The veil amongst Christians

The head scarf debate

As we settle into what would be a debate for a long time in the West about head scarves, veils, the hijab, coverings and exposures, I remember quite poignantly that this debate has been around for quite a while.

Some 20-something years ago, this debate was going around in evangelical circles, this was not just contentious but frustrating that what was so explicitly discussed in the Bible still left some selecting what they wanted to believe to support their prejudices.

Not, only so, people of other religions also select portions of biblical scripture to support their views completely out of context of the truth that was being portrayed.

Selecting Bible choice cuts

In the Bible, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 (King James Version), gives the complete low-down on this issue, but it would take an open mind and fresh eyes to appreciate the context and direction of this passage.

The keys to this discourse are in verses 3 and 16, but the 3^rd verse usually gets misunderstood and the 16^th verse conveniently left out of the discourse for reasons I can never understand.

I would take particular verses and break them down for the purposes of furthering this debate, there are other meanings with regards to relationships in here, which I would not cover, but I would clearly contextualise because it is used to foster abuse.

Separating every man from the husband

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

What we need to note here is the article and possession, it says the head of every man is Christ, however, NOT that the head of every woman is man.

The woman using the definite article pertains to a single woman in relationship to a man, her husband. Every man anywhere cannot just lord it over any woman, he can only do that, in a relationship that is a marriage.

In another blog, on the more emotive issue of wife-battering, I covered how the husband has to be as selfless as Christ to be able to exercise any kind of authority where they believe themselves to masters of their homes and be able to throw their weight around the place.

What is clear is a woman outside the relationship of marriage automatically has Christ as her head, when she has her man, the dynamic of headship changes to her husband.

It is a difficult one, but man in general consists first of male and female; in this case, there is no conferment of the complete servitude of the female sex to any to every man born on earth – it would be illogical.

Traditions and customs might support this dynamic of making all women in society less of the male, but it is not supported in Christianity to give man husband-status to every woman except his truly wedded wife.

Who covers whom?

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Here, it is clear that this refers to man as male.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

This uses every woman, but the possibility of two heads, if unmarried, her head is Christ and if married her head is her husband – NOT every man.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

If a woman would not cover her head, she should shave, but if shaving is considered a shame, she should then cover her head.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Once again, the definite article is here, the woman (wife) is the glory of the man (husband). We do not go around presenting every woman as our wife, rather, there is one woman who takes that pride of place, and we adorn her and present her with pride and honour her with love and devotion.

8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

This takes us back to the Adam and Eve story, where Eve was crafted from the rib of Adam as his helper and companion. The definite article also features here – the man (husband) and the woman (wife).

The woman’s prerogative

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Now, this fouls up every authority man tries to exercise over the woman because it says it is the prerogative of the woman to decide on whether to cover her head or not. There is no duty of man to impose this on the woman.

This is usually read as the man ought to have power of the head of every woman and force them to appear in a wifely role or subservient role.

For many, the Scripture ENDS here, reading any further is too inconvenient.

Co-dependence of the sexes and equality

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Equality in the church and equality before God, so where did all this male domination come from?

So, no one would like to read beyond verse 10 because to serious home truths break down the male domination fortress.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Well, this is question of traditions and customs; there are places where women can be covered and others where woman do not get covered – debate.

The long hair day

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Touché – men with long hair have no say in this matter, they need to deal with their issues.

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Oh! Apostle Paul does begin to complicate issues by clarifying them. There is a separation between the head and the hair introduced from verse 14 and the reference is now to long hair.

It appears, if a woman has long hair, she already has a covering for her head – it is a no-brainer that hair does grow out of the head - she does not need an artificial covering like a scarf.

Well, why do we have all this fuss about scarves when the hair already covers the head?

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

If this becomes a contentious topic, drop it, we have not taken on any traditions or customs of head covering, hair covering or even male domination – it is not the way of the church.

And all the men say … Amen!

Beyond the veil

Right through the veil

A lot of commentary has gone in the talk of unveiling the veil which gained some serious press when Jack Straw, the leader in the UK House of Commons revealed that he always entreated veiled visitors to his constituency surgeries to remove the veil.

As Nkem in African Shirts highlights, whilst he submitted the issue of communication, he was really pushing the issue of integration – both in my view are important.

Coming from an African society, Nigerian in particular, it was a sign of disrespect or obstinacy to look elders in the eye when being spoken to or when speaking to elders. In fact, rarely do we look each other in the eye when communicating even amongst peers, it is deemed confrontation and aggressive that it rarely happens.

Look me in the eye

When I moved to the UK, this cultural thing came with me, but then I realised all too soon that people expected you to look them straight in the eye when conversing, it represented honesty, truthfulness and sincerity – I was at the risk of being condemned untrustworthy for not interacting in the expected manner.

The expected manner being the culture and norms of forms of conversation in the UK, this regardless of the fact that I for a while from the age of 6 to about 25 the dominant culture in my life was Nigerian.

In these modern times, we are used to various forms of communication; the telephone by which variations in tone and inflexion can convey a manner and demeanour; emails or letters where hopefully thought and expression are used effectively; online chat which allows for casual forms of communication or Short Message Service (SMS) test messaging on mobile phones.

Senses in communication

The list is not exhaustive, but these allow for communication without the need for physical contact. However, when the person with whom I am communicating is in my presence, then, I expect with all the available senses I have at my disposal to interact with varying levels of intimacy.

Recognition (sight) of whom I am meeting, then a handshake (touch), as part of an introduction and greeting that would be voiced (hearing), if we are wearing cheap cologne or perfume (smell) and (taste) in a kiss, if we are a lot more intimate.

Some people might have some of their senses deprecated and then would have to rely on other senses to interact – Helen Keller – who was both deaf and blind used her hands to feel faces and communicate.

My point, when there is a presence to communicate; concealing the face does become an impediment to communication.

Where we are from is not where we are

Now, there are cultures and locations in this world where covering the face with slits for the eyes are signs of chastity and purity, that place in not in Europe.

My view is that we should definitely bring the best integrating bits of our foreign cultures to meld with host cultures for the promotion of understanding of where we are from, those bits of our cultures that separate us such that it creates division rather than interest and inquiry do not help us get assimilated into host cultures.

The freedoms the West offers us to be who we are should be not taken to the point that our expressions of values go against the grain of cohesion and the fostering of community relationships.

We are who we are, yes, but we are no more the dominant culture when we leave our indigenous lands of origin.

Basically, I do not see this as an Islam issue, it is basically a cultural-integration issue where people forget that freedoms they enjoy in freer societies should encourage them to integrate rather than look for ways to dissociate and be separate.

People who read this along religious lines are just looking for conflict rather than conciliation and shame on them.