Thoughts on Head-Coverings?

[Hugues Pierre]

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.

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".

 

[Alexander Suarez]

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

 

[Travis Fentiman]

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seeking to revive head-coverings since they are in Scripture and have been in our culture (though I believe they are outdated in America), I address that rationale on pp. 96 & 264.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

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.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

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.

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

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

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?

 

[Northern Crofter]

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."?

 

[Jie-Huli]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.

 

[Logan]

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.

 

[alexandermsmith]

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.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

...
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).

 

[Travis Fentiman]

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]

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).

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]

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]

...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.

 

[Mara]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

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.

 

[Logan]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

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]

"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

...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.

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.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

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]

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]

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.

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.