Students are taught the world over that the “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy. One small step, one small concession, need not necessarily be the first step towards major changes. Maybe not, but in Orthodoxy we have experienced exactly that pattern for decades now. Each small concession to modernity merely set the stage for the next one, and the next one, and the next one. Each change greater and more impactful than the last. So it was with headscarves. Making headscarves optional was presented as a small thing. Trivial, really. Not worth fighting over. Certainly not the “hill to die on”. We had more important things to do as Orthodox Christians. But failing to hold that line, we then found ourselves surrendering more and more spiritual ground as the secularizers just kept pushing forward. As Archpriest Geoffrey Korz makes plain, time to start reclaiming our Orthodox spirituality in full.
—OR Staff
The modern Western world seems to be one of the few places where the wearing of a headscarf in a sacred temple is a matter of widespread contention. Perhaps this is to be expected, since we live in a society that is distinct from almost any other, and based entirely on individualism.
The basis of everything in the Orthodox Church is Holy Tradition – as Saint Vincent of Lerins has stated, “in the Catholic Church (i.e. the Universal Church – the Orthodox Church) itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all”. Holy Tradition includes the combined inheritance of the Holy Scriptures, the Church Fathers, the Holy Services, and the hymnody of the Church, across the centuries and from every place, taken together.
To make the mistake that the Orthodox Church is a battle over Biblical quotes, or improved enlightenment over time is to reduced Christ’s Church to simply another flavour of Protestantism with more accurate creeds and councils. Holy Tradition – and the whole package it contains – makes up the Orthodox Faith.
By extension, the other familiar maxim also holds, lex orandi, lex credendi (originally from St. Prosper of Aquitaine) – the law of worship both reflects and determines what is believed.
Taken together, what reasons does the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church give for women wearing a headscarf?
-
- For the sake of the angels (1 Cor 11:10). Saint John Chrysostom tells us the headcovering induces the woman to humility, and to preserve her virtue, tying in the wearing of the veil to the virtue of chastity – not something left to “personal choice” (c.f. Homilies on the Epistles of Saint Paul to the Corinthians);
- Saint Paul tells us this is the universal practice of the Church for women to pray with their heads covered, and that if any man seem to be contentious (i.e. if anyone wants to argue about this question), we have no such custom (i.e. to argue about the matter), neither the churches of God. (1 Cor 11:16).
- As a show of reverence in a consecrated place – i.e. a consecrated temple;
- As a show of reverence before the holy relics of the saints, whose holy remains are sanctified by the grace of God, and which often work miracles;
- As a show of reverence before the Ark, which rests at all times upon the Holy Table in every temple, and contains the reserve Holy Mysteries;
- As a show of reverence before the Holy Chalice, when partaking of the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ;
- In emulation of the Mother of God, whose holy example is given to the faithful through countless icons in every temple, including those which are miracle-working and myrrh-streaming;
- In emulation of the holy example of the women saints of every century and nation, who provide for the Orthodox faithful trustworthy images of the way to live out the teachings of the Bible in practice;
- In emulation of the universal practice of the Church which – with few exceptions (including the secular, post-Christian West) – observe modesty in all holy places. This is standard across Christian cultures, from the Holy Land to the Slavic world, from Africa to Scandinavia, from Southeast Asia to the Near East, at least until the post-Renaissance era.
- To affirm the distinction between male and female from the time of Creation (Gen. 5:2), against which modern ideologues, secularists and activists bristle.
Those who would try to have the Church conform to modern, secular agendas from outside the Church will obviously disagree with the standards set out in the points above.
The topic of head coverings may be avoided by many parish priests, often because the historical, patristic, traditional practice could lead to conflict and pushback from modern-minded people in a given parish. Much more, such a practice would offend the position of ideological feminists, who see their political worldview as somehow interchangeable with the historical, patristic, traditional practice of the Church, and would not be happy to be told otherwise.
In the modern West, the freedoms we enjoy extend to the personal freedoms we exercise within the Orthodox Church, as far as they do not violate the limits of pastoral authority. One can certainly exercise the prerogative to argue in favour of the freedom from wearing the veil in an Orthodox temple: indeed, people argue for all sorts of things in the name of modern liberties.
What one cannot do is argue that women going without a headscarf in an Orthodox temple is somehow in keeping with the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church, or that the practice is in any way representative of any major time or place in the Orthodox Church outside the secular, post-Christian West.
Far from being representative of the pious practice of Orthodox Christian women, the absence of the head covering in an Orthodox Church is an outlier from the teaching or practice of the Church Fathers. It is an anomaly from Church practice in virtually any other century or place. It forgets the inherited practice as if modernity alone sets the standard for Orthodoxy. It represents a regretful disregard for the presence of holy things within the temple of God, as if the secular world has engulfed the consecrated walls of God’s Church.
It should therefore be no surprise that the practice of women wearing headscarves in the holy temple should be called into question in the modern West, of all times and places – since it is only in the modern West that the specters of forgetfulness, impiety, and secularism cast their long shadows across the face of our churches.
– Archpriest Geoffrey Korz
Does the Greek word used in the disputed passage literally refer to a head covering?
Should a woman weare a headscarve if she is:
A) not married
B) divorced.
Patristical arguments, please.
Thank you.
We can go even further to say, with St. John Chrysostom, that head-coverings are a symbol of the woman’s subjection to the man. That’s the stumbling-block for modern women, but it is also the unquestioned teaching of the Church.
Having seen a little bit of what is going on in the Orthodox Twitter-world, I would consider empty male heads a far more pressing concern than uncovered female heads.
Spot on Manfred. The Orthodox Church is getting a reputation for being the church for incels, particularly in relation to converts. Christianity is instinctively hostile to women which suits the incel vibe to a tee.
Twitter is the farthest thing from real life. The Orthodox Church is getting no such reputation. Men finding Orthodoxy, especially the young men, are looking for examples of traditional masculinity – faithfulness, marriage, family, tradition. Orthodoxy is not instinctively hostile to women. Christianity is instinctively protective towards women and children, and on that basis has always been attractive to women:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/orthodoxy-must-still-defend-women-and-children/
The current moral anarchy in society victimizes women. In fact, between “transwomen” and artificial wombs, our demented society is attempting to erase women altogether.
Since the fall, we all live in a world that is an experiencing (knowledge) of good and evil. Every person has elements of both good and evil. Painting anything or anybody with a broad brush is deceptive. St, Chrysostom said, “there is no person so evil there is not something good in him and there is no person so good, there is not something evil in them (Sermons Rich Man and Lazarus).
With that said, how do we rite-ly discern those who will affect our lives? Start with trajectory. Always ask yourself, which direction are thing going in here? Nothing is ever static, never.
If you look at the icon (icons contain our most powerful theology) of the St. John’s ladder of ascent, two things jump out. First, everyone is on a different level. Some are just starting out and some are near the top—so we all do not function on the same spiritual level. We must be patient with the beginners, and expect more of those nearing the end of our journey.
Second, and perhaps the most striking element, is how demons have hooked some near the top. No matter how high one gets, the possibility of being deceived is all the more dangerous. Each step has unique temptations. Another message is the use of hooks. Hooks can never be set unless one takes the bait. Satan must find something within them that he can latch on to, something of himself, something he planted there. When he recovers what is his—sown by him into the man—he is only calling back to him what is of him, but gets the whole man in the process. The fish is hooked in the mouth—it all starts with what we say—but the fisherman gets the whole man/fish.
But, get this; the man hooked higher up is still above the beginners below and therefore even when he is fallen, he can speak many seemingly wise things to those below. Any spiritual director can be upside down and seem to be on track because he relies upon accumulated knowledge and not fresh grace.
Now, if the guy near the top was not snared but continuing upward, his brothers’ status on the ladder would not be an issue for comparison: nearly all sins of the heart are based on comparison; jealousy, envy, anger, lust and even forgiveness sit squarely on comparison (what someone should be to us). Living in the knowledge of evil, means to always be processing life through the lens of comparison. For Adam and Eve, Satan created a phantom of what they should be and were not—even were entitled to, but deprived of. Satan always offers what God has already given. If fact, Satan never offers you anything you don’t already have in Christ, including healing for both soul and body. Offering them to become “gods”, where they had already been given a road to thesis is how he operates— it’s always a shortcut. Satan offered Jesus the kingdoms of this world—something in the end He already owns. When Satan’s lease on creation runs out, it all goes back to Christ. And everyman will be called into account for what he did with the time he was given.
That icon of the ladder and the Creation of Adam—in my mind—are the some of the most insightful into the reality we live in.
The whole question is not so much where one is on the ladder, but in what direction he is going; especially at the point of death; the Fathers tell us. In Orthodoxy, different things are going on in different places and even within those places different things are going on with different people. This is the dilemma we now live with as the fall has made all human experience a mixed bag. While Adam and Eve, saw evil in Good, the unwinding of this spell is to see good in everything. Obviously, truth is in a balance. We can see good in everyone—or at least be looking for it. Yet, the issue is one of trust. Who can you trust, and who not? While I forgive my neighbor I am never called upon to necessarily trust him any more than trusting a 6 year old with keys to the car. If clergy cannot sort the shots, don’t trust them with anything else. But some can, and should be trusted, but it’s up to you to sort it.
As for women in the Church, because our worship is participation in the cosmic dance uniting the created with the Uncreated, it demonstrates the cosmic meaning of the masculine and the feminine. Everything, including the planet we live on, has polarity around which everything revolves. The Church is “The Woman” depicted by the dome as the womb for the kingdom. The Church is about birthing babies in every sense of the notion. If you have no kids, no catechumens, you might just as well shut it down, the building will make a nice restaurant.
When you think in covenant terms of “after the order of” clarity comes. The Holy Mother of God, the Church, Wisdom (cast in the feminine), the Ark of the Covenant, and “woman” in the created order, are all after the order of (in the same eternal reality) the feminine principle which is the portal between heaven and earth—Jake’s ladder into heaven (or hell and earth in the cultic sense). Putting a women behind the altar—other than the one that is already there—the Holy Mother in the altar/table/ ark would be dangerous for her and everyone involved because it tampers with the cosmos. Of course the priest—the masculine principle—is defined by the beard—a mature male. Angels, woman and children do not have beards. Meddling with that, is ripping the fabric of creation.
Guys, take heed.
Every priest stands before the altar bejeweled with two TESTIcles (both New and Old TESTAments) before the ark of the TESTAmony, as the icon of Christ—the TESTAtor of the Everlasting TESTAment. The first canon of the Church was that no priests can be castrated (Bet, I can show you a few)—now you know why.
By definition “womb-man” is mankind with a womb. Without a womb (portal from non-being into being, a continuation of creation), there is no woman. And I don’t think they have figured out how to transplant testicles yet, and if they could it would be strange fire indeed as they could put them anywhere.
In terms of covenant, every man has a pair demonstrating he stands directly under God, regardless of what hierarchs tell him to do. True unity is always a full signing on to whatever agenda is happening. This kind of unity makes him a “TESTAtor”, a witness to, a verification of whatever agenda is happening. (only the pilot flies the plane, not the guy in the very high tower, whenever the pilot follows the orders of the guy in the tower, it is a VERIFICATION the orders are safe, correct, and toward the objective). IN THE MASCULINE SENSE, ANY AND ALL OBEDIENCE BECOMES A FULL ENDORSEMENT, WITNESS TO, AUTHENTICATION OF whatever is happening. Because of testicles, blind obedience does not exist, every man’s participation is a witness to whatever that is. NO PRIEST can ever say he was acting in obedience, or just doing his job.
If you have a pair, its cosmological: if you are (have) a portal/womb its cosmological; it’s about porter and portal.
If he has a pair (ask him to check), whatever he channels through, has his verification, all is well with it. That’s the whole meaning of The Testimony. He is the last line of defense for the sheep. It is the same way with every father/husband in the home.
As we go along, we will see more and more who has them made of steel, brass, iron, and even gold, and those whose are cotton, or marshmallows.
BTW: if a woman grabs a man’s testicles especially to control him (in any sense of the word [insult his masculinity]), her hand is to be cut off. See Deuteronomy 25:11,12. For a woman to tamper with any man’s masculinity—or press into the masculine things—she is messing with the signs of the Everlasting Covenant place within every man. His greatest strength is also his greatest weakness. For a woman to “hit below the belt”, nothing is more deplorable and brings God’s judgement, because a true man will never hit (back) a woman out of respect for all women and the Most Holy Virgin.
My apologies to the ladies for the portion of this comment that is locker room talk, take what is profitable to you. I can say—and am compelled to say—these things, but you may not. Some things are always man-to-man. Some things no woman should ever say to a man—of course it goes both ways.
Fr. Korz,
I am charmed by your bravery for venturing into such forbidden waters. Of course, many woman have wrote the very same things.
(Alert! Sarcasm ahead): during the COVID melee, if we could just get the ladies in church to move the face mask up over the top, then that which is NOT Orthodox would be turned into what is and always was. Obviously, my speech here draws the wrath of many, so let’s all just sit back and have a good belly laugh. We men are not laughing at the ladies—ok—; we are laughing with them—right, guys?
As for humor: G. K. Chesterton put it this way: the saints didn’t levitate (off the ground) but were far better than those pagans that did because the saints had the gift of levity…further saying (I’ll paraphrase again) Satan fell due the sheer weight of his own self-importance and so do we.
Speaking of Roman Catholics (GK converted to RC from Anglican because he hammered Calvin), my son has converted to that (while I was still Protestant), marrying a cradle Catholic, and my daughter-in-law (and my granddaughters) would never get near a church without a head covering; and she does not dress cheap either. My son—a high powered DC lawyer—bank roles whatever she wants to wear. She has never—to my knowledge— even wore pants to church let alone go without a head-covering. I don’t recall ever seeing her in pants; her sense of her own femininity is that strong and her daughters only wear pants under a skirt. Yet, she governs 6 robust kids all homeschooled in a small home just blocks from Sean Spicer.
If we want to get technical (the elephant in the room), the context of St Paul for the head covering is that it is a sign of submission to her husband, not just being submitted to the Church. Necessarily then, if the Church affirms St Paul—and other Fathers—being submitted to the Church would automatically assume submission to her husband; would it not?
On the other hand, a woman may in fact wear a head covering and never understand or fulfill its meaning.
When a woman is not submitted to her husband—“for the angels sake”—she is exposing herself to direct demonic attack beyond the otherwise norm; she is depressed, she is angry (not knowing why), and often encounters hormonal issues; every little thing becomes catastrophic. By nature women are portals to the unseen realm; giving birth is a portal. This is why most all spirit mediums are women. Satan first approached Eve, it always works that way; Adam did not porter—guard, defend, and slam shut—the gateway that Eve was by nature (porter=priest/portal=altar; the masculine and feminine principles). It’s part of their constitutional make up. Head covering, like crossing ourselves, is a form of warding off evil spirits but will have no effect in defending her if she doesn’t truly reflect its meaning. Some of the meanest women I known and have heard about are monastics who have no clue of this portal dynamic. When true submission comes, so does peace.
St Paul was not misogynistic; he just echoed the creation order for the welfare of the woman. Bottom line: women—in general—are much more sensitive to the spirit realm making them easier targets than men for demonic influence; this is why God placed her under a man’s authority (head). To cover the head means to defer to another head (the man); it has the same meaning as bowing the head, accepting the yoke of being a helper and not an initiator. That men do NOT cover their heads in the church suggests other things….(for another time).
I will never submit to any man! I am egalitarian when it comes to the sexes. That matters more to me than Church Tradition. I also strongly believe in individualism. And of course I don’t wear a head covering in church. Only a small minority of women in my OCA parish do.
On what basis do you decide which Church Traditions you should follow and which ones you can ignore?
My own sense of right and wrong and my God-given conscience.
Dear Karen, Thank you for being so honest about things, you are far better off than those who feign respect for their husbands but undermine him by stealth or do so in the name of “having a spiritual father” . Your virtue–honesty–is in very short supply among the Orthodox, as we put on so many masks trying to be what we are not. I have high hopes for you, because in your honesty, God has something He can work with. Outward religiousity–religious correctness–is a damning thing so hard to put our finger on, but it does exist.
Thank you, John Lee, for your kind response when I disagreed so strongly with you. I have enjoyed your comments in general in the year or so since I have been reading Orthodox Reflections. I haven’t been Orthodox for long, and I know I have a lot to learn about humility and surrender, but I am where I am for now.
Thank you for reading over the past year. We all have much to learn.
As you continue to seek the Lord with your whole heart, He will be the fulfillment of everything that has been cheated you in life. For a long time now, He has had His eye upon you–not for judgement, but–because you are the apple of His eye and He is carving out a place for you next to Him, and in His Church one step at a time, each step ordered of the Lord.
When it comes to submitting to a man. I would love to do that. But have you seen any worth submitting to? Still looking.
(trustworthy, mature, resourceful, smart, kind, wise and loving)
As the modern world has shown more women to be individualists, it has also turned more men into unreliable liabilities. Sorry. -_O_-
I wish I weren’t speaking the truth. Women don’t just leave a good way of life for no reason. There are reasons. Sure— the modern western world lies to us all saying we would be better off if x, y, z and the grass is greener on the other side. I’m sure that doesn’t help.
Still. I want mature men; who are wise and reliable and trustworthy. And who are good leaders, as men are meant to be.
When I first attended the Liturgy here in USA, the women without a head covering was the thing that amazed me the most, like I was back in the Socialism we left behind. Then, during the following years I realized a deeper problem with too many women in the parishes, we were part of, not coming back for confession and, in turn, receiving communion like being the living copies of the little Snow White. Then, even deeper than such an aspect was the fact now that many priests are forced to accept such a reality of the parish. When I am writing these lines I know such facts. It is hard to sense that people surrounding me in the church, have some kind of faith but, they bring inside the entertaining secularism they are used to, six days in a week. Unfortunately, the lack of humility in not wearing a scarf it is not leading to an immediate result but, in time, I am sure that it is going to reflect on the behavior of the next generation. This is the outcome that, the decadent environment of the New World is feeding on and growing leaps and bounds to the bottom of the pit, in order to come at last to the Parousia.