Should women cover up?

Should women wear headcoverings in worship?

  • Yes

    Votes: 34 29.3%
  • No

    Votes: 53 45.7%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 29 25.0%

  • Total voters
    116
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there any way to see how everybody voted on this topic?

The person who creates the poll determines whether one can see how people voted. In this poll the person opted not to make that information available. (I voted "yes".)

I maintain the headcovering is an alterable sign. I imagine many of our ladies think the same, otherwise they wouldn't wear hats but something a little more middle eastern.

How alterable is it? Could it be changed to something unrelated to headgear?
 
Sometimes I think that covering is indeed reduced to a 'cultural thing' (by its own adherants) and to those watching, it seems to lose its Scriptural significance altogether. In the past, when I saw a ~1950's era church scene in a movie, I would look carefully at the women in hats and veils. Yes, it was just a scene in a movie, but I can see that those with the means to do so would pull out all the stops and make a church service look like the Royal Ascot! This is vanity run amok, nothing more, and is serious fodder for those who want it to be left as a cultural peculiarity.
 
I maintain the headcovering is an alterable sign. I imagine many of our ladies think the same, otherwise they wouldn't wear hats but something a little more middle eastern.

How alterable is it? Could it be changed to something unrelated to headgear?

I can't see how, considering one's attitude to the "head" is the focus of attention in 1 Cor. 11.

Just to clarify, many historic reformed commentators state that the apostle is telling the Corinthians to observe the cuturally relevant way in which men and women are differentiated in public gatherings, especially solemn or religious gatherings. Given that our culture is rapidly moving towards a unisex approach to all manner of acting and modes of dress, my view is that it is best for the church to observe what was done in the past so as to avoid the stigma of holding that the sexes are the same. We should also observe the biblical principle of obeying father and mother, and uphold good traditions. So I qualify that this is not a moral issue, but a cultural one. It is not about guilt, but shame or embarassment.

The ladies have worn hats to worship services for a long while now in cultures of British origin. I observe that in etiquette books it is still considered customary for ladies to wear hats on solemn occasions, such as at weddings and funerals. Whether they actually do today is not really at issue. I see many occasions where the etiquette is violated. It appears to me to be violated either out of ignorance, or out of libertine disrespect to tradition. I think the same applies to the way people dress for worship services in general. In fact, the same applies to the way people act in worship services as well. If they are there to worship the great and holy Name of God, it is barely apparent by their actions.
 
Rev. Winzer, do you think it is acceptable for a woman in a culture of British origin to adopt a different style of headgear than the traditional hat? I ask because the women I know personally who cover usually wear something other than a hat. It seems to me that this is OK as our style of dress in general has become more eclectic, borrowing from many cultures.
 
Rev. Winzer, do you think it is acceptable for a woman in a culture of British origin to adopt a different style of headgear than the traditional hat? I ask because the women I know personally who cover usually wear something other than a hat. It seems to me that this is OK as our style of dress in general has become more eclectic, borrowing from many cultures.

I don't know the demography of the area where this is happening, so it would be unwise for me to comment. One thing I have noticed, however, is that there seems to be a tendency for some to go too far. Having taken up "headcovering" as a moral issue, they tend to move towards middle eastern forms out of a desire to be consistent. The end product is an alienation of our western culture altogether -- which is the very thing the apostle was seeking to avoid. As Christians we should utilise the best forms of our own culture (which has a very rich tradition from which to draw) in order to convey the principles of gospel-reconciliation, conversation, reverence, and worship in an intelligible and decent manner. I do not believe Muslim women have a thing or two to teach us here. Christianity has "liberated" women in the true sense of that word, and I wouldn't like to see our ladies brought into a state of bondage out of a desire to imitate one false religion's debased concept of female servility.
 
If you (anyone) believe that the headcovering is not cultural, then when was the last time you took out the ol' wash-bucket and scrubbed the saints' dirty feet??? Jesus said that "if I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet" (JN.13:14), He also said that "a servant is not greater than his master" so if Jesus--the LORD-- washed feet and Paul wrote that one of the 'marks' of a faithful widow (who should be taken care of by the church) is that she wash the saints' feet (hence, it is not said to be cultural-- 1Tim.5:10), then do you wash feet also???
 
If you (anyone) believe that the headcovering is not cultural, then when was the last time you took out the ol' wash-bucket and scrubbed the saints' dirty feet??? Jesus said that "if I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet" (JN.13:14), He also said that "a servant is not greater than his master" so if Jesus--the LORD-- washed feet and Paul wrote that one of the 'marks' of a faithful widow (who should be taken care of by the church) is that she wash the saints' feet (hence, it is not said to be cultural-- 1Tim.5:10), then do you wash feet also???
I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM with this being practised in the church (and personally, it should be).
 
At my wedding....... We had a Footwashing aspect to our wedding ceremony....

Not that I see Foot Washing as a Sacrament, I do not have a problem with doing it in the worship service...


If you (anyone) believe that the headcovering is not cultural, then when was the last time you took out the ol' wash-bucket and scrubbed the saints' dirty feet??? Jesus said that "if I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet" (JN.13:14), He also said that "a servant is not greater than his master" so if Jesus--the LORD-- washed feet and Paul wrote that one of the 'marks' of a faithful widow (who should be taken care of by the church) is that she wash the saints' feet (hence, it is not said to be cultural-- 1Tim.5:10), then do you wash feet also???
 
thunaer,
I'm curious why you would have a problem washing feet in the worship service? I'm sure that you and everyone else do a lot of things that aren't "sacraments" during the service.
 
I said I do not have a problem with it..... I would love to see it done, maybe before the Lord Supper since it was tacked on like that in John.

In fact All the early Calvinistic Baptist had nonsacramental Footwashing in their worship services......

Michael


thunaer,
I'm curious why you would have a problem washing feet in the worship service? I'm sure that you and everyone else do a lot of things that aren't "sacraments" during the service.
 
The only churches that I know of that hold to a headcovering and footwashing are the Anabaptists (Mennonites). Thunaer, can you please site a Calvinistic Baptist or C.B. Church that held to footwashing? I'd be interested if you can offer a 'name' to look up--Thanks.
 
Let me get back to you on a Historical Name in my collection of articles..... But if you want to know if ANY Calvinistic Churches still hold to footwashing, The Primitive Baptist who are also known as Old School Baptist still hold to footwashing in their churches, but I think they would view it as a third sacrament....

Michael

The only churches that I know of that hold to a headcovering and footwashing are the Anabaptists (Mennonites). Thunaer, can you please site a Calvinistic Baptist or C.B. Church that held to footwashing? I'd be interested if you can offer a 'name' to look up--Thanks.
 
I looked at the Primitive Baptists awhile ago and from what I remember, they aren't Calvinists. I have to go back and look at their doctrine again, but I think that they might have been hyper-Calvinists, I don't remember.
 
Some are HyperCalvinist, others are not hyper.... It is sorta 50/50 right now in the denomination... Historically they weren't hypercalvinist at all... Some of my friends are Primitive Baptist and they are 1689ers and not hyper at all...


I looked at the Primitive Baptists awhile ago and from what I remember, they aren't Calvinists. I have to go back and look at their doctrine again, but I think that they might have been hyper-Calvinists, I don't remember.
 
Ok, It looks like Hansard Knollys, William Kiffen, and Benjamin Keach all held to footwashing as a rite, not a sacrament of the church and for the worship service.....

Michael

The only churches that I know of that hold to a headcovering and footwashing are the Anabaptists (Mennonites). Thunaer, can you please site a Calvinistic Baptist or C.B. Church that held to footwashing? I'd be interested if you can offer a 'name' to look up--Thanks.
 
Matthew, unfortunately that is the crux of the situation. I know of ONE reformed denomination that has the guts to teach the covering from the pulpit. The Anabaptist churches are dead and doctrinally unsound (the outside means everything, but when it comes to opening the scriptures, I know more catholics that are familiar with the scriptures than anabaptists).
 
Last edited:
I don't know the demography of the area where this is happening, so it would be unwise for me to comment. One thing I have noticed, however, is that there seems to be a tendency for some to go too far. Having taken up "headcovering" as a moral issue, they tend to move towards middle eastern forms out of a desire to be consistent. The end product is an alienation of our western culture altogether -- which is the very thing the apostle was seeking to avoid. As Christians we should utilise the best forms of our own culture (which has a very rich tradition from which to draw) in order to convey the principles of gospel-reconciliation, conversation, reverence, and worship in an intelligible and decent manner. I do not believe Muslim women have a thing or two to teach us here. Christianity has "liberated" women in the true sense of that word, and I wouldn't like to see our ladies brought into a state of bondage out of a desire to imitate one false religion's debased concept of female servility.

I think it is an issue of fashion rather than demographics. The Gypsy/Boho look of a few years ago is still popular here, so I think those who are into that style choose headcoverings that are more Eastern European. I don't think that is a problem as long as they are honoring the principle. I am sure there are some who think we should reproduce the headcovering of Paul's day, but thankfully I haven't heard anything like that.
 
Hey I just found this in the writings of Tertullian:

Chapter VII.—Of the Reasons Assigned by the Apostle for Bidding Women to Be Veiled.
Turn we next to the examination of the reasons themselves which lead the apostle to teach that the female ought to be veiled, (to see) whether the self-same (reasons) apply to virgins likewise; so that hence also the community of the name between virgins and not-virgins may be established, while the self-same causes which necessitate the veil are found to exist in each case.
If “the man is head of the woman,” of course (he is) of the virgin too, from whom comes the woman who has married; unless the virgin is a third generic class, some monstrosity with a head of its own. If “it is shameful for a woman to be shaven or shorn,” of course it is so for a virgin. (Hence let the world, the rival of God, see to it, if it asserts that close-cut hair is graceful to a virgin in like manner as that flowing hair is to a boy.) To her, then, to whom it is equally unbecoming to be shaven or shorn, it is equally becoming to be covered. If “the woman is the glory of the man,” how much more the virgin, who is a glory withal to herself! If “the woman is of the man,” and “for the sake of the man,” that rib of Adam was first a virgin. If “the woman ought to have power upon the head,” all the more justly ought the virgin, to whom pertains the essence of the cause (assigned for this assertion). For if (it is) on account of the angels—those, to wit, whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven on account of concupiscence after females—who can presume that it was bodies already defiled, and relics of human lust, which such angels yearned after, so as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins, whose bloom pleads an excuse for human lust likewise? For thus does Scripture withal suggest: “And it came to pass,” it says, “when men had begun to grow more numerous upon the earth, there were withal daughters born them; but the sons of God, having descried the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they elected.” For here the Greek name of women does seem to have the sense “wives,” inasmuch as mention is made of marriage. When, then, it says “the daughters of men,” it manifestly purports virgins, who would be still reckoned as belonging to their parents—for wedded women are called their husbands’—whereas it could have said “the wives of men:” in like manner not naming the angels adulterers, but husbands, while they take unwedded “daughters of men,” who it has above said were “born,” thus also signifying their virginity: first, “born;” but here, wedded to angels. Anything else I know not that they were except “born” and subsequently wedded. So perilous a face, then, ought to be shaded, which has cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven: that, when standing in the presence of God, at whose bar it stands accused of the driving of the angels from their (native) confines, it may blush before the other angels as well; and may repress that former evil liberty of its head,—(a liberty) now to be exhibited not even before human eyes. But even if they were females already contaminated whom those angels had desired, so much the more “on account of the angels” would it have been the duty of virgins to be veiled, as it would have been the more possible for virgins to have been the cause of the angels’ sinning. If, moreover, the apostle further adds the prejudgment of “nature,” that redundancy of locks is an honour to a woman, because hair serves for a covering, of course it is most of all to a virgin that this is a distinction; for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair.
 
I just spoke to a lady at church today that grew up Roman Catholic in the 1950's and she said that when they went to church she put on a head covering. I didn't realize that the Roman Catholics practiced this at one time. And she thought that it had change because of Vatican II. Does anyone know anything about this. I find it interesting if there was somekind of change in the practice and what the reasons where for the change. Did the early reformers read 1 Corithians 11 literally? I am just wondering how the early church fathers taught 1 Corithians 11 to people.
 
I just spoke to a lady at church today that grew up Roman Catholic in the 1950's and she said that when they went to church she put on a head covering. I didn't realize that the Roman Catholics practiced this at one time. And she thought that it had change because of Vatican II. Does anyone know anything about this. I find it interesting if there was somekind of change in the practice and what the reasons where for the change. Did the early reformers read 1 Corithians 11 literally? I am just wondering how the early church fathers taught 1 Corithians 11 to people.


That's right, if you go to RCC spanish speaking (S-America) there you can still find churches were the women wear headcoverings. Actually until 1950's almost all the women in churches were wearing headcovering, sinds the influene's of feminism this has this biblical practise has been taken out, which i think is very sad. My daughter who is 3.5 years old, wanted yesterday during the church service, to wear here veil, like her mother. My wife is the only one in our (evangelical baptist) church, who practise this.
 
The argument gets more convincing to me if historical Christianity has been practicing head coverings for centuries. If it is true that the practice of head coverings has been going on for centeries that makes the argument that opposes head coverings difficult. Church History means something to me. Is it because of feminism that the Roman Catholic Church has made some changes concerning headcoverings? The Catholic Masses that I have attended I never saw any women with headcoverings on. I have never read through the book Vatican II, but something must have made the practice change in that church.

I spoke to my pastor about this and what he said was interesting, he said that his conscience would bother him if he had his hat on while he was praying and worshipping God at Church. 1 Corinthians 11 speaks to the men as well as the women. So women don't need to wear headcoverings? then I guess I can wear my baseball cap to church and when I pray ect.....since we aren't going to read 1 Corinthians 11 literally. Those that oppose the headcovering, are saying also that it is ok for me to wear my baseball cap to the worship service and it doesn't matter if I keep my baseball cap on when I pray??? My conscience also bugs me when I pray if I had my baseball cap on.
 
Last edited:
The argument gets more convincing to me if historical Christianity has been practicing head coverings for centuries. If it is true that the practice of head coverings has been going on for centeries that makes the argument that opposes head coverings difficult. Church History means something to me. Is it because of feminism that the Roman Catholic Church has made some changes concerning headcoverings? The Catholic Masses that I have attended I never saw any women with headcoverings on. I have never read through the book Vatican II, but something must have made the practice change in that church.


Roman Catholism on headcovering see : http://www.modestyveils.com/
 
This is really convincing and convicting...


THE VEIL
Derived from a book in progress called: "The Unveiled Woman"
by Jackie Freppon

During the second Vatican Council, a mob of reporters waited for news after a council meeting. One of them asked Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, then secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, if women still had to wear a headcover in churches. His response was that the Bishops were considering other issues, and that women's veils were not on the agenda. The next day, the International Press announced throughout the world that women did not have to wear the veil anymore. A few days later, Msgr. Bugnini told the press he was misquoted and women still had to wear the veil. But the Press did not retract the error, and many women stopped wearing the veil out of confusion and because of pressure from feminist groups.

Before the revision in 1983, Canon law had stated that women must cover their heads ". . . especially when they approach the holy table" (Can 1262.2). But in order to reduce such a growing collection of books, the new version of Canon law was subjected to concise changes. In the process, mention of headcoverings was omitted. In 1970, Pope Paul VI promulgated the Roman Missal, ignoring mention of women's veils. But at the time the Missal was published, it didn't seem necessary to keep mandatory such an obvious and universal practice, even if it no longer had a "normative" value (Interinsigniores, #4). And mention in Canon law or the Roman Missal is not necessary to the continuation of the tradition, for it is rooted in Scripture and has been practised ever since the early Church. Indeed, Pope John Paul II affirmed that the real sources of Canon law are the Sacred Tradition, especially as reflected in the ecumenical councils, and Sacred Scripture (O.S.V. Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 169).

SCRIPTURE
Sacred Scripture presents several reasons for wearing the veil. St. Paul tells us in his first letter to the Corinthians (11:1-16) that we must cover our heads because it is Sacred Tradition commanded by our Lord Himself and entrusted to Paul: "The things I am writing to you are the Lord's commandments" (1 Cor. 14:37).

DIVINE HIERARCHY
God has established a heirarchy, in both the natural and religious spheres, in which the female is subject to the male. St. Paul writes in first Corinthians: "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11-3). And, in the institution of marriage, God gave the husband authority over the wife, but responsibility to her as well. Not only is he the family's decision-maker, but he is also responsible for the material and spiritual welfare of his wife and children. Man is not in this position to enslave or belittle the wife. As the Bride, (the Church), is subject to Jesus, women must wear the veil as a sign that they are subjected to men: "Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church." (Eph. 5, 22-23). The man represents Jesus, therefore he should not cover his head. However, this subjection is not derogatory to women, because in God's kingdom everyone is subjected to a higher authority: "For as the woman is from the man, so also is the man through the woman, but all things are from God." (1 Cor. 11, 12). Furthermore, the symbolism of the veil takes that which is invisible, the order established by God, and makes it visible. In the history of the Church, priestly vestments have played a similar symbolic role.

WOMEN'S HONOR
It is an honor to wear the veil. But by publicly repudiating it, a woman dishonors her feminine dignity, the sign of female subjection, just as the military officer is dishonored when he is stripped of his decorations. The Roman Pontifical contains the imposing ceremonial of the consecration of the veils: "Receive the sacred veil, that thou mayst be known to have despised the world, and to be truly, humbly, and with all thy heart subject to Christ as his bride; and may he defend thee from all evil, and bring thee to life eternal" (Pontificale Romanum; de benedictione). St. Paul says an unveiled woman is a dishonor: "But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncoverd disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaven" (1 Cor. 11, 5).

BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS
"That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels" wrote St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11, 10. The invisible heirarchy should be respected because the Angels are present at Christian liturgical assemblies, offering with us the Holy Sacrifice with the honor due to God. St. John the Apostle wrote: "And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense that he might offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne." (Rev. 8:3, see also Matt. 18:10). They are offended by a lack of reverence at Mass, just as they abhorred King Herod's acceptance of adoration from the people of Jerusalem: "But immediately an angel of the Lord struck (Herod) down, because he had not given honor to God, and he was eaten by worms, and died." (Acts, 12:23).

ANCIENT TRADITION
The custom of wearing the veil was maintained in the primitive Churches of God. (1 Cor. 11:16). We see this in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians. The women of Corinth, beset by modern sensibilities, started coming to church without their heads covered. When St. Paul heard of their neglect, he wrote and urged them to keep the veil. According to St. Jerome's commentary Bible, he finally settled the matter by saying the head covering was a custom of the primitive communities of Judea, "the Churches of God" (1 Thess. 2-14, 2 Thess. 1-4), which had received this Tradition from early times (2 Thess., 2:15. 3:6).

GOD'S COMMAND
Even today some people erroneously believe that St. Paul based the tradition on his personal opinion. They think he did not intend it to be continued in the Universal Church, but only as a local custom. This argument, however, does not conform to the Pauline spirit. After all, it was Paul who stood before Peter to change Jewish traditions in Christian Churches (Gal. 2:11-21). St. Paul reminds them: "for I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it; but I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:12), referring to the authority of his ministry, and veracity of his words. Pope Linus, who succeeded St. Peter, enforced also the same tradition of women covering their heads in the church (The Primitive Church, TAN). Our Lord warns us to obey His commandments: "He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19).

CONCLUSION
In summary, the reasons that St. Paul advises women to cover their head in the church are:


Our Lord commanded it;
It is a visible sign of an invisible order established by God;
The Angels at Mass are offended if women don't use it;
It is a ceremonial vestment;
It is our heritage.
Christian women around the world have other reasons to wear a hat, mantilla, rebozo, gele, scarf, shawl or veil. Some wear it out of respect to God; others to obey the Pope's request, or to continue family traditions. But the most important reason of all is because Our Lord said: "if you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15). We should always be ready with our bridal veils, waiting for Him and the promised wedding (Apoc. 22:17), following the example of our Blessed Mother, Mary, who never appeared before the eyes of men but properly veiled. To those who still think that the veil is an obsolete custom, remember that: "Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday and today, yes, and forever" (Heb. 13:8).


How do they argue the cultural argument against Historical Christian Tradition, If the Church has taught this practice for centuries how is it that this present century thinks that it "knows" better then the previous centuries?
 
thanks for those links, while I was reading through some of them I ran into something that R.C. Sproul wrote concerning headcoverings,



In Knowing Scripture, Sproul gives a chapter on "Culture and the Bible," in which he discusses the treatment of the headcovering passage to illustrate various principles of interpretation and application. He writes:

It is one thing to seek a more lucid understanding of the biblical content by investigating the cultural situation of the first century; it is quite another to interpret the New Testament as if it were merely an echo of the first-century culture. To do so would be to fail to account for the serious conflict the church experienced as it confronted the first-century world. Christians were not thrown to the lions for their penchant for conformity.

Some very subtle means of relativizing the text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought not to be there. For example, with respect to the hair-covering issue in Corinth, numerous commentators on the Epistle point out that the local sign of the prostitute in Corinth was the uncovered head. Therefore, the argument runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a scandalous appearance of Christian women in the external guise of prostitutes.

What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle's mouth, but we are ignoring words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and gave no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation, not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul's stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisogesis.

The creation ordinances are indicators of the transcultural principle. If any biblical principles transcend local customary limits, they are the appeals drawn from creation. (21)

It seems that R.C. Sproul doesn't believe in the cultural argument for 1 Corinthians 11
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top