No Such Custom- A Look at Head Coverings

[JOwen]

In the last 100 years, a 2000 year old doctrine, has been all but removed from most Reformed churches, by a single controlling element- culture. The doctrine abandoned was the use of head coverings in public worship.

The fact remains that even 50 years ago, it mattered very little what Church you attended (Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Reformed), all women wore a head covering in public worship. Yet today there are hardly any congregations in Western Culture that practice this with any degree of consistency, if they practice it at all. When you ask the question “Why don’t you believe wearing a head covering is biblical?”, you are met with a uniform answer, “Because it was a cultural practice, and our culture no longer requires a head covering.” The question must be answered then, are head coverings cultural, or are they a requirement for corporate worship? This short paper will attempt to answer that question.

If you would like to read more click here

 

[KMK]

Pastor Lewis, could you give us some guidance as to what you would like to discuss in this thread?

 

[JOwen]

The article, if anyone is interested. I thought I'd not take up valuable space by posting the complete document.

 

[KMK]

The fact remains that even 50 years ago, it mattered very little what Church you attended (Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Reformed), all women wore a head covering in public worship.

Was this due to culture or conviction?

 

[JOwen]

I believe it was culture as the rest of the post indicates.

 

[Augusta]

Pastor Lewis, thanks for this cogent article. I concur with you in that a combination of Feminism and Enlightenment Rationalism are largely to blame for the almost complete disappearance of the practice of headcovering. I had never seen that Sproul quote at the end. Devastating!

 

[ubermadchen]

Thanks for the article. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on this subject.

 

[TeachingTulip]

Pastor Lewis, thanks for this cogent article. I concur with you in that a combination of Feminism and Enlightenment Rationalism are largely to blame for the almost complete disappearance of the practice of headcovering. I had never seen that Sproul quote at the end. Devastating!

I found it of interest that poor hermeneutics plays a large part in the loss of this biblical practice . . .

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Until today I was unaware that Sproul was an advocate of women's head coverings. I also had not read this article which is very good. Thank you for sharing.

 

[JOwen]

Until today I was unaware that Sproul was an advocate of women's head coverings. I also had not read this article which is very good. Thank you for sharing.

If I'm not mistaken, R.C's wife (I'm sorry I do not know our sister's name) is one of the only women in their congregation that wears a head covering. I appreciate Sproul's approach in not letting what could be a potential "soap-box doctrine" take over, but simply hold the truth in love. Because I firmly believe this is not an issue of salvation, nor does it need to be a point of division, I think it is best to go at this softly. This is the first time I have ever written on the subject. I hope to complete the series, and then let it rest.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Please do complete it! I'm anxious to read the rest. You've done a great job.

 

[ubermadchen]

Please do complete it! I'm anxious to read the rest. You've done a great job.

Yes! Yes! Ditto.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I heard a sermon on head covering from Dr. Sproul once that was very thought provoking. He approached it through the lens of how do we determine what is cultural and what is universal in Scripture. (I am doing this from memory so sorry that I cannot verbatim quote). He talked about things that are obviously cultural, things that are obviously universal, and things we cannot be sure of. He hinted that head covering was something that we cannot be sure of, but his guidance on this area was something along the lines of, "are we willing to allow a little piece of cloth cause us to sin? I do not know about you, but I would rather err on the side of caution. My family is not too prideful to submit to the possibility that headcovering is required and wear something just to be safe."

Now obviously I think he personally believes that headcovering is required, but I liked how he approached it. It is something to think about. Does it harm anything to wear a headcovering? No. Is there any possible way that headcovering could be a sin? No. Is there possibly harm in not headcovering? Yes. Could it possibly be a sin not to wear a covering? Yes. So even if you are not convinced, it is by far the safest bet.

 

[JOwen]

Do you know where I could find that sermon Boliver? I'd like to listen to it.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

 

[Marrow Man]

The Missus wears a head covering, and so will Baby Grace.

 

[au5t1n]

The Missus wears a head covering, and so will Baby Grace.

Right away? (And happy birthday to baby Grace!)

 

[Marrow Man]

The Missus wears a head covering, and so will Baby Grace.

Right away? (And happy birthday to baby Grace!)

Well, as soon as possible. It's actually not too difficult when they're little girls (they need to wear those little knit caps anyway). But it may be a while before she's in worship, as she's a little too small to leave the hospital just yet.

 

[au5t1n]

The Missus wears a head covering, and so will Baby Grace.

Right away? (And happy birthday to baby Grace!)

Well, as soon as possible. It's actually not too difficult when they're little girls (they need to wear those little knit caps anyway). But it may be a while before she's in worship, as she's a little too small to leave the hospital just yet.

Oh yes, I didn't think of those caps. I hope she is able to leave soon and in perfect health.

 

[Claudiu]

The Missus wears a head covering, and so will Baby Grace.

Right away? (And happy birthday to baby Grace!)

Well, as soon as possible. It's actually not too difficult when they're little girls (they need to wear those little knit caps anyway). But it may be a while before she's in worship, as she's a little too small to leave the hospital just yet.

For unmarried women/girls what would be the Biblical argument for the head-covering. Because the passage in 1 Cor. 11 is in regards to a wife (v.5,6,&10). I ask from a neutral standpoint since I don't know where I stand on this issue and am eager to hear both sides of the argument. (excuse my ignorance on this subject).

 

[Marrow Man]

It's a good question. In this particular case, I would say that she (the baby girl) is wearing a sign of authority, because she would be under my authority as head of the household. However, that would not necessarily be the case if 1) she were not in my household any longer and/or 2) she were head of her own household (a Lydia type of case).

 

[au5t1n]

Right away? (And happy birthday to baby Grace!)

Well, as soon as possible. It's actually not too difficult when they're little girls (they need to wear those little knit caps anyway). But it may be a while before she's in worship, as she's a little too small to leave the hospital just yet.

For unmarried women/girls what would be the Biblical argument for the head-covering. Because the passage in 1 Cor. 11 is in regards to a wife (v.5,6,&10). I ask from a neutral standpoint since I don't know where I stand on this issue and am eager to hear both sides of the argument. (excuse my ignorance on this subject).

I gather you are reading the ESV? Check out the passage in another translation. "Wife" is their interpretation of how the word is being used in that context. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, just that they don't know with any absolute certainty that Paul is talking about only wives. The word is woman/women, which can mean wife in certain contexts.

 

[Claudiu]

Well, as soon as possible. It's actually not too difficult when they're little girls (they need to wear those little knit caps anyway). But it may be a while before she's in worship, as she's a little too small to leave the hospital just yet.

For unmarried women/girls what would be the Biblical argument for the head-covering. Because the passage in 1 Cor. 11 is in regards to a wife (v.5,6,&10). I ask from a neutral standpoint since I don't know where I stand on this issue and am eager to hear both sides of the argument. (excuse my ignorance on this subject).

I gather you are reading the ESV? Check out the passage in another translation. "Wife" is their interpretation of how the word is being used in that context. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, just that they don't know with any absolute certainty that Paul is talking about only wives. The word is woman/women, which can mean wife in certain contexts.

Thanks for your response. I normally read the KJV, but I usually post in ESV on the PB. Anyways, in the KJV it does say only "woman." That makes sense now.

 

[Claudiu]

It's a good question. In this particular case, I would say that she (the baby girl) is wearing a sign of authority, because she would be under my authority as head of the household. However, that would not necessarily be the case if 1) she were not in my household any longer and/or 2) she were head of her own household (a Lydia type of case).

After reading the passage some more though I think one of the underlying themes is, from verse three: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

So it wouldn't matter if a woman be married or not the theme still stands that 'the head of the woman is the man.' Would this be correct?

 

[ewenlin]

This is timely. Thanks Pastor Lewis.

 

[au5t1n]

It's a good question. In this particular case, I would say that she (the baby girl) is wearing a sign of authority, because she would be under my authority as head of the household. However, that would not necessarily be the case if 1) she were not in my household any longer and/or 2) she were head of her own household (a Lydia type of case).

After reading the passage some more though I think one of the underlying themes is, from verse three: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

So it wouldn't matter if a woman be married or not the theme still stands that 'the head of the woman is the man.' Would this be correct?

The word "woman" can sometimes mean "wife" in certain contexts, which is why the ESV translates it that way. I am not convinced that they are right in this instance, however. Interestingly, the ante-Nicene church father Tertullian wrote a book about this very subject called On the Veiling of Virgins, I think. Apparently it was a controversy in his day whether only wives had to cover, or unmarried maidens too. Tertullian argued that maidens should cover too, but it wasn't the universal practice of the Church, it seems.

Added: Here's On the Veiling of Virgins by Tertullian for anyone interested: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.iv.i.html

Added: Interestingly, though, baby Grace would be exempt in Tertullian's view. He argues that head covering is binding "from the time that they have passed the turning-point of their age".

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Thanks for your article, Pastor Lewis - very well-written. While I love R.C. Sproul and agree with him 95% of the time, I think he's completely wrong on the head-covering issue. He misses the boat entirely on the cultural considerations of I Corinthians 11, at least in the quote you provided. Prostitution isn't the issue at all with regards to head-covering. All women in Hellenistic cultures wore head-coverings all the time, except perhaps at home. Remember, in the classical Greco-Roman world women were considered utterly inferior to men. Romans often didn't give their daughters first names because they were irrelevant in public life - the only name that mattered was the family name (hence all of Gaius Julius Caesar's female relatives were named Julia, since they were members of the Julii family).

Paul is reminding the Corinthian women to continue to submit to their husbands, despite their newfound liberty and equal standing before God. Christianity was counter-cultural to the Corinthian women because it gave them MORE freedom and autonomy than before. In spite of this, Paul admonishes the women to continue to submit to their husbands, and as a sign the head coverings should continue to be worn when they speak in worship, just as it is outside worship. To discount the cultural aspect of this passage is, in my mind, to misread it entirely. Paul wasn't telling them to do something counter-cultural, he was telling them to continue to show signs of submission to their husbands in keeping with cultural norms. That's the point of the passage. So indeed, culture is a major factor in understanding this passage...

 

[Notthemama1984]

I am about to head to the laundry mat. When I get back I will search for it and post it.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

In the last 100 years, a 2000 year old doctrine, has been all but removed from most Reformed churches, by a single controlling element- culture. The doctrine abandoned was the use of head coverings in public worship.

The fact remains that even 50 years ago, it mattered very little what Church you attended (Baptist, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Reformed), all women wore a head covering in public worship. Yet today there are hardly any congregations in Western Culture that practice this with any degree of consistency, if they practice it at all. When you ask the question “Why don’t you believe wearing a head covering is biblical?”, you are met with a uniform answer, “Because it was a cultural practice, and our culture no longer requires a head covering.” The question must be answered then, are head coverings cultural, or are they a requirement for corporate worship? This short paper will attempt to answer that question.

If you would like to read more click here

My wife wears a headcovering in public and private worship. However, The idea that head covering began to be considered a cultural practice with the rise of feminism is not true. There were Reformation writers who considered head covering a cultural practice. Consider this note from the 1599 Geneva Bible on 1 Cor 11:4...

It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection.

 

[Notthemama1984]

The Sproul sermon was taken from his book Knowing Scripture. Here it is from google books. page 107 starts the discussion about the three options of looking at culture in the Bible.

Knowing Scripture - Google Books

The sermon can be bought at Ligonier.org here http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/knowing-scripture/principle-vs-custom/