WCF 1.6 and hair

[chuckd]

I do not attend a confessional church, but do women in confessional churches today still obey the covering of their head? Do men have short hair?

VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]

[14] 1CO 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

 

[JML]

I do not attend a confessional church, but do women in confessional churches today still obey the covering of their head?

Generally, yes. Although there are different interpretations of what this means. I have yet to see a truly confessional church that would say that these verses are strictly cultural and therefore not applicable. However, I am sure they are out there. From what I have seen, most confessional churches feel they are following this. Some just believe the covering is long hair (i.e. not short like a man's) while others believe it is a separate cloth covering or you have a mixture of both viewpoints in the same congregation.

 

[chuckd]

Thanks. Does your church require head coverings and/or forbid short hair on women?

 

[gkterry]

What exactly constitutes an accepted hair covering for a confessional church?

 

[gkterry]

I guess I should have worded that a little differently. What generally are accepted types of head wear for women? Our church does not require them but we wish to be prepared when we visit a congregation that does.

Thanks,

 

[GloriousBoaz]

I struggle alot with 1 corinthians 11:2~16 because the Apostle Paul is setting up a brillant argument after the same form as 1 timothy 2:11~15 and after setting up a premise, then a reason, he give a solid proof. He uses this same logical argumentation in 1 cor 11. In 1 tim his proof isn't culture it is design. Paul doesn't go back to culture he goes back to the garden as proof positive. So the thing that gets me then is this. After making this beautifully logical, airtight, powerful case in 1 cor giving a 1. premise: 'men should have short hair, be the heads of their home, and pray with heads uncovered' 2. a reason: 'because man is in the image of God' and a 3. a proof: 'design: even nature teaches us such' (also you can outline women for brevity I just outlined the male) but after doing all of that work he undermines the whole logical argument with: "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." which is not based on design but circumstance or some instances culture. In 1 tim. 2 he does not undermine his argument. My aunt one day said she liked my short hair and then said "but i like long hair on guys too" and i retorted with "Paul said men should have short hair" by the end of the convo I had to recant my inital response. But in all my convos with people on female pastors (and i've met quite a few of them) as I outline Paul's argument (Premise, Reason, Proof ~ Design) I have never had to recant my position (and I never will for a moment) on female authority over men. Any help here would be great thanks!

 

[py3ak]

I guess I should have worded that a little differently. What generally are accepted types of head wear for women? Our church does not require them but we wish to be prepared when we visit a congregation that does.

Thanks,

It really varies from congregation to congregation. In some, hats are the norm; in others doilies; in others something closer to a hood or a veil, though I've never seen the face covered. But people are usually not hostile to someone whose style of headcovering is different from their own. For ease of use and portability a crocheted doily or a square of cloth that can readily be positioned on the head, and then tucked into a purse or even inside the cover of a Bible seem like the best choices.

 

[Andres]

In some, hats are the norm; in others doilies; in others something closer to a hood or a veil, though I've never seen the face covered. But people are usually not hostile to someone whose style of headcovering is different from their own.

In addition to what Ruben has shared (I've seen all three types of coverings used that he mentions), I'd also note that congregations that do cover, won't require it of visitors, at least not that I've ever experienced.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

...but after doing all of that work he undermines the whole logical argument with: "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." which is not based on design but circumstance or some instances culture.

Take a look here! "No Such Custom": An Exposition of I Corinthians 11:2-16

I don't think Verse 16 undermines it all. I believe that faulty interpretations of Verse 16 make it seem as though it undermines it.

"But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." (I Corinthians 11:16—NASV)

Having presented three theological arguments and one sociological argument as to why men should pray bareheaded and women covered, Paul sums up by saying in effect, "And if you don't like it, I'm sorry, but that's the way it is." In doing so, however, he throws in a fifth argument at the end of the discussion: this innovation that someone is teaching isn't practiced in any of the other churches of God. By Paul's appealing to the universal practice of the churches, we see that he is not saying that one should do what his culture does. Rather there was one practice for all the churches in spite of the fact that they were found in many different cultures of the first century. This was not just something that Paul had made up; it was and is apostolic tradition.

A question is often raised regarding exactly what custom Paul is referring to in this verse. Literally the verse reads, "But if anyone thinks to be contentious, we do not have such a custom, neither the churches of God." Some have mistakenly taken the phrase "we do not have such a custom" to mean "we do not have any particular custom." They say that Paul is saying that if a person wants to disagree, he may do as he pleases. This explanation certainly jars against the context, for it hardly seems likely that Paul would write for thirteen verses arguing for and even commanding a practice and then at the end say, "But if you don't want to do it, you don't have to. As Neil Lightfoot says, "This cannot mean, 'If anyone strives over this or causes trouble, then dismiss the whole subject.' Paul would not give prolonged reasoning for the veiling of women and then drop the subject with one statement."52 Paul is not saying, "we do not have any custom"; rather, he is saying, "we do not have a custom like this one I have been discussing." "Such" does not mean "any"; it refers to something previously discussed.

Some have argued that Paul is saying, "we do not have such a custom as being contentious." But contention would hardly be called a custom.

Nor is the custom that Paul mentions the practice that he has been arguing for. He is obviously not saying, "we do not have such a custom as men praying bareheaded and women covered." That they did do this is shown by the fact that this has been the practice in Christianity down to the twentieth century. Some have overlooked the fact that the church did have such a practice and mistakenly referred the word "custom" or "practice" to women praying with a covered head. For this reason many modern translations have changed the word such" to "other" in order to make the meaning clear.

But this change in wording is really not necessary and often is quite confusing to the average reader. A much better and clearer translation is one such as is found in William Barclay's translation of the New Testament: "let it suffice to say that we have no such custom as the participation of unveiled women in public worship, nor have the congregations of God." A similar translation is given by F. F. Bruce in his The Letters of Paul: "we have no such custom as you are trying to introduce, and neither have the churches of God elsewhere."

 

[Jack K]

To answer the original question: Chuck, I think it's fair to say that the practice of headcovering is relatively rare in Reformed churches in America today, even if you only count those that still take the Bible seriously. Many churches where you wouldn't see much headcovering would tell you they're strongly committed to the confessions, but don't believe the confessions or Scripture require women to wear something on their heads for worship. Of course, some of the churches that do practice headcovering might define "confessional" more strictly.

 

[irresistible_grace]

I am in a "more strictly" confessional church & most of the women used to wear hats. However, most of the women that still wear coverings have begun to wear doilies or cloth instead because they don't really think that "hats" are what Paul had in mind!

EDIT -> I wear a cloth covering & my hair is almost to my waist. My husband's hair is short on the top/back & longer on the bottom/front (aka he has a beard)!

 

[GloriousBoaz]

Thank you for the link Mr. Cornell. That would be perfect if that solved my dilemma. I'd love to put some of these "smaller" fish to rest so I can move on to "bigger fish" and not be as bogged down. I really appreciate it, I'll let you know what I think once I read it.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

My pleasure, Peter.

I pray that the Holy Spirit leads you to the truth you seek.

 

[Scottish Lass]

The ARP would consider itself to be a confessional denomination, but I can count on two hands the women that I know who cover (including my daughter and myself). Oddly enough, it's usually the women who have a problem with it; I've had more than a few men speak positively to me about it, most of whom whose wives don't cover.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

Mr. Cornell I read that article as soon as you gave it then got side tracked so i'm not sure how much I remember but I'll take a glance at it. I did find the sectioning off of 'customs' from 'commands' compelling though I don't know if that immediate context there in 1 cor. 11 really supports that. I can see how the verses he sited do contrast but they do not specifically use the wording of 'customs' vs. 'commands'. If that was so it would be open and shut case. This however was compelling

Literally the verse reads, "But if anyone thinks to be contentious, we do not have such a custom, neither the churches of God." Some have mistakenly taken the phrase "we do not have such a custom" to mean "we do not have any particular custom." They say that Paul is saying that if a person wants to disagree, he may do as he pleases. This explanation certainly jars against the context, for it hardly seems likely that Paul would write for thirteen verses arguing for and even commanding a practice and then at the end say, "But if you don't want to do it, you don't have to. As Neil Lightfoot says, "This cannot mean, 'If anyone strives over this or causes trouble, then dismiss the whole subject.' Paul would not give prolonged reasoning for the veiling of women and then drop the subject with one statement."52 Paul is not saying, "we do not have any custom"; rather, he is saying, "we do not have a custom like this one I have been discussing." "Such" does not mean "any"; it refers to something previously discussed.

and

A much better and clearer translation is one such as is found in William Barclay's translation of the New Testament: "let it suffice to say that we have no such custom as the participation of unveiled women in public worship, nor have the congregations of God." A similar translation is given by F. F. Bruce in his The Letters of Paul: "we have no such custom as you are trying to introduce, and neither have the churches of God elsewhere."

 

[irresistible_grace]

Thank you for the link Mr. Cornell. That would be perfect if that solved my dilemma. I'd love to put some of these "smaller" fish to rest so I can move on to "bigger fish" and not be as bogged down. I really appreciate it, I'll let you know what I think once I read it.

I highly recommend you read "Is Headcovering Biblical?" - David Silverside
If nothing else read all of the general quotations... I used to think think this was a little fish like you do.
And, I wrestled with this fish for a long time (the last four years) before I finally realized/appreciated how "big"of a fish this really is.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

I don't mean it as "little fish" in that it is less important I mean it as "little fish" in that it should be an easy one to get out of the way and move on to some of Paul's harder sayings. I have a list of around 250 theological subjects i'm trying to tackle and some of them I'd like to not spend 4 yrs on or i'll never get to the others lol, i hope you know what i mean, sometimes the weight of it all, but that is because of my area of gifting. I will put that book on my wish list immediately and recommend it to a friend who is trying to convince a church of its importance.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Do men have short hair?

 

[GloriousBoaz]

lol

 

[GloriousBoaz]

All the men in your profile picture have short hair lol.