JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
If I could "Amen" this a thousand times, I would
Thoughts on Head-Coverings?
- Status
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.
. 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.
Was not focused on that fact!!Give people a chance, Jeri. The book was only released two days ago!
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.
Travis Fentiman
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Jake
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
Travis Fentiman
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Last edited:
Travis Fentiman
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
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?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Jie-Huli
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I think you'll find that's not the case at all.
Jie-Huli
Puritan Board Freshman
For clarity, which part of my quoted text are you referring to?
chuckd
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Cancelled Commissioner
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)
Travis Fentiman
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
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)?
chuckd
Puritan Board Junior
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.
Last edited:
Jie-Huli
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
Hugues Pierre
Puritan Board Freshman
@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
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
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.
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.
Travis Fentiman
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
(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.
#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.
Travis Fentiman
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Last edited:
Travis Fentiman
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
- Status
