I got a letter a month or so ago from a seminarian who is transitioning from work in religious education to preparing for parish ministry. She wrote that she felt very called to don a head covering, and asked me for my opinion on several that she had chosen to start wearing, or was considering wearing. I have lost the links, but they were simple tied chiffony or knitted items, very light and feminine, very evocative (for me) of the Amish girls and women I used to see at the farmer’s market in Pennsylvania.
I asked the writer of the letter to call me, as I wanted very much to discuss her choices, but she didn’t feel secure enough to have that conversation. Since there is no possible way you could identify her, and because she isn’t the only woman who has had the urge to wear a head-covering and this might apply to more of you, I want to reflect a bit here on the issue.
My feelings are pretty simple: I think it’s important for us to honor our own feelings about adorning the self (and that includes permanent adornments like tattoos) but it’s equally important to accept the responsibility and the reality that we represent not only the Church but our own particular congregations. If a woman leader in an extremely liberal, feminist denomination chooses to cover her head, I would say that while I respect her instincts, the visual image she will project of propriety, meekness -and let’s face it, oppression– is at odds with her religious tradition, period. She should be prepared for questions, for doubts about her propriety to serve in a feminist tradition, and for consternation from within her parish. Is it worth it?
I think not.
Some “statements” we make with our attire are pioneering statements: gender-bending being one of them, and plain old flair being another. You can undoubtedly think of others. We make statements by choosing to wear or not to wear clericals, and by the religious symbols we don, and in many other non-verbal ways that we have discussed at length and over a period of years on this blog. I have always counseled for all of us to take our statements seriously, be conscious of what we are saying with our appearance, and to be aware that we can either create a public image consciously or put one out there unconsciously.
Frankly, I got the willies when I saw the head-coverings this woman was proposing for herself. My language is intentional: I had an actual, physical shivering reaction of distaste to the images she shared with me. I think I actually grimaced and said, “What the HELL is THAT about?” That was my unedited response. I share it with you, darlings, because we need to get real about the fact that some of our choices will elicit the same responses from our congregants. REMEMBER REMEMBER REMEMBER: as I am always telling you and reminding myself, do NOT presume the privilege of being given the opportunity to explain yourself to folks who judge your appearance unkindly!! We are not entitled to that privilege and we are lucky when it is granted. MINISTRY IS NOT ABOUT US. Go ahead and dye your hair eggshell blue and pierce your nose with a big old cow ring, fine. But do not expect the members of your congregation to groove on your look. You have no right whatsoever to expect that of them, and they have every right to show you the door if you can’t get over it.
Being a fan of head coverings myself (I use them for psychic grounding at times of great spiritual intensity and output, I claim them as a woman of Eastern European descent, I like their connection to my rural peasant ancestry, I love the boldness of bright cotton on the head as is worn by so many women around the world, etc.), I have no problem with religious leaders making hats, head coverings or elaborate, ceremonial hair part of their look. I know a number of clergypeople who have done so with beautiful elan.
However, when a woman aspiring to ministry in a tradition that has ordained women for longer than any other denomination chooses to affiliate herself with women-silenced traditions in an obvious and intentional visual way, the discordance jars me. I want to say, “Do you WANT the authority to speak, or not? Our sisters and brothers have suffered and died to give us this power and authority, to argue against Paul’s admonition for women to remain silent and covered in church. Where are your loyalties and commitments? Are you sure you’re in the right tradition?” “Are you just being eccentric? Do you realize how attention-seeking this may seem, while you intend exactly the opposite?”
These questions, while apparently harsh, are exactly the kinds of questions a Committee on the Ministry would and should be expected to ask this aspirant. She should expect them. She should have a response. And she should be ready to be rejected or considered weird or problematic by congregations if she persists in her wearing of diaphonous head-coverings. Some of the issue here is merely practical: do we want the first question out of people’s mouths to inevitably be one about our attire? Can we find some less obtrusive manner to honor our own spiritual needs?
You might argue that Muslim and Jewish women cover their heads, and that many Christian women cover theirs in church as well. I agree. They do, and when they do they attract no special attention, as their coverings are part of ancient tradition and have a context and a community to support them. There is no such context or community within the 21st century liberal left wing of the Reformation, and therefore I am inclined to consider this woman’s desire to cover her head in what is obviously a “modesty scarf” as an expression of individualism, and one that really has no place in the tradition she seeks to serve.
I hope she can come up with a less bizarrely discordant way to cover her head and to serve in her tradition.
Great post, PB. While I agree that it is important to honor our own feelings, it is also crucial to discern where those feelings come from (i.e. “What the hell is this about?”).
Sounds like a complex issue and I think this is a good response.
Still mulling it over.
Weird is what people I serve would think. Totally undercuts her authority as you say. In the Episcopal Church women had to wear a hat (sometimes just a kleenex!!) in church until the 50s and 60s. Bishops get mitres and there are traditional clergy hats – birettas, etc. But not a faux look from some other tradition.
I think of African American women and ‘church hats’ which are wonderful statements of feminine pride and power. But do African American women preachers wear those hats?
This is a wonderful commentary on the tradition. http://gospelconnoisseur.com/wordpress/history-of-the-church-hat/
I’m assuming that the woman is in a really liberal tradition (UU,UCC,MCC,etc.), right?
If she is in a tradition that has more recent Anabaptist/Pietist ties (Church of the Brethren, Moravians, etc.), then this is actually something she could/should consider.
Monica Rice, a M.A. student at Bethany Theological Seminary (the seminary of the Church of the Brethren), is doing her thesis on the head covering tradition in the CoB. If the young woman who wrote you is still around, she can go to Monica’s website at
http://www.bethanyseminary.edu/MAresearch/ricemo/research
and see what is out there.
The other thing that I think needs mentioning is that there are different types of coverings. Depending on the type of covering she could wear one and, while people might ask questions, it would allow her to see where this leading is calling her and not totally freak out everyone who saw her.
Interesting post. Your point about context is well-taken. I would just like to add that for many Jewish women, at least, head-coverings are not uncontested or unproblematic. Many Orthodox married women cover their heads in various ways, which are all normative and accepted in their communities. For a liberal Jewish rabbi or other community leader to do so would, in most communities, be seen as…odd, to say the least.
Conversely, many liberal Jewish women/rabbis wear kippot (yarmulkes or skull-caps), which have traditionally been worn only by men. This is more along the lines of the ‘gender-bending’ statement you talk about (and for a whole generation of kids growing up right now it’s not gender-bending at all!), and in some contexts it can cause different kinds of problems. (In Israel, for example, I have female friends who have been yelled at and even threatened physically for wearing kippot).
Tell ‘er to getta biretta!
Then again, there are some complicated customs in different denominations about when to raise them and when to take them off altogether. She could make up her own set of rules instead, like raising hers at mentions of the Virgin Mary.
On the eccentric side of this topic here is another website:
Quaker Jane
This is someone from the Conservative Friends (Quaker) tradition.
Honestly my first reaction to this woman’s website was along the lines of “What the HELL is THAT about?†Looks like costuming to me! But she’s articulate about her choices and the history behind it. Be aware this does have a subservient tinge to it. (Although her husband has dreads!)
One funny statement was her giving people “the bonnet” when they stare, i.e. turns her head so she can’t see gawkers when she wears a deep bonnet.
Sorry html has one too many wwww’s there.
http://www.quakerjane.com/
Two comments:
Working in a large Urban Medical Center, I work with many Muslim women and have noticed a trend to more head coverings. I’ve never asked why and really have no business asking. What I have noticed is absolutely no discomfort with eye contact. My covered workmates professionals and expect to be treated as equals (often superiors: they’re Docs, I’m not). A very different experience from my time in Baghdad were I also worked with many Iraqis and the Shia Women similarly covered, but politeness required no eye contact. So whatever the statement is in the West, it’s more a form of tradition, and not the mindset of the past. I expect it would be the same with your colleague here in the post.
Second, We as religous Liberals ought to be expressing solidarity with religious Liberals in Islam. I’m guessing our return to a tradion of head coverings for Women would not be viewed as much of an expression of solidarity. Liberals in Islam locked in a bitter civil war. We UUs very very rarely notice them. That’s a very bitter failure on our part.
A NT professor pointed out that the Greek preposition used in I Corinthians which declares that women should wear a head covering in worship as a sign of the authority which is “over” them (traditional translation) can also be read as a sign of the authority which is “upon” them. In other words, not that women are to be kept from preaching/praying in worship, but that they are to wear the signs of the authority to do so. To me, in my culture, that means something other than a hat (which I LOVE to wear) for its own sake or any other modesty covering.
@Nancy – loved the link
Quaker Jane’s website confuses me. I would think that “plain dress” would be clothing that doesn’t make people want to go “Hey, look at that.”
Not having been raised in a barn, I wouldn’t go “hey, look at that” if Plane Jane was walking down the street, but it is striking to me how much she must stand out and how much attention her clothes must attract.
CC
Unless she has a medical condition which means that she has lost/is loosing her hair, I can’t see why a woman would want to cover her head?
The Quaker Jane website is fascinating. It reminds me of an ultra-conservative Christian website I came across advocating that women be utterly subservient to their husbands by letting their husbands “punish” them if they’ve been “naughty”. It was almost satirical, and I seriously wonder if it was a way for “good Christians” to be into S&M at the same time. There even was a section for clothing that included, and I am not making this up (nods to Dave Barry), crotchless pantaloons.
On a related note, the Quaker Jane thing almost seems like cosplay to me.
This is the website of an Anglican priest who has adopted plain garb:
http://magdalenaperks.wordpress.com/
It seems to be an entirely sincere move on the part of both the author and her husband (also a priest), as described in this post:
http://magdalenaperks.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/when-we-became-plain/
Admiration for the monastic life, a desire for rural simplicity, and personal experience of the Mennonite and Amish seem to have contributed to their decision to go “plain.” I don’t know if either one has a parish right now.
I agree that “plain dress” in that specific sense is confusing. Mightn’t “plain dress” today be slightly different than what it used to be, i.e., adapt slightly to the times (though not to the point of fashion, you understand, as I believe that would be contrary to the point), in order to not look so much like a costume?
I wonder whether owning clothing in darker colors and plainer (and modest) cuts, water-washable only (as opposed to dry-cleanable), and owning fewer pieces of clothing wouldn’t fulfill the same aims. It seems odd to me that “becoming plain” means adopting a uniform that seems to be from a different time.
I am a pastor in the Mennonite tradition, within the most progressive wing of the Mennonite denominations. On Sundays in Mennonite Church USA, almost all women dress in street clothes and women pastors minister with heads uncovered. This thread brings up an old memory for me, however. It was the late ’70’s and I was a new Mennonite and recent college grad — clear and articulate in my radical refusal to wear “the covering” as protest again what it represented in the systemic ecclesial silencing and marginalization of Mennonite women for generations. I went to serve as a volunteer teacher for 3 years in Jamaica. I worshipped in Jamaica in a local Mennonite mission church that had been established by very conservative Menno missionaries from the Eastern US. The women in the Jamaican Mennonite Churches, in accordance with good Mennonite mission teaching, combined with reverent Black worship, all wore lace doiley-like head coverings. Yet, I, adamant in my conviction to model feminist freedom, steadfastly refused and I attended church multiple times each week bare-headed. That no one overtly challenged me on this may have had more to do with racial dynamics (I was the only person of Euro-American ethnicity). Until, one day that is, when after almost two years, a beloved senior sister in the faith quietly approached me and gently slipped into my hand a lacey head covering she’d made for me herself. I can’t explain what happened, but something inside me melted. All my intellectual arguments and arrogant pride no longer were what seemed important. It simply became more important to honor the practice of the dear ones with whom I worshipped, than to cling to a principle that made little or no sense to others in that setting, at that time. I wore that “covering” every single time I attended church for the remainder of my time in Jamaica. And it has never been worn since, though it still is tucked into a special drawer in my dresser. I don’t even know for sure what to make of that memory, except that it must have been a season in my life when I could benefit from a lesson about humility and the honoring of others when one is a guest in their community. (Which I realize is completely different than what is being explored in this post and different than being a female pastoral leader in a North American church today.)
This is a question I’ve kind of been wondering about for a while, but from the other direction.
I’m a woman lay-preachers in a baptist congregation. I was raised in a more liberal tradition and therefore never really expected to run into hostility to my preaching because I’m a woman – but in recent months a few of the older more conservative members of the congregation have been expressing discomfort over the idea of a woman preaching.
And so I’ve been wondering… Is a head covering a possible compromise ? As someone else said, i read Paul’s comment on head covering as a symbol of the woman’s authority when she is preaching – so I wouldn’t _per se_ have a problem with it. On the other hand I’m afraid it would look odd with the business-type suits I tend to wear for preaching – and of course in our culutre (I’m in France) head coverings don’t generally denote authority, they denote submission – which is not a message I want to send.
Thoughts ? Anyone else met this one ?
@ Alison–I’m sorry I do not have more helpful advice on specifically this matter.
1. I agree with you that a woman wearing a head covering is, in “Western” cultures, at least, viewed as a sign of submission. And in France, where they talk about outlawing such things? Doubly so.
2. The people who have a problem with a woman preaching in mixed company probably do NOT understand Paul’s comment on head covering in the same way that you do. They understand Paul as limiting women, generally speaking.
3. This is not a brief/short answer, but Christians for Biblical Equality (though a little conservative for me) works for the recognition of the full equality of women in Christ:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/
Their scholarship is good and they have free resources available for conversations on these types of issues.
Thank you for asking.
You know, it’s not so much what one wears on the head, as what’s in the head. A head covering as symbol of submission, obedience or inferiority is one thing. A head covering as symbol of politness a different sort of thing. If everyone covers their head as a symbol of humility towards God, that would be a very different thing too….
Thanks to chaidrinkingfool and Bill for the comments and reminder of the CBE site.
You are probably right that those who believe that women shouldn’t preach are unlikely to be appeased by something like this. I’m in the process of learning that hostility “goes with the territory” of being a woman called to preach in an evangelical church. All a good lesson in humility. And this is before I seek ordination.
(Locally both the Closed Bretheren and Pentecostal women wear veils for worship – but they don’t preach.)
Living in the buckle of the bible belt, if one wears a headscarf (or even long hair in a bun), a long denim skirt, or some other clothes, it is really like gang signaling for “homeschooling creationist Titus 2 Proverbs 31 tea party local militia homesteader Glen Beck etc. etc.” Is that fair–no. Is it true–yes. There were a few at the children’s museum last week and they flock together (even though they clearly did not know each other previously) like magnets.
So, were I to be drawn to some romanticized version of “plain” dress in my context it would hardly symbolize plain dress in the way I intend. [Right. Thanks for the observation. That’s exactly what I meant.- PB]
@ Alison: I hope the situation is not as bad where you are, but it has reached the point in the U.S. at which belief in “male headship”* in the home and the church is considered a test of orthodoxy in some denominations/churches or at least by the subcultures (if not the official leadership).
Just a heads up. I’ll keep you in prayer.
I’m so glad that you are called, and that you are heeding your call!
@madgebaby–Ah! So sorry–great point. 🙁 How could I forget that? Thank you for the reminder.
*Male leadership, but called “headship” in reference to Eph 5:23.
I am the woman who contacted Peacebang. I am writing anonymously not to hide, but because I am still in a deep process of discernment, and before my vocation as a minister has even begun I do not want my name to be tied indelibly to the thoughts I have now which will inevitably change by the time I leave seminary.
For clarity in the conversation, however, I’d like to say a few thing:
1. First, I wrote to Peacebang specifically about headcoverings, not about “plain clothing.†I do like simplicity for mainly aesthetic reasons, but I do not have an inclination toward “period dress.â€
2. You aren’t getting rid of me this easily . I was born into a UU family, was raised in the UU church, and am a UU through-and-through. I am not Christian or Muslim in theology.
3. I believe firmly in gender equality. I am a fairly young woman, and certainly while there is much work to be done still, I am grateful for the increasing equality I have experienced through my life because of the work and conviction of prior generations of feminists. I am in a same-sex marriage built on mutual respect and equality and I have chosen a vocational path based on my sense of calling and not on my gender. I believe that the benefits of equality are best for all people, including all my children of both genders as well as my oldest, who is MTF transgender. None of my children epitomize “gender stereotypes,†all of my children are encouraged to live into their individuality, and I actively question those who say things like, “she’s all girl,†and “boys will be boys.†I speak out for equality, and I have never made a consciously self-limiting decision for reasons of gender.
4. My interest in headcoverings has been a journey. It began a number of years ago when I was doing some work with Muslim women at a hospital where I was employed. I began to read about the Muslim headcoverings, and was especially interested in the writings of feminists on all sides of the issue (folks who advocated for personal choice, folks who argued against headcoverings of one type or all types, and folks who argued for headcoverings of one type or all types). At that time, I was researching mostly from a feminist-critical standpoint.
A couple years later, a UU friend gave me a “prayer shawl†she had made in her UU knitting group. The group had made a number of “prayer shawls.†I had never felt the need for a prayer shawl, but I began to incorporate this gift into my regular prayer practice. I found that the prayer shawl gave a ritual element to my prayers that was life-affirming and spiritually deepening. The more I prayed with my shawl, the more I appreciated it.
Then my prayer shawl got lost for a while (I took it with me at church not to use as a prayer shawl, actually, but to use as a part of an altar), and I started using a bandana instead. I liked the theological image this brought up for me personally, in that it reminded me that my commitment to the religious life was upon me.
I remember a joyful feeling I got when at a Seder with a friend in a very liberal community, she actually put on a “Yarmlke,” and it sort of blew my mind. I had this realization: “Whoah! I am not the only woman who likes something on her head to remind her of her religious commitments!†Of course, that was my own reading of her reasons.
Meanwhile, something was nagging me this whole time. I kept thinking about the fact that I liked the headcovering partly because it reminded me of the way I wanted to be, the religious commitments I had made to myself. And the more time that passed, the less I wanted the reminder to be contained in prayer.
As I wrote to Peacebang originally: “I find when I wear a headcovering as part of my religious practice, I am more observant in the rest of my religious life, more humble. . . reminded constantly of my devotion to God.†It’s not that I take my covering off and I forget my religious commitments. I am not quite that immature spiritually. It is more a subtle, mild dilution of commitment.
I have recently become friends with some headcovering Christian moms who I know through our children. Though I don’t agree with them on a great many topics, one thing I can respect is their persistent compulsion to be faithful to their beliefs. I am not so faithful to a set of beliefs as I am to a set of practices, and to my covenants, but I do experience a joyful compulsion to wear a headcovering more and more as a spiritual practice. It has become harder and harder to take my bandana off after prayer, which is what led me to (after many emails written and then deleted because I was feeling vulnerable in admitting my feelings) write to Peacebang to help me sort through this.
5. I’m not sure if it was clear from Peacebang’s post, but I did not write Peacebang for advice about headcoverings I was considering. The links I sent to her were examples of headcoverings I liked. Though Peacebang felt they conjured up images of the Amish, I actually know women my age who wear similar pieces on their heads occasionally for fashion (though I am quite sure not Peacebang’s style) rather than religious reasons. Here they are: (1) http://knitty.com/ISSUEwinter07/PATTicequeen.html, (2) http://www.garlandsofgrace.com/products-page/classic-coverings/suzannes-delicate-lace/, and (3) don’t get alarmed on this last one…scroll down to the last thumbnail on the right of the pink covering and click that one http://www.etsy.com/listing/36266617/sale-2-piece-pink-amira-hood-and-under.
6. In ways I am eccentric for sure (aren’t we all?), but in more ways, I am not. The older I get, the less eccentric I find myself. As many of us raised as UUs, I can become very opinionated (once I form my opinion) — I believe in my convictions — but aside from being opinionated about certain subjects, I do tend toward modesty and humility as my practice in relationship. The older I get, the more I realize all there is I don’t know. Some may judge one way or the other, but it is just the way I roll.
7. Headcoverings aren’t quite as “fringe†as it may seem to many of us liberals. Headcoverings are “coming back†in many communities. I am meeting more and more young women who wear them, and these women are not all from the same religious tradition or of the same shape and stripe of beliefs about women’s equality or any other subject.
All that said, just in case anyone is still worried, at this point I have mostly resolved not to wear a headcovering outside of my private prayer time. I have been a religious professional now for many years, and am well aware that what I do represents my religious community. I don’t want to distract with my personal practice. Additionally, it is clear many people still make associations between the headcovering and women’s oppression (my wife included), and despite my own personal reasons for feeling called to wear one, as a religious professional, it is important to me not to be off-putting toward many people with what I wear.
When I serve as a Lay Eucharistic Minister, I usually try to wear a plain headband that will ensure my hair stays out of may face and, more importantly, out of the chalice. There are some nice fabric or fabric-covered headbands in a variety of colors and widths that, in effect, put something on the head without completely covering the head. They might be a useful temporary compromise for a woman serving in the context of changing traditions and expectations.
I recall the little beanies that I wore in choir (in the Episcopal Church) until Vatican II relieved our Catholic sisters of the requirement to cover their heads in church. For some reason, the Episcopal church changed as well…