A Response to the Catholic School Board’s Hairstyle Policy

My name is Darren Wilson. While you may or may not have heard of me, for the sake of context, I identify as a citizen of the Kingdom of God through faith in Jesus Christ and a servant of His Kingdom message. I believe in the authority of Scripture, and I have dedicated more than a decade to studying and teaching biblical principles and concepts with the goal of remaining faithful to their original meaning and cultural context. This experience, I believe, grants me some credibility in engaging discussions related to biblical and spiritual matters.

Having read the Catholic school board’s letter in its entirety, I conclude that this is an example of what occurs when biblically illiterate individuals govern institutions that claim to be founded on biblical principles. (Yes, I said that, and the Catholic school board can come for me if they want to. I'm easily found, and I don’t run from smoke). Nothing provokes my spiritual frustration more than when people misuse Scripture to justify preconceived notions that lack biblical foundation. With this in mind, I will respond to the board’s misuse of Scripture but before I do that, I want to address their appeal to human rights law.

𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

The school board’s letter dated August 18, 2025, cited 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝟐 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 (𝐄𝐂𝐇𝐑), which states:

“No person shall be denied a right to an education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

However, the school board’s policy indirectly denies access to Christian-based education by refusing admission to and/or targeting children on the basis of their hairstyle. Furthermore, the board omitted the provision that schools may apply admission policies if they are “objective and reasonable” (Council of Europe, 1950/2010). A policy that targets hairstyles while attempting to ground itself in “sacred Scripture” is neither objective nor reasonable. Comparing hijabs with so-called “biblical hairstyle requirements” is a false equivalence and a weak attempt to claim religious discrimination under Article 14 of the same convention.

𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝟓𝐖𝟏𝐇 𝐌𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝

The most troubling aspect of the board’s letter is the egregious misuse of Scripture to defend hairstyle restrictions. The board’s statement that it seeks to provide education consistent with its “Catholic faith and biblical convictions” raises serious concerns when those convictions rest on misinterpreted or misapplied biblical texts. For example, the letter cites 1 Corinthians 11:14–15 (English Standard Version [ESV]):

“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.”

Every biblical text is a “fossil” embedded in the rock of its own moment. This simply means that every biblical text must be understood in its historical, cultural, and social setting. Ignoring the cultural, political, and religious dynamics that shaped a passage results in misinterpretation. This is akin to performing archaeology with a sledgehammer, it destroys the very framework that gives the text meaning. So, for us to understand Paul’s words faithfully in context, we must consider the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the passage.

• Who? Paul wrote to members of the Corinthian church, a diverse community of Jewish, Greek, and Roman believers (1 Corinthians 1:2).

• What? He addressed specific issues regarding the church operations reported directly to him and also raised by the church (1 Corinthians 1:11; 5:1; 7:1).

• When? Paul wrote during the mid–first century (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.-a).

• Where? Corinth, a cosmopolitan port city influenced by Roman, Greek, and Jewish cultures (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.-b).

• Why? To correct disorder in church services and to emphasize that “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40, ESV).

• How does it apply today? In this section, Paul’s teaching emphasizes the principles of order and authority in church services, not permanent mandates about hairstyles.

If we read the entire section of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, it becomes clear that Paul’s instructions are not about fabric on heads or the physical length of hair. Rather, he used cultural symbols familiar to first-century Corinthians i.e. head coverings and hairstyles, to illustrate respect for authority within the context of church gatherings. When we consider the broader flow of 1 Corinthians chapters 7–14, we see that Paul’s primary concern was about maintaining order during church services.

In this particular passage, his emphasis is on the principle of order expressed through honoring authority during church services, using the cultural norms of Corinth as illustrative examples. His call was for the Corinthian church to represent authority properly under Jesus Christ in ways that resonated with their social setting. Importantly, Paul’s instruction was never intended to immortalize current cultural fashions as timeless law.

This is critical to understand because there were some societies such as other Greek cities like Athens where Paul visited or cities in Northern Africa where head coverings and hairstyles were not a part of cultural norms, but they had believers there, so this example would not have made sense to them. Thus, enforcing a “biblically mandated hairstyle policy” today is a misapplication of Scripture.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

Using Scripture to enforce hairstyle policies as “biblical” is a misrepresentation. There are hairstyles that are culturally expressive but yet neat, and tidy so that is way better than having hairstyles that conform to what you deem to be presentable but have no biblical foundation. Contrary to your belief, there is no “biblically mandated hairstyle” standard set forth in Scripture. Scripture also emphasizes that character formation is shaped by the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22, ESV), not by hairstyles as hair has no inherent bearing on “disciplinary formation for Christian character development.”

Moreover, the board’s claim that permitting diverse hairstyles would turn schools into “multi-faith exhibition spaces” is misguided. In reality, such diversity reflects God’s creativity and multicultural reality, not theological compromise or a threat to the faith. Suggesting that natural hairstyles such as locs or bantu knots undermine “Catholic education” reveals an inherited, misplaced fear of culture rather than faith in the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.

God is not concerned about, afraid of, or repulsed by hairstyles or other external, cultural appearances. Rather, Jesus consistently criticized religious leaders who elevated human traditions above divine principles. He declared:

“...you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness... You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Matthew 23:23–24, ESV).

The “weightier matters” of education today are not hairstyles but the quality of learning, equity, and spiritual formation. The board’s preoccupation with hairstyles reflects this same pattern: straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel. Greater effort by the board should be directed toward addressing substantive educational challenges and championing comprehensive educational reform in collaboration with government rather than enforcing policies rooted in misinterpretations of Scripture.

Equally concerning is that the school board also claims it will continue to enforce its hairstyle policy despite government directives to the contrary. Ironically, while claiming biblical fidelity, this stance completely contradicts Romans 13:1 (ESV), which instructs believers to submit to governing authorities. So, now I have to ask what exactly are you going to teach your students about respect for authority? Such disobedience raises the question: are you really concerned about “biblical mandates” or are you more concerned about upholding a cultural tradition masquerading as divine law? If you’re going to use the Bible, make sure you use it when it relates to additional matters as well and not just the ones you want to cherry-pick.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

While institutions are free to establish rules and standards, the misuse of Scripture to justify non-biblical policies is unacceptable. It is both intellectually dishonest and spiritually harmful. Hairstyle regulations are not matters of biblical command but of cultural preference. This issue is not about “religious discrimination” but about correcting centuries of distorted teaching and misinterpretation that weaponized the Bible to enforce Eurocentric interpretations of Christian cultural norms. Therefore, if institutions wish to maintain such policies, they must do so without falsely attributing them to Scripture. To misuse the Bible is to disrespect the very text you have claimed as authority.

As Jesus warned, human traditions that distort God’s Word disenfranchise people (Mark 7:13). Ripping verses from ancient letters and wielding them as timeless commands sans context is not biblical literacy, it is academic disingenuity.

I urge the Catholic school board: if you insist on maintaining hairstyle policies, then do so based on your institutional preferences, but keep the Bible out of it unless you are willing to interpret it responsibly.

I haven’t even gotten into the section titled “Problematic racial categorization” which is a problematic statement in itself. This is a ridiculously tone-deaf assertion that fails to consider the sociodemographic environment that your institutions find themselves in. That discussion, perhaps, is best reserved for another time.

While I hope I didn’t offend you, based on my experience, I probably have offended you. So, while I apologize in advance if what I said offended you, I do not apologize for what I said. My conviction remains that Scripture deserves to be handled with integrity, interpreted within its proper context, and never manipulated to uphold cultural traditions as divine law. Out of love and reverence for the biblical text, I will continue to defend it against misuse, ensuring that the faith it represents is honored faithfully.

𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲,

𝐃𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐬𝐨𝐧

𝐀 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐨𝐝

References

Encyclopedia Britannica. (n.d.-a). The letter of Paul to the Corinthians. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved August 21, 2025, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Letter-of-Paul-to-the-Corinthians

Encyclopedia Britannica. (n.d.-b). Corinth, Greece. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved August 21, 2025, from https://www.britannica.com/summary/Corinth-Greece

Council of Europe. (1950/2010). European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. (2001). Crossway Bibles.

‍