So I have read and done a lot of thinking about a woman's role and the obedience of covering my head in church. But I have this lingering question...what about when I am not literally in the church building? I read Paul in 1 Cor. very literally, and while I'm at it I should note, to myself, that it is also very clear that a woman is meant to cover her head all of the time: I am always in the presence of God, His angels and the saints; and I should be developing a life of constant prayer (not praying just in church).
With this conviction I began covering my head while at home all day. Then I realized that like with any spiritual practice/discipline, you cannot just jump in with both feet and think that you're good to go. Immediately I noticed what a powerful effect action (covering) added to intention (humble submission to God and husband) has.
I would stand at prayer in the mornings with my head covered but wearing an old ill-fitting, revealing tank top and pajama pants. (I always have been the type to stay in my PJs all day unless I have to go somewhere.) What's wrong with this picture? In his little book How to Live a Holy Life, Metropolitan Gregory Postnikov writes:
"Having risen from bed, wash immediately, and having washed, dress immediately in a way that befits a respectable person. It is necessary to get dressed like this in the morning, although there may be no one with us, because:
First, we never are completely alone; always and everywhere our Guardian Angel and the Lord God are with us...Second, after having woken and washed, we should immediately stand before the Lord God with our morning prayers. And we would never dare to appear before even any of our lower-ranking earthly bosses without having dressed properly."
Also I began to feel a little uncomfortable with wearing the cover and dressing as usual in my pants and t-shirts. Shouldn't I be dressed a bit more feminine? Isn't that half the point?
I'm telling you, try to start a discipline and you will see anew all sorts of things about yourself and the way you live your life! This process reminds me of fasting. The first things encountered are related to the physical and the next are deeper, more spiritual. In this case, the bandanna on my head symbolizing my place of submission provided a stark contrast to the reality of my pride and lack of submission...painfully so. I felt like a big hypocrite. Not wanting to put on a show for my husband, the angels and God, I stopped wearing the head-covering at home for now, except during my prayer time. It is too easy for this sort of thing to become a vehicle for my pride. That's why, in this case in particular, I have decided to first ask my spiritual father for his blessing and get his advice on how to proceed so that I am being obedient to Scriptures as well as staying within my limits--I do not feel confident in my discernment at this point. As St John Cassian said: "We should try our best to acquire that gift of discernment that is able to keep us from excess in any direction. For, as the fathers have said, all extremes are equally harmful. It is as dangerous to fast too much as it is to overfill the stomach. I myself have known monks who were not defeated by gluttony, but were undermined by immoderate fasting." So we will see what Batushka recommends.
I will give an update once I have spoken with him...or you'll see me and it will be obvious :) Pray for me, that God will have mercy on me and my meager attempts at humility and obedience.
30 July 2007
the next step
Posted by Brigitte at 21:06
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
First, I want to bracket this with the caveat that I am not giving advice, because, I am absolutely not qualified to do so.
But, that being said, because I've been following your thoughts on the head covering/modesty/woman's role issue, I think that I can stick my nose in here (and if it is unwelcome, by all means delete my comment). Reading the Bible literally is all well and good; but most Orthodox--and I'm talking cradle Orthodox, not converts--tend to understand that it's not all meant literally. Sometimes, the things in the Bible, actually mean many things at the same time. Sometimes, the proscriptions and commandments are meant to be kept literally, while others are meant to be kept in spirit (that is, true to the meaning of the commandment, not necessarily the letter of the wording...which is a healthy understanding, considering we're always getting it in translation).
This is all preamble to the point. When my mom and I came home to Holy Orthodoxy, she was confused about the head covering thing. The parish we joined didn't have women cover their heads, although we had both read some pretty inflammatory things on the internet by some Orthodox on why they absolutely must (citing St. Paul). But, as my very wise priest informed us, when Paul says that a woman must have her head covered in the Church, he doesn't really mean that there's something offensive to God about the top of a woman's head. How could this be so, when he created the tops of womens' heads, when he hallows and sanctifies the whole of the person through Christ? A woman's head being covered in public, however, was a cultural expression of modest dress; it was like saying, be presentable. I think you hit on this with your post a little already. Would be it ok for a woman to come into the church wearing fishnets, a miniskirt, and a pleather tube top...as long as she wore a scarf over her head? I don't think so.
But if wearing the head covering isn't the deciding factor for modest dress, is it necessary for modest dress? Well, it seems that depends on where you live, and what the culture of your particular parish is. If you go to a very ethnic parish where the women cover their heads, by all means cover yours--you've joined that community and the tradition (small t) is to do it. Don't offend anyone, which is always a good rule. But you shouldn't feel compelled to always have your head covered, I don't think; that's not part of your cultural expression of modest dress.
Now, I'm not saying "It's all relative"--because it isn't. But a western woman being modestly dressed has not included head coverings for many, many centuries. To dig that up is not to live in tradition, but is an exercise is cultural archeology.
This is a long way of saying, don't let a little thing like this be a problem for you; when you focus on conforming to the externals (not saying you are, but as a fellow convert, I understand the temptation well) is like washing the outside of the cup; an activity that Our Lord upbraided the Pharisees for, because it was essentially useless to make the outside shiny and neat if the inside was dusty and unkempt.
sub clementia,
Justinian
Justinian, thanks for your comment! You have a lot of good things to say, and I will always welcome your thoughts.
I do understand that all of the Bible isn't meant to be interpreted literally. Although I still find this particular passage pretty straight forward as far as literal actions, I do understand that the head-covering means nothing if this passage is not also interpreted in spirit. This is why I stopped covering my head daily for the time being...because, as you said (in slightly different context, I admit), there's no use keeping the outside shiny while the inside remains dusty and unkempt. I definitely agree that God isn't offended by the tops of women's heads, and I'm glad you pointed it out. But I think that the purpose of covering is for more than just modest dress; it is itself a symbol of submission, of obedience, since Paul says the she should have a sign of authority on her head. I think it might help with following my train of thought if I refer to what St John Chrysostom said on it, as reading it has greatly shaped my thinking here. In any case, he's always a good read :)
I will quote a lot of him here just to try to give the larger picture of what he is saying (I'm no good at paraphrasing). Starting with the woman's place:
~For with us indeed the woman is reasonably subjected to the man: since equality of honor causes contention. And not for this cause only, but by reason also of the deceit (1 Tim. ii. 14.) which happened in the beginning. Wherefore you see, she was not subjected as soon as she was made; nor, when He brought her to the man, did either she hear any such thing from God, nor did the man say any such word to her: he said indeed that she was "bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh:" (Gen. ii. 23.) but of rule or subjection he no where made mention unto her. But when she made an ill use of her privilege and she who had been made a helper was found to be an ensnarer and ruined all, then she is justly told for the future, "your turning shall be to your husband." (Gen. Iii. 16.)...
~For perhaps some one might here have doubt also, questioning with himself, what sort of a crime it was for the woman to be uncovered, or the man covered? What sort of crime it is, learn now from hence. Symbols many and diverse have been given both to man and woman; to him of rule, to her of subjection: and among them this also, that she should be covered, while he has his head bare. If now these be symbols, you see that both err when they disturb the proper order, and transgress the disposition of God, and their own proper limits, both the man falling into the woman's inferiority, and the woman rising up against the man by her outward habiliments.”
“But if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.” About this verse St John reflects on Paul's words: “For he said not merely covered, but "covered over," meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side. And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand,"but if she be not covered, let her also be shorn." As if he had said, "If you cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature." Here he was referring by 'nature' to the long hair God has given to women as a covering and he goes on to say a little bit later: “And if it be given her for a covering,” say you, “wherefore need she add another covering?” That not nature only, but also her own will may have a part in her acknowledgment of subjection.[that is my favorite part]
He adds: But I fear lest having assumed the dress, yet in their deeds some of our women should be found immodest and in other ways uncovered. For therefore also writing to Timothy Paul was not content with these things, but added others, saying, “that they adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold” (1 Tim. 2:9). For if one ought not have the head bare, but everywhere to carry about the token of authority, much more is it becoming to exhibit the same in our deeds.
Again, I hear what you're saying about the veil being an old/specific cultural standard for modest dress. I ask sincerely then: if this passage is not taken literally, what else in the traditions of the Church is used as a symbol of authority which “covers” the woman? Also, why did he go on to say that men should not have long hair (as a covering) since they are the glory of Christ?--because if not interpreted literally, I lose the parallel. Of course I ask that rhetorically, but I'd love your thoughts if you'd care to share them.
In any case, I appreciate your reminder to not get so caught up in externals as to forget about the inside. That is always a good reminder! One thing that struck me about this whole head-covering deal is that it has made me look at how I am toward my husband, how I dress, etc. Even though I am not actually wearing it, it is still affecting me and serving as a constant reminder of who I am and what is my role. I want to say here, too, that I pass NO judgment on those who do not cover in church. Far from it. This is a very personal (well, not so personal since it's on my blog!) issue, and so it should be. There are, of course, plenty of very literal commands in the Bible which I fail to meet every day. Again, with this I'm hoping that this outward expression will help remind me of some of the corresponding inward expressions I'm called to fulfill.
I feel like I've been too redundant. Sorry if so, I have that tendency. Makes for long comments :)
I cannot figure out how to delete comments (even my own!), otherwise I'd go back and better delineate what is a quote and what is not. I had them in itallics but it didn't work out for some reason. It shouldn't be too hard to figure out what was Petronia talking and what was St John :) And the reading is Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians, from this website:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220126.htm
Post a Comment