# Headcovering and women prohibited from preaching.



## Piano Hero (Nov 30, 2014)

Hi all,

In regards to headcovering, I've had the belief that it's a cultural practice, and not applicable today. But lately I've been giving it another thought, and while I still lean towards that belief, I'm not 100% convicted of it. However, there's a few other issues that seem to me even less easy to decipher. 

All my life, I've understood and believed that women shouldn't be pastors/preachers, because of 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34. But then I thought about, in relation to headcovering, why may one apply, but not the other?

Now, of course, if you believe that headcoverings are still to be worn in these days, this question will mean something different. So I would ask those who believe that headcoverings are cultural...why then are women not allowed to preach? How is it determined that rule is still relevant, whereas the headcovering is cultural?

Also, from what I've understood, headcovering was done to show a wife submitting to her husband. Not all women submitting to all men. So does that mean that, if women aren't allowed to preach, that women really are submitted to man, regardless of whether they're married or not?

(I've searched "headcovering" on this site, but I couldn't find a link that quite answered my question, and many of the articles/resources posted on those threads are now defunct, so I can't read what was written. But if there's a thread I've missed that answers what I'm asking, please feel free to link to it.)


----------



## Dearly Bought (Nov 30, 2014)

Hi Breanna,
First, I pray that the Lord may richly bless your desire to live in faithful accordance with the teaching of His Word. I do believe that you are correct to recognize a link between the egalitarian exegesis of passages related to women in church office and the similar manner in which many treat the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11 as merely "cultural." The practice should not be restricted to married women any more than the restriction from public teaching. The practice is grounded in the creation order (as with the restriction on teaching) and is not presented as though it signified the marriage covenant. There is a general creation order principle of male leadership presented here, although this does not make every woman subject to every man as to her husband.

For further resources, I would recommend:

the helpful website of The Head Covering Movement
The Headcovering in Worship (book) by Rev. David Lipsy.
Sermons on Women's Headcovering in 1 Cor. 11 (Part 1, Part 2) by Rev. David Silversides


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 1, 2014)

These threads might contain something of an answer to some of your questions (or assumptions to some of your questions)?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/cover-not-cover-question-83413/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/ha...omparing-1-corinthians-11-6-11-14-15-a-83538/


----------



## TylerRay (Dec 1, 2014)

Piano Hero said:


> Also, from what I've understood, headcovering was done to show a wife submitting to her husband. Not all women submitting to all men. So does that mean that, if women aren't allowed to preach, that women really are submitted to man, regardless of whether they're married or not?



Headcoverings show, as Bryan noted, a general principle about the roles of men and women in society (_not_ that every woman is to submit to every man). If you look at the various governments God set up in the world (i. e., family government, church government, and civil government), you will see that male leadership is the general rule. In church government, it is prescribed and cannot be deviated from. In family and civil government, it is the preferred system, and any deviation from it reveals a brokenness, as in the case of single mothers or of Deborah.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Dec 1, 2014)

Not so simple. Headcoverings may be an aspect of culture, but nature and angels are also appealed to by Paul in such discussions. The appeals to nature and appeals to angels suggest something in some sense more than cultural. I think the key is not so much the hat but appropriate submission. Because of the angels a woman should have the sign of authority on her head.

I would not extrapolate hats being cultural to a conclusion that woman pastors or elders being merely cultural, ( Paul does refer to a woman toward the end of Romans as being a deacon in a particular church. A deacon is more ministering with a purpose of physical needs and the oldest Baptist confessions allow women deacons. ) If a church had a special minister to women who was a woman, or a special minister to youth who was a woman she should still be under the authority of others.... but so should we all... I would probably title her something like 'minister to women' or 'youth minister' but I would say male leadership is normative and in the Old Testament women prophets or judges the exception rather than the rule. A woman missionary might act in more of a leadership role for a time in a place but that isn't normative and probably a transition.

However.... women might not be pastors but they are priests as all believers are in 'the priesthood of believers' and 
the spirit poured out on women as well as men “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;


----------



## Jack K (Dec 1, 2014)

Breanna,

If I read you right, the heart of your question is not the appropriateness of headcoverings today but rather the difference (if any) between the instruction about headcoverings and the instruction about who may preach. One big difference is that headcoverings in worship is directly addressed in only one Bible passage (1 Cor. 11).

Since a chief way we intrepret Scripture is by looking at other Scripture, this makes the headcoverings passage a more difficult one to interpret than some other passages might be. We're left less sure than we might otherwise be about whether the application is particular to the Corinthian church or is for all times and places. The case for male leadership and preaching in the church, on the other hand, is directly addressed by Paul in both passages you cited and also has a wealth of other supporting evidence throughout Scripture.

So... since a huge rule of biblical interpretation is to look at other Scripture, the "rules" may not seem to work out quite the same for these two issues. And certainly, you don't want to take the issue that is _less_ clear in Scripture and only mentioned once and let your understanding of that issue drive your interpretation of the issue that is discussed _more_. Thus, whatever you conclude about headcoverings should not drive your thinking about women preachers. If anything, it should work the other way around.


----------



## MW (Dec 1, 2014)

Piano Hero said:


> Now, of course, if you believe that headcoverings are still to be worn in these days, this question will mean something different. So I would ask those who believe that headcoverings are cultural...why then are women not allowed to preach? How is it determined that rule is still relevant, whereas the headcovering is cultural?



I would say they are cultural and relevant.

The argument of the apostle is that the woman would have to take off her covering in order to pray or prophecy, and to take off the covering would be a shame for her. The unspoken conclusion is that the woman should not pray or prophesy in the assembly where men are present. This ultimately leads to the expressly stated conclusion in chap 14 that the woman should be silent.

If this is accepted as the sense of the passage, then it is normal for women, when appearing in the combined assembly of men and women, to wear the covering as a sign that man is the head of woman as Christ is the head of man. The woman's head is visible; she therefore has a visible covering. The man's head is not visible; he therefore has no visible covering


----------

