Monday, October 5, 2026

It is the 5th of October 2026. Welcome to the Christian History Almanac, brought to you by 1517 at 1517.org; I’m Dan van Voorhis.

A very happy Monday to you- we head to the mailbag as is our custom. I asked, and two of you responded- Ron in Alaska and Elsa in Nampa, Idaho. I mentioned head coverings, and both wrote in to ask me to talk a little more about the practice in the church and its history.

 

I should note that Ron pointed out that in Alaska they just finished up “Fat Bear Week”- a shoutout to Backpack, the son of a former winner- he’s a chunky 1200 pounds. Elsa… no word of bear competitions in Nampa, a town once called “New Jerusalem” because of its inhabitants' zeal- it’s also the home of the Northwest Nazarene Nighthawks.

 

So- head coverings. You’ve got one text in Scripture- the perplexing 1 Corinthians 11. You’ve got Paul writing: “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head”. And then later, “the woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels”. We should also note that Paul ends the section with “But if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor have the churches of God.”

 

I’m inclined towards the idea of Richard Hays in his commentary that it’s embedded in Corinthian culture and likely has to do with women’s hair being put up or let down (veils and coverings weren’t prominent in Greco-Roman culture). But, in the early church we have Tertullian writing on head coverings from Carthage- there it was a custom for women to veil, and he argued that women should continue to veil in church for the sake of modesty.

 

The head covering or veil was a Medieval symbol of modesty- iconography with women has them almost universally with covered heads.

 

Let me see if I can give you some more modern confessional approaches. The Reformed, who take order in worship very seriously, don’t have a hard answer in any of their confessions. You’ll read of the distinction between “element” and “circumstance” in the Westminster Confession. The “Elements” are required while the “circumstances” change. Head coverings are very much a “circumstance”. In the Lutheran Confessions there’s a similar distinction made with “ordinances” which may be required but not binding. Head coverings would fit under “adiaphora” or “things indifferent”. Ron in Alaska- who calls himself a "mackerel snapping papist” might be interested to know that the last Catholic call to head coverings came in the 1917 Canon Law, which required both women to veil and that it was desirable for men and women to be separated in worship. When Pope John Paul II promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law, this was specifically abrogated.

 

The problem that we run into is assuming that the church is somehow divorced from its local customs. As we see in Tertullian, in Africa it was assumed that if you didn’t cover your head as a woman you were a prostitute. In Paul’s context, there were people who took the Jewish tradition of veiling and incorporated that into Christian worship- as usual, he is trying to navigate Gospel freedom and a kind of spiritual anarchy which says “anything goes”.

 

Ron noted that in his church experience it’s the younger women who veil. And Elsa, I’m gonna guess you are on the younger side, told me that she liked to cover her head in church so as not to be concerned about her hair. In the late 60’s there was a “national unveiling” sponsored by the National Organization of Women- there was surely something freeing to some in the same way that the Jesus People movement helped some of us be more comfortable in what we wore. And now there’s pushback. Interestingly, dividing the sexes in worship hasn’t become a major issue, but the veiling- something more easily done than rearranging the pews- has become a symbol of piety for some, and of conservative values for others… I’m taken back to Paul’s final admonition: “If anyone is inclined to be contentious…” cut it out. If it’s a personal decision not meant to draw attention to you- go for it. Last Sunday I counted at least 3 guys wearing ball caps during the service… I only noticed because I was already thinking about this question.

 

Thanks for the questions, Ron and Elsa- you can send me your questions at danv@1517.org.

 

The Last word for today comes from the daily lectionary and John 7:

40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”

41 Others said, “He is the Messiah.”

Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44 Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.

45 Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn’t you bring him in?”

46 “No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards replied.

47 “You mean he has deceived you also?” the Pharisees retorted. 48 “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.”

50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51 “Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?”

 

This has been the Christian History Almanac for the 5th of October 2026 brought to you by 1517 at 1517.org.

The show is produced by a man sad that even Fat Bear Week can fall prey to nepo-babies… he is Christopher Gillespie.

The show is written and read by a man who has to wonder if his long hair is a dishonor, hmmm…. Take it up with my wife. I’m Dan van Voorhis.

You can catch us here every day- and remember that the rumors of grace, forgiveness, and the redemption of all things are true…. Everything is going to be ok.