Why You’re Still the Only Headcovering Woman in Your Church (& why it’s not your fault)

Our family recently made the switch to a new church. There’s a lot of things about this church that are different from our previous church. As an example of just one thing, about half the women wear a headcovering to the Sunday service, while at our other church, no one except myself covered, as far as I know.

This difference has led me to consider: Why was I the only one covering for 11 years?

I had hoped, all that time, that maybe my example might encourage and embolden other women to begin headcovering. Through reading other women’s headcovering testimonies, I know that this does sometimes happen. So . . . why didn’t it happen with me?

And, what has made it so “easy” for the women (and their husbands) in this new church to accept and embrace headcovering (not from my example, though, since they were already covering when we got there), while the people in our old church were apparently so resistant to it?

As I’ve considered this over the past few months, I’ve come up with a few possibilities. I don’t know for sure if these are the real reasons, but they make sense to me right now. There are three of them.

Your church doesn’t emphasize biblical male/female roles

The symbol of headcovering is based on the principle of headship, right? But if one doesn’t understand the principle, the symbol will have little meaning.

In fact, there will be much confusion about the symbol. Some will think it’s similar to the “oppressive” Islamic hijab; some will think it’s based on Old Testament law; others will think your’e trying to feel holy and set apart, like a nun. These are not the real reasons for biblical headcovering (though it certainly does set us apart), but since many haven’t received strong teaching on biblical male and female roles, when they are confronted with a headcovering woman, they are at a loss to be able to correctly explain it.

Our previous church preached on biblical male/female roles maybe once every few years. I don’t want to seem disrespectful, but isn’t that a bit pathetic? This is one of the most important aspects of daily, practical living, and they failed to address it with boldness and consistency. And when they did address it, it wasn’t approached thoroughly; instead, it was approached almost weakly, with a bit of fear, it seemed to me.

Sure, they didn’t have female pastors, which I’m thankful for. However, regular people need to know how to live their everyday lives. How should women treat their husbands? How should husbands treat their wives? How about men and women in general — in the family, in the church, in the workplace, and in general society? We need practical answers to real-life situations.

I’m so thankful that our present church has strong, clear teaching on these matters. (A new post will be published soon with links to podcasts of this teaching!)

Now, there are some churches that teach boldly on biblical male/female roles and yet do not encourage headcovering. I’m not saying that all churches with good teaching on this topic will automatically also teach headcovering. What I’m saying is that clear teaching on roles should make it easier to understand and accept the reasons for headcovering.

Here’s another reason I believe some churches don’t accept headcovering very easily.

Your church focuses on the gospel, but doesn’t think anything else in the Bible is important

Of course, they will probably say that everything in the Bible is important, to differing degrees. But in a practical sense, that’s not how they treat the Bible. Yes, the gospel is crucial to Christianity and overshadows everything else in importance — I certainly believe that! But the tendency is to overlook the other parts, shrugging them off as not worthy of our attention. Yet think about this: the Bible is God’s word, and since it is, all of it’s important. The gospel is the most important, but that doesn’t make everything else irrelevant, does it?

Actually, all the other stuff helps point to and explain the gospel, in one way or another; it’s all interconnected. Biblical male/female roles point to the gospel. Ephesians 5:22-25 and 32 says,

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her . . . This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

But if your church doesn’t emphasize that the gospel is actually taught throughout the whole of Scripture and that all of the Bible’s teaching is necessary, or at least helpful, for us to have an accurate understanding of the gospel — male and female roles included — then there will likely be a problem. Regular churchgoers will not think that things like headcovering matter. In fact, there will be a lot of biblical teachings they will think don’t matter. They probably won’t care much about modesty, either (modesty points to the gospel, too, through the way our bodies are covered by clothing in a way similar to how our sins and shame are covered by Christ).

The gospel is meant to be not just something that brings us salvation when we believe it, but something that changes how we live. We must answer the question: How should we live, as followers of Christ? What does that look like, practically? The Bible answers that question, if we would care enough to pay attention.

And headcovering is just one of the many practical ways we live out a representation of the gospel in our everyday lives.

Your church has an end-times view that is negative towards trying to change/Christianize the culture

This may be the most controversial of the reasons why I think you’re still the only headcovering woman in your church. Please know that I’m not pushing one end-times view over another. My whole life I’ve been pre-tribulational and pre-millenial. For the first time I’m being exposed in a significant manner to another view (post-millenial), and I’m not sure what I think of it.

The pre-tribulational view is that believers will be raptured before the seven years of the tribulation (God’s judgment on the world). Pre-millenialism is the belief that Christ will return directly after the tribulation to set up His 1,000-year reign. This takes a literal view of the events described in Revelation.

Post-millenialism is the belief that Christ will return after Christians have prepared the world for His second coming by essentially Christianizing the world. This takes an allegorical view of many (though not all) of the events described in Revelation.

Now, the pre-mils tend to have a negative view towards making any lasting and effective changes in the world, since it’s all going down anyways. So, for example, having a large family — why? If Christ comes back tomorrow, leaving a family legacy will be meaningless. Besides, as things get progressively worse in society before the rapture, it will be a horrrible place to raise children. And, shouldn’t we be investing our time in reaching out with the gospel message in order to save as many people as possible before the tribulation — not on having more children? Similarly, headcovering may be seen as just a silly waste of time when there are so many pressing needs in a decaying world.

However, the post-mils tend to have an optimistic view towards making lasting and effective changes in the world. They acknowledge that physically, this world is certainly decaying. However, they believe that the goal to “make disciples of all the nations” (Matthew 28:19 NASB) will actually be accomplished before Christ’s return. Christianizing society — in time and with persevering effort — is seen as a do-able and realistic goal. So having a large family is good! As we raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, they can help in the work of taking dominion. Headcovering, likewise, is not silly at all, but a tool to correctly understand and symbolize biblical male and female roles in a society that desparately needs guidance.

The way your church views the end times will most likely affect how they view headcovering.

However, as a pre-mil traditionally, I can’t say that I myself have ever adopted a completely negative view towards making changes in the world; my opinion has always been that we are to occupy until Jesus comes (Luke 19:13), meaning we need to live meaningfully for Jesus in all the ways the Bible describes, whether the rapture comes tomorrow or not.

Yes, society is going downhill. True, many changes we would like to see accomplished may not happen as a result. However, isn’t there a benefit to trying? Not because we’re all about “social justice” as opposed to the gospel, but because Jesus said to not only preach the gospel, but also to “make disciples.” And disciples have to be taught to observe all things Jesus has commanded (Matthew 28:20). Including headcovering.

Concluding thoughts

Since headcovering is in the Bible, God must consider it to be useful. If you’re still the only one headcovering in your church, it’s probably not because you’re doing something wrong. It’s not because you’re silly and have a shallow theological understanding of things. I may not know you personally, but I doubt that you’re legalistic and “holier than thou.” There are perhaps several factors that have contributed to this situation; I’ve given three possibilites above, though there may be others. For example, your pastor may simply have a different interpretation of the headcovering passage (that the covering is long hair, or that it was just cultural, among other viewpoints). The thing I want to encourage you to do is not give up! To the physical eye, you may not appear to be making any difference, but to the spiritual eye, your obedience in doing good will reap a harvest in due time, if you do not lose heart (Galatians 6:9).

~Jessica