Thoughts on Head-Coverings?

[Travis Fentiman]

Friends,

The James Durham quote previously given was ambiguous and not that clear. These two are much more clear:


The Dying Man’s Testament of the Church of Scotland or, A Treatise concerning Scandal (Edinburgh, 1659), ch. 6, pp. 25-26

“Yet in other things there ought to be great respect had to offense, and men ought to be swayed accordingly in their practice, as the former reasons clear. As (1), if the matter is of light concernment in itself, as how men’s gestures are in their walking (suppose in walking softly, or quickly, with cloak or without) men ought to do, or abstain, as may prevent the construction of pride, lightness, etc., or give occasion to others in any of these. Of such sort was womens’ praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being then taken for an evil sign.

[Note that Durham puts Corinthian head-coverings on par with gestures and garments.]

Yet if it is necessary, there is nothing little, as Moses will not leave a hoof (Ex. 10), or Mordecai bow his knee to Haman, because it looked like fawning on an accursed enemy. Of this sort also are offenses in the fashions of clothes, as some men’s wearing of ribbons, and such like, which being of small concernment, ought certainly to be regulated by offense.”


Heaven upon Earth, in the Serene Tranquillity & Calm Composure, in the Sweet Peace & Solid Joy of a Good Conscience... (Edinburgh, 1685), sermon 2, on Acts 24:16, p. 27

“…for when the Word determines not, conscience (though misinformed) casts the balance to the side which it judges to be necessary; As for instance, if a man think it a sin to hear the Word with the head uncovered, he is oblidged to cover his head, and contrarily;

For conscience there casts the balance: but when the thing is unlawful on the matter, it may bind him up, while it remains in an error, so as he cannot without sin counteract its dictate; but it never oblidges him to sin.”


These quotes have been on my page, 'The Post-Reformation Scottish Church on Head Coverings in Public Worship' linked in the original post.

The value of evaluating and debating one Scot's view is little, when one may look at more than 15 from that era on my page (plus other sources), which gives a much broader view of the 17th century Scottish Church. I did not cherry-pick the quotes. All that I found I put on the page, and all of them agree with head-coverings as a variable custom.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

There is no debate on what Calvin believed.

From his sermons on 1 Cor. 11, which Silversides and others have appealed to for pro-head-covering:

Men, Women & Order in the Church: Three Sermons by John Calvin, trans. Seth Skolnitsky (Dallas, TX: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1992)

pp. 7-10

“we must see why it is that St. Paul praises the Corinthians… Now we note that in the Church of God there is first of all doctrine, and then there is order and policy… As for the rest, other than doctrine, there is also policy, and this policy is left to us in liberty.

So, for example, we are presently assembled at eight o’clock; one might well arrange for it to be at seven o’clock, or change the order in some regard. And, indeed, we often see that one Church will by no means have precisely the same order as another… and do we have a different Christianity on that account? Not at all. For what belongs to outward order and policy (as I said) has been left to human liberty. It is true we must proceed with sound-mindedness and modesty, and ever consider what is fitting for the edification of the Church, as we will be exhorted in the fourteenth chapter, and there it will be treated more fully.

…he did not inject himself by imposing certain laws, bringing souls into bondage; he did not erect a ‘divine service’ such as one sees in Papistry. None of all that. Rather he conveyed to them an order designed to maintain decency, peace and concord among them… So, when the gospel is preached in any place, and a church is raised up, some particular ordinances must be established, which one will know to be proper and which everyone will use in his liberty. But this (as I said) has nothing to do with adding to the doctrine of faith, nor with making laws that put our souls in bondage.”


p. 24

“we showed that St. Paul would have Christians give attention to decency, especially when assembled in the name of God, both to hear His Word and to pray… Now he says on this score that ‘a man indeed ought not to cover his head.’ Let us observe that St. Paul has only taken exception to something that was not appropriate and fitting according to the usage of the land. For (as we have shown) we are not to take those countries and measure them by our custom(s).”


These quotes and numerous more from his commentary on 1 Cor. 11, along with eight other Swiss sources before and after Calvin, all teaching the customary view, are in the Swiss section (which I need to add to) at 'Head Coverings in the Post-Reformation Era' (RBO).

From my book, p. 65, footnote 165:

"Calvin wears a hat preaching in a period era picture, “Calvin preaching against wolves and robbers to his congregation at Geneva. Contemporary woodcut.” at the Granger Historical Picture Archive, NY. Most of the laymen have head-coverings on during the sermon."

 

[Travis Fentiman]

By referring to veils rather than hats or head-scarves in this exchange, were you gentlemen referring to Muslim practice or does veil=any head covering?

By veiling I have been referring to veiling (not Muslim). Its interesting to note that many who see Paul's ordinance as perpetual yet often believe it may be fulfilled by wearing any head-covering, such as hats.

Yet it is very historically clear that Corinthian women did not normally wear hats, and what Paul refers to for the women undoubtedly were not hats. Of course, as I argue at length in Part II, with a lot of documentation, neither were they simply veils.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

@Travis Fentiman

Moyse Amyraut understands the veiling of a woman as perpetual ordinance (although only for public prayers and prophecies i.e the preaching of the Word).

https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5Qafr5U_ClZg4R3LTFcHjdQiDe_Jk6DpRKUHKZ-besolU1tehz6wv9fSEU_mcSxuG2xkSF71ohvESFdN_QaqJwSkCr_GUH1vl13gSQ1qBrnbA_kzTbfMUv-ObRnadO9DMlr7706obfrYCfuuvWefSug-9pzehkQPYtsXpmIdnzjmBx9cPewL9I1VwAZWI3C2n0fLY-MEyYRf2FEgJm9Dzaw4litxxyG6bZbIWKbie6k8dAUrAcT0vIEoiETWqsXDXkSBLH7WJSnB0WfCKNB7QzBJ1mUVN3mCNerJCrY0hkDP-l6oUCPU

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

I haven't seen any quotation of this portion from Calvin, which shows that he does think there is a distinction and a visible sign before the church that is required perpetually:

"Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this—that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is to πρεπον—decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther."
Source: https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/7/15/john-calvins-commentary-on-1-corinthians-112-16

 

[Logan]

I haven't seen any quotation of this portion from Calvin, which shows that he does think there is a distinction and a visible sign before the church that is required perpetually:

"Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this—that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is to πρεπον—decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther."
Source: https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/7/15/john-calvins-commentary-on-1-corinthians-112-16

It was discussed several times above. What do you propose "decorum" means. And "merely in so far as decorum is violated"? And not being "so scrupulous"? And "Paul means nothing more than this---that it should appear that the man has authority and that the woman is under subjection"? And his last sentence ("If [decorum] is secured, Paul requires nothing farther")? If he was trying to say the exact practice was perpetual, why does he conclude that the one rule to be observed is "decorum" not the specific practice (i.e., "head coverings")? He also prefaces that discussion with a note on how the customs are different in different places, which makes no sense if one is trying to teach customs are irrelevant.

Read his entire discussion in context and try to understand what he could be communicating and what he is not communicating. Calvin has no issues with a preacher wearing a cap, despite that being "contrary" to 1 Cor 11 (indeed, despite saying above that the apostle "says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered"). Why, when he clearly states that the apostle is saying that a man commits an offense when he prays or prophesies with his head covered, does he later say "we must not be so scrupulous to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head"? Because though it isn't the same practice, he doesn't see it as contrary to "decorum". It's not contrary to 1 Cor 11 because he sees the Apostle as teaching the principle, not the specific practice. Regardless, in no way can he be made out to say that this is the decorum for all times or all places, because he specifically denies that.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

My point was simply that he believes some sign outwardly is required, whereas TF seems to be saying that if our culture doesn't have any custom that shows this, then it's not necessary for us to have any outward sign of it.

 

[alexandermsmith]

What I haven't seen explained, and I have indirectly referenced this question a couple of times, is whose culture is this "cultural" injunction following? I see many mentions made to what the Corinthians did and did not wear as if it is the Corinthian culture which is at issue. But the Corinthians' failing was they were not following the practice of the whole church: that is what Paul is saying. So it doesn't matter if Corinthian women wore veils or hats because Paul is not criticising the Corinthians for not following their culture but for not adhering to the universal practice in the church. Corinth is not the controlling principle in the application of the requirement.

And perhaps someone can explain what is the basis for taking Paul's command for head covering in 1 Corinthians as cultural and temporary and his stipulations on the proper administration of the Sacrament- in the same chapter- as universal and binding?

 

[Travis Fentiman]

@Travis Fentiman

Moyse Amyraut understands the veiling of a woman as perpetual ordinance (although only for public prayers and prophecies i.e the preaching of the Word).

https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5Qafr5U_ClZg4R3LTFcHjdQiDe_Jk6DpRKUHKZ-besolU1tehz6wv9fSEU_mcSxuG2xkSF71ohvESFdN_QaqJwSkCr_GUH1vl13gSQ1qBrnbA_kzTbfMUv-ObRnadO9DMlr7706obfrYCfuuvWefSug-9pzehkQPYtsXpmIdnzjmBx9cPewL9I1VwAZWI3C2n0fLY-MEyYRf2FEgJm9Dzaw4litxxyG6bZbIWKbie6k8dAUrAcT0vIEoiETWqsXDXkSBLH7WJSnB0WfCKNB7QzBJ1mUVN3mCNerJCrY0hkDP-l6oUCPU

Hugues,

I am not able to open the link. Are there access restrictions? Are you able to open up those access restrictions? If not are you able to give a reference?

I am a bit doubtful that Amyraut held to the perpetual position for these reasons:

Long before his time, the French reformed practice was established in their national Discipline (1559), that men were to uncover for prayer, singing of psalms and the sacraments. This assumes they would be covered for the rest (such as the sermon, preaching of the Word). This did not stem from 1 Cor. 11, but was to "evidence by those exterior signs the inward humiliation of their hearts." This is the opposite reason as in 1 Cor. 11:7, which was for men to reveal themeselves as the image of God, having authority, not for showing a sign of subjection.

You may see the quote from the Discipline under this section: 'Confessions, Books of Discipline & National Bible Commentaries' at Head Coverings in the Post-Reformation Era (RBO).

There is evidence that the women remained covered for the entire service, and did not alter their covering for certain parts of it; that is if they had a material covering on: Voet says that hair alone was adequate for a Church covering, likely evidencing a regular practice in the reformed Dutch Church, if not in further areas.

This general social significance of men wearing hats, and removing them, was the European custom, evidenced in all the reformed countries.

 

[Logan]

And perhaps someone can explain what is the basis for taking Paul's command for head covering in 1 Corinthians as cultural and temporary and his stipulations on the proper administration of the Sacrament- in the same chapter- as universal and binding?

The "cultural view" is that the principle is indeed universal and binding, the outward manifestation of that is adaptable, as required by propriety in a given circumstance. So it's not a dichotomy at all.

As for why it's taken as cultural, perhaps you'd care to look at Travis' extensive exposition of the passage? Or many other Reformed commentators? It's been exegeted extensively already and I see no reason to regurgitate it here.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

I haven't seen any quotation of this portion from Calvin, which shows that he does think there is a distinction and a visible sign before the church that is required perpetually:

"Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this—that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is to πρεπον—decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther."
Source: https://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/7/15/john-calvins-commentary-on-1-corinthians-112-16

I note that Calvin says that the man appearing as having authority is secured "when" the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church.

It seems likely from what we know about their culture that the man (or preacher) was seen to have authority in that he had a hat on his head before he took it off, and the whole Church sees this, when he takes it off. That is because having a hat on in their society represented having authority, and taking it off the opposite.

Other reformation figures (documented in my book and webpages), when explaining why some ministers preached bare-headed, said it was because they were a public minister, ministering in a subjected state as a servant to God's people, not because it was revealing God's glory (1 Cor. 11:7).

 

[Travis Fentiman]

And perhaps someone can explain what is the basis for taking Paul's command for head covering in 1 Corinthians as cultural and temporary and his stipulations on the proper administration of the Sacrament- in the same chapter- as universal and binding?

Thanks for your sincere question Alexander.

There is no prima facie reason to believe head-coverings and the Supper in 1 Cor. 11 would have the same nature. Head-coverings were cultural, even in worship, in the OT, not to mention Greco-Roman society (and even to some extent in pagan religious rites).

Just because the two are Church ordinances doesn't mean they have the same nature, no more than having the same nature as the ordinance in 1 Cor. 7:17 or that in 1 Cor. 16:1-3, or the many others listed and referenced on pp. 38-42 (including the prohibition for eating blood, Acts 15). See especially footnote 90.

This is no different than in Westminster's Form of Presbyterial Church Government, where it lists "the Ordinances in a particular Congregation" and includes "prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of psalms, the word read... the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor..." Yet is a collection made for the poor of the same nature and necessity as the Sacraments?

The Supper is said to be perpetual till Christ come again (v. 26), yet this is never said of head-coverings. There is no redemptive symbolism in head-coverings, whereas there is in the Supper. There is no necessary constraint that head-coverings signified anything more than what was natural or civil.

Paul just got done talking about indifferent things used to edifying (1 Cor. 10, end) which is arguably why he then brings up headcoverings in 1 Cor. 11.

There is no necessity to take vv. 4-5 as prescriptive, and they make full sense as simply descriptive, and it was civilly recognized that women praying or prophesying uncovered was dishonorable to her own head, as well as for a man in covering. Hence that would be the first thing the original hearers would have recognized as something simply taken for granted (apart from those who deviated).

Paul does not use language of sin with headcoverings, but only language of social decency, whereas the Lord's judgments with regard to the Supper later in the passage show it is of a much different nature.

More could be said, but there are a load of prima facie reasons (given in my book) why head-coverings and the Supper were not the same kind of ordinance, which the original hearers would have easily recognized, even from the very nature of the things themselves. And, this being the case, that the circumstantial view is coherent and possible, there is no proof or necessity that head-coverings were of the same ordinance-nature as the Supper, and Paul says nothing that makes this the case. That is an unwarranted inference.

 

[alexandermsmith]

The "cultural view" is that the principle is indeed universal and binding, the outward manifestation of that is adaptable, as required by propriety in a given circumstance. So it's not a dichotomy at all.

So what sign do you use in worship to distinguish between male authority and female submission?

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Travis can you point me to where you discuss the difference between this and how Paul also argued from nature when insisting that women should not teach or usurp authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:12-13. ? Thank you.

I still think that if there is nothing in the text that necessarily leads us to think it is cultural, then we ought necessarily to conclude it is perpetual. Otherwise how many more things can we just write off as being potentially cultural and therefore not necessarily perpetual?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I'd like to ask if any of the men of old who are being quoted in the thread to prove that headcovering was a cultural only practice, ever said outright that covering the head for women was no longer necessary and binding on the church.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

So what sign do you use in worship to distinguish between male authority and female submission?

Sorry to answer a question to Logan, but there is no need (or proof that there is need) for an artificial sign for distinguishing male authority and female submission.

If the reality is there, that is sufficient, namely that women are submissive and men exercise authority. The visible manifestation of this is that men exercise authority and women are submissive.

Adam and Eve had the reality, before the Lord, and did not have a sign for it, nor needed one. Artificial signs are positive (and they might serve a purpose), but they are not inherently moral.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Travis can you point me to where you discuss the difference between this and how Paul also argued from nature when insisting that women should not teach or usurp authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:12-13. ? Thank you.

I still think that if there is nothing in the text that necessarily leads us to think it is cultural, then we ought necessarily to conclude it is perpetual. Otherwise how many more things can we just write off as being potentially cultural and therefore not necessarily perpetual?

Alex,

I show the difference between 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2 on p. 263 footnote 800.

Please see again my section on the burden of proof, pp. 17-20. And please quote exactly what you differ with on it, if you do, with your reasons, if we are to get anywhere about this.

I do not have to show that 1 Cor. 11 is necessarily cultural. I only have to show that it may be, that it is at least that, which I have in my book.

It does not follow (as you assert) that if the cultural view is only possible and not clearly necessary, that we ought necessarily to conclude 1 Cor. 11:2-16 is perpetual.

Anything that is perpetual, being formally religiously positive, must be proven to be such from the Word, and that there is some necessary consequence making it so, that God actually has made it perpetual by special revelation.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

I'd like to ask if any of the men of old who are being quoted in the thread to prove that headcovering was a cultural only practice, ever said outright that covering the head for women was no longer necessary and binding on the church.

Jeri,

As far as direct quotes, if a person was not asking such a direct question to the figure of old, whether covering the head for women was no longer necessary and binding on the church, it is unlikely that the figure would respond with such specific language. And it is not clear that that direct question was a main one in the era (especially as women were to cover in Church due to social decency, as in public generally), nor was it the primary reason why such figures were writing, preaching and teaching on this passage.

Whether any figure said it in those words or not, I would have to go through all the quotes in the footnotes of my book and on my numerous webpages to see. But it is kind of irrelevant when truck-loads of those figures said things that necessarily imply that women veiling (or materially covering) in church is not a perpetual, formally religious rule.

For just two examples, from Ames and Bucanus, see p. 274 with footnote 806. For multitudes of others, see my book, especially the footnotes, and my numerous linked webpages.

Blessings to you.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Sorry to answer a question to Logan, but there is no need (or proof that there is need) for an artificial sign for distinguishing male authority and female submission.

If the reality is there, that is sufficient, namely that women are submissive and men exercise authority. The visible manifestation of this is that men exercise authority and women are submissive.

Adam and Eve had the reality, before the Lord, and did not have a sign for it, nor needed one. Artificial signs are positive (and they might serve a purpose), but they are not inherently moral.

Here's the rub. I believe you have, and Logan certainly has, acknowledged that the principle articulated by Paul here is binding and perpetual. So if that is so it is incumbent upon those of you who wish to abolish the practice of head covering to provide an alternative. It is not sufficient to say that the distinction between male authority and female submission is already present because in practice men exercise authority and women do not: that was the case when Paul gave this command therefore he was saying that something else is required other than this state of affairs. In order for the principle- which both you and Logan hold still to be binding- to be sufficiently applied something more was needed, i.e. head covering. That may not have been the sign in the OT and it may not have been the case that a visible sign was required before the Fall (although we don't know one way or the other) but it is the case for the NT Church and we are still in that dispensation. Therefore a visible sign is necessary to manifest this binding principle (beyond the restriction of office to men) and if the sign is cultural then that sign may not need to be head covering but if it's not you need to tell us what it is. Apparently you did provide an alternative- wedding rings- which is not suitable as an alternative (they aren't particularly conspicuous in the context of a worship service and they only apply to married persons).

It is frankly suspicious when someone goes to such lengths to argue against a particular practice which manifests, according to him, a binding principle but feels no need to provide an alternative practice. All you achieve is to undermine a current practice and leave the church's witness that little bit weaker. You have also not explained- as far as I know- that even if head covering is a culturally determined expression of this binding principle, why we should not continue to use it considering it is a pretty universal manifestation of female submission and was in widespread use in the Christian church until very recently and there are still churches which practice it. Head covering clearly was practised on a wide scale in the church even if many ministers believed it to be a cultural sign. Again all you do is further weaken an already existent witness of the church to the difference between the sexes and to male authority and female submission. It's hard to take this argument as done in good faith because you refuse to apply the principle which you claim is binding. It seems you're only interest is stopping a practice which you don't particularly like.

 

[Logan]

It is frankly suspicious when someone goes to such lengths to argue against a particular practice which manifests, according to him, a binding principle but feels no need to provide an alternative practice.

Paul did not urge this practice in a vacuum. He was specifically combating an abuse of decorum. Where there is no abuse, the principle is ipso facto upheld. There's no need to "replace" anything.

I deny your assumptions. Be suspicious all you want.

It seems you're only interest is stopping a practice which you don't particularly like.

It's unbecoming to impugn my motives.

 

[Logan]

I'd like to ask if any of the men of old who are being quoted in the thread to prove that headcovering was a cultural only practice, ever said outright that covering the head for women was no longer necessary and binding on the church.

Jeri, I don't know how to make sense of this question. It's like you're saying "well yes, they did say that the covering was cultural, that the general rule is decency and decorum, and that there are different customs and practices in different countries, and that their practice was different, BUT did they actually ever say it was no longer necessary and binding?"

How does the one proposition not clearly answer the second?

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

1 Cor 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

These words weigh heavily over this thread and TF's book, as far as I can tell.

The insistent contention that a physical head covering for females in public worship is potentially merely cultural and not necessary in all ages of the NT and that they performed the same function in worship as outside of it seems to fly contrary to this. The relation of headcoverings to the angels is certainly not the same function they performed outside of worship.

Unless there is a necessary textual reason to believe they are necessarily cultural, I think it would be presumptuous to conclude that they are not necessarily perpetually required. If the scripture does not necessarily imply they are cultural, then de facto, it teaches they are not.

Drawing upon extra scriptural sources so heavily, which haven't been promised to be preserved to all generation, would be to set up something apart from Scripture to be our authority for how worship is to be conducted.

Therefore I think the following sums up the matter, and I strongly doubt if it's worth contending further.

1 Cor 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Here's the rub. I believe you have, and Logan certainly has, acknowledged that the principle articulated by Paul here is binding and perpetual. So if that is so it is incumbent upon those of you who wish to abolish the practice of head covering to provide an alternative. It is not sufficient to say that the distinction between male authority and female submission is already present because in practice men exercise authority and women do not: that was the case when Paul gave this command therefore he was saying that something else is required other than this state of affairs. In order for the principle- which both you and Logan hold still to be binding- to be sufficiently applied something more was needed, i.e. head covering. That may not have been the sign in the OT and it may not have been the case that a visible sign was required before the Fall (although we don't know one way or the other) but it is the case for the NT Church and we are still in that dispensation. Therefore a visible sign is necessary to manifest this binding principle (beyond the restriction of office to men) and if the sign is cultural then that sign may not need to be head covering but if it's not you need to tell us what it is. Apparently you did provide an alternative- wedding rings- which is not suitable as an alternative (they aren't particularly conspicuous in the context of a worship service and they only apply to married persons).

It is frankly suspicious when someone goes to such lengths to argue against a particular practice which manifests, according to him, a binding principle but feels no need to provide an alternative practice. All you achieve is to undermine a current practice and leave the church's witness that little bit weaker. You have also not explained- as far as I know- that even if head covering is a culturally determined expression of this binding principle, why we should not continue to use it considering it is a pretty universal manifestation of female submission and was in widespread use in the Christian church until very recently and there are still churches which practice it. Head covering clearly was practised on a wide scale in the church even if many ministers believed it to be a cultural sign. Again all you do is further weaken an already existent witness of the church to the difference between the sexes and to male authority and female submission. It's hard to take this argument as done in good faith because you refuse to apply the principle which you claim is binding. It seems you're only interest is stopping a practice which you don't particularly like.

Alexander,

Your reading of 1 Cor. 11 tells you that a positive, perpetual principle for NT worship is being taught (not present in the OT), and therefore there should be some sign for it. That is a prescriptive reading of vv. 4-5, that Paul, by fiat from the Lord is implying this, as his spiritual, natural and universal principles are most basic to his argument. Therefore a cultural sign is due.

That reading is not necessary to the text, cannot be proven to be, and is a misconstruction of what Paul is actually arguing.

Paul is combating a dishonorable practice against decorum in worship, namely improper head-covering of men and women (vv. 4-5). That it was dishonorable was descriptive, a matter of fact, recognized by all sensible onlookers.

Hence Paul was prohibiting, dishonorable cultural practices in and relating to the worship of God. He confirms his argument with natural, spiritual, universal principles. But what is most basic in his argument is not the universal principles, but the dishonorable cultural practices which should not be going on.

I explain and show this in my book in the sections 'Paul's Syllogism' and 'Paul's Further Arguments' amongst other places. I hope you are reading significant parts of my book, as my book has cleared up virtually all of the feedback from the other side that has been presented here on the PB (and makes all of this needless, from my perspective).

The general principles of themselves only forbid the particular dishonorable practices, given those particular circumstances; they do not require the necessity of a positive cultural custom. If a cultural practice is sinful in the particular circumstances, it is never to be done. However, this does not necessitate that a positive cultural practice must be done. One is to never sin, but fulfilling positive obligations, if they be obliging, can be done in various ways, including in simply fulfilling the general and moral principles, without any cultural custom.

It takes particulars to bind particularly. Rutherford argues this, as I quote him in my book a few times.

I hope this shows that I am not disingenuous, nor is there anything to be suspicious of.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Jeri, I don't know how to make sense of this question. It's like you're saying "well yes, they did say that the covering was cultural, that the general rule is decency and decorum, and that there are different customs and practices in different countries, and that their practice was different, BUT did they actually ever say it was no longer necessary and binding?"

How does the one proposition not clearly answer the second?

Thanks @Travis Fentiman for your reply above and thanks Logan for this reply. The short answer to your question Logan is that I believe there is both a cultural aspect and a binding aspect, and It’s important to know that men addressing the cultural did not therefore conclude (on record at least) that the practice could be abolished, or was up to individual preferences. I know we disagree as to the ramifications; but the answer to the question I asked would be an important piece of knowledge (in my estimation) in working out the historical aspects.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

1 Cor 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

These words weigh heavily over this thread and TF's book, as far as I can tell.

The insistent contention that a physical head covering for females in public worship is potentially merely cultural and not necessary in all ages of the NT and that they performed the same function in worship as outside of it seems to fly contrary to this. The relation of headcoverings to the angels is certainly not the same function they performed outside of worship.

Unless there is a necessary textual reason to believe they are necessarily cultural, I think it would be presumptuous to conclude that they are not necessarily perpetually required. If the scripture does not necessarily imply they are cultural, then de facto, it teaches they are not.

Drawing upon extra scriptural sources so heavily, which haven't been promised to be preserved to all generation, would be to set up something apart from Scripture to be our authority for how worship is to be conducted.

Therefore I think the following sums up the matter, and I strongly doubt if it's worth contending further.

1 Cor 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Alex,

I appreciate your intent, but from what you write above, it seems to clearly show that you did not read my section on 'The Burden of Proof', or are not willing to interact with it as I asked and suggested.

If that is the case, that persons are not seeking to make progress in this discussion, in reading what is available to them, and consequently ignoring it, then I agree, it is not worth pursuing.

As to something apart from Scripture being an authority for how worship is to be conducted, that is the light of nature (including decorum of societies), which Scripture approves of, and is part of the rule of Scripture, as I quote reformed theologians on in my book, and make very clear therein, not to mention statements in the Confession.

Again, if persons would read my book, seeing the order in which I logically develop the issues, all of this, it seems, would be needless.

Blessings to you Alex in your ways. And I do commend your patience and thoughtfulness in these things.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Alex,

I appreciate your intent, but from what you write above, it seems to clearly show that you did not read my section on 'The Burden of Proof', or are not willing to interact with it as I asked and suggested.

If that is the case, that persons are not seeking to make progress in this discussion, in reading what is available to them, and consequently ignoring it, then I agree, it is not worth pursuing.

As to something apart from Scripture being an authority for how worship is to be conducted, that is the light of nature (including decorum of societies), which Scripture approves of, and is part of the rule of Scripture, as I quote reformed theologians on in my book, and make very clear therein, not to mention statements in the Confession.

Again, if persons would read my book, seeing the order in which I logically develop the issues, all of this, it seems, would be needless.

Blessings to you Alex in your ways. And I do commend your patience and thoughtfulness in these things.

I did read your section on the burden of proof, indeed I was evening quoting a section from it about function in society being the same. My reply above was my response to that section. Thank you too for answering clarifying questions, but v 16 weighs too heavily at this stage to warrant continuing beyond what’s already been said.

The apostle includes himself, “we” have no such custom, and “neither the Churches of God.” I’m afraid I can’t see past that, sorry.

PS. Calvin has been quoted so many ways in other contexts, in order to prove Christmas to be lawful, or that the Sabbath doesn’t have to be the 1st day of the week, the list goes on. Rutherford has been appealed to to defend supralapsarianism, certain puritans to defend non exclusive psalmody, etc etc When we come back to the textual arguments, I’m not able to escape the conclusion I’ve come to. May the Lord give light.

 

[lynnie]

Some of you are treading on very dangerous ground in my opinion, by that I mean you are outright insulting the invisible angels. You talk as if the angels are clueless about what is happening when a woman has some sort of thing on top of her hair at church, especially when she speaks aloud, if there is any sort of prayer in unison, or speaking verses in unison, or a passage from a confession in unison, etc.

I'm at the point where I almost am ready to lump this in with the phrase in Jude about those who slander celestial beings/blaspheme the glorious ones. You speak as if the stupid angels don't have any idea what is being symbolized and it does not matter to them; all that matters to them is what the modern culture may or may not use as a symbol of the husbands authority, if indeed a symbol is needed or exists at all. After 2000 years they don't recognize this any more?

I freely admit I don't know for sure what exactly Paul knew when he said "because of the angels". I'm not sure of the why, although I do have personal opinions after 40 years. But I will say this- it matters to the angels. I can appeal to scripture but also experientially ( yeah, R Scott Clark fans, I get your disagreement); the angels see it and it matters.

Jesus said in John that "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is of God, or I am speaking from Myself." Sometimes you step out and do what seems to be God's will and afterwards, you know it was from God. That inner witness follows. Can a man ever experience that on this subject the way a woman wearing a head covering can? Probably not, like I can never experience some of what my husband does as a man. But maybe?

Anyway, stop treating angels like idiotic dumb jerks who don't have a clue what a women at a meeting has on their head. Do not slander celestial beings in such a way as to treat them as ignorant about the subject. May the Lord have mercy.

 

[Logan]

Some of you are treading on very dangerous ground in my opinion, by that I mean you are outright insulting the invisible angels. You talk as if the angels are clueless about what is happening when a woman has some sort of thing on top of her hair at church, especially when she speaks aloud, if there is any sort of prayer in unison, or speaking verses in unison, or a passage from a confession in unison, etc.

I'm at the point where I almost am ready to lump this in with the phrase in Jude about those who slander celestial beings/blaspheme the glorious ones. You speak as if the stupid angels don't have any idea what is being symbolized and it does not matter to them; all that matters to them is what the modern culture may or may not use as a symbol of the husbands authority, if indeed a symbol is needed or exists at all. After 2000 years they don't recognize this any more?

I freely admit I don't know for sure what exactly Paul knew when he said "because of the angels". I'm not sure of the why, although I do have personal opinions after 40 years. But I will say this- it matters to the angels. I can appeal to scripture but also experientially ( yeah, R Scott Clark fans, I get your disagreement); the angels see it and it matters.

Jesus said in John that "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is of God, or I am speaking from Myself." Sometimes you step out and do what seems to be God's will and afterwards, you know it was from God. That inner witness follows. Can a man ever experience that on this subject the way a woman wearing a head covering can? Probably not, like I can never experience some of what my husband does as a man. But maybe?

Anyway, stop treating angels like idiotic dumb jerks who don't have a clue what a women at a meeting has on their head. Do not slander celestial beings in such a way as to treat them as ignorant about the subject. May the Lord have mercy.

I don't know where you're getting this impression, especially since the last person to really bring up angels in this thread was yourself.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Paul did not urge this practice in a vacuum. He was specifically combating an abuse of decorum. Where there is no abuse, the principle is ipso facto upheld. There's no need to "replace" anything.

I deny your assumptions. Be suspicious all you want.



It's unbecoming to impugn my motives.

The abuse of decorum was not wearing the head covering. Where there is head covering there is ipso facto an upholding of the principle. Unless you have a more fitting alternative? But you haven't yet supplied it. And it is ridiculous to argue that in the church today, which has largely set aside head covering, male authority and female submission is being upheld. This very distinction is under sustained attack not only in the broadly evangelical church but in once conservative Reformed denominations. The fact that those within that circle would seek to further undermine this practice is what makes me suspicious.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I have missed a lot of this discussion, but a current thought is, even if head coverings were only cultural, why are most pastors not encouraging the practice today seeing that it is a biblical and healthy one, and has been the majority practice for most of the Church's history? I would think most pastors would be more inclined to encourage Romans 12, that we don't desire to conform to the world's image.