Thoughts on Head-Coverings?

[Travis Fentiman]

Is Paul’s injunction for women to cover their heads in worship binding today (1 Cor. 11:2-16)?

Most of the Reformed, the Scottish covenanters and the Westminster divines in the Reformation and puritan era said ‘No,’ that Paul’s ordinance was relative to his culture, which used this custom.

I argue that the cultural view is conclusive from God's Word in this new in-depth book:

1 Corinthians – Head-Coverings are Not Perpetual & they were Hair-Buns, with or without Material: Proven (RBO, 2022) 283 pp.​

The book’s intro will whet your desire to invest the time to look through the rest, from which you will reap many rewards. To see how Corinthian women covered their heads, see the many pictures in the History section on pp. 188-98. For a summary of the main points of the whole book, see the Summary Conclusions beginning on p. 258.

There are sections with lots of documentation on Reformation and puritan ministers preaching with caps on, on pp. 65-68, and that puritan men normally wore hats in worship listening to the sermon on pp. 176-78.

There is a wealth of references and quotes from the reformed orthodox in the footnotes (not to mention the early and Medieval Church), often translated from the Latin.

The logical structure of the book’s two main arguments follows (from Parts I & II of the book). Each proposition is thoroughly proven in detail in the book. I am interested in your feedback, specifically about the arguments below or the book itself.

Please do look over the material. Any argument put forward for perpetuity or veiling below in comments has more than likely been answered at length in detail in the book. I will refer you to page numbers.

Part I​

​

1. All positive, instituted worship must be “expressly set down in Scripture” or “by good and necessary consequence… deduced” therefrom; Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6. This is known as the Regulative Principle of Worship.​

​

2. In Scripture head-coverings, or the lack thereof, bore a variety of contrary meanings and acceptability, or not, in worship. Hence they were clearly cultural.​

​

3. Head-coverings cannot be taught by pure-nature and have no intrinsic value for worshipping God.​

​

4. Paul only uses the language of “dishonor,” “becometh,” “glory” and “custom” about head-coverings, which are all things of social decency, but do not reflect inherent sins. As with head-coverings, Paul uses imperatives in 1 Cor. 7 about things not intrinsically sinful.​

​

5. Some apostolic ordinances were circumstantially conditioned and mutable.​

​

6. Universal moral reasons given for a practice, such as head-coverings, not eating creeping things (Lev. 11:41, 44), the holy kiss, foot-washing, etc. does not necessarily make it perpetual. A context is assumed and generals can only bind generally.​

​

7. There is nothing in 1 Cor. 11 necessitating head-coverings to have a different meaning or use in worship than in society.​

​

8. There is no necessary warrant Corinthian head-coverings were geographically or temporally universal in the apostolic churches; but if they were, this does not itself make an ordinance to be of positive religion, especially as the Greco-Roman culture (which head-coverings were appropriate to) was vast.​

​

9. Part I’s survey of all the relevant Scriptural head-covering data (consider it for yourself) shows there is no express or good and necessary consequence from these texts that Corinthian head-coverings were a positive, perpetual rite of religion (WCF 21.1) beyond circumstances common to human society, ordered by nature’s light, Christian prudence and the Word’s general principles (WCF 1.6), which things may be culturally relative.​

​

10. These things being the case, Paul’s statement that improper head-covering “dishonoreth her head,” (v. 5) must be, not prescriptive, but descriptive, as the case was in that society (which it was). Hence Paul’s natural and spiritual arguments are contingent on this de facto premise. A change of the premise in a different culture where not covering is not dishonoring, changes the conclusion.​

​

11. Hence, as there is no express, necessary or valid consequence from Scripture Corinthian head-coverings were a matter of perpetual religion, this cannot be established as doctrine or a binding practice.​

​

12. To give a use or meaning to head-coverings for worship which nature or society does not bear and God’s Word has not given, is to worship God with a device of men, which God has prohibited by his Word (Mt. 15:9; WCF 21.1).​

Part II​

​

1. The Lexical section shows it is possible, and there is a significant foundation, that “covered” may refer to hair-buns with or without cloth material and “uncovered” to let-down long hair.​

​

2. This understanding makes the details of 1 Cor. 11 to read seamlessly, with more explanatory power than any other view.​

​

3. Footnotes 351–52 and the History section (with many pictures) show the considerable evidence that honorable women in first-century Greece nearly universally publicly wore bound-up hair, with or without cloth material and that universal veiling was not required. Bound-up hair without material in it or over it cannot be demonstrated to have been dishonorable by the current data, and a large amount of evidence manifests its honorableness.​

​

4. Universal female veiling was not required or practiced for pagan religious rites.​

​

5. Certain exegetical interpretations in 1 Cor. 11 upholding female, unveiled hair-buns cannot be ruled out.​

​

6. As there is no necessary (and hence valid) consequence from Scripture that Corinthian coverings were formally religious (proved in Part I), so Paul’s ordinance could not have been above and beyond appropriate societal custom, but rather must have been in consistency with it.​

​

7. Hence, according to the preponderance of historical evidence, Paul did not require of women veiling, but decent, bound-up hair.​

The above is summarized succinctly in Part II’s conclusion:

That head-coverings are not perpetual, Part I has demonstrated to be by divine law, jure divino.​

​

That being the case, that Paul was not instituting a positive rite above culture, and the Corinthian culture did not practice universal, female veiling (for public decorum or for praying or religious rites), as is clear, universal, female veiling in the Corinthian assemblies is historically disproven.​

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I'm pro-headcovering.

 

[Jake]

Hi Travis,

I'm looking forward to reading this. Thank you. I'll wait to add more comments until I have.

 

[Logan]

Very interesting, I would have expected the opposite position from you, Travis.

I found it very interesting, in my own reading of the Reformers and Puritans, that they almost all, when they commented on it, saw the injunction against men covering their heads as cultural. Many, including Calvin specifically said it was fine for men to cover their heads in cold climates, or others would say that the custom in their day was that someone exalted could keep their hat on in the present of a king.

This prompts the question: if they saw the discussion regarding a man's covering (or lack) as cultural, then did they see the covering of the female as cultural? Did they perhaps write regarding female coverings in the way they did because the custom of the day for females pretty well lined up with the text in 1 Corinthians 11, so to comment otherwise would merely needlessly stir up controversy in a cultural context? An interesting proposition that I'm not sure could be proven one way or another without explicit writings on it.

One thing I have always found odd about the position that head-coverings are commanded is that it seems to be in stark contrast to how other commands regarding our behavior are given. It would be a very specific command regarding a specific article of clothing, and given in only one instance, where elsewhere it is always about general practice (e.g., modest apparel). If it is a cultural application through a specific means, then it seems to me that the general principle (showing submission) is the key, rather than the specific article of clothing, which doesn't seem to have any universal significance. However, I fully recognize and respect other convictions.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

...I found it very interesting, in my own reading of the Reformers and Puritans, that they almost all, when they commented on it, saw the injunction against men covering their heads as cultural. Many, including Calvin specifically said it was fine for men to cover their heads in cold climates, or others would say that the custom in their day was that someone exalted could keep their hat on in the present of a king.

This prompts the question: if they saw the discussion regarding a man's covering (or lack) as cultural, then did they see the covering of the female as cultural? Did they perhaps write regarding female coverings in the way they did because the custom of the day for females pretty well lined up with the text in 1 Corinthians 11, so to comment otherwise would merely needlessly stir up controversy in a cultural context? An interesting proposition that I'm not sure could be proven one way or another without explicit writings on it.

One thing I have always found odd about the position that head-coverings are commanded is that it seems to be in stark contrast to how other commands regarding our behavior are given. It would be a very specific command regarding a specific article of clothing, and given in only one instance, where elsewhere it is always about general practice (e.g., modest apparel). If it is a cultural application through a specific means, then it seems to me that the general principle (showing submission) is the key, rather than the specific article of clothing, which doesn't seem to have any universal significance. However, I fully recognize and respect other convictions.

Thanks for your thoughts Logan.

In accord with what you said, I document in some length that reformers, etc. said it was fine for men to wear hats due to the cold on p. 46 footnote 110. This though could not have been the whole issue, because when you see pictures from that era, while a minister may have a cap on, often the men in the congregation are bare-headed (e.g. on p. 68).

The reason the Anglican men were all bare-headed in the congregation was not due to 1 Cor. 11, but because removing the hat was a sign of deference, submission and honor to the one being addressed. They removed their hats upon entering the church building in order to show honor and respect to it, which the puritans generally considered superstition.

Puritan men normally wore hats in worship listening to the sermon, and in other parts of the service, as documented at length on pp. 176-78, as men wearing a hat was socially considered a sign of honor and dominion (they had a different view of 1 Cor. 11:7, which I argue from the Word in the book on pp. 174-87) than modern head-covering advocates. The puritans, as documented on p. 176 footnote 551, often said their practice (with respect to men) was the opposite of Paul's in 1 Cor. 11.

The women did normally wear cloth head-coverings to church in that era, though I have not confirmed yet that that was universal. My suspicion is that there were exceptions and a minority practice (as Voet seems to state, p. 168 footnote 520).

But they did not wear them due to 1 Cor. 11, but because it was their culture. Calvin's writings are a good example of this: in his commentary he holds Paul's ordinance to be cultural, but then in his sermons on the passage he enforces women covering for decency. Most of the puritans held the passage to be cultural, but, according to what women wore in public, they also wore such head-coverings to Church, showing they were common circumstances to human society (contra modern-head-covering advocates).

As to your argument about the general principle being key rather than the specific article of clothing, I make that argument in some detail on p. 185 and surrounding.

Hope this may be interesting and helpful. Blessings friend.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Travis, congratulations on the book, brother. I really look forward to reading it. While I do not look down on brethren who take the other view, I honestly believe that they have gotten this one wrong. Still, this difference of opinion is not keeping me awake at night.

 

[Logan]

Thanks Travis. I have only perused the book (and then started reading it) but it's obvious that there is an enormous wealth of footnotes in here that any counter-argument will have to honestly deal with. I appreciate all the work.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

A Review.

I found a number of items in the publication amenable and helpful, coming at length to partial agreement with the main conclusions (not a change of mind on my part). I should greatly consent to the anti-legalism opinion TF sets forth.

I yet maintain my own view that the Apostle teaches some kind of "covering" belongs to female participants in worship, even as such "covering" is prohibited of male participants; I think the church has, at times, erred in referring the whole matter occupying the Apostle (in 1Cor.11) in essence to cultural norms thus adiaphora. But not such an error that it was not, more often than not, balanced by the weight of attendance on concerns of greater moment that made up for the neglect.

I also do not think that TF's view is the simplest therefore most suitable. One might suppose, upon reading the publication, that all other views end up in a tangle of contradiction and necessary complexity. This was certainly not my judgment upon preaching the whole of Paul's letter (and its 2Cor. companion).

Opposition to androgyny, to effeminacy (of men), and to "butch" qualities (of women)--more generally: maintaining the evident natural distinction of males and females together engaged in Christian worship--is high among the Apostle's didactic intentions. There are significant problems with the Corinthian church at worship, though thankfully not all has gone awry. A penchant to ignore or overturn order, both natural and spiritual, infects the body. To correct this tendency St.Paul must forthrightly deal with the error so it does not grow like gangrene.

To repeat: I found the publication contains a wealth of historical information brought together in one place. I learned more than a few new facts, and consider the publication may prove useful to the church and belongs to the library of opinion on this subject. The full argument does not persuade me, as one who began with the perspective outlined and moved away from it over time. However, I find more to agree with in TF's opinion than I do in the opinions of militant prescriptionists who make laws where Scripture is silent.

 

[TylerRay]

12. To give a use or meaning to head-coverings for worship which nature or society does not bear and God’s Word has not given, is to worship God with a device of men, which God has prohibited by his Word (Mt. 15:9; WCF 21.1).

Hey, Travis. I'm curious--do you think veils have any significance in our culture today? If someone walked into a church where all the women were veiled for the first time, how do you think he would interpret it?

 

[Travis Fentiman]

A Review.

Bruce,

I have a high respect for you, your caliber of analysis and, as always, your expressed thoughts. I take your response as high praise.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Hey, Travis. I'm curious--do you think veils have any significance in our culture today? If someone walked into a church where all the women were veiled for the first time, how do you think he would interpret it?

Tyler,

Thank you for your interaction.

I do think if veils have significance in a society, that they may rightly be ordered by nature's light, Christian prudence and the Word's general rules (WCF 1.6) for worship.

It is not in my prerogative to definitively answer whether veils have a necessary degree of relevance in our culture to be pertinent in Christian worship. Hence I did not address that in the book.

I am not opposed to answering your question, but recognize that it is sensitive. And as my book does not address it, nor do I have any specialty in answering it beyond the common person, I am wondering why you ask me. Any person here may answer it for themselves.

Blessings friend.

 

[TylerRay]

Tyler,

Thank you for your interaction.

I do think if veils have significance in a society, that they may rightly be ordered by nature's light, Christian prudence and the Word's general rules (WCF 1.6) for worship.

It is not in my prerogative to definitively answer whether veils have a necessary degree of relevance in our culture to be pertinent in Christian worship. Hence I did not address that in the book.

I am not opposed to answering your question, but recognize that it is sensitive. And as my book does not address it, nor do I have any specialty in answering it beyond the common person, I am wondering why you ask me. Any person here may answer it for themselves.

Blessings friend.

Thanks for your reply. It's something I've often thought of with regard to the view that Paul was giving a command to observe cultural practices related to the different sexes. It seems to me that the significance of the veil is well understood, whether or not it's a positive scriptural command.

Thanks again. Hope y'all are doing well.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I look forward to reading this work. I have always treated the issue as parallel to exclusive psalmody. My wife covers her head in worship because she fears God - maybe I Cor. 11 doesn't require it. But it might. Better safe than sorry. I sing only Psalms in public and private worship because I fear God. Maybe Paul is introducing the singing of uninspired songs in Colossians and Ephesians. But maybe he’s not. Again, I would rather be safe singing something I know God approves of (His Word) than something I am not absolutely (exclusively?) sure He approves of. The fear of the Lord is not only the beginning of wisdom. The fear of the Lord is also the beginning of worship, as the WCF reflects in introducing Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day (Ch.21): “1. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.” If you do not begin with the fear of God, your worship will not be unblemished. It is interesting that, by fearing God, I enter worship with no fear that my sacrifice of praise will not be acceptable. My wife and daughters enter worship with heads covered with no fear of offending God in this area. To extend WCF 21, the light of nature also shows that there is a difference between male and female. There are numerous ways in the previous dispensation that this was recognized and observed in worship. Faith has never been a matter of male and female. But in practice it has always been so.

 

[bookish_Basset]

Thank you for sharing; I will have to take time to read this book carefully. It's been very challenging for me to form a clear conviction on this matter. I've come down on the side of beginning to practice headcovering and have found that a blessing, and not a matter of legalism; however, my feelings about it are neither here nor there, if it's not actually being obedient to Scripture.

I yet maintain my own view that the Apostle teaches some kind of "covering" belongs to female participants in worship, even as such "covering" is prohibited of male participants;

If you don't mind, @Contra_Mundum, I would be interested in what you mean by "belongs" to female participants.

 

[chuckd]

The head covering may be the cultural "symbol of authority" for 1st century Corinth, but what is it in our society? I don't think we have one. Certainly not hair buns.

We see a Muslim woman with a head covering and we know why she is wearing it. I think that is a better option than a t-shirt that says "I was made for man".

 

[Contra_Mundum]

If you don't mind, @Contra_Mundum, I would be interested in what you mean by "belongs" to female participants.

Sure. It is "part-and-parcel" of participation in worship, more specifically of the ladies by way of expression. Just as something significant is "said" by the Body, for everyone's benefit, by women's not-speaking (that valuable and important expression being lost to the whole community when the rule is abandoned); so also something positive is surely lost to the Body, and to women in particular, when their unique expression by covering (however it may be made, which seems variable to culture since not spelled out) is done away.

It is one thing to ask, "How is female covering and male not-covering denoted in this place or time?" It is quite another thing to mock the angels (among other offenses) by apparent indifference to the question. I do not allege that the view feminine hairstyle is sufficient "covering" is on its face a display of indifference; but it is the barest compliance, and nearly indistinguishable from indifference. Growing up in that environment, I knew of no despite of divine orderly requirement by women or men; but neither was I aware of much purposeful obedience to it.

Here's a practical illustration: as a young man moved out of my hometown, I was once attending a rather large worship assembly (much larger than any I knew as a child). It was chilly that day, and I was still wearing my coat and hat when I took my place on a back row. As worship began, I felt a tap on my shoulder, and turned to see someone asking me to remove my headgear, which I did (feeling a bit ashamed). As I turned back, I wondered why it had not occurred to me to "uncover" my head when I came inside to worship, since I was aware of the Apostle's instructions in 1Cor.11. I had never been in worship where men wore any cap, nor where women followed any custom that I knew of.

But if the men wore none in worship, that fact demonstrated nothing to my uninformed mind; and if women kept any custom, it was indistinct from life at all other times than worship. In fact, these habits of men and women in worship were no different from the entire irreligious culture surrounding the church at all times; with the exception of military personnel, whose manner of distinctive dress included headgear typically worn at all times when in uniform and on duty outdoors, observable to associates and civilians alike. Uniform headgear made a statement, and distinguished those participants in military service from others not-serving.

That's not an argument in favor of all participants in worship-service adopting headgear. Until the time I was asked to take off my hat for the sake of the worship service, in my whole life I had given very little thought to the possible need to make any adjustment to my attire to bring myself into conformity with worship norms of any kind, whether those taught in the word or beside it. It is not to NT purpose for believers should do aught, beyond this minimal observance (and ever modest). Consistent NT worship practice may align with or defy cultural convention, as for example uncovered men in Christian worship were perhaps at odds with first century Corinth pagan and Jewish male worship practice.

We aim neither to be always counter-culture nor to convert the culture to adopting our norm, but to represent the eternal church at worship. But to do this, we must consider if the time calls for a plainer statement, showing how our representation is in fact deliberate, thoughtful, obedient and humble before God who orders our devotion. As I see matters, if the church regards St.Paul's directions in 1Cor.11 as a purely or largely social-decorum issue, we may fail utterly to send any message, let alone the correct message to fellow members and outsiders alike; and eventually we will send the wrong message absent a positive intention.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

If it is asserted that it was once viewed as merely cultural, may I ask: when was the conviction, that head coverings for women and girls in public worship is a biblical prescription, introduced into the Scottish Presbyterian church?

 

[Travis Fentiman]

If it is asserted that it was once viewed as merely cultural, may I ask: when was the conviction, that head coverings for women and girls in public worship is a biblical prescription, introduced into the Scottish Presbyterian church?

That's a great question Alex.

That question has very much interested me, but as it was too far outside the scope of my exegetical book, I did not fully research it, and hence do not have all the answers to it, though I can share what I have found, and what I suspect is the case, though I would be glad if others research it further and share their findings.

As is documented on pp. 66-67, Scottish culture began to change in the early 1700's to where men began not to wear hats in worship, likely reflecting them not wearing hats as often in public society as a sign of honor. By the mid-1700's the change appears to have become the majority practice in Church.

During that century there were conservative responses to the latitudinarian and skeptical / liberalizing tendencies in the theology of the day. At the same time, with reformed scholasticism dying out, there was a lessening of exegetical and theological precision and detail, and that conservative force often manifested itself in a certain Biblicism. All this would contribute to taking 1 Cor. 11, by conservatives, more "literally", though this is only a guess; I do not have actual evidence for it (and John Brown of Haddington, a professor of the Secession, still took a cultural view, as may be seen on the Scottish page).

In the mid to late 1800's in the Free Church, Chalmers and David Brown took cultural views of the passage (see Chalmers' Sabbath Scripture Readings and the Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary). They likely reflected a significant or dominant view in their context, though Brown complains of those who were more narrow and evidently took 1 Cor. 11 as perpetually binding.

See in my book "On the Recent Rise of Perpetual Coverings", pp. 92-94, which shows that John Murray and Noel Weeks were the two most influential reformed perpetualists in the last half of the 1900's. Murray had the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland background, but says (1973) his:

"interpretation has been proposed by Noel Weeks and I acknowledge my debt to him. But the argument as developed is my own.”​

Weeks published his article in 1972 and doesn't quote any historical, theological writers.

My guess, which is only a guess, is that Murray likely was sympathetic to the practice and interpretation from his FP background. I am guessing the practice was near-universal in the FP's in the early 1900's, perhaps coming from when the couple original FP ministers came out of the Free Church in 1893. It is common for conservative responses to have a Biblicist character, which often seems more conservative, faithful, orthodox, etc.

I am not sure what the head-covering practice of the Free Church of Scotland through the 1900's was, but in that, I think, the practice is not that common in the Residuals after 2000, it may appear the practice was not universal in the Free Church in the 1900's, especially towards the end.

The whole Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) appears to have become united on the practice after its emergence in 2000 (or at least since I was in the FCC, from what I gathered). The reason why the practice has been universal in their churches in America, the root-cause, I have personal acquaintance with, appears due to Rev. Sherman Isbell's influence, the first minister in America, who also wrote an article (relying on Murray and Weeks), still on the American presbytery's website, defending the practice. The ministers after him only confirmed this.

Those descended of the Free Church often look more to the fathers of the Free Church than anywhere else, it often seems, for insight into such things. I do believe hagiography of the puritans, Scottish included, is a massive factor in persons not actually reading the puritans for what they are saying, on their own terms (otherwise known as honesty in history, 9th Commandment), and hence missing huge things like this.

What has gotten around that, is the opening up of online libraries, which has made, in God's providence, in the last decade, the ocean of Post-Reformation writings commonly available (where every single theological and practical Christian topic was debated, hammered out and treated comprehensively and in near exhaustive detail with greater length than apparently anywhere else in history). That is how I have been able to get past the (largely modern) historical and theological blind spots, and hence receive much further insight into the Word about these matters.

I know these things may not be popular and pleasing to all, but a dose of reality is medicinal in making progress in the light of God's Word.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I am not sure what the head-covering practice of the Free Church of Scotland through the 1900's was, but in that, I think, the practice is not that common in the Residuals after 2000, it may appear the practice was not universal in the Free Church in the 1900's, especially towards the end.

My own experience in the Free Kirk in the 1990s was this: The older women, especially those from the Highlands and Islands, generally wore head coverings during public worship. The middle-age women did not. During my time, there was a resurgence of younger women (university-age) - the more Godly in my estimation of their general outward behaviour - covering their heads during worship. I always viewed this as: the older women were adhering to tradition, the middle-aged women had succumbed to modern feminists influences, and the younger women were repudiating those influences. In the RPCNA I noticed a similar generational trend with regard to ordaining women - it seemed that the middle-aged generation had largely been the ones pushing for and filling those roles. I notice today a rejection of such by the next generation, and I have seen a few (still the minority) women in our congregation returning to the position of having a sign on their heads in public worship. I admit my observations are limited to the congregations I have been a part of and may not be indicative of these churches overall.

The question I have always wanted to ask is - and this seems a good time and place - if head coverings are indeed merely cultural, can it not be that the culture of a church or congregation is one that would require head coverings? For example, in Rev. Buchanan's experience above, it was the culture of the congregation where he attended that men remove their hats during worship. I would guess it is still generally the culture of our congregations that men do not wear hats/caps/coverings. Why then can it not be the culture of a church or congregation that women have a sign on their heads?

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

The most significant reformer in Scotland seemed to lean towards the pro-headcovering interpretation… if he is being fairly quoted here:

What Did John Knox Believe About Head Covering?

John Knox (1514-1572) was a Scottish clergyman and leader in the Protestant Reformation. With five other reformers, Knox wrote the Scottish Confession of Faith and established the Reformed Presbyterian church, known as the Church of Scotland.

www.headcoveringmovement.com

We wouldn’t maybe go as far as Knox in everything he said or did, but seeing as this is an example of a very eminent Reformer who leaned towards headcovering in public worship, I think it unlikely that he was entirely alone in his line of thinking at the time.. it might be interesting, and fair, to do a survey of how many more there were that shared his view in and around his generation and following, and see what arguments they used.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The most significant reformer in Scotland seemed to lean towards the pro-headcovering interpretation… if he is being fairly quoted here:

What Did John Knox Believe About Head Covering?

John Knox (1514-1572) was a Scottish clergyman and leader in the Protestant Reformation. With five other reformers, Knox wrote the Scottish Confession of Faith and established the Reformed Presbyterian church, known as the Church of Scotland.

www.headcoveringmovement.com

We wouldn’t maybe go as far as Knox in everything he said or did, but seeing as this is an example of a very eminent Reformer who leaned towards headcovering in public worship, I think it unlikely that he was entirely alone in his line of thinking at the time.. it might be interesting, and fair, to do a survey of how many more there were that shared his view in and around his generation and following, and see what arguments they used.

Here is the final sentence from the article to which you linked: "Knox’s work had only one central purpose: to show female rule as anti-Biblical. His work drives home that one point forcefully and he does so without getting side-tracked by other topics, even head covering." (Emphasis added.)

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Here is the final sentence from the article to which you linked: "Knox’s work had only one central purpose: to show female rule as anti-Biblical. His work drives home that one point forcefully and he does so without getting side-tracked by other topics, even head covering." (Emphasis added.)

Thank you for that…

 

[Travis Fentiman]

The most significant reformer in Scotland seemed to lean towards the pro-headcovering interpretation… if he is being fairly quoted here:

What Did John Knox Believe About Head Covering?

John Knox (1514-1572) was a Scottish clergyman and leader in the Protestant Reformation. With five other reformers, Knox wrote the Scottish Confession of Faith and established the Reformed Presbyterian church, known as the Church of Scotland.

www.headcoveringmovement.com

Knox is not being fairly interpreted on that pro-head-covering page.

In Knox's First Blast of the Trumpet, pp. 13, 29, he is either simply relating the Corinthian context, or relating Chrysostom's relating of the Corinthian context.

In the following Knox quote, he relates a story that takes place in 1547-1549. It assumes the common European and Scottish custom, that men's hats were normal in public for honor, and that they tipped the hat or removed them to show deference and subjection in honoring someone else. Here they refuse to bare their heads in honor of others singing to Mary.

The History of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland… (Edinburgh, 1584; London, 1644), bk. 1, pp. 91-92​

​

“Those [captives] that were in the gallies [of the boats], were threatened with torments if they would not give reverence to the mass (for at certain times the mass was said in the gallies, or else hard by upon the shore…) but they could never make the poorest of that company to give reverence to that idol: yea, when upon the Saturday at night they sung their Salve Regina [Save O Queen], all the Scottish men put on their caps, their hoods, or such things as they had to cover their heads [instead of uncovering]…”​

See also my book, pp. 66-67 for documentation that early Scottish preachers preached with caps on, and a picture of Knox doing so.

It is clear from these quotes of Chrysostom that Chrysostom considered the woman's veil to be on par with her regular civil clothing, and that women wore the veil all the time publicly; that is, it was the regular public civil custom, no different in church, and not a religious rite.

“For if exchange of garments be not lawful, so that neither she should be clad with a cloak, nor he with a mantle or a veil (‘for the woman,’ says He, ‘shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment,’ Deut. 22:5) much more is it unseemly for these things to be interchanged. For the former indeed were ordained by men, even although God afterwards ratified them: but this by nature, I mean the being covered or uncovered. But when I say nature, I mean God. For He it is who created Nature. When therefore thou overturns these boundaries, see how great injuries ensue.” – p. 355​

​

“He signifies [by v. 10] that not at the time of prayer only, but also continually she ought to be covered.” – p. 356​

​

“And he said not, ‘let her have long hair,’ but, ‘let her be covered,’ [v. 6] ordaining both these to be one [v. 5], and establishing them both ways, from what was customary…” – p. 357​

​

“For if one ought not to have the head bare, but everywhere to carry about the token of subjection, much more is it becoming to exhibit the same in our deeds.” – p. 361​

 

[Travis Fentiman]

If it is helpful, I wrote up a fuller survey of Knox with more evidence and pictures than referenced above at my website RBO, on the Scottish Head Coverings page, 'A Survey of Knox' and note that David Silversides' quotation and use of Knox is misleading, and Jeremy Gardiner's analysis of Knox at The Head Covering Movement is simply false.

In the days ahead I will be beefing up the Swiss and Calvin section on head coverings at RBO and show beyond any shadow of a doubt that perpetualists' claims and use of Calvin are simply false, contrary to what he says and contrary to history and reality.

 

[bookish_Basset]

As I see matters, if the church regards St.Paul's directions in 1Cor.11 as a purely or largely social-decorum issue, we may fail utterly to send any message, let alone the correct message to fellow members and outsiders alike; and eventually we will send the wrong message absent a positive intention.

Thank you for this reply; it's very helpful. Indeed, the above quote is largely my concern, too. I am open to learning that headcovering as I've started practicing it is not appropriate and that my (admittedly probably shallow) reading of its history is misguided; but the bigger burden I feel is the "mocking the angels by apparent indifference" aspect. I've not really heard any teaching or discussion of a positive application of 1 Cor. 11 in my church circles. So, as much as I don't wish to be conspicuous about it, at this point, I don't feel free to *not* cover in some way.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Travis, has there been any pushback of note against your findings and position?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Travis, has there been any pushback of note against your findings and position?

Give people a chance, Jeri. The book was only released two days ago!

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

This is definitely an interesting topic. Through my research, it seems that most Christian women throughout all the centuries of the Church, have worn head coverings. Even when my grandma was a child, that was the norm. It is peculiar how head coverings seemed to vanish as the feminist movement progressed. It seems that if we pull the cultural card, then that can be used on lots of doctrines. I have a pastor friend that believes women elders are permissible, because these teachings were dated to the culture of the times. I guess the sky is the limit when we start saying the culture has changed.

Of course though, I am no scholar on this topic.

 

[Taylor]

I have a pastor friend that believes women elders are permissible, because these teachings were dated to the culture of the times. I guess the sky is the limit when we start saying the culture has changed.

Your friend fails—or perhaps refuses—to realize that the reason given in Scripture against female officers is manifestly not cultural. Paul explicitly grounds his prohibition in creation. The same thing can be said of Scripture’s prohibition of homosexuality.

 

[MChase]

Your friend fails—or perhaps refuses—to realize that the reason given in Scripture against female officers is manifestly not cultural. Paul explicitly grounds his prohibition in creation. The same thing can be said of Scripture’s prohibition of homosexuality.

Paul grounds head coverings in creation as well.

“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭6‬-‭9‬