Having, then, established that Paul's understanding about head coverings is grounded and established in the Word of God, Paul appeals to conscience, "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?" (1 Corinthians 11:13). Paul was saying that if you doubt his interpretation or his authority to make such determinations, then use your own judgment. Paul was not forcing his authority down their proverbial throats. Rather, Paul allows -- better yet, encourages -- people to rely upon their own conscience to determine what to do about head coverings. It is not a salvation issue. It's a cultural practice issue. It's a family issue, and it is an issue of conscience.The KJV says that it is comely for women to pray uncovered. Comely means proper, becoming, suitable, winsome, graceful, fitting, and right. Webster (1828) said, "Applied to person or form, it (comely) denotes symmetry or due proportion, but it expresses less than beautiful or elegant." Paul's teaching about head coverings appeals to a sense of propriety, of acceptable behavior or morality. Interestingly, for most of history in most cultures "uncovered" women were considered to be whores or prostitutes, to be without husbands, to be without the authority or protection of a father or husband -- unprotected and vulnerable. Only in the Modern and Postmodern West has this changed. Or has it?1 Corinthians 11:14 & 15 comprise one sentence or idea, "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering." Paul previously appealed to God's Word -- and the various structures of authority given therein -- and to human conscience. Here he appeals to nature to make his point. Paul was appealing to something that is inwardly innate or self-evident. It is an appeal to character, specifically to Christian character.May I suggest that Paul was appealing to the cultural maintenance of the social distinction between the sexes. In every human culture there are important social and cultural differences between men and women, differences that are manifest in dress, mannerisms, role and character. Some of these differences are apparent to an observer, and some are difficult for an untrained eye to see. At root Paul was appealing to the innate differences between masculinity and femininity. And Paul was saying that it is important to preserve such differences both personally and culturally. Men and women should look different and act different because they are different.Defining or describing masculinity and femininity is quite difficult, if not impossible. Definitions and descriptions -- words -- struggle to capture the differences. And yet the differences are quite real. People tend to know the difference when they see it, to know it when they experience it. But putting it into words turns it into an abstraction. Words alone don't do it justice. And that is Paul's point here.Paul was suggesting that God has distributed authority and responsibility differently to men and women, that God does not treat the sexes the same, so neither should we. And part and parcel of that difference will manifest -- must manifest -- itself in various cultural practices. It may not make any difference what those particular cultural practices are, as long as they are different. But if it doesn't really matter what they are, then there is no good argument for disagreeing with Paul's injunctions regarding head coverings.Paul relates the differences between men and women to their heads because Scripture provides a difference in authority and responsibility between husbands and wives. And the symbolism of head coverings points to the head, to authority. Men are not better than women, or visa versa. They are simply different, and the differences are a matter of character and culture as well as biology. The differences are also real and are to be respected personally and culturally.In conclusion Paul said, "If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God" (1 Corinthians 11:16). John Gill sums up this thought well: "a man that is always contending for contention sake, and is continually caviling and carping at everything that is said and done in churches, and is always quarreling with one person or another, or on account of one thing or another, and is constantly giving uneasiness, is not fit to be a church member; nor ought he to be suffered to continue in the communion of the church, to the disturbance of the peace of it" (John Gill's Exposition of the Bible).Strong words, but worthy of consideration.So, should contemporary women wear head coverings? The first question to ask is, Who has jurisdiction to countermand Paul's teaching? Is it simply a women's issue? Or is it a family matter? Or should your local pastor weigh in? It seems to me that the pastor's job is to make the teaching of the Bible plain, and allow the freedom of conscience to dictate personal behavior, particularly in a case like this where the only sin -- if there be any sin at all -- is against God.Christ abrogated several Old Testament practices as He fulfilled the Law's demands and brought the fullness of God's grace to bear upon the world. As far as I can tell, this is not one of them, but you may see it differently.