Hats in church (Orthodox opinion only, please!)

[rusmeister]

Orthodox only, please!

This is actually a serious question, born of the disagreement over head covering and the insistence that it be a purely individual decision.

There are plenty of voices that call for such individual choice for women. But my question, in all seriousness, is, what about men? Should they be able to similarly disregard what has been considered the Orthodox ”small ‘t’” traditions around head covering? I’d note that pretty much nowhere in the Orthodox world, until at least the middle of the 20th century, and then only in the US and Europe, was there any challenge to the idea that men should remove their hats and women should, on the contrary, put something on when entering church. No one seems to consider whether there was ever any idea behind that practice, and many seem to hold a subconscious and unexamined assumption that it was basically a whim that ever got the custom instituted.

As it stands, the now widespread rejection of head covering for women is being taken for granted. So what about men? Should we dump the concept of distinctiveness of head covering wholesale or not, and if so, on what basis, and if not, why not? What I want to encourage here is the thinking through of the practices of the Church, and the discovery of reasons as to why we do whatever we do in church.

A focus on men seems to me to be essential. Although men are not clamoring for such a “right”, I think the establishment of a double standard based, not on reason, but on prejudice, to be bad. If women can choose to reject the covering rule, why can’t men? What’s wrong with me wearing my fedora into church?

 

[Phronema]

I've always been taught that wearing a hat indoors is a sign of disrespect, and that would apply doubly so while in church. That said my parents were born in the early and mid forties. So I was brought up by fairly old fashioned people.

 

[rusmeister]

Hi! I’m not asking what you do or don’t do. I’m asking a more specific question - is there any good reason to forbid men to wear hats in church from an Orthodox standpoint?

 

[Phronema]

Hi! I’m not asking what you do or don’t do. I’m asking a more specific question - is there any good reason to forbid men to wear hats in church from an Orthodox standpoint?

My apologies Rus I must've read over it too quickly.

Forbidden? No I can't think of any good reason. As a layman I would say no because it's a small "t" tradition, and if it were to be forbidden that is a decision the priest or bishop would have to make.

Edit : Please understand I prefer tradition. So I would prefer we ALL do things the traditional way, but in our society I think we've lost WHY we do the small "t" traditions. So that is something the priest could explain and emphasize, and the priest and bishop lay down the expectations according to how they see fit to best pastorally care for their flock.

So for clarity I think we as parishioners should WANT to partake in tradition rather than having it be mandated, and understanding why we do is critical in that regard I believe. A bishop or priest though has the wisdom, and theological understanding neccesary to forbid them though if they saw fit.

 

[LaSorcia]

I don't see any reason for wearing head coverings or not, for either sex, other than culture and tradition. But, just as it would be rude to sit down and eat a ham sandwich in front of a Jewish friend, it would be rude to go against these traditions if it shocked others and disturbed their worship.

 

[AMM]

Well, priests and monks wear hats in church, at least for part of the time. Sure, they aren't baseball caps, but they are still head coverings.

So I think we have to say that this isn't an absolute moral wrong. After all, St John Chrysostom and St Basil make it very clear that there are not two sets of rules (one for monks and one for lay), but only one: the law of love for the Christian.

 

[WanderedHome]

Orthodox only, please!

This is actually a serious question, born of the disagreement over head covering and the insistence that it be a purely individual decision.

There are plenty of voices that call for such individual choice for women. But my question, in all seriousness, is, what about men? Should they be able to similarly disregard what has been considered the Orthodox ”small ‘t’” traditions around head covering? I’d note that pretty much nowhere in the Orthodox world, until at least the middle of the 20th century, and then only in the US and Europe, was there any challenge to the idea that men should remove their hats and women should, on the contrary, put something on when entering church. No one seems to consider whether there was ever any idea behind that practice, and many seem to hold a subconscious and unexamined assumption that it was basically a whim that ever got the custom instituted.

As it stands, the now widespread rejection of head covering for women is being taken for granted. So what about men? Should we dump the concept of distinctiveness of head covering wholesale or not, and if so, on what basis, and if not, why not? What I want to encourage here is the thinking through of the practices of the Church, and the discovery of reasons as to why we do whatever we do in church.

A focus on men seems to me to be essential. Although men are not clamoring for such a “right”, I think the establishment of a double standard based, not on reason, but on prejudice, to be bad. If women can choose to reject the covering rule, why can’t men? What’s wrong with me wearing my fedora into church?

While St. Paul does reason about men and women equally, I suppose he just assumes men will uncover their head because men wearing hats wasn't an issue in the Church at Corinth... If he is treating them equally, it seems it would reason that I Cor. 11:13-16 would also apply for men.

Well, priests and monks wear hats in church, at least for part of the time. Sure, they aren't baseball caps, but they are still head coverings.

that's true. they all remove them when they do the prayers, but immediately put it back on at the end. They also have some kind of liturgical purpose (I think).

I would not suggest men can wear stylish hats in church, but if he does, he should at least take it off at the prayers. Certainly, it should not be distracting or have logos embalzoned on them or something.

 

[AMM]

that's true. they all remove them when they do the prayers, but immediately put it back on at the end. They also have some kind of liturgical purpose (I think).

I would not suggest men can wear stylish hats in church, but if he does, he should at least take it off at the prayers. Certainly, it should not be distracting or have logos embalzoned on them or something.

some prayers, yes. I'm trying to remember what the monks do at my church... it's been so long that I can barely remember. But I believe they wear them for some prayers, and take them off for others. Could be wrong though.

And yeah, I think they have some sort of liturgical significance... maybe someone told me once that it is a symbol of the authority that they are under? (Using the same line of reasoning for why St Paul says women should cover and men should not... but that's already being debated in another thread )

 

[FenderTL5]

I wear a hat often but not routinely.
I'm still of the mindset that men do not wear hats indoors, regardless of the venue.

I did wear it in church back in the early 20teens at the protestant church where I played in the Praise/rock band. In fact, that was my catalyst for purchasing it to begin with.
The church was doing a 'themed service' based on the old west. I'm not one to wear a cowboy hat, so I bought a really nice derby instead. Coupled with a brocade vest, bolo and boots it was old west meets steampunk.

Since becoming Orthodox, I've worn it to the parish but not inside. I always get comments along the line of, "more men should wear hats.."

 

[Chesterton]

I always get comments along the line of, "more men should wear hats.."

Are these comments coming from men wearing business suits and using fake American accents?

 

[ArmyMatt]

the question seems to be: can I put a beam in my own eye if I see the splinter in my neighbor's eye?

 

[FenderTL5]

Are these comments coming from men wearing business suits and using fake American accents?

Ha!
No, it usually comes from the γιαγιάs

 

[rusmeister]

What either amazes or disappoints me is that, except for Light of the East (hereafter referred to as "LOE"), respondents do not in the least seem to consider WHY the known tradition of "men uncover-women cover" was ever instituted. Everyone says "What I think", "What I would do" and NOT "what is the consensus of the Church in teaching and practice over space and time". If we take the idea that "It only matters what I personally do" - a libertarian stance that I find inconsistent with Orthodoxy in general, then we would have to draw from that that any behavior in church goes, that there is no common standard which we are all called to (which I thought was supposed to ultimately be holiness). Anything goes. P**** Riot was within their rights to burst into the cathedral and perform. Reductio ad absurdam. Take it to its logical conclusion. "What I do does not affect others." No offense, people, but that isn't Orthodox teaching.

I don't see any reason for wearing head coverings or not, for either sex, other than culture and tradition. But, just as it would be rude to sit down and eat a ham sandwich in front of a Jewish friend, it would be rude to go against these traditions if it shocked others and disturbed their worship.

The fact that you don’t see doesn’t mean there is nothing there to see.

the question seems to be: can I put a beam in my own eye if I see the splinter in my neighbor's eye?

This seems to me to be a take that has not thought everything through, father. I don't think ANYONE is challenging the idea that I am the chief of sinners, or suggesting that following or bucking the tradition necessarily makes one a better person. But surely we know that certain behaviors do in fact work to improve our spiritual condition. Admitting that is not the sin of pride, nor is desiring to improve one's own spiritual condition or help others to (thus we have the idea of teaching as a gift in the Church). If you are saying that thinking about how we ought to dress, or that it is better, more desirable for us to dress in a certain way rather than in others is the sin of pride you allude to in the splinter/beam reference, then I have to say that that would negate the whole idea of seeking to conform ourselves to the mind of the Church. We know that these things are not the most important things, and admit that the Pharisee is not saved by his outward appearance. But the outward appearance does mirror the inward attitude; one that considers one's brethren, or disregards them. And yes, exceptions have been raised at more Pharisaical times and places - the Holy Fools, St Ksenia of Petersburg, etc. But the exception proves the rule, that it IS exceptional.

Surely submission to a common practice that I might prefer not to do is better for me spiritually than insisting on doing things in a way that is more desirable to me? That's more what I am trying to say, not at all a Puritanical/Pharasaical "one size fits all"/"rules for their own sake!". We should desire to know what is best for us, and seek to conform ourselves to that. The practice of the Church has ALWAYS been clear on un/covering, small "t" or not. He who is faithful in the small things...


Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from G. K. Chesterton's 1929 book The Thing, in the chapter entitled "The Drift from Domesticity":

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think you missed my point, rus. of course we should all struggle to conform to the Church, and let the Church change us. but your question appeared to be that since we let women lessen the standard, that men should as well. that's an immature thing to ask (at best) and does reek of pride (at worst).

you should be struggling to conform to the Church as best as you can, regardless of what you notice in others.

I mean the OP, at least to me, came across like some kid complaining that his brother gets to do something, so why can't he.

 

[F.E.A.R.]

You're right. In the whole Orthodox world it wasn't known for men to remove their hats in church (some might've did it). But 90% of the Orthodox world was made up of peasants, who didn't knew anything at all. It was tradition for women to wear head coverings, they always wore them, even in Church which corresponds with what the Church says, that women should cover their heads, but it's a disrespect towards God for men to wear hats in the Church. It was tradition for men to wear hats, so most didn't remove them because they didn't know and you can't blame them, since they lived in a different time, a different era. Just thinking about it, even I feel embarrassed to wear a hat in Church in front of God, even so going in with short jeans. I'd rather go in Church with some plain clothing, and not wearing a hat at all.

 

[rusmeister]

I think you missed my point, rus. of course we should all struggle to conform to the Church, and let the Church change us. but your question appeared to be that since we let women lessen the standard, that men should as well. that's an immature thing to ask (at best) and does reek of pride (at worst).

you should be struggling to conform to the Church as best as you can, regardless of what you notice in others.

I mean the OP, at least to me, came across like some kid complaining that his brother gets to do something, so why can't he.

Thanks!
I didn't miss your point, but rather agree, and support it. Yes, it should NOT be forced, but as we grow, we ought to desire to grow into better practice. That is, or should be part of your point. It's not about judging people or saying they are bad, but about defending the historical practice.

But I would say that women calling to reject head covering to be like the brother whining about how he doesn't want to do something in the first place because he doesn't feel like it. My post was intended to posit that the one issue is exactly like the other. it is the fact that it is ridiculous and nobody is demanding it is how it ought to be with women as well, in my opinion. So, no, I am NOT actually calling for changing the standard, but quite the opposite, to raise awareness of WHY women covering is an excellent thing for us in the West in our time, and that rejecting it is precisely like men seeking to reject the rule for men. Most people don't know and don't think about the reasons there was ever such a tradition, and I would be happy if you would expound on that history and those reasons, yourself, rather than the flimsy reasons as to why anyone wants to do away with them.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thanks!
I didn't miss your point, but rather agree, and support it. Yes, it should NOT be forced, but as we grow, we ought to desire to grow into better practice. That is, or should be part of your point. It's not about judging people or saying they are bad, but about defending the historical practice.

But I would say that women calling to reject head covering to be like the brother whining about how he doesn't want to do something in the first place because he doesn't feel like it. My post was intended to posit that the one issue is exactly like the other. it is the fact that it is ridiculous and nobody is demanding it is how it ought to be with women as well, in my opinion. So, no, I am NOT actually calling for changing the standard, but quite the opposite, to raise awareness of WHY women covering is an excellent thing for us in the West in our time, and that rejecting it is precisely like men seeking to reject the rule for men. Most people don't know and don't think about the reasons there was ever such a tradition, and I would be happy if you would expound on that history and those reasons, yourself, rather than the flimsy reasons as to why anyone wants to do away with them.

rus, I agree with you in principle and am for women covering in Church. it's your approach I disagree with. in the OP you say this is a serious question, now in this post you are saying that men wearing hats was intentionally absurd.

I know a lot of folks whose heritage is in those nations under the Turks don't wear head coverings because it was seen as a way to distinguish the Christians from Muslims. it's part of how they identified and proclaimed their Christianity. I knew a Serb who refused to cover her head because "that's what Muslims do, and I'm a Christian."

 

[rusmeister]

rus, I agree with you in principle and am for women covering in Church. it's your approach I disagree with. in the OP you say this is a serious question, now in this post you are saying that men wearing hats was intentionally absurd.

I know a lot of folks whose heritage is in those nations under the Turks don't wear head coverings because it was seen as a way to distinguish the Christians from Muslims. it's part of how they identified and proclaimed their Christianity. I knew a Serb who refused to cover her head because "that's what Muslims do, and I'm a Christian."

As to what I meant and mean, the seriousness is about what argument could really, in the US and Europe today, be forwarded to have EITHER men choose not to uncover or women choose to uncover.
So the question is serious as a consideration of why anyone would say that we should be free to disregard our traditions, however small, on the basis of personal desire. (Note that does not include extreme radical exceptions; maybe a woman has a medical condition in which a hat would kill or really harm her or conversely, a man one in which removing a hat would kill or harm him- if such a case exists, it’s a legitimate exception, like maybe cancer patients who have to wear hats at all times.)
It’s NOT a serious proposal to have men go covered. So there’s no double standard here.

Now in Muslim countries the argument you raise could be made. I don’t think it great, but could grant it as an exception. But using that as a justification in the US and Europe is silly. Muslims do NOT have dibs on head covering, any more than sexual perverts have dibs on the rainbow. Raising a condition in the now-defunct Ottoman Empire as a justification in the US is like pro-choice people appealing to extreme exceptional cases to justify the mass of non-exceptional abortions.

 

[rusmeister]

Is having Rus go toe-to-toe with Fr Matt like having Neo vs Morpheus?

(1:45)

 

[ArmyMatt]

As to what I meant and mean, the seriousness is about what argument could really, in the US and Europe today, be forwarded to have EITHER men choose not to uncover or women choose to uncover.
So the question is serious as a consideration of why anyone would say that we should be free to disregard our traditions, however small, on the basis of personal desire. (Note that does not include extreme radical exceptions; maybe a woman has a medical condition in which a hat would kill or really harm her or conversely, a man one in which removing a hat would kill or harm him- if such a case exists, it’s a legitimate exception, like maybe cancer patients who have to wear hats at all times.)
It’s NOT a serious proposal to have men go covered. So there’s no double standard here.

Now in Muslim countries the argument you raise could be made. I don’t think it great, but could grant it as an exception. But using that as a justification in the US and Europe is silly. Muslims do NOT have dibs on head covering, any more than sexual perverts have dibs on the rainbow. Raising a condition in the now-defunct Ottoman Empire as a justification in the US is like pro-choice people appealing to extreme exceptional cases to justify the mass of non-exceptional abortions.

except if it's all about personal taste, the only thing you can control is you and your family.

if it becomes common practice for women to go uncovered, that's on the bishop. and until you become a bishop, what others do is not your lane.