Hey Ladies: R.C Sproul wants you to cover your head! (and he’s got a whole movement behind him)

Hey Ladies: R.C Sproul wants you to cover your head! (and he’s got a whole movement behind him) July 11, 2013

Screen Shot 2013-07-11 at 3.35.38 PM

The other night, a friend from our adoption small group posted a link on Facebook that practically gave my wife and I palpitations. The link was to the “Head Covering Movement”, which is a new Christian Fundamentalist movement attempting to stave off the movement of gender equality within Christianity.

Instead of sticking to traditional fundamentalist methods of persuasion by force and shaming within their own congregations, this movement is beginning to utilize the full-force of modern media with a relatively well-made website, Facebook account, twitter handle, and YouTube channel.

The “Head Covering Movement” (yes, it’s a real movement) is calling for all Christian women to return to the ancient practice of covering their heads during worship, calling this a “neglected doctrine”. Unfortunately, this doesn’t appear to be your ordinary rogue movement as they are able to boast of the theological support of popular teacher R.C Sproul on their front page. Sproul states:

“The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church…”

Screen Shot 2013-07-11 at 1.23.33 PM

Which is where we see what this is really about: a growing number of fundamentalists are concerned that perhaps, women are beginning to be accepted as somehow co-equal (some Trinitarian lingo for you) to men. Gender equality, especially gender equality in church, presents a threat to male dominated power and control… and well, we certainly can’t have that, can we?

Just think of the madness that would occur if we started letting women serve in roles commensurate with their calling, talents, and gifting. All hell would break loose. Before you know it they might even want to start having a voice in their home finances, have a career of their own, or actually teach adult Sunday School instead of being relegated to the nursery. There’s no telling what could happen.

Best way to swash the movement in some churches? Bring back archaic practices that re-enforce the notion that they are inferior to men, and remind them of their inferiority every time they step into church by forcing them to dress differently than the men.

Brilliant idea. Although, deeply, deeply broken (a subtle Steve McCoy reference).

Besides the obvious motivation to combat the impacts of gender equality, this movement is deeply flawed theologically- making some of the same critical mistakes so many people do when reading scripture. Here’s where they missed the boat:

First, the head covering movement presupposes that all of the Pauline letters were written as “open letters”, as if they were addressed:

“To All Christians: both now, and in generations to come, this letter is for you- a blanket decree for all cultures”

This, simply isn’t the case. All of the epistles in the New Testament were written by a specific author to a specific audience. The primary meaning of the text is what it meant to them. However, aspects of American culture which tell us “it’s all about me” have blended into our way of reading scripture in such a way that we approach the text as if it were written directly to us- in our time, in our culture. To read scripture in this way, misses the depth and beauty of it, and makes idolatrous use of the text by placing “me” at the center.

timthumbIf you read the text from an American mindset without doing any historical exegesis, you end up with crappy theology. Not just crappy theology, but crappy theology which subjugates women.

However, if we stop placing ourselves at the center of the text and dig a little deeper, we discover that this passage commanding head covering might have actually been practical and pro-woman in the original context.

While there are certainly scholars on opposite ends of the spectrum, I have found the most compelling historical exegesis to be the following:

The culture Paul was speaking into, hair and head coverings had massively different connotations than in our current culture almost 2,000 years later. In this culture, a woman’s hair was a sexual symbol with links to pagan beliefs on fertility. Covering one’s hair would have been seen as a sign of self-respect and modesty, as one was modestly covering a part of their body that had sexual connotations. Additionally, some scholars argue that the only women in this culture who didn’t cover their heads were prostitutes, or slaves.

 In light of historical and cultural considerations, we could conclude:

Head covering helped people focus in church on what mattered, instead of getting distracted- a theme Paul takes on several times in the NT and fits nicely within a proper understanding of Pauline theology. If hair really was a compelling sexual symbol, as some have argued it was, covering it in church would make as much sense as asking women not to show up to church today topless. In this regard, it becomes completely reasonable and practical- I would have a hard time paying attention in church if I looked across the room to see everyone topless. What appears to be a verse that subjugates women may be as simple as a rule that, 2,000 years ago, made having a corporate worship service practical without distractions.

Additionally, if not wearing a head covering was common among prostitutes, this verse becomes even more beautiful. Prostitutes, in all cultures, tend to be treated like subhuman, consumable products, instead of people. In that light, this verse becomes:

“Hey Ladies- you are wonderfully, and beautifully made. You are not a product, but a person. Please don’t even dress like a consumable product, because I don’t want anyone to treat you that way.”

This new movement, completely disregards any historical context to the Corinthians passage. As a result, this verse is being misapplied to a new cultural context in an abusive, demeaning way in an attempt to squash the modern gender-equality movement. All we need do is look to their own “testimonials” to see the type of mentality they are trying to create.

 Meet Melissa Walker, one of the movement’s happy converts.

Screen Shot 2013-07-11 at 2.55.31 PM

Unfortunately, by way of introduction, we see where the ethos of this movement is headed. Melissa’s self introduction is: “Hello, my name is Melissa. I am a help-meet to my wonderful husband Jason…”

Yes, her primary identity is “help-meet”. Other testimonials begin similar ways- their identity coming from their husbands and not their own selves.

I’m not knocking the idea of being a help-meet. My wife and I are partners in life, and I’m a help-meet to her, and she’s a help-meet to me. But I would be mortified if she were simply introduced as my “help-meet”, because she’s MORE than that. She’s a wonderful clinician, program manager, family manager, financial manager… she’s full of all kinds of wonderful qualities, abilities, and God-given gifting.

And, I’m sure Melissa is too. But we don’t see that from her introduction- because this movement is clearly aimed at beating back the tide of biblical gender-equality, and they’re willing to use whatever crappy theology will enable them to do it.

I’m sure my readers haven’t been duped by this new movement, but if you have- or know someone who has (please share this with them) as a reminder that:

You are wonderfully and beautifully made. You are nobody’s product, you are a person. You have unique talents, abilities, and God-given gifting– and I want you to go out there and use those talents and abilities to love the world.

Because that’s what Jesus would tell you.




"Ron has no examples, other than made up nonsense. He is a troll."

10 Signs You’re Actually Following TRUMPianity ..."
"Ron, you are a liar. I'm not a progressive, but being a progressive is not ..."

10 Signs You’re Actually Following TRUMPianity ..."
"Fact is not something that Trump supporters care about. "Jiminy Kricketts is a troll."

10 Signs You’re Actually Following TRUMPianity ..."
"Nice 'narrative'! Care to back it up?"

Yes, What Israel Is Doing To ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Normita

    Let me guess, that phrase that indicates that a woman should cover
    her hair was written by a man who had a hair fetish? Religion=brain wash

  • Alisha

    We cover because of the angels.It is a spiritual reason not culture.Satan hates it God loves it. As men and woman we are worth the same but we have different roles and authority given by God. Just like a parent. As a parent and child have the same worth but different authority. God gives authority for structure. Satan hates authority because he wanted to be in charge and rebelled against God. Woman and children should not desire authority that is not theirs.It leads to rebellion.

  • You say “submission is honouring your husband..” Husbands are told in the Bible to honor their wives – do you believe they should submit to wives like you do to your husband?
    You also say you follow the principles of submission. Does your husband follow the principles of submission too? According to that, all believers should submit to one another. You are a believer. Does he submit to you?

  • If women actually always covered their heads in church, why do the passage we are discussing say “we have no such custom, nor [do] the other churches”?

  • Laurie

    Actually Satan loves it when we add rules to follow and he especially loves it when we subjugate women to the level of that of a child. If you want to honor God in your marriage then you need an equal partnership where both of you respect each other. That is a Godly marriage!

  • Laurie

    Unfortunately a lot of churches interpret the covering idea to mean the husband is the “covering for the wife” which is also disrespectful to the wife. The Holy Spirit is my covering. I love my husband but he cannot do the covering job as well as the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit remains my covering.
    One other thing, when we elevate men to the status of God by giving them authority over women , calling them our covering, etc. there is one word for that IDOLATRY. Anything or anyone we put in the place of God is simply Idolatry!

  • Alisha, I’m intrigued that you used the parent-child relationship as a comparison to the relationship between men and women. And then you added that “women and children should not desire authority that is not theirs.” Are you putting yourself and other women in the same category as children?

    I am not a child. I am an intelligent, capable person. My husband is also an intelligent, capable person. Just how much structure or authority does a marriage of two capable people need?

  • Barb Orlowski

    Just saw this, Benjamin. Right on! This stuff is ridiculous! A novel way to keep the wimmin folk stifled in the 21st century. Thanks for showing what a fallacy this is!! It is far from being truly ‘Christian’ and truly ‘biblical’!

  • Kristen,

    So glad I’m not alone in placing this portion in the category of refuting error, not enforcing doctrine!

    Recently, I’d been led to reread the whole of First Corinthians and what came out clearest to me was to rightly divide this book while asking that very question. There are clues throughout, usually immediately before or after, but in the head covering case, both before AND after that help identify the correct category as error.

    Here are some excerpts from an article I wrote:

    A large part of Paul’s purpose in writing to this doctrinally divided and contentious church, was to confirm what were and what were not ‘the traditions just as I delivered them to you’ (11:2). Again 11:23 ‘I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that on the same night He was betrayed… In 14.37, ‘let him (the ‘spiritual’) acknowledge that the things I (emphasis on the ‘I’!) write to you are the commandments of the Lord’. Also 15:3 ‘For I delivered to you first of all that which I received: that Christ died for our sins… He also has the integrity to let them know when it was his own opinion (7:25) or if he thought the Spirit is saying it too (7:40)

    Are these verses to be included in ‘that which Paul received from Jesus, that he delivered to them’ – or not?

    The corollary to that question would therefore be: Are they truth or error? Are they part of the New Covenant or not? Are they to be obeyed or ignored?

    Is it possible that the verses, often dismissed as not an important part of the ‘doctrine’ that immediately precede or follow it, could actually BE precisely the key to understanding what is being said? For instance, before the discussion of head covering, is verse 2:’“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you’. Then there comes a little, but immensely important word, ‘but’ to begin the discussion.

    Why ‘but’?

    Is it not there to CONTRAST what came before it with what came after?

    Commendation … or not?

    Remembering Paul in all things … or not?

    Keeping the traditions … or not?

    Traditions Paul gave to them … or did someone else?

    What follows can justifiably be viewed as Paul’s summary of things that had been reported to him that they were saying, (as in 1:12 and 15:12, etc), well more accurately, were arguing about – note he tells them in verse 16, not to be contentious.

    To my mind, a summary of this section (1 Cor 11:2-16) would sound something like:

    Well done for remembering the traditions I delivered to you, ‘BUT, I want you to know’ the following dispute comprising arguments that different parties have presented from whichever viewpoint, whether hierarchical, patriarchal, spiritual, natural, historical or cultural is over a custom that neither we (apostles) nor the churches of God have. So drop it! Paul, I feel, was simply giving them ‘wisdom from above..sown in peace by those who make peace.’ It is not possible to tell with which arguments, if any, did Paul sympathise!

    Therefore, I feel it is very unwise to use this single reference as something solid and reliable on which to hang major doctrines: Patriarchy and Hierarchy

    (I did go through the verses about angels, male supremacy and hair etc, but don’t feel it necessary to do so here. Also thanks. Kristen for pointing out the ‘man is the glory of God’ fallacy…. brilliantly covered….and I’d missed that one. So glad God has many voices to speak through!)

    Kristen, could you let me know the source of that – oh, so important – piece of information about translator interference? I had suspected it, but had had no proof! Just as I suspect the translators missed the question marks off the end of 14:34 and 14:35, which are so blatantly obvious as sarcastic rebuttals of the talmudic ‘law’ of synagogue practice! (I found thirteen reasons to categorize this one as error!)

    I’m not being adamant about any of this, but just offer it to all of you for your consideration. :-)

  • My point exactly, as noted in a longer post on reply to Kirsten, above.

    By the way are you the same Retha that commented on Spiritual Sounding Board to me


    FEBRUARY 16, 2014 @ 6:19 AM

    Alison: Yes, find your voice! Keep talking.

    That is why I love the Internet: In blogging, I found my voice.”

    If so, thank you so much, my sister

  • It’s a pleasure. And I am. I really appreciate your “thank you” – 48hours ago I was really discourage, and you are one of several people to encourage me since.

  • “Hello, my name is Melissa. I am a help-meet to my wonderful husband Jason…” (Quoted from the article above, derived from Gen. 2:18)

    My answer:
    Hello. My name is Retha. I am an image bearer of God, blessed and created to have dominion. (Derived from Genesis 1:26-28)