Cheryl Schatz

The issue of men’s head covering is that it did not have a double meaning.  There was one cultural meaning alone and that meaning shamed Christ.  It is rare to find this meaning discussed as you said.

The issue of forbidding men to cover was not sexist because the only reason for covering during prayer and prophesying was because of the shame of their sin.  Since Christ died to take away our shame, anything that put the emphasis on a continuing shame was demeaning to Christ.  If our cultural traditions demean Christ, then they have to go, no doubt about that.

On the other hand, the meaning of the head covering was two-fold for women.  Not only did the covering indicate a shame for sin, but it also indicated a covering over of personal shame because the hair of a married woman was considered to be a private area.  Just as her intimate private parts would cause shame to her husband if she was publicly exposed, so too would her uncovering of her hair cause him public shame.  If she uncovered, she would shame her husband.  If she kept covered for the sake of the cultural mandate to cover one’s sin while approaching God, then she shamed Christ who died to take away her shame.  It was a precarious dilemma for the married woman especially if her husband was not yet a Christian and was still holding to the cultural view of shame.

Understanding culture and cultural shame is a necessity to understand 1 Cor. 11 and understanding the cultural laws of the Jews is important to understand 1 Cor. 14.  These indeed are two of the very difficult passages for our time as our culture views shame, head covering and women’s voices very differently than the people living in Paul’s day.