This post is adapted from Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering.

What Nature Teaches Us

“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?”
—1 Corinthians 11:14–15 (ESV)

What does Paul mean when he says that “nature itself” teaches us?

Natural revelation is what God makes known through creation. The heavens declare His glory (Psalm 19:1), and His attributes can be perceived in what He has made (Romans 1:20). Creation speaks to everyone, although sin distorts our understanding and inclines us to suppress what it reveals.

Paul points to nature and expects us to recognize something about men, women, and hair: long hair is a woman’s glory, while long hair on a man is a shame.

Notice that Paul does not say a woman with short hair is disgraced. Some women cannot grow long hair because of alopecia, cancer treatment, age, or other circumstances. Their womanhood and dignity do not depend upon their hair.

Sometimes, however, a woman may deliberately reject traditionally feminine hair as a response to exploitation, painful expectations, or abuse. A hairstyle can become a shield—an attempt to avoid unwanted attention or escape what femininity has come to represent. Recognizing this calls for compassion without requiring us to deny the created distinction to which Paul points.

Natural revelation shows that men and women are different, but it cannot fully explain how Christians should live. For that, we need special revelation: God’s written Word.

Scripture tells us that a woman’s long hair is her glory and that it was given to her as a natural covering. Paul uses the Greek word peribolaion, referring to something that wraps or is thrown around. Her hair reflects a covering principle already woven into creation.

Nature still testifies, but nature alone is not enough. We need Scripture to interpret creation rightly—and redeemed hearts that delight in the Creator’s design.

When cultural trends blur God’s created distinctions, how can I remain faithful to Scripture while showing compassion toward people whose choices may have been shaped by deep pain?

For a fuller treatment of nature, hair, and head covering, read Recovering Covering, available in paperback, on Kindle, and through Kindle Unlimited.

Wherein I Review My Own Book (why this, and whe me)

I have a template that I use when writing book reviews. It asks good questions; I answer them. It works. This time, I’m going to use that template to explain my own book. I’m leaving the template in place so you can see how it works.

Opening Statement and “What’s the Point?”

Include the title and author, along with a quotation from the author explaining the purpose of the book.

Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering was written by Ellen Nicholas.

Within the already narrow subject of Christian head covering, there are a few books available—and more are coming. Most have been written by men. They have provided good, solid theological treatments, and I am grateful to them and thank God for their work.

However, few books about head covering have been written by women specifically for women. I recently reviewed one such book, but it contained so many troubling claims that I gave it the only one-star review I have ever written. Another book I am currently reading approaches the subject exclusively from a Roman Catholic perspective and has not proved particularly useful to me.

We need solid resources written by women for women.

As Nicholas explains:

The thing I most wanted was a book that came from the standpoint of a woman: “You’re a woman, I’m a woman. How does it feel to do this? What questions will I be asked? What if … what if … what if?” I wanted a book by a woman, for women.

At this point, I’ve experienced being in a head covering Facebook group and being scolded because I don’t cover the right way or at the right times. I’ve felt the loneliness and awkwardness of being the only one in my congregation who covers.

I’m writing for women who are on the fence and considering working through the topic of head coverings. I’m writing to put resources in the hands of women who know other women who are grappling with the issue.

What Is the Tone of the Book?

What makes the author uniquely qualified to write this book? Who is her audience?

Nicholas’s pastor, who does not agree with her position, described her writing style as good and conversational and her tone as irenic.

Nicholas is uniquely qualified to write this book as a woman writing to women. She has spent four years studying Scripture, the history of the practice, and the questions and practical concerns surrounding it.

Many men have written convincingly about head covering, but they have never been the woman who walks into church as the only person wearing one. They have never been told, “You don’t need to wear that, you know.”

At the same time, Nicholas is firmly committed to remaining within the bounds of orthodox Christianity. She has made every effort to stay far away from the “weird stuff” that sometimes becomes attached to the subject. Her intended audience is women who are considering head covering, women already practicing it, and those helping someone else work through the issue.

Book Review: Scarf of Hidden Power—A Book I Cannot Recommend ★☆☆☆☆

 

★☆☆☆☆ 

The Biblical Headcovering: Scarf of Hidden Power by Renée Ellison was a quick read, but—oh my, my, my.

Full disclosure: I cover my head for worship. However, if this had been the first book I read on the subject, I might have abandoned the entire practice because of the number of extra-biblical teachings attached to it.

According to this book, it is not enough to cover your head during worship. You must cover full-time.

It is not enough to cover full-time. Your covering must be a veil rather than a hat.

It is not enough to wear a veil. The veil must not be sheer or made of lace.

And it does not stop with head coverings. The reader is also encouraged to give up slacks, jewelry, makeup, and patterned dresses or skirts.

Holy hedge laws!

When My Husband Spoke for Me

 

We had a friend visit us for a weekend, and at some point the conversation turned to my book, Recovering Covering.

I mentioned that Phil had made certain commitments to our pastors concerning both the book and my practice of head covering - 1) that we would not "proselytize" [if somebody else brings up the topic, we're free to say what we want, we just don't pressure people] and 2) that our pastor could read the book before it was published. 

I was not present when Phil made these commitments.

Our friend’s response was immediate: “It wasn’t okay for Phil to make commitments for you.”

In our modern, feminized culture, that reaction makes perfect sense. We tend to think of every adult as an entirely independent individual. My decisions belong to me, Phil’s decisions belong to him, and neither of us should presume to speak for the other.

But  Christian marriage is more than two independent people sharing a house.

My response was, "Phil is my covenant head, and my representative to our church leaders." 

Head Covering and Headship

The head-covering passage begins here:

“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”
—1 Corinthians 11:3

Paul does not begin with fabric. He begins with headship.

That does not mean a wife has no mind, voice, or moral responsibility of her own. It does not give a husband permission to be harsh, selfish, or dismissive. Biblical headship should reflect Christ’s sacrificial love for His church, not the world’s picture of power.

Nevertheless, headship must mean something.

If I am willing to place a covering on my head as a visible acknowledgment of God’s order, but unwilling to respect my husband’s representative responsibility when it becomes inconvenient, then I have reduced head covering to a symbol detached from the truth it represents.

My Covenant Head and Representative

Phil is not my mediator—Christ alone holds that office. He is not infallible, and his authority is never higher than God’s. I remain personally responsible before the Lord for what I believe and do.

But within our marriage, Phil is my covenant head. He bears a representative responsibility for our household, including in our relationship with the leadership of our church. That means he can speak on behalf of our household in ways that a friend, neighbor, or unrelated church member cannot. It also means he carries responsibility before God for how he exercises that role.

Ideally, a husband and wife will discuss important matters before either makes a commitment affecting them both, but in both of these commitments, the conversations happened pretty "spur of the moment" and I just didn't happen to be there. Headship should involve knowledge, love, communication, and careful consideration of a wife’s convictions. It should never become an excuse to ignore her.

But the fact that I was not sitting in the room does not automatically make Phil’s commitments illegitimate. He was not a stranger attempting to take control of my decisions. He was my husband speaking to our pastors as the representative of our household.

Because the commitments did not require me to disobey God or violate conscience, I could honor Phil by respecting them.

When the Symbol Becomes Personal

It is relatively easy to affirm headship as a theological doctrine. It is also fairly easy to wear a visible symbol of that doctrine for an hour on Sunday.

The more searching question is what happens when headship affects an actual decision.

Do I recognize my husband’s leadership only when he reaches the conclusion I would have reached? Do I honor his representative role only when I am present and have approved every word in advance? If so, I may be retaining the final authority while merely calling his role “headship.”

Submission is not the absence of thought, conviction, or conversation. Nor does it require following anyone into sin. It is the willing recognition of a God-given relationship and order.

In this instance, respecting Phil’s commitments was not a loss of my voice. It was an expression of trust in my husband and consistency with the theology I publicly defend.

The covering on my head represents something. Sometimes the meaning of that covering reaches beyond what I wear in worship and asks whether I am willing to honor the order it signifies when doing so becomes personal.

Is it easier to wear the symbol of headship than to trust God’s order when it affects a real decision?

★★★★★ Book Review: The Beauty of Holiness by Michael P. V. Barrett

 

The Beauty of Holiness by Michael P. V. Barrett

Opening Statement—and What’s the Point?

I originally purchased The Beauty of Holiness: A Guide to Biblical Worship because of Appendix 3, “Head Covering for Public Worship.” Since I was already studying 1 Corinthians 11, that appendix alone was reason enough for me to buy the book. What I discovered, however, was an excellent explanation of the regulative principle of worship and why proper worship matters.

Barrett summarizes the heart of the book well: “Since true worship flows from the knowledge of God, it follows that improper thinking about God contaminates and invalidates any act of worship.”

That is the point. Worship begins with who God is—not with what pleases us.

What Is the Tone of the Book?

The tone is reverent, serious, pastoral, and thoroughly grounded in Scripture. Barrett writes with theological precision, but the book does not feel like a dry academic textbook. He wants the reader not only to understand biblical worship but also to feel the weight and privilege of entering God’s presence.

Barrett is especially qualified to write on this subject because he is both a minister and an Old Testament scholar. He has served as a seminary professor and academic dean and is now Senior Research Professor of Old Testament at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. That background is evident in the way he connects Old Testament worship with its fulfillment in Christ. His audience includes pastors and church leaders, but the book is accessible to ordinary Christians who want to think more carefully about worship.

What Is the Purpose of the Book?

The book addresses a problem that has reduced many conversations about worship to disputes over personal preference: contemporary or traditional, casual or formal, old songs or new songs.

Barrett redirects the question. Instead of asking, “What kind of worship do I enjoy?” we should ask, “How has God commanded us to worship Him?”

He explains the difference between the regulative principle, which permits in worship what Scripture sanctions, and the normative principle, which permits whatever Scripture does not expressly forbid. From there, he examines reverence, obedience, the condition of the worshiper’s heart, and the centrality of Christ’s atoning work.

The book does what it promises. Barrett does not simply defend the correct outward forms of worship. He repeatedly warns that even biblically ordered worship is worthless when it becomes heartless ritual. Right mechanics cannot compensate for wrong theology, hypocrisy, or hearts that are far from God.

Why Does It Matter?

What sets this book apart is its refusal to separate biblical order from sincere devotion. Some discussions emphasize correct forms while neglecting the heart; others emphasize sincerity while treating God’s instructions as optional. Barrett holds the two together.

God is in heaven, and we are on earth—yet He invites us into His presence. That privilege should produce gratitude, caution, and reverent submission. Worship is not entertainment or self-expression. It is an approach to the holy God made possible only through Jesus Christ and His atoning blood.

What Do I Think?

Reviews are necessarily subjective, and my interest in head covering certainly shaped my decision to read this book. Appendix 3 remains valuable to me, but it is no longer the only reason I recommend it. The whole book gave me a clearer and more complete framework for understanding worship.

And the Verdict Is:

Verdict: Read it if you want to move beyond arguments about worship styles and consider what Scripture teaches about approaching God with truth, reverence, obedience, and a sincere heart.

What Does “We Have No Such Custom” Mean?

 

Paul concludes his teaching about men’s and women’s head coverings with a statement that can sound confusing, especially in the King James Version:

“But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”
—1 Corinthians 11:16

What is the “custom” Paul says the churches do not have?

Some readers understand Paul to mean that the churches had no custom of women covering their heads. According to that interpretation, Paul spends most of the passage discussing head covering but concludes by saying that it was not actually a church practice.

Is that how the early Christians understood him?

Why Consider the Patristic Writers?

The patristic writers—often called the Church Fathers—were not inspired or infallible. Their interpretations must be examined by Scripture just as ours must be. Their writings cannot establish Christian doctrine independently of God’s Word.

Nevertheless, they lived much closer than we do to the apostles’ time, language, and original teaching. Some also described Christian practices that had been passed down through churches established during the apostolic period. Their testimony does not settle the interpretation, but it deserves serious consideration.

When we examine their comments, we find that they did not understand “we have no such custom” to mean that Christian women did not cover their heads.

Tertullian

Tertullian lived approximately AD 155–220, about a century after the apostles. He was a Christian writer from Carthage in North Africa and one of the earliest major theologians to write in Latin.

In On the Veiling of Virgins, Tertullian discusses whether Paul’s instruction applies only to married women or includes unmarried women as well. He quotes Paul’s conclusion:

“‘If any,’ he says, ‘is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor has the Church of God.’”

Tertullian then explains:

“He shows that there had been some contention about this point.”

In other words, Tertullian did not understand Paul to be dismissing head covering. He understood Paul to be bringing the controversy over its application to an end. In Tertullian’s view, Paul’s reference to “every woman” included virgins as well as married women.

Tertullian also makes a remarkable historical observation:

“At this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.”

Whether or not we agree with every detail of Tertullian’s application, his testimony tells us something important. Christians living relatively near the apostolic period did not read verse 16 as saying that the churches had no practice of head covering. Tertullian believed that the Corinthians themselves had continued the practice.

Read Tertullian’s On the Veiling of Virgins

John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom lived approximately AD 347–407. He served as Archbishop of Constantinople and became famous for his biblical preaching. His name, Chrysostom, means “golden-mouthed,” a reference to his eloquence.

Chrysostom interpreted the immediate “custom” in verse 16 somewhat differently from Tertullian. He understood it as the custom of arguing against the apostolic teaching:

“For we…have no such custom, so as to contend and to strive and to oppose ourselves.”

He believed Paul was saying that persistent opposition was contentiousness rather than sincere inquiry. Paul then appealed to the practice of the other churches:

“They resist and oppose themselves to the whole world by not yielding.”

Chrysostom concludes:

“The whole world hath both received and kept this law.”

Therefore, even though Chrysostom connects “such custom” grammatically with contentiousness, he clearly does not think Paul is dismissing the head-covering instruction. He calls it a “law” that the churches had received and observed.

Read Chrysostom’s Homily 26 on First Corinthians

Two Readings, One Conclusion

Tertullian and Chrysostom differ slightly in how they explain the immediate wording:

• Tertullian understands Paul as rejecting contention or exceptions concerning who should be covered.
• Chrysostom understands Paul as saying that the churches have no custom of contentious resistance to the teaching.

Other interpreters understand “no such custom” as “no custom of women praying uncovered.” Some modern translations convey this sense by saying, “We have no other practice.”

These explanations differ over the precise grammatical antecedent of “such custom,” but they arrive at the same practical conclusion: Paul is reinforcing the preceding instruction, not canceling it.

It would be very strange for Paul to build his argument upon headship, creation order, the angels, propriety, nature, and the practice of the churches—and then dismiss the entire matter in his final sentence. The early Christian commentators did not think that he did.

Paul’s conclusion is not, “Head covering is not our custom.”

It is closer to this: If someone remains determined to argue, the apostles and the churches have no contrary practice to offer. This is the order the churches have received.

The patristic writers are not our final authority. Scripture is. But their testimony makes it difficult to claim that “we have no such custom” was originally understood as an exemption from head covering.

When you read verse 16 in the context of Paul’s entire argument, does it sound as though he is withdrawing his instruction—or bringing the dispute to an end?

Why Unfamiliar Can Feel Unbiblical

 

Sometimes a Christian practice feels wrong before we have even examined the Scriptures about it.

Not necessarily because the Bible rejects it, but because we have never seen anyone do it.

Most of us develop an idea of “normal church” from the churches in which we were raised. The order of worship, the music, the clothing, and the ways men and women participate all begin to feel natural. We may not consciously believe that everything familiar is biblical, but familiarity quietly shapes our expectations.

Then a woman walks into worship wearing a head covering.

Because the practice is unfamiliar, it may immediately seem extreme, legalistic, or connected to a denomination or lifestyle unlike our own. Yet strangeness is not a biblical category. A practice can disappear from our church culture without being rejected by Scripture.

Head covering did not vanish because the church discovered a verse saying that Paul’s instruction had expired. Its decline came through a mixture of changing fashions, social customs, theological interpretations, and shifting assumptions about men and women. Over time, uncovered heads became normal. Once that happened, the covered woman—not the biblical passage—began to appear unusual.

This does not mean that every old practice should be restored merely because Christians once observed it. Tradition does not settle the question. Neither does novelty.

The question must remain: What does Scripture teach?

Unfamiliarity should prompt examination, not immediate acceptance—but neither should it produce immediate rejection. We should be willing to separate our first emotional response from our final biblical conclusion.

A head covering may look strange because it is unbiblical. Or it may look strange because we have inherited a church culture in which obedience to that particular instruction is no longer visible. Only careful study can tell us which is true.

When something in Christian worship feels foreign, pause before calling it wrong. Ask whether Scripture has rejected the practice—or whether your experience simply never introduced you to it.

Questions for Reflection

• Have I ever mistaken “I have never seen this before” for “the Bible does not teach this”?
• Am I willing to examine an unfamiliar practice before assigning motives to the person observing it?
• Which has greater authority over my conclusions: Scripture or the customs that feel normal to me?

For a fuller examination of the biblical and historical case for Christian head covering, see Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering.