Thoughts on Head-Coverings?

[Ryan&Amber2013]

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

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

Just a thought.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

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

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

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.

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

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

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

Just a thought.

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

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

Just a thought.

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

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

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

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