Headcoverings

Status
Not open for further replies.
puritanhope

puritanhope

Puritan Board Freshman
“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.” WCF 1:6

Is it not interesting that the reference to this glorious statement includes as reference, the verse which says, “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” This statement, by virtue of the context of the Confession says that the covering for women is a general rule of the Word, which is always to be observed. Isn't that interesting?
 
puritanhope said:
“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.” WCF 1:6

Is it not interesting that the reference to this glorious statement includes as reference, the verse which says, “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” This statement, by virtue of the context of the Confession says that the covering for women is a general rule of the Word, which is always to be observed. Isn't that interesting?
Click to expand...

Yes, Thats very interesting. I didn't realize that was the referenced verse.:think:
 
The prooftext is 1 Cor. 11:13 &14, they are meant to be read as a unit.

In the confessional context, the text explicitly references "the light of nature." This is the proof from the Scripture that circumstances of worship (specific category of churchly behavior) and church government may be ordered by natural and Christian wisdom. So the Bible isn't going to give us detailed instructions on decorum or service hours, for examples.

I happen to think women should cover the head in worship, but I also think that's not what the confession's writers and those who added the proofs were thinking of when they were including this passage. Direction to wear a cover certainly wouldn't be a "general rule," but a very specific one, the general rule being that it is manditory that the church maintain dignity in worship--even nature teaches people to avoid shame.
 
Custom

sunetheia
from a compound of 4862 and 2239; mutual habituation, i.e. usage:--custom.

Mutual habituation...another words no OTHER custom like this...this is it.
 
Your analysis misses the point.
“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.” WCF 1:6
Click to expand...
The bolded section is that which the Scripture "proof text" is in reference to -- the Westminster divines considered 1 Cor. 11:13-14 an example not of an "expressly set down in Scripture" or even "deduced from Scripture" but rather a matter "common to human actions and societies." In other words, headcovering was the custom of that time, but not today. There is simply no other way to read the Westminster Confession in the light of where they placed the proof text -- and therefore the Confession ought to be read differently than expressed in the OP.
 
As I noted on the RPNA thread on this same topic, "That proof text is adduced as a place where the light of nature is mentioned in scripture to justify that we can even appeal to it. This says nothing about what the divines indivudally or as an assembly thought about headcoverings. And besides, Paul's appeal to the light of nature is secondary ('even nature teaches' etc.).:2cents:
 
Yes, the times have changed...sadly so. And thus many women would be done a service if once again reminded of their roles.

The covering subside "some", but has yet to be lost.
 
LadyFlynt said:
Yes, the times have changed...sadly so.
Click to expand...
I don't know about you, but I prefer living in pagan America to pagan Rome. The times have changed and we're the better for it. Thanks be to our Sovereign!
And thus many women would be done a service if once again reminded of their roles. The covering subside "some", but has yet to be lost.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with roles? You mean, like "kissing" the brethren with a holy kiss? Do you do this, too? Or footwashing? All these are lost customs. A lost custom is just that: lost.

None of these customs have to do with the moral law of God; they are not binding on believers. Why be so concerned with externalisms that do not profit? The law of God concerns the heart, not a piece of fabric on your head.
 
StaunchPresbyterian said:
I don't know about you, but I prefer living in pagan America to pagan Rome. The times have changed and we're the better for it. Thanks be to our Sovereign!

What does this have to do with roles? You mean, like "kissing" the brethren with a holy kiss? Do you do this, too? Or footwashing? All these are lost customs. A lost custom is just that: lost.

None of these customs have to do with the moral law of God; they are not binding on believers. Why be so concerned with externalisms that do not profit? The law of God concerns the heart, not a piece of fabric on your head.
Click to expand...


Is Paul not beginning a list of instructions in 1 Cor. 11 that have to do with properly ordering worship services? Paul never commanded holy kisses as an aspect of the worship service itself, merely as forms of greeting, so while you're right in saying that they may be lost customs, I don't see how those kinds of obscure references can be included in the same category as what Paul is dealing with in this chapter, especially considering that Paul appeals to the creation order in verses seven through eight to make his point.
 
CarolinaCalvinist said:
Is Paul not beginning a list of instructions in 1 Cor. 11 that have to do with properly ordering worship services? Paul never commanded holy kisses as an aspect of the worship service itself, merely as forms of greeting, so while you're right in saying that they may be lost customs, I don't see how those kinds of obscure references can be included in the same category as what Paul is dealing with in this chapter, especially considering that Paul appeals to the creation order in verses seven through eight to make his point.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. What I'm saying is in the context of the previous posts. In other words, the Westminster divines determined that the 1 Cor. headcovering passage was not simply instruction for worship, but a circumstance "concerning the worship of God" which was at that time "common to human actions and societies," much like "kissing the brethren" and footwashing. In fact, four times in four different epistles, Paul commands the saints: "Greet one another with a holy kiss" (a command, then, that by its very repetition seems more important than the headcovering). My argument, then, is not a biblical one, it is a confessional one (based on the way the Confession uses this proof-text). It seems to me that the "kissing" and footwashing were other customs that no longer apply to us today. If you're going demand headcovering and be consistent about the matter, I cannot see why you wouldn't "greet the brethren with a holy kiss" and practice footwashing, too. But, that would be a little strange, because these are not customarily how we greet and serve each other today.
 
The "light of nature" can only instruct with respect to "circumstances" of church worship or government that are "common to human actions and societies" (societies here could mean anything from cultures to clubs, but more likely closer to the latter--e.g. the meeting of the "SPCA" will meet at 10am).

So, the RPW continues to speak precisely and distincly to its subject.
 
I don't believe Paul was issuing a command that changed with the customs; however, we don't cover (that is, my wife).

We believe the covering was commanded to keep the roles in order during times when women did speak in worship services through various gifts of prophecy. Women are not to speak up to address the church during the service, but in the case of women who had the gift of prophecy and had to address the church they covered to show that they are still in submission even while speaking to the congregation.

If woman still had any reason to address the congregation today, then they ought to cover when doing so to show they still recognize headship. But being that the gift of prophecy is no more and we have the closed canon, women have no reason to address the congregation.


:2cents:
 
For me, tis a matter of obedience!!!

1 Samuel 15:22 - 23 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.


I wonder why people get upset at this ordidance, I wonder why it is so hard to just accept, as for our house, it is a matter of obedience and I for one love the symbol that so reminds me of God's order..and my place in His kingdom. For me, godly submission to anything the Lord has asked is protection, maybe some of us need more reminders than others, I am willing to be my Master's dumb sheep and just do as HE asks in those things that He's impressed upon our house! He gives meat in due season, I'm thankful for that. I would never argue with anyone not convinced of headcovering, but I know whom I believed and I don't have to worry that I need to pick what parts of the Bible are cultural, for me, not for me...I think the Holy Spirit brings us to truths that the Lord would have us know, I'll put my trust in Him rather than man any day! Simplistic maybe...but that's where I am in this matter. :2cents:
:handshake:

Psalm 118:8
Remembering man's chief end!
 
Well said, Grace. Trevour, you are correct that the headcovering doesn't mean a person is holy...but neither should that keep us from covering. However, I must say that your little jab was quite insulting. Yes SOME women choose to use a "doily"...many of us do not consider that an appropriate covering to start with. Most women who cover, do so fully.
 
trevorjohnson said:
LadyFlynt;


I think I probably view this issue more negatively because I am surrounded by it and see the fruits of outward religion (Islam) here that is lacking any internal grace. Doily, full-covering or not, a bit of cloth cannot cover a black heart.

I am thankful that this does not apply to those Reformed women who are trying their best to follow Scripture and relying upon grace alone for their salvation.
Click to expand...

Trevor,

If a woman thinks that her covering is covering her black heart, or her sins...the problem still doesn't lie with the covering...regeneration has nothing to do with covering...only the blood of Christ can do that work, by God's grace. But you knew that!! :amen:
Thank God that we don't have to view scripture through the eyes of those who would pervert God's Word. I should not observe the Lord's Table after having grown up in the R.C. church's counterfits of the Word of God. Satan is the great counterfitter...think of the first question he asked..."Did God say that?" He's still asking the same questions....there's nothing new under the sun!! I'm thankful I'm under the SON!!! Covered by His blood and washed and free to obey His every command!!!

Love ya Colleen!!

Trevor, may the Lord give you grace to see His Word, not throug the eyes of sinful man, but through His Word alone!!
In Jesus' love! :handshake:

Remembering man's chief end,
 
A strong distinction needs to be made between Christians vs Jews or Muslims that cover. The reasons for covering between them are totally different. Jews and Muslims that do cover, cover out of "modesty"...Christians do out of obedience to a command having to do with headship and order in the church. Trevour, I also see many women that cover that have the blackest of hearts. I don't let it stop me. My covering actually holds me above reproof in the situation I am in. I have been declared an unbeliever recently by a particular anabaptist...but he cannot say why (and yet they are teaching their children to lie, cheat, and steal...literally).
 
trevorjohnson said:
Come to where I live..there's lots of headcoverings here!:D Not a lot of rightousness though - except for the external kind.


And yes, I think that greeting one another with a holy kiss is in the same category.
Click to expand...

Trevor,

Could you qualify this statement? WHY should the holy kiss, which was merely a greeting, be put in the same category with rules for proper worship?
 
ChristopherPaul said:
I don't believe Paul was issuing a command that changed with the customs; however, we don't cover (that is, my wife).

We believe the covering was commanded to keep the roles in order during times when women did speak in worship services through various gifts of prophecy. Women are not to speak up to address the church during the service, but in the case of women who had the gift of prophecy and had to address the church they covered to show that they are still in submission even while speaking to the congregation.

If woman still had any reason to address the congregation today, then they ought to cover when doing so to show they still recognize headship. But being that the gift of prophecy is no more and we have the closed canon, women have no reason to address the congregation.


:2cents:
Click to expand...

:agree:

The principle of male headship is obviously eternal, but Paul gives in 1 Cor 11 the specific circumstance where the principle requires the action of a headcovering - a woman that prayeth or prophesieth (v5) in formal worship. I agree with Chris that the prayer and prophecy under consideration here is inspired prayer and prophecy that was part of the spiritual gifts that operated before the whole canon came togeather. I believe this interpretation is correct by Paul's use of the word 'prophecy' when in other places he is very able to use other words such as 'preach', 'exhort' etc. This is also the interpretation that avoids the contradiction of Paul giving rules to regulate something he would later forbid completely in 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 (ie women speaking in formal worship). While those two passages give us the general rule, I believe there was an exception made during the time of the apostles when women and men were given the gift of inspired prophecy, and it is primary these inspired women that Paul is regulating in 1 Cor 11.

I am aware that teachers like Calvin said that Paul was holding off his condemnation until chapter 14, but with respect, I see no reason to take that route when the one mentioned above fits much better.

:2cents:
 
satz said:
:agree:

The principle of male headship is obviously eternal, but Paul gives in 1 Cor 11 the specific circumstance where the principle requires the action of a headcovering - a woman that prayeth or prophesieth (v5) in formal worship. I agree with Chris that the prayer and prophecy under consideration here is inspired prayer and prophecy that was part of the spiritual gifts that operated before the whole canon came togeather. I believe this interpretation is correct by Paul's use of the word 'prophecy' when in other places he is very able to use other words such as 'preach', 'exhort' etc. This is also the interpretation that avoids the contradiction of Paul giving rules to regulate something he would later forbid completely in 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 (ie women speaking in formal worship). While those two passages give us the general rule, I believe there was an exception made during the time of the apostles when women and men were given the gift of inspired prophecy, and it is primary these inspired women that Paul is regulating in 1 Cor 11.

I am aware that teachers like Calvin said that Paul was holding off his condemnation until chapter 14, but with respect, I see no reason to take that route when the one mentioned above fits much better.

:2cents:
Click to expand...

:candle: AIAIAIAIAI!!!! Now you've done it, you've made the Italian in me come out...I think Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was perfectly capable of making distinctions if he wanted to...but you know...once again...I'm not here to argue anyone into this...as for me and my house...says my hubby!! And that's good enough for me!
Shalom!
 
lv1nothr said:
:candle: AIAIAIAIAI!!!! Now you've done it, you've made the Italian in me come out...I think Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) was perfectly capable of making distinctions if he wanted to...but you know...once again...I'm not here to argue anyone into this...as for me and my house...says my hubby!! And that's good enough for me!
Shalom!
Click to expand...

Well, I'am not here to argue either, but just let me say this;I do agree (if I understand what you are saying correctly) that the Holy Spirit is capable of making distinctions, but sometimes the distinction is understood by looking at other places in scripture and may not be explicitly stated in the same passage. Its the same way we understand the distinctions made in things like do not kill, do not judge, do not worry, do not look at wine etc etc.

:2cents:
 
For reference I'll post the scripture for the "cultural" arguments sake:

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6For 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.
7For 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.
8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.​

In chapter 11, Paul is teaching propriety in worship. He goes on to expound and even give illustrations of why what he is saying is true. He specifically appeals to creation (not to the wicked culture) and the authority of the man (among other examples) in order to convince the Corinthians (and the gainsayers in v.16). Paul, by the Holy Spirit, also mentions angels. Note, too, this doctrine taught by the Holy Spirit is sandwiched between (ch.10), warnings against idolatry, including doing things to the glory of God, and teaching on the Lord's Supper further in chapter 11.

Five chapters later, Paul says, “All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.”

Question for the “cultural” side: Do you mean to tell us that by looking at these sections of scripture, it is fair to propose you can put Christian head covering in the same category of an Apostle sending a greeting to someone? Seriously? And the reason given is the Apostles send greetings to different people on 4 different occasions? :candle:

Again, Paul doesn't appeal to “pagan Rome” in order to set right the things of God. Rather, to creation. He says (paraphrase), "Because woman was made for man (not the other way around) she should have an outward symbol [in Christian worship] of 'power' on her head." He didn't say" Because of this bloodthirsty pagan government, and its debased people you Christian women should be similar so as not to offend." Please.

Let's stick with the exposition of the text then we can move on to possible reasons why we may be misunderstanding the breathed-out word of God.
 
Thank you, Chris.

Graziella, quella scheda siciliana ha bisogno dei limiti!

Trevour, Q1, It shows in scripture where it is commanded specifically for assembly (and for us this includes family devotions as well)...however, there are a list of reasons that I will not go into right now why many women wear it not only then, but also when going out and about...let's just start with "because my husband requested that I do".
Q2, (how much material, how much covered)...this is where ppl walk the fine line of principle vs your "list of detailed, legalistic rulings". Some groups, it has to be a certain material, a certain length, a certain amount covered, a certain colour, etc. Many times these groups are so legalistic that it's not a just "you have to do it this way", but also a "if you go beyond our standards...gasp!". The principle is that the head (not face) is to be "fully" covered. Some will let their hair hang and not cover all the hair, but will cover the head. Some will let it hang and wear a long enough covering to cover all the hair. Many will simply put their hair up and will fully cover their head and coif. Colour doesn't matter...what is available?...scripture doesn't dictate size, colour, style. I wear a variety as long as my head is fully covered and it is recognizable as a religious covering. There are also women that wear hats (the kind that do cover the head, not just sit upon) and doilies (which I personally avoid because they sit like a decoration upon the head rather than "fully cover"). I will not go out of my way to criticize someone who is wearing a "doily", because they may either be new to covering or that may be all they are comfortable with at the moment. In discussion, I will bring up my reasons for my manner of practice. I have seen all varieties of covering in the PRC and FPC...I applaud the presence of the practice of principle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top