# Headcovering - Cultural?



## DexCisco

I just read R.L Dabney's writing on Women Preaching :info:  because my wife was asking what our church's position was on the topic. I showed her the article and she read some of it (and was not terribly impressed). One of her comments was &quot;According to his position, all women in North America that don't wear headcoverings in church are sinning.&quot; As I was reading the article, I was thinking about the common objection that women being silent and wearing head coverings, etc. was just a cultural thing back then. The question dawned on me, &quot;Which culture?&quot; There were many cultures included in the early church at that time. Israel, Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, North Africa. At what point did it cease to be a cultural concession? Is the issue that those cultures could not accept a women not wearing a head covering, or that our culture cannot accept women being forced to wear one as a sign of subservience? The reason Paul gave was from Genesis; Eve's deception and curse, not an appeal to tradition. Yes, headcoverings were traditional in Jewish culture, but why? Could it not be because of the same reason that Paul uses, in recognition of Eve's curse? The curse has not disappeared yet, so why has the sign of it disappeared?

Not a popular topic, it know, but it does cause one to think.

[Edited on 8-13-2003 by DexCisco]


----------



## pastorway

An uncovered head in several of those cultures was a sign of women's independence from men, or a lack of submission to their husbands. 

The question we should be asking is not &quot;Should women cover their heads?&quot;, but instead, &quot;What can they do to publicly display their submission to their husbands?&quot;.

Remember - the principle based on creation is submission of the woman to the man. The cultural expression of the principle NOW is what matters, not forcing women today to follow outward customs or traditions of yesterday! 

Phillip


----------



## DexCisco

So who determines what a public display of submission is? To each his own? Something imposed by the husband? Whatever the wife is comfortable with? I agree that it is the reason that is of primary importance and not just a hollow adherance to a bunch of rules. However, if the method of showing submission was so subjective, why didn't Paul just say &quot;Show some public sign of submission to your husbands. Y'know, just whatever you feel like as long as you know the purpose of it.&quot; Or do you see the issue being not so much that they were not showing their submission to their husbands, but that they were publicly showing their [i:2ac4692cb4]independance[/i:2ac4692cb4] from their husbands? What is the emphasis? On showing submission or on not showing a lack of submission?

It was not that many years ago that women all wore hats to church. I suspect that this tradition of women covering their heads in church slowly became more of a fashion than obedience to a biblical command, and as soon as the fashion became unfashionable, the tradition disappeared.

[Edited on 8-13-2003 by DexCisco]


----------



## doulosChristou

[quote:1170a3c51d][i:1170a3c51d]Originally posted by DexCisco[/i:1170a3c51d]
I just read R.L Dabney's writing on Women Preaching because my wife was asking what our church's position was on the topic. I showed her the article and she read some of it (and was not terribly impressed). One of her comments was &quot;According to his position, all women in North America that don't wear headcoverings in church are sinning.&quot; [/quote:1170a3c51d] R. C. Sproul holds to this interpretation also. His wife Velma covers her head during public worship. They do not bind others' consciences on this matter, but it is their personal conviction. There are other Christian women who wear head coverings as a way of honoring 1 Cor 11. I sympathize with both interpretations and have not yet reached a strong conviction either way.

dC


----------



## DexCisco

There is a woman in our church who wears a head covering in church and I admire her courage to do so when she is the only one doing it. I'm not about to tell my wife she has to  , but if she decided to do so I would be impressed (and amazed :smilegrin: )


----------



## DexCisco

Actually, Dabney's article doesn't talk that much about headcovering specifically. It only deals with that issue as it relates to &quot;Women Preaching&quot;  (i.e. women can't preach because the preacher is not supposed to cover his head and women are supposed to, so that, among other things, would make it difficult.)


----------



## Jie-Huli

[quote:a0f92eb796]
R. C. Sproul holds to this interpretation also. His wife Velma covers her head during public worship. They do not bind others' consciences on this matter, but it is their personal conviction. 
[/quote:a0f92eb796]

If one is a leader and teacher, as R.C. Sproul is, how can there be a diversion between his personal convictions and what he teaches others? If he and his wife are personally convicted that the command for women to cover their heads during prayer still applies today, how can he, in good conscience, fail to advise others under his spiritual and educational care to do the same?


----------



## JohnV

Whether head coverings are cultural is not a good enough reason. For our not wearing them is also cultural. :wr50:


----------



## doulosChristou

[quote:3be14122a3][i:3be14122a3]Originally posted by Jie-Huli[/i:3be14122a3]
[quote:3be14122a3]
R. C. Sproul holds to this interpretation also. His wife Velma covers her head during public worship. They do not bind others' consciences on this matter, but it is their personal conviction. 
[/quote:3be14122a3]

If one is a leader and teacher, as R.C. Sproul is, how can there be a diversion between his personal convictions and what he teaches others? If he and his wife are personally convicted that the command for women to cover their heads during prayer still applies today, how can he, in good conscience, fail to advise others under his spiritual and educational care to do the same? [/quote:3be14122a3] Jie-Huli, I think you misunderstood me. The Sproul's do not bind others' consciences regarding their conviction on head covering just as they do not bind others' consciences regarding their eschatalogical views, but they certainly do teach it. And not just by example. It is taught in the audio series &quot;God's Law and the Christian&quot; produced by Ligonier Ministries when Dr. Sproul expounds the fourth commandment.

In Christ, dC


----------



## Jie-Huli

[quote:e4f037a7b0]Jie-Huli, I think you misunderstood me. The Sproul's do not bind others' consciences regarding their conviction on head covering just as they do not bind others' consciences regarding their eschatalogical views, but they certainly do teach it. And not just by example. It is taught in the audio series &quot;God's Law and the Christian&quot; produced by Ligonier Ministries when Dr. Sproul expounds the fourth commandment.
[/quote:e4f037a7b0]

Thanks for the clarification, though I still am a little confused. Mr. Sproul believes that women are Biblically required to cover their heads during prayer, yes? Does he teach to this effect, that it is a Biblical requirement? If so, how is this not &quot;binding the conscience&quot; of others on this matter? If my teacher said something is Biblically required, I would certainly feel my conscience bound by it.

By the way, I am not implying he should [i:e4f037a7b0]not[/i:e4f037a7b0] bind others' consciences on it; to the contrary, if a teacher is personally convicted that the Bible requires us to do something, I would say he has a [i:e4f037a7b0]responsibility[/i:e4f037a7b0] to bind the consciences of others on the issue, does he not?

Blessings,
Jie Huli :saint2:

[Edited on 8-13-2003 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## PastorJoe

That's interesting about Sproul and his wife. I worshipped with them once and she did not wear any sort of covering. How long has this been her practice? Is it just on the Lord's Day?

I know my questions don't really relate to the topic, just curious.


----------



## cupotea

I think the headcovering issue is a matter of culture and conscience. It was asked why Paul didn't just say that women should show some sign, any sign, of public submission to their husbands. Well, in Paul's day and time there may not have been any other culturally acceptable way besides the head covering.
While serving as a missionary in Romania, all women there were required to cover their heads before entering the place of worship. It was a cultural thing. They didn't look down on someone who didn't cover their head.
Also, to demand that a woman must wear a certain article of clothing seems to dismiss the overarching teaching of Scripture that God looks at what is in our heart during worship. 
Again, it must be a matter of personal conviction and conscience.


----------



## wsw201

Assuming that head coverings was a cultural way of showing submission, wouldn't a woman taking her husband's name be the same thing today? Also it is interesting that 1 Cor 11 is the only place in Scripture, OT or NT, that head coverings is discussed. No where in the judicial laws does it state that a woman should cover her head during prayer. Also what about 1 Cor 11:15 regarding a women's head covering?


----------



## duke

I come from Northern Ireland and I would say that the vast majority of Brethren and Baptists churches still expect the women attending to wear hats. Their logic is simple - its in the Word so we do it. I did not say that it was good logic or good exegesis but it is simple. 

Whenever we get poeple coming to preach from England or USA they often comment on the fact that the vast majority of women in these independent churches wear hats. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland is a different matter. Hardly any women wear hats ... and this is one of the reasons why many christians who belong to Brethren and Baptist churches view ALL presbyterians as uncomitted to obey the Bible etc.

You may like to read this article on it by Austrialian NT scholar Paul Barnett:
http://www.anglicanmedia.com.au/old/pwb/hair.htm

Its very clear and will maybe provide a bit of material for discussion.


----------



## Jie-Huli

[quote:47ba327b57]
Also what about 1 Cor 11:15 regarding a women's head covering?
[/quote:47ba327b57]

Verse 11:15: &quot;But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.&quot;

From what I have seen, even those who believe head covering is not a lasting commandment recognize that this verse does not mean a woman's long hair was the only covering Paul required. That is very clear from the context, especially verses 5 and 6 where Paul says if a woman prays with her head uncovered, her head might as well be shaven. Obviously, hair and the head covering Paul was requiring were not the same thing.

[quote:47ba327b57]
Also, to demand that a woman must wear a certain article of clothing seems to dismiss the overarching teaching of Scripture that God looks at what is in our heart during worship. 
[/quote:47ba327b57]

True, God desires we worship Him in spirit and in truth. Certainly, our hearts are most important . . . yet isn't it also possible to respect commands which regulate the &quot;outer&quot; things (such as head coverings) in a way which does keep the focus on our hearts? I.e., not wearing head coverings merely as an empty ritual, but frequently remembering its meaning and spiritual ramifications, and bearing witness for what it is a sign for? I mean, probably the women of that time were making the exact same argument . . . they have &quot;freedom in Christ,&quot; and God only looks at the heart, so head coverings are unnecessary, so they said. But we see how Paul responded to that, which shows that though certainly the heart is most important, outer things such as head coverings are also not devoid of spiritual significance.

By the way, how many of you men take off your hat or cap when you pray? Does not this custom (men praying with heads uncovered) come from the exact same passage of Scripture that requires women to cover their heads when praying? Why do modern people now respect the one Scriptural custom but not the other?

:question:

Jie-Huli


----------



## Ex Nihilo

My question is this: Is 1 Corinthians 11 even talking about public worship? I think primarily it can't be, since if women are to be silent (as commanded in 14:34) they wouldn't be prophesying or praying aloud in the public assembly at all, and there would certainly be no regulations regarding an act that should not take place. Could it mean, instead, that if a woman does pray or prophesy with others present in a smaller gathering, that she is to do it in such a way that indicates that she is still under her husband's authority? Also, are women to be silent in the main assembly, but allowed to speak in smaller gatherings (with a symbol of authority on their heads)? The passage seems to imply it (as do others), but I don't want to pull something inappropriate out of the text.

The ESV translates the word [i:884fa88661]gune[/i:884fa88661] in this passage as "wives" rather than "women"... What do you think of that? Is this an appropriate concession? It does seem to make sense, considering verse 3: "the head of a wife is her husband"... Also, the obvious hierarchy is one in which a woman is under the authority of her husband. Is a single woman, who is not yet under the authority of a husband, exempt?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

There is nothing "cultural" (re: subjective, arbitrary) about Paul's command that women should keep their heads covered in public worship in I Cor. 11. The reasons he gives are grounded in "nature" (creation) and the headship principle. It is a fundamental Biblical requirement for women in public worship and that's that.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

[quote:b36fa10d78="VirginiaHuguenot"]There is nothing "cultural" (re: subjective, arbitrary) about Paul's command that women should keep their heads covered in public worship in I Cor. 11. The reasons he gives are grounded in "nature" (creation) and the headship principle. It is a fundamental Biblical requirement for women in public worship and that's that.[/quote:b36fa10d78]

I'm certainly not attempting to dismiss the practice as merely cultural, but I'm not sure about the context being public worship. However, this seems to be the common interpretation, so I'm sure there is some support for it. Can someone help me out here?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Hi Evie,

My earlier post was not intended to interact with your previous post directly, so I apologize if there was a misunderstanding. 

I do believe I Cor. 11 is addressing the context of public worship. Undoubtedly, the latter half of the chapter is referring to the celebration by the church of the Lord's Supper during a worship service. The praying and prophesying that is spoken of earlier on also, I believe, indicates the context is public worship. 

Calvin's Commentary on I Cor. 11.2 says that Paul is speaking of decorum in sacred assemblies. I think that is the focus of Paul's message in I Cor. 11-14 in general.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Thanks, Andrew.

The reason I am slightly hesitant is not that I don't want to wear a hat to church, but that I am quite wary of those who would suggest 1 Cor. 11 gave women the right to pray aloud and prophesy in the public assembly. Also, there seems to be a transition between the first part of the chapter and the second, when Pauls says, "when you come together." 

[quote:4da3a49f3b]Calvin's Commentary on I Cor. 11.2 says that Paul is speaking of decorum in sacred assemblies.[/quote:4da3a49f3b]

Does it? I have not read it, but I did read somewhere that Calvin thought the "prophesying" referenced in this section took place in smaller, private gatherings. Is that inaccurate? I would agree with Calvin that Paul is by no means condoning women prophesying in the public worship service, but it does seem that Paul is speaking of some context in which women actually did prophesy.

That said, even if the first part of the chapter is not referring exclusively to public worship, does it necessarily dismiss the idea of headcoverings for all women/wives in public worship? Or only women/wives who are praying or prophesying? It does seem clear that a "symbol of authority" would by no means be inappropriate for a women in any context.


----------



## yeutter

Explain to me 1 Corinthians 11:10 "...for the sake of angels.." I do not know what that means but I do not understand how a reference to the angels could be other then a theological not a cultural arguement.


----------



## py3ak

Ex Nihilo,

You bring up an excellent point about Paul regulating what he forbids in 1 Corinthians 14:34. I think this has to be understood along the lines you suggest, but I would explain it in this way.

In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul is regulating the manner in which women must pray or prophesy. Obviously, there are regulations regarding praying and prophesying which would relate to everybody: reverence, for instance, and accuracy. But for women there must also be the symbol of authority. 

Now in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul is addressing a related issue, but not precisely the same one. There he regulates the sphere that a woman is allowed to speak in. He excludes her from speaking "in the assemblies", which I would understand as the stated worship of the church.

So it seems to me that there are three things we must always keep in mind. 1. There is biblical warrant from 1 Corinthians 11 for women to pray and prophesy. 2. In order to do so properly they must cover their heads. 3. Even with a covered head, praying or prophesying in the assemblies is unacceptable. 

It seems to me that a failure to observe that in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul regulates the [i:520169bec3]manner[/i:520169bec3] of women praying or prophesying, whereas in chapter 14 he regulates the [i:520169bec3]sphere[/i:520169bec3] wherein they are allowed to pray or prophesy has caused a lot of the dissension about the whole topic.

Of course, understanding it along these lines leaves you with this: that in the assemblies, where women are not (should not be anyway) praying or prophesying, then a headcovering would not, strictly speaking, be necessary --although no one will object if someone wants to wear one.

Finally, and as some others have pointed out, it is not feasible to maintain that headcoverings are a cultural phenomenon. It is impossible to demonstrate that angels, creation, the relationship of God the Father to Christ and the male/female distinction are cultural --because, of course, it is impossible that these things could be cultural.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Thanks very much, Ruben I.! That really clarifies what I was thinking.

Also, if the regulations in the passage are not to be taken culturally, does this mean that women should not have short hair? Does it mean that men should not have long hair? (Also, how can "nature" have determined this, since no one's hair is "naturally" short--or is there something written into nature that men should cut theirs?) If it is against "nature" for men to have long hair, and this is absolutely morally wrong, how could that have been a requirement for Nazirites? And how, if headcoverings are a moral absolute and not an application of a moral absolute, could they not have been required in the Old Testament? That would suggest that moral absolutes could change, and I'm sure that no one would begin to say that. 

Of course, even if it is an application of a moral absolute that has existed since Old Testament times, rather than an absolute itself, there isn't necessarily any reason to believe that it no longer applies. Certainly [i:b8752ab01c]some[/i:b8752ab01c] of the trappings of worship did change in New Testament times, but we cannot arbitrarily change them ourselves without divine revelation to show that this is the case.


----------



## VanVos

Also is this speaking of codes of dress within a congregational gathering or is to be applied to all spheres of religious life? In others should women wear head covering in general as a representation of their submission to their husbands? 

VanVos


----------



## py3ak

Ex Nihilo,

As I understand, the word translated "long" in the passage condemning men having long hair would be better translated as "fixed". In other words, what is condemned on the part of men is an elaborate hairdo. I think the case of Samson, as well as the Nazirites in general, supports very strongly that it is not simple length, but rather ornateness that is in view. A woman's hair is her glory (a view supported by shampoo/conditioner commercials as well as 1 Corinthians 11:15), while a man's hair is not his. The woman can have her glory covered as a sign of submission; or she can remove her glory. That, though, would be a shame and a dishonor, and not something most women would want; so covering it is the only acceptable option. It is against nature for men to focus on what is woman's glory --and it is perfectly natural for women to be concerned about it.

VanVos,

I don't believe that this requirement attaches to day-to-day life. Since "prophesying" is a public activity it seems most proper to understand the requirement for head covering of public prayer. If my wife, for instance, were to give her testimony or share some thoughts on Scripture at a ladies meeting or if she were teaching a Sunday school class for children, she would cover her head.


----------



## ChristianasJourney

Ruben,

If a man shouldn't have "ornate" hair when praying or prophesying...does this mean for women a "headcovering" is also "ornate" hair. This is the first time I've heard the word translated this way...on one hand it makes sense. On the other hand I think the word would have to apply equally well to men and women. "Ornate" or "Fixed" doesn't seem to apply equally, as Paul says later that a womens glory should not be in her "braided hair"...

Thoughts?


----------



## py3ak

Janice,

The man should not have ornate hair at any time, because it is a shame (as nature teaches). The woman should have her hair -in whatever style- covered when she prays or prophesies. If I am understanding you correctly (and it is very late right now, so it's quite likely that I don't) you seem to be thinking that a womans hair is the covering. This is shown to be impossible, though, if you try substituting "hair" for "covering" in vv.4-7. If you do that you wind up with the requirement that men should be bald when praying or prophesying, and women should either have hair or be bald. When Peter says that the adorning of women should not be "braiding of hair, and wearing of gold, or putting on of apparel" he is contrasting that with the adornment of a meek and quiet spirit. In other words, how is a woman to be beautiful? By cultivating a godly character. Other ornamentation is not forbidden, I don't think; but the emphasis is placed where it needs to be. A woman is not given license to be vain about her hair, but 1 Corinthians 11, as Song of Solomon 4:1 & 6:5 leave you in no doubt that God so designed it that a woman's head of hair is a wonderful thing.


----------



## ChristianasJourney

So let me see if I understand you...

You're saying that when 1 Cor. 11 refers to a man having his head uncovered, it's talking about his hairstyle (more or less), but when it refers to a lady's covering it's refering to an actual covering (i.e. hat). Does it matter whether a man prays with a hat or other covering on?


----------



## Ex Nihilo

[quote:346fa4e613="py3ak"]Ex Nihilo,

As I understand, the word translated "long" in the passage condemning men having long hair would be better translated as "fixed". In other words, what is condemned on the part of men is an elaborate hairdo. I think the case of Samson, as well as the Nazirites in general, supports very strongly that it is not simple length, but rather ornateness that is in view. A woman's hair is her glory (a view supported by shampoo/conditioner commercials as well as 1 Corinthians 11:15), while a man's hair is not his. The woman can have her glory covered as a sign of submission; or she can remove her glory. That, though, would be a shame and a dishonor, and not something most women would want; so covering it is the only acceptable option. It is against nature for men to focus on what is woman's glory --and it is perfectly natural for women to be concerned about it.[/quote:346fa4e613]

How interesting! That actually makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that interesting explanation. I get what you're saying: Basically, Aragorn's hair is all right for a man, but Legolas takes it a bit too far.


----------



## a mere housewife

I think that we women are to cover our heads in reference to the angels, because we are lower than they are in the creative order, and they are observing what we do. It seems like Paul is saying that it is presumptuous and even offensive to display our little earthly glory and speak without reference to the authority that God has placed over us in the presence of the angels, much less of God. So we ought to be careful not to do either of these things, by covering our head.

I don't mean to imply that every woman who doesn't cover her head when praying or prophesying (and I agree that that isn't to be done in the assemblies where men are worshipping) is willfully doing these things; but I think Paul's teaching was to help us not to either willfully or accidentally offend the angels or the Holy Spirit in this way.


----------



## py3ak

Ex Nihilo.

Glad it was helpful.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

I believe Paul makes it cultural in the text: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." 1 Cor 11:16 He seems to allude that this is not binding on all churches.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Actually, 1 Cor. 11:16 is a Pauline rebuke to anyone inclined to argue with the rule he's just laid down, not an allowance. To expound: Paul says "Hey, if you wan't to assert your independence and claim your right to do as you like, just keep this in mind--we [Paul, his helpers, all the churches he founded] have no other practice; and moreover lest you think this is just what happens where [i:4894ea9c6e]we[/i:4894ea9c6e] exercise authority, the whole church of God follows the same rule."


----------

