“Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”

Judge for yourself.” Let us take up this challenge of the inspired writer of Scripture. “Is it proper…?” Is it suitable, does it seem right? Those are the alternate lexical meanings of the Greek word. Putting aside the issue of whether this applies only to when a woman prays or extends to other activities, the question remains. Does nature really teach these things, that on the one hand it is dishonorable for men to have long hair and on the other hand for a woman to have long hair is her glory? Our world today scoffs at the idea. After all, we don’t live in the pre-hippy generation when these things would have received a much more affirmative embrace!

Our society today accepts men with long hair, and many women wear shorter “short,” especially those who simply do not want the fuss that comes with long hair. No one wants to be seen as judgmental over this issue. Are these not just simply preferences of style? On one level that is true. Yet, one cannot deny that even in today’s society, a woman’s hair is much more important to her than a man’s hair is to him. We can argue about how long is long, but generally there is a clear difference. The cosmetic and hair styling industry is largely driven by women’s appearance, of which her hair is a major part.

Exceptions can always be made with this kind of argument. But that is just like saying that because some women are stronger or faster than some men, then it is wrong to say that in general men are stronger and faster than women. The Olympics give testimony to the general innate differences and the conveners are not dissuaded by the exceptions. So Paul says, “Judge for yourselves …” Don’t let the exceptions to his argument from nature dissuade you from the teaching.

Lastly, we mention in this passage the misunderstood phrase, “Her hair is given to her for a covering.” Some scholars have argued that the head-covering therefore is really a woman’s hair, not a separate hat, hood, mantilla, or other covering. However, the word “covering” here is a different word than used earlier for “covering.” Further, if hair is substituted for the covering Paul talked about in 1 Cor. 11:4–7, then his reasoning would make no sense.

The point we are making is that this passage provides an intuitive support for Paul’s non-cultural, theological reasoning for head-coverings made earlier in the chapter. We must walk carefully as a church, for the angels are watching.

Lord, give me the strength to stand against my culture, and stand on Your Word.