a community where there is no central power or priesthood and all are equal. For some sisters, they’re being asked to violate their conscience and intellectual honesty in wearing a head covering - which for them would be sinful (James 4:17). And if they persist in not wearing a covering, after being asked to do so, they may be regarded as rebellious or having a “bad attitude”… bad HATtitude…
I am not saying that sisters should not wear head coverings and I am not saying that sisters should wear head coverings. I am suggesting that women should be allowed to choose for themselves either way and that their decisions are respected.
Whether one wears a covering or not, everything must be done to honour our Lord. Is it possible to transfer Paul’s arguments about holy days and meat offered to idols? Could we say: “Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who... [wear a head covering, wear] it in honor of the Lord...while those who [do not wear a head covering] abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God” (Romans 14:5-6).
[1] Reading into the text ideas that are not there is a hazard we all face. For example: “If they worship with head uncovered they dishonour God’s ordained order by displaying their own glory (their hair), and dishonour the role of men.” (Sid Levett, Head coverings: Scriptural or cultural?, Testimony Vol. 81 [964], p307 (CMPA) read online)
[2] Michael Ashton, Recognising the Headship of Christ, The Christadelphian, January 2000 (CMPA).
[2] Michael Ashton, Recognising the Headship of Christ, The Christadelphian, January 2000 (CMPA).
Do you really think the Creator of the universe cares tuppence about head coverings? Really?
ReplyDelete