# Thoughts on Head-Coverings?



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 6, 2022)

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

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

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

1 Corinthians – Head-Coverings are Not Perpetual & they were Hair-Buns, with or without Material: Proven (RBO, 2022) 283 pp.​
The book’s intro will whet your desire to invest the time to look through the rest, from which you will reap many rewards. To see how Corinthian women covered their heads, see the many pictures in the History section on pp. 188-98. For a summary of the main points of the whole book, see the Summary Conclusions beginning on p. 258.

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

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

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

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



Part I​
​1. All positive, instituted worship must be “expressly set down in Scripture” or “by good and necessary consequence… deduced” therefrom; Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6. This is known as the Regulative Principle of Worship.​​2. In Scripture head-coverings, or the lack thereof, bore a variety of contrary meanings and acceptability, or not, in worship. Hence they were clearly cultural.​​3. Head-coverings cannot be taught by pure-nature and have no intrinsic value for worshipping God.​​4. Paul only uses the language of “dishonor,” “becometh,” “glory” and “custom” about head-coverings, which are all things of social decency, but do not reflect inherent sins. As with head-coverings, Paul uses imperatives in 1 Cor. 7 about things not intrinsically sinful.​​5. Some apostolic ordinances were circumstantially conditioned and mutable.​​6. Universal moral reasons given for a practice, such as head-coverings, not eating creeping things (Lev. 11:41, 44), the holy kiss, foot-washing, etc. does not necessarily make it perpetual. A context is assumed and generals can only bind generally.​​7. There is nothing in 1 Cor. 11 necessitating head-coverings to have a different meaning or use in worship than in society.​​8. There is no necessary warrant Corinthian head-coverings were geographically or temporally universal in the apostolic churches; but if they were, this does not itself make an ordinance to be of positive religion, especially as the Greco-Roman culture (which head-coverings were appropriate to) was vast.​​9. Part I’s survey of all the relevant Scriptural head-covering data (consider it for yourself) shows there is no express or good and necessary consequence from these texts that Corinthian head-coverings were a positive, perpetual rite of religion (WCF 21.1) beyond circumstances common to human society, ordered by nature’s light, Christian prudence and the Word’s general principles (WCF 1.6), which things may be culturally relative.​​10. These things being the case, Paul’s statement that improper head-covering “dishonoreth her head,” (v. 5) must be, not prescriptive, but descriptive, as the case was in that society (which it was). Hence Paul’s natural and spiritual arguments are contingent on this _de facto_ premise. A change of the premise in a different culture where not covering is not dishonoring, changes the conclusion.​​11. Hence, as there is no express, necessary or valid consequence from Scripture Corinthian head-coverings were a matter of perpetual religion, this cannot be established as doctrine or a binding practice.​​12. To give a use or meaning to head-coverings for worship which nature or society does not bear and God’s Word has not given, is to worship God with a device of men, which God has prohibited by his Word (Mt. 15:9; WCF 21.1).​


Part II​
​1. The Lexical section shows it is possible, and there is a significant foundation, that “covered” may refer to hair-buns with or without cloth material and “uncovered” to let-down long hair.​​2. This understanding makes the details of 1 Cor. 11 to read seamlessly, with more explanatory power than any other view.​​3. Footnotes 351–52 and the History section (with many pictures) show the considerable evidence that honorable women in first-century Greece nearly universally publicly wore bound-up hair, with or without cloth material and that universal veiling was not required. Bound-up hair without material in it or over it cannot be demonstrated to have been dishonorable by the current data, and a large amount of evidence manifests its honorableness.​​4. Universal female veiling was not required or practiced for pagan religious rites.​​5. Certain exegetical interpretations in 1 Cor. 11 upholding female, unveiled hair-buns cannot be ruled out.​​6. As there is no necessary (and hence valid) consequence from Scripture that Corinthian coverings were formally religious (proved in Part I), so Paul’s ordinance could not have been above and beyond appropriate societal custom, but rather must have been in consistency with it.​​7. Hence, according to the preponderance of historical evidence, Paul did not require of women veiling, but decent, bound-up hair.​


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

That head-coverings are not perpetual, Part I has demonstrated to be by divine law, _jure divino_.​​That being the case, that Paul was not instituting a positive rite above culture, and the Corinthian culture did not practice universal, female veiling (for public decorum or for praying or religious rites), as is clear, universal, female veiling in the Corinthian assemblies is historically disproven.​

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 4


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 6, 2022)

I'm pro-headcovering.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Dec 6, 2022)

Hi Travis,

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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 6, 2022)

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

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

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

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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 6, 2022)

Logan said:


> ...I found it very interesting, in my own reading of the Reformers and Puritans, that they almost all, when they commented on it, saw the injunction against men covering their heads as cultural. Many, including Calvin specifically said it was fine for men to cover their heads in cold climates, or others would say that the custom in their day was that someone exalted could keep their hat on in the present of a king.
> 
> This prompts the question: if they saw the discussion regarding a man's covering (or lack) as cultural, then did they see the covering of the female as cultural? Did they perhaps write regarding female coverings in the way they did because the custom of the day for females pretty well lined up with the text in 1 Corinthians 11, so to comment otherwise would merely needlessly stir up controversy in a cultural context? An interesting proposition that I'm not sure could be proven one way or another without explicit writings on it.
> 
> One thing I have always found odd about the position that head-coverings are commanded is that it seems to be in stark contrast to how other commands regarding our behavior are given. It would be a very specific command regarding a specific article of clothing, and given in only one instance, where elsewhere it is always about general practice (e.g., modest apparel). If it is a cultural application through a specific means, then it seems to me that the general principle (showing submission) is the key, rather than the specific article of clothing, which doesn't seem to have any universal significance. However, I fully recognize and respect other convictions.



Thanks for your thoughts Logan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope this may be interesting and helpful. Blessings friend.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 6, 2022)

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

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Dec 6, 2022)

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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 6, 2022)

A Review.

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

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

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

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

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

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 6, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


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


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

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 6, 2022)

Contra_Mundum said:


> A Review.


Bruce,

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


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 6, 2022)

TylerRay said:


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


Tyler,

Thank you for your interaction.

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

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

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

Blessings friend.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 6, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Tyler,
> 
> Thank you for your interaction.
> 
> ...


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

Thanks again. Hope y'all are doing well.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Dec 7, 2022)

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

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## bookish_Basset (Dec 7, 2022)

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



Contra_Mundum said:


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


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


----------



## chuckd (Dec 7, 2022)

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

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


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 7, 2022)

bookish_Basset said:


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 7, 2022)

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

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 7, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


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



That's a great question Alex.

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

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

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

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

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

"interpretation has been proposed by Noel Weeks and I acknowledge my debt to him. But the argument as developed is my own.”​
Weeks published his article in 1972 and doesn't quote any historical, theological writers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Dec 7, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


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


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

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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 7, 2022)

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









What Did John Knox Believe About Head Covering?


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




www.headcoveringmovement.com





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

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 7, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


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



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

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 7, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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


Thank you for that…

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 7, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


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



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

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

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

_The History of the Reformation of the Church of Scotland_… (Edinburgh, 1584; London, 1644), bk. 1, pp. 91-92​​“Those [captives] that were in the gallies [of the boats], were threatened with torments if they would not give reverence to the mass (for at certain times the mass was said in the gallies, or else hard by upon the shore…) but they could never make the poorest of that company to give reverence to that idol: yea, when upon the Saturday at night they sung their _Salve Regina_ [Save O Queen], all the Scottish men put on their caps, their hoods, or such things as they had to cover their heads [instead of uncovering]…”​
See also my book, pp. 66-67 for documentation that early Scottish preachers preached with caps on, and a picture of Knox doing so.

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

“For if exchange of garments be not lawful, so that neither she should be clad with a cloak, nor he with a mantle or a veil (‘for the woman,’ says He, ‘shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment,’ Deut. 22:5) much more is it unseemly for these things to be interchanged. For the former indeed were ordained by men, even although God afterwards ratified them: but this by nature, I mean the being covered or uncovered. But when I say nature, I mean God. For He it is who created Nature. When therefore thou overturns these boundaries, see how great injuries ensue.” – p. 355​​“He signifies [by v. 10] that not at the time of prayer only, but also continually she ought to be covered.” – p. 356​​“And he said not, ‘let her have long hair,’ but, ‘let her be covered,’ [v. 6] ordaining both these to be one [v. 5], and establishing them both ways, from what was customary…” – p. 357​​“For if one ought not to have the head bare, but everywhere to carry about the token of subjection, much more is it becoming to exhibit the same in our deeds.” – p. 361​

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 8, 2022)

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

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


----------



## bookish_Basset (Dec 8, 2022)

Contra_Mundum said:


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


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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 8, 2022)

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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 8, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


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



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

Reactions: Funny 6


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 8, 2022)

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

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

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 8, 2022)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


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


Your friend fails—or perhaps refuses—to realize that the reason given in Scripture against female officers is manifestly _not_ cultural. Paul explicitly grounds his prohibition in creation. The same thing can be said of Scripture’s prohibition of homosexuality.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MChase (Dec 8, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Your friend fails—or perhaps refuses—to realize that the reason given in Scripture against female officers is manifestly _not_ cultural. Paul explicitly grounds his prohibition in creation. The same thing can be said of Scripture’s prohibition of homosexuality.



Paul grounds head coverings in creation as well. 

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

Reactions: Like 10 | Love 1 | Amen 2


----------



## JH (Dec 8, 2022)

MChase said:


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


If I could "Amen" this a thousand times, I would

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1 | Amen 3


----------



## lynnie (Dec 8, 2022)

A few thoughts/questions. You don't have to answer them but I hope you think about them.

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

What is with the subject of culture exactly? Who cares? Paul says this is a sign to the angels. When we gather there is a great unseen host present. Have the angels changed? Do the angels view it differently now than they did 2000 years ago? What is the point of repetitive appeals to culture when the subject has to do with angels, not culture?

If I tell you as emphatically as possible that there have been times of awareness for me, wearing a head covering at church, of the unseen angelic realm, and that those angels can see my head covering and it matters, what is your response to my discernment of the angelic realm and that this sign of my husband's authority matters? Is that going to provoke some sort of Scott Clark thing about questing for illegitimate spiritual experience? Is that awareness some sort of charismatic deception to you? Uh huh, I've heard it all before, its too bad you just don't get it. Maybe this is where gender differences really matter, and God grants women with a head covering on an awareness of something guys don't get. I dunno. Let me repeat- this is for angels, not culture.

Moving on. In verse 2 and 23 Paul uses the exact same Greek word. Handed down, delivered over, tradition. Same word. Whatever English translation you use, its the same in Greek for head coverings and communion. In the structure of the chapter, why does Paul stick the two together this way if one is perpetual and the other is not? We know communion came from Jesus. Who did head coverings come from? Jesus? The council in Jerusalem? All the apostles? Its the SAME WORD as communion, so who said to do it? How is it cultural and communion is not? There is no logic in this position.

*2: παρεδωκα (handed over)
παραδοσεις- traditions
23: παρεδωκα (handed over)

2 Thess 2: 15: παραδόσεις - traditions, instructions* ( So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. 2 Thess 2:15).

My guess is this that maybe this came from "us", meaning apostolic. And who are you to dissuade people from obeying apostolic commands? Is this is the category of tongues ceasing for you? If so, again, why does Paul list it side by side with Communion?

I didn't read your 283 page link. But I may as well mention one more time that the symbol of authority, rough paraphrase a katakalupsis, is the not the word Paul uses for her long hair as a covering...that is parabolian ( very rough bad greek but you get the idea). This is not about hair, period, or Paul would have clearly stated that her long hair is given as a katakalupsis.

I am about to ask a serious question, I am not trying to be snarky or accusing, and you don't have to answer me, you owe no account to me. Do you have a wife who would never wear one? Do you have women in your life who would turn on the dark vibes if you were for head coverings? Do you have any grasp of feminist witchcraft, for want of a better term, that is in even Reformed churches? Its the one who will clench their teeth and say "I won't submit" about dumb non essentials hubby wants. The one who say they want a career, not being home with their babies and toddlers. Its all over the place. Have you experienced it? Would you rather avoid it at all costs? Just thinking about my experience, which perhaps does not apply to you.

I get so tired of this subject. Not of the honest questions and discussions and debates, but of the men trying so hard to stomp head coverings out. A pastor of the Sovereign Grace Ministries church we went to in the 90s said it was a sign of an evil spirit of legalism trying to get into the church. LOL, they were the most legalistic place I ever attended in over 40 years. The Lord has seen fit to expose a great many problems there and dramatically reduce their influence in Calvinistic circles, although the trigger for such dealings was probably mostly sex abuse cover up and lies. I can't claim that any pastor being anti head coverings was part of the cause. But I'm so tired of the strong feminism and blatant indifference towards husbands I've seen all over in my church past. In my opinion the rejection of this apostolic command is part of it.

Enough. At the very least, think about this: 10 "That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." Not the culture.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 8, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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


Was not focused on that fact!!


----------



## Taylor (Dec 8, 2022)

MChase said:


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


I was specifically addressing the matter of the pastor who believes the prohibition against female officers is cultural. In saying such was grounded in nature, I was in no way commenting or intending to comment on whether head covering is or is not.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 8, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


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


Jeri,

Thanks for your question.

While some people have immediately responded with their head-covering arguments from 1 Cor. 11 without looking at my material (as a few here), not realizing I have treated of those things at length and in-depth in the book, and shown them to be empty, not conclusive and mistaken, I have not had any serious pushback against the propositional arguments I listed out on my original post and have included in most places I have proffered the book on the internet.

So no, I have not had any serious attempt at actually demonstrating my argument is not conclusive.

I don't see how the argument can be undone.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 8, 2022)

MChase said:


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



Mason,

Regarding the argument from creation, which I used to hold to:

If head-coverings are necessary from creation, how is it that there were various and contrary head-covering practices in worship in the OT (see pp. 21-24 of my book)? How is it that female head-coverings and men not covering in worship only became binding four thousand years after Creation?

To see demonstrated that the argument from creation and universal natural and spiritual principles does not hold, see pp. 42-45.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Dec 8, 2022)

I'm reminded of many old arguments about headcoverings on the Covenanters Facebook group. The group has changed since then and I am no longer on Facebook anyway, but for a while it seemed there were two parties on this topic. The first were those who were very invested in the consensus of church history who were strongly against headcoverings because many of the Reformers, Westminster Divines, etc. when read carefully do not teach headcoverings as a perpetual binding ordinance but as cultural. I think many of this camp were influenced by some Steelites who had come out strongly against headcoverings (Travis mentions Greg Price's view for example in his book). Later the Steelites were removed from the group so this voice wasn't as loud. On the other side, there were those who appealed mainly to the plain readings of Scripture who would simply point to I Corinthians 11 as teaching headcoverings so we should follow this. I simplify a bit, but it seemed these were how the lines were typically drawn.

For a while, I was convinced of headcoverings -- that it was perpetually binding for women to cover and for men to remain uncovered specifically during worship. I was convinced while in a church where basically no other women covered besides my wife, and later I joined a church where headcoverings were taught as required. What later led me to re-consider this was trying to study the whole of Scripture on the topic, and trying to understand why in some circumstances men wore headcoverings in public worship in the Old Testament. Women also were depicted as wearing headcoverings at all times in several of the relevant passages in the Old Testament, in contrast to principally during worship. I couldn't find any teaching on women appearing in worship covered and men appearing uncovered elsewhere in Scripture besides this passage. I was hesitant to hinge an important doctrine on a single passage which had several confusing parts even besides that and that scarcely two commentators could agree on the particulars, even limiting to periods of Reformation in the church. Finding that there were many cultural appeals in the trusted older sources as well, particularly as it related to men wearing coverings in church, was also influential.

So far this book seems to look at the evidence fairly and makes more sense of the passage than others I have heard. I will point out to Travis as I don't think he interacted with him that Todd Ruddell (RPCGA minister) did the best job in a sermon series on headcoverings on looking at what the whole of Scriptures taught on this topic. Most I find do not spend much time doing this.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 2


----------



## Logan (Dec 8, 2022)

MChase said:


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





JH said:


> If I could "Amen" this a thousand times, I would





lynnie said:


> Enough. At the very least, think about this: 10 "That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." Not the culture.



I'm curious if the people here (and the plethora of likes, amens, and edifyings on said comments) are actually interacting with what Travis wrote in his book. He deals explicitly with them so repeating them here won't accomplish much.

For example, the "because of the angels" he shows are treated by many Puritan commentators are referring to angels being offended at disorderliness in general. And he deals extensively with the "creation" question as part of his "natural law" sections.

Travis' perspective is at least interesting because he comes from that same perspective so it seems like it would be valuable to see what changed his mind. I wouldn't go so far as to say that what he wrote is the end-all to discussion but it would at least be beneficial to take a look before repeating things which are already addressed, because doing so doesn't add anything.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 8, 2022)

lynnie said:


> A few thoughts/questions. You don't have to answer them but I hope you think about them.
> 
> _. There is nothing in 1 Cor. 11 necessitating head-coverings to have a different meaning or use in worship than in society._
> 
> ...



Lynnie,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Regarding the angels, and that this does not necessitate head-covering perpetuity, please see pp. 32-33, 55, 206-9.

For the argument from "ordinances," the Lord's Supper, and apostolic authority, see pp. 38-42.

That a woman having her head "covered" can refer to her head being covered with bound-up hair, see pp. 128-36.

Regarding that _peribolaion_ (v. 15) can refer to her hair being this covering in the church context, see pp. 163-87.

As to your question about my wife, she covered in public worship ever since we were married for many years until we came to see that this is contrary to Scripture where it is not warranted in culture.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 8, 2022)

Logan said:


> ... to see what changed his mind.



If anyone is interested in what changed my mind after holding to head-coverings for 18 years or so, you can read that on p. 11, footnote 12 and p. 92, footnote 239.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 8, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> As to your question about my wife, she covered in public worship ever since we were married for many years until we came to see that this is contrary to Scripture where it is not warranted in culture.


I haven’t read your book, so apologies if I’m asking you to repeat something. Are you suggesting that head covering for women is _contrary to Scripture_, not merely not required? If so, what is the basis for that (short version)?

Separate question, if the commands in 1 Corinthians 11 regarding head coverings are cultural, and not binding on us in specifics, do you admit that the principle is still binding, and if so, what do you think the principle is and how would it be adhered to in our culture?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 8, 2022)

lynnie said:


> I get so tired of this subject.



Intriguingly, that did not stop you from writing a very long post on the subject.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Jie-Huli (Dec 8, 2022)

Logan said:


> I'm curious if the people here (and the plethora of likes, amens, and edifyings on said comments) are actually interacting with what Travis wrote in his book. He deals explicitly with them so repeating them here won't accomplish much.
> 
> For example, the "because of the angels" he shows are treated by many Puritan commentators are referring to angels being offended at disorderliness in general. And he deals extensively with the "creation" question as part of his "natural law" sections.
> 
> Travis' perspective is at least interesting because he comes from that same perspective so it seems like it would be valuable to see what changed his mind. I wouldn't go so far as to say that what he wrote is the end-all to discussion but it would at least be beneficial to take a look before repeating things which are already addressed, because doing so doesn't add anything.


To be fair, the title of the thread is “Thoughts on head coverings?”, which would seem to be inviting thoughts on the topic without a prerequisite to having read a newly disseminated book on the topic first. If the request was only for interaction with the book, the title of the thread is a bit of a misnomer. Not everyone will have had time to read the book yet.

No disrespect to the author, who clearly spent some time on it; maybe it has some pieces of new or little-known information, but all the same it should not be assumed that those of us who believe in headcovering are ignorant of history. I believe the history is more complex than what it is being made out to be here. And I think some of the rhetoric being employed here is exaggerated to say the least, and somewhat insulting. Not least, the insinuation that a belief in headcovering as a perpetual ordinance is a violation of the regulative principle.

Regardless, it is simply not possible to “prove” the anti-covering position from Scripture. The position relies on (questionable) interpretations of extra-biblical information. I like reading history, but it can never be used to negate a Scriptural teaching that on its face is quite clear.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 8, 2022)

Jie-Huli said:


> Regardless, it is simply not possible to “prove” the anti-covering position from Scripture. The position relies on (questionable) interpretations of extra-biblical information. I like reading history, but it can never be used to negate a Scriptural teaching that on its face is quite clear.


I think you'll find that's not the case at all.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jie-Huli (Dec 8, 2022)

Logan said:


> I think you'll find that's not the case at all.


For clarity, which part of my quoted text are you referring to?


----------



## chuckd (Dec 8, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Mason,
> 
> Regarding the argument from creation, which I used to hold to:
> 
> ...


From p44:
_As all the above general principles *may equally be fulfilled in alternate cultural expressions*, or in heart and affection without a distinctive particular custom at all, it is clear these distinctive, particular practices are not necessary for us, nor derive simply, only and necessarily from those universal, natural and spiritual principles apart from that first century culture._

What is our culture's symbol that demonstrates the husband is head of his wife? That woman was made for man?

I get that head coverings were cultural, but we don't have a better alternative.

holy kiss : hand shake :: head covering : ???


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 8, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> I haven’t read your book, so apologies if I’m asking you to repeat something. Are you suggesting that head covering for women is _contrary to Scripture_, not merely not required? If so, what is the basis for that (short version)?
> 
> Separate question, if the commands in 1 Corinthians 11 regarding head coverings are cultural, and not binding on us in specifics, do you admit that the principle is still binding, and if so, what do you think the principle is and how would it be adhered to in our culture?



Neil, thanks for the questions.

I am suggesting, and believe I have proved from Scripture, that head-covering in worship where it is not a common circumstance of human society is contrary to Scripture.

This hinges on the Regulative Principle of Worship (taught in WCF 1.6 and 21.1), that we may not worship God by any positive worship practice not warranted and necessary from God Himself, namely in his Word.​​Anything that is above and beyond the light of nature, including secondary laws of nature from culture or society, is by definition morally or religiously positive. All religious positives can only be founded on divinity, as God alone is above nature and Sovereign over it. To use such positive worship above the light of nature, if not given from God Himself, is a device of men, superstition and is by definition idolatry, giving religious aspects to the creation or creatures' actions (Rom. 1:23-25).​​Please see pp. 46, 48, 78, 95, 102, 109 with footnote 307.

While I understand the epistemological doubt, or ignorance, persons may be comfortable with on this subject, not knowing one way or the other, and I respect a certain amount of toleration for weaker Christians who do not know the truth of God's Word on this subject, and practice contrary to it, yet it is simply impossible that contrary practices themselves on this issue, some wearing head-coverings from a persuasion of religion, versus those who don't, can both be indifferent. There are no indifferent rational human actions. None. They are all either good or bad according to God's Law to differing degrees. This is reformed orthodox doctrine. No rational human work will be found to be neither good nor bad, but indifferent on judgment Day, outside of being able to be judged.

See on this p. 264, footnote 801.
​Thank you for your consideration, and blessings brother.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 8, 2022)

If you wish to interact with Travis's position why not read the book first and then ask him questions? You do not have to read the whole thing from cover to cover before saying anything. You can raise questions as they arise when you are working your way through the book. This approach would be preferable to merely stating, "You're wrong" before having even so much as considered his arguments. "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." (Proverbs 18:13 AV)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 8, 2022)

Jie-Huli said:


> Regardless, it is simply not possible to “prove” the anti-covering position from Scripture. The position relies on (questionable) interpretations of extra-biblical information.



Jie-Huli,

Thanks for your thoughts.

The circumstantiality (cultural) view of head-coverings in worship does not need to be proven, because circumstances, by their nature and the nature of the purpose of Scripture, do not need to be proven from Scripture.

The perpetual head-covering view does need to be proven from Scripture. And it can be proven wrong from Scripture, either directly, or by showing that it is not necessary from Scripture and that all of the Biblical evidence is consistent with the circumstantiality view. I prove that in Part I of the book.

Please see pp. 17-19 on "Scripture Warrant and the Burden of Proof".


----------



## Jie-Huli (Dec 8, 2022)

chuckd said:


> From p44:
> _As all the above general principles *may equally be fulfilled in alternate cultural expressions*, or in heart and affection without a distinctive particular custom at all, it is clear these distinctive, particular practices are not necessary for us, nor derive simply, only and necessarily from those universal, natural and spiritual principles apart from that first century culture._
> 
> What is our culture's symbol that demonstrates the husband is head of his wife? That woman was made for man?
> ...


Personally, I find it absurd for someone to grant that the principle of headship is taught by the passage and is perpetual and yet to find that the specific practice that is laid down in relation to it, _which relates specifically to the head_, was just a temporary societal practice, is, of itself, meaningless and could be equally expressed by some other means that has nothing to do with the head (whatever that would be). I cannot read 1 Corinthians 11 and regard the specific practice being expounded as something that was being required only as an “accident” of history, given how perfectly it expresses the principle.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 8, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Neil, thanks for the questions.
> 
> I am suggesting, and believe I have proved from Scripture, that head-covering in worship where it is not a common circumstance of human society is contrary to Scripture.
> 
> ...


Ok. I know this is your whole thesis, that God’s Word on this matter is actually saying the opposite of what we would think it says by reading it plainly, but even at that, wouldn’t you concede that it is objectively false to say that the practice of female head covering is not warranted in God’s Word?

Practical example. My wife is from India, but lives in the U.K. In Indian culture it is normal for wives to be in submission to the authority of their husbands, whereas in the U.K. that is no longer the case. Likewise, in India, it is common for women to cover their heads while worshipping (even the majority who worship idols, as far as I understand), whereas in the U.K. this is not common (to the extent that formal worship is common at all). Given all that, according to your understanding of the RPW, should my wife wear a head covering in worship, or not? Or should she wear it if worshipping in India, but not in the U.K.?

And what is your view on my second question (from my previous post)?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## chuckd (Dec 8, 2022)

Jie-Huli said:


> Personally, I find it absurd for someone to grant that the principle of headship is taught by the passage and is perpetual and yet to find that the specific practice that is laid down in relation to it, _which relates specifically to the head_, was just a temporary societal practice, is, of itself, meaningless and could be equally expressed by some other means that has nothing to do with the head (whatever that would be). I cannot read 1 Corinthians 11 and regard the specific practice being expounded as something that was being required only as an “accident” of history, given how perfectly it expresses the principle.


I think it's reasonable. As it says in the title: could be hair buns, with or without cloth material. But what is it in 21st century U.S., Scotland, England? To my knowledge, hair buns are just a style, not a symbol of authority. But we all know why a Muslim woman has a piece of cloth on our head. To me, that's the best symbol because it is _somewhat_ cultural to us.

Travis says wedding rings are our cultural symbol, but to me, wedding rings are a symbol of fidelity, not authority. Especially since both spouses wear one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jie-Huli (Dec 8, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Jie-Huli,
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> 
> ...


Thank you, Travis. I have some fundamental disagreements with some of what has been said here, but I will refrain from commenting further at this stage as I have not read your book, and it seems clear now that the main purpose of this thread was to seek interaction with that. If I can I will do so at some point.

In the meantime, I am sure you are a nice person, but it does seem (based solely on what is within this thread) like you may have become somewhat overly belligerent and triumphalist against the position once you changed your view.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Hugues Pierre (Dec 8, 2022)

@Travis Fentiman 

Greetings brother, I hope you are well. 

Do you think that it is unconfessional to believe in the head-covering as a binding commandment ? (I'am asking because of your mention of WCF 1.6). 

Best regards

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Dec 8, 2022)

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. I appreciate it.

I have too many books in my pile of to be reads, to even think of adding yours, no offense intended. For now I will submit to my husband's bible study and thinking on the subject : ) I certainly would respect your wife for submitting to your thinking.

I do think that if you- and women- could see into the unseen world, and see all the angels present when we gather, you might have a different perspective. I am grateful that I have had some limited occasions with a veiled glimpse of that realm. Submission is not easy, but the awareness of a great host of witnesses out there helps me. It is a joy to sense bringing Glory to God in his plan for order in marriage in this particular way. 

Thanks again for the response. 

RC.....not tired of talking about the subject- I love this doctrine now- but tired of all the people who seem so eager to stomp it out. (Not saying our brother here is that way; he seems to sincerely want to correct what he sees as error.) And tired to death of women in solid doctrine churches who seem to have thrown Titus 2 out the window. The biggest plus of the one I am in now is all the nice motherly wives and women who don't complain about their husbands all the time, and seem devoted to their kids more than a sometimes necessary job.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 8, 2022)

chuckd said:


> From p44:
> _As all the above general principles *may equally be fulfilled in alternate cultural expressions*, or in heart and affection without a distinctive particular custom at all, it is clear these distinctive, particular practices are not necessary for us, nor derive simply, only and necessarily from those universal, natural and spiritual principles apart from that first century culture._
> 
> What is our culture's symbol that demonstrates the husband is head of his wife? That woman was made for man?
> ...



Chuck, thanks for your thoughtful interaction and sincere question.

As to your question which assumes there must or should be a parallel cultural custom in our culture to express the headship of the husband:

Your question is assumes a certain reading of the passage, one which I argue against in the book. That reading, which I used to hold, is that the natural and spiritual, universal principles in 1 Cor. 11 are most basic to Paul's argument in comparison to the cultural manifestation of that in the head-covering custom. Take away the custom, and it seems like there should still be a societal manifestation of those basic principles in any and every society such as ours, especially for our worship.

While those universal principles are true and transcendent of cultures, I argue that they are not the most basic thing in Paul's argument in 1 Cor. 11, but rather that the cultural assumption is, that covering dishonors a man's head and uncovering dishonors a woman's head (vv. 4-5).

Paul's universal, natural and spiritual arguments (v. 3, 8-10, etc.) rather confirm the dishonorableness of the deviant practice and that the Corinthians should do the enjoined practice. See pp. 62-64, "Paul's Syllogism" and pp. 70-71, "Paul's Further Arguments".

If the cultural assumption is removed from the argument, the confirmatory arguments do not by themselves necessitate the need of an artificial cultural custom to exemplify them.

The headship of the husband over the wife may and should be manifested in all cultures by the wife's submission to her husband. That is enough. There is no need for anything more necessarily.

As in my quote that you quote, the principles may be fulfilled in heart and affection. That is Gillespie's phrase and principle, that he rightly derived from Acts 2:42, 46.

See pp. 274-78, "Modern Applications", especially footnote 805. Daniel Wallace has argued (not very well) that there should be a parallel custom in our culture. That view is untenable.

What are our customs going to be instead of the holy kiss, foot-washing, wallowing in ashes, spitting in the face of disrespectful daughters, using sackcloth, shaving the head (and feet), taking off our shoes before the Lord as Moses, throwing the shoe over an irresponsible person, etc., etc.?

Also note, as I argue throughout the book and is plain from history, the covering was not symbolic of the headship of husband to wife per se, but of woman's general subordination to man generally in society (that is, involving all men and all women, see pp. 203-5). And how are we going to make a custom for that? Or would we desire to?

Do note that I said that wedding rings are the closest thing that approximates Corinthian head-coverings in our society in worship; I was not saying, and did not say, that wedding rings are a parallel, normative custom and expression of 1 Cor. 11 today.

Thanks for your consideration of these things, and blessings to you.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Dec 8, 2022)

(Apologies - my multi-quote is not functioning so I have added post reference #s and put post quotes in _italics_)

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

The full sense of WCF 1.6 clearly communicates that not all aspects of worship are “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture": "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. 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: 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.” I note that I Corinthians 11.13 is the first proof text provided by the Westminster Divines to support the underlined portion. Are head-coverings an element of worship or a circumstance? What do you believe the final phrase of WCF 1.6 ("which are always to be observed.") refers/applies to? Again, please interact with the fact that I Corinthians 11.13 is the proof text that follows this phrase.

In purusing your work, I notice you state: “Second, contrary to much modern theology and worship unreformed to the Word of God, *circumstances are not always indifferent*, but God can and has chosen, limited and religiously regulated some circumstances to be a religious part of his worship,228 such
as the time of the Sabbath and aspects of the old Mosaic worship, including the place of the Temple, its exact size, the kind and details of the priestly garments, their headcoverings, etc. As God’s people were to serve God with these positive, religious adjuncts and thus honor Him thereby, the use of these set apart things was worship itself in obedience to God’s prescriptions.” (p.88)

I conclude from what I have *bolded *that you admit that sometimes circumstances are indifferent.

As you continue this section, you state that “Hence the ground of their use was fundamentally due to nature’s light and not the Lord’s positive, religious appointment. While head-coverings were in order with the Word’s general principles, yet the apostle’s choice of them did not posit newly revealed, positive, spiritual principles from the Lord. Hence head-coverings were not worship in themselves, but were used in instituted worship as an ordered, natural worship, being dependent on occasional circumstances for their justified use.” (p.89) Again, why does this have to be linked to the culture surrounding God’s people? Does not the Church have its own culture independent of the society which it orders and operates within?

Your conclusion to this section (“With this our analysis of the bindingness of Corinthian head-coverings is complete. All the Scriptural data has been shown to be consistent with head-coverings being occasional circumstances. As nothing in the data goes beyond this, there is no express, necessary or valid Scriptural consequence that Corinthian head-coverings were immutably perpetual. Hence that position is not from God’s will.” p.90) is not conclusive unless one allows the assumption that cultural practices out with the Church dictate the culture inside the Church in this particular matter. I submit that Churches (I take WCF 25 to be originally referring to established national Churches) determine their own culture based on their authority to order and prescribe (according to the general rules of the Word, the light of nature, and Christian prudence) certain circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the Church, and I admit that this culture can change over time (circumstantially). Is it possible that what is described in Corinth was the culture of that church separate and apart from the pagan culture around it? Is it possible that at times certain elements of Church culture are quite similar to those of the world around it (take the use of parliamentary procedure in Western churches/civil governments)?

#1 _"5. Some apostolic ordinances were circumstantially conditioned and mutable."_

Other than head-coverings, what other apostolic ordinances do you consider to also have been circumstantially conditioned and mutable?

#39 _"...my wife, she covered in public worship ever since we were married for many years until we came to see *that this is contrary to Scripture where it is not warranted in culture*."_

I will ask again (see #19), if head coverings are indeed merely cultural, can it not be that the culture of a church or congregation is one that would require head coverings? Can it not be the culture of a church or congregation that women have a visible sign on their heads? What Biblical parameters do you use to define a culture and its scope of culture? Who decides if it is “warranted” in a culture? Does this apply to a minority subgroup within a culture? By culture do you mean national, regional, local, etc.? I find the bolded assertion loaded with subjectivism that invites division within congregations and Churches.

#47 _"Anything that is above and beyond the light of nature, including secondary laws of nature from culture or society, is by definition morally or religiously positive. All religious positives can only be founded on divinity, as God alone is above nature and Sovereign over it. To use such positive worship above the light of nature, if not given from God Himself, is a device of men, superstition and is by definition idolatry, giving religious aspects to the creation or creatures' actions (Rom. 1:23-25)."_

Respectfully, if you are saying it is immoral/idolatrous for a woman to cover her head during public worship if the culture she resides outside the Church does not do so, I'm afraid I will have to give a closer reading of and engagement with your work a pass.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 8, 2022)

Hugues Pierre said:


> Do you think that it is unconfessional to believe in the head-covering as a binding commandment ? (I'am asking because of your mention of WCF 1.6).



Hugues, it is good to hear from you friend.

I know answering your question touches on a lot of people, and I mean nothing personal in my response to anyone. But the question is fair and deserves to be answered fairly.

By "binding" in your question I presume you mean head-coverings as a religious rite, and therefore transcultural and perpetual, a matter of the Word's doctrine.

WCF 1.6 cites head-coverings (1 Cor. 11:13-14) in proof-text for its doctrine that some circumstances common to society are to be ordered for worship by the light of nature, Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word.

WCF 21 deals with religiously significant, positive acts of worship, which are not taught by nature, nor can be (see WCF 21.1).

To hold that head-coverings are a positive expression of worship (such as in WCF 21) is to say that they are not taught by nature (or secondary laws of nature, such as from culture) but are given positively from the Lord in Scripture. Hence by definition they cannot be circumstances common to society.

Yet the Confession in its proof-texts holds that Corinthian head-coverings are common circumstances to society, and can be ordered by the light of nature. Yet the person holding that they are perpetually binding is saying they are beyond the light of nature, cannot be taught by it, and by definition are not circumstances common to society insofar as they are religiously significant as worship, and positively given of the Lord by special revelation.

Nor can something be both a common circumstance to society, taught by nature's light and accidental to worship (WCF 1.6), and positive and above the light of nature, necessary and religiously significant (WCF 21). The categories are mutually exclusive.

Hence such a position is a deviation from the proof-texts of the WCF. Even if one does not accept the proof-texts as binding, it can be historically proven that such a position is contrary to the original intention of the WCF, and is therefore unconfessional with respect to Westminster.

Head-coverings though, could be a "binding commandment" in a culture where it would be dishonorable not to wear one. Someone above mentioned India, for example.

It is theoretically conceivable that a person might try to justify perpetual female head-coverings for worship from WCF 1.6, that they are due to the light of nature and natural law. Note on this position they are not a specifically religious rite of worship (such as in WCF 21).

William Greenhill, an Independent Westminster divine, made some statements that would lean to perpetual coverings, though I do believe the contexts are ambiguous enough so that it is not clear if he was truly saying this, or on what exact grounds and what exact nature he was giving to them. Voet (see p. 168, footnote 520) held that a woman's covering for public was taught universally by nature, and hence applied to civil public as much as the church assembly, and was necessary, but he held that the covering may be her hair (alone, 1 Cor. 11:15) or "something additional". This fits into WCF 1.6.

Note on a view that head-coverings fit into WCF 1.6 and are a universal binding commandment from the light of nature (which Voet did not hold to, as he saw woman's hair being legitimate also), this entails that the women must wear them in civil public as a circumstance common to society. It also entails that they are taught by pure-nature (if they are universally binding, trans-culturally), which is impossible. I argue against such on pp. 47-50.

But see especially p. 18, footnote 21 where I argue "It is impossible for the perpetual head-covering view to be legitimately encompassed in" WCF 1.6.

I know these are difficult things. Let use commit to being faithful to the Lord in them.

Blessings friend, and the peace of God be with you.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 8, 2022)

Andrew, 

Thanks for your sincere engagement with particular parts of my book, and for making points that at least implicitly interact with my propositional argument laid out in my original post. I need to say at the beginning though, I am not 100% certain on what you mean by your many uses of "culture" in your expressed thoughts.

1. Regarding positive worship and the RPW

My phrase "positive instituted worship" falls under the Confession's phrase in 1.6, "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life;" therefore it must be "either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture".​​I am speaking of what is formally positive worship, not what may be considered materially positive worship. Take for example prayer: spiritual prayer is formally worship to God. Yet the material actions of praying, in this or that posture, location, dress, time, aloud or silently in the congregation, etc. etc. are circumstantial and are to be ordered by nature's light, Christian prudence and the Word's general principles. Rutherford makes this distinction and similar ones in _Divine Right_ (1644), pp. 3-5.​​Hence I agree with you that not all material aspects of worship are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be and are to be deduced therefrom, especially what you underlined.​​Corinthian head-coverings were a circumstance of their worship common to society around them.​​The final phrase in 1.6, "which are always to be observed" refers to the "general rules of the Word". It does not make sense with the whole previous thought as its only "some circumstances" which are in view, and though some of them are "common to... societies", they need not be universal to all societies (as head-coverings).​​I affirm that circumstances are sometimes in themselves indifferent.​

2. On cultural issues.

I agree that the Church, or a church may have its own culture in some sense different from the outside society. "Culture" is a very ambiguous term. If I might try to pinpoint the most accurate way of defining the issues (as I did in my book), the fundamental issues (as Rutherford defines them in _Divine Right_), even more so than "culture", is whether head coverings are justified by the light of nature (including secondary laws of nature, involving society and culture), or whether they are not, and are positive above the light of nature.​​I agree in some sense it may be said that a Church may have a certain culture distinct from the world insofar as it orders government and worship according to nature's light, Christian prudence and the Word's general rules, which may change over time, as you say. You use the words that the Church may "determine" and "prescribe" such, which goes beyond the Confessional language of "order". I don't know if we understand those things the same, as the Church's authority to bind those things only goes so far as those principles are inherent in the circumstances themselves, and not a degree higher. Hence the Church cannot artificially bind such things where the light of nature, Christian prudence and the Word's general rules do not.​​It is possible that at times certain elements of Church culture are quite similar to those of the world around it.​​As far as all this being justification for it being warranted for women to cover (or be required?) to veil in Church, when the culture does not: I deal with that in the book in various places for the Corinthian context, and argue that it _de facto_ was not legitimate for what Paul was describing in 1 Cor. 11; see the top lines of p. 69, p. 125 point 8 with the footnote, p. 228 point 10 and possibly other places.​​Could women legitimately veil from the light of nature and culture (perhaps a church culture) when the larger outside culture generally does not? It has been put forward that though women do not generally veil in America, yet it may be appropriately done in Church as that is a more formal setting, similar to how a man does not anymore generally wear a tie in public all the time, but may legitimately for Church. On that paradigm, yet women would then expect to veil for other more formal occasions outside of Church, such as where men wear ties. If that never happens, then I don't see how women veiling is actually a common circumstance of society or truly tied to the formal setting (but rather is just a pretext to veil in Church, making it positive, above the light of nature, formality and culture).​​For a church culture to be completely distinct from society's culture simply makes that church culture to be positive, and we are back at the same issues I argue in my book: one can't just make things up beyond the light of nature or what is common to culture, as only God can institute legitimate positive things above the light of nature, He being the sovereign Creator over it.​

3. Mutable apostolic ordinances

See pp. 38-42.​
4. Church culture requiring and cultural warrant

You asked, "can it not be that the culture of a church or congregation is one that would require head coverings?" A church cannot require such if it is not required by Scripture or the law of nature (including the light of nature and circumstances common to society) or Christian prudence. Note in 1.6 it only speaks of the Church ordering its own worship and government according to these things and the general rules of the Word; it does not say it can require them of others or church members. It takes particulars to do that, which is beyond the general rules of the Word. See pp. 96-102 on the topic of a Church claiming to require something above and beyond Scripture and the light of nature.​​As far as what is warranted in a culture, that is taught by the light of nature (empirical observation, etc.). That may be observed by all people, as all have the light of nature before them. That should be a ground of union, not of division, if such practices are clear from the culture. If they are not clear, then it may be a ground of division, or at least various practice, and for a church to impose uniformity on it when the culture is not uniform, that is not only unwise, but it is unwarranted.​

I'm sorry perhaps I am not answering all your specifics (due to time and energy). Your fundamental premise seems to be the Church using head-coverings in its own culture when such is not a common circumstance of society. I would submit that that is contrary to WCF 1.6.

If you do not agree with the conclusions of the book, I understand, but I think nonetheless, you may derive a lot of benefit from the related material in the book. I hope it may be of benefit to you in some way.

Blessings friend.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Dec 9, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> I need to say at the beginning though, I am not 100% certain on what you mean by your many uses of "culture" in your expressed thoughts.


That was my point, too - your work is replete with use of the word "culture" but is never defined. Your first post in this thread states at the beginning that you "argue that the cultural view is conclusive from God's Word" but you fail to define what a culture is. Is it national, regional, ethnic, familial? My initial criticism of your position is that it is arguing that the Church must adapt to its larger cultural context on this issue which removes the authority of the Church to determine its own culture. For example, I would say that the culture in our congregation is to accept whatever decision each household comes to regarding head-coverings. Our society is pluralistic so this would seem to meet your requirement that Church practice meets cultural practice - some women in my national, regional, ethnic, and familial cultures cover their heads only when attending public worship and have done so for generations. But you do not seem to acknowledge that as a possibility in your position, instead taking a rather hard line and coming off as rather ungracious and judgmental of those wo maintain the culture of their Church/congregation. Arguing that head-coverings cannot be universally prescribed based on Scripture is one thing - you seem to be going far beyond that. But I appreciate you interacting with my limited criticism above - I will engage with your work as I have time and work on a critical review and post it in the Book Review forum, with the caveat that my formal training is in History and Literature, not Theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 9, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> Is it national, regional, ethnic, familial? My initial criticism of your position is that it is arguing that the Church must adapt to its larger cultural context on this issue which removes the authority of the Church to determine its own culture.



Yes, it can be any of those. But if someone says "my church's 'culture' is x" then one has to ask the reason why, as the church is specifically to be informed from God's word. It would be like saying "our church culture is to use hymns instead of psalms". You'd better have good exegetical reasons for that, not just "culture".

That doesn't mean that there can't be things indifferent like say, your church has a culture of hugging, but that's different than saying "our church has a culture of x during _corporate worship_." That's close to conflating "culture" with the regulative principle, if you accept the cultural interpretation.

However, I would note that I have always found it strange that the perpetual head-covering interpretation has limited this to corporate worship when there seems to be nothing in the passage to limit it so. Is it only applicable during one hour or two on Sunday and the rest of the week head coverings are indifferent?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 9, 2022)

Logan said:


> Yes, it can be any of those. But if someone says "my church's 'culture' is x" then one has to ask the reason why, as the church is specifically to be informed from God's word. It would be like saying "our church culture is to use hymns instead of psalms". You'd better have good exegetical reasons for that, not just "culture".
> 
> That doesn't mean that there can't be things indifferent like say, your church has a culture of hugging, but that's different than saying "our church has a culture of x during _corporate worship_." That's close to conflating "culture" with the regulative principle, if you accept the cultural interpretation.
> 
> However, I would note that I have always found it strange that the perpetual head-covering interpretation has limited this to corporate worship when there seems to be nothing in the passage to limit it so. Is it only applicable during one hour or two on Sunday and the rest of the week head coverings are indifferent?


Because the context of the passage is prayer, prophecy, the Lord's table, and the traditions handed down. The rest of the week is guided by what nature teaches, which is that women keep distinctly different hair styles than men.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 9, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> To see demonstrated that the argument from creation and universal natural and spiritual principles does not hold, see pp. 42-45.



This particular section of your thesis does not prove what you think it does. You present the various practices listed- head covering, washing feet, holy kiss, the good conduct of women in 1 Timothy 5:10, shaking the dust from off one's feet, the use of oil in prayer- as if they are of the same nature: spiritual commands which express themselves in culturally determined ways. But they are not all the same. One of these has a very explicit command, argued at length, and based on Creation: the head covering; two appear to be general commands: washing feet and using oil in prayer; one is clearly restricted to the Apostles during their time of itinerant ministry: shaking the dust off one's feet; and the others- holy kiss and commendable female conduct- are circumstantial. 

The last first: 1 Timothy 5:10 is clearly not requiring each single behaviour mentioned for a woman to be considered virtuous, as some women, for example, cannot bear children (the lack of children to care for the widow has already been mentioned by Paul a few verses earlier). The fact the verse ends with "if she have diligently followed every good work" confirms this (she must have performed every single good work imaginable?). Paul is saying that only older widows, of good character, should be maintained by the church. He is merely giving a list of those duties which are peculiarly female and for which such a woman should be commended. As for the holy kiss there is no argument from nature given to underpin this direction (I wouldn't even say it goes to the extent of a command). Each mention is within the context of salutations to the brethren. This was certainly a cultural practice of the time and so it is natural for Paul to use it.

The two which appear to be general commands aren't necessarily so. Poole, for example, argues that oil was used by those who had gifts of healing; such having ceased oil is no longer to be used. Your strongest point is the feet washing which Christ does indeed say is an example for the _Apostles _to follow. But is it a command specifically to wash each others' feet, or a command to be humble and adopt a serving attitude amongst themselves? Again in the culture in which they lived washing feet was a common practice. But elsewhere in Scripture do we see it commanded? Paul doesn't mention it in his directions for a proper participation in the Sacrament (at which it became a custom in the church at a later date). So it's not at all clear that Christ meant this as a perpetual commandment but as showing by example the humble spirit which the Lord's ministers are to adopt. It is not a practice which is required by the church at large (such as head covering). And even if He did mean it as a specific command, the failure to follow this one doesn't invalidate others.

But when we compare the command regarding head covering to the others- which you put together as if they are of the same category- then its distinctive quality is actually brought out in sharp relief. It is here where Paul grounds his argument not in the local customs of the Corinthians (nor assumes local custom, such as with the holy kiss) but in nature itself, going all the way back to the creation of Man and Woman. Where else is such an argument utilised? By Christ when discussing marriage. Is marriage between one man and one woman a mere cultural convention which can be done away with if the culture around us changes? (In which case we should be abandoning this view of marriage as the West plunges into sexual anarchy.) Of course not. Christ's reference to the Creation is in contrast to the _human tradition_ traced back to Moses. Christ's argument from nature is an explicit repudiation of the cultural argument. And yet we are to believe that the straightforward reading of Paul's use of this reasoning is to the opposite end, to defend a cultural custom? 

But we don't even need to _assume_ Paul is making the same category of argument as Christ as he also contrasts _his_ argument with custom: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11:16. Here Paul says clearly that if there are those who practise other than what he has taught (head covering), "we"- the church- do not hold to that practice which the contentious are promoting (non-head covering). "We have no such custom": we have no alternative practice to head covering. Paul is not promoting a local custom (the Corinthians weren't observing head covering which is why he wrote to them about it in the first place) but is telling them to follow the universal Christian practice.

And as regarding the section "Universal Reasons do Not make a Worship Practice Perpetually Binding" I must confess I am at a loss as to what point you are trying to prove with the numerous scripture references. That a particular command or practice having a universal reason given for it does not, for that reason alone, make the command or practice forever binding is true. The ceremonial law is the prime example of this: this law was given to Israel that they might, through sacrifices which were a type of Christ's sacrifice, make atonement for their sins. This was based on the universal laws of God's punishment of sin and the requirement of the shedding of blood for the remission of sins but the laws themselves were limited to the dispensation in which Israel lived. But we know these laws are no longer enforced because we are told so in the New Testament, just as we are told of other laws which bound Israel being abrogated with the advent of Christ. But we are not told that the law of head covering has been abrogated, indeed it is explicitly _given_ in the New Testament. So you need to address the fact that those laws which were given to Israel, which were based on universal, spiritual laws but were temporary, were specifically annulled in the New Testament but this particular law we are discussing was not.

And I find this portion very confusing:

_"The universal reasons given from God’s nature confirm his authority to do so. The further specific, natural and spiritual reasons given in the larger context reveal how the rites are in accord with nature and spiritual principles (or Christian prudence), they being expressions of those principles and devotion to God as they are obeyed. Yet those imposed observances, though not explicitly stated in the local text, were clearly meant to be temporal and circumstantially conditioned (Gen. 49:10; Deut. 14:2; 18:18–19; 2 Sam. 23:3–5; Isa. 66:18–21; Dan. 9:24–27; Mt. 15:20; Gal. 3:23–4:5; Heb. 11:9–10). Neither the universal nor specific spiritual reasons given meant these practices could not be otherwise."_

This reads as if what is contained in the parenthesis are those laws and observances which have now been abrogated. But each (save the last three), so far as I can tell, contains nothing which has been abrogated in the New Testament dispensation. They contain either God's promise of the future coming of the Messiah or what He will do for His people (and the fact that Christ has now come does not annul these promises. The fulfilment of them gives us a ground for continuing to trust in God because we can see how faithful He is and that He keeps His promises). He uses symbolic and spiritual imagery when making these pronouncements, but their relation to the argument you are making is lost on me. The third-and-second last references are explaining the spiritual nature of the law but this is in contrast to the Jews who believed a mere formal observance- or their ethnic relationship to Abraham- was a ground of their salvation. Paul is _reminding_ them that obedience to the Law is not merely in outward observance but in the posture of the soul and the obedience of the heart. This is not a _change _in the nature of the Law but a reasserting of its _spiritual_ nature. And the last reference is merely Paul saying that Abraham knew Canaan was not his final home but was a type of Heaven, and it was towards that place that he looked. Again this does not represent a change or a disannulling. The Law was always spiritual and Canaan was always a type. Abraham knew it was a type, that is what Paul is saying.

Perhaps you meant these references to establish those spiritual realities which have been the underpinning of temporary commands but that is not how it reads. As I said, it is true that there _were_ temporary observances commanded which were based on universal truths, but we are told what those are in the New Testament. We have no such directive that allows us to abandon the practice of head covering today.

One counter-argument is that in the Eastern societies head covering was a sign of submission and an uncovered head a sign of authority, whereas in the West it is the opposite. I have no reason to doubt that was true there and I won't dispute the part about the West (although it's slightly more complex in the West as both men and women have traditionally worn head coverings in society). If I understand correctly you accept that the principle of male authority continues but the expression of that is cultural. Well as has been asked already: what is today's expression of that principle? It's not wedding rings. A head covering seems to me a very obvious sign to use because of its visibility, because it so offends those who oppose male authority and because, you know, it's specifically mentioned in Scripture. Even if one were to accept that the head covering was merely a cultural expression of a universal rule, I cannot think of anything which, today, serves as a better sign. The fact that head covering generally (by both men and women) is in such decline actually strengthens the case for it because the uniform practice of women in the church wearing one sharply distinguishes the church from the surrounding society. So even the cultural argument supports the head covering rather than the abolition of it.

We must be very careful about saying any command in Scripture is cultural. The church is not meant to reflect the world: we are in it but not of it. Christians live in both spheres and there are circumstances to our practice which are common to all men but to assume that certain commandments must have been a reflection of a (pagan) culture is to operate on a principle which I don't think is Scriptural. If the head covering was purely cultural why was it not mentioned by Paul when he spoke of eating of meats and so be included amongst those things which Paul _explicitly _says are a matter of conscience and not of obligation? But it was mentioned by Paul alongside the Sacrament as two _commands_ which were not being obeyed properly by the Corinthians. Where formers commands are not abrogated, and where local cultural practices are made a matter of conscience, Scripture tells us so. We have no such direction regarding this command. The fact that it was the cultural norm that a covered head was a sign of submission does not give us warrant to set aside what God's Word enjoins.

I acknowledge this is just in response to a very small portion of your book and perhaps you engage with some of these points elsewhere but I responded to this section because, as you yourself say, the creational argument is the primary argument used and you believe you have proven it wrong. However your treatment of it did no such thing.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## chuckd (Dec 9, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> If the cultural assumption is removed from the argument, the confirmatory arguments do not by themselves necessitate the need of an artificial cultural custom to exemplify them.
> 
> The headship of the husband over the wife may and should be manifested in all cultures by the wife's submission to her husband. That is enough. There is no need for anything more necessarily.


Travis, thanks for the detailed reply. I know it takes time to respond to each person asking you questions on this thread.

I didn't want to quote your entire post, so I honed in on this as it seemed to be the substance of it. I understand you take it that if there is no cultural expression or symbol representing "woman was made for man", then we're not obligated to conjure one up.

First, I think head covering is almost universally recognized as that symbol today. 99% of people worldwide see a Muslim woman wearing a hijab and they don't need to ask her why. It is understood. We have that cultural assumption, we just don't practice it.

Second, in 1 Cor. 11:10, he doesn't say a wife should have a (culturally specific) head covering, but a (universally recognized) symbol. The symbol may change, but regardless "a wife ought to have a symbol."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Dec 9, 2022)

Logan said:


> That's close to conflating "culture" with the regulative principle, if you accept the cultural interpretation.


Yes, that is my concern with the work that has been presented.


Logan said:


> However, I would note that I have always found it strange that the perpetual head-covering interpretation has limited this to corporate worship when there seems to be nothing in the passage to limit it so. Is it only applicable during one hour or two on Sunday and the rest of the week head coverings are indifferent?


There are many things people might find "strange" that a congregation does during corporate worship. There is no other time during the week that I sing out loud with other people (outside of my family), drink from the same cup, or stand to pray.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 9, 2022)

Logan said:


> However, I would note that I have always found it strange that the perpetual head-covering interpretation has limited this to corporate worship when there seems to be nothing in the passage to limit it so. Is it only applicable during one hour or two on Sunday and the rest of the week head coverings are indifferent?



Do you mean it's strange that churches which hold to head covering don't require it of their women all the time, or just in all acts of worship (public and private)? If the former the simple answer is that Paul's command is within the context of worship not all of life. If the latter I think that is an interesting question as it seems the passage is referring to _all_ worship, not just public, if we take 1 Corinthians 11:17 to represent a change of location from all worship to specifically the public worship (as Paul goes on to discuss the Lord's Supper). So when he says in v. 17 "that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse" this is only referring to what follows and not to what he has just been saying. If it refers to what has gone before as well as what follows, then it would be restricted to the public; if just what follows then there is a case to be made that women should cover their heads in public _and _private worship. This specific question doesn't keep me up at night but I have wondered about it in the past and I know of a couple of women, at least, in my church who do wear a head covering in family worship as well as public.

But I don't believe we can use this passage to require a constant covering of the head (like the exclusive brethren). The passage is clearly talking about worship. Which is another reason why the cultural argument doesn't persuade me. Paul is not addressing general practices to express male authority and female submission (in church _and _society) but is speaking specifically about religious worship. In the worship of God there should be a clear, visible manifestation of male authority and female submission. So to say that Paul is requiring head coverings in this particular area because, generally in the society head covering represented submission, is to miss what Paul is actually talking about. It's to assume he's speaking generally and just giving an example (worship) when actually his whole concern is the worship of God.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Logan (Dec 9, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Because the context of the passage is prayer, prophecy, the Lord's table, and the traditions handed down. The rest of the week is guided by what nature teaches, which is that women keep distinctly different hair styles than men.





Northern Crofter said:


> There are many things people might find "strange" that a congregation does during corporate worship. There is no other time during the week that I sing out loud with other people (outside of my family), drink from the same cup, or stand to pray.





alexandermsmith said:


> Do you mean it's strange that churches which hold to head covering don't require it of their women all the time, or just in all acts of worship (public and private)? If the former the simple answer is that Paul's command is within the context of worship not all of life.



If head coverings cannot be cultural _because_ it is "grounded in creation" (which you all apparently agree with), then it should follow that it is grounded in creation all the time, not merely during corporate worship.

There is no equivalent mention in the OT. Sometimes people prayed with their heads covered and uncovered. Thus it does not appear that it is "grounded in creation" as a regulating principle for corporate worship.

I don't see how you can have it both ways: guided by the light of nature (i.e., should be obvious to everybody everywhere), grounded in creation (i.e., from the beginning of the world) and yet have it only applicable to corporate worship, and only in the NT since it clearly wasn't observed strictly or as a principle in the Old. I'm not aware of any Reformed or Puritan commentator who takes your view here, but would be interested in being proven wrong.

I don't have strong feelings on this one way or the other, but I don't intend replying any more to anyone who isn't interacting with the material which has already been put forward. It's not common ground when I've read the argument and the rebuttal, and someone else just keeps bringing up the argument as though the rebuttal doesn't exist. I keep thinking "that's already been addressed, it needs to be clarified or rebutted but repeating the same thing multiple times without altering it it isn't helpful." Let's both try understand the positions of both sides before beginning the argument, please.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 9, 2022)

Logan said:


> If head coverings cannot be cultural _because_ it is "grounded in creation" (which you all apparently agree with), then it should follow that it is grounded in creation all the time, not merely during corporate worship


So women should never be allowed to speak or teach men?


----------



## Logan (Dec 9, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> So women should never be allowed to speak or teach men?



I feel like you're arguing without listening. Besides which I already said this:



Logan said:


> I don't intend replying any more to anyone who isn't interacting with the material which has already been put forward.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 9, 2022)

Logan said:


> I feel like you're arguing without listening. Besides which I already said this:


No my point was that you argued if something is grounded in creation then it must apply all the time. But Paul grounds women's behaviour in the church in creation, I don't think you are prepared to state women can never speak. Paul limited his context to worship/church life.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 9, 2022)

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

I don’t see why, along the lines of Gill’s explanation in his introduction to 1 Cor 11, we can’t take female headcoverings in public worship to be an apostolic ordinance, with diverse reasons behind its appointment?

He praises them for keeping the apostolic ordinances but corrects them for some irregularities and explains the reasons behind the ordinances. There is no correction for not washing feet, or a holy kiss, or any similar reasoning offered for any of those things, nor are they mentioned in any context related to the public worship of Gods people generally. Just some further observations..

I’ve not read the whole of travis’ material yet so maybe I’ll get to a bit that discusses this point

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 9, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> No my point was that you argued if something is grounded in creation then it must apply all the time. But Paul grounds women's behaviour in the church in creation, I don't think you are prepared to state women can never speak. Paul limited his context to worship/church life.



I'm finding myself frustrated here because I feel like I clearly understand where you are coming from. Trust me, I do. I have read and re-read and accumulated all the pro-arguments for years. But my replies or concerns are being filtered through this one-sided view which _still_ hasn't interacted with the material under discussion. So I'm equally confident I understand your reasoning and that you don't understand my concerns with that reasoning; and we just can't have a conversation like this. This would be greatly remedied I think if you would interact with the material so we can have some common understanding of reasoning and objections. I'm assuming knowledge of Travis' responses and you're not.

Travis has some extensive writing on natural and positive laws, creation, the OT with regard to head coverings, etc. We can disagree with none, some, or all of it but at least being aware of it would be helpful. Respond to his arguments, don't repeat the ones he's responded to as if they were never made.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 9, 2022)

Logan said:


> I'm finding myself frustrated here because I feel like I clearly understand where you are coming from. Trust me, I do. I have read and re-read and accumulated all the pro-arguments for years. But my replies or concerns are being filtered through this one-sided view which _still_ hasn't interacted with the material under discussion. So I'm equally confident I understand your reasoning and that you don't understand my concerns with that reasoning; and we just can't have a conversation like this. This would be greatly remedied I think if you would interact with the material so we can have some common understanding of reasoning and objections. I'm assuming knowledge of Travis' responses and you're not.
> 
> Travis has some extensive writing on natural and positive laws, creation, the OT with regard to head coverings, etc. We can disagree with none, some, or all of it but at least being aware of it would be helpful. Respond to his arguments, don't repeat the ones he's responded to as if they were never made.


Logan, I think you are still misunderstanding, or at least talking beside the point. The point being made is not that the justification for head coverings is grounded in creation, and then ignoring the counter arguments relating to that. Rather, the point is specifically interacting with the counter argument cited (that then the command must apply all the time) and showing that it carries no weight, because if it did then that would also apply to the other instances where an argument is made from creation, with the consequence that you would have to say that the prohibition on women speaking must apply all the time, which is absurd.

Now, if you have a further counter argument which is specific to head coverings as distinct from the command that women keep silence, then it’s reasonable to bring that forward, rather than get frustrated that @Eyedoc84 is interacting with the argument in the thread rather than some other one that you may be thinking of.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 9, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Logan, I think you are still misunderstanding, or at least talking beside the point.



I'm very certain the misunderstanding is not on my end because I'm engaging with both perspectives. This is by no means a new topic to me_._ You guys are adding nothing new by continuing to avoid engaging the context of this entire discussion.

I bring up a question _in that context_ with two other paragraphs _in that context_ (which were ignored but are integrally related) and you're challenging me about one paragraph with a set of completely different assumptions than the context. Sorry I don't know how to explain it any better than that but this conversation can go nowhere if you guys continue to avoid the material.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 9, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


> 1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
> 
> I don’t see why, along the lines of Gill’s explanation in his introduction to 1 Cor 11, we can’t take female headcoverings in public worship to be an apostolic ordinance, with diverse reasons behind its appointment?
> 
> ...


I'm in essential agreement with this comment. The Apostle may give a reason, or several, or none at all as a "basis" for his directions. At some level, there is the raw authority behind a command that requires compliance with or without a justification. As subjects, we are in no position to demand explanations; although in kindness God frequently suits our craving for mental satisfaction.

I am of the opinion that nature/creation grounds nothing so far as worship practice, nor is there much (if any) direct appeal to culture in Scripture as a way of promoting or prohibiting worship practice.* It is the pure will of God that authorizes and grounds every aspect of worship. TF takes the position that God _doesn't_ so will a covering/uncovering rule; hence it becomes a violation of RPW to insist on it. By contrast, I (and others) think there is such a rule, but unlike some others I do not argue from "reasons," but that the Apostle's direction is the will of Christ.

*St.Paul's occasional references to nature do not serve to ground any religious point he makes; but are illustrative of particular teachings which always have _theological _or _exegetical _justifications.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Hugues Pierre (Dec 9, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Hugues, it is good to hear from you friend.
> 
> I know answering your question touches on a lot of people, and I mean nothing personal in my response to anyone. But the question is fair and deserves to be answered fairly.
> 
> ...


Thank you Travis, for your answer. Even if I cannot agree with you concerning the proof-text of WCF 1.6, I deeply appreciate the time and energy you displayed to answer me. I will try to read your book in a near future and If I have any question or comment I will share it to you. 

May the Lord bless you and all your dear family,

Hugues

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 9, 2022)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm in essential agreement with this comment. The Apostle may give a reason, or several, or none at all as a "basis" for his directions. At some level, there is the raw authority behind a command that requires compliance with or without a justification. As subjects, we are in no position to demand explanations; although in kindness God frequently suits our craving for mental satisfaction.
> 
> I am of the opinion that nature/creation grounds nothing so far as worship practice, nor is there much (if any) direct appeal to culture in Scripture as a way of promoting or prohibiting worship practice.* It is the pure will of God that authorizes and grounds every aspect of worship. TF takes the position that God _doesn't_ so will a covering/uncovering rule; hence it becomes a violation of RPW to insist on it. By contrast, I (and others) think there is such a rule, but unlike some others I do not argue from "reasons," but that the Apostle's direction is the will of Christ.
> 
> *St.Paul's occasional references to nature do not serve to ground any religious point he makes; but are illustrative of particular teachings which always have _theological _or _exegetical _justifications.



Wonder if I’m reading too much into what you’ve said, but is it always the pure will of God that grounds every aspect of worship? For example, when the Saviour says that “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth”, that gives me the impression that it’s the nature of God in this case, not necessarily the will of God, that grounds an aspect of worship.

But more to the point, I would agree with what you’re saying here on the whole.

This may be irrelevant, but I do think it’s beautiful that since the man is the glory of God and the woman is the glory of man, the head covering reflects how man’s glory ought to be veiled in the presence of God, akin to the seraphim covering their faces. Come to think of it, I wonder if that has anything to do with “because of the angels”? If angels veil their glory in the immediate presence of the Most High, how much more fitting for the glory of man, sinful man at that, to be veiled? The question of why it was not insisted on for public worship in the OT as far as we know is not something we can pry into, we’re not told why. But it’s insisted on in the New. As an aside, when Rebekah came into the presence of Jacob, she put on her veil out of respect, similar to angels covering their faces. But maybe that’s neither here nor there, because Elijah also covered his face with his mantle, although that might very well have just been a spontaneous gesture in the moment. Rebekah is a lovely analogy of the humility of the believer in the presence of Christ though. 

It also seems quite beautiful that the roles of male and female reflect something of the relationship between Christ and His church, such that any man praying in public with his head covered dishonours his Head, Christ. (Before anyone mentions reformers preaching wearing caps, we remember that in cold weather or other risk to health, God will have mercy and not sacrifice.)

I digress..

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 9, 2022)

Logan said:


> If head coverings cannot be cultural _because_ it is "grounded in creation" (which you all apparently agree with), then it should follow that it is grounded in creation all the time, not merely during corporate worship.
> 
> There is no equivalent mention in the OT. Sometimes people prayed with their heads covered and uncovered. Thus it does not appear that it is "grounded in creation" as a regulating principle for corporate worship.
> 
> I don't see how you can have it both ways: guided by the light of nature (i.e., should be obvious to everybody everywhere), grounded in creation (i.e., from the beginning of the world) and yet have it only applicable to corporate worship, and only in the NT since it clearly wasn't observed strictly or as a principle in the Old.



It is the command of God through the Apostle which is the basis for the practice. Whether or not it was a rule in the OT doesn't matter if it is made a rule in the New. However the examples that Travis cites from the OT of men covering their heads during worship, that I've seen, are from Temple worship which has been done away with so they aren't necessarily relevant to this discussion. He also cites Zechariah 3 which is a symbolic vision about justification and should not be used as determinative for ordinary public worship.

I haven't seen what examples of women worshipping without head coverings he is thinking of but are they in the context of corporate worship, or are they such instances as Miriam leading the women in song (which isn't an instance of oridinary public worship)?



Logan said:


> I feel like you're arguing without listening. Besides which I already said this:





Logan said:


> I'm finding myself frustrated here because I feel like I clearly understand where you are coming from. Trust me, I do. I have read and re-read and accumulated all the pro-arguments for years. But my replies or concerns are being filtered through this one-sided view which _still_ hasn't interacted with the material under discussion. So I'm equally confident I understand your reasoning and that you don't understand my concerns with that reasoning; and we just can't have a conversation like this. This would be greatly remedied I think if you would interact with the material so we can have some common understanding of reasoning and objections. I'm assuming knowledge of Travis' responses and you're not.
> 
> Travis has some extensive writing on natural and positive laws, creation, the OT with regard to head coverings, etc. We can disagree with none, some, or all of it but at least being aware of it would be helpful. Respond to his arguments, don't repeat the ones he's responded to as if they were never made.





Logan said:


> I'm very certain the misunderstanding is not on my end because I'm engaging with both perspectives. This is by no means a new topic to me_._ You guys are adding nothing new by continuing to avoid engaging the context of this entire discussion.
> 
> I bring up a question _in that context_ with two other paragraphs _in that context_ (which were ignored but are integrally related) and you're challenging me about one paragraph with a set of completely different assumptions than the context. Sorry I don't know how to explain it any better than that but this conversation can go nowhere if you guys continue to avoid the material.



Rather than getting frsutrated you should engage in the discussion which is actually happening in this thread. Individuals are responding to arguments you're making here and you're response is basically: "clearly you haven't read Travis's book because if you had you'd see why you're wrong." It is not good forum etiquette to drop a 300 page book and start a thread inviting thoughts on the topic of the book and reply to every post by referring the commenter to this and that page. That's not how a discussion is conducted on a forum.

But I have responded at length to a specific passage in Travis's book and neither he nor you have engaged with what I've said so who's avoiding the material now?

Reactions: Amen 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 9, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


> Wonder if I’m reading too much into what you’ve said, but is it always the pure will of God that grounds every aspect of worship? For example, when the Saviour says that “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth”, that gives me the impression that it’s the nature of God in this case, not necessarily the will of God, that grounds an aspect of worship.


I think we're digressing away from the thread subject (apologies to TF), but briefly to answer: I don't think Jesus is _grounding_ true spiritual worship in the divine Being (ontologically). Grammatically, there is no "therefore" explicit or necessarily implied. I think the Lord is making a statement of correlation, i.e. it is most fitting and requisite to worship him in essentially this manner, if also in external forms that he ordains.

If divine ontology was the ground, one could argue that simple reason could or should teach the truth Christ articulates, granted that the qualitative nature of the true God was sufficiently apprehended. I doubt human creatures have that knowledge innate, and certainly do not in post-lapsarian condition. Which leads to the necessity of verbal revelation (even prior to the fall) to communicate the mind of God (i.e. his will) to creatures in order that they may rightly worship him.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 9, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


> Wonder if I’m reading too much into what you’ve said, but is it always the pure will of God that grounds every aspect of worship? For example, when the Saviour says that “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth”, that gives me the impression that it’s the nature of God in this case, not necessarily the will of God, that grounds an aspect of worship.
> 
> But more to the point, I would agree with what you’re saying here on the whole.
> 
> ...


Lovely post, thank you. I have always held to the "because of the angels" phrase as a primary reason for the command, and I find the talk of culture as a reason or non reason to be evasive. You are one of the few people in 40 years of my experience to actually dive right into the angels phrase. Your thoughts are very interesting and I've never heard that speculation before. It is not irrelevant at all to the topic, the phrase about angels should be central to the discussion.

I have personally come to the belief that the reference is to holy angels, ministering spirits, and not to fallen angels. But forty plus years ago in charismania, I knew women who were wearing them as some sort of protection from fallen evil angels that might attack the church and its saints. Bad theology in many ways, but at least they wanted to figure out what "because of the angels" meant.

I don't know why it relates to a woman prophesying or praying....what did the angels think or do when Phillip's four daughters prophesied? ( If they were not married, did they even wear one?) If I pray out loud at our midweek evening prayer meeting, why is my head covering there for the holy angels...what is the relationship? What does it mean? I don't know. But I really appreciate your thoughts and they make a lot of sense, they are beautiful. Thanks again.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 9, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> This particular section of your thesis does not prove what you think it does...



Alexander, thanks for your extended thoughts and interaction with parts of my book.

To only respond to some of the bigger points:

1. The Argument from Creation

You say that my referenced section doesn't prove what I think it does, and that my treatment did no such things as prove the argument from creation wrong. Please see the sections, "Scriptural Warrant & the Burden of Proof," and "Perpetualist Arguments & What will Happen," pp. 17-20.​​The circumstantial (cultural) view is proved so far as it goes on p. 18 top. Beyond that the circumstantial view doesn't have to prove anything, as circumstances need not be proved from Scripture. What must be proved is that head-coverings were more than circumstances, that is, a positive, religiously significant part of worship beyond they simply being ordered by nature's light, Christian prudence and the general principles of the Word. To prove this you must show with necessary consequence that Corinthian head-coverings are perpetual (WCF 1.6).​​In my referenced section against the creation argument, and other sections, I show that the argument from creational principles is not conclusive of itself and that another reading of the passage is possible. Therefore the perpetualist reading is not necessary.​​Please see again in my propositional argument in the original post, under Part I, propositions 1, 2, 6, 9, 11. All I have to show is that perpetualist arguments do not necessitate the perpetualist conclusion, and I have disproved the perpetualist position as being God's revealed will.​​You have continually asserted perpetualist readings of many passages and topics, and yet have not proven that those are the only possible readings, that your reading of them is necessary. And in fact there are more readings that are possible (such as ones I give in my book). Therefore your side still has not met the burden of proof, to show that the argument from Creation and your interpretation of 1 Cor. 11 is necessary and is established as doctrine and binding by God's will.​​Again, my section against the argument from creation did exactly what it was intended to do in the larger argument of the book, given at the beginning of the book: it showed that the argument from creation does not conclude a perpetualist conclusion by necessity, nor is that reading of the passage necessary. Therefore the perpetualist burden of proof is not met.​​
2. Verses cited in Parentheses.

The many verses cited in the parentheses you quote prove exactly what comes before it, namely: "those imposed observances [in the OT], though not explicitly stated in the local text, were clearly meant to be temporal and circumstantially conditioned".​​The verses quoted from the OT show that the OT ceremonies were prophesied to fall away in the future, specifically with the coming of the Messiah. The NT ones simply confirm this. The point was that the local texts dealt with in the OT did not say they were temporary, but the larger context of Scripture did. And yet even by the context of those local texts, and their natures, it could have been known, and should have been known, that they were temporary. The point is very relevant to 1 Cor. 11, in that that passage need not explicitly say it is temporary for it to be understood by the things it deals with that it was temporary.​​3. " So even the cultural argument supports the head covering rather than the abolition of it."

My book does not go beyond arguing that head-coverings were cultural. It takes the discussion of head-coverings from WCF 21 (religiously significant parts of worship) to WCF 1.6 (circumstantial parts of worship which may be justified by culture).​​I in no way discuss in the book if head-coverings may be justified by culture in America or anywhere else in the world. If you agree that head-coverings are in the realm of WCF 1.6, as you seem to (maybe for the sake of argument?) in the above quote, this is inline with my book. If culture does warrant head-coverings in worship, then so be it. I allow that in my book (e.g. p. 274 and other places).​​4. "We must be very careful about saying any command in Scripture is cultural."

Many on this thread make a dichotomy between cultural things and things binding by apostolic authority, as if apostolic authority could not apply to cultural things, or as if Biblical commands must be wholly cultural or wholly moral, but cannot involve both aspects.​​Yet all that is far from the case. That is why my section on "Natural vs. Positive Laws", p. 46 is so important. As reformation and puritan theology held, all commands in specific circumstances are in some ways positive, albeit they may be some ways natural and moral as well. It is not either/or, but both/and. Paul may refer to cultural customs with natural and moral arguments supporting such (as I lay out in "Paul's Syllogism", pp. 62-64).​​On the cultural context of 1 Cor. 11, see pp. 230-31.​​
I would recommend that you and others start at the beginning of my book to see how the issues are laid out. I do believe I prove everything I say I will prove in it. I do not have to disprove any and every perpetualist argument that persons bring up on the PB. They have to not simply assert and given some reasons for their position, but show that it is necessary, especially in light of the counter-arguments in my book.

Blessings Alexander; I am thankful for your evident concern to be faithful to God's Word.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 9, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> It is the command of God through the Apostle which is the basis for the practice. Whether or not it was a rule in the OT doesn't matter if it is made a rule in the New. However the examples that Travis cites from the OT of men covering their heads during worship, that I've seen, are from Temple worship which has been done away with so they aren't necessarily relevant to this discussion. He also cites Zechariah 3 which is a symbolic vision about justification and should not be used as determinative for ordinary public worship...



Alexander,

You have made some very specific arguments and interpretations above, which is helpful to advancing the discussion, though I am very much not persuaded of them.


"It is the command of God through the Apostle which is the basis for the practice."

Please prove this. And see pp. 38-45 and 51-64.​​"the examples that Travis cites from the OT of men covering their heads during worship, that I've seen, are from Temple worship which has been done away with so they aren't necessarily relevant to this discussion."

Numerous of the examples I cite are before the time of the Temple, occur outside of the Temple in otherwise ordinary life, and have no ceremonial aspects to them. Therefore your interpretation is untenable, unless you would like to prove it.​
"He also cites Zechariah 3 which is a symbolic vision about justification and should not be used as determinative for ordinary public worship."

A coherent position must be able to explain exceptions. How is it (on your view) that an exemplary vision uses a dishonorable practice to convey something honorable and good? Zechariah was a moral agent in that vision; how come he did not object that what he was required to do was sinful? If it wasn't sinful, perhaps head-coverings are not by Creation?​​It may be understood that the vision of Zech. 3 is used precisely because it corresponded with ordinary public worship in the OT, with men wearing turbans, etc. per their custom, in the Temple. And this interpretation cannot be ruled out, which you must do to show that your interpretation is necessary.​

I don't mean to be too direct and impolite, but for a position to hold, it must hold. Thank you for further considering these points. I hope we can all learn from these things.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 9, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> That was my point, too - your work is replete with use of the word "culture" but is never defined. Your first post in this thread states at the beginning that you "argue that the cultural view is conclusive from God's Word" but you fail to define what a culture is. Is it national, regional, ethnic, familial? My initial criticism of your position is that it is arguing that the Church must adapt to its larger cultural context on this issue which removes the authority of the Church to determine its own culture. For example, I would say that the culture in our congregation is to accept whatever decision each household comes to regarding head-coverings. Our society is pluralistic so this would seem to meet your requirement that Church practice meets cultural practice - some women in my national, regional, ethnic, and familial cultures cover their heads only when attending public worship and have done so for generations. But you do not seem to acknowledge that as a possibility in your position, instead taking a rather hard line and coming off as rather ungracious and judgmental of those wo maintain the culture of their Church/congregation. Arguing that head-coverings cannot be universally prescribed based on Scripture is one thing - you seem to be going far beyond that. te you interacting with my limited criticism above - I will engage with your work as I have time and work on a critical review and post it in the Book Review forum, with the caveat that my formal training is in History and Literature, not Theology.



Andrew, I do believe we are talking past each other a bit. To respond on a few points:

1. "your work is replete with use of the word "culture" but is never defined... you "argue that the cultural view is conclusive from God's Word" but you fail to define what a culture is. Is it national, regional, ethnic, familial?"

I didn't believe I needed to define it as "cultural" is set in opposition to a formally positive, religious rite appointed of the Lord and perpetual, and the difference between the two vast and easily understood. As my work does not depend on any specific definition of culture, any common dictionary definition will do. Here is one from Google which works just fine:​​"the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group."​​As to your specific question whether that entails national, regional, etc., that is beyond the scope of my book to specify, and I believe Logan rightly responded above that all those things have culture and are encompassed in culture.​​2. I believe we actually agree on about 98% of this, in that you, apparently, are seeking to justify head-coverings from culture (of a particular church).

One of the main points of my book is to bring head-coverings from the realm of a positive religious, perpetual rite (WCF 21) to being a circumstance of culture that might be justified in the worship of God (WCF 1.6). You apparently are founding your arguments for head-coverings on culture and WCF 1.6​​I only argue against head-coverings in the book when they are not justified from the light of nature or Scripture. But if they are justified by culture and hence the light of nature on your view, then my book speaks nothing against that.​​It is not in the scope of my book (see the Intro) to set up criteria for when head-coverings are or are not warranted by culture (even a church's culture).​​I believe you said that church's culture is to be based on the light of nature, Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word (WCF 1.6). If that is the case, then you are saying that the head-coverings you are advocating for a church's culture is based on the light of nature. My book does not speak against head-coverings when they are warranted by nature's light.​​The purpose of my book was not to argue against head-coverings simply, but as a religious positive, perpetual rite.​​3. The other issue, which Logan pointed out, is not if a tradition or custom is in the church (such as the elderly wearing head-coverings), but what is the grounds for such, such as grounds in the light of nature, culture, etc. We are not to worship God simply by tradition with no legitimate grounds (Mt. 15:9).

Hope these points clarify some things, and point toward the vast amount of agreement it appears that we have on the subject.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 9, 2022)

Friends,


If you desire to show that the argument of my book does not hold, you do not have to read it. The most clear, efficient and effective way to do that is to show particularly where the propositional argument I numerically lay out in the original post is not sound (it takes 2 min. to read).

You can do that by (1) proving one of the propositions to be false, (2) prove that a proposition does not follow, or (3) prove that the proposition does not conclude (with the other propositions) the conclusion of the argument. Please refer to the number of the propositions you refer to.

Also note that the material of Part II is substantial and of conclusive force. Even if Corinthian head-coverings are perpetual, neither the Scriptural or historical data necessitates veiling.

And even if it could be historically proven that veiling was necessary and universal at Corinth for obedient women, yet even this would not be by divine law such that it would bind all Christian women in all time. See "If Corinthian Head-Coverings be Perpetual, Veiling Cannot be Necessary by Divine Right," pp. 229.

I hope this will help to advance the discussion.


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 10, 2022)

After writing 300 pages nearly to defend this position, I don’t mean to denigrate the effort by responding so relatively briefly.. but I do think certain of the propositions are not true, or do not follow from the previous ones.



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



So far so good.



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



How does it follow from this that they must be only cultural, specifically in 1 Cor 11?

Maybe this isn’t the best example but it’s one that springs to mind: the goat in Scripture bears a variety of significations, at times contrary one to another, and yet the use of goats for sacrifice, along with other significations attached to them, are not cultural, but divinely specified.


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



The precise proportion of time for the Sabbath cannot be taught by pure nature, neither can it have any intrinsic value for worshipping God, but nevertheless it has been revealed as the will of God that the 1st day of every week be set apart for Him, and thus has been given value for worshipping Him. It follows that the same may hold true for head coverings in public worship.


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



Dishonouring the head, Christ, is more than just social decency, surely?

You assert that head covering is a “carnal ordinance”, by the same token is not sitting around a table and eating bread and drinking wine a “carnal ordinance”? If headcoverings in public worship reflect something of the humbling of man’s glory in the presence of God’s glory, they are most suited to the NT dispensation, when carnal and outward glory is veiled, and the more spiritual glory of Christ is brought to the fore, and headcoverings seem a most suitable, and simple token of this, in under the NT when worship is much more simple, and spiritual.

This ordinance is insisted upon in a unique way in the New Testament, particularly in the context of public worship. While you say it may not be necessary to conclude they are perpetual, it certainly seems most safe to do so, when it definitely does not seem
necessary to conclude they were merely cultural.



5. Some apostolic ordinances were circumstantially conditioned and mutable.



One example given was the prohibition of eating blood, and so this seems true. Head coverings are conditioned on the relation of Christ to His church, and the man to the woman as a reflection of this, which are not circumstantial things.



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



This could be pushed too far, so we ought to be very careful.



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



Surely the reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church is different to any use of head coverings in society. The connection between this ordinance and angels in relation to public worship, which is the entering into the more immediate gracious presence of God, also introduces a different meaning than that connected their use in society.



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



Female Head covering in public worship is attributed to “the churches of God” universally in 1 Cor 11, as a dissuasive motive against local Corinthian deviation from the practice.



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



Addressed previously.



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



Also addressed previously.



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



Does not follow, for reasons above mentioned.



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



Thankfully the meaning and use given to head coverings is one which God’s Word *has* given.



Part II just seems quite dubious. In part one you stress the point that many Reformed theologians thought they were cultural, but that they were indeed physical coverings, not just a certain way of doing up the hair. Now you’re disagreeing with one of their main premises, that it was even a physical covering. So there’s picking and choosing of what to accept from the certain reformed theologians on your part too, is there not?

Besides, if it was dishonourable for a man in public worship to be veiled, then, on the view that the veil is having one’s hair up in a bun, that would mean that the prohibition is on men having their hair up in a bun.. but it’s assumed their hair wouldn’t be long enough to have up in a bun! The interpretation seems self refuting.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 10, 2022)

Alex,


Thank you for addressing my propositional argument in the original post directly.

If your points stand, then the argument of my book fails. If my responses stand, then my book's argument is thus far upheld. I will give the proposition's number, then a brief synopsis of it (in bold), and then your comments in quotes, with my response underneath. (I can't indent for some reason)


*2. in relation to various meanings and acceptability of head-coverings in Scripture.*

"How does it follow from this that they must be only cultural, specifically in 1 Cor 11?"

I grant my proposition is slightly ambiguous. Given that head-coverings in Scripture have various meanings and acceptability in worship, hence they were clearly cultural in and of themselves, generally. I grant you that this does not mean they could not be religiously appointed in 1 Cor. 11, and therefore the conclusion of the whole propositional argument does not follow from this one proposition.

I grant your argument from indifferent goats in the OT versus specifically appointed sacrificial goats. However, the cultural nature of head-coverings in the OT lends some prima facie plausibility that 1 Cor. 11 may be simply ordering a cultural thing (contrary to those who appeal to the "plain reading and meaning" of 1 Cor. 11).

However, showing the limitations of a non-essential proposition of the larger argument does not show that the conclusion of the larger argument fails.


*3. Head-coverings are not by pure nature, nor have intrinsic value in worshipping God.*

"The precise proportion of time for the Sabbath cannot be taught by pure nature, neither can it have any intrinsic value for worshipping God, but nevertheless it has been revealed as the will of God that the 1st day of every week be set apart for Him, and thus has been given value for worshipping Him. It follows that the same may hold true for head coverings in public worship."

I grant your argument here, that Corinthian head-coverings may be like the Sabbath in this regard. However, to prove that something is possible, or may be, does nothing to prove that it has been so established or ordained, nor is warrant for such.

Hence the conclusion of the larger argument, proposition 11, still stands, that "there is no express, necessary or valid consequence from Scripture Corinthian head-coverings were a matter of perpetual religion..."


*4. Paul uses language in 1 Cor. 11 of social honor, not sin.*

"Dishonouring the head, Christ, is more than just social decency, surely?"

One can dishonor Christ by upsetting social decency, but on this view, which I prefer in the book, the head-covering is still a matter of social decency.

You have asserted the view that covering or not in vv. 4-5 reflects directly on Christ the head (v. 3), but you have not proven that this view is necessary. And it can't be proven precisely because the other view, that the head-covering primarily dishonors the person's own head, is coherent, grounded and plausible, as many interpreters through Church history have taken it.

Therefore your view is not necessary from the text, and cannot established from God's Word by necessary consequence, as must be done to prove it is God's will and as Westminster requires.


"You assert that head covering is a “carnal ordinance”, by the same token is not sitting around a table and eating bread and drinking wine a “carnal ordinance”? If headcoverings in public worship reflect something of the humbling of man’s glory in the presence of God’s glory, they are most suited to the NT dispensation, when carnal and outward glory is veiled, and the more spiritual glory of Christ is brought to the fore, and headcoverings seem a most suitable, and simple token of this, in under the NT when worship is much more simple, and spiritual."

Head-coverings being a carnal ordinance is not essential to (nor even in) the propositional argument, nor essential to the book's argument.

There is a key difference between head-coverings and the Supper, namely that the Supper has been given a positive, spiritual significance. Yet head-coverings at best would only have a natural, creational significance (not redemptive), which you describe.

However, the humbling of man's glory is read into v. 7, the verse does not explicitly state it. I argue that this view cannot hold from the larger teaching of Scripture on p. 124 ff. And I show that another view, which I argue for is possible, coherent, and the best option. Because it is possible, your view is not necessary from the text, and so cannot be shown to derive by necessary consequence from Scripture or God's will.


"While you say it may not be necessary to conclude they are perpetual, it certainly seems most safe to do so, when it definitely does not seem necessary to conclude they were merely cultural."

In my book I show there is no necessary consequence from Scripture establishing the perpetual view; therefore it is not safe to conclude they are perpetual.

Please see pp. 17-20 on the Burden of Proof. I prove that head-coverings are at least circumstances to be ordered by the light of nature, Christian prudence and the general rules of God's Word on p. 18 top. That is proven. What is not proven by necessary consequence is that they are anything more than this.

The burden of proof doesn't affect both our views equally. Indifferent circumstances don't have to be proved from Scripture; religiously significant aspects of worship do have to be.


*5. Mutable apostolic ordinances.*

"Head coverings are conditioned on the relation of Christ to His church, and the man to the woman as a reflection of this, which are not circumstantial things."

I grant the relations of Christ to his Church and men to women are spiritual, natural and moral things, and are not indifferent. I grant that your reading of the passage is possible (in the abstract).

However I have demonstrated in and throughout my book that the opposite reading is also possible, well grounded and coherent, namely that the particular premise of a woman uncovering her head (v. 5) being socially dishonorable is the most logically foundational to Paul's argument, and his general, spiritual and natural arguments in the passage confirm Paul's injunction for proper social head-coverings. See pp. 62-64 and 70-71.

You have asserted your view but not proven it as necessary. And it can't be necessary from God's Word as long as there is another plausible, coherent view, such as the one I defend throughout my book.


*7. There is no necessary difference of meaning in Corinthian head-coverings in worship versus society.*

"Surely the reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church is different to any use of head coverings in society.

This has been answered in propositions 4-5 above.


"The connection between this ordinance and angels in relation to public worship, which is the entering into the more immediate gracious presence of God, also introduces a different meaning than that connected their use in society."

That difference is only one of degree in the relevance and importance of maintaining social decency; it is not a qualitative difference of kind between their civil use and use in worship. I mention this on p. 69 top. My view is possible; your view is not necessary.


*8. No necessary warrant head coverings were universal.*

"Female Head covering in public worship is attributed to “the churches of God” universally in 1 Cor 11..."

I show that there is no necessary warrant Corinthian head-coverings, even in light of v. 16, were temporally or geographically universal on pp. 55-58.


"Part II just seems quite dubious."

Part II is documented with a crazy amount of historical documentation.


"In part one you stress the point that many Reformed theologians thought they were cultural, but that they were indeed physical coverings, not just a certain way of doing up the hair. Now you’re disagreeing with one of their main premises, that it was even a physical covering. So there’s picking and choosing of what to accept from the certain reformed theologians on your part too, is there not?"

You are correct that reformed theologians are not my ultimate standard. The light of Scripture and nature is (in that order).

However there is a very important difference. The cultural vs. perpetuity issue is mainly one of theology and ethics. The issue of what the covering was hinges on mostly historical material, which they had much more limited information on. That is an important difference. I briefly discuss this on pp. 113-14.


"Besides, if it was dishonourable for a man in public worship to be veiled, then, on the view that the veil is having one’s hair up in a bun, that would mean that the prohibition is on men having their hair up in a bun.. but it’s assumed their hair wouldn’t be long enough to have up in a bun! The interpretation seems self refuting."

This gets into the issue that men and women's coverings may have been, and likely were different, as there is evidence in the passage itself to suggest this. I address this and give many reasons for this and my understanding (which follows numerous in Church history) on pp. 234-37 ff.


In conclusion I believe it has been seen my propositions stand as they were intended, and together still necessitate the conclusion of the larger argument, namely, "11... there is no express, necessary or valid consequence from Scripture Corinthian head-coverings were a matter of perpetual religion..."

I do thank you Alex for your thoughtful and patient demeanor (and hope mine has not overstepped the same), and hope you will give these things further consideration, as I continue to. Blessings to you brother.


----------



## Gesetveemet (Dec 11, 2022)

No head coverings appear to be a modern tradition. I wonder why?


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 11, 2022)

Gesetveemet said:


> No head coverings appear to be a modern tradition. I wonder why?



I assume you mean _not veiling_ appears to be a modern tradition? That is not true.

Universal veiling, as documented in Part II of my book with a dump-truck full of documentation demonstrates that the Greeks nor Romans practiced regular veiling for lay-women in religious rites, nor was it required by Paul in Corinth.

That the Early Church did not universally practice female veiling for worship, see p. 91 of my book.

Voet, on pp. 168-69 footnote 520 says the regular custom both in public and in church, and as taught by Paul, was for women to be covered with their hair or "something additional", and this is confirmed there by linked collections of images from Dutch history.

Statements like this, that "No head coverings appear to be a modern tradition," as if all of history had one homogenous practice up until modern times, are historically absurd. Would you like to prove comprehensively that no head coverings are only a modern tradition, or are we to believe it upon your word?

In doing all the work I did on this subject, I also put together a universal history of head-coverings in the western tradition, as full and comprehensive as has ever been put together, it appears, by collecting linked sources onto a webpage documenting the practices through world history. You may see the great variety of practices through images through the eras and countries at 'On the Whole of History' at 'The History of Head Coverings' (RBO).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gesetveemet (Dec 11, 2022)

Travis,

Granted I am out of my league having a discussion with a learned man (respectfully). How about if I put it this way. Why are we seeing more and more the absence of head coverings in comparison to say 300 years ago.
I tend to believe and tell me if I am wrong, that Congregationalist, Baptist, Presbyterian, the Dutch Reformed, Reformed, Lutheran . . women all covered (vailed) their heads just like the denomination’s listed were all at one time Calvinistic.
If we were communicating face to face you would understand that I am not being snarky or argumentative as I live a rather poor life of much loneliness, but there seems to be a trend generally speaking of the putting away the old paths as if the modern church is more enlightened.
A small example, in a state where my former minister lived the young people in the community we’re turning to satan worship so much so that the churches in the area had a gathering to discuss the matter. My former minister showed up wearing a suit and a tie. While the other pastors showed up in jeans and street clothes. When someone said to my minister “what’s wrong with this picture” he kindly replied this is what I wear when I minister as unto the Lord.

kind regards,
William


----------



## Gesetveemet (Dec 11, 2022)

Agh, I did not realize this thread has been up for some time and the OPer has written a book I in no way meant to criticize. I actually hope the best for the young man in the spreading of his theological wings but more so hope that he may be used in the spreading of that one thing needful.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Dec 11, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> 2. I believe we actually agree on about 98% of this, in that you, apparently, are seeking to justify head-coverings from culture (of a particular church).
> 
> One of the main points of my book is to bring head-coverings from the realm of a positive religious, perpetual rite (WCF 21) to being a circumstance of culture that might be justified in the worship of God (WCF 1.6). You apparently are founding your arguments for head-coverings on culture and WCF 1.6​​I only argue against head-coverings in the book when they are not justified from the light of nature or Scripture. But if they are justified by culture and hence the light of nature on your view, then my book speaks nothing against that.​​It is not in the scope of my book (see the Intro) to set up criteria for when head-coverings are or are not warranted by culture (even a church's culture).​​I believe you said that church's culture is to be based on the light of nature, Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word (WCF 1.6). If that is the case, then you are saying that the head-coverings you are advocating for a church's culture is based on the light of nature. My book does not speak against head-coverings when they are warranted by nature's light.​​The purpose of my book was not to argue against head-coverings simply, but as a religious positive, perpetual rite.​


I appreciate this response - you are correct that we largely agree and it is helpful that you clarified the intent of your work (2. above). I will admit that as I have started working through it this was not clear to me. It will take me some time to build a review. Having glossed your work, I have gone back and taken a few deep dives. My academic interest has always been Reformation-era Geneva because of its international composition and subsequent influence. The several references to the 1560 Geneva Bible in the notes (pp. 40, 65 so far) caught my eye. It is interesting that the notes by 1599 had evolved (vv. 4 and 15, for example): see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 11&version=GNV 

I have always found the above notes helpful as in my mind they do a commendable job in delineating both the "ordinance" and the "circumstance" aspects of what Paul is communicating while also recognizing a distinction between "nature" and society (the broader meaning of "political" in note e. at the time). But this brief commentary has to be read as a whole - otherwise anyone on this forum can/will cherry-pick something to support their view (e. and f. versus k. and l., for example). The note I appreciate most is "m"!

I will probably not contribute more to this thread - I am as confused as others as to whether this thread was intended to be strictly a book review or a discussion of the topic. I assumed the latter since it was posted under "Worship." Unless someone beats me to it, I will post any review of the book that I can produce in the "Book Review" forum.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Dec 11, 2022)

(I tried to post this image of the 1599 vv.3-16 notes in the post above but it wouldn't allow it)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 12, 2022)

Thank you Travis for your response. The thrust of your points seems to be that because you think there is no necessary reason to conclude head coverings are perpetual, then they must not be.

I can’t respond fully at the moment, but it occurred to me, given that the context is where Paul is saying that he received of the Lord Jesus Christ what he delivered to the church as to ordinances, and he insists on head coverings so strongly in this context, appealing to many things, including to the practice of the churches outwith Corinth, it would seem there is nothing in the text that necessarily leads us to conclude it was merely cultural.

Would it not then close us in to the conclusion, that since we can’t necessarily conclude they were cultural from the text, we must then hold they were necessarily of divine appointment? There being no necessary Scriptural reason to think otherwise, nor any grounds to undermine the thrust and context of the passage?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 12, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


> Would it not then close us in to the conclusion, that since we can’t necessarily conclude they were cultural from the text, we must then hold they were necessarily of divine appointment? There being no necessary Scriptural reason to think otherwise, nor any grounds to undermine the thrust and context of the passage?



Alex, Travis develops his case from the context of the rest of Scripture as to why we _can _conclude it was cultural. There _is_ scriptural reason to think otherwise. Paul is writing in a broader context as well as a narrow one.

One point I would like to emphasize is that those of the "cultural" view do not undermine the text. They do not pick and choose what to ignore. They treat the text as something to be obeyed, but obeyed in a variety of ways in a variety of contexts, not in just one way for all contexts (which clearly wasn't the case in the OT anyway).

Nor is this is liberal view or one which rose with feminism and the sooner we can get over that false assumption the better. This is not new:

Matthew Poole, well-known Reformed commentator from the 1600s:
"Interpreters rightly agree, that this and the following verses are to be interpreted from the *customs* of countries; and all that can be concluded from this verse is, that it is the duty of men employed in Divine ministrations, to look to behave themselves as those who are to represent the Lord Jesus Christ...which decent gravity is to be judged from the *common opinion and account of the country* wherein they live...because *in Corinth* the uncovered head was a sign of authority. *At this day* the Mahometans (or Turks) speak to their superiors covered, and so are covered also in their religious performances. The *custom* with us in these western parts is quite otherwise; the uncovering of the head is a sign or token of subjection: hence ministers pray and preach with their heads uncovered, to denote their subjection to God and Christ: but yet this *custom* is not uniform, for in France the Reformed ministers preach with their heads covered; as they pray uncovered, to express their reverence and subjection to God, so they preach covered as representing Christ...Nothing in this is a further rule to Christians, than that it is the duty of ministers, in praying and preaching, to use postures and habits that are not naturally, nor according to *the custom of the place where they live*, uncomely and irreverent, and so looked upon. It is only *the general observation of decency*..."

Or Matthew Henry:
"The thing he reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man's doing either covered. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, *contrary to the custom of ours*, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand...He sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the *usages and customs* of the churches. *Custom* is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what he would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humor if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were *at that time* utter strangers, or against a *custom* in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. 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."

Or John Trapp, another respected Reformed commentator from the 1600s:
He begins with saying that this ordinance is not dogmatical, or perpetual, but of the temporary and pertaining to the observing of external order and decency in Church assemblies and notes:
"As they accounted it *then and there*. In *other places* it is otherwise. The French preach covered. The Turks neither kneel nor uncover the head at public prayer, as holding these postures unmanly. Several countries have their several *customs*."

Calvin sums up his view this way:
"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...in fine, the one rule to be observed here is *_*decorum*_. If _that_ is secured, Paul requires nothing farther."

These four are not obscure references. Not only is the "cultural" view a Reformed view, it may very well be the historically majority Reformed view.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 12, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Alexander,
> 
> You have made some very specific arguments and interpretations above, which is helpful to advancing the discussion, though I am very much not persuaded of them.
> 
> ...



Other than quoting Paul commanding it in 1 Corinthians 11 I don't know how else I can show this. It's a straightforward command with no qualification. As I mentioned earlier, it is not included amongst those things which Paul expressly terms matters of conscience, but is placed alongside the proper administration of the Lord's Supper as practices which have been passed onto the churches from the Apostles and are to be observed by the church universally.



Travis Fentiman said:


> ​"the examples that Travis cites from the OT of men covering their heads during worship, that I've seen, are from Temple worship which has been done away with so they aren't necessarily relevant to this discussion."
> 
> Numerous of the examples I cite are before the time of the Temple, occur outside of the Temple in otherwise ordinary life, and have no ceremonial aspects to them. Therefore your interpretation is untenable, unless you would like to prove it.​



What I meant was the only relevant OT cases would be men wearing a head covering _in public worship_. Perhaps you give such examples (I would be grateful if you could just list them here or refer me to the pages where you cite them) but any example of men wearing a head covering in a non-worship scenario, or an occasion which has elements of worship present but are not the ordinary means of grace, aren't relevant to the discussion. And Alex has already made the point that even if men covered their heads in ordinary public worship in the OT doesn't prevent an absolute prohibition being given in the NT. Men also wore ceremonial raiment in the OT worship which they no longer wear in the NT.



Travis Fentiman said:


> "He also cites Zechariah 3 which is a symbolic vision about justification and should not be used as determinative for ordinary public worship."
> 
> A coherent position must be able to explain exceptions. How is it (on your view) that an exemplary vision uses a dishonorable practice to convey something honorable and good? Zechariah was a moral agent in that vision; how come he did not object that what he was required to do was sinful? If it wasn't sinful, perhaps head-coverings are not by Creation​​It may be understood that the vision of Zech. 3 is used precisely because it corresponded with ordinary public worship in the OT, with men wearing turbans, etc. per their custom, in the Temple. And this interpretation cannot be ruled out, which you must do to show that your interpretation is necessary.​
> 
> I don't mean to be too direct and impolite, but for a position to hold, it must hold. Thank you for further considering these points. I hope we can all learn from these things.



The vision in Zechariah 3 isn't even of an act of worship. It is the law court not the sanctuary in which the action takes place. Joshua is described as the high priest and so he is wearing his priestly garments. Sin is a transgression of the law and the law can be both negative or positive. What we are discussing here, for the sake of argument, is a _positive_ law: a law which could not be discovered were it not for direct revelation from God (such as the keeping of a whole day, and which day, as the Sabbath; the not-eating of the Tree of Knowledge). If one grants that it was previously honourable for a man to cover his head in worship but now it is dishonourable then we should try to understand why that change has taken place. By your own argument that change _has_ taken place (even if only for culturally-dependent reasons and for a limited time) as before men did cover their heads and now Paul is saying explicitly it is wrong. 

So why could that change have come about? For the change to be purely cultural would at least require a significant change in the surrounding culture. Has such a transformative change occurred? To be sure there has been an influx of foreigners into Judea but would that be reason enough for such a prohibition? If it was then one would assume head covering would have been prohibited during the captivity in Babylon (a far greater change in the cultural context of Israel than we see at the time of Christ). Was it? It seems far more likely the change has come about as a result of the change in worship from a carnal, outward, typological form of worship to a spiritual, inward form which allows far greater access to God. Because of this simpler, more spiritual, more direct access to God, and because of the angels, it was necessary that women cover their heads (for the reasons Alex mentioned and because with all the outward ceremonies stripped away the worshipper is coming before God with nothing but faith, or a lack thereof). That is me thinking out loud but I think that if we are granting that a change _has _occurred- that previously it was honourable for men to cover their heads in worship (or a matter indifferent other than with the Levites) to saying it is _dis_honourable in all circumstances- then it is far more likely due to the significant change in worship rather than for purely cultural reasons. In which case the requirement would be binding for as long as NT worship is binding.

And we must remember that Paul is not enjoining this practice exclusively to the Corinthians but is addressing it in this letter because the Corinthians have not been complying with what Paul says is a universal doctrine. So we cannot claim there is anything particular about Corinth which required this practice.


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> Alex, Travis develops his case from the context of the rest of Scripture as to why we _can _conclude it was cultural. There _is_ scriptural reason to think otherwise. Paul is writing in a broader context as well as a narrow one.
> 
> One point I would like to emphasize is that those of the "cultural" view do not undermine the text. They do not pick and choose what to ignore. They treat the text as something to be obeyed, but obeyed in a variety of ways in a variety of contexts, not in just one way for all contexts (which clearly wasn't the case in the OT anyway).
> 
> ...



Hi Logan,

He does indeed argue that one may possibly interpret them to be just cultural, but my point was that there's nothing necessarily pointing us to that conclusion, as he admits himself. However, he says nothing necessarily leads to them being perpetual either, and so my last reply was in response to that particular point.

I believe the cultural view does undermine the thrust of the passage, namely, that female head covering in public worship is an apostolic appointed received from Christ, and practiced in the churches outwith Corinth, of both Jewish and Gentile origin.

I never mentioned anything about liberals or feminism.. but I do think that there was diversity of opinion about this among reformers and puritans, and many thought that it was unbecoming in the light of nature for married women to go out in public uncovered at all, so that had a bearing on their views too, which must be taken into account.

David Silversides quotes a few Puritans and Scottish writers who hold the perpetual view, and makes an interesting point, 

*"James Durham (1622-1658)*

“It (the veil) hath a threefold use, 1. For decoration, as in Isaiah 3:23. 2. For a sign of modesty, pleaded for by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11:6. 3. And mainly a sign of women’s subjection to their own husbands...” (_Commentary on Song of Solomon_, Banner of Truth, p. 280).

If there were any divergence in 17th century Scottish practice, this would be similar to the question of exclusive psalmody. There was difference of opinion in Scotland over the addition of the Trinitarian doxology to the psalms when sung and the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, prior to that Assembly meeting, were not opposed to its use as some Scottish ministers were. As a result of the Assembly, however, they were happy to see it dropped and a strict exclusive psalmody adopted in the Directory for Public worship and expressed in the 1650 Psalter (of which the Assembly produced the initial draft before the Scottish church did the final revision) containing only the 150 Biblical psalms in metre. Thereafter, exclusive psalmody was the norm and strongly defended by such Covenanters as McWard and Brown of Wamphray. (For a discussion of this, see _Hold Fast Your Confession_, the chapter by Hector Cameron on Purity of Worship, pp.102ff. and also Hay Flemming on _The Psalmody of the Scottish Church_). Though the Scottish Commissioners were of immense help to the Assembly in many things, the English Puritans did influence the Scottish Church on some matters in worship.

It may have taken longer to attain uniformity in Scotland on head-covering than it did on psalmody. Nevertheless, H.M.R. Reid in _The Cameronian Apostle (An account of John MacMillan of Balmaghie, 1669-1753_) indicates that the women wore white linen coverings at church and the men removed their blue bonnets when public prayer began (pp. 52-54). He also refers to a minister called Nathaniel M’Kie of Crossmichael giving a rather homely rebuke to a man for having his hat on as the Scriptures were being read in church (p. 91). By the time J.A. Wylie’s _History of Protestantism_ was published in 1899, in the engraving of ‘Covenanters Worshipping by the Banks of the Whittader’ (vol. 3 p. 595), they are pictured with the men having clearly removed their hats (holding them in their hand or placed on the ground) while the women have their heads covered (see also _The Swearing of the Covenant ibid._ p. 547). This, at least, indicates that the practice was so well established by Wylie’s time, that it was assumed also to have been the practice of the later 17th century Covenanters."


-Source: https://www.the-highway.com/headcovering_Silversides.html​

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 12, 2022)

TylerRay said:


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





Travis Fentiman said:


> Tyler,
> 
> Thank you for your interaction.
> 
> ...


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?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 12, 2022)

I’ve enjoyed revisiting this issue and was reminded of some threads where Rev. Winzer (MW) expressed, I think? the same take as Travis on the cultural aspect of the 1 Corinthians passage. He argued for the wearing of headcoverings as the still relevant token of decorum and order in English-speaking society. After all it has never disappeared from the English-speaking churches and as Tyler noted, anyone walking into a church service where women are covered would instantly understand submission to something is being exhibited.


----------



## Logan (Dec 12, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


> David Silversides quotes a few Puritans and Scottish writers who hold the perpetual view, and makes an interesting point,



I've read Silversides' article multiple times in the past and I just can't get over the fact that he cherry-picked his sources so bad as to ignore the clearest and most prominent and respected theologians while focusing on some of the most obscure and less clear citations. I looked at many of the sources he cited and was very disappointed in his treatment of them. This, I admit, makes it hard for me to take anything in his article with anything but skepticism.



alexmacarie said:


> and many thought that it was unbecoming in the light of nature for married women to go out in public uncovered at all, so that had a bearing on their views too, which must be taken into account.



Sure. Poole said this, for example: 
"From this text a question hath been started, Whether Christian women may lawfully go without any other covering upon their heads than their hair? I must confess, I see not how such a question can have any bottom in this text, where the apostle is not speaking of women's ordinary habiting themselves, but only when they prayed and prophesied and (if I mistake not) when they ministered in prayer and prophecy (as was said before). We now have no such prophetesses; so as I think that question about the lawfulness of women's going without any other covering upon their heads than their hair, must be determined from other texts, not this, and is best determined from circumstances; for God having given to the woman her hair for a covering and an ornament, *I cannot see how it should be simply unlawful*."


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> I've read Silversides' article multiple times in the past and I just can't get over the fact that he cherry-picked his sources so bad as to ignore the clearest and most prominent and respected theologians while focusing on some of the most obscure and less clear citations. I looked at many of the sources he cited and was very disappointed in his treatment of them. This, I admit, makes it hard for me to take anything in his article with anything but skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are other puritans here https://www.covenanter.org/subjects-1/2015/6/29/headcoverings

But Silverside's point about the practice in the times of the covenanters showed that it became a prevailing view.

Seems like Poole is speaking about covering outside of public worship.

The point I was making is that there is nothing in the passage that points necessarily to it being cultural, and in light of the context, if we can't necessarily conclude it's cultural, I would say we should conclude its perpetual, as an apostolic appointment received from the Lord, which was the practice of all the other churches, of Jewish and Gentile extraction, and not just local to Corinthian culture.


----------



## Logan (Dec 12, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


> Seems like Poole is speaking about covering outside of public worship.



Yes. I agreed with you, as indicated by the specific portion of your post I quoted, even though Poole took the contrary view.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> I've read Silversides' article multiple times in the past and I just can't get over the fact that he cherry-picked his sources so bad as to ignore the clearest and most prominent and respected theologians while focusing on some of the most obscure and less clear citations.


 He’s literally just quoted Durham in support, probably the foremost Scottish theologian of the 17th century.


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> Yes. I agreed with you, as indicated by the specific portion of your post I quoted, even though Poole took the contrary view.


Sorry I must have misread. Poole seems not to have taken that view, but there were others who did, but I don't have the quotes to hand just now.


----------



## Logan (Dec 12, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> He’s literally just quoted Durham in support, probably the foremost Scottish theologian of the 17th century.


And what do you propose can be concluded about Durham's view from the sentence quoted, one way or the other? Durham isn't arguing for or against it being perpetual, and his point is not in the context of corporate worship at all, but every day life. That's what I mean by Silversides' treatment of his sources.

Note he also uses the past tense "had" which makes it at least questionable whether he thought it was a perpetual sign for every day life, thus would need more clarification for a conclusion one way or another.

"4. The last step is, They took away my vail from me: The word that's rende∣red vail, comes from a root that signifieth to subdue, it's that fame word which we have, Psal. 144. 2. who subdues the people, &c. It had a threefold use, 1. For decorement, as Isa. 3. 23. 2. For a sign of modesty, pleaded for by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 6. 3. And mainly, for a sign of womens subjection to their own husbands; for which cause Rebekah puts on her vail, when she meets Isaac, Gen. 24. 65. And therefore it's called power, as being the sign of the wifes being under the power of her husband, 1 Cor. 11. 10. Here, her vail is the tendernesse of her profession, whereby in a decent, modest and humble way, she profest her self to be a be∣liever, seeking after Christ Jesus, as one bearing the b•dge of sub∣jection to him as her husband. The taking away of the vail, is their wronging of that honest profession she had, and the giving of her out, not to be that which she profest her self to be, and so not worthy of a vail; but that her profession was hypocrisie, her painfulnesse and tendernesse, conceitinesse, even as Iudas, Joh. 12. 5. nicknames that good work wrought upon Christ by that honest woman, calling it wastry: And by these and such other means, often tender souls are affronted, and proposed as a reproach to the multitude; even as if a wife that is chast, were denuded of her vail, and reputed as an gadding harlot, while she is seeking her own husband: So when the Lord threatens his people, that their le•d∣nesse should be made to appear, he useth this expression, Ezek. 23. 26, 27. They shall stripe thee out of thy cloaths, &c. that being a manifest shame to a woman, that should be covered, 1 Cor. 11. 6. This is added, to shew that they pretend they have reason for their smiting: They disgrace her, and take away her vail, that they may not be thought to smite holinesse or tendernesse, but a hypocrite under such a vail, or a whore more decently adorned than became her to be.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> Calvin sums up his view this way:
> "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...in fine, the one rule to be observed here is *_*decorum*_. If _that_ is secured, Paul requires nothing farther."


But of course that is not the complete quote, and Calvin has more to say on the matter not only in his commentary but in his sermons upon the text.


----------



## itsreed (Dec 12, 2022)

Two thoughts:

Men: tonsillectomy? OK Tonsure-ectomy? Don't go there.

Women: Let it grow, let it grow it, let it grow! (Hair, not beards.)

Other than that ...


----------



## Northern Crofter (Dec 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> *Paul means nothing more than this*---*that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection...in fine, the one rule to be observed here is *_*decorum*_. If _that_ is secured, Paul requires nothing farther."


I think one issue is that this quote by Calvin (and the others) show that there has always been agreement that a sign is required. That it should be cultural is a valid point. But isn't a cloth head-covering of some sort the sign that has been used and viewed as acceptable in the modern/post-modern Western Christian culture? Travis argues that in 1st century Roman culture women wore braided buns, though in my first cursory reading of his book I failed to see how he demonstrates that this was a sign of authority in Roman culture. A woman with a braided bun of hair would not be viewed as a sign in our current culture. A cloth head-covering would be. In any event, I do not believe Travis has proven valid that a practice in the Church must conform to the culture outside it. 

My understanding of I Cor. 11 has been that Paul is not talking about hair as a covering - he is discussing the need for a sign to distinguish between the sexes and their participation during public worship (vv.3-13 - this distinction is, of course, present in many of Paul's writings, like the end of I Cor.14), and when he introduces the natural distinction of hair (it has always been a fact, for example, that baldness primarily affects males) in vv.14-15, it is to illustrate that men and women are different, not to still discuss coverings. Yes, v.15 speaks of hair as a "covering," but this has been interpreted in the past (16th century Reformers) "To be a covering for her, and such a covering as should procure another." (Geneva Bible [1599] note on the verse). 

I agree that the sign can change from culture to culture; I disagree that the Church must follow the fashions and trends of its host culture.


----------



## Logan (Dec 12, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> But of course that is not the complete quote, and Calvin has more to say on the matter not only in his commentary but in his sermons upon the text.



Yes, which I've read (I own Skolnitsky's translation) and found inconclusive because of course he's preaching his sermons to his congregation in a particular context. But he is pretty clear here when he says "if [decorum] is secured, Paul requires nothing farther" and "Paul means nothing more than this". Even if Calvin isn't clear, Poole and Henry are also quoted above, in case you missed it. And many others could also be added.

If you guys will concede that the cultural view (i.e., that what is required is decorum and submission as the principle behind however it is manifested) is a legitimately Reformed view held by many respected Reformed historically, then we will have made great progress here and I'll be satisfied.


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 12, 2022)

Would you be comfortable to concede that a non exclusive psalmody position is legitimately Reformed? ..as Matthew Henry, et al, weren't for EP. 


Logan said:


> If you guys will concede that the cultural view (i.e., that what is required is decorum and submission as the principle behind however it is manifested) is a legitimately Reformed view held by many respected Reformed historically, then we will have made great progress here and I'll be satisfied.


----------



## Logan (Dec 12, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


> Would you be comfortable to concede that a non exclusive psalmody position is legitimately Reformed? ..as Matthew Henry, et al, weren't for EP.



Absolutely. I'd be glad to acknowledge that. It's historically true.


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> 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?


Hey, Jeri. The word translated _head covering _ refers to a veil/head scarf/cloth covering. I'd use the terms interchangeably (though I'm certainly no expert on women's accessories!).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> Yes, which I've read (I own Skolnitsky's translation) and found inconclusive because of course he's preaching his sermons to his congregation in a particular context. But he is pretty clear here when he says "if [decorum] is secured, Paul requires nothing farther" and "Paul means nothing more than this". Even if Calvin isn't clear, Poole and Henry are also quoted above, in case you missed it. And many others could also be added.
> 
> If you guys will concede that the cultural view (i.e., that what is required is decorum and submission as the principle behind however it is manifested) is a legitimately Reformed view held by many respected Reformed historically, then we will have made great progress here and I'll be satisfied.


Of course I agree there are varieties of opinions among the "Reformed giants." But as regards Calvin, I think his view is certainly not "summed up" by the selected quote Travis uses, as even the ellipses contain important qualifying information for his point in that brief quote. Where you say he is clear, he is speaking specifically of verse 4 in the context of the preacher exercising his funtion in public worship. I disagree that it is a summary statement of the entire passage/topic at hand.


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> Absolutely. I'd be glad to acknowledge that. It's historically true.


Perhaps its a matter of semantics then, as I would be inclined to think that Henry et al weren't as Reformed as they could have been, when it comes to things like EP (which I think is the legitimate, ie, biblical, Reformed position.. so non EP seems to me more illegitimate than legitimate ).


----------



## Logan (Dec 12, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Of course I agree there are varieties of opinions among the "Reformed giants." But as regards Calvin, I think his view is certainly not "summed up" by the selected quote Travis uses, as even the ellipses contain important qualifying information for his point in that brief quote. Where you say he is clear, he is speaking specifically of verse 4 in the context of the preacher exercising his funtion in public worship. I disagree that it is a summary statement of the entire passage/topic at hand.



I didn't use Travis' quote, I'm going directly to Calvin. He opens the passage in v 2 saying "He passes on now to another subject-to instruct the Corinthians, what decorum ought to be observed in the sacred assemblies." It is not restricted to a preacher. You say the comment on v 4 is restricted to the preacher but that doesn't comport with the phrase "Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the *man* has authority, and that the *woman* is under subjection." He's not limiting this to either a preacher or just men, but summing up the preceding discussion, or else why did he mention the woman? And what does the phrase "In fine, the _one _rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — _decorum_ If _that _is secured, Paul requires nothing farther" if Calvin is truly intending to defend the perpetual view? Wouldn't he have said "In fine, the one rule to be observed is that the women wear coverings and men don't"?

Calvin also appears to be of the mind that women should wear some kind of covering all the time, which is difficult to detach from his view on coverings in worship. But we should be careful to not read our own views into Calvin, and rather try to understand what he is truly communicating. If I've failed at that, by all means point it out, but be careful to not to read your own views into it.

Can you at least say that the other two quotes are clear and that this is _a_ historically reformed view?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 12, 2022)

TylerRay said:


> (though I'm certainly no expert on women's accessories!)


Hehe!


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> Can you at least say that the other two quotes are clear and that this is _a_ historically reformed view?



As to the quotes, Calvin himself said that even the preacher, though he doesn't need to be uncovered the whole time, it is sufficient if he takes his hat off at the beginning of the sermon, as a gesture and sign, and then puts it back on for fear of catching cold. So he seems to think that some sort of sign is necessary.

As for the last bit, oh I just don't know, is Neonomianism a historically reformed view? Is eternal justification a historically reformed view? Is hypothetical universalism a historically reformed view? There's been plenty of big name Reformed theologians that held all these views historically.. this is beside the point of the OP though.


----------



## Logan (Dec 12, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


> As for the last bit, oh I just don't know, is Neonomianism a historically reformed view? Is eternal justification a historically reformed view? Is hypothetical universalism a historically reformed view? There's been plenty of big name Reformed theologians that held all these views historically.. this is beside the point of the OP though.



Guess that answers that


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> I didn't use Travis' quote, I'm going directly to Calvin.


Sorry I assumed you did as it matched Travis's footnote down to the punctuation, including the ellipses.


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> Guess that answers that



Personally I think they're deviations from proper Reformed doctrine, despite being held by theologians within the Reformed tradition. Neonomianism especially is essentially another gospel.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 12, 2022)

Logan said:


> But we should be careful to not read our own views into Calvin, and rather try to understand what he is truly communicating.


I agree entirely.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 12, 2022)

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.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 12, 2022)

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."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 12, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> 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 (Dec 13, 2022)

@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).





__





Loading…






books.googleusercontent.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 13, 2022)

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

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 13, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


> 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.


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 13, 2022)

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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 13, 2022)

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?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 13, 2022)

Hugues Pierre said:


> @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).
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 13, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> 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 (Dec 13, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


> 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 (Dec 13, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 13, 2022)

Logan said:


> 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?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 13, 2022)

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?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 13, 2022)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 13, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 13, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


> 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 (Dec 13, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> 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 (Dec 13, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Dec 13, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> 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.



alexandermsmith said:


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



It's unbecoming to impugn my motives.


----------



## Logan (Dec 13, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> 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?


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 13, 2022)

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.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 13, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 13, 2022)

Logan said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 13, 2022)

alexmacarie said:


> 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## alexmacarie (Dec 13, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie (Dec 13, 2022)

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.

Reactions: Amen 1 | Wow 2


----------



## Logan (Dec 13, 2022)

lynnie said:


> 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 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 (Dec 13, 2022)

Logan said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 13, 2022)

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.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Hugues Pierre (Dec 13, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


Travis,

Thank you for your message. I attach here the PRDL link : http://www.prdl.org/author_view.php?s=100&limit=20&a_id=114&sort=

The relevant document is the first one : "_Paraphrase sur la première épître de l'apôtre S. Paul aux Corinthiens_".

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Alexander Suarez (Dec 13, 2022)

Hugues Pierre said:


> Travis,
> 
> Thank you for your message. I attach here the PRDL link : http://www.prdl.org/author_view.php?s=100&limit=20&a_id=114&sort=
> 
> The relevant document is the first one : "_Paraphrase sur la première épître de l'apôtre S. Paul aux Corinthiens_".


Here is the google books link: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=8PgOAAAAQAAJ&pg=GBS.PA150&printsec=frontcover

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 13, 2022)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> ...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...



Hi Ryan,

Thanks for your thoughts. As to seeking to revive head-coverings since they are in Scripture and have been in our culture (though I believe they are outdated in America), I address that rationale on pp. 96 & 264.

Blessings.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 13, 2022)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> 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.



Just because something is mentioned in the Bible does not mean it is perpetually binding in all ages and places. Some contributors to this thread, moreover, seem to have adopted a rather unsophisticated theological method. Pointing out that head-covering is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 does not, in and of itself, resolve the issue of whether or not it ought to be a perpetual and universal practice. Let us apply the simplistic approach to other subjects to demonstrate its weakness:

1) The Bible says, "Believe and be baptised." Ergo, infant baptism is wrong.

2) The Bible mentions "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." Ergo, exclusive psalmody is wrong. 

3) The Bible says, "My kingdom is not of this world." Ergo, the establishment principle is wrong.

Regardless of where you come down on these issues, I think that we can all agree that discovering the correct position on these subjects is not as simple as appealing to one text or passage of scripture. Instead, scripture must be compared with scripture if we are to properly understand the mind of God on any given theological topic. I was once of the view that women's headdress was a perpetual ordinance. Having spent further time comparing scripture with scripture, I came to the conclusion that I was mistaken and that whatever the head-covering mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 was, it was a variable and temporary institution. 

I am also not convinced that women wearing head-dress always display non-conformity to the world's standards. In many churches here, wearing hats was often an excuse for vanity and ostentation. I am not saying that was always the case, but sometimes it was.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 13, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Just because something is mentioned in the Bible does not mean it is perpetually binding in all ages and places. Some contributors to this thread, moreover, seem to have adopted a rather unsophisticated theological method. Pointing out that head-covering is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 does not, in and of itself, resolve the issue of whether or not it ought to be a perpetual and universal practice. Let us apply the simplistic approach to other subjects to demonstrate its weakness:
> 
> 1) The Bible says, "Believe and be baptised." Ergo, infant baptism is wrong.
> 
> ...


Thanks so much for the thoughtful answer. You have a lot of good thoughts!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 13, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Hi Ryan,
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts. As to seeking to revive head-coverings since they are in Scripture and have been in our culture (though I believe they are outdated in America), I address that rationale on pp. 96 & 264.
> 
> Blessings.


Thank you very much for pointing me to that. You are a good writer and that's good food for thought.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 14, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Just because something is mentioned in the Bible does not mean it is perpetually binding in all ages and places. Some contributors to this thread, moreover, seem to have adopted a rather unsophisticated theological method. Pointing out that head-covering is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 does not, in and of itself, resolve the issue of whether or not it ought to be a perpetual and universal practice. Let us apply the simplistic approach to other subjects to demonstrate its weakness:
> 
> 1) The Bible says, "Believe and be baptised." Ergo, infant baptism is wrong.
> 
> ...


Two can play that game though.

The Bible says “thou shalt not kill”. Now we know that in most ancient cultures, killing was frowned upon, so it’s possible Moses was giving a cultural injunction and not an enduring command. Now that the possibility is stated, the burden of proof is entirely on those who see the command as perpetual to prove that, and if they can’t prove it to my satisfaction (bearing in mind that I can bring forward “context” counter arguments to any argument that may be advanced), then that proves it’s a cultural injunction.

Repeat for any commandment, at least of the second table.

I should point out, the above is not my actual view, obviously, just for demonstration purposes.

Reactions: Amen 3


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 14, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am also not convinced that women wearing head-dress always display non-conformity to the world's standards. In many churches here, wearing hats was often an excuse for vanity and ostentation. I am not saying that was always the case, but sometimes it was.


That’s not a valid argument against the practice as a perpetual command. If some people obey the command externally but with a suspected faulty heart, then the command must not really be binding at all?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Northern Crofter (Dec 14, 2022)

With regard to #154 "Just because something is mentioned in the Bible does not mean it is perpetually binding in all ages and places. Some contributors to this thread, moreover, seem to have adopted a rather unsophisticated theological method." (quote function is not working for me at the moment):

I haven't really seen this simplistic approach in this thread. Those who are arguing for a perpetual command in I Cor 11 are linking it to the Biblical teaching that men and women are distinct from Creation and remain so through both the former and current dispensation of grace, especially, but not exclusively, during worship. They have also put forth the greater context of Paul's writings (I Cor. 14 and I Tim. 2 I believe have been referred to) and those of our spiritual (though uninspired) forefathers. I don't think anyone on this forum disagrees with a complementarian view of the sexes. I think very few would argue that this should not be visibly manifested in worship in some way. The disagreement here seems to be whether or not that sign (visible even to the invisible) is static (must be exactly what Paul referred to in I Cor. 11 - hair or a culturally-indexed material covering - a debate within the debate) or if it changes with culture (veil, shawl, hair bun, long hair, feminine dress, etc.).

Travis, I am still working through your book so forgive me if I simply have not gotten into it far enough, but do you, considering your book's claim that the covering in I Cor. 11 is some type of braided bun, at any point engage with the text of I Tim.2.9 where Paul forbids women (seemingly in the context of worship) to "array themselves in comely apparel, with shamefastness and modesty, not with braided hair."?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jie-Huli (Dec 14, 2022)

I took a step back from the discussion as I had not had time to look at Mr Fentiman's book. I have now read some of it and would make a few observations, as one who does believe that head coverings for women are perpetually binding.

There are a lot of different angles here on which one could focus, but I would focus in particular on the claims being made about how the issue has been viewed throughout church history. I focus on this not because this is dispositive to the issue; fundamentally, as with all things, it is the Scriptures themselves that are the final arbiter, and I would be comfortable arguing the point purely from the Scriptures. But the references to our historical forebears are clearly intended to carry emotional weight (particularly for the Reformed, who value our historical roots and spiritual forefathers) and, as I believe the view being given of this history in the book is quite one-sided, it deserves some further response. For example, starting on page 90 of the book there is a section entitled "On the Recent Rise of Perpetual Coverings", which is only 2 pages long (readers are pointed to other sources for more information) but which argues essentially that the view of head coverings being perpetual is a recent innovation due to popularisation by a few "modern figures", finding something in the text which previous learned theologians did not, which, it is said, should give us "some pause". I believe this is a lopsided view of history which does not bear up under scrutiny.

First, an acknowledgement: The record on how the passage has been interpreted historically is mixed. There are some writers and expositers whom I generally respect who have not written as clearly on the topic as one would wish, or who have, I believe, erred in some aspects of their interpretation - I have always been aware of this. It is unfortunate that the corpus of post-Reformation commentary on 1 Corinthians 11 does not speak with one clear voice. And it is true that there is a danger of selective quotation by supporters of head covering.

However, it is equally true that there is a danger of selective quotation by those arguing against perpetual head covering - it is a danger with any position, as our eyes go most immediately to what supports our view. And, on the head covering issue in particular, the danger is compounded by the fact that sometimes the commentators themselves need to be interpreted.

But to get to my main points:

There is ample evidentiary support for the proposition that the lead writers in the Patristic age (Chrysostom, Augustine, etc.) believed in the continuing requirement for head covering.
Coming to the reformation era, it is well documented that Martin Luther, for one, taught perpetual head covering. I notice Luther is not mentioned at all in Mr Fentiman's book (I am not sure whether Luther was addressed in any of the links provided in the book).
Calvin can be a little hard to nail down on this, but I certainly would not put him in the camp of those who think head coverings were entirely cultural and limited to that particular time and place. He does mention culture in the context of decorum etc. in his commentary. But (as discussed further below), that does not necessarily mean one does not believe in an abiding sign. Calvin argues that (in terms of men being uncovered) decorum is maintained if the minister removes his cap in the sight of the congregation and then puts it in again for fear of catching cold. That is not the argument one would make if he thought the instruction for men to be uncovered were simply a passing cultural practice no longer required; there would then be no need for the minister to remove his cap at all. And his statements about women’s head coverings are even clearer - I believe I have read everything he wrote on the subject and am not aware of him saying directly anywhere that the requirement for female head coverings was temporary. On the contrary, his strong statements affirming female head covering are well known, for example the following from one of his sermons: “So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature.“. This does not sound like someone who thought female head covering was just a temporary nod to what was deemed seemly in Corinth.
In the Post-Reformation era, although, as acknowledged above, the picture is more complicated, I certainly do not believe it is accurate to imply that viewing head covering as perpetual was unusual. I believe it can be shown that a wide variety of Puritans held this view - from non-conformists like John Bunyan (who was very clear on the topic, and again is not mentioned in Mr Fentiman’s book) to members of / commissioners to the Westminster Assembly (e.g. William Gouge and John Cotton, as well as David Dickson, I would say) to John Knox.
Even with respect to those who are brought forward to support the “cultural” view, I believe the picture is more complicated than the book sets out. In the first place, as Jeri and other have noted, there is not necessarily a contradiction between recognising interaction with culture, custom and decorum while also holding to the perpetual sign of a covering. I also think some of the interpreters cited and being pressed into a hardline position against covering that would have been alien to them. It is striking to note that, for many being cited in favour of the cultural view (people like Henry, Poole, the Geneva Bible notes), in speaking about aspects of the passage being a reflection of their time and place, they are focused primarily on the requirement for men not to be covered - NOT the requirement that women should be covered. Their comments on the female covering tend to be a more straightforward reading of the text as it is. So I am not at all convinced that what they said about culture was always intended to convey that any form of female covering was also simply cultural and has passed away. That is reading into them. Take Poole as an example; he does directly address the question of whether Christian women should still cover, but his answer doesn’t directly say that it is not necessary because the covering was just a temporary cultural practice; he believes that the passage as a whole was speaking to inspired prophetesses, and so since there are no more of those in the post-Apostolic era, the passage doesn’t address the practice for women generally at all. I don’t agree with him on that anyway, my point is just that he didn’t argue the way one might expect if he held a black and white cultural view on the entirety of the passage. I do not personally agree with those who think the injunction against male covering was merely cultural, but at the same time I do not think that those who came to this view _ipso facto_ believed the same with respect to the injunction requiring female covering. Much more of the passage deals with female covering and there are a variety of reasons given for it, so it is possible some viewed this as distinct from the former.
It is also hard to argue against the fact that female covering was predominantly in practice throughout this history (up until the 20th century), and I have not seen evidence that there was any argument by those supposedly holding the cultural view against this or drawing a fundamental distinction between this and what was done in Corinth.
More recently, names could be given of a number of other well-known Christians who believed in perpetual head covering - Charles Spurgeon, R.L. Dabney, Martin Lloyd-Jones, A.W. Pink. I do not say this to “name drop” and, indeed, their views decide the question no more than anyone else. I just mention it to further counter the insinuation in the book that the perpetual view is some quirky new idea from people who don’t know history and have just latched on to a novel movement. Even if you do not agree with it, it is only fair to acknowledge it has a more venerable pedigree than that.
All of the above should, I believe, give opponents of the practice "some pause" in asserting that holding to the perpetual view means "to worship God with a device of men, which God has prohibited by his Word" (p. 15 of the book), which is unwarranted.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 14, 2022)

Jie-Huli said:


> First, an acknowledgement: The record on how the passage has been interpreted historically is mixed. There are some writers and expositers whom I generally respect who have not written as clearly on the topic as one would wish, or who have, I believe, erred in some aspects of their interpretation - I have always been aware of this. It is unfortunate that the corpus of post-Reformation commentary on 1 Corinthians 11 does not speak with one clear voice. And it is true that there is a danger of selective quotation by supporters of head covering.
> 
> However, it is equally true that there is a danger of selective quotation by those arguing against perpetual head covering - it is a danger with any position, as our eyes go most immediately to what supports our view. And, on the head covering issue in particular, the danger is compounded by the fact that sometimes the commentators themselves need to be interpreted.



Thank you for this. This is all I had hoped to accomplish. I am not in any way opposed to the practice of covering. About half the women in our congregation do and I never once have tried to dissuade them or their husbands of it. It is not a sin for someone to wear a covering who is convicted of it. On the other hand, I often feel that many advocates (e.g., this thread) treat those who don't practice as blatantly disobeying an explicit command and even mock them as though their view just comes out of thin air. As though the only people who could possibly believe in a cultural view are under the power of "liberalism" and "feminism" and there can't possibly be any good reason for it, and that no Reformed person ever thought it from the time of the apostles to the 1900s.

If we can agree that it's complicated, that we are all trying our best to obey what we believe is the command, and that there are very godly and respected men on both sides of the interpretation, that the cultural and the perpetual view are both historical and reformed---in short, if we can debate the merits with _respect_ for each position and deal with the source material honestly and unbiased, then I'd be content.

As to Calvin, all of his comments on female coverings are clearly in his context that he believes them necessary for the entirety of a woman's daily life (at the very least in his day), not just worship, which makes it difficult to use him. However, his comments on the apostle requiring merely decorum should give one pause.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 14, 2022)

Logan said:


> Thank you for this. This is all I had hoped to accomplish. I am not in any way opposed to the practice of covering. About half the women in our congregation do and I never once have tried to dissuade them or their husbands of it. It is not a sin for someone to wear a covering who is convicted of it. On the other hand, I often feel that many advocates (e.g., this thread) treat those who don't practice as blatantly disobeying an explicit command and even mock them as though their view just comes out of thin air. As though the only people who could possibly believe in a cultural view are under the power of "liberalism" and "feminism" and there can't possibly be any good reason for it, and that no Reformed person ever thought it from the time of the apostles to the 1900s.


I think the fact we have reached (now) 162 posts in this thread illustrates that those of us who hold to head covering have been willing to engage with arguments put forward by the other camp and have not just dismissed your view as "liberalism". If you have found the nature of this discussion to be somewhat disagreeable or argumentative that might be because the thread was begun with a very confident assertion that head covering was a merely cultural practice that had no place in the church today. This coupled with linking to a work which contains very strong claims such as those of us who hold to head covering are intruding human tradition into the worship of God.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 14, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> ...
> The Bible says “thou shalt not kill”. Now we know that in most ancient cultures, killing was frowned upon, so it’s possible Moses was giving a cultural injunction and not an enduring command. Now that the possibility is stated, the burden of proof is entirely on those who see the command as perpetual to prove that, and if they can’t prove it to my satisfaction (bearing in mind that I can bring forward “context” counter arguments to any argument that may be advanced), then that proves it’s a cultural injunction.
> 
> Repeat for any commandment, at least of the second table.



Neil, your argument does not hold, for two reasons:

1. The Hebrew of the 6th Commandment is not "thou shalt not kill", but "thou shalt not murder." English translations are not always great.

2. Not murdering is part of the natural and moral law and therefore inherently perpetual. It does not have to be proven perpetual in Scripture because it is perpetually ingrained in the heart of man by nature, even if one does not have Scripture. Same with most of the 2nd table of the Law.

Head-coverings though, especially in worship, are not taught by pure-nature as I have proved in my book in detail, and are not written on the heart of man. As even the perpetual advocates here say it is a positive NT precept, so it must be proven from Scripture to be both positive and perpetual, otherwise one is going farther than Scripture.

Persons will note that my section on the Burden of Proof in my book is not special pleading. The criteria I lay out there has been standard reformed (and Confessional), hermeneutical doctrine, which applies to any and all doctrines and commandments. Everyone should agree on that.

I simply apply catholic doctrine and methods to the head-covering issue. I play by the rules, and thus persons everywhere may confirm what I demonstrate, not because it is my opinion, but because that is what the Word and nature bears out of itself, whoever looks at it (unless one goes against catholic doctrine and methods, or doesn't play by the rules of the Word and nature).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 14, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> Travis, I am still working through your book so forgive me if I simply have not gotten into it far enough, but do you, considering your book's claim that the covering in I Cor. 11 is some type of braided bun, at any point engage with the text of I Tim.2.9 where Paul forbids women (seemingly in the context of worship) to "array themselves in comely apparel, with shamefastness and modesty, not with braided hair."?


Thanks for the question Andrew.

Yes I do discuss 1 Tim. 2:9 and 1 Pet. 3:3, under two sections, on pp. 184-86 and 200-202.

I do believe I show that these passages are strong for the cultural, no-necessity-of-veiling view.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 14, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Neil, your argument does not hold, for two reasons:
> 
> 1. The Hebrew of the 6th Commandment is not "thou shalt not kill", but "thou shalt not murder." English translations are not always great.
> 
> ...


Travis, of course the argument doesn’t hold, that’s essentially my point, you cannot just disclaim burden of proof in the way you attempt to. I’m afraid your position with respect to burden of proof does seem to be special pleadings, despite your claims to the contrary. I know you can’t be convinced of this, and I’m going to leave it there (most of my interactions in this thread have gone unanswered anyway) - just pointing out that I don’t find your contention convincing.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 14, 2022)

Jie-Huli said:


> starting on page 90 of the book there is a section entitled "On the Recent Rise of Perpetual Coverings", which is only 2 pages long (readers are pointed to other sources for more information) but which argues essentially that the view of head coverings being perpetual is a recent innovation due to popularisation by a few "modern figures", finding something in the text which previous learned theologians did not, which, it is said, should give us "some pause". I believe this is a lopsided view of history which does not bear up under scrutiny.


Jie-Huli,

Thanks for taking the time to review parts of the book.

Though your representation of my section "On the Recent Rise of Perpetual Coverings" is not accurate. I do not argue there "that the view of head coverings being perpetual is a recent innovation".

Please, and this goes for everyone, please quote my material exactly. And then show how it is false or misconstrued, etc.

There has been a rise in the perpetual covering view (by number of publications) in the last several decades of last half of the 20th century. That rise is recent. I describe that recent rise in the perpetual head-covering view by means of its publications.

I never said nor implied that the view is a recent innovation, nor did I say that it was "due to popularization by a few 'modern figures'". There no doubt has been many causes beyond those figures, which is why I didn't say the things I didn't say.

Nor did I say they find in the text things which previous learned theologians did not. I affirm learned previous theologians have said such things. But what I point out is that the two most foundational recent writers didn't quote any, which gives the appearance that they were simply putting forth their own view or argument (which John Murray says).

Hence my representation of this history, for my point, was accurate insofar as it goes, and not lopsided.

Please, everyone, do not put words in my mouth that I deny (9th Commandment), but quote my book and interact with it for what it says in the context of the larger argument spelled out in the book (and hence with its intention, rather than someone else's intention).


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 14, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> ...the thread was begun with a very confident assertion that head covering was a merely cultural practice that had no place in the church today...



This is not true, and is denied in my book in several places. I do not argue against head-coverings simply, but against them as a formally religious and perpetual, trans-cultural rite.

They do have place in the church today if they are common circumstances of society and are part of the "some circumstances concerning the worship of God" that are to be ordered by the light of nature, Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word.

Everyone, please try to keep the 9th Commandment and quote from my book for things that you disagree with.

As another has said, I don't mind being a martyr for that which I believe, but I don't desire to be a martyr for that which I don't believe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mara (Dec 14, 2022)

This is my story, to God be the glory, I’m only a sinner, saved by grace.
As a handmaiden of the Lord, born in Wigtownshire. 
I saw as a child and heard as a child, witnessed, what a precious day, was our Sabbath.

church church bells rang, heralded the people to worship,
Walked quietly to church, my Great Grannie, with her shawl, my grandmother with her knitted hat and shawl, 
and my mother with her knitted hat and all with long hair.

A day of blessing within my ancestry.

Never were coverings talked about, it was a place of submissive humility, to exalt, and 

to worship in the beauty of holiness all women were covered.

By God’s grace, when the grace of God, and the wonder of irresistible grace tugged at my soul,

when confession of sin, and saving grace reached my being. 
When on my own, in my closet, I immediately knelt with a covering taken from our laundry, 
and wept, with such joy, at the work of grace taken place in my life.

That a thrice Holy God loved the world so much,

He gave His only begotten son,

as a propitiator,

My Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ my Redeemer, 

who rent the veil in two, and gave access to the throne of grace, 
where every prayer, of praise, every supplication, heard.

O what manner of love, the Father hath bestowed upon us.

loved by everlasting love, led, by grace, that love to know.

Heard, and answered by 
the Sovereign will of God, in His Sovereign way and time. 
Brings the act of submissive humility.

And, to cover,

For myself, and generation’s 
it is the biblical act taken when entering into worship and prayer,
Before a thrice Holy God, how precious is that,

ponder these things in your heart,


We are entering into that place of Worship and prayer. 

because God ordained, gave, His only begotten Son, as a ransom.

O for grace to love Him more.

Take the shoes from of your feet Moses, 

Elijah immediately used his garment to cover his face,

Abraham, lay prostrate.

the angels cry Glory, there wings cover the throne,

How precious, to look beyond the meaning of covering and tradition,

and the ideas of puny man, with every wind, in every generation.

Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith,

you would cover your whole body in that very presence,

a submissive cloak of humility and ever giving thanks, with reverence.

How precious to enter into these gates with praise, approach with joy, His court’s unto.

Clothed in the precious blood, and righteousness, of our Blessed Redeemer, 

who was faithful unto death,


The Lion of the tribe of Judah, who hath prevailed, we weep not.


Submissive and Subject to the will of God, through His inherent word, 
grasping the concept Holiness, without peace, and Holiness. 


to enter into worship, without covering, 

is like a naked act of disrespect,


to the King of King’s and Lord of Lord’s.


Being subject to God's will, being subject to husband ( Gen.3:16)

is a place of untold blessing,

to be submissive, subject to your Pastor and Elders,
is a place of depth of growing in grace in the Lord.

just some wee thoughts from this handmaiden

I pray no offence is given to anyone,

As we ponder these thoughts in our heart,

as you sup, with me, 

the wonder of wonder, that thrills our soul’s

is to know that God, the creator of heaven and earth, 

gave the greatest gift of love.

This is MY only begotten son, 

in whom I am well pleased,

our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ the Righteous.

who is a pardoning God like He,


We are loved, with everlasting love, 

led by grace that love to know.

let all that is within Me cry glory,

but, for the joy set before Him, ( we are that joy)

He endured the cross.

worship Him in the beauty of Holiness.


Mara.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Dec 14, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Thanks for the question Andrew.
> 
> Yes I do discuss 1 Tim. 2:9 and 1 Pet. 3:3, under two sections, on pp. 184-86 and 200-202.
> 
> I do believe I show that these passages are strong for the cultural, no-necessity-of-veiling view.


Thank you - I will check those out (I have not gotten that far yet).


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 14, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> This is not true, and is denied in my book in several places. I do not argue against head-coverings simply, but against them as a formally religious and perpetual, trans-cultural rite.
> 
> They do have place in the church today if they are common circumstances of society and are part of the "some circumstances concerning the worship of God" that are to be ordered by the light of nature, Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word.



_"Apart from female head-coverings being culturally decent or preventing scandal, they are unwarranted as a civilly positive, natural good for Christian worship. To use them nonetheless is, at best, to impute to them a natural good they do not bear; it is for a creature to claim to create goodness, which is impossible. That is a prerogative of the Creator and Author of All Good alone (Mk; 10:18; James 1:17). If head-coverings are used only for worship and not outside of it in a non-head-covering society, this is to de facto furnish them with a religious significance not given them of the Lord in Scripture or nature, and to de facto worship God with the tradition, imagination and device of men (WCF 21.1): “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt. 15:9). 

To believe that female head-coverings are religiously significant and necessary for worship when “Thus saith the Lord” has not gone before, is to impute a religious significance to them above their material nature, is superstition and the giving of religious qualities to the creation (Rom. 1:23–25), a form of idolatry.251 For a woman to wear a head-covering in public worship, out of principle, when none of the rest of the church does, is distracting, weird and may rightly induce suspicion. For the women of a whole congregation to wear head-coverings in a society that does not recognize them, to signify submission and decency, when they otherwise do not bear this connotation, is a stumbling-block to visiting Christians and unbelievers: “Will they not say that ye are mad?” (1 Cor. 14:23) It also detracts from the comfort of stronger Christians who know the truth and walk in it. “Their fear toward Me is taught by the precept of men” (Isa. 29:13). “When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand… Bring no more vain oblations” (Isa. 1:12–13)." p.95_

Your above qualification notwithstanding the section from your work which I have quoted makes strong accusations against those of us who hold to the necessity of head covering in public worship. Part of your argument against head covering is that it is not a common _general _practice in the West today and therefore those of us in the West who require it are "[furnishing] them with a religious significance not given them of the Lord in Scripture or nature, and to _de facto_ worship God with the tradition, imagination and device of men (WCF 21.1)" and "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men". You charge us with indulging in superstition and idolatry and creating stumbling blocks for our brethren.

It is clear from what you say in your work that you do not see a place for head covering in the church _at least in the West_. Therefore it is an ineluctable conclusion that these statements I have quoted are directed towards us, in the West, who do hold to head covering. I do not object to strong argument but I object to the claim that the heat is coming from only one side, which is the point I was making in the post you replied to.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Hugues Pierre (Dec 14, 2022)

Logan said:


> As to Calvin, all of his comments on female coverings are clearly in his context that he believes them necessary for the entirety of a woman's daily life (at the very least in his day), not just worship, which makes it difficult to use him. However, his comments on the apostle requiring merely decorum should give one pause.


In his commentary Calvin speaks about the relevance of head covering for woman in the church and in private meetings with "_gens graves_". This very remark seems to prove that this was not a widespread custom in his time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 14, 2022)

Hugues Pierre said:


> In his commentary Calvin speaks about the relevance of head covering for woman in the church and in private meetings with "_gens graves_". This very remark seems to prove that this was not a widespread custom in his time.



I'm referring to the context of his "exposing their breasts" quote referenced previously. I've have those sermons and have read them and he is saying it is appropriate to wear for all of life, he doesn't limit to just worship.


----------



## Hugues Pierre (Dec 14, 2022)

Logan said:


> I'm referring to the context of his "exposing their breasts" quote referenced previously. I've have those sermons and have read them and he is saying it is appropriate to wear for all of life, he doesn't limit to just worship.


I'm currently unable to check the quote. But even if Calvin supported a broader application of the head covering than most of us, it doesn't prove that this broader application was a custom in is time.


----------



## Logan (Dec 14, 2022)

Hugues Pierre said:


> I'm currently unable to check the quote. But even if Calvin supported a broader application of the head covering than most of us, it doesn't prove that this broader application was a custom in is time.



And I didn't say that...I only said that it is difficult to separate his view of this in worship from his view of this in every day life...


----------



## Jie-Huli (Dec 14, 2022)

Travis,

I have no intention of putting words in your mouth. If I mispresented your views on anything, I apologise. It is true that I did not use exact quotations of your book in my comments; what I wrote was what I honestly understood to be the thrust of the chapter I was referring to based on the words written, but I am happy to be told that this does not represent your views. Perhaps a bit of explanation will help clarify why I got this impression:

In the first place, the section I am referring to comes up in Chapter 7, "Church History". I understand that you have included various historical references in footnotes and links to other articles on your website throughout the book. But given this is meant to be such an extensive survey of the subject, I guess I expected there to be more substance to Chapter 7 - I thought this would be the place where you deal at length with how the practice has been viewed through church history, but there is just the one page on the "Early Church" and then the following section entitled "On the Recent Rise of Perpetual Coverings". The title of this section, comprising the whole of the direct discussion of "Church History" other than the one page on the early church in this chapter, certainly seems to me to be implying strongly that the perpetual coverings view is of recent origin (notwithstanding your explanation that all you meant was to critique the recent resurgence rather than suggesting the view itself was recent). Part of the issue is that there seems to be virtually no discussion at all in Chapter 7 of actual head covering practices throughout post-Reformation church history.

The first sentence of the section then says: "It is not the intention here to give a survey of the extent and development of female head-coverings in worship in the last few hundred years. For that, see the resources at ’On the Whole of History’ at ‘History of Head Coverings’ (RBO)." I went to the link to "On the Whole of History" on your site, but as far as I can see it does not have actually have any materials which speak about head coverings in Christian worship over the last few hundred years - all of the sources linked on that page seem to be about covering / veiling more generally in early antiquity (mostly with reference to pagan societies) - all interesting, but not directly about church history.

The section goes on to say: "Rather, a few, sparse, non-comprehensive notes will be sketched of reformed, published proponents of the perpetual head-covering position through the last several decades (working backwards), which should give adherents of that view some pause. It is true, a person may come to that position through the Bible (as near any position), as persons do in every age, but why they see certain factors in Scripture and not others, is often first due to the influence, not of their selectively quoted historical writers, but of modern figures who have popularized the position." After which you go on to critique the "modern figures" named.

It was particularly the last of the above quoted sentences that suggested to me an insinuation that perpetual covering was a position without meaningful historical support - "why they see certain factors in Scripture and not others". And the "selectively quoted historical writers" line seemed to be conveniently omitting that there are many historical writers who can be quoted quite accurately in support of covering. And then there was the "modern figures who have popularized the position", which (taken together with the title of the section) again seemed to be implying that the view has only recently been popularised.

There are other statements in your book which also seemed to be casting considerable doubt on the historical pedigree of the practice - for example, on page 7 you state that your view was the "dominant view of the reformed in the post-Reformation era" and go on to say in the footnote: "It was also the common view of the Lutherans and Romanists (as may be confirmed by their major writings) as well as most of the major Independents and Congregationalists. The perpetual head-covering view, apart from the occasional reformed divine . . . was mainly that of some establishment Anglicans and sectaries." It seems to me that one could easily read this and take away the impression that it was a quirky, minority view - which I do not think would be accurate in light of what I wrote in my earlier post.

Again, I am happy to be told I misunderstood what you are saying, but I am not sure I am the only person who would take away these impressions about the historical testimony from what you first wrote. You are obviously the one best placed to say what you believe.

I am content to have made the point that the testimony for head covering in church history is much stronger than what comes across (to me anyway) in your book, with support from a wide variety of "major" well-known figures, and I will leave it there.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Hugues Pierre (Dec 14, 2022)

Logan said:


> And I didn't say that...I only said that it is difficult to separate his view of this in worship from his view of this in every day life...


Ok. I thought you were saying that as an argument for reading Calvin as holding a form of bare cultural view of head covering.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 14, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> _"Apart from female head-coverings being culturally decent or preventing scandal, they are unwarranted as a civilly positive, natural good for Christian worship. To use them nonetheless is, at best, to impute to them a natural good they do not bear; it is for a creature to claim to create goodness, which is impossible. That is a prerogative of the Creator and Author of All Good alone (Mk; 10:18; James 1:17). If head-coverings are used only for worship and not outside of it in a non-head-covering society, this is to de facto furnish them with a religious significance not given them of the Lord in Scripture or nature, and to de facto worship God with the tradition, imagination and device of men (WCF 21.1): “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt. 15:9).
> 
> To believe that female head-coverings are religiously significant and necessary for worship when “Thus saith the Lord” has not gone before, is to impute a religious significance to them above their material nature, is superstition and the giving of religious qualities to the creation (Rom. 1:23–25), a form of idolatry.251 For a woman to wear a head-covering in public worship, out of principle, when none of the rest of the church does, is distracting, weird and may rightly induce suspicion. For the women of a whole congregation to wear head-coverings in a society that does not recognize them, to signify submission and decency, when they otherwise do not bear this connotation, is a stumbling-block to visiting Christians and unbelievers: “Will they not say that ye are mad?” (1 Cor. 14:23) It also detracts from the comfort of stronger Christians who know the truth and walk in it. “Their fear toward Me is taught by the precept of men” (Isa. 29:13). “When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand… Bring no more vain oblations” (Isa. 1:12–13)." p.95_
> 
> ...



I never in my book state or necessarily imply "head covering... is not a common general practice in the West today". I make no determination in my book of that matter, in the West, in America, or anywhere. That is something persons can recognize or not on their own, and hence must apply the principles accordingly.

My book is doctrinal, it does not state what anyone in their particular cultural circumstances should do, that is, whether head-coverings are sufficiently justified by their culture, or the light of nature, for use in their worship.

The beginning of my block quote qualifies everything that comes after it: "_Apart from female head-coverings being culturally decent or preventing scandal, they are unwarranted..." _If head-coverings are culturally decent in a given culture, I do not speak to that situation, and was careful in my book not to condemn any use of head-coverings in worship where they are culturally decent. Note also the quoted qualification "_when they otherwise do not bear this connotation". _When I said for a woman to wear a covering out of "principle", that, naturally, referred to the principle just mentioned, namely a religiously significant one. Many other such qualifications are used routinely throughout the book.

I say on p. 274: "Wearing head-coverings today in society, in private, family, social or public worship, by men or women is indifferent. It ought to be governed by what is decent and in order in our circumstances and society, in accord with Christian prudence and the Word’s general rules (WCF 1.6)." If head-coverings are sufficiently warranted in our culture by the light of nature, then by all means, let women wear them in worship.

Many puritan boarders have been arguing that head-coverings are culturally decent or otherwise justified in typical American culture. I do not address that at all in my book (though I have addressed it a bit on the PB, because others thought it a main issue, or were desiring it of me)_. _

A book to a general audience can only really deal with generals. There is no way I could have known about or addressed in the book every issue of conscience each puritan boarder has.

If head-coverings are not decent by the culture or justified by it or sufficiently warranted therefrom, then everything in my paragraphs you quote follows. And I proved in detail that it follows in my book.

"It is clear from what you say in your work that you do not see a place for head covering in the church _at least in the West_." This is not true, and I never say such in the book.

Again, for everyone, please do not read into my book things I do not say.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Dec 14, 2022)

Hugues Pierre said:


> Ok. I thought you were saying that as an argument for reading Calvin as holding a form of bare cultural view of head covering.


Hugues,

If you desire a collection of Calvin quotes on the topic, which I think are clear, see John Calvin in the Swiss section at 'Head Coverings in the Post-Reformation Era' (RBO).

Blessings friend.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 14, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> That’s not a valid argument against the practice as a perpetual command. If some people obey the command externally but with a suspected faulty heart, then the command must not really be binding at all?



I never said that it was; you have completely missed the point of my argument.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 14, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Two can play that game though.
> 
> The Bible says “thou shalt not kill”. Now we know that in most ancient cultures, killing was frowned upon, so it’s possible Moses was giving a cultural injunction and not an enduring command. Now that the possibility is stated, the burden of proof is entirely on those who see the command as perpetual to prove that, and if they can’t prove it to my satisfaction (bearing in mind that I can bring forward “context” counter arguments to any argument that may be advanced), then that proves it’s a cultural injunction.
> 
> ...



This post betrays serious confusion regarding the distinction between natural and positive laws, which is one of the issues that lie at the heart of this discussion. I think Travis has answered this point sufficiently to make any further comment from me superfluous. You have also misunderstood my argument. I came to the conclusion that the head-covering mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 was a matter of custom and decorum as a result of comparing that passage with others in scripture. According to our Confession of Faith, that is how we are to do theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 14, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> To believe that female head-coverings are religiously significant and necessary for worship when “Thus saith the Lord” has not gone before, is to impute a religious significance to them above their material nature, is superstition and the giving of religious qualities to the creation (Rom. 1:23–25), a form of idolatry.251 For a woman to wear a head-covering in public worship, out of principle, when none of the rest of the church does, is distracting, weird and may rightly induce suspicion. For the women of a whole congregation to wear head-coverings in a society that does not recognize them, to signify submission and decency, when they otherwise do not bear this connotation, is a stumbling-block to visiting Christians and unbelievers: “Will they not say that ye are mad?” (1 Cor. 14:23) It also detracts from the comfort of stronger Christians who know the truth and walk in it. “Their fear toward Me is taught by the precept of men” (Isa. 29:13). “When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand… Bring no more vain oblations” (Isa. 1:12–13)." p.95


Brother Travis, thanks so much for your care and good words you have written about the subject. You are definitely a gifted man. I'm glad someone else pointed this out, because last night as I read it, I was wondering if you might be coming down pretty hard on people that just want to be faithful to the Scriptures and different from you. Is it really idolatry for a true believer who sees head coverings as biblical? I wonder if this hard-line thinking creates more tension in the Church rather than peacefully respecting our differences.

Just a thought.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 14, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> This post betrays serious confusion regarding the distinction between natural and positive laws, which is one of the issues that lie at the heart of this discussion. I think Travis has answered this point sufficiently to make any further comment from me superfluous. You have also misunderstood my argument. I came to the conclusion that the head-covering mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 was a matter of custom and decorum as a result of comparing that passage with others in scripture. According to our Confession of Faith, that is how we are to do theology.


Ok, you appear to have misunderstood my argument too, and yes I am familiar with the difference between natural and positive laws, your patronisation notwithstanding. Perhaps I did misunderstand yours, though now I’m not entirely sure what your point was at all, if the fact that female head covering in worship is a positive command of God is germane to your view that it is not binding, I’m not really sure where to go from there.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 14, 2022)

Travis Fentiman said:


> I never in my book state or necessarily imply "head covering... is not a common general practice in the West today". I make no determination in my book of that matter, in the West, in America, or anywhere. That is something persons can recognize or not on their own, and hence must apply the principles accordingly.
> 
> My book is doctrinal, it does not state what anyone in their particular cultural circumstances should do, that is, whether head-coverings are sufficiently justified by their culture, or the light of nature, for use in their worship.
> 
> ...



Then I must confess to be at a loss as to what your argument actually is. In your first post you gave this as the conclusion of your argument: "That head-coverings are not perpetual, Part I has demonstrated to be by divine law, _jure divino_." How is this to be taken other than arguing that the practice of those churches where female head covering is required is wrong and unscriptural? And it is in response to that assertion I have been arguing. You say you have not spoken to the situation in the West but you certainly do, indirectly, when you say "Apart from female head-coverings being culturally decent or preventing scandal". Clearly in the West female head covering, in society as a whole, has effectively disappeared. The only conclusion one can draw, as I stated above, for those of us in the West who require head covering, is that we are intruding our own traditions into the worship of God. And you explicitly state, as I also quoted, that those who insist on wearing a head covering in a congregation where that is not the norm are wrong to do so.

The argument in this thread has been between those who believe head covering is a binding, perpetual command for the NT church and those who believe it was a cultural practice at the time of Paul and thus has no perpetual, binding, religious significance and should, therefore, be done away with. The latter is the inevitable conclusion of what has been argued in this thread (and of the portions of your work which I have read) whether you wish to acknowledge that or not. We who do not accept the cultural argument are, by definition, *not* arguing that _culturally_ it is permissible to continue the practice even if it no longer holds the meaning Paul gives it. We say that _regardless_ of the cultural practice of any given society at any given time head covering is required. Therefore it is not an answer to what I had said for you to say "I have not spoken to specific societies or to contexts where female head covering is a sign of decorum in _society at large_". You have spoken to these situations whether you have referred to them by name or not, or whether you wish to acknowledge you have done so or not. There is no other conclusion to draw from what I have read in your work, and what has been argued by you and Logan in this thread, than that those of us who require head covering- who are the only churches which have any practice of head covering (I know of no church nor any individual woman who wears a head covering merely because in that society it is the decent thing for a woman to do)- are going beyond Scripture and therefore engaging, as you explicitly argue, in superstition and idolatry.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Dec 14, 2022)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Brother Travis, thanks so much for your care and good words you have written about the subject. You are definitely a gifted man. I'm glad someone else pointed this out, because last night as I read it, I was wondering if you might be coming down pretty hard on people that just want to be faithful to the Scriptures and different from you. Is it really idolatry for a true believer who sees head coverings as biblical? I wonder if this hard-line thinking creates more tension in the Church rather than peacefully respecting our differences.
> 
> Just a thought.



If your post here is addressing Travis why have you quoted my post?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 14, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> If your post here is addressing Travis why have you quoted my post?


That's the same part of the book I read last night, so I quoted it from your post.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 14, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Ok, you appear to have misunderstood my argument too, and yes I am familiar with the difference between natural and positive laws, your patronisation notwithstanding. Perhaps I did misunderstand yours, though now I’m not entirely sure what your point was at all, if the fact that female head covering in worship is a positive command of God is germane to your view that it is not binding, I’m not really sure where to go from there.



My point, when replying to Ryan, was that those who reject the perpetual viewpoint do so on the basis of comparing scripture with scripture. Hence, those who keep arguing, "It's in 1 Corinthians 11" are being too simplistic. You seemed to miss that point entirely and jumped in with an argument claiming that we could apply the same logic about a specific requirement being cultural to the Decalogue. We cannot apply the same logic to the precepts of the Decalogue because everyone here is agreed that the Decalogue is universal, moral law. That is why your post betrayed confusion on this issue.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 14, 2022)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Brother Travis, thanks so much for your care and good words you have written about the subject. You are definitely a gifted man. I'm glad someone else pointed this out, because last night as I read it, I was wondering if you might be coming down pretty hard on people that just want to be faithful to the Scriptures and different from you. Is it really idolatry for a true believer who sees head coverings as biblical? I wonder if this hard-line thinking creates more tension in the Church rather than peacefully respecting our differences.
> 
> Just a thought.



I am not Travis, so I will answer this question on my own behalf: I do not believe that it is right to come down hard on someone who takes a different view on this issue. One very senior minister in the Irish RP Church once informed me that he told the women in his congregation who wore hats that while he disagreed with their interpretation of scripture, he respected them for taking scripture seriously and would not tolerate anyone being judgmental towards them.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 14, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am not Travis, so I will answer this question on my own behalf: I do not believe that it is right to come down hard on someone who takes a different view on this issue. One very senior minister in the Irish RP Church once informed me that he told the women in his congregation who wore hats that while he disagreed with their interpretation of scripture, he respected them for taking scripture seriously and would not tolerate anyone being judgmental towards them.


Lol, sorry I made that confusing. I know you're not Travis. I was just quoting your post of his book to address him, because I was hung up on the same part of the book, so that's why you were notified. I probably should have just quoted his book directly from the source. But thanks for your thoughts!

Reactions: Like 1


----------

