The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Head Coverings

A question came up recently regarding a perennial issue of whether or not women and/or men should cover their heads during public worship. There have been many books and articles written about the subject but this one article on Head Covering by John Murray seems worthy of serious consideration. What do you think and what is the practice of your church? Would you reprove a man who wears a hat in worship? and if so would you likewise reprove a woman who does not cover her head in worship?

I am in favor of head coverings as long as they are approved by the American Chiropractic Association as some can be quite heavy, same thing applies for long hair.

I thought you might be interested in looking at a thread on another Reformed board that I frequent on this subject.
One poster that I have grown to apreciate actually changed his views on the matter because of the thread.
http://www.reformedreader.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=907

Tom

I've never been to a church who enforced women to cover their heads.

It's all in how your interpret God's Word I suppose. I personally believe that there was instruction in the New Testament that was for the believers during that time and that it wasn't meant for the church during every age.

I believe that enforcing a rule for women to cover their heads is pretty legalistic and strays from the true gospel.

But I'm fallible and now I only see in part. So I could very well be wrong.

savedbygrace97,

Nice to see you back.

1. I'm curious if you read Murray's article which chestnutmare linked to in the original post before expressing your comment? (btw, Murray doesn't believe in 'enforcing' head coverings either.)

2. How can one know how to determine what was applicable to a certain period of time and not for all time? Do you have a hermeneutical principle you follow?

3. And lastly, what about a man who wears a hat during worship. Do you think that he should be asked to remove it? If so, then why not the reverse in regard to women.

I'm glad someone was willing to pickup the ball on this subject. It's one that I believe should be discussed and it should prove to be fruitful for all.

In His grace,

I believe that the Bible teaches that women should wear head coverings in public worship. I go to a church that believes in it, and the women submit to God in that matter.

It is something I always wondered about when I went to churches that did not practice it. I believe that it's something that's hard to stomach in today's world that has been tainted by feminism. The head covering is needed more than ever today as a sign of women's submission to their head (their husband).

It is not something I would debate with another Chistian. You must see it in the Bible, and then you must obey it.

My church does not require women to cover however, after doing some extensive reading on the subject, both sides, I personally have become convinced that Scripture speaks plainly on the matter and therefore women should cover their heads. I do leave it up to the conscience of others to decide for themselves however, I would not consider it legalistic should the church decide to require head covering. I would also think it odd for a man to wear a hat in worship and would hope that the men of the church would speak to such an individual to encourage them not to continue for it is not appropriate again according to Scripture.

I am also curious as to what you thought of Murray's article. The arguments against head covering simply are not persuasive enough for me to deny what I read in Scripture. Women I believe should indeed wear head coverings.

Has the link been broken to Murray's article. I couldn't open it.

My view is that the principle taught in the passage is still in effect today and will be in the future. I do not believe the practice of head covering is required today because applying the principle by covering one's head does not convey the same attitude as it did in the Corinthian culture. The authority and submissive principles are the same but the passage is about the principle, not the cultural practice.

Should still work. Here's the full URL: http://www.the-highway.com/headcovering_Murray.html

"I do leave it up to the conscience of others to decide for themselves however, I would not consider it legalistic should the church decide to require head covering. I would also think it odd for a man to wear a hat in worship and would hope that the men of the church would speak to such an individual to encourage them not to continue for it is not appropriate again according to Scripture." - quote from Chestnutmare

I agree with your view on this completely. My church does not require it either. We leave it to conscience. When visitors come in among us, they are not required to wear the head covering. Like the Lord's supper, once believers are properly grounded in the truth, they will obey the teachings of Scripture.

I read linked article and found it to be a very good and scholarly treatment of the subject. That will be a "keeper."

Thanks Jeff, nice to be back.

First, I would like to point out that both chestnutmare and Pilgrim called me on not actually reading John Murray's letter concerning head coverings in the Church. So I have now done so.


I have to say that I don't agree with Murray.


First I would like to say that this isn't a matter of Justification. If the focus here ever turns towards justification, then this would absolutely be legalistic. For we are all saved by grace and only through the pure righteousness of Jesus Christ and not by any works of our own.


God is truly a God of Law and Order. I do believe that there should be authority within the people of God.

I do believe that when women are truly convicted by the Word of God they will start to want to obey it, meaning that they will start to desire to want to submit to the authority of men and especially their own husbands and their fathers.

I'm not disputing this.

But I believe that head coverings was a symbol to represent authority during the first century. Therefore, it was proper at that time, to demonstrate a willingness by women to submit to men in the area of sanctification or in growing closer to the likeness of Christ.

Just like Baptism and Communion is the symbol of our commitment to Jesus Christ.

But in our culture today, head coverings isn't a symbol of authority any more.

My point is that it's what is going on inside our hearts that is what is important and not what is outwardly displayed.

Everyone can act like a good Christian... I know this because I see it almost everyday. But whether they truly love Christ and each other is an entirely different story.

Whether a women wears something on her head or wears her hair long doesn't mean that she truly desires to submit to her husband or father or to the male elders in her Church. Only God knows her heart.

Dave

I believe that women should cover their heads during worship. However, I also believe it is equally important to teach the "whys" of matters like this. All too often I have found that Churches continue to practice things such as women wearing a covering in worship and prayer, but many who practice these things have no idea why they practice them.
I believe that one of the reasons that most churches do not practice things like this, is mainly because the meaning has been lost to them and it becomes a cultural thing, rather than something that should be continued to be practiced.
This may or may not have anything to do with people's heart attitudes, or view of Scripture.
I need to admit when it comes to this particular matter, although obviously I have a view concerning this issue and am not afraid to state it. I also am not as sure of my position, as I am in matters such as regeneration, justification and sanctification, if you understand my point.
My main reason for taking my particular stance on this topic, rather than the cultural view is because I believe the cultural arguments do not stand up when I compare them with Scripture. I also believe that if it is true that it is a cultural matter, the principle would still be the same and women would be required both in a heart attitude and physical attribute to find out what is culturally applicable in today’s society.

Tom

I understand what your saying Tom. It is your individual Biblical interpretation and conviction that I Corinthians 11:2-16 is a Godly mandate for the Church in every age.

The New Testament also talks a lot about slavery, but I don't believe that it's God's will for slavery to exist. My point is that it is my personal interpretation and conviction that I Corinthians 11:2-16 as far as head coverings was a cultural mandate during the first century.

But I do agree with you in that, I too believe that there are a lot of churches now days that do rely on tradition rather then the Word of God in their worship and practice.

Dave

...

It would be of great interest to me and doubtless to others here if you could give a reason why you don't agree with Murray.

I think we are all in agreement on this, i.e., it is not a matter concerning one's justification. But rather, it is a matter of sanctification. We all would hopefully desire to be more and more conformed to Christ and to follow all that God desires of us according to His revealed will, both in our everyday lives but especially in how we conduct ourselves in the corporate worship of God as the body of Christ.


1. This is without doubt a hermeneutical issue. How are we to interpret Scripture rightly? Hopefully, we would first of all agree that the understanding of Scripture is not a matter of "one's own private interpretation" (2Pet 1:20). Our hermeneutics are to be derived from Scripture itself, aka; the Analogy of Faith, comparing Scripture with Scripture. Thus we develop our hermeneutical principles based upon how the writers of Scripture interpreted the inspired texts. With that in mind and the principle applied:

2. Let's see if your interpretation (hermeneutical principle) works out when applied to other places in Scripture which are similar in kind. You mentioned "Baptism and Communion", so let's simply move on down the chapter (1Cor 11:23-27) to where Paul immediately (still discussing how believers are to conduct themselves when they are gathered together for corporate worship) changes the subject to "communion", the Lord's Supper. Hoping I have grasped your argument as held by you, I believe it would go something like this:

a) The concession - the principle that an ordinance commemorating the death of Christ in a meal is to be observed is permanent.

b) The assumption - bread and wine were the normal elements of food and drink in the 1st Century AD (undoubtedly true) and can be assumed were only used in the Lord’s supper for cultural reasons.

c) The conclusion - We are to remember Christ’s death by communal partaking of food and drink, but the precise elements will depend on the culture of time and place (tea and biscuits or coke and crisps etc.).

Without question, this doesn't work for me. And, I could give a couple more examples where the "cultural argument" falls short and/or goes too far.

Let's consider next Paul's prohibition of women speaking, teaching and prophesying in the public assemblies but rather they should be in subjection. (1Cor 14:34) Paul bases this prohibition of speaking and of the woman's subjection upon the "law". I would like to suggest that he is referring to Genesis 3:16. And notice, that Paul also brings in the matter of church "tradition", v. 33 which he likewise mentions in the passage under discussion, 1Cor 11:18f. Are we then to conclude that the matter of women speaking in church and their subjection to their husbands was cultural and thus women should be allowed to speak because silence was cultural in Paul's day but is not recognized as a matter of subjection today?

Okay, one last example of trying to apply the "principle is universal but the expression is cultural" hermeneutic. Let's jump over to 1Tim 2:9-15 and Paul's application of that passage to what immediately follows in 3:1-13. In vv. 9-15, once again Paul uses the creation ordinance as he did in 1Cor 11:1-16 as the basis for teaching about the role (subjection) of women to men. And immediately he applies this principle to the matter of office bearers in the Church; elders and deacons. Clearly, Paul writes that men only are qualified to serve as elders and deacons, e.g. they must be the "husband of one wife" and a "man who knows how to rule his household well", and all the places where men are implied through the use of the pronoun "he". Are we therefore to conclude that women's subjection to men is the universal principle but the prohibition of women to serve as elder or deacon in the church is "cultural" and thus not to be practiced today but rather women should be universally allowed to serve in those offices?

3. Lastly, there are these words that preface Paul's discussion of headcoverings:

1 Corinthians 11:1-2 (ASV) "Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you."

It would seem that Paul is stating that what he is about to write concerning the demarcation of male and female and how men and women are to conduct themselves in public corporate worship in regard to 'decorum' is something which was already the practice of the Church in other places outside the culture of Corinth. It was the accepted practice in the churches at large for women to wear some kind of covering on their heads during public worship and to which Paul says the Corinthian churches are to imitate for two reasons: 1) It is the manner in which Paul conducted himself which was fashioned after that of Christ Himself. 2) And, it was the a tradition which they were to 'hold fast' exactly as they were written. Paul emphasizes this even more at the end of his teaching by saying:

1 Corinthians 11:16 (ASV) "But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

The warning is quite clear, is it not? For those who would be 'contentious', i.e., disagree that women should enter the worship covered, "we" the Apostles, nor "the churches" [universal] have no such "custom" [practice]. It was a unanimous understanding and teaching among all of the Apostles and a universal practice among all of the churches everywhere in which there were various cultural practices that women should wear a covering in the assemblies.

It is upon what I believe to be sound biblical hermeneutics and thus these brief observations and more that I personally have to conclude that the Bible teaches that women are to wear a headcovering in public worship; today and until the Lord returns.

In His grace,

I believe I did give my reason. I believe that the central meaning is that of authority and not about an outward symbol. So I don't agree with Murray in his belief that actual head coverings were transcendent.


First, I would like to ask in exactly what do you mean when you say that "this doesn't work for you?" Are we talking about sanctification or justification?

Second, there have been a multitude of Christian Missionaries who have had to do the very thing that your are against. Missionaries all across the world who find themselves without means to obtain wine or grape juice.

Again, this is an outward sign of an inward conviction.

I agree with the principle that this is about Biblical interpretation and I also believe that we should consider the whole Bible in our attempts to interpret scripture and that we shouldn't rely on our own private interpretation.

I also believe that there are many in the Church, who are true believers who interpret this part of Scripture the same as I do.

I truly believe that we, Christs' Body the Church, should be very focused on our sanctification. Therefore we should take seriously the role of Men and Women in regards to authority. But I still don't believe that this is all about an outward sign but rather about an inward conviction.

I would have no problem taking communion with just water and hardtack. I also have no problem with women not wearing head coverings and I would have no problem if man decided to wear a hat during service. Just as long and the Word of God is being preached, the gospel proclaimed and people listening and the Spirit of God transforming lives, I'm not too concerned about outward symbols.

As far as Baptism, if you want to baptize infants, adults, dunk or sprinkle makes no difference to me. It's the meaning behind the outward symbol.

Dave

Neither.... I was referring to your hermeneutical method applied to the examples given.

No argument there. I would heartily agree.

Here is where we have a serious disagreement. I do believe that the "outward symbols" are no less inspired than the principles they express. There is a good reason why the Holy Spirit inspired the holy men of God to write what they did and that every jot and tittle is God's truth. To so easily dismiss the "symbols" as being insignificant is a dangerous thing to do. It opens wide the door to all manner of errors which churches and denominations have fallen into and eventually fallen away from the faith once delivered unto the saints. Culture cannot and must not determine how the Church practices its worship of God; only God can and has revealed how He is to be worshiped in spirit and truth. The world has no truth to be found in it for it is under the power of the evil one. The Church consists of those who have been "called apart" from the world. Unfortunately today, the churches' modus operandi is to 'assimilate' the world in order to 'attract' the world into its assemblies so that those who come will 'feel at home'.

What I am wanting to have you see is that this idea of bifurcating the symbol from the principle with the use of a "Cultural Boundness" type hermeneutic can have disastrous effects.

In His grace,

I understand the calling for Christs' Church to be holy. I understand and am convicted by the Word of God that the people of God should take their sanctification seriously. I agree with all of that and I understand the significance and meaning behind head coverings and I agree that there should be an order of authority. But....


I attend a church where most of it's congregational members are ignorant of the Word of God. Where it's pastors and leaders are focused on human traditions rather then God's Word. In the PCUSA things are looking pretty bad and I know that the denomination as a whole is pretty lost.

But I've also attended a PCA church where sanctification was taken more seriously and I've also been to a very reformed or a very strict reform church from time to time in the area where I live.

Here is my point....

The PCUSA church is much larger then the two PCA churches I just mentioned. Of the two PCA churches the "strict reformed PCA church" is by far the smallest, it has under 100 people in attendance during it's Sunday worship.

But most of the men their wear suits and have "buzz cuts." All the women wear head coverings. They only sing psalms and only employ the use of a single piano. The sermons are from a true Scottish preacher and are very expository.

I'm serious about this and not making this up. We actually do have these different styles of Presbyterian churches all within 20 minutes of my house.

What I've learned is this.....

We are all sinners.

The good reformed and conservative Christians at the Reformed PCA church are just as sinful as the people at the very liberal and Biblically ignorant PCUSA church. Yes they are taking their sanctification more seriously. Yes they are focused on the Word of God and trying to conform closer into the likeness of Jesus Christ more and more as a whole congregation.

But there is just one problem. They are a very small church who tend to be so serious on their approach to holiness that they are not very open to unrepentant sinners. Unrepentant sinners do not feel comfortable at all in attending worship in that church. They come in during one worship and they might force themselves to stay during that worship or they might just leave before they even hear the Word of God being preached, but if they do stay, they certainly don't come back ever again, because it's too convicting and to "set apart."

That is my concern between "outward righteousness." and inward convictions.

I personally would love to attend that Reformed PCA church. Truly I would. I love good reformed Scottish preaching. I love the fact that the congregational members are taking God's Word and their approach to holiness seriously. But I also understand that if I'm going to preach the gospel to sinners then I have to be a little bit like them on the outside. I have to be sure to "keep the door open" so to speak for the tax collectors... or the drug addicts, the prostitute, the bum, the alcoholic, the abusive husband, the struggling married couple, the ex-Roman Catholic... etc...

I just wanted to add one more thing quickly.


I understand what you are saying Pilgrim.... as you label it... the "Cultural Boundness" type hermeneutic is tricky.

As I have already stated... the New Testament also talks about women not speaking, slavery and women being "keepers of the home." There are other examples as well.

So again.... Biblical interpretation or our hermeneutic is very important in our faith and practice. I fully agree and I fully agree that the Church should always try to be as careful as it can to teach sound doctrine and to try to observe and follow God's will given through His written word as best as it can.

But I again, right now I only see in part or a poor reflection of God's perfect truth and I am fallible. I might be falling short in my sanctification by not advocating that woman should literally wear some form of head covering. The right hermeneutic just might very well be that Jesus Christ does want His Church on earth to follow this rule for their sanctification. I can not really fully dispute this, I'm just not 100% sure.

But I also don't think that this should be a hill to die on and that more importantly is the love we have for our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Father, the true Gospel, the Church and each other.

So what I'm trying to say is that I respect very much the love that Pilgrim and others have extended to me on this discussion and the passion and conviction everyone here has for the written Word. That in itself is truly a wonderful witness.

Dave

Two points in reply:

First, no worship service should be "open" to unrepentant sinners! Worship is uniquely for God's own people. Those who are not His cannot worship Him and will be offended seeing true worship offered to God. Worship was not intended to appeal to unrepentant sinners, nor is the Church intended to be "open" to unrepentant sinners. It is and should be closed to them.

Second, we are to worship God as He has commanded according to His word rather than according to our own inventions, especially if those inventions are aimed at appealing to, attracting, or retaining larger numbers of unrepentant sinners.

The PCA church we left last year is in the midst of the very same error, hoping to attract unrepentant sinners rather than to worship God biblically. Worship is uniquely Christian. It is not something that unrepentant sinners are even capable of. In fact I dare say that so-called "worship" which does attract and satisfy unrepentant sinners is false worship, because it allows unrepentant sinners to feel comfortable in their rebellion rather than confronting them with God's justice as well as His mercy towards those who seek Him.

I don't know what you mean by "open", I agree with everything you say, but your "open" comment concerns me. How do we explain

As for worship, you made some good comments. It saddens me that instead of the pulpit ministry drawing the people into the presence of God, it has become a time of instruction, and many in the church treat the time and place like a common lecture or classroom instead of a "sanctuary" service. That is why moral, ethical or political messages fail, they are man focused instead of God focused. I believe more formal dress, head coverings etc, can be good to remind people that the service is about God not us.
This attitude of dressing down and being like the world has made the worship service like the world, a common lecture hall with some music thrown in. The unregenerate can mimic the church service today, which I believe is because God is absent from the service due to the focus of the message. No wonder the church has lost its impact in the world.

Wow, hey Robin. Long time no see.

Wow... I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you.

Can you support your views on closing the worship service to sinners?

I'm not sure how unrepentant sinners are going to hear the Word of God and the gospel if you have a closed services.

Now, I understand policing Communion... but to not let people off the street to come in and join your worship?

I really don't think that is Biblical at all. Again if you could try to explain this concept to me, I would be willing to hear you out, but I really don't think your going to convince me of this, ever.

Dave

Dave,

At the risk of being charged with ... although it would be great if others would jump into this particular discussion on headcovering, I would like to offer one more thing.

Here is a glowing example of how many today apply, even unwittingly, the "Culturally Bound" hermeneutic in regard to worship in general.

The text:

We don't know where these two brothers were living geographically to each other nor their occupations. But what we do know is that Abel was involved in raising sheep for he brought "of the firstlings of his flock". Whether Cain, however, also raised sheep we are not told but only that he
"brought of the fruit of the ground". Further, what learn from this text is that most surely, God had given instructions as to how He was to be worshiped and that included what was to be brought as an offering to Him; acceptable offering. Abel obeyed the Lord and thus his offering was accepted. However, Cain, laboring under a "Culturally Bound" hermeneutic took it upon himself to bring whatever pleased him before the Lord as an offering. He understood clearly what was required of him, i.e., the PRINCIPLE of worshiping Yahweh but apparently felt that as long as his heart was sincere he could choose what SYMBOL satisfied that principle. Perhaps in the culture in which he lived slaughtering lambs was not recognized as a means of worship?

What is most important to see here is that the Principle and the Symbol were inextricably bound together. God had specifically made known both. To deviate from what the LORD had commanded in either the Principle of Symbol was unacceptable worship.

I used this example for a good reason. If we are even vaguely familiar with Scripture we know that a "lamb" was used throughout the history of Israel as a sacrificial animal which represented the cleansing of sin through its shed blood (death). In the NT we read that the Lord Jesus Christ is referred to as "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jh 1:29, 36; Rev 5:6; 7:17; 15:3; et al). God the Father instituted acceptable worship from the very beginning and demanded strict adherence to both the Principle and Symbol. And the Spirit had more than good reason to have Moses pen those words found in Gen 4 for our instruction.

In short, a headcovering isn't introduced in 1Cor 11 for the very first time. Headcovering appears in various other passages and contexts and thus Paul's teaching concerning women covering their heads isn't something novel or new nor bound to the culture of Corinth. It has an ancient precedence. And so, we are to be extremely careful in how we "divide the Word of Truth"; in this case relegating a "symbol" (practice) of a mandated "principle" to a by-gone era based upon an alleged "passé culture".

In His grace,

The word "open" appeared first in the post I was replying to, and I mean it in opposition to inviting unrepentant sinners into the presence of God. I said it over and over again, in bold font, emphasizing the word unrepentant.

No unrepentant sinner can worship God, nor should any unrepentant sinner be invited into God's presence. It would be fatal to an unrepentant sinner, multiplying his guilt. It is the same principle as partaking of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. An unrepentant sinner multiplies wrath against himself by taking the Supper - and the Lord's Name - in vain. Worship is uniquely Christian. It is therefore open only to Christians.

This is not to say that churches cannot or should not conduct evangelistic services and invite everyone to attend! But an evangelistic service is not the same as a Lord's Day worship service. An evangelistic service is intended to reach the unregenerate. A worship service is intended for the Lord's people. Worship is not to include "room" for haters of God (unrepentant sinners).

There is no assumption in the 1st Corinthians passage that unrepentant sinners enter the believers' gathering by invitation. And those who do enter a worship service need to be confronted with prophecy (which is "for believers" according to verse 22) rather than confused by the unedifying sign gift of tongues, which was "for unbelievers (verse 22)".

Yes, worship is for sinners! But not for unrepentant sinners. Not for the unregenerate. Not for the unbelieving, lest they "eat and drink condemnation to themselves (1st Corinthians 11:29)."

I hope that helps clarify what I mean... and perhaps I misapplied the use of the word "open" in the post I was replying to.

Robin,

Wouldn't the Reformed doctrine of the Visible / Invisible church damage your argument for unrepentant sinners taking part in our worship services. The worship service is for believers to worship God as unbelievers cannot, yet unbelievers are welcome to visit. That is not say we should conduct our worship services to accomodate unbelievers as the Gospel should be preached with conviction.

I personally don't have a problem with anyone inviting the unsaved/unrepentent into the church worship service. If a person is receptive to coming to church, who knows if God is not already working in that person's heart? Do we gear worship to the world, of course not, worship is ascribing glory to God. However, if the church is the church it is supposed to be, then the person "invited" will either come under conviction or flee and not want to return. I am against soiling the church service in order for the unclean to feel comfortable, but I believe they can come to the worship service if they desire and someone from the church invited them. There is a difference between them being there and being members of the church body, I wouldn't allow an unrepentent person to join the church. Even then we can't be absolutely sure of a person's heart.

Just as we see in Isaiah 6, when Isaiah stood in the presence of God the doorposts shook. Holiness and sinfulness cannot coexist, there will be a shaking and it isn't God who will be shaking, but the sinner. I believe in the almighty power of God and if an unrepentent sinner comes into the assembly of saints, my prayer is that God has mercy on him. The problem today is that in many church services, God is absent and the unrepentent is quite comfortable. Worship can still be pure and acceptable even if there is an unrepentent sinner in the midst, I hardly believe that all the people I worship with are actually born again, but I'm not the one to judge. I know that quite a few left since the preaching/teaching became more heart searching because they didn't feel good from the services, go figure. Anyway, I suppose it all comes down to what we are expecting in a church service, I don't believe an unrepentent sinner is going to affect the congregation's worship experience if it is done in Spirit and truth.

I don't think that the Biblical truth of the Visible Church (the church as we see it, which is made up of both wheat and tares hiding among the wheat) and the Invisible Church (the church as God sees her with perfect vision, all the saints throughout time, pure and holy) necessarily requires that "wheat" be invited to join the "tares" in the field! It is inevitable and expected that tares will be found among the wheat, but worship is for the wheat.

I think we're all sayin' the same thing in different ways, actually; that our the church worship and liturgy should not be written to accommodate unrepentant sinners. God-haters. If they show up and stick around long enough to hear the truth and be converted, that's great! But worship is not for the world. It's for God's own people. That's all we're sayin'.

-Robin

Evangelism is ordinarily done in the marketplace, in the neighborhood, on the playground, etc., not in the worship service! Those who accept an invitation to church are almost always those who have responded positively to prior evangelistic messages or examples. I'm all for it! Please don't hear me to be saying that we should never invite unbelievers to church.

I'm sorry if I wasn't completely clear. And I must apologize also for likely long periods of time between my appearances here on the Highway. I travel all the time and rarely have opportunity to get online.

One of the underlying fears here and yes, I do mean fears, is that because of how the Modern Evangelical Church has conducted itself, the pendulum tends to sway from the extreme left to the extreme right.

What I mean to say is that, because the Modern Evangelical Church has abused "conforming" itself like the world, that there are conservatives who tend to run in the extreme opposite direction.

I have listed versus earlier in this discussion supporting my views. This is just a quick reply, so please refer to what I've already use to support my views.

I believe Paul tells us that he did what he had to do as to not "offend" his audience. I don't know what everyone's experiences are, how could I?, but, my experience is that it takes awhile before peoples hearts are ready to truly understand, believe and accept the gospel and follow Jesus.

I run a small Christian support group out of my home. I treat it as my ministry it's organized pretty much like a house church. The only difference being is that all the members belong to my church. So I do not conduct communion or baptism.

The members of my small group all call themselves or identify themselves as Christians. But they really don't show any fruit and or good works. So I would have to question if they really have a personal relationship with Jesus or not.... or in other words, if they truly identify themselves as sinners deserving hell and therefore repenting and putting their faith in Jesus and following him as their savior and lord.

But, that doesn't matter to me as far as administering and serving them. Whether they're "God-Haters," or Unbelievers or unrepentant sinners or what ever they may be, all I care about is that they are coming to my home; with a mature attitude, willing to sing, study scripture, listen to me preach and willing to pray for each other. So as long as they are willing to do that, I'm willing to "church" them and continue to share the gospel with them and pray for them and hope that God will really and truly open their hearts someday.

What I can tell you is that I'm not going to try to sit there and explain to the women that they should obey their husbands and also wear head coverings when they gather in my home. Because If I did that, they wouldn't come back and that would be a really shame, because they are hungry to learn more and grow more and it just seems a little silly to me to chase them off by trying to enforce the head covering rule.

But..... with saying that, at the same time, I do have set rules and my meetings are conducted in a very orderly and serious fashion. Unlike the Modern Evangelical Church, I'm preaching the whole gospel to them, I'm telling them that they are sinners and that there really is a Judgment Day and that sinners really will get thrown into the lake of fire and that their righteousness really is as filthy rags and that they really do need to put their love and faith into the only one person who can save them from eternal separation from God, which is Jesus.

I also teach them about sanctification and about keeping in step with His Spirit and about the fruits of His Spirit. I teach and encourage them about self-control, forgiveness, subjective and objective truth, and most of all loving God and each other with all their hearts.

But they are not ready in their hearts, they are not convicted to start wearing head coverings. I'm just using this as an example, I could use thousands of others examples from church planters and missionaries all across the world who are spreading the gospel and starting new churches in Christs' name. Things in these environments aren't and can not be as "orthodox" as some of us are used too. But that does not make them any less effectual in their ministry.

Is this conformity? Yes.... but the right kind of conformity, the kind that Paul talks about. It's just simply understanding and loving the people who you are sharing Jesus with.

Dave

Dave,

I'll let you have the last word on this one as I think my reply will suffice as my "closing remarks" on the subject, at least in regard to our exchange.

1. The example of "your house" meetings is irrelevant since it is not a church; elders, deacons, official preaching to the corporate gathering of the saints on the Lord's Day, gathering of offerings, administration of the sacraments, etc. Thus headcovering is not applicable.

2. Nowhere in all Scripture does Paul write that he "conformed himself" to the various people groups or cultures in regard to the public corporate worship of God's people. That which we read about corporate worship which Paul wrote is applicable and mandatory in all places for all time. Why? Because it is GOD Who has designed His own worship and not man, (ala: Cain), whereby men can pick and choose what they feel is appropriate and/or going to be acceptable to those called to worship. This is a truth which has for the most part been totally ignored today or rejected completely.

3. Sanctification is not restricted to the keeping of God's moral law. It is also being conformed in willing, heartfelt obedience to ALL of God's precepts, principles, commands, testimonies and laws. How we are to conduct ourselves before God in public corporate worship is not an exclusion wherein we can decide what is appropriate based upon the whims, prejudices or culture around us. God through the inspired Word is Who determines how men are to worship Him.

4. God's truth is always and everywhere to be taught to everyman and not truncated due to what people are allegedly "ready to receive". Paul was not ashamed to write that he preached and taught "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). And it is through this "whole counsel of God" that the Spirit works and is designed "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." (2Tim 3:16, 17) Isn't this another definition of Sanctification?

5. It is assuredly not an "over reaction" to the modern evangelical movement that we embrace and encourage others to see the biblical teaching concerning headcovering. For this practice has been in the Church for many centuries and was the generally accepted practice in nearly all the Reformed/Calvinistic churches which can be easily documented for you if you so desire. It's rejection is contemporary, perhaps due to the current mindset of the modern evangelical movement, e.g., rank individualism, broad toleration of ideas, weak view of Scripture and worship, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

I've enjoyed the exchange and hope that you would perhaps continue to give this truth concerning how believing men and women should conduct themselves in the worship of God. And, should the Spirit bring this truth to your heart, you would not go too far and insist that the practice be regulated by church order/law.

In His grace,

Amen Dave. It is very much a tradition and clearly a misunderstanding of Scriptures. I doubt it the folks who hold to headcoverings understand the reasons they practiced it either. I read many interpretations, but nothing that is of anything sound. I think Murray does some major somersaults when interpreting this passage.

Someone here referred to a baptists discussion board in this thread that discussed the headcovering that I read close to a year ago (unfortunately the link doesn't seem to work anymore). What I found very disturbing is how there are people, without even thinking (unless they really are male chauvinist), could accept the literal interpretation. One person there even posted how he didn't understand how women take offense in this -- clearly this person lacks sensitivity. I think that person needs to reread those passages in the literal interpretation because clearly the literal interpretation marks the woman's head as an object of scorn. How could women not find that offensive?! It's not rocket science to see this. The only conclusion to that is, that those who promoted the literal interpretation are male chauvinist. I really don't know how else to see it ... unless they really don't understand what they have actually embraced. If you think about this ... how consistent is that view to the rest of Scriptures. What everyone seems to forget is that this passage is about headship. Not about an object that sits on a woman's shoulder. If God really did mean to mark the woman's head as an object of shame, then why didn't He mention it then in creation that her head was an object of shame (if the literal head in vs 5,6 is somehow related to ordered headship in creation) when He created her? But what instead did God say? When he created man and woman, the Lord said it was GOOD! Did not God create Adam and Eve perfect in the beginning? Or did God tell a white lie and finally came out clean and confessed in 1Cor11 and stated ... "well, it wasn't quite true that woman was created good ... her head is actually an object of scorn". Of course this is silly and blasphemous (to suggest that God ever lies) ... but that's how one would have to make sense of the literal interpretation with the rest of Scriptures.

I think the only person who opposed that view on that thread gave a better interpretation. She presented that the passage was speaking figuratively. That the head spoken of in vs 5-6 is not the object that sits on the woman's shoulders but is speaking about her authority over man --- that is what is an object of scorn --- not her head! She further stated that the man's authority serves to cover the woman. As vs 3 states that Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman. She's right that vs 3 sets the context of the whole passage --- ORDERED HEADSHIP. And as clearly stated in vs 13 that in creation, the Lord marked the woman's hair as this symbol of this ordered headship. Symbols need not be something that has to be removable. Just in the same way that the Lord used the rainbow as a symbol of his covenant with Noah, he used a part of his creation as that symbol. In the case of headship, it's the woman's hair.

What further saddens me is how some men will blame the woman's hair as their stumbling block. This again is an abuse of this passage and just really an excuse for their own sins. Don't they realize that Jesus teaches that sin is from within and not to what is external? It's really discouraging how men will speak like that about women that are suppose to be their sisters in Christ, just to hide their own sins.

My prayer is that folks really take a good look at what they are promoting and ask themselves if they are really doing good to the brethren (that includes their sisters in Christ). I don't believe that Paul was promoting that the woman's head is an object of shame (and so should be "covered") as the literal interpretation would have us believe. I think you'll have to look long and hard to find such an interpretation to be supported in rest of Scriptures. I think the most sound interpretation is that figurative interpretation because it's quite consistent with the rest of Scriptures if you study it.

heidi,

Your response has lots of philosophical rhetoric as well as some pretty nifty strawmen but what I don't see is EXEGESIS of the passage itself. Few of any here have probably read those things you have read, aside from Murray, who is rarely if ever accused of doing "major somersaults".

Until recently in the history of the Church, the vast majority of churches practiced headcoverings... did you know this? The feminist movement has made unfortunate inroads in virtually every area not excluding the modern churches. May I recommend a more recent article that presents a formidable defense of headcovering for women in public worship via exegetical and historical arguments.

You can read this article by pastor David Silversides here: Is Headcovering Biblical?.



BTW, there is nothing inherently wrong with "tradition". I'm sure your church does many things which have become a tradition. Headcovering for women in public worship was already a 'tradition' during Paul's day, cf. 1Cor 11:16. The question is: Are those practiced traditions biblical?

In His grace,

With all due respect Pilgrim, the literal interpretation of the passage is what brings in this insistence of putting a cover over a woman's head. Clearly the literal interpretation marks the woman's head as an object of scorn. There's no ambiguity in the literal interpretation. The "head" is the object that sits on the woman's shoulder and it's being associated with the words of shame and disgrace (clearly this is what "literal" means). If "head" is no longer that, then that passage is no longer taken literally and when you do that then you can no longer find justification from the passage that a woman should cover her head by some cloth (since supposedly this cloth covers what is shameful and disgraceful, as the literal interpretation points out). The literal interpretation teaches that a woman's head should be covered because it is consider an object of shame and disgrace. This is what the headcovering teaches and promotes.

I find this in contradictory to the rest of Scriptures. When God created man and woman, He said it was GOOD. There is nothing external about the woman that should be marked as an object of scorn (which is what head covering teaches) and hence should be covered. One should not be teaching such views of women, which brings harm and persecution to women. I find the figurative interpretation more consistent to what headship is and the rest of scriptures. The woman "uncovered" is the woman who has no authoritative headship over her (as what the context of the passage is all about!). This is why the man serves as her cover. And as Scripture clearly notes, the woman's hair serves as that symbol for what God intended since He created her. So it's quite fitting that the symbol is what the Lord naturally gave to woman --- her hair, because her place under the authority of man is also the natural role the Lord designed her for. Since her hair is that symbol of the man's headship over her, Paul associates her hair with "her glory". When she complies to the ordered headship, she is playing out the role God designed her for --- this becomes her glory.

I agree with Dave that those who promote the headcoverings really do not understand why they practice it. They can't make sense of it because they misunderstood the passage. The figurative interpretation really gives the clearest understanding of that passage on ordered headship.

No such proof. I know many biblical, sound Christians and also experts of the history of the church and they no make such claims that it was always practiced and that the practice has only stopped because of some feminist movement. Someone who is under Dr. Masters' preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, said that Dr. Masters once noted in response to issues of this headcovering, that the puritan men wore wigs during service. A very telling point! I guess the men then didn't have so much trouble "covering" their heads!

As a side note, history should not be used to interpret Scriptures. Scriptures should ONLY interpret Scriptures. For many years the RCC has misinterpreted Scriptures; no one should accept it because of the longevity of the practice. Similarly, the folks who practice headcoverings are not immune to mis-interpretions of Scriptures. They just needed a bit more reforming and a better understanding of Scriptures.

heidi,

With all due respect, why won't you EXEGETE the passage to prove your contention that "a woman's head should be covered because it is consider an object of shame and disgrace."? I nor any commentator worth his salt can find any such nonsense. Paul would never and could never contradict himself nor would he write anything that contradicted any other biblical passage since he wrote under divine inspiration.

Those of us who hold to headcoverings for women in public worship more than understand why the practice should be done. There are two basic reasons:

1. It sets forth the demarcation between male and female as God has created them.

2. Women are to be subject to the authority of their husbands and all those men who are given authority over the Church by the appointment of the Holy Spirit, i.e., Elders.

3. And a third is because as Paul wrote, "because of the angels".

I'm also curious to know if you took the time to read through David Silversides' excellent article, "Is Headcovering Biblical?" My reason for asking is because he gives myriad quotes from reliable and conservative Reformed men from various eras which indisputably show that headcoverings were the common and accepted practice throughout the history of the Protestant Church.

Secondly, I fully agree that history should not and cannot interpret Scripture. However, Church history cannot be dismissed willy nilly since it is the Body of Christ which is guided by the ever-present Holy Spirit. Thus Scripture must be brought forth to show whether that which was practiced in the Church historically is unwarranted. Can you do this with sound EXEGESIS of the passage?

IF <--- as you say that a woman's hair is the covering which Paul is referring to (vv. 5, 6, and 15), then verse 6 makes no logical sense. Could you please explain how the text makes sense if one takes your view of that verse? Additionally, verse 16 makes no sense if it was Paul's intention to say that the churches have no such practice of allowing to have no covering, which in your view the text would then mean that women were not allowed to cover their head with long hair; a direct contradiction of the preceding version (15).

I and others look forward to your EXEGESIS of the passage.

In His grace,

Ahhh, I have EXEGETE it both in the literal (as what the headcovering promotes to taking the passage literally!) and the figurative interpretation. Where have you been? I have shown you how the literal interpretation is inconsistent to the rest of Scriptures. Which part of the literal interpretation don't you understand? Apparently you feel that the "head" in verses 5-6 is the object that sits on the woman's shoulder, otherwise you wouldn't go insisting that she covers it, now would you? But you seem to ignore the fact that what those verses also states is that she has to cover her head because it's considered shameful and disgraceful. Read the passage literally and see what the "cover" serves to do and why; you can't ignore it. It clearly associates the head with shame and disgrace. Maybe you should try to EXEGETE how you can get from those verses that one should covers one's head without taking the verse literally rather than just referring me to some link I've already read. But logically if you don't take those verses literally then you cannot take out from that passage the justification to insist that a woman should cover her physical head.

Of course I disagree with this nonsense NOT because it marks the woman's head simply as an object of shame but God in his Word has said that when He made woman, He said it was GOOD. There is nothing in Genesis to indicate that God has marked the woman's head in creation as an object of shame and disgrace (and hence should be covered). And when God presented Eve to Adam, even as the heavenly host watched, did Scriptures indicate that she had a cloth over her head?! NO. So I know this isn't what He means and that passage shouldn't be taken literally (e.g. insisting that the woman's head should be covered), otherwise it would contradict the account in Genesis. And if you really follow through with the figurative interpretation, as I have already explained before, it flows very well with the rest of Scriptures and why Paul calls the woman's hair (the symbol of this authority headship over her) as "her glory". After reading what that woman wrote and how she explained the figurative interpretation, that passage just clicked! No somersaults needed as I've read in other interpretations.

All those 3 points you've pointed out, that's clearly seen in the figurative interpretation as I've noted in previous posts and above. But if you take the literal interpretation, there's nothing in that passage that connects such a practice to your points. From all that I see of such a view, it demeans the view of women; it marks the woman's head as an object of scorn, as vs 5-6 CLEARLY notes.

It's alright if you don't agree. You're entitled to your views. I just thought what that woman wrote gave me some insights that seemed to just click. It was balanced and sound.

Pilgrim

Thank you for dealing with Heidi's quote "a woman's head should be covered because it is consider an object of shame and disgrace."
When I read that, I almost couldn't believe she said such a thing. This would logically mean (correct me if I am wrong) that God made women's head an object of shame and disgrace.
Which I find hard to understand why God would do such a thing. If that was the case, shouldn't a woman cover her head at all times?

Tom

Which part don't you understand in the literal interpretation of verses of 5-6:

READ IT LITERALLY. Clearly the word disgrace is there. Ask yourself, what does the passage indicates what the "cover" serves to do ... to hide what is shameful and disgraceful. This is very apparent from the verses above.

Of course God wouldn't do such a thing, that's why the figurative interpretation makes sense (read what that is in my previous posts)! It's what's consistent to the rest of Scriptures! And no, it's not insisting at all times ... as the literal interpretation states that when she prays or prophesies. Read the passage. It is when those times that her head is marked as an object of scorn. That's the literal interpretation, which of course I object to as I've explained above.

If the woman's head can be dishonored, that can only be because it has honor to be "dissed." It is honored with a gloried crown of hair which represents the woman's honored role in God's order. Covered means sheltered, protected as a precious treasure kept from exposure to the elements and from looters. Womanhood is a particularly honorable and precious treasure to be highly valued, respected, and covered so as to preserve and protect it, not to hide it from view as something shameful!

heidi,

1) You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word EXEGETE. The word simply means an "interpretation of a passage", along with the method used to arrive at that explanation, e.g., grammar, original language, etc. The long-standing hermeneutic (method of interpretation) is the "Grammatico-Historico" (grammatical-historical) method which takes into account the grammar the inspired writer used along with the historical setting. There is also the necessity of using the "Analogy of Faith", i.e., comparing Scripture with Scripture since the Bible is fully inspired and its various books are inseparable.

2) I now see I did make an error from the beginning when I asked you to exegete the passage to show how you arrived at your conclusion, vs. simply basing your view on what some other woman has written. What I should have asked from at the start was for you to show some respect to us here. Your demeanor is quite arrogant and combative. Scripture prescribes that you exhibit some humility and respect toward your elders in the faith as well as those who have been students of the Word for many years, both here and those who have gone before. Whether you were aware of it or not, most everyone here is very conservative and holds to what is known as The Reformed Faith. Quite a number are pastors/elders, teachers, and missionaries who have served Christ for many years; some 50+ years. And, there are many others who are very knowledgeable laymen who likewise have been students of the Bible for myriad years. I do believe some respect is due them.

3) So, I ask again if you would please EXEGETE the passage and/or those specific verses which your view is based upon. And secondly, in regard to the historic practice of headcovering in the Church, which you have stated there is no such history, I would once again point you to the article by David Silversides Is Headcovering Biblical? in which Rev. Silversides provides a detailed list of men, churches and denominations who did practice headcovering for women in public worship. The record is indisputable.

In His grace,

Hi, Pilgrim,

I am kind of new to this forum(haven't posted much), but i have been following this thread with avid interest. My church does not require headcoverings. Nevertheless, I have grown quite interested in the debates/discussions over this topic.
I would like to find out the truth though as God so reveals it to me, so I have some questions:





Can you give me some passages/contexts that have to do with headcovering other than I Cor. 11?

Thank you very much!

--RoadOfLife

I believe the passage itself answers your question about other references to head coverings, which I will show you after I give you a quote from John Calvin, taken from his commentary on Corinthians:

3. But I would have you know. It is an old proverb: "Evil manners beget good laws." As the rite here treated of had not been previously called in question, Paul had given no enactment respecting it. The error of the Corinthians was the occasion of his showing, what part it was becoming to act in this matter. With the view of proving, that it is an unseemly thing for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and, on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, he sets out with noticing the arrangements that are divinely established.

My reason for including the above quote from Calvin is because he gives a reason why this matter of headcoverings for women in public worship doesn't appear previously in the New Testament... i.e., it was never disputed and thus no mention of it seemed necessary. Most of the Epistles of Paul, Peter and John are 'apologetic' in nature, i.e., they address problems in doctrine and practice that plagued or would plague the Church.

Okay, so where in the passage does the answer appear that addresses your question? Here:

What Paul concluded his teaching on headcovering with was a statement of the universal practice among ALL of the churches. Thus this practice was not simply introduced into Corinth, i.e., a "cultural phenomena" unique to Corinth. In fact, not only was headcovering practiced, he even goes so far as to say that no one anywhere is argumentative (contentious) about it. In short, all of the NT churches at the time of Paul's writing this letter practiced headcovering and it was a universally accepted practice which no one even disputed until the practice was questioned and/or stopped in Corinth.

If I may once again point to David Silversides' article here: Is Headcovering Biblical? because it contains not only several excellent examples of sound exegesis of the passage itself, e.g., David Dickson and John Murray, but it also shows that the practice of headcovering was widely taught and practiced for centuries until recently among the Reformed Churches. Although it is possible that they were all wrong on this matter, is it likely that they ALL were in error?

Food for thought!

In His grace,