11/11/2025
The Head Covering Is a Sign of Submission
Growing up in a conservative Anabaptist church, I heard this one all the time. The idea went like this: men should not cover their heads when praying as a sign of submission to Christ, and women should cover their heads as a sign of submission to men—especially their husbands. It was taught as a kind of spiritual dress code, with submission sewn into every stitch of the fabric.
You might think that after going to Bible college outside the Anabaptist world, I would've thrown this teaching out the window. Many do. Some claim Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11 don't really apply anymore. Others say what matters today is simply "a heart of submission."
But what if I told you this passage isn't about submission at all? (See https://www.asherwitmer.com/head-covering/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=Asher%20Witmer )
If we're not careful, we can read 1 Corinthians 11:3-5 as if Paul is putting women in their place—making the head covering a symbol of female subjection. But that's not what the text says. Paul writes, "For this reason a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels" (v.10). Did you catch that? Not a symbol of submission. A symbol of authority.
And that distinction matters.
When we teach that the head covering is about submission, we not only misread the passage… we risk distorting the Gospel—shifting the focus from what Christ has accomplished to what we must perform.
Here's why that's a big deal:
1. It redefines the symbol. Paul is not trying to put women beneath men. He's affirming their spiritual agency. The head covering is a sign that women have the authority to speak—to pray and prophesy—as full participants in the body of Christ.
2. It shifts the focus from Christ to control. The broader section of 1 Corinthians (chapters 9–14) is about unity, not hierarchy. Paul's concern is honor within the community, not enforcing social rank. Teaching submission here replaces mutual respect with a power dynamic Paul wasn't trying to create.
3. It ignores Paul's emphasis on interdependence. Verses 11–12 make it clear: man is not independent of woman, and woman is not independent of man. Both come from God. If submission were the point, suggesting that women were accountable to men, I think Paul would have suggested that they have their head uncovered to mirror the instruction for men in relation to Christ. Instead, he offers a different kind of symbolic reminder—one that invites men and women to recognize each other's shared identity and role in God's family, not a sign that women are under or accountable to men.
Also, let's remember how Paul introduces this teaching: as a tradition (v.2). Biblical traditions are not prerequisites for salvation. They're reminders of what God has done and what He promises to do. Like the Year of Jubilee or the Lord's Supper, these practices point us to God's grace—not to our performance.
When we make the head covering a rule for proving female submission, we do two dangerous things:
• We shift our trust from the finished work of Jesus to outward behavior.
• We turn a reminder of unity into a weapon of division.That's not just a minor interpretive error. It's a distortion of the Gospel.
The truth is, Paul gives women authority—not restriction—in this passage. And when we get that wrong, we risk silencing key voices God is calling to speak.
We don't need more badges of religious performance. We need reminders that, in Christ, we all stand equal—accountable to Him, empowered by His Spirit, and called to build each other up in love.
(Excerpt from 7 Dangerous Teachings Infiltrating Your Church Today https://www.asherwitmer.com/dangerous-teachings-in-church-today/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=Asher%20Witmer )
Seven subtle teachings drifting churches—Christian nation, head covering, Ham myth, Jezebel, s*x ethics, prayer-only fixes, Zionism—discern biblically.
