When Nature Is Not the Whole Instruction

Two of the heroes of my head-covering journey are Dr. Joel Beeke and Dr. Michael P. V. Barrett. Both men have helped me think more carefully about worship, biblical authority, and the importance of obeying Scripture even when that obedience places us outside contemporary custom. I have also had the privilege of meeting both of them personally.

Dr. Barrett’s exposition of 1 Corinthians 11 has been especially helpful in understanding the relationship between a woman’s hair and the fabric covering Paul requires in worship.

Some people read verse 15—“her hair is given to her for a covering”—and conclude that a woman’s hair is the only covering Paul has in mind. If she has hair, the argument goes, she is already covered and needs nothing additional.

Barrett offers a more satisfying explanation. A woman’s hair and the worship covering serve related but distinct purposes.

What Nature Teaches

Paul asks:

“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

Nature teaches us that men and women are different. God created humanity male and female, and He intended that distinction to be recognizable.

Barrett does not reduce Paul’s argument to a precise measurement of hair. The central point is that masculine and feminine appearance should remain distinct. In ordinary life, a woman’s hair is part of the visible beauty and distinction of womanhood. Paul does not describe her hair as dirty, indecent, or shameful. He calls it her glory.

That matters.

A woman does not need to conceal her hair every moment because her hair is not inherently immodest. It is one of the natural ways in which her God-created femininity is displayed.

As Barrett explains, the hairstyle of a man or woman ordinarily helps identify the difference between the sexes. Nature establishes that distinction, and our appearance should honor rather than intentionally erase it.

Worship Is Not Merely Ordinary Life

However, Paul does not stop with what nature teaches.

Gathered worship is a particular setting governed by special revelation. Nature teaches that men and women are different, but Scripture tells us how that distinction should be visibly acknowledged when the church gathers before God.

Paul writes that a man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head, while a woman doing so with her head uncovered dishonors hers. The man is therefore to remain uncovered, and the woman is to place something upon her head.

The woman’s hair identifies her naturally as a woman. The additional covering acknowledges her place within God’s order of headship.

This is why the hair cannot simply replace the covering. If “covered” meant nothing more than possessing hair, then Paul’s corresponding instruction that a man remain uncovered would require men to worship bald. Paul clearly assumes that men have hair while still commanding them to remain uncovered. The worship covering must therefore be something distinguishable from the hair beneath it.

In ordinary life, a woman’s hair displays her feminine glory. In gathered worship, she places an additional covering over that glory.

Covering What Is Glorious

This distinction helped me understand that the covering is not a declaration that a woman’s hair is shameful. It is almost the opposite.

We cover valuable things precisely because they possess honor and beauty. Paul calls a woman’s hair her glory. The covering conceals that natural glory temporarily in the place where all attention and glory belong to God.

Barrett summarizes the principle plainly: if a woman’s hair is her glory, it is fitting that she cover that glory in public worship, where attention should be directed toward God rather than ourselves.

The woman is not being erased. Her God-given femininity is not rejected. Instead, her covering acknowledges that even the good and beautiful glory God has given her must yield before His greater glory.

The man also participates in this visible order. He removes any covering from his head because Paul identifies him as the image and glory of God. The woman covers because she is the glory of man. Both actions direct the congregation away from autonomous self-expression and toward the order God has established.

Natural Revelation and Special Revelation

This distinction may also be understood in terms of natural and special revelation.

Natural revelation teaches that God created men and women differently. Our bodies, hair, and ordinary appearance bear witness to that created distinction. A woman’s feminine hair belongs to that natural order and is appropriately visible in everyday life.

Special revelation gives an additional instruction for worship. Scripture tells the man to remain uncovered and the woman to worship covered. The fabric covering is not required because nature failed to distinguish the sexes. It is required because God appointed a particular symbol for the gathered church.

Nature provides the distinction.

Scripture provides the worship symbol.

The hair and the covering therefore do not compete with one another. The woman’s hair expresses her natural feminine glory; the fabric covering acknowledges headship and directs that glory toward God in worship.

More Than Fabric

Dr. Beeke and Dr. Barrett have both helped me see that worship is not ours to redesign according to personal preference. God graciously invites His people into His presence, and He has the authority to tell us how He should be approached.

The covering itself is simple. It may be a hat, scarf, veil, beret, bandana, or another recognizable covering. Scripture does not prescribe a particular color, fabric, or percentage of hair that must disappear.

But the theology beneath it is profound.

When I cover my head in gathered worship, I am not declaring that my hair is immodest. I am acknowledging that it is my glory—and that worship is the place where my glory should be covered so that God’s glory alone receives the attention.

My hair displays the beauty of the distinction God created.

My covering displays my willing acknowledgment of the order He revealed.

Both testify that being created a woman is good. But when I enter gathered worship, something more is required—not because womanhood is shameful, but because God’s glory is supreme.

Dr. Michael P. V. Barrett’s complete exposition can be read here: Headcovering for Public Worship.

 

Is Wearing Makeup Telling a Lie?

Imagine that you own a beautiful red table lamp. If you place it in front of a red wall, it may blend into the background. Place that same lamp in front of a white wall, however, and its color becomes vivid. The contrast draws attention to its shape and emphasizes how red it really is.

Has the white wall told a lie about the lamp?

Of course not. The lamp really is red. The wall has not changed or disguised it; it has simply provided a setting that makes the lamp’s existing qualities more noticeable.

Makeup can work in much the same way.

Mascara emphasizes eyelashes that are already present. Eyeliner increases the natural contrast around the eyes. Blush brings out the color associated with healthy skin. Lip color draws attention to the natural shape of the lips. Concealer minimizes discoloration or other visual distractions so that the face itself receives attention.

These things do not necessarily create a false face. They can simply accentuate the face a woman already has.

Accenting Is Not the Same as Deceiving

There is an important difference between presenting something attractively and making a false claim about it.

We make choices every day that influence how other people see us. We brush and arrange our hair. We choose clothing in flattering colors. We may wear jewelry that brings light near the face or glasses that complement its shape. We stand in good lighting when having our photograph taken.

None of these things presents our completely unarranged appearance, but neither do we ordinarily call them lies.

If every effort to look better were deceptive, then a man would be lying when he trims his beard, a woman would be lying when she curls her hair, and both would be dishonest whenever they exchanged faded clothing for something more becoming.

Grooming and adornment do not necessarily deny reality. They can be ways of caring for and presenting what God has given us.

What About Biblical Modesty?

Scripture warns women not to build their identity around outward adornment. Paul tells women to adorn themselves with respectable apparel and good works rather than making elaborate hair, gold, pearls, or costly clothing the center of their presentation (1 Timothy 2:9–10). Peter likewise directs attention toward “the hidden person of the heart” and “the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Peter 3:3–4).

Neither passage requires us to conclude that every form of outward adornment is dishonest or sinful. If Peter were forbidding everything in his list absolutely, the prohibition would include putting on clothing. His point is one of priority: a Christian woman’s defining beauty must not rest in her outward presentation.

Makeup can become an expression of vanity. A woman may become preoccupied with appearance, dependent upon approval, or unwilling to be seen without cosmetic enhancement. But those dangers are not unique to makeup. Pride can attach itself to expensive cosmetics, an intentionally bare face, fashionable clothing, or conspicuously plain clothing.

The condition of the heart—not merely the contents of the makeup bag—is the deeper issue.

Can Makeup Ever Be Deceptive?

Almost anything can be used dishonestly. Makeup might be deceptive if it were deliberately used to conceal one’s identity, impersonate another person, or create a materially false appearance for fraudulent purposes.

Ordinary cosmetic use, however, does not generally deceive anyone. Other people know that women wear makeup. A visible lipstick color does not secretly claim to be the natural color of a woman’s lips. Mascara does not persuade anyone that eyelashes naturally come from a tube.

Makeup is understood as adornment.

The better questions are not simply, “Am I wearing makeup?” or “Does makeup change how I look?” Clothing, hairstyling, and lighting also change how we look. More searching questions would be:

• Am I using makeup to care for and accent what God has given me?

• Have I made physical appearance the source of my value?

• Am I seeking attention in a way that competes with godliness?

• Can I appear without makeup without feeling ashamed of my actual face?

• Does my outward presentation reflect appropriate modesty and self-control?

A red lamp does not become dishonest because a white wall makes its color more visible. In the same way, a woman is not necessarily presenting a false self because makeup makes her eyes appear brighter, her complexion more even, or her natural femininity more noticeable.

Accenting what is genuinely present is not the same thing as covering up the truth. Makeup can be used vainly or wisely, excessively or tastefully—but it is not, by its nature, a lie.

Why the Title: "Recovering Covering"

 

The title Recovering Covering carries a deliberate double meaning.

First, the book seeks to recover a neglected biblical teaching. Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11 were understood and practiced throughout much of Christian history, yet many churches now pass over the passage quickly or dismiss it as an outdated cultural custom. The book returns to the text and asks readers to consider Paul’s reasoning on its own terms.

Second, it invites women to recover the practice of covering in gathered worship—not through pressure, fear, or legalism, but through Scripture-informed conviction and Christian liberty.

“Recovering” also describes a process. Most women considering head covering must work through questions about history, interpretation, husbands, pastors, conscience, and the discomfort of being visibly different. The book does not simply say, “Put something on your head.” It helps women recover the theology beneath the symbol: biblical headship, creation order, glory, worship, and the presence of the angels.

The title therefore expresses the book’s central hope: that Christians might recover both the covering itself and the biblical truth it represents.

 

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?