various cultural ways as a testimony to the wider society. Paul simply cited a particular cultural practice of the day that was in use to symbolize the idea of honoring authority. And that cultural practice continued from the First Century to the Twentieth. Styles of hats (head coverings) changed with national and historical trends, but the basic rules of hat wearing in church did not change for twenty centuries, until Women’s Liberation became popular.
I had jury duty a couple of weeks ago, and before the judge (a woman) came into the room the bailiff instructed all who were present to remove their hats. Something of this biblical cultural practice regarding hats and authority still survives. There is real power in cultural norms.
Paul’s point was that it was important to honor authority, and that because men and women had different kinds of authority they showed that honor in different ways. Men, husbands, who were in direct authority to Christ came to church “hat in hand” so to speak, in visible submission to Christ. And women, who were in authority to Christ through the authority of their husbands, kept their heads covered in honor of the authority of Christ through Christ’s representatives — their husbands. Head coverings symbolized authority and power, service and responsibility. There is some good symbolism in all of this, and I think that Paul’s point was to honor God through various cultural practices or norms.
The issue is not women’s rights or male domination, both of which are manifestations of pride and self-concern, and are — or should be — foreign to Christianity. This misunderstanding is not new. The issue is God’s honor and authority. The disciples themselves had misunderstood Jesus’ authority, and asked to