Donny D wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:38 pm
First of all, I am not a person with Anabaptist roots. This leaves me sometimes quite confused when it comes to the subject of head coverings. I am not questioning the concept of a covering or veil for sisters in the faith. It seems right. What I am questioning is the origin of the current covering or veil styles. It seems to me that the vast majority of head coverings worn by Anabaptist women are a see-through “pleated” cap.
My first question is this:
I’ve seen pictures of veiled women in the 1500s, even non-Anabaptists, but what is the origin of the present day “pleated” cap? The coverings or veils I’ve seen depicted from the 1500s seem to be of styles other than pleated caps. To me, it seems such a covering was probably not in Europe, for I haven’t seen witness of it being promoted there. Also, it doesn’t seem logical to me that such a covering would be actively practiced in the this region during the time of persecution because it would draw the attention of the persecutors, resulting in great harm or even death. Where, why, and how did the pleated cap arrive on the scene?
My second question is this:
Seeking to determine the meaning of the cap or veil, I’ve resorted to a Strong’s Interlinear. Strong’s defines the covering in 1 Corinthians 11 as “to cover wholly, i.e. veil: — cover, hide.” I notice the concepts of covering “wholly” and to “hide.” Where does this start and stop? I’ve seen all sorts of pleated caps that cover only a portion, sometimes only a very small portion, of the head. How is this reconciled with Strong’s definition that seems to say to cover the “whole” head or all of the hair?
My third question is this:
Searching conversations at MennoNet, I’ve noticed references to a mesh covering, sometimes of a see-through fabric. How does this “hide”?
To declare the head covering as merely symbolic of something seems counter to my understanding of Strong’s interpretation of the original language.
Not being born into an Anabaptist tradition, I find myself rather confused. Would someone be willing to help me out with this? While my questions might appear foolish, I am quite unsure what to make of all this. Please guide me gently along the way.
Your questions are very typical for people not growing up in traditional Anabaptist settings and are even typical for some of us who did grow up in traditional Anabaptist settings. I wish more traditional Anabaptists asked these questions. The questions are not foolish at all.
Flowing veils was the common way Christian women covered their hair until about the time of the Reformation when women began bunching them together. This evolved into bonnets.
https://scrollpublishing.com/head-covering/
Eventually women wore an inner bonnet and an outer bonnet. The inner bonnet (kapp in German) was white and the outer bonnet was different colors. The covered head for women was still based on I Corinthians 11. Eventually in the 1800's, women began wearing see through bonnets and Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren began adopting the see-through white inner bonnets (kapps) around the beginning of the 1900's. Since then, many Anabaptist groups have frozen the practices of the early 1900's and keep wearing the see through headcoverings, while more traditional groups like the Amish in Ohio and Indiana and the Old Order River Brethren have maintained opaque white headcoverings.
The Charity movement in the 1980's reintroduced flowing opaque veils among conservative Anabaptists to be more consistent to actually covering the head, and eventually many Beachy Amish-Mennonites and Keystone Fellowship Mennonites also adopted the practice. In more recent decades, some Pilgrim Conference women and Hope Fellowship women have started wearing opaque bonnets/caps/kapps in order to be more consistent as well.
The small headcoverings are the result of teaching that a "symbol must be worn" rather than teaching that the "covered head is a symbol".
Both the mesh headcoverings and small headcoverings are what happens when people follow tradition but lose the principle behind it. But this is not a new problem. Already in the second century AD Tertullian wrote:
"If she thinks that her veil is enough when it is only a small covering for the head, she deceives herself, for she has not fulfilled the commandment of God."
But if she wear it only in part, and not that which is fitting, then she is not truly covered, for the covering should extend down to the ears.
I hope this helps answer the questions.
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
