The Rhetoric of Fishnets and Head-Coverings

Kodie A. Warnell

Wheaton College

COMM 253: Messages, Influence, & Culture

 Warnell 1

Growing up as “Daddy’s little girl” meant many things. First that I would be showered

with unconditional love, second that I would be spoiled, and third that my outfits would get full

inspections before I left the house. I remember one Sunday morning in particular I put on a skirt

and fancy tights for church and made my way downstairs to join my dad for breakfast. Before I

even got off the last step my dad had already given me the face which can adequately be summed

up in a quote from the displeased Stanley Hudson from ​The Office:​ “Have you lost your mind?

Because I’ll help you find it.” He then proceeded to express that I would not be leaving the house

looking like a prostitute. Though my teenage self was very offended, my early 20’s self is now

able to see that what I saw as “fancy tights,” my dad saw as “fishnets”—a fashion piece often

worn by women engaging in an activity much different than taking communion. To him, tights

with holes in them meant something; they were a symbol that non-verbally spoke of a certain

behavior, occupation, and purpose in the world. It did not matter how innocent or ignorant I

really was. When my dad saw fishnet tights, he received a poor message—one that he did not

want anyone else to receive about me.

Now that eons of time have passed and I have purified my ways by only wearing

solid-colored tights, I have learned that every object in the world has come to hold meaning

(Wood & Latham, 2016). Whether placed on by individuals or society as a whole, many things

have rhetorically been used as or created to be a symbol of a certain story or message (Wood &

Latham, 2016). The Bible is no exception to this. In fact, not only does the Bible give us

excellent examples of the power of symbols, but it also gives us great insight into how symbols

have been and can be used. With no further introduction, I plan to take the next few pages to

explore a certain instance where the Apostle Paul used rhetoric to communicate truth to the
 Warnell 2

believers in Corinth. Specifically, I will argue that Paul relies on the symbolism of a “veil” or

“head-covering” in 1 Corinthians 11 to promote equality in Christ within the Church. To do this,

I will define symbolism and show its place in rhetoric and then follow that by introducing the

Biblical text we are going to consider. Next I will begin introducing various opinions on how 1

Corinthians 11 has been interpreted and then get into investigating the historical culture at the

time of the New Testament. Then, finally, I will reveal which interpretation I find to be the most

accurate by evaluating the passage through a rhetorical lens which will lead us into a discussion

of future implications as Bible-believing Christians and rhetoricians.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines symbolism as “the art or practice of using

symbols​ especially by investing things with a ​symbolic​ meaning or by expressing the invisible or

intangible by means of visible or sensuous representations” (“Symbolism,” n.d.). In other words,

symbolism refers to the action of placing an invisible message onto a visible object, so that when

the visible object is seen, the invisible message is received. Without necessarily being aware of

it, we see symbols everywhere we go. Whether it be diamond rings on the fourth finger of the

left hand, stick-figure images outside public bathrooms, or different colored traffic lights at

intersections, we are constantly seeing symbols which carry meaning. For Americans, the red,

white, and blue flag or an eagle in flight has come to mean freedom. As Christians, we know the

bread and wine served to us is not meant to just be a mid-sermon snack. From our class, we were

able to watch Mama Lena Younger in ​A Raisin in the Sun​ (1961) cling to a hope of a better life

through the symbol of her undying plant. To her, that little plant was more than just a few leaves

hanging above dirt. It was the exact representation of a dream​—​one that found the strength to live

even when it did not see light. Additionally, in the book ​Talking to Strangers​ (Allen, 2009), we
 Warnell 3

were able to read of Elizabeth Eckford’s black and white checkered dress that so clearly and

beautifully gave a tangible picture of what integration could look like. It, too, was a symbol of

hope. As we can see, all these instances show that without having to verbally say anything, a

symbol has the power to convey loud messages of meaning which can be hung, placed,

motioned, and even ​worn​.

But how does this fit in a conversation of rhetoric? Though the word ‘rhetoric’ seems to

give off verbal connotations, the rhetorical field is not limited to spoken words. Since rhetoric is

simply defined as “the art of persuasion” (Heinrichs, 2017, 435), anything that communicates a

message which aims to alter the belief, position, or course of action of an audience, no matter

how big or small, falls within the realm of rhetoric (“Persuade,” n.d.). Specifically speaking,

however, since symbols deal with communicating meaning, and the Apostle Paul is interested in

persuading the believers in Corinth to be united, our conversation focuses on ‘demonstrative’

rhetoric. This branch of rhetoric deals with persuasive messages that are crafted to bring a group

together under shared values (Heinrichs, 2017). Therefore, we are able to learn from 1

Corinthians 11 by coming to it from a theological perspective ​and​ from a rhetorical standpoint,

especially by examining the power of a symbol and the Apostle Paul’s motivation in instituting

one.

Paul speaks about this “head-covering” in 1 Corinthians 11. He starts off by expressing

this idea of headship, where Christ is the head of men and men are the head of women, and then

explains how it is dishonoring for a man to cover his head in worship and dishonoring for a

woman ​not​ to cover her head in worship. In fact, the Apostle Paul goes so far as to say that it

would just be as shameful for a woman to be bald if she did not cover her head. He goes on to
 Warnell 4

say that because men reflect God’s glory, they should not cover their heads, whereas since

women reflect the glory of men, their heads should be covered. After all, the first man did not

come from a woman, but rather the first woman came from a man. The covering of a woman’s

head is to show that she is under “authority.” Of course, to make sure the men who heard this

letter did not get too much of an ego, Paul wraps it all together by saying that though the first

woman came from a man, every other man has come from a woman. Furthermore, though a

woman was made for a man, women and men are not independent from each other by any

means, but have both been created by God. And, finally, to draw his argument to a close, Paul

does something very interesting rhetorically by stating, “Judge for yourselves” (1 Cor. 11:13

New Living Translation). He then asks three rhetorical questions with the hinted answers being:

it is not fitting or proper (Kubo, 1980, p. 156) for a woman to pray in public without her head

covered, it is disgraceful for men to have long hair, and that long hair is a woman’s “pride and

joy” (1 Cor. 11:15 NLT). Then he states that if anyone wants to argue about what he has just

said, there are just no other customs than this among the churches. And that is it. A brief 16

verses packed full of theological truth and instruction without any further explanation. If you are

like me, after going through these verses, you are left thinking that Paul is saying that women are

less than men and in order to show this, they should cover their heads for some odd reason. In

other words, the symbol of something covering the head of a woman ​means​ that she is less than.

But is there a chance that we are interpreting this wrong? Is there a chance that, like fishnets

meant a different thing to me than they did to my father, we are gaining a different understanding

than Paul meant for us? If so, what could that be?

Looking at ​when​ Paul wrote this letter, there are many scholars who have insight into the
 Warnell 5

historical and cultural context of that time. For instance, there are scholars like author Susan

Hylen (2019) who state that the heavily Greco-Roman culture of Corinth was one that gave

much attention to wealth and social class. Clothes, then, were not just worn to keep the body

warm and to hide private parts​—​they were direct indicators or symbols of one's rightful place in

society and what respect one was to be given. In other words, you could tell how someone was to

be treated by what they ​wore​. Furthermore, as my Greek professors always says, we must

remember that the “golden rule” of treating everyone kindly was not (and perhaps is still not) the

norm; if you did not owe someone respect, it was not given. Additionally, just like how Gucci

shoes and a Louis Vuiton purse are physical representations of someone’s wealth in our society

today, elaborate hairstyles and a covered head were symbols of both social status and marital

status (Peppiatt & Campbell, 2015). In fact, many scholars state that “head-coverings” were to be

worn as a symbol of marriage (Ruden, 2010; Peppiatt & Campbell, 2015), much like our

wedding rings today. And in such a tiered society, where status was equated with worth and

women were seen to be more valuable when they were married, there was a great difference

between veiled and unveiled women (Ruden, 2010). For all women to look the same by having

their heads covered would have been a harsh dismissal of a marker of worth-given-by-status.

Furthermore, there are other scholars who agree with this historical context. A

commentary author by the name of Ben Witherington (1995) states that these “head-coverings”

were not uncommon among women in the Roman Empire at the time period of the New

Testament. He states that according to archeological findings, statues have been discovered

which show a veiled woman as she enters the temple to offer a sacrifice. For this reason, he

claims that a “veil” or “head-covering” was simply the norm of anyone who wished to be an
 Warnell 6

active participant in worship. Though he states that there have been statues of respectable women

found with their heads uncovered, it is not surprising since these respectable women, who had

the money to pay for elaborate hairstyles, would have been a part of a higher social class.

Statues, of course, are never formed for the sake of modesty, but rather to glorify (purely or

impurely) a person, so it would not make sense to hide it in a sculpture. On the same note,

Witherington also states that because ​the glory of women ​was (and still is?) their hair (1 Cor.

11:15 NLT), it should be covered up so God gets all the glory (Witherington, 1995; Burke &

Elliott, 2003). Sarah Ruden, an author previously mentioned, agrees with this idea by s​tating that

for a woman's hair ​to be covered, it would hide her glory and force her dignity to come from

somewhere other than her appearance (2010).

Is that it though? Is this head-covering thing mentioned briefly in 1 Corinthians 11 only a

historical norm that Paul was just trying to continue within the Church? Does it mean nothing

significant? I would argue no. Absolutely not, actually. It would be bold of us to assume that

anything in Scripture is more or less meaningless. In addition, as Witherington states, ​“Paul was

about the business of reforming his converts’ social assumptions and conventions in the context

of the Christian c​ommunity” (1995). In other words, Paul was all about changing believers’

outlooks to the world around them. We see this in how he pushes for obedience to the law to be

done out of faith rather than out of loyalty to tradition or out of hope to attain righteousness

(Rom. 3:31 NLT). Paul did not tell them to stop following the law, but gave them a correct

meaning​ to doing it. I think the same applies to this passage in 1 Corinthians 11. Though it does

not deal with Old Testament instruction, it does deal with people engaging in a specific culture

and finding out what it means to be a follower of Christ within that context. As we have seen, the
 Warnell 7

Corinthians were believers living in an extremely tiered society, being changed by the Gospel,

but still learning what it looked like to love each other. And this is where their vice-shepherd

comes in.

I believe Paul, who started off this letter by asking the Corinthian believers to live in

harmony with one another, without any division, being of one mind and “united in thought and

purpose” (1 Cor. 1:10 NLT) was simply carrying on this same purpose in chapter 11. Though the

culture at the time said that some women were worth more than others and gave them tangible

ways to show it, Paul knew that there are no tiers in the family of God and the Church should be

​ omen wear a
a place where that is clearly demonstrated. Therefore, by instituting that ​all w

head-covering​—​something that had become a symbol of a woman’s status, virtue, and security

(Ruden, 2010)​—​Paul would have been declaring that all women were of an equal status, virtue,

and security in Christ. Just as it is true that there is no distinction between Jew or Gentile, male

or female, slave or free (Gal. 3:28 NLT) because of Jesus’ work on the cross, there is also no

distinction of value between those of a culturally high or low status.

Some scholars like Trevor Burke and J.K. Elliot (2003) and Lucy ​Peppiatt and Douglas

Campbell (2015)​, however, take 1 Corinthians 11 and focus on gender roles within the Church

​ νδρὸς (translated “man”) and γυναικὸς (translated

because of the many references to ἀ

“woman”). They draw on verse three where Paul outlines the idea of headship and take it as the

foundation to which Paul rhetorically builds his argument of the need for a head-covering. For

this, I agree. It does seem like Paul is speaking a lot about gender roles within the Church and

perhaps even outside of the Church. My concentration, though, is more about the ​effect​ that a

head-covering would have had as far as female rank was concerned​—​something that Paul never
 Warnell 8

explicitly addresses in these 16 verses. While I do not disagree with the attention that scholars

have given to what is clearly seen in this chapter of 1 Corinthians, I am arguing that we cannot

stop there. Why? Because a head-covering would have done more than just affect the

relationship between men and women​—​it would have carried a message to everyone who saw it.

Even further, it would have established a completely new value system, putting all women on the

​ herefore, this would have meant that Paul took a symbol that once was used to
same level.​ T

divide and changed it to bring forth a commitment to unity and love as one body (Macolm,

2013). In urging for a head-covering to be placed on ​every​ woman’s head, Paul created a place

where no one would have been able to tell who was societally “deserving” of honor and who was

not (Ruden, 2010); because of Christ, ​all​ were deserving. As Ruden puts it, “All Christian

women were to cover their heads in church, without distinction of beauty, wealth,

respectability.” (2010, p. 87). At one glance, everyone would be reminded that all women were

to be equally valued.

To do a brief wrap up, we looked at what symbolism means and how it fits within the

realm of rhetoric. We then reviewed all that Paul says in the first 16 verses in 1 Corinthians and

supplemented that with some historical and cultural background information. Next, we looked at

scholarly views on what it would have meant for all women to have their heads covered in the

Church and then ended with my argument that Paul used the head-covering as a symbol to tear

down the cultural value system of women and replace it with an equality of high worth in Christ.

In other words, I argued that this seemingly odd head-covering became a rhetorical device to

institute “outrageous equality” in the Church of Christ (Ruden, 2010, p. 87). As Witherington

states, “Paul’s conception of equality is not just a nebulous theological idea. It has social
 Warnell 9

implications. Social ranking is the world’s way of valuing or evaluating people, and in Paul’s

view the form of this world is passing away. Therefore, he is happy to dismantle such ways of

measuring people” (1995, p. 239). And after looking at the research of scholars who have gone

before me, I believe that is exactly what the Apostle Paul did. As the loving shepherd and

educated rhetorician that he was, Paul took a symbol that was being used for segregation and

oppression in society to bring equality and unity between the Christian women in Corinth.

One question still remains. How does this apply to us today when head-coverings are not

the norm in our culture? If wealthy women wear Gucci, should lower class women find some

sort of knock-off to wear so that everyone is on the same level as far as appearance goes? Even if

that were possible, I would have to say no. Again, the power of a symbol lies in its ​meaning​.

Therefore, the head-covering was important because it meant that everyone was of the same

status in Christ. All tiers were banished and everyone was to be given honor. If we were to cover

our heads in the 21st century by taking 1 Corinthians 11 as a universal command that is outside

of time and culture, when we do not view head-coverings the same as people once did, we would

miss the point. The object would have lost its meaning and thus ceased to be a symbol in the way

Paul meant it to be. But, after looking at 1 Corinthians 11 rhetorically, we are able to find the

meaning​ in​ the symbol and bookmark this passage in Scripture as an example of Paul fighting for

equality among all women because of Christ. Therefore, the head-covering was not just about a

piece of cloth on a woman’s head. It was a visible reminder that the Cross has esteemed us all

equally​—​yes, even those who wear fishnet tights.

 Warnell 10

References

Allen, D. (2009). ​Talking to strangers.​ Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Burke, T., & Elliott, J. (2003). ​Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a community in conflict:

Essays in honour of Margaret Thrall​. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Heinrichs, J. (2017). ​Thank you for arguing.​ New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

Hylen, S. (2019). ​Women in the new testament world​. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hansberry, L. (1959). ​A raisin in the sun.​ New York, NY: Random House.

Kubo, S. (1980). ​A reader’s Greek-English lexicon of the new testament.​ Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

Malcolm, M. (2013). ​Paul and the rhetoric of reversal in 1 Corinthians: The impact of Paul's

gospel on his macro-rhetoric​. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Peppiatt, L., & Campbell, D. (2015). ​Women and worship at Corinth: Paul's rhetorical

arguments in 1 Corinthians​. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books.

Persuasion. (n.d.). In ​The Merriam-Webster.com dictionary​. Retrieved from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/persuade

Ruden, S. (2010). ​Paul among the people: The apostle reinterpreted and reimagined in his own

time.​ New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Symbolism. (n.d.). In ​The Merriam-Webster.com dictionary​. Retrieved from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/symbolism

Witherington, B. (1995). ​Conflict and community in Corinth: A socio-rhetorical commentary on

1 and 2 Corinthians​. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

 Warnell 11

Wood, E., & Latham, K. F. (2016). ​The objects of experience: Transforming visitor-object

encounters in museums.​ New York, NY: Routledge.

 Warnell 12

Growing up as “Daddy’s little girl” meant many things. First that I would be showered

with unconditional love, second that I would be spoiled, and third that my outfits would get full

inspections before I left the house.

Whether placed on by individuals or society as a whole, many things have rhetorically

been used as or created to be a symbol of a certain story or message (Wood & Latham, 2016).

The Bible is no exception to this.

My research deals with a time when Paul was a part of using a symbol to rhetorically

bring forth a theological truth which is found in the first 16 verses of 1 Corinthians 11 where he

brings up a “head-covering.” In the passage, he speaks of a need for a woman’s head to be

covered, saying that it would be shameful if it wasnt.

So in my paper I talk about historically and culturally what it meant for a woman’s head

to be covered, like only married women and women “worthy of honor or respect” aka the

wealthy and upper class. Therefore, if a woman wasn’t wearing a head-covering, she was less

valuable.

Therefore, I go into what it would have meant for ​all​ women’s heads to be

covered--placing them all on the same level, worthy of honor and respect because of the gospel.

Just as there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave and freee, there is no and should

be no distinction between social class, occupation, or marital status.

Though most scholars focus on the gender role side of the text and whatever that

translates to, if we come to the text from a rhetorical perspective, we are able to see what the

consequences of a symbol would have been.

 Warnell 13

Therefore, I argue that Paul took a symbol that was once used for segregation and

oppression and used it to institute equality within the Church because of the gospel. Showing that

that those wearing solid colored tights, fishnets, or no tights at all, are all equal in Christ.