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.

A New Generation Is Asking About Head Covering

 

Last Monday, my husband and I had lunch with one of “our Sunday School girls”—although she is now a grown woman.

We knew her years ago, long before we moved away. She is smart, articulate and even in 5th grade asked lots of great questions. Our church hosted "summer theologians" and we had a group for 3-5 grade. Our young lady still remembers that summer.

Somewhere along the way, the little girl we remembered became a thoughtful young Christian woman willing to open her Bible, study a difficult passage, and consider whether it required something of her.

After studying 1 Corinthians 11, she began wearing a head covering for public prayer and worship.

I cannot express how encouraging that was to hear.

They Are Not Simply Inheriting the Practice

In most evangelical churches today, young women are not growing up surrounded by covered mothers and grandmothers. They usually have no denominational tradition telling them to cover. Their pastors may never mention the subject, and their friends may never have considered it.

Many first encounter 1 Corinthians 11 as a passage Christians explain away—or quietly pass over.

Yet some young women are stopping to ask:

What if Paul meant what he wrote?

They are reading the passage for themselves. They are examining Paul’s appeals to headship, creation order, glory, nature, apostolic practice, and the angels. They are discovering that Paul does not base his argument upon a passing fashion in Corinth alone.

These women are not merely preserving a custom handed down to them. In many cases, they are recovering something their churches and families had already set aside.

That makes their interest especially significant.

Young Women Are Willing to Reconsider What Seems Settled

Every generation inherits assumptions from the one before it.

For many women of my generation, head covering had already been placed in the category of things Christians no longer do. We may have been told that the covering was merely cultural, that a woman’s hair was the only covering Paul intended, or that the instruction applied only to women living in ancient Corinth.

Once an interpretation becomes familiar, it can begin to feel unquestionably biblical—even when we have never examined it closely.

Some younger women seem remarkably willing to reopen those questions. They are not automatically persuaded by the phrase “That was cultural.” They want to know where the passage itself says so.

They have access to sermons, articles, historical sources, old commentaries, and conversations with Christian women from many traditions. That access brings dangers, including unreliable teaching and extreme applications. But it also allows them to discover that Christian head covering is neither a new internet trend nor a peculiar practice invented by a tiny modern sect.

For most of church history, Christian women read 1 Corinthians 11 as requiring an actual covering.

Young women are encountering that history and asking whether the modern church may have dismissed the passage too quickly.

Their Obedience Is Visible

Head covering requires a particular kind of courage because it can be seen.

A woman can reconsider many theological questions without anyone noticing. A covering, however, sits upon her head. It may prompt questions. It may make her the only covered woman in her congregation. It may be misunderstood as legalism, cultural affectation, or membership in a religious group to which she does not belong.

A young woman who covers must therefore do more than reach an intellectual conclusion. She must decide whether she is willing to act upon it publicly.

That does not mean every young woman who studies the passage will reach the same conclusion. Nor does it mean a covered woman is more faithful than every uncovered woman around her.

It does mean that when a woman becomes convinced that Scripture calls her to cover, following that conviction requires quiet, visible obedience.

The Practice Is Being Recovered, Not Merely Preserved

I find something deeply hopeful in seeing younger women consider head covering.

They are not returning to it because someone has forced them into an inherited dress code. They are not necessarily rejecting modern life or trying to recreate another century. Many are ordinary young women wearing ordinary contemporary clothing, participating fully in their churches, families, education, and work.

They simply believe that modernity does not possess the authority to erase an apostolic instruction.

Their coverings may take different forms: a hat, scarf, veil, beret, bandana, or wide headband. They may cover only during gathered worship or extend the practice to other occasions of public prayer. They may still be working through exactly how to apply the passage.

The important point is not that they all make identical choices. It is that they are taking the text seriously enough to ask what faithful obedience looks like.

Passing the Conversation Forward

Sitting across the table from a woman we once knew as a Sunday School girl reminded me that we do not always know which lessons, conversations, or examples God will use years later.

My husband and I did not persuade her to cover. She studied the passage and reached her own conclusion. That makes her decision more encouraging, not less.

Christian women who cover should make room for these younger women. We can explain why we cover, answer questions honestly, share resources, and discuss practical concerns. We should also resist burdening them with rules Scripture does not give.

They do not need us to prescribe one approved style, dictate how many inches of hair may show, or turn a symbol of biblical order into an elaborate measure of spirituality.

They need sound teaching, patient conversation, and the freedom to work out their convictions before God.

Perhaps head covering will not disappear because a new generation is willing to look again at a passage an older generation thought it had settled.

That is encouraging indeed.

Questions for Reflection

• Am I willing to examine a familiar interpretation again when Scripture raises questions about it?
• How can older Christian women encourage younger women without binding their consciences with extra-biblical rules?
• If I become convinced that Scripture requires something visible and unfamiliar, am I willing to obey?

To Cover or Not to Cover by Brett Baggett ★★★★☆

 To Cover or Not to Cover

Opening Statement: What’s the Point?

 

Brett Baggett’s To Cover or Not to Cover? is a short theological treatment of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. Baggett describes his purpose clearly:

“The goal of this book is not division but faithfulness to Christ above all.”

The book examines what Baggett identifies as twelve concrete truths in the passage, followed by nine applications that remain debated among Christians. Its central question is simple: Does Paul instruct men to uncover their heads and women to cover theirs today? (Amazon book description)

By the way, the last 25% of the book is a different book - I only reviewed "To Cover or Not to Cover" 

What Is the Tone of the Book?

Baggett is a pastor, and the book reads much like a sermon—or perhaps a short sermon series—transcribed and arranged for publication. Its tone is earnest, pastoral, and focused closely on the biblical text.

There is nothing wrong with that approach. Readers who appreciate listening to a pastor work carefully through a passage may find the style comfortable and familiar. Those looking for a more conversational book, however, may find it closer to a theological treatise than a conversation across the table.

Baggett’s pastoral experience qualifies him to teach Scripture, but the book does not present him as uniquely qualified to address head covering. He does not write as a specialist in ancient history, Greek culture, textiles, or women’s experience with the practice. His likely audience is Christians—both men and women—who want a straightforward biblical argument for the continuing relevance of 1 Corinthians 11.

What Is the Purpose of the Book?

The book promises to examine the passage itself and determine which teachings are clear, which applications remain debated, and whether head covering belongs only to ancient Corinth or continues today.

It largely accomplishes that goal.

Baggett keeps his attention on Paul’s argument rather than wandering into unrelated questions. Theologically, I found nothing objectionable. Socially, the book is also measured. It does not burden women with elaborate dress codes, supernatural claims, or layers of hedge laws. That alone distinguishes it from some books on this subject.

The limitation is not that the book says anything particularly wrong. It is that it says little that has not already been said by other men writing about 1 Corinthians 11. Readers familiar with existing theological treatments will probably recognize most of the arguments.

The book also includes little church history and relatively little practical application. It explains the passage more than it explores what accepting that interpretation might mean for the woman who must actually wear the covering.

Why Does It Matter?

Before wrapping up a review, I like to ask what sets a book apart.

In this case, the most honest answer is that To Cover or Not to Cover? does not appear to be trying to reinvent the conversation. It offers a concise, pastorally delivered argument focused almost entirely on the biblical text. That may be precisely what some readers want.

The difference between Baggett’s book and my own is largely one of purpose and voice. His reads like a theological treatise. My goal in writing Recovering Covering was to sound as though I were sitting across the table having coffee with another woman—working through the theology, history, objections, and practical questions together.

Those approaches do not have to compete. They serve different readers.

What Do I Think?

Reviews are subjective; none of us can remove ourselves entirely from the evaluation.

My overall impression is that this is a sound, focused book that does what it sets out to do. I found nothing that would cause me to warn readers away from it. At the same time, I did not find a distinctive contribution that would make it essential for someone who has already read several traditional theological defenses of head covering.

And the Verdict Is:

Verdict: Read it if you want a short, sermon-like exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 from a pastor who believes the passage remains applicable today.

If you are primarily looking for church history, a woman’s perspective, practical “what if” questions, or a more conversational introduction to the practice, you will probably want to supplement it with another resource.

 

What If Somebody Says Its Legalism?

 

Yes, this accusation comes up often.

When someone calls head covering legalistic, I first ask what they mean by legalism. The word is sometimes used so broadly that it comes to mean any obedience another Christian considers unnecessary.

I understand legalism as seeking righteousness through rule-keeping or adding human requirements to Scripture as a measure of spirituality. Head covering can be imposed legalistically if someone coerces a woman into wearing one. It can also be practiced legalistically if she believes it earns God’s favor or makes her more righteous than an uncovered woman.

But obedience offered in faith is not legalism. If a woman studies 1 Corinthians 11 and becomes convinced that she should cover during worship, acting upon that conviction is an effort to obey Scripture—not to earn salvation. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ, not by anything we place upon our heads.

Still, sincere obedience does not make us immune to pride. If I begin believing that I am better than another woman because I cover, my obedience has become entangled with self-importance. That pride must be confronted quickly.

When accused of legalism, we can ask calmly:

• How do you define legalism?
• What have I said or done that makes you believe I am acting legalistically?

We should remain willing to examine our motives and engage in loving discussion. However, we are not obligated to defend ourselves against every hostile accusation. Faithfulness does not require quarreling.

Examine yourself, answer gently, and resist both defensiveness and pride. Let your covering communicate trust in God—not superiority over others.

Questions for Reflection

• Does my obedience cultivate humility or self-importance?
• Can I explain my conviction without implying that I am more faithful than others?
• Am I guarding truth and love with equal care?

For more biblical study and practical guidance, see Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering.

What If I'm the Only One?

 

I hear you, sister.

When I began covering, I was the only woman in my church who did so intentionally. A few women wore hats occasionally, but head covering was not part of our church’s practice.

Walking into worship covered for the first time can feel as though all eyes are on you. People may notice; they may not. A few may ask questions, but an unpleasant response is unlikely. Hold your head high—not with pride, but with quiet confidence.

If you are convinced that Scripture calls you to cover in worship, ask yourself: If I were the only person obeying God in some other area, would I still obey?

Being the only one does not make you more faithful than the women around you, and it should not become a reason to judge them. They may understand the passage differently, may never have studied it closely, or may still be working through it. Cover with humility, continue loving your sisters, and resist the temptation to make your conviction the measure of someone else’s faithfulness.

Will it feel lonely? At first, perhaps. But most likely, your church family will continue treating you as they always have. After a surprisingly short time, the covering will simply become part of your preparation for worship. The self-consciousness fades, and peace settles in.

You may be the only covered woman in the room, but you are not alone before God. The Lord sees, the angels witness the worship of His people, and quiet obedience is never insignificant to Him.

Questions for Reflection

• How can I obey with quiet confidence—free from both pride and fear—when my conviction makes me stand out?
• Am I extending the same patience and Christian liberty to uncovered women that I hope they will extend to me?
• What simple, gracious answer can I give if someone asks why I cover?

For more biblical study and practical guidance, see Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering.

Why I Choose Not to Wear a Hijab-Style Covering

 

Christian women who cover their heads have many styles available to them: hats, scarves, veils, wide headbands, and wraps. Some women choose a style that closely resembles a Muslim hijab, covering the hair, ears, and neck.

I personally choose not to.

My decision is not a judgment against Christian women who wear that style, nor is it criticism of Muslim women. It is simply an application of my own conscience and circumstances.

What Does My Covering Communicate?

Clothing communicates, whether we intend it to or not. In modern American culture, a tightly wrapped scarf that conceals all the hair and neck is most strongly associated with Islam. If I wore one, most people who saw me could reasonably assume that I was Muslim.

That is not the message I want my covering to send.

I wear a head covering as a Christian response to 1 Corinthians 11. I want the covering to be recognizable as feminine and intentional without creating unnecessary confusion about my faith. For me, a hat, veil, scarf, or wide headband accomplishes that more naturally.

I also do not believe Paul requires every strand of hair or the entire neck to be concealed. His instruction concerns a covered head, but Scripture does not specify the covering’s dimensions, fabric, or style. A hijab-style covering may fulfill the instruction, but I do not believe it is necessary to do so.

Liberty Works in Both Directions

My reasons for not wearing a hijab-style covering do not create a rule for every Christian woman.

Another woman may live in a culture where that style does not communicate Islam exclusively. She may find it practical, comfortable, beautiful, or particularly secure. She may believe that covering all her hair best expresses her understanding of the passage. She remains free to make that choice.

Christian liberty does not mean that our choices are meaningless. We should consider what our clothing communicates, how it affects others, and whether we can wear it with a clear conscience. But liberty also means that we must not turn personal wisdom into a universal command.

A hijab-style covering is not inherently sinful, and a Christian woman does not become Muslim by wrapping a scarf around her head. Fabric has no religion of its own. Meaning comes from the beliefs, intentions, and cultural associations connected to it.

For me, the possibility of communicating an unintended religious identity outweighs the benefits of that style. For another Christian woman, the circumstances may be different.

I can explain why I choose not to wear it without insisting that no Christian woman should.

Does my covering communicate my Christian conviction clearly within my particular culture?

Can I honor another woman’s liberty without treating her application as either mandatory or forbidden?

For more practical guidance on choosing and wearing a Christian head covering, see Recovering Covering: Scripture, Conscience, and the Beauty of Biblical Head Covering.