Christian Dress and Grooming
Visiting a couple of your parishes, I
noticed that the women cover their heads in church. I asked Father [name deleted] when I
visited him. He explained that the women cover their heads in church, dont cut their
hair short and dont wear pants or tight clothes even outside church....The men he
said usually have moustaches and dress with long sleeves....I do not mean to be
disrespectful, but what does this have to do with Orthodoxy? There arent any church
teachings about these matters of personal choice, as far as I know. I am a woman and have
short hair and wear pants almost always (not in church). But this sounds a little fanatic
and strange to me. My priest says that it is quaint and borrowed from Protestant
fundamentalists, which surprised me. Perhaps you could say something about this in
Orthodox Tradition. (M.I., CA)
This question is one which comes up very often in the Church. It is not easy to answer,
since correct Christian behavior is predicated on the good intention of the Christian and
his desire to adhere to and follow the precepts of the Fathers of the Church. Church rules
never force a Christian to fulfill empty rules, but serve as guides to those who
intuitively grasp the fullness of the Faith, which leads us to a way of life in which even
the way that we eat, walk, speak, dress, and groom ourselves draws us and those around us
to a loftier life, making us a peculiar people and a people apart from the world (St.
Titus 2:14; St. John 15:19). Thus, for centuries Orthodox men and women have followed a
style of dress and adornment that reflects the ethos of a Christianity lived partly on
earth and partly in Heaven. Women have traditionally avoided cutting their hair short,
wearing male attire (pants and other clothes which emphasize the body),* or adorning
themselves with excessive jewelry and make-up. Men, too, are called to dress modestly, to
avoid wearing their hair in such a way as to appear effeminate, and to maintain at least a
moustache, so as to avoid the same impression. Orthodox Christians have adhered to these
traditions because they express a living Faith, not because faithfulness to such customs
and traditions is demanded by the Church or because they constitute, as such, matters of
confession. They are undertaken in that freedom which we all find in Christ, which is not
a fetter which binds, but a light yoke which helps us move forward in rightly cultivating
the seeds of the Christian life.
Having said this, there is, of course, a level at which the intentional defiance of
Church customs and traditions sometimes reflects a wrong course in ones spiritual
life and a worldly spirit that thwarts growth in Christ. This is especially true in an age
when men and women, but especially women, purposely pit their personal preferences and
perceived rights against ecclesiastical customs, somehow thinking that human rights (and
especially those of women)which the Church certainly respects and rightly
defendstake precedence over submission to the Church and Her traditions. In
voluntarily submitting to the Church, neither a man nor woman gives up his personal
rights; rather, he brings them into focus in the realm of humility and obedience which the
Church constitutes. If human rights are sacred in the world, they are made sublime when
they are freely relinquished in the ecclesiastical kingdom of humility. For our freedom in
Christ makes submission victorious and self-elevating and self-assertion self-defeating.
Moreover, when a turning-away from humility and modesty leads others into sin, as is often
the case with immodest apparel and stylish dress (after all, "sex appeal" and
style are not separate things, and most certainly so in the world of womens
fashion), then, whatever ones intentions, he risks scandalizing others. Here
intention becomes a secondary issue and the lack of discretion and prudence convict a
violator of Church custom by the harm brought upon others.
If all of this seems to be simply a matter of hard-headed fanaticism on the part of
traditionalist "fundamentalists"a popular accusation these days, let
us point out that the Patristic and Canonical witness of the Church is unequivocal in
setting forth rules that call both men and women to a strict standard of modesty, with
special attention to womens attire, adornment, and grooming. And this witness would
lead any prudent Christian to believe that the Churchs proscription against immodest
dress and grooming in womenwhether in wearing pants, tight dresses, and otherwise
revealing clothing, or in excessively cutting, styling, and adorning their hairis
anything but fundamentalistic. Ecclesiastical teaching on this matter is wise, moderate,
and commendable. Nor can one justly argue that the practice of a woman covering her head
during prayer is demeaning or primitive. It is a part of tradition, binds her, once more,
to the liberating submissiveness that is freedom in Christ, and brings her to a state of
greater glory, to expand on the words of St. Paul (I Corinthians 11:15), than even the
hair which adorns her head. In this submission, she is one with the Christian man, who in
his quiet obedience to the Church also learns from and draws on her exemplary witness.
There follow, then, a few representative Patristic and Canonical passages on the matter of
modesty in Christian dress and grooming, only several from the very many others that could
be cited.
In his twenty-sixth Homily on I Corinthians (Patrologia
Graeca, Vol. LXI, Cols. 219-220), St. John Chrysostomos, citing St. Pauls
declaration, "[I]f a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is
given her for a covering" (I Corinthians 11:15), pointedly notes that this
understanding is "not unknown even to Barbarians." He further observes that
"it is a shame for a woman to have cut hair or a shaved head." With regard to
controversy arising from St. Pauls prescription that woman cover their heads in
Church, he writes: "And if...[her hair]...be given her for a covering,
say you, wherefore need she add another covering? That not only nature, but
also her own will may take part in her acknowledgment of subjection." In short, the
Divine Chrysostomos, one of the greatest of the Church Fathers, supports St. Pauls
desire that a Christian woman should not cut and shave her hair, while pointing out that
the obedience of covering her head in prayer is an act of subjection to God and the
Church. He further warns that to ignore these things is to "subvert the very laws of
nature" and demonstrates a spirit of "most insolent rashness."
In his eighth Homily on I St. Timothy (see Patrologia
Graeca, Vol. LXII, Cols. 540-542), St. John
Chrysostomos also speaks to us about St. Pauls admonition that women dress and adorn
themselves modestly, avoiding excessive jewelry, decoration, and flamboyant dress (I St.
Timothy 2:9). "Paul, however, requires something more of women," he notes:
"That they adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and
sobriety; not with broided [coiffured] hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But
(which becometh women professing godliness) with good works." Elaborating on
this passage, he asks: "But what is this modest apparel? Such attire as
covers them wholly and properly, not with superfluous ornaments, for the one is
appropriate, while the other is not." He directs to women who ignore these guidelines
some sternly sobering words: "Do you approach God to pray with styled hair and gold
jewelry? Have you come to a dance, a marriage, or some fancy parade? There such styling
and costly clothing may be acceptable, but here [in Church] none of this is desirable. You
come here to pray [and] to beg for the forgiveness of your sins.... This is not the dress
of a suppliant....She who weeps should not be wearing gold. This is nothing but acting
and hypocrisy....Put away such hypocrisy! God is not mocked! This is the garb of actors
and dancers... Nothing of this kind is appropriate to a modest woman, who should be
adorned with shamefacedness and sobriety."
On these subjects the canonical witness of the Church is also not silent. The
Ninety-Sixth Canon of the Synod in Trullo ["Penthekte"]
reads: "Those who are by baptism clothed in Christ have professed that they will
imitate His way of life in the flesh. Those, therefore, who style and trim the hairs of
their head, to the ruin of onlookers, with inventive intertwinings, and thereby provide
enticement for unstable souls, we paternally proffer an appropriate penance, so as to cure
them, instructing and teaching them to live prudently, setting aside the deceit and vanity
of materialism, that they might ever give over their minds to a blessed life without
havoc, being fearful in their pure intercourse, thus approaching God to the extent
possible through their purity of life; embellishing the inner man instead of the outer, so
that, adorned with virtues and sweet and blameless ways, there might not be in them the
remains of the coarseness of the adversary. But if any should act in opposition to the
present Canon, let him be kept from communing." (See Pedalion, or The Rudder,
Thessaloniki: B. Regopoulos, 1982, p. 305).
Commenting in his "Interpretation" of this Canon, St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite
punctuates the fact that it provides excommunication (suspension from Holy Communion for a
period of time, as specified by ones Confessor) for "those Christians who style
the hair of their head, and comb it and wave it, and flaunt it as enticement to those
souls who are of weak faith and easily led astray," pointing out that this admonition
falls on both men and women. He emphasizes that Christians must conduct themselves in an
innocent and pure manner, avoiding all vanity and falseness, adorning the soul with virtue
and eschewing the marks of the Devil that the stylish adorning of the body entails. (Ibid., pp. 304-306.)
While, once more, the Canons of the Church are not meant to violate our freedom in
Christ or to form our faith by dead rules that fail to acknowledge both the good
intentions of those who at times err and the exceptions to rules that lie within the realm
of pastoral discretion, St. Nicodemos comments should serve as a reminder to all of
us that the customs and traditions of the Church are not things with which we are free to
trifle; nor, indeed, should personal opinion, mere convenience, or an abuse of pastoral
condescension lead us into a way of life that serves as a source of scandal to others and
to violations of the standard of sobriety to which all Christians are called. It goes
without saying, of course, that, in upholding the traditional grooming customs and dress
codes of the Church, we should never judge or condemn anyone among the Faithful who
deviates from them. We should approach them with care and evaluate each individual by the
quality of his or her Christian life. As for individuals who openly defy the customs and
traditions in question out of tenacity, making "excuses in sins" (Psalm 140, Septuaginta), and who refuse at the very least
to acknowledge their weakness, let the Church leaders settle the matter. The Faithful
should not make such things a matter of rigid rules and division, lest they, too, become a
source of scandal and act in a truly sectarian manner, rightly earning the condemnation
improperly attributed to us traditionalists by overt innovators who would like to dismiss
all that is difficult in the Faith as fundamentalistic.
* With regard to "cross-dressing," or dress styles which downplay the
distinction between men and women, the Old Testamental witness is worthy of mention here:
"The apparel of a man shall not be on a woman, neither shall a man put on a
womans dress; for every one that does these things is an abomination to the Lord thy
God" (Deuteronomy 22:5). This very proscription is contained in the Canons of the
Church, too; see Canon XIII of the Council of Gangra (340) and Canon LXII of the Sixth
cumenical Synod (Pedalion, op. cit., pp. 401, 275, respectively).
From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVII
(January, 2000, forthcoming), pp. 24-28.
|