Walk into most Reformed churches today and we notice something: women’s heads are uncovered. Drive past an Amish community or visit certain conservative Mennonite congregations or mainline churches in Asia and you’ll see the opposite. Both claim to follow Scripture faithfully. And both marshal impressive theological arguments.

So who’s right? The debate over 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 continues to divide thoughtful Reformed believers, and for good reason. The passage presents one of the most challenging interpretive puzzles in the New Testament, combining clear apostolic instruction with complex cultural and theological questions.

Let’s examine the strongest arguments on both sides.

 

THE CASE FOR HEAD COVERING

The Creation Foundation Argument: Advocates for permanent head covering point to Paul’s theological reasoning in verses 8-9: “Man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” This isn’t cultural commentary about first-century Corinth—it’s theology rooted in Genesis.

“Paul doesn’t base his argument on Corinthian customs,” argues Dr. Wayne Grudem. “He grounds it in the created order itself. If we dismiss this reasoning here, what prevents us from dismissing similar creation-based arguments about marriage roles elsewhere?”

The parallel is striking. In Ephesians 5:31-32, Paul again appeals to Genesis to establish permanent principles about marriage. In 1 Timothy 2:13-14, he uses creation order to address women’s roles in teaching. Reformed churches accept these arguments as transcultural. Why treat 1 Corinthians 11 differently?

The Angelic Argument: Verse 10 presents perhaps the most mysterious element: “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” Whatever this means precisely, it clearly transcends human culture.

Angels don’t observe cultural fashions—they witness divine order being displayed in creation. If Paul’s instruction relates to angelic observation of God’s design, it suggests permanent rather than temporary significance.

The Universal Church Practice: Paul concludes by appealing to universal apostolic practice: “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God” (v. 16). This wasn’t Paul’s personal preference or local Corinthian custom—it was the norm across all apostolic churches.

Historical evidence supports the reading. Head covering remained standard Christian practice for nearly 18 centuries. From Justin Martyr to John Chrysostom to John Calvin, church fathers and Reformers assumed women would cover their heads in worship.

The Hermeneutical Challenge: “We can’t have it both ways,” argues Pastor Doug Wilson. “Either Paul’s creation-based arguments carry permanent authority, or they don’t. If we explain away the head covering command through cultural analysis, we undermine our own arguments about complementarianism elsewhere.”

This presents a genuine Reformed dilemma. Churches that maintain strong positions on male headship in marriage and church leadership often use the same creation-theology that Paul employs in 1 Corinthians 11. Dismissing it here while affirming it elsewhere raises questions about hermeneutical consistency.

 

THE CASE FOR CULTURAL SYMBOL, PERMANENT PRINCIPLE

Historical Context Matters: Reformed scholars advocating this position argue Paul was addressing specific cultural dynamics in first-century Corinth. Uncovered heads on women signalled sexual availability, religious rebellion, or social impropriety in ways that don’t translate to modern contexts.

“Paul consistently adapts permanent principles to cultural contexts,” notes Dr Craig Blomberg. “He requires cultural sensitivity in food offerings (1 Corinthians 8), but the principle of love transcends the specific application. Similarly here, the principle of proper order and gender distinction remains permanent, but the cultural symbol changes.”

The Reformed tradition has always distinguished between transcultural commands and culturally-conditioned applications. We don’t practice holy kisses (Romans 16:16) or wash feet in worship (John 13:14), recognising these as cultural expressions of permanent principles.

The Hair-as-Covering Argument: Verses 14-15 may provide Paul’s own interpretation: “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? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”

Reformed commentator Gordon Fee argues Paul moves from artificial coverings (verses 4-13) to natural covering (verses 14-16). The woman’s long hair itself serves as her covering, making additional fabric unnecessary when hair length appropriately distinguishes male and female.

This reading resolves apparent tensions in Paul’s argument while maintaining the principle of visible gender distinction that honours created order.

The Worship Context Limitation: Paul specifically addresses women “when praying or prophesying” (verses 4-5). This suggests formal worship contexts rather than daily life requirements. The principle of reverent worship order remains permanent, but its expression may vary with cultural context.

Reformed worship has always emphasised that external elements serve internal realities. If head coverings no longer communicate reverence and proper order to contemporary congregations—and might actually distract from worship—the principle suggests different applications.

The Nature of Apostolic Authority: Reformed theology recognises different types of apostolic instructions. Some commands are moral imperatives rooted in God’s character (love, justice, holiness). Others are prudential applications of permanent principles to specific contexts (dietary laws, cultural customs, worship practices).

“Paul was establishing order in a disorderly church,” argues Reformed theologian Dr. Thomas Schreiner. “The specific method (head coverings) addressed particular problems, but the underlying concern for worship order and gender distinction remains constant.”

 

THE INTERPRETIVE CHALLENGES

Both sides wrestle with genuine textual difficulties:

What exactly is “nature” in verse 14? Does Paul mean biological instinct, cultural convention, or divine design? Different answers lead to different conclusions about permanence.

How do we understand “because of the angels”? The phrase remains cryptic, making it difficult to build definitive arguments on its foundation.

What constitutes “covering”? The Greek term katakalupto could refer to veils, shawls, or even particular hairstyles. The specific practice affects the interpretive question.

How do we balance Paul’s multiple arguments? He appeals to creation, nature, angels, and church practice. If some arguments are cultural while others are transcultural, how do we distinguish?

 

WHERE REFORMED CHRISTIANS AGREE

Despite their differences, both sides affirm crucial common ground:

• Scripture’s authority remains paramount. Neither side dismisses Paul’s instructions as irrelevant or outdated. Both seek faithful interpretation even when it challenges contemporary assumptions.
• Gender distinction matters to God. Whether expressed through head coverings or other means, both positions affirm that God designed meaningful differences between male and female that should be honoured, not erased.
• Worship requires reverence and order. Paul’s concern for proper worship atmosphere resonates across interpretive positions. The question is how best to achieve that goal in different cultural contexts.
• Cultural accommodation poses real dangers. Both sides recognize the temptation to conform Scripture to cultural preferences rather than allowing Scripture to challenge culture.

 

LIVING WITH THE TENSION

Perhaps the most Reformed response to this debate is humble recognition that faithful Christians, using sound interpretive principles, can reach different conclusions on difficult passages.

Some Reformed churches have concluded that head coverings remain a creation ordinance for worship. They practice covering with conviction, seeing it as faithful obedience to apostolic instruction.

Others have concluded that the principle endures while the cultural symbol has changed. They emphasize modesty, reverence, and appropriate gender distinction through other means.

Both positions can be held with integrity when they emerge from careful exegesis rather than cultural convenience.

 

THE REAL TEST

The crucial question isn’t whether women wear fabric on their heads. It’s whether our interpretive methods consistently honour Scripture’s authority, even when its instructions challenge contemporary sensibilities.

If we explain away this passage using hermeneutical approaches we wouldn’t accept for other ethical commands, we should examine our consistency. If we’re more concerned with cultural respectability than apostolic faithfulness, we’re on dangerous ground.

But if we’re genuinely wrestling with difficult interpretive questions while maintaining commitment to Scripture’s authority, we’re following a properly Reformed approach to challenging texts.

 

CONCLUSION: HEAD COVERING

The head covering debate continues because both sides present substantial arguments grounded in serious engagement with Paul’s text. Rather than settling the question definitively, perhaps our task is to model how Christians can disagree charitably while maintaining shared commitment to biblical authority.

What we cannot do is dismiss the passage as culturally irrelevant without careful exegetical work. Paul’s instructions deserve the same serious attention we give to other challenging texts. Whether we conclude that head coverings remain required or that their principle finds different contemporary expression, our interpretation must emerge from faithful engagement with Scripture rather than accommodation to cultural preferences.

 

RELATED FAQs

What did early Reformed leaders like Calvin and Knox actually teach about head coverings? John Calvin viewed head coverings as a matter of propriety and order rather than moral law, writing that “it is a token of subjection” but emphasising the principle over the practice. John Knox was more stringent, seeing uncovered heads as signs of immodesty that disrupted worship order. Interestingly, most Reformers assumed women would cover their heads without extensive theological debate—it was simply expected Christian practice until the 20th century.

• How do Reformed churches handle women with medical conditions affecting their hair? Most Reformed churches, regardless of their position on coverings, show pastoral sensitivity to women experiencing hair loss from chemotherapy, alopecia, or other medical conditions. Churches practicing head covering often encourage these women to wear scarves or hats for comfort rather than theological obligation. This pastoral approach sometimes reveals the community’s underlying beliefs about whether covering addresses vanity, authority symbols, or practical modesty concerns.
• What’s the significance of Paul mentioning that women were “praying and prophesying” in the first place? This detail creates interesting theological tensions within Reformed complementarianism. Paul assumes women will pray and prophesy publicly—activities requiring spiritual authority and divine revelation. Yet he simultaneously emphasizes their need to display proper authority relationships through head covering. Some Reformed scholars see this as evidence that gender roles allow for more female participation than commonly assumed, while others argue it supports rather than undermines complementarian structures.
• Why don’t Reformed churches apply the same reasoning to jewellery and expensive clothing mentioned elsewhere by Paul? Paul instructs women to avoid “braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire” (1 Timothy 2:9), using similar language about propriety and worship appropriateness. Reformed churches typically interpret these as principles about modesty rather than specific prohibitions, yet often treat head covering instructions more literally. This interpretive inconsistency reveals the complexity of distinguishing cultural applications from transcultural principles—and suggests Reformed hermeneutics on these passages are less settled than we tend to assume.

How do Reformed churches reconcile head covering debates with their emphasis on Christian liberty? This tension strikes at core Reformed principles about conscience and freedom. Westminster Confession affirms God alone is Lord of conscience, yet also maintains Scripture’s binding authority over church practice. Reformed churches practicing head covering often frame it as obedience rather than liberty issue, while those emphasising cultural interpretation invoke Christian freedom in non-essential matters. The debate ultimately reveals how Reformed churches balance individual conscience with corporate obedience—a tension that extends far beyond head coverings into broader questions about Scripture’s authority over cultural practices.

 

HEAD COVERING: OUR RELATED POSTS

• ‘Because Angels Are Watching’: What Does 1 Corinthians 11:10 Mean?