What If the Topic Comes Up At Church?

 

Our church has a women's Bible study that I've attended (I took some time off to care for my mother-in-law with dementia, who recently passed, so I'm able to attend,)

 Since I've attended in the past, it's not like "oh, they're going to 1 Corinthians, I should go!"

 And they are going through 1 Corinthians.

We had made a commitment to our pastors that we would not "proselytize" but if it comes up organically I can openly make my position known and I can defend it.

Interestingly, the group leaders have side-stepped a bit and gave out an outline with chapter 11 titled "headship."  Yes, headship is there, but so is the application.

My book will be out in all three formats before then, I won't advertise in the group and I won't give out the books, but I'm sure Phil will put it out of Facebook so folks at church will know it's there.

 It will be interesting 

 For the record, I've had only positive comments (except for one) in conversations at church. The men my husband rubs shoulders with...seem to agree with us. One friend told me that she really liked the way I am intentional about what I wear. 

 

 

 

What Does “Women Should Keep Silent” Mean?

 

At first glance, Paul’s command that women “keep silent in the churches” can sound like an all-inclusive prohibition against speaking. But is that what silent means in the immediate context?

Paul uses the same Greek verb three times in 1 Corinthians 14.

A person speaking in tongues must be silent when there is no interpreter:

But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church.
—1 Corinthians 14:28

A prophet must become silent when another receives a revelation:

If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent.
—1 Corinthians 14:30

Then women are told to be silent:

The women should keep silent in the churches.
—1 Corinthians 14:34

The Greek verb in all three places is σιγάω (sigaō): to be silent, stop speaking, or refrain from speaking. In verses 28 and 30, Paul uses σιγάτω—“let him be silent.” In verse 34, he uses the plural form, σιγάτωσαν—“let them be silent.”

That is the only difference. Paul changes the number because he moves from one person to multiple women. He does not change the meaning of the verb.

“Be silent,” “keep silent,” and “remain silent” are English translation choices. There is no separate Greek word for keep or remain in verse 34.

This matters.

We know that sigaō cannot mean “never speak in church” because the tongue-speaker and the prophet are not permanently prohibited from speaking. They must be silent under particular circumstances so that the gathering remains orderly.

The immediate context helps us understand the restriction placed on women. Prophets speak while others weigh—or judge—what has been said (verse 29). Women must not assume authority over men by publicly judging the prophecies of male speakers.

They must also remain silent while someone else is speaking rather than interrupting with questions directed to their husbands. If they desire to learn something, Paul tells them to “ask their husbands at home” (verse 35).

The foundation is creation order and headship. What does that foundation look like when it is applied? Women must not teach or exercise authority over men.

Yet Paul also gives instructions for women who pray or prophesy:

Every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.
—1 Corinthians 11:5

How can women be told to pray or prophesy with covered heads in chapter 11 and then be told to remain silent in chapter 14?

The two chapters do not contradict each other; they explain each other.

Chapter 11 tells us how women may pray and prophesy while visibly honoring headship: they must do so with covered heads. Chapter 14 tells us when they must remain silent: when speaking would interrupt worship or exercise authority over men.

The tongue-speaker, the prophet, and the women are all told to sigaō—to refrain from speaking under the circumstances Paul describes. The difference is not in the meaning of silent, but in who must be silent and when.

To be clear, in the church where we are members, women do not lead prayer or proclaim the Word during Lord’s Day services. Women do pray aloud during our Wednesday evening prayer gathering, and I am happy with the way our church orders these gatherings.

Recognizing that Paul’s command is not an absolute ban on every word spoken by a woman does not mean that every church must include every biblically permissible form of participation in its Lord’s Day worship. It means that we should allow chapters 11 and 14 to stand together—each helping us understand the other.

Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering - the Kindle book is up and running!

Paper versions to go live on July 31.

 

On Amazon  

 

 

 

What if a passage of Scripture you had always dismissed as cultural turned out to be more enduring than you expected?

Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering invites Christian women to take a fresh and careful look at 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. Written from the perspective of a woman who never expected to embrace head covering herself, this book combines biblical study, Christian history, personal reflection, and practical guidance in a thoughtful, conversational format.

Ellen Nicholas began studying the passage while preparing with her husband for a small-group discussion of 1 Corinthians. She expected to confirm what she had always heard: that head covering belonged to ancient Corinth and had no continuing relevance for Christians today. Instead, the more she studied, the more questions she encountered.

Why does Paul call the practice an apostolic tradition?
What does headship have to do with worship?
Why does he appeal to creation order, the glory of God, nature, the angels, and the practice of the churches?
And why did Christian women cover their heads in worship for most of church history?

Rather than treating head covering as an isolated rule, Recovering Covering places it within the larger biblical themes of authority, worship, conscience, obedience, and the glory of God.

Inside, readers will explore:

• the historical practice of head covering in the Christian church
• the cultural changes that contributed to its disappearance
• Paul’s teaching on headship and apostolic tradition
• the significance of creation order
• the meaning of “because of the angels”
• the relationship between a woman’s hair, her glory, and a physical covering
• common objections and alternative interpretations
• the difference between biblical command and Christian liberty
• practical questions about when, where, and how to cover
• how to respond graciously when other Christians disagree

Nicholas also writes candidly about the personal side of conviction: the discomfort of standing out, the fear of being misunderstood, conversations within marriage and church, and the challenge of obeying Scripture when a practice feels unfamiliar.

This is not a book written from a place of certainty untouched by questions. It is written from the middle of the struggle—by one woman speaking to another.

Readers are not asked to follow tradition blindly or adopt a practice merely because someone else has. Instead, they are encouraged to examine Scripture, consider the witness of Christian history, pray for wisdom, and act with a clear conscience before God.

A complete study guide is included for individual reflection, women’s groups, or small-group discussion. The questions are designed to help readers examine their assumptions, test interpretations, consider cultural influences, and think carefully about what faithful obedience may require.

Whether you are curious, skeptical, newly convinced, or simply trying to understand why some Christian women still cover their heads in worship, Recovering Covering offers a gracious and substantial place to begin.

Come with an open Bible, an honest conscience, and a willingness to follow Scripture wherever it leads.

 

What Happened?

 

What Happened to Head Covering?

Most Christian women today have never seriously considered wearing a head covering in worship. I certainly hadn’t. If the subject arose at all, it was usually dismissed as a cultural custom from ancient Corinth.

Sometimes the covering was treated as the temporary expression of a timeless principle: headship remains, but the symbol may change. Yet few people could explain what replaced the covering—or why Christians stopped using the symbol Paul actually described.

The Erosion of a Symbol

The practice did not disappear overnight. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Western expectations surrounding clothing, hairstyles, modesty, and distinctions between the sexes gradually changed. Hats became less common in everyday life, and women’s uncovered heads became culturally unremarkable.

By the late 1960s, however, the change was no longer merely about fashion. Some feminist organizations explicitly opposed head coverings because they understood them as symbols of women’s subjection.

In 1968, the National Organization for Women adopted the following resolution:

RESOLUTION ON HEAD COVERINGS

1968

“WHEREAS, the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a custom in many churches and whereas it is a symbol of subjection within these churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a ‘national unveiling’ by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman immediately. At the Spring meeting of the Task force on Women in Religion, these veils will then publicly be burned to protest the second class status of women in all churches.”

—NOW Issues Policy Manual, “Resolution on Head Coverings,” PDF p. 86

The resolution is historically significant because NOW did not describe the covering as a meaningless fashion accessory. It identified it as “a symbol of subjection” and called for its public rejection.

The following Easter, fifteen women participated in what became known as the “Easter Bonnet Rebellion” at a Milwaukee Catholic church. Wearing deliberately oversized hats, they approached the communion rail, removed their hats, and received communion bareheaded as a demonstration for women’s rights. Contemporary reporting described the protest as part of a broader challenge to the Church’s treatment of women. (Catholic Advocate, April 17, 1969)

A Change Recorded in Catholic Sources

Roman Catholic documents provide a particularly clear record of this transition. The 1917 Code of Canon Law required women to cover during worship:

“Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed … women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”

—1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1262 §2, English translation, p. 380

By 1976, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith described that requirement very differently:

“But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2–16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.”

—Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inter Insigniores (1976)

The 1983 Code did not include the former head-covering requirement. Instead, canon 6 stated:

“When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: 1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.”

—1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 6 §1

These Catholic documents do not settle how Protestants should interpret 1 Corinthians 11. They do, however, provide a dated record of how a longstanding Christian practice went from being formally required to being described as nonnormative and then omitted from canon law.

It would be too simple to say that feminism alone caused Christian women to abandon head coverings. Changes in fashion, church culture, biblical interpretation, and attitudes toward authority all played a part. Nevertheless, feminist opposition was one identifiable influence—and one that explicitly recognized and rejected the symbolism of the covering.

Within a remarkably short period, a practice familiar to generations of Christian women became strange. Eventually, what felt unfamiliar began to feel unbiblical, even though the words of 1 Corinthians 11 had not changed.

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” —Romans 12:2

In what ways have cultural movements shaped what feels normal—or abnormal—to you in worship?

When evaluating a Christian practice, are you beginning with Scripture or with the customs you inherited?

 

This post is an excerpt from 

Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering

On Jewelry

What About Jewelry?

Most people who tell you to take off the jewelry will fall back on 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3. More on those in a minute.

The first question to ask (remember, the Bible is about God)—would God portray Himself as tempting His bride to sin?

Obviously not.

Read this passage about God making Israel His bride:

    I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine. Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth. (Ezekiel 16:8b-13a)

Not only did God’s bride have bracelets, necklaces, earrings, a nose ring, and a crown, adorned with gold and silver … she was also adorned in fine linen, silk, and embroidered cloth.

How does that square up with 1 Timothy 2:9?

Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire. (ESV)

The Lord God put a crown on her head, but we can’t wear braids? The Lord God adorned His bride with gold and silver, but jewelry is a sin? The Lord God provided Israel with fine linen, silk, and embroidered cloth, but we may not have “costly attire” (whatever that means)?

How do we justify God providing what some would call “sin”?

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church puts it this way:

    Paul and Peter are both saying that women are to be marked, first and foremost, by their good works, not their good shoes, or their good looks; by their godliness and not their gaudiness. To this end, John Stott said, "The church is to be a veritable beauty parlor because it encourages women members to adorn themselves with good deeds. Women need to remember that if nature made them plain, grace can make them beautiful, and if nature has made them beautiful, good deeds can add to their beauty."

As you can see, the Bible warns us against an idolatrous view of outward beauty and adornment, while approving of the right use of both.[1]

The “prohibitions” are contrasts, not prohibitions. Don’t find your worth in the things you put on; your value is in Christ, and your inner beauty is what will last.

[1] https://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=469

Praying or Prophesying: When Scripture Says More Than It Names

 Metonymy and Synecdoche — When Scripture Says More Than It Names

After this book came back from the second editor, I listened to a podcast about head coverings and learned two new words: metonymy and synecdoche. I had already come to an understanding early on in my study that “prayer or prophesy” referred to a larger reality of the gathering of the saints – a view held by many of the men I listened to and read on this topic, and the one that made the most sense to me.

I was not convicted that “pray without ceasing” literally means “cover without ceasing.”

The pairing of “praying or prophesying” to mean worshiping together made sense to me, even without having a clear grammatical reason.

We know that Scripture is God-breathed and does not waste words. God speaks in poetry, parables, and songs. He uses metaphors and similes, symbolism and allegory.

And God uses metonymy and synecdoche.

Metonymy names one thing that represents a larger reality.  We recognize that “Moses” means the Law. “The altar” stands in for the larger sacrificial system. When Jesus prays, “Let this cup pass from me” (Matthew 26:39), He wasn’t talking about the object in His hand; He was speaking of the suffering and humiliation that awaited Him.

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul wrote, “You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” The word “table” doesn’t mean furniture – it signifies participation, alignment, a sharing of what that table represents.

Synecdoche names a part to represent the whole. When Jesus taught the disciples to pray, “bread” didn’t only refer to a loaf, it pointed to the whole of daily sustenance. 

Faith and love are not a checklist – they are named parts of the whole of Christ-like living. Life and death are not two moments in time; they speak of the entirety of a life lived.

The visible act (eating the bread) reflects a deeper reality of participation. The specific example of meat sacrificed to idols expands into a call to care for the conscience of others. The warning of idolatry is a named part of the larger whole of misplaced worship.

This matters when we come to 1 Corinthians 11.

When Paul writes, “every man who prays or prophesies… every woman who prays or prophesies…,” we need to look back to earlier in the letter (chapter 10.)

We need to ask if Paul is really writing about two specific and isolated practices, or if he is naming two parts of a larger, weightier whole.

Prayer is our speech directed to God. Prophesying is God’s Word directed toward us.

Together, these two named, visible acts reflect a larger reality of participation, forming a fullness – a way of speaking about the whole range of worship, without naming each act.

If we read 1 Corinthians 11 as speaking of two isolated activities, we risk missing the larger reality.

If we read “praying or prophesying” as a synecdoche, we listen for the larger reality behind the words, not just the words themselves. We look at not merely what is happening in those moments, but what they represent; lives visibly oriented toward God; His people engaging with Him in ways that reflect His honor and glory.

A woman worshipping with a covered head is not tied to a checklist of two acts as if the passage depends on what she is doing at any given moment. She is situated within the larger reality of something profound – the honoring of God’s created order in the presence of angels, the perfected saints and Christ Himself.

What is named is not all that is meant. And what is meant is not less, but more.

 

 

Words of the Day: Metonymy and Synecdoche

 

Appendix: Metonymy and Synecdoche — When Scripture Says More Than It Names

After this book came back from the second editor, I listened to a podcast about head coverings and learned two new words: metonymy and synecdoche. I had already come to an understanding early on in my study that “prayer or prophesy” referred to a larger reality of the gathering of the saints – a view held by many of the men I listened to and read on this topic, and the one that made the most sense to me.

I was not convicted that “pray without ceasing” literally means “cover without ceasing.”

The pairing of “praying or prophesying” to mean worshiping together made sense to me, even without having a clear grammatical reason.

We know that Scripture is God-breathed and does not waste words. God speaks in poetry, parables, and songs. He uses metaphors and similes, symbolism and allegory.

And God uses metonymy and synecdoche.

Metonymy names one thing that represents a larger reality.  We recognize that “Moses” means the Law. “The altar” stands in for the larger sacrificial system. When Jesus prays, “Let this cup pass from me” (Matthew 26:39), He wasn’t talking about the object in His hand; He was speaking of the suffering and humiliation that awaited Him.

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul wrote, “You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” The word “table” doesn’t mean furniture – it signifies participation, alignment, a sharing of what that table represents.

Synecdoche names a part to represent the whole. When Jesus taught the disciples to pray, “bread” didn’t only refer to a loaf, it pointed to the whole of daily sustenance. In Romans 13:4, “sword” refers to the whole of the government’s responsibility to have authority over its people.

Faith and love are not a checklist – they are named parts of the whole of Christ-like living. Life and death are not two moments in time; they speak of the entirety of a life lived.

The visible act (eating the bread) reflects a deeper reality of participation. The specific example of meat sacrificed to idols expands into a call to care for the conscience of others. The warning of idolatry is a named part of the larger whole of misplaced worship.

This matters when we come to 1 Corinthians 11.

When Paul writes, “every man who prays or prophesies… every woman who prays or prophesies…,” we need to look back to earlier in the letter (chapter 10.)

We need to ask if Paul is really writing about two specific and isolated practices, or if he is naming two parts of a larger, weightier whole.

Prayer is our speech directed to God. Prophesying is God’s Word directed toward us.

Together, these two named, visible acts reflect a larger reality of participation, forming a fullness – a way of speaking about the whole range of worship, without naming each act.

If we read 1 Corinthians 11 as speaking of two isolated activities, we risk missing the larger reality.

If we read “prayer or prophesying” as a synecdoche, we listen for the larger reality behind the words, not just the words themselves. We look at not merely what is happening in those moments, but what they represent; lives visibly oriented toward God; His people engaging with Him in ways that reflect His honor and glory.

A woman worshipping with a covered head is not tied to a checklist of two acts as if the passage depends on what she is doing at any given moment. She is situated within the larger reality of something profound – the honoring of God’s created order in the presence of angels, the perfected saints and Christ Himself.

What is named is not all that is meant. And what is meant is not less, but more.