There is a theme that comes up again and again in different denominations, churches and forms of community. It is sometimes called “the women’s issue”. It is often about a “doctrine of subordination”, the relationship between the sexes and the associated interpretation of a supposedly necessary head covering for women. It’s about traditions and the reasoning behind it.
First of all, it should be recognized that there are many traditions and that large parts of Christianity have given form to these traditions through outward signs over the last 2000 years. This also includes a woman’s head covering. Many people value traditions. However, a tradition is not a justification, but appears instead of a justification.
The point here is not to demonize one view and declare another super-sacred. That would just be a pointless battle over appearances. I think it makes much more sense to ask about the reasons. While some people take the traditions of their environment for granted and without further thought, others actively look for reasons to do so. Both women and men look for connections because they want to live their lives congruently with their beliefs.
A “woman’s head covering” appears in many cultures, including several Christian traditions. However, this does not mean that it is interpreted in the same way everywhere. In the West, a woman’s head covering often appears as an anachronism, as something that has fallen out of time, even as inappropriate, backward-looking. The naturalness with which Christian women wear a head covering today is limited to some faith communities and denominations. However you evaluate your own custom: A head covering is by no means an expression of Christian culture everywhere.
What Paul writes
The head covering is often based on the Bible. This refers primarily to a specific chapter from the first letter to the Corinthians. This is the text in question:
“Become imitators of me, just as I am of Christ!
But I praise you for remembering me in everything and for keeping the instructions I have handed down to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, but the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.
Any man who covers his head while praying or prophesying is desecrating his head. On the other hand, every woman who has her head uncovered when praying or prophesying desecrates her head; it is one and the same as if she were shaven. But if a woman does not cover herself, then she may also be shaved. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shaved or shorn bald, she should cover herself. The man, however, should not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God. The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man; after all, the man was not created from the woman, but the woman from the man. For man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. Therefore, the woman should have authority over her head for the sake of the messengers.
However, in the Lord neither the woman is anything without the man nor the man without the woman. For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.
Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God without a veil? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long, it is a dishonor to him? If, on the other hand, the woman wears her head hair long, it is her glory, since the head hair is given to her instead of a covering.
But if anyone thinks he is allowed to be arrogant: We do not have such a habit, nor do the called-out churches of God.
Now when I instruct the following, I am not praising you, because you are not coming together for something better, but for something inferior. For, first, I hear that there are divisions among you in your meetings in the called-out churches; and in part I believe it. For there must be sectarianism among you too, so that those among you who are tried and tested may be revealed.”
1 Corinthians 11:1-19
It is a long text, from an even longer letter to a chaotic congregation. Paul not only calls on the church to imitate him, Paul, as he himself imitates Christ. He also refers to divisions and the formation of sects. This is not the first or only time in this letter. In the first chapter he already speaks of grievances (1Cor 1,10-13) and in the second and third chapters of the lack of a spiritual attitude (1Cor 2,6; 1Cor 3,1-4). The Corinthians were still minors in the faith.
This background to the letter is significant. We will continue to look at these things, asking ourselves how Paul’s words in chapter eleven shape his concern for this church. Is there a requirement from God that women must have textiles on their heads, while men must keep their heads uncovered? Or is Paul addressing a particular situation in the church that he wants to correct?
Based on the biblical text, I come to the following conclusion: Paul is describing the custom of the time and is not introducing a new, eternally valid rule. The answer to the question about head coverings is therefore: No, God does not require a head covering. In the following, we go through the considerations of various approaches and do not shy away from biblical interpretation. Because it is important what the apostle’s concern was and to whom it was directed and by what examples. In other words, it is about a different interpretation than many teach, which nevertheless comes directly from the biblical text.
Covered or uncovered?
As a man, reverence for God is expressed differently in Christianity than in Judaism. In Christianity, for example, men must keep their heads uncovered in churches out of respect. In Judaism, on the other hand, the man’s head covering is an expression of reverence for God. This is reminiscent of an extraordinary scene of confusion in a comedy by Louis de Funès, who, as a Catholic, ends up in a synagogue in the course of the film, whereupon chaos breaks out. It starts with the headgear being misinterpreted:
Original on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDuBwZYNKQ
Religiosity
Anyone who wears a head covering does so for religious reasons. But what is religiosity?
Religiosity is the outward expression of a belief. If you believe with your heart, it is inward. When this inward belief pushes outwards, it becomes outward. People can decide on external things and thus cultivate a certain religiosity. Everyone is free to choose their own expression, their own religiosity. If you are part of a community, you may consciously want to be part of this community and align yourself with the religious expression of faith. That means you “belong”. People dress similarly, adapt to the local culture, practise the same rituals and so on.
So what is the function of a headscarf? Is covering or not covering the head an expression of these beliefs? Is that religious behavior? Or is one “obedient to the Bible” because one has been told that this or that expression of faith is “biblical”? I am asking for motives here. Everyone is allowed to choose their own expression and I am not judging here. However, I am and remain curious about what moves you.
Here is the clarification: God is not religious, man is. It is the person who chooses certain rituals, traditions or habits in order to express their religiosity. It can be helpful to differentiate between “internal” and “external” in order to ask what function the external expression has for you, me or someone else.
Religiosity manifests itself in clothing, the observance of certain days or festivals, the renunciation of certain foods and the like. Paul dealt with this in detail in Colossians, chapter 2, and summarizes this religiosity with the words: “which are of no value except to gratify the flesh” (Col 2). In other words, people’s religiosity only serves themselves and not God. Religiosity is therefore not wrong, but simply one’s own choice, which one assigns a meaning to. Perhaps this is concealed with expressions such as “It is written in the Bible”, but Paul, for example, never justified anything like this. That should make you sit up and take notice.
So if Paul is very critical of religious rituals and habits, why would he want to introduce something like a head covering in 1 Corinthians, chapter 11?
Contextualization
Many cultures know headscarves. But if you are in Western Europe today, there is usually no tradition of headscarves. Nevertheless, tradition is an expression of a certain understanding of faith. That’s what we’re talking about here.
Many Christians today read the Bible from the perspective of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, which is often interpreted to mean that God inspired every letter of the Bible today. This inspiration is interpreted with two ideas: On the one hand, every letter should be dictated by God (leading to the deification of the Bible), while on the other hand, the now deified Bible should give behavioral patterns for believers that are always valid. After deification comes the generalization of the Bible for all time.
Two things happen here as an interpretation: the Bible is deified on the one hand and generalized on the other. Both of these things are assumptions about the Bible and not things that can be found back in the Bible. Both the deification and the generalization of the Bible are not part of the biblical message and must be taken for granted as an interpretation, so that one can suddenly read “Paul’s letter to the Corinthians” as “God’s requirements for believers of all times”. In this way, we move from an understanding of the Bible as a “testimony” to an understanding of it as a “fashion manual for today”.
If only they were clothes! But it often does not. In a culture in which the wearing of headscarves is no longer customary, it still seems to be an expression of particularly pious behavior in some Christian communities. Further assumptions are also possible. Clothing is only an expression of what you have internalized. In plain language: this approach to the Bible corresponds to a certain, perhaps even legal, way of thinking in which “right action and faith” are central. In this view, one understands: headscarf for women = good.
Here’s the tricky part and the question you might ask yourself: If I want to accept the Bible as the basis for life and faith, does that apply
- literally (according to the interpretation of my community),
- for inspiration or
- different again?
In more legal-minded circles, this is understood literally andeverything is referred to itself. So you go from pious to more pious to headgear. My question here is: Was this the apostle Paul’s intention?
If you ask this question, you can ask about the apostle’s concern. Why does he start talking about this topic, why does he mention a head covering here and what is his intention? These questions are intended to arouse interest in the apostle’s concerns. It is about contextualizing what is written.
A contextualization attempts to read the text in its own context. This is an attempt. It is also the opposite of viewing the Bible as a timeless oracle for determining religious obligations. Contextualization assumes that the letter was written for a specific named audience and has a direct meaning for this target group. This is the first stage of viewing the text, so to speak. The aim here is to find out what the writer said to the Corinthians and why he wrote it the way he did. It is the desire to understand the listeners of the time.
A contextualization asks about the addressees in their time. Such a question is of course based on the assumption that the Bible is “divine and valid for all times”. You stir up fear when you ask about what the first listeners may have heard. A headwind immediately arises. Why? It’s very uncomfortable because you might find things that don’t match your internalized ideas. You feel threatened. This triggers a backlash.
I would like to give the all-clear for all sides here: Everyone interprets. We have to interpret and cannot prevent an interpretation. We can’t avoid it at all. Those who do not entrench themselves in supposedly absolute ideas, but rather curiously inquire into connections, prove to be sober.
Paul consciously contextualizes
The considerations so far are only intended to clarify something: Our starting points for interpreting a text often lie outside the text. How we interpret Scripture is almost never dependent only on the Bible, but also on the assumptions that we first superimpose on the Bible. These basic assumptions shape what is possible in the interpretation. This is particularly evident in texts such as 1 Corinthians 11, which deal with external things that are not explained in detail.
Here is an assumption that perhaps helps a little further, despite everything: if a certain custom, a point of view, an action is not explained in great detail, it can be assumed that it was nevertheless understood by the first listeners.
For example, when Paul speaks of “it is fitting …” (1 Corinthians 11:13), he explains that he is relying on a custom, a moral understanding or something similar that he takes for granted among his listeners. This corresponds to a contextualization.
The same applies to a statement such as “Do not let nature itself teach you …” (1 Corinthians 11:14). This is not scientific knowledge about “the” nature, but the understanding of nature of his time. Or perhaps even better: an understanding of what was considered “natural” in his time. This is also heavily dependent on fashion, the zeitgeist and the like. Anything else makes no sense for a normal letter to a community. Paul is not explaining the universe here, nature in general. Even less does it make a certain view binding for all times. It is not about “nature”, but about an understanding of what was considered natural in his time.
Anything else makes no sense for a normal letter to a community.
No one expects a church newsletter to be about “eternal values”. Who would have needed or understood something like that there? That would go far beyond the scope of this letter. Bear in mind that Paul’s letters were only recognized as part of the biblical testimony centuries later and included in the canon of the New Testament. It is astonishing that quite a few people today want to ignore such natural boundaries as the “intention of the letter” and derive universally valid rules from them.
Paul contextualizes. Let’s move on to the interpretation.
1. The initial situation
Paul is writing to a church that is only just discovering itself. Everything is still chaotic. They are described by Paul as minors, as we read earlier.
At the end of the tenth chapter, the apostle writes about how believers should prove themselves in their society:
“Conduct yourselves in an unobjectionable manner among Jews and Greeks alike and in the called-out church of God, just as I also strive to please everyone in everything, seeking not what is good for myself but what is good for the many, so that they may be saved. Become imitators of me, just as I also follow Christ’s example!”
1Cor 10:32-11:1
These statements immediately precede Chapter 11. Paul does not seek himself, but has in mind what is beneficial to many. When he then says: “Become my imitators!”, this statement also applies to his behavior in the world. Paul should not only be imitated in relation to God and his personal life, but also explicitly in relation to the church and the society of his time. Paul emphasizes what helps everyone. It’s as if he’s saying: “Stop navel-gazing and take a look around the world!”.
He expects the same attitude from the Corinthians. They should imitate him in this because it corresponded to the attitude of Christ. Note that he speaks here of “Jews as well as Greeks”, in addition to the called-out church of God. He wants to please everyone here, which is another way of describing “being unobjectionable”.
Paul explicitly refers here to the typical groups that the church members have to deal with in their society: Jews and Greeks in Corinth (a Greek city in the Roman Empire). The apostle insists that believers stand unobjectionably in their world and even try to please everyone. Only then does the description of headgear follow. A contextualization in the time of the apostle was given by the apostle himself. Contextualization is therefore “biblical”.
2. Subordination
Particularly important in many justifications of headgear is the doctrine of subordination. The woman should be subordinate to the man, but it’s about much more than that. This is derived from verses like this one. Paul writes:
“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, but the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.”
1Cor 11,3
According to this statement by Paul and the interpretation of his words, there is a hierarchy: God > Christ > Man > Woman. It is considered by many to be the divine hierarchy, or the gold standard for conveying God’s blessings. The idea behind this is that if we align ourselves with this submission, God’s blessing can flow. A noble pursuit.
The flip side is this: Anyone who resists this hierarchy resists God’s blessing. It doesn’t say that, but it is inferred that way. The focus is on a hierarchy that is extended to a blessing. What is conveyed is that everyone wants to be a channel of blessing for the next person. Subordination recognizes this hierarchy of effects. I have often heard the internalized understanding in this or similar terms.
Submission is an important topic for the apostle, which he mentions in various places in his letters. Submission goes so far that it becomes an important description in the accomplishment of God’s purpose. In the same letter Paul writes:
“For He (Christ) must reign as King until He puts all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be put down is death. For He (God) subordinated everything to Him (Christ): under His feet. When He then says: “Everything has been subordinated!”, it is obvious that God is exempt, who subordinated the universe to Him. But if the universe is subordinate to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subordinate to Him who subordinated the universe to Him, so that God may be all in all.”
1Cor 15:25-28
Subordination here is the prerequisite for God to one day be “all in all”. That would be the ultimate goal of God, as he describes it in the Bible. It is the broadest vision we find in Scripture. Paul is looking far beyond the scope of Revelation, for example.
One could also read here: Paul understood in his time that everything should have its place, and subordination was the best way to think of it. I am not relativizing subordination, but explaining it not as “God’s will”, but as an “understanding of God and the world”. The first would be an absolute order, so to speak an order of the law dictated by God, which must be obeyed through obedience, while the second was a general understanding, understood both within the church and among Jews and Greeks (compare 1 Corinthians 10:32-33). In the second case, it would be a concept that Paul extracted from the society of the time in order to use it as a tool in his preaching.
If one follows this last interpretation as an understanding of God and the world, it fits both in the letter and in the time and general understanding of that time. At the same time, we follow Paul in his efforts to remain culturally relevant in his time. The text then fits better in the context of 1 Corinthians than if you postulate the 11th chapter as “eternally valid rules for a head covering”.
Subordination would be a topic in itself, because the world view and the understanding of faith both use this language. To the extent that subordination was anchored in society, it can indeed be found in ancient societies. This would be an expression of a patriarchal understanding, which Paul does not generally criticize, but which was certainly present in society. In all clarity: Paul nowhere advocates patriarchy or ideologies. His concern is always different. He perceives the general structure without defending or refuting it.
Here is the differentiation: the moment Paul takes this reality into account, he does not want to abolish the uniformity within the church, but consciously differentiates between society on the one hand and the church on the other. Within the church, men and women are equal (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 11:11-12). With regard to behavior in society, he emphasizes that he wants to be unobjectionable because his theme is obviously not submission, but Christ (1 Cor. 10:32-33). His concern is not to introduce moral rules, but to win people for Christ.
3. Headship
Paul mentions submission with reference to a “headship” for man, Christ and God. The head of Christ is God. The head of the woman is the man. This comparison is intended to illustrate the relationship. This submission is now seen as an example of a Christian way of life.
Again and again I have heard how the equalization of man and woman has another aspect, in which the woman should submit to the man, just as Christ voluntarily submits to God. It is more or less voluntary, but it is taught emphatically. There is a two-stage plan: Conformity is to be “in Christ”, while submission is to be found in the way of life and expression “in the Lord”.
Here, however, in 1 Corinthians, it says : “But in the Lord neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman” (1 Corinthians 11:11). That is clearly “in the Lord” here. Is that how you see it so far? Then consider this text as a stimulus to learn to read the Scriptures with new eyes. The doctrine of subordination does not seem to me to be entirely congruent.
Precisely because many people want to fit in with these ideas of subordination for the best of reasons, it should be emphasized here that Paul is responding to the spirit of his time with these thoughts. For many evangelicals, zeitgeist is a “bad word”: the Bible is good, but zeitgeist is bad. Something like this. I know this because I once stood there. The fact that Paul now explicitly places his letter in the context of society and mentions concepts from this society as examples is significant. With these ideas, he reflects his time and the ideas surrounding the community. He uses these ideas soberly to present order, but is not enraptured in higher spheres to express “heavenly truths”.
Paul explicitly refers to the society in Corinth outside the church. I suspect a similar comparison as in his speech on the Areopagus, where he refers to the religiosity of the Athenians (Acts 17). He does not do this in order to adopt the ideas of the Athenians as the content of his faith, but to explain something else.
At this point, I am rather surprised that the subordination, or headship of man over woman, is understood as a divine gender classification. I understand that this is a direct comparison of Christ and God, but the argument can also be read the other way round without doing violence to the text: “Just as these principles function in the society around you, I now use them as an example with regard to God and his Christ”. Paul refers to a generally recognized order that would not sound strange to Jews, Greeks or people in the church.
The reason for all these things is this: “I strive to please everyone in everything, seeking not what is good for myself but what is good for the many, so that they may be saved. Become imitators of me, just as I also follow Christ’s example!” (1 Cor 10:32-11:1).
Paul refers to this order because there was disorder in the Corinthian church. He does not introduce patriarchy here, but points to order in order to enable spiritual growth. He wants to encourage this. The chaotic congregation should internalize the orders in their society, because obviously not everything of their previous understanding of faith is suitable (conducive) for building up. One problem in the congregation was apparently that grace led to the assumption that there were no more barriers at all. It was correctly understood that everything is permitted through grace, but the function of grace was still misunderstood. Everything is allowed, but not everything builds up. The last one was lost somewhere and disorder and chaos entered the community.
In the previous chapter, Paul wrote: “Everything is lawful for me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is lawful for me, but not everything builds up” (1 Corinthians 10:23). In view of the sectarianism and other problems of this particular church, it seems that the grace of God has been understood as a license to live a dissolute life (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1). Chaotic conditions had to be corrected. In this sense, Paul refers to orderly structures in society, such as “subordination” as a principle, and “structure between spouses” as generally understandable references. You should encourage the Corinthians to allow more order in their lives and in your community.
Paul is not introducing a patriarchy here in a super-pious way, as if “serious believers” had to implement it now. Nor does it confirm patriarchy. He is concerned with building up the community, being an adult and behaving accordingly. He does not introduce ideologies, nor does he fight for ideological interpretations, but uses elements and even points of view from his surroundings to make the community healthy.
4. Covering the head
In 1 Corinthians 11:4-10, a head covering is mentioned. Many Christians read this as a direct instruction and want to follow it. In the sense of: “It says here, so that’s what I do”.
This reflexive interpretation is based on the wording, but not on the text that Paul once wrote to the church in Corinth for their specific situation. The difference is remarkable. I already mentioned at the beginning of this article what underlies this reflex: it is the deification of the Bible and the generalization of the statements that lead to this. It is therefore assumptions about the text that lead to a certain interpretation, not the information from the text.
Headgear, especially for married women in antiquity, is attested. So if head coverings in those days meant that you were married as a woman, that was a custom. A reference to it can express general social relevance and thus speak of order. Paul refers to this because there was chaos in the Corinthian church. So you can read:
“Every man who covers his head when he prays or prophesies dishonors his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered when she prays or prophesies dishonors her head; for it is one and the same as if she were shaven.”
1Cor 11:4-5
This reads as a reference to generally known customs, not as the introduction of new behaviors. The last addition is also significant: an uncovered head of a married woman declares her to be shaven. There is evidence that married women who left the house without a head covering were considered immoral.
There is also talk of men having short hair. Everyone should recognize “by nature” what is right. But remember that men like Absalom and Samson had long hair and were never criticized for it. In addition, Paul once shaved his hair for a vow and did not cut it for a long time afterwards. Did Paul once travel with long hair? And what is it like today when someone loses their hair as a result of chemotherapy or for other reasons? Will mercy then apply?
None of these situations were a problem. We should therefore be careful not to speak of general “eternal rules” or to extract the statements from their cultural context. That would not do justice to the text. Is Paul (or God) demanding a head covering here? That can be answered better now. The answer is simple: No! Paul describes the custom of the time here, but does not introduce a new rule.
Whether a Christian woman uses a head covering or not should be an expression of the customs of her environment and time. In some countries this is common, and that’s okay. In other countries this is unusual and therefore also okay. If you want to join an orthodox or whatever religious community because you like going there, then that is the locally colored culture. Before God, it doesn’t matter whether you appear somewhere with short or long hair, with or without a head covering. Classification into categories such as wrong, half-right or completely right merely corresponds to human religious efforts, not to a divine order. Those who adapt to the local culture do so in order to please themselves and the people around them. There is no other reason.
You are free before God to go there with or without a head covering. However, you can show respect. Such an attitude has nothing to do with your conscience, but with that of others (see the discussion about sacrificial meat in the same letter. 1Cor 8:8-13).
You are free to do and free to leave. Think about what serves to build it up. This endeavor corresponds to grace.
5. Angels
Apart from the doctrine of subordination, there is another reason why a woman should wear a head covering. This is supposed to be because of the angels:
“Therefore the woman shall have authority over her head for the sake of the messengers (angels).”
1Cor 11,10
In this context, the woman is of course the wife again. She should have “authority over her head for the sake of the messengers”. This power of attorney should then be made of textile (sometimes a veil, cloth, hat or a combination of these, such as a hat with a veil). Paul does not explain these things in great detail, which is why it can be assumed that he is again referring to well-known norms or stories that were known at the time. There are no direct biblical references for these statements.
Presumably Paul is referring to stories or interpretations in circulation. As explained earlier, his aim is not to introduce new customs, but to take existing customs into account. Respecting these customs leads to more order in the Corinthian church. No outlandish doctrines should be derived from these few references; no doctrines of angels and no fantasies about what exactly the authority should be will help.
A sober look at the Bible asks about two things: Why and for what purpose are these things mentioned? The chaos in the church in Corinth and the apostle’s concern to restore order and communal spiritual growth there provide sufficient reason for all his statements.
6. Man and woman
After Paul has listed all these things, he immediately emphasizes how men and women are equal in the church:
“But in the Lord the woman is not without the man, nor the man without the woman. For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God.”
1Cor 11:11-12
Is this the logical continuation or the necessary correction? Anyone who would deduce from the preceding sentences that women “have to subordinate themselves” will be proven wrong here. Anyone who wants to introduce patriarchy will be corrected here. It should be borne in mind that the church was a contrast to the culture of the time. Even if differences applied outside the church, they were abolished within the church (Gal 3:28).
If you want to see these verses as a continuation of the previous thoughts, you have to go beyond the apostle’s concerns. His aim was to establish order in the community, but not at the expense of these or those. Those who are only interested in rankings fail to recognize the apostle’s concerns. Peace in the congregation and growth of the community cannot be represented by hierarchies. They are measured by other things.
7. judge for yourselves
Paul has now completed the context. He wants to enable order in the community. Did everyone understand that? He now summarizes some similar questions and begins with:
“Judge for yourselves!”
1Cor 11,13
This brings the interpretation to the Corinthian church. They should not simply speak out for or against Paul. Their sectarian behavior has already made this similar. People have spoken out in favor of this one and against that one. Paul now holds them responsible himself by saying: “Judge for yourselves!”. In other words: learn to draw the right conclusions yourself now!
Now he mentions various expressions that I already mentioned at the beginning: “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?” (1Cor 11:13). The apostle refers to customs, to a general understanding of “what is proper”. That’s all there is to it. Everyone should know this from common culture. If we don’t do this today, it’s because we are at home in a different culture. Paul would probably have said something different to believers in today’s Western culture. Why? He did not want to introduce patriarchy or superficiality, or stylize religious symbolism, but rather focus on the essentials. Order in the congregation should enable the development of faith.
Likewise, Paul says: “Do not let nature itselfteach you…” (1Cor 11:14). Examples follow. However, everything here speaks of an understanding of nature that cannot be explained by nature, but by local customs. Men with long hair have already been named. Nature here is another term for the accepted culture. Paulus did not want to market an eco razor. As mentioned, he was concerned with behavior and appearance in the community, among Jews and Greeks. No one should behave offensively there. Everyone should have the welfare of others in mind and take care of them (1Cor 10:29; 1Cor 10:33).
It seems that splitting hairs led to divisions in the church (1 Corinthians 11:17-19). Sectarianism was the result. Whether and how you covered your hair was secondary. That was something that was done in society. The community, on the other hand, is characterized by other, better things.
“If a man wears his hair long, it is a dishonor to him. But if a woman wears her hair long, it is her glory, since her hair is given to her instead of a covering. But if anyone thinks he may be arrogant, we do not have such a habit, nor do the called-out churches of God.”
1Cor 11,14-16
Splitting hairs leads to dogmatism. Neither serves anyone. Paul clarifies his position here by making it clear that he does not want to dwell on such ideas.