# Our Daughter Is Now Covered



## Kaalvenist (Mar 19, 2010)

Because of my convictions on the subject, my wife has worn a head covering since just shortly before we became engaged -- she herself became convinced of that understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 before we got married. But we have not been totally convinced of little or young girls wearing head coverings, primarily because "woman" in the passage is the word for an adult woman, and can also be translated "wife."

But last Saturday, while we were discussing the subject with another head-covering family, we both saw the argument rather clearly. I didn't want to raise the subject, since I know that it can be a touchy one with my beloved.  But the next day, while we were attending the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Grand Rapids, my wife turned to our four month old daughter and thought to herself, "Her head should not be shamed;" and promptly put a hat on her.

Our rationale would be the following:

1. Although the word is the word for an adult woman or a wife, the same word is used in 1 Timothy 2, where the woman is forbidden to teach or to usurp authority over the man, with the same argument from creation, and refers to their salvation in childbearing (clearly a married woman). And 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 likewise forbids a woman from speaking in church, and requires them to ask their husbands at home (again, clearly a married woman). Does this mean that the prohibition against women preaching only stands against married women, and that widows, divorced women, or women that have never been married (including young girls) are able to preach? If we would argue that this refers to the entire female gender, then the requirement of women to wear head coverings must likewise refer to the entire female gender. Besides, my wife wears a head covering to indicate her submission to her covenantal head (me); and my daughter has the same covenantal head (also me).

2. It has sometimes been pointed out that "head coverings are safer." There are numerous different interpretations of the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 -- that it is a cultural application of an abiding principle, that the covering is the woman's hair, that it is hair "put up" in a neat and tidy way, that the covering is Christ, etc. But in any of these interpretations, it is not forbidden for a woman to wear a head covering in church. According to our principle, women are wrong for not wearing a head covering in church. It's like Pascal's wager... if they are right, nobody loses; if we are right, they are sinning against an ordinance of God. It would be wiser to simply "play it safe" and wear a head covering. But the same principle applies to our daughter. If she doesn't have to wear a head covering, it's not wrong for her to wear one; but if she does have to wear a head covering, it is wrong for her not to wear one.


----------



## Curt (Mar 19, 2010)

The head covering discussions on the PB have been illuminating. I am not of that persuasion (maybe I should add, "yet."). I appreciate your story. Thank you.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Mar 19, 2010)

My wife and I have done some in-depth study and had some serious conversations about head coverings and have not come to the conviction that she should wear one (might I also add, yet). However I am always of the persuasion to err on the side of caution and I think you make a valid point, for both women and daughters, and I would rather be prudent on the matter than foolish. I would like to see some of what our other pb brethren have to say as well before I reconsider the my position.


----------



## wmc1982 (Mar 19, 2010)

I think since it's debatable you are responsible according to your convictions. So at this point it might be a sin for your wife not to wear a covering, while it isn't a sin for someone else who isn't aware of the passage or doesn't agree that it means this not to. 

I can't remember the passage but isn't there one in the Epistles about it's only a sin to eat meat if you are convicted that it's wrong to?

I haven't ever noticed a single woman wearing a head covering in church, and I've been in PCA and ARP churches for 15 years. So I wonder if God was offended by this wouldn't he be convicting more people?

Something else that came to mind, why do Jewish men wear those hats (other than to cover up bald spots)? Is it for a similar reason? Did Jewish women wear head coverings in the OT? I thought their hair was their "covering."


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 19, 2010)

Does your four month old pray?


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 19, 2010)

wmc1982 said:


> I think since it's debatable you are responsible according to your convictions. So at this point it might be a sin for your wife not to wear a covering, while it isn't a sin for someone else who isn't aware of the passage or doesn't agree that it means this not to.
> 
> I can't remember the passage but isn't there one in the Epistles about it's only a sin to eat meat if you are convicted that it's wrong to?


That is begging the question. Obviously, those of us who are persuaded that the passage teaches that women should wear a head covering do not believe that it is debatable. It is described as an ordinance (tradition, deliverance), and the fifteen verse discussion is concluded by declaring that this is the custom of all the churches. Not exactly a "meat sacrificed to idols" kind of discussion.


wmc1982 said:


> I haven't ever noticed a single woman wearing a head covering in church, and I've been in PCA and ARP churches for 15 years. So I wonder if God was offended by this wouldn't he be convicting more people?


God convicts different people and different churches on different areas. In your own church, only the Psalms were sung in worship until 1946. If their former position was right, He's not convicting too many modern-day ARPs of exclusive psalmody. If the current practice is right, he left the denomination unconvicted on the subject for about 150 years. Also, I know R.C. Sproul holds to this position, and has advocated it in several different venues.


wmc1982 said:


> Something else that came to mind, why do Jewish men wear those hats (other than to cover up bald spots)? Is it for a similar reason? Did Jewish women wear head coverings in the OT? I thought their hair was their "covering."


You'll have to ask Jews why they do what they do; their religion is based less on the Bible than on Pharisaism. And the question of whether the covering is hair or something else is one of the very points in question. I believe the passage clearly argues against the hair being the covering by twice making a comparison between the covering and the woman's hair (you don't draw a comparison between things that are identical).

---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:28 PM ----------




OPC'n said:


> Does your four month old pray?


Nope. Not yet, anyways (although one might argue that she should). But my wife doesn't engage in public prayer or prophecy (preaching), either. I would argue that such terms demonstrate that this is an ordinance for women in a worshipping congregation, not limited to them performing actions they will never perform.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 19, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > Does your four month old pray?
> ...





> 1 Cor. 11:2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven



2 things: the same Scripture you are using to support your view on head coverings states that women are to pray/prophesy. So I'm sure that she is to pray although when instructed to do so ie The Lord's Prayer and praying in conjunction with the pastor's prayers just as the men. Also, if you truly believe that she is not to pray I don't see why you think she needs to wear a head covering since the Scripture states she is to wear one *when* she prays/prophesies. So that being said I don't know why you would cover a four month old who knows nothing about what's going on in the service. I mean it's your family and obviously can do what you want....I see no sin here....but your rationale is off.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Mar 19, 2010)

While Sarah and I disagree on this subject, I'll simply say that we were able to have Grace in the worship service last Sunday and she sported a knit pink cap except the minutes when Tim poured water on her head...We see it as a symbol of submission and recognition of authority. While Grace may not yet understand these concepts, she is still subject to them.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 19, 2010)

Scottish Lass said:


> While Sarah and I disagree on this subject, I'll simply say that we were able to have Grace in the worship service last Sunday and she sported a knit pink cap except the minutes when Tim poured water on her head...We see it as a symbol of submission and recognition of authority. While Grace may not yet understand these concepts, she is still subject to them.


 
Which part of this Scripture includes a silent female wearing a covering? All I see is it saying when she prays or prophesies. "*but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head"* Like I said nothing wrong with putting a hat on your baby. I do see something wrong with stating that this Scripture says you are to put one on your baby. I'm not sure that you are saying that. In any case, this is a mute subject for me bc I believe it speaking of a woman's hair being her covering. But pink or blue little hats do rock on babies so 

 !


----------



## Scottish Lass (Mar 19, 2010)

OPC'n said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> > While Sarah and I disagree on this subject, I'll simply say that we were able to have Grace in the worship service last Sunday and she sported a knit pink cap except the minutes when Tim poured water on her head...We see it as a symbol of submission and recognition of authority. While Grace may not yet understand these concepts, she is still subject to them.
> ...


 
For us, the context of the passage is important--the relationship between submission and covering. I know you oppose it, but we are convicted. See me as the weaker sister.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 19, 2010)

Scottish Lass said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > Scottish Lass said:
> ...


 
Why would I see you as a weaker sister? I'm trying to understand how you guys are jumping from females who pray are to wear hats to all females whether they pray or not are to wear hats. Don't you believe that in this particular Scripture Paul is stating that all women are to be under the authority of men (not just your husband) while in worship and all men are to be under the authority of Christ while in worship and Christ under God thus bringing us all into a communal worship and not an individual worship? So it's not just this family worshipping God over here and this family worshipping Him over there, but all of God's children all over worshipping Him as one unit. Submission of a person to another person brings that person under them who then leads them. When we are in worship we are a unit (the body of Christ) worshipping as one. As much as we would like for it to be true babies don't worship God. I also believe that now days prophesying means to speak God's word. We do that by singing truths about Him. Even EP (actually especially EP ppl) are prophesying when they sing the Psalms.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 20, 2010)

Sean, does your wife wear head-coverings always or just during worship?



Also, what are your opinions as to why the vast majority of other reformed believers have not also come to your same conclusion?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 20, 2010)

I admire your desire to be obedient and to err on the side of caution, Sean, but with all due respect I don't see the logic in your position. I don't think head coverings are commanded in 1 Corinthians 11, but even if were in favor of head coverings I don't see how infant daughters are commanded to be covered. Paul qualifies the use of head coverings only in the context of active participation in worship by "praying or prophesying." Is your 4 month old daughter praying or prophesying in church? No. So if you are going to be consistent in your reading of 1 Corinthians 11 you should come to the conclusion that the passage doesn't apply to her as a non-participant in worship. It makes more sense when she is a teenager or a grown woman, but as an infant it negates your understanding of the need for head covering in the first place. 

Again, I'm against head covering because the passage refers to headship of husbands, not to a specific cultural display of submission such as head covering. But even if you read 1 Corinthians 11 as establishing the normative practice of head covering in worship, it is illogical to cover your daughter because Paul always qualifies head coverings as relevant to active participants in worship only. So you can't have it both ways: either 1 Corinthians 11 either commands women worshipers to be covered, or it doesn't command anyone to be covered. There is no command for infant girls in the passage.


----------



## Berean (Mar 20, 2010)

> Our Daughter Is Now Covered



My first thought was that you'd bought her an insurance policy.


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Mar 20, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> Nope. Not yet, anyways (although one might argue that she should). But my wife doesn't engage in public prayer or prophecy (preaching), either. I would argue that such terms demonstrate that this is an ordinance for women in a worshipping congregation, not limited to them performing actions they will never perform.



How do you argue that? Paul states that it is a shame for a woman to pray or prophecy uncovered. It seems that it is not until verse 18 that Paul shifts to talking about when they come together as a church.

A woman does engage in teaching/prophecy through teaching children in the family or other women.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 20, 2010)

I'm personally of the opinion that, since this is a Christian ordinance, it applies to Christians. For Presbyterians I could see "covenant children" being covered, but as a Baptist I'm going to say it should apply after conversion. I could be wrong on that though.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 20, 2010)

Skyler said:


> I'm personally of the opinion that, since this is a Christian ordinance, it applies to Christians. For Presbyterians I could see "covenant children" being covered, but as a Baptist I'm going to say it should apply after conversion. I could be wrong on that though.


 
Presbyterians are good but we aren't that good! Presbyterian infants don't pray anymore than Baptist infants do.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 20, 2010)

OPC'n said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > I'm personally of the opinion that, since this is a Christian ordinance, it applies to Christians. For Presbyterians I could see "covenant children" being covered, but as a Baptist I'm going to say it should apply after conversion. I could be wrong on that though.
> ...


 
That doesn't seem to stop them from getting baptized.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 20, 2010)

Skyler said:


> OPC'n said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...


 
That's bc it's commanded in Scripture to baptize infant, but this Scripture states specifically that the woman who *prays or prophesies* should cover her head. Our infants are smart but not that smart


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 20, 2010)

The passage is describing what happens in public worship. Verse 2 speaks of this as an ordinance (or tradition, or deliverance). The comparison between verse 2 (speaking of head coverings) and verse 17 (speaking of the Lord's supper) is striking, and demonstrates that the entire chapter refers to public worship, in two different particulars.

I find it odd that so many Presbyterians have a problem with this idea. In Deuteronomy 29, the whole congregation is said to engage in covenanting with God, including the "little ones." Obviously, they weren't active in that activity; they were included together with the congregation who was performing that act. Likewise, my daughter is counted together with a worshipping, praying family, and a worshipping, praying congregation.

And we believe the passage refers only to public worship, not to all of life. I can't speak for why others do not hold the convictions I hold. From my interaction with others on the subject, I have found that many have not read the passage, or have simply been told all their lives that "it was cultural," without having studied the subject at all.


----------



## Grillsy (Mar 20, 2010)

Sean. Your story about your wife and you arriving at the conclusion that she should wear a head covering is very similar to that of my wife and me. We began studying this issue while we were engaged and now she is covered. As of now we do not have any children but we have been discussing the issue of children and head coverings. Thank you for this thread!


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 20, 2010)

well, i keep my packer hat handy just in case the OPC changes their views


----------



## Grillsy (Mar 20, 2010)

Also, the question was raised about the "vast majority" of Reformed churches today not practicing head covering. This is true...today. It is not true for the greater history of the church. Not trying to start and argument just making the statement.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 20, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> And we believe the passage refers only to public worship, not to all of life. I can't speak for why others do not hold the convictions I hold. From my interaction with others on the subject, I have found that many have not read the passage, or have simply been told all their lives that "it was cultural," without having studied the subject at all.


 
If this is an ordinance of the Church and part of public worship, then it is to be regulated by the elders of the Church, not according to personal preference. It is your elders who are to explain and implement in the congregation whatever is prescribed in 1 Cor. 11. Making it a matter of personal preference can only lead to disorder and division in the congregation, the very things Paul is trying to avoid.


----------



## Curt (Mar 21, 2010)

Interestingly, we discussed this topic informally at our Reformed Fellowship yesterday. Then, this morning, two large families showed up to visit and all the women were covered.I don't make anything out of that. It's just interesting.


----------



## stegokitty (Mar 21, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> wmc1982 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I know R.C. Sproul holds to this position (exclusive psalmody), and has advocated it in several different venues.
> ...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 21, 2010)

Dr. Sproul holds to head-coverings not EP.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 21, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Dr. Sproul holds to head-coverings not EP.


Yes, that was my meaning.

---------- Post added at 06:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------




tcalbrecht said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> > And we believe the passage refers only to public worship, not to all of life. I can't speak for why others do not hold the convictions I hold. From my interaction with others on the subject, I have found that many have not read the passage, or have simply been told all their lives that "it was cultural," without having studied the subject at all.
> ...


I don't believe that it ought to be a matter of personal preference; I believe that it ought to be regulated by the elders of the church, *according to scripture.* Because our church/denomination does not take a position one way or the other on the subject, it is left to personal preference -- and it is as much a matter of personal preference and private interpretation *to not* wear a head covering, as *to* wear a head covering.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 21, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> I don't believe that it ought to be a matter of personal preference; I believe that it ought to be regulated by the elders of the church, *according to scripture.* Because our church/denomination does not take a position one way or the other on the subject, it is left to personal preference -- and it is as much a matter of personal preference and private interpretation *to not* wear a head covering, as *to* wear a head covering.


 
Since your church/denomination does not require head coverings, have they not taken a position on the matter? Have they actually said it is a matter of personal preference or is that how you interpret their actions?


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 21, 2010)

> In any case, this is a mute subject for me bc I believe it speaking of a woman's hair being her covering.



Sorry, but this is incorrect; the Greek does not support it. There are a number of arguments against covering, but this one doesn't hold any water.


----------



## OPC'n (Mar 22, 2010)

kvanlaan said:


> > In any case, this is a mute subject for me bc I believe it speaking of a woman's hair being her covering.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this is incorrect; the Greek does not support it. There are a number of arguments against covering, but this one doesn't hold any water.


 
ok, well now that *you* confirmed that it's all settled you're right! I don't need any evidence that my study on this was all wrong... your word is good enough for me


----------



## Skyler (Mar 22, 2010)

stegokitty said:


> Can you name for me some prominent Reformed teachers/theologians who hold to the idea of head-coverings for women in the church?
> 
> Thanks


 
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary ( 1871 ) 
(Faussett was a clergyman in the Church of England, Jamieson and Brown were Presbyterians. )
“Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature.”


Adam Clarke (1762-1832)
“If she will not wear a veil in the public assemblies, let her be shorn-let her carry a public badge of infamy: but if it be a shame-if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered-let her by all means wear a veil.”


John Gill (1697-1771) 
(English Baptist)
“to be without a veil, or some sort of covering on her head, according to the custom of the country, is the same thing as if her head was shaved; and everyone knows how dishonourable and scandalous it is for a woman to have her head shaved; and if this is the same, then it is dishonourable and scandalous to her to be without covering in public worship.”


Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
“It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.”


John Calvin (1509-1564)
(reformer)
“Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it.”


Augustine (354-430)
“Of which sacred import the Apostle speaks when he says, that the man ought not to be veiled, the women ought.”
“It is not becoming even in married women to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands the women to keep their heads covered.”


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 22, 2010)

> ok, well now that you confirmed that it's all settled you're right! I don't need any evidence that my study on this was all wrong... your word is good enough for me



Glad that's settled then. 

Actually, I would never be such a fool as to make such a statement on the merits of my own study (that is to say that I am of the opinion that there are those much more erudite than I). I am leaning more on the scholarship of those who read and understand the original language that the passage was written in. Hair as the covering is simply invalid; there is an excellent sermon by Dr Richard Bacon on this topic (he is thorough to the Nth degree; be warned!)

This from our own luminaries here:



> 1Co 11:6 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.


1 Corinthians 11:6 - 'covering' is from the word κατακαλύπτω (katakalupto)


> 1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.


1 Corinthians 11:15 - 'covering' is from the word περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) 



> I believe others will point you to some threads where the entire topic of headcovering has been discussed at great length. I would just point out, respectfully, that I do not think the explanation that the "covering" is nothing more than a full head of hair is at all a tenable interpretation of this passage.
> 
> If the covering meant only hair, why would Paul need to be exhorting women to be covered while "praying and prophesying"? Presumably women would already generally have a full head of hair, and wouldn't need exhorting for that . . . and if for some strange reason a woman did not have a full head of hair, presumably she would not be able to put on a head of hair just for times of praying and prophesying.
> 
> ...



Another article (again, thorough in the extreme):
Headcoverings in Public Worship

Oh, found a link for Pastor Bacon:
Faith Presbyterian Church Reformed

Sorry for the overkill, but it simply _cannot_ be the hair. Scripture does not support it.


----------



## Grace Alone (Mar 22, 2010)

Hmmm, I am wondering since Sproul, Calvin, and Augustine promote head covering for women, exactly how much of church history did women have their heads covered??? Did it suddenly stop when feminism and liberalism came into play? I've never been to a church where the women covered their heads, but it seems to me we threw out a lot of long-standing customs (such as psalm singing) in the 20th century.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 22, 2010)

Grace Alone said:


> Hmmm, I am wondering since Sproul, Calvin, and Augustine promote head covering for women, exactly how much of church history did women have their heads covered??? Did it suddenly stop when feminism and liberalism came into play? I've never been to a church where the women covered their heads, but it seems to me we threw out a lot of long-standing customs (such as psalm singing) in the 20th century.


 
My understanding is that it was common practice in most of the church until the 20th century.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 22, 2010)

Skyler said:


> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, I am wondering since Sproul, Calvin, and Augustine promote head covering for women, exactly how much of church history did women have their heads covered??? Did it suddenly stop when feminism and liberalism came into play? I've never been to a church where the women covered their heads, but it seems to me we threw out a lot of long-standing customs (such as psalm singing) in the 20th century.
> ...


 
Worth noting even in the RC Church and the EO.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Mar 22, 2010)

tcalbrecht said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> > And we believe the passage refers only to public worship, not to all of life. I can't speak for why others do not hold the convictions I hold. From my interaction with others on the subject, I have found that many have not read the passage, or have simply been told all their lives that "it was cultural," without having studied the subject at all.
> ...


 
Interesting and valid point. However there may be cases where the elders, or perhaps just some of the elders and the pastor, have come to the position of head coverings yet they refrain from making it a matter of discipline out of wisdom and concern for the unity of the church. There is something to be said for stating the doctrine from Scripture and letting the word do its work over time, while having some women set the example, i. e. those whose husbands are convicted about headcoverings.


----------



## he beholds (Mar 24, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > Kaalvenist said:
> ...


 
I hear what you are saying, but I feel like the session should tell us if we are sinning, even if it disrupts unity. 

As a non-covered woman in church where only a few women cover, I could see the wisdom in having it regulated as a church ordinance rather than as a personal preference thing, but our culture does not do well with ordinances, I think. We do not like being told what to do, even if it would be liberating.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 25, 2010)

he beholds said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > tcalbrecht said:
> ...


 
There is something to be said for waiting to act upon such a change in conviction. After all, it's entirely possible that someone could present them with a Scriptural argument that changes their position--if they've already committed the whole church to it, it would be much harder to acquiesce to the testimony of Scripture. So I think there's something to be said for taking time to meditate on it and allow for (or better yet, request) comments and criticisms of their new conviction.


----------

