Here's a little something that's been troubling us for a little while.

Perhaps troubling is too hard a word. Here's the backstory:

Not long ago a friend of Melissa asked for our input regarding 1 Corinthians chapter 11. That's where Paul goes into great detail about head coverings. She had always worn a hat to church previously but had recently decided a hat, or head covering, was not required but still wanted some extra assurance in way of our opinion.

I also received a copy of a little booklet titled Meditations on 1 Corinthians 11 by an anonymous author that claims head coverings are required. The unknown author uses some excellent word skills to make his point and would make most telemarketers envious of his talent. You know how telemarketers work: "Do you believe keeping children safe is important? Of course you do. I'll throw out three or four other statements that force you to say 'yes' and then you'll automatically say 'yes' when I ask you to buy my product."

Finally, Andree Seu from World Magazine wrote a column declaring she has decided to wear a head covering to church based on 1 Cor 11.

Wow. All of this occurred in a fairly short period of time.

I shall now treat you (or poison, I don't know which) to my own view of 1 Corinthians chapter 11.

Paul sets the stage here by reminding us that we need to obey all the teachings of the apostles. If "all scripture is given by the inspiration of God" (2 Tim 3:16) that included all the letters that make up the New Testament. We take much of our doctrines from the various apostles because we believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. He further praises the Corinthian church for keeping the ordinances he had taught them. [As an aside, did you notice Paul used "brethren" to describe them? New Testament writers often use terms of relationship - "brother", "sister", "little children" to when referring to Christians. We can assume Paul is talking to Christians as opposed to non-Christians.]

It is also interesting to note that Baptists and some other denominations refer to only two "ordinances" in the church: Communion and Baptism. Others have more. We mean "specific rituals" that each believer needs to follow. I think Paul means more general "teachings" and not just those we now consider "ordinances".

The "but" can imply two things. Either what Paul is now going to talk about is not an ordinance, or else the church had forgotten this specific teaching.

I assume the latter and that Paul is saying "you remember my teachings except." that men are the leaders over women, that Christ is the leader of the man, and that even Christ is obedient to God the Father. This is loaded with patronizing symbolism and we can spend more time on that in another discussion. But for now, let's just say "head" in this case means "leader."

So, if a man has his head covered he dishonors his "leader". If a woman has her head uncovered she dishonors her "leader." If she is uncovered, that's just like being shaved. Does this make sense to you? I think it will work out as we go along.

Again Paul equates uncovered with shaved or shorn. I've heard say short hair refers to prostitution and an uncovered head is like a prostitute. I don't really see that. Let's keep going.

7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Everything is opposite with the man. He brings glory to God with his head uncovered.

Yes, Man was created first. But we are all equal in Christ. We have different roles to play, but we are equal in position. Again we have some patriarchal sentiments, but that's the way it is.

Whew boy! Is a head covering now power? And what do the angels have to do with this? I'm getting more confused, how about you? Do we even know what a "covering" really is?

This gets back to our equal positions in Christ. God created Man and Woman equal, just with different abilities and positions.

I think it's safe to say that Paul is not trying to limit women in the church but rather try to make sure everyone does things "decently and in order" (1 Cor 14:40). That's really the focus of the whole book. Verse five implies that woman were praying and prophesying. If they weren't, why bother with this whole discussion?

Rhetorical questions are awesome. The KJV uses "comely" (good looking, beautiful) while other versions use "proper." Paul could be asking, "Does it look good, is it right?" Based on the preceding texts, Paul is obviously looking for a "no."

Aha! So now we have a definition: A covering is hair! That makes perfect sense! So men should have short hair and women have long hair. If we plug this into verse 6 we get:

For if the woman has short hair (be not covered), let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have long hair (be covered).

Wait. That makes it redundant. Or else Paul was saying you might as well shave your head as to have short hair unless that's shameful. If so, have long hair. But if it's not shameful, is it OK to have short hair?

This has not been helpful.

A lot of people read this as saying "Don't argue with me. We have no custom of arguing." I suppose that's possible. But if we've been talking for 15 verses about customs and teachings, wouldn't it make sense for Paul to be referring to that very custom? I submit that in this one sentence Paul nullifies any supposed commandment that is found in the preceding text. By labeling it a "custom" and saying the church has no such custom, we are now free to choose one way or another, depending on social norms. How else can we determine if it "be a shame" for a woman to have short hair, or be uncovered regardless of the definition of "covered"?

I think it's awesome for women to wear hats to church. Why? Perhaps because it always reminds me of Easter Sunday or of church in the 1800's and early 1900's. But I can't say one definitely must wear a hat.

Neither can I say all women must wear their hair long. What is "long" anyway? Shoulder length? Just below the ear? Again, these are based on societal expectations and are subject to personal convictions.

But what I can say definitely is that you must do what your conscience tells you. If you read this passage and feel the Spirit prompting you to wear a hat, as Andree Seu, then you must wear one. The same goes for hair length. If God is telling you to grow it out (or cut it short, men) then you must do so. To do contrary to what God is calling you to do is sin (James 4:17).

Also, ladies, if you husband or your father tells you to wear a hat, you should do so. You are under your husband or father, if not married, and even if you truly feel that a hat is not required you must still wear one as a sign of submission to the authority placed over you. Likewise for hair length. We are all called to be under authority, which is probably the hardest part about being a Christian. Submitting to authority for those things we feel we do not need to submit is the real test.

So ask yourselves if your desire to go hatless is really from a conviction from God or is it rebellion against authority? Is wearing a hat just a fashion statement or does it symbolize your piety and obedience? These are the important questions.

For the record, neither my wife nor my daughter wears a hat or head covering to church. My daughter's hair is considered long while Melissa's would probably be considered on the short side. Last night I asked Melissa if she would wear a hat if I told her to. "Probably." was the answer.  That's good enough for me.