To cover or not to cover... that is the question

[Tim]

When I visited church as a new Christian, I wondered why "all the women had napkins on their heads." I meant no insult. I didn't understand. It can make visiting or new Christians or non-Christians confused, perhaps feeling left out. But then again, if it is God's will, that does not matter. Perhaps it is appropriate to feel left out, in that sense.

I can understand how that would be strange. I have met people a few times who use that style ["napkins"]. It is slightly off topic, but I think that one should take care to not look strange. I mean no disrespect to any women on the PB who might use that kind of style, but I think that there alternatives that can be a better choice. For example, I once attended Joel Beeke's church in Grand Rapids, MI. In the congregation there was widespread covering of the head by the women. They wore hats. The hats were stylish, yet modest. I liked that and actually found this quite attractive (in an appropriate way, of course).

Remember the TV show Blossom, from the 90s? People liked those hats, I think.

Another example is modest dress. One can dress modestly but do it so poorly that it draws attention and becomes a distraction. This defeats the purpose and presents a big obstacle that outsiders must overcome: "If I become a Christian, will I have to dress like that?"

Let us work towards a church culture that promotes modest, appropriate, and stylish clothing and headcoverings (during worship) for the women. Let us also promote modest and respectable clothing and good grooming for the men. These are important for many reasons, but my point here is that we don't become a hindrance to outsiders when we don't have to.

 

[au5t1n]

Ministers are the messengers to the churches. The minister and or pastor is NOT the head of any wife in that church. This is scriptural, for her head is her husband. This removes the woman from the pastors domain and sets her in her husbands domain.

Care must be taken here. Every member of the church is under the ecclesiastical authority of the Session. The husband is a wife's head in the family, yes, but the Elders are both of their authorities in the church, just as the civil magistrates are both of their authorities in civil government.

I am not sure from your wording that you were necessarily saying otherwise, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify. I have seen pro-head covering ladies (and I'm for it myself) say things like, "My Pastor has no authority over me; only my husband does," which is not correct because it confuses two different types of authority.

I suspect I may just not have fully understood what you meant and misinterpreted. Please let me know if I missed it completely.

 

[Cymro]

Alex has quoted Murray's article which shows the impropriety of women prophesying
or teaching, when Paul also teaches that women ought to desist from having that authority
and to keep silence in the church. Rhetorically and logically Paul poses the issue, and shows that if women
were to do so then they would have to remove the covering, as they would be functioning with authority as
the man. Murray also points out that there are two coverings mentioned, the hair and the covering over the
hair which he proves from the text.
If I were to attend a worship service or enter the pulpit wearing a hat, then that would contravene Paul's teaching
here and dishonours my head,ie,Christ. Similarly a women uncovering her head dishonours her head ie, the man.
Paul shows how the fall has disorganised the order of creation, and is reasserting the subordination not of the sexes,
but their roles. By an outward symbol he establishes the biblical truth. The form of covering, whether a veil, hat or
a form of handkerchief is immaterial as long as it hides her glory and shows her submissiveness to the authority of
God. Being abroad I have not the article to hand.


,

 

[inactivemember125]

Ministers are the messengers to the churches. The minister and or pastor is NOT the head of any wife in that church. This is scriptural, for her head is her husband. This removes the woman from the pastors domain and sets her in her husbands domain.

Care must be taken here. Every member of the church is under the ecclesiastical authority of the Session. The husband is a wife's head in the family, yes, but the Elders are both of their authorities in the church, just as the civil magistrates are both of their authorities in civil government.

I am not sure from your wording that you were necessarily saying otherwise, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify. I have seen pro-head covering ladies (and I'm for it myself) say things like, "My Pastor has no authority over me; only my husband does," which is not correct because it confuses two different types of authority.

I suspect I may just not have fully understood what you meant and misinterpreted. Please let me know if I missed it completely.

I certainly agree with you. I do believe that with both husband and wife in due order under due counsel is the best case scenerio.
However, the woman is of course under her husbands authority and no other male. She has the authority of her husband upon her. She represents him in the world and modesty is key and crucial to this life of representing him.
Because of serious crimes done to me in places called a church but was in fact an abusive, criminal cult, extreme and defiant 'church' I find great great comfort in my husband as my head. I find it problematic when ministers fight to get the head covering off any wife. Its like they dont want her to be who God ordained her to be, a helper to her own husband obedient to his way of life, and he her defense and stalwart strength in this life. To be ready to defend her against spiritual wolves and abusers and users. This would be the most ideal situation. I do agree with you.

I also wanted to note that when I was practicing headcovering and doing the scripture not merely studying and talking of it. I learned that by covering my hair, I learned to cover my mind. I became quieter and more comfortable. I talked less and kept silence more easily. There is something to the practice of it in order to know the doctrine. try it.

 

[inactivemember125]

1 Cor. 11
3But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Jn. 4:16 Jesus said to her, Go, call your husband, and come here.

 

[Abeard]

Ministers are the messengers to the churches. The minister and or pastor is NOT the head of any wife in that church. This is scriptural, for her head is her husband. This removes the woman from the pastors domain and sets her in her husbands domain.

Care must be taken here. Every member of the church is under the ecclesiastical authority of the Session. The husband is a wife's head in the family, yes, but the Elders are both of their authorities in the church, just as the civil magistrates are both of their authorities in civil government.

I am not sure from your wording that you were necessarily saying otherwise, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify. I have seen pro-head covering ladies (and I'm for it myself) say things like, "My Pastor has no authority over me; only my husband does," which is not correct because it confuses two different types of authority.

I suspect I may just not have fully understood what you meant and misinterpreted. Please let me know if I missed it completely.

I certainly agree with you. I do believe that with both husband and wife in due order under due counsel is the best case scenerio.
However, the woman is of course under her husbands authority and no other male. She has the authority of her husband upon her. She represents him in the world and modesty is key and crucial to this life of representing him.
Because of serious crimes done to me in places called a church but was in fact an abusive, criminal cult, extreme and defiant 'church' I find great great comfort in my husband as my head. I find it problematic when ministers fight to get the head covering off any wife. Its like they dont want her to be who God ordained her to be, a helper to her own husband obedient to his way of life, and he her defense and stalwart strength in this life. To be ready to defend her against spiritual wolves and abusers and users. This would be the most ideal situation. I do agree with you.

I also wanted to note that when I was practicing headcovering and doing the scripture not merely studying and talking of it. I learned that by covering my hair, I learned to cover my mind. I became quieter and more comfortable. I talked less and kept silence more easily. There is something to the practice of it in order to know the doctrine. try it.

Thanks Patricia this has been helpful for my wife

 

[kvanlaan]

I am also wrestling with this - all the study I have done on it really doesn't give any wiggle room; I don't know how to read the passage without coming to the conclusion that it requires a woman to wear a covering above and beyond her hair. As for the hair being the covering, there is the peribolaion/katakalupto distinction that really doesn't allow for the hair to be the covering. And yet it is something that is only sporadically practiced in our congregation (maybe 4 or 5 women in the church, all over 50) so the social pressure to not cover is unfortunately also present.

 

[Scottish Lass]

so the social pressure to not cover is unfortunately also present.

I know this is all too present and real, and it saddens me. For that I have no advice; I went from visiting a church that practiced covering, to covering while I was there, to Tim's current church. Since I already covered before we came here, I didn't have that awkward period of not covering one Sunday and then beginning, if that makes sense. One other woman in our congregation covers, plus our daughter. We also had a visiting family today where the wife covered.

 

[MichaelNZ]

When I visited church as a new Christian, I wondered why "all the women had napkins on their heads." I meant no insult. I didn't understand. It can make visiting or new Christians or non-Christians confused, perhaps feeling left out. But then again, if it is God's will, that does not matter. Perhaps it is appropriate to feel left out, in that sense.

I can understand how that would be strange. I have met people a few times who use that style ["napkins"]. It is slightly off topic, but I think that one should take care to not look strange. I mean no disrespect to any women on the PB who might use that kind of style, but I think that there alternatives that can be a better choice. For example, I once attended Joel Beeke's church in Grand Rapids, MI. In the congregation there was widespread covering of the head by the women. They wore hats. The hats were stylish, yet modest. I liked that and actually found this quite attractive (in an appropriate way, of course).

Remember the TV show Blossom, from the 90s? People liked those hats, I think.

Another example is modest dress. One can dress modestly but do it so poorly that it draws attention and becomes a distraction. This defeats the purpose and presents a big obstacle that outsiders must overcome: "If I become a Christian, will I have to dress like that?"

Let us work towards a church culture that promotes modest, appropriate, and stylish clothing and headcoverings (during worship) for the women. Let us also promote modest and respectable clothing and good grooming for the men. These are important for many reasons, but my point here is that we don't become a hindrance to outsiders when we don't have to.

In traditionalist Roman Catholic churches and some Eastern Orthodox churches you will see women wearing veils or headscarves. I know that before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) Canon Law required RC women to cover their heads in church. I've read about women using tissues or other improvised headcoverings if they didn't have a proper one back then.

As for the issue of headcoverings, I'm a bloke and so it doesn't apply to me.

 

[inactivemember125]

I remember when I was further into covering my hair. I remember I began to view my hair just the way I would view the rest of me that I normally covered. To remove the covering felt like removing clothing. This is the idea I felt in me, that of a modesty that was birthed from the practice of wearing it. No one agonizes over covering the rest of their body. However, it is an agony to know if its appropriate to cover ones hair today or not. Considering, that it was the women's liberation from the 1960's onward that got the wheels rolling on not wearing coverings, its not a very good argument that we ought not to cover just because no one else does it in the world. Social pressure is huge. It can be very weighty. The last time I wore a head covering was when I went to an Assembly of God church with my husband and that day, the minister from the pulpit actually preached against it. I believe he noted me in the head covering and decided to preach against it. he mocked it as an old fashioned idea that needed to go. I do so disagree. I believe we have liberty of conscience, and I believe what Martin Luther knew, that his conscience is bound by the Word of God.

If you do a search online of information, you can see women's head coverings from the early church through historical records of pictures, paintings and art that constantly depict women wearing head coverings. Then you arrive to the years of 1960s and you see hats merely, then the hats disappear.

Modesty is tied to the actual practice of wearing the head covering. However, modesty can also be grown within one without the head-covering. Covering ones head has to do with a boundary, in my experience. It has to do with an inward attitude that comes from within of quietness and gentleness and modest attitude. This the world around us scorns at with all due vehemence.
The world sees things that are gentle and modest and meek as something to be scoffed at. Remember we are not called to sit in the seat of the scorners.

All that it means to me personally as a woman is that what is important is to remember what is most important, the essential of faith and the essential of the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
All forms without content are meaningless. Christians who are Sola Scriptura , like Martin Luther, believe their conscience is bound by Scripture. Forms of piety should be outwardly what is going on inwardly or they are a waste of time and energy.

 

[Abeard]

I am also wrestling with this - all the study I have done on it really doesn't give any wiggle room; I don't know how to read the passage without coming to the conclusion that it requires a woman to wear a covering above and beyond her hair. As for the hair being the covering, there is the peribolaion/katakalupto distinction that really doesn't allow for the hair to be the covering. And yet it is something that is only sporadically practiced in our congregation (maybe 4 or 5 women in the church, all over 50) so the social pressure to not cover is unfortunately also present.

There are not many people in the Reformed churches in Ontario that practice it from what i've seen. As Pratricia said sometimes you just have do it and the Lord will bless.

It is difficult to know how convinced we need of a command/doctrine before we practice it.

 

[Marrow Man]

I am truly thankful that we have an example of a thread on the PB that has the potential to be divisive, and yet those posting to this thread have handled this issue with grace and understanding. This is truly an example of brothers and sisters helping one another, while doing so in a humble spirit of submission to the Holy Scriptures.

 

[kvanlaan]

It is difficult to know how convinced we need of a command/doctrine before we practice it.

But that's just it - I feel very conflicted on this (not unlike Bill, with his trodden toes) because I was not raised with it, my mother never practised it, my wife's mother never practised it (they were Southern Baptist), and it is something rapidly falling out of practise altogether. But I can't seem to get around it; I don't know how to ignore it, because the deeper I go in the study thereof, the more I see of it. Has the majority of the church been wrong for over 1900 years? And then right about it since the '60s? I'm just not sure which way to go in this matter. I think thus far I've been able to ignore it because I've been able to view it as an item of sanctification that neither my wife nor I have been very convicted about (or when I am, it passes, and fairly quickly).

 

[inactivemember125]

if we stop and consider the advancement of women's dress lengths over time. its only in the modern era that we see skirts going from floor length to above the knee length today. the underlying truth is the fruit of modesty. Wendy Shalit (Jewish) in her book, "A Return to Modesty" opens up vast information of how modesty has been derailed.
A meditation and study about modesty is important, but we need examples of it. Todays modern Christian celebrity on TBN are women who are glamorous, not modest in the least. The impact of Christian TV on how women perceived themselves in Christian life, is, I personally feel big impact.
What is modesty?
In wagon day times, I have an opinion it was humiliating for women to be seen with short skirts or even in men's clothing. However, no one thinks it alarming to see that today, and there are very few women who feel ashamed for wearing slacks, or even knee length shorts.
In Biblical times, and all through most of Christian church history, it was felt embarrassing for a woman to be seen with her hair exposed. Just as much as today, any decent Christian woman would not flaunt her body out in the open, much less in a Church sevice! It would shame her husband and her family to do so. To remove the head-covering, especially in a Christian worship place, was an affront against all sensibilities. just as today it would be an affront against order for a woman to remove her blouse in any decent church worship service.
It is a point too about how we perceive hair. When I was wearing the headcovering, I began to perceive my hair as a real appendage of who i was. A part of my body that needed a 'shirt' to cover it as much as my torso. It is in the perception of the hair we have gone amiss from the standards of church historical understanding. Hair is not a private thing any more. Just as a seeing womens legs in shorts is no longer a private thing today. its very common in todays world to see women who are wearing shorts and we hardly think twice about seeing their knees.

again, what is modesty? Can you clearly define the meaning of modesty? What did Apostle mean when he wrote about shamefacedness as an attitude of godly women towards men?
When I practiced head covering, I began to perceive my hair not as something to be styled but as an appendage to me as much as my arms and legs were an appendage to me. And as much as I would cover my other parts of me to a certain level of modesty, I began to perceive the covering of my hair part of dressing every day.

the crux of it is the idea of modesty. the significance is rooted in how important it is to
1. ones salvation
2. doing herself, her husband and her family good.
3. understanding what is acceptable and not acceptable to God and then to the social world one lives in.

modesty is, in essence, the ability to blush.. blushing is part of us. a blush tells us the truth.
modesty is an inner virtue even men portray...its an awareness of something from within
Just some more of my thoughts on this...

 

[Tim]

What is sad to me is the number of instances of "theological peer pressure" that have been reported in this thread.

 

[inactivemember125]

I am also wrestling with this - all the study I have done on it really doesn't give any wiggle room; I don't know how to read the passage without coming to the conclusion that it requires a woman to wear a covering above and beyond her hair. As for the hair being the covering, there is the peribolaion/katakalupto distinction that really doesn't allow for the hair to be the covering. And yet it is something that is only sporadically practiced in our congregation (maybe 4 or 5 women in the church, all over 50) so the social pressure to not cover is unfortunately also present.

There are not many people in the Reformed churches in Ontario that practice it from what i've seen. As Pratricia said sometimes you just have do it and the Lord will bless.

It is difficult to know how convinced we need of a command/doctrine before we practice it.

Abeard,
Thank you and you are welcome, glad my sharing is helpful a in some small way.
Truly, it is doing something that one comes to 'know' something. I am an artist, i can read all the art books in the world on art and speak eloquently about art, and i can explain art from all the various schools by my learning about art, but I would ever be learning and never 'arriving' at that true knowing that is only earned through the doing of something. It is in the doing of art, that i come to 'know' art in a very real way felt through out me fully. In head covering teachings, once one knows it from this depth, one can in real Christ given liberty make an informed and wise choice.

 

[Abeard]

It is difficult to know how convinced we need of a command/doctrine before we practice it.

But that's just it - I feel very conflicted on this (not unlike Bill, with his trodden toes) because I was not raised with it, my mother never practised it, my wife's mother never practised it (they were Southern Baptist), and it is something rapidly falling out of practise altogether. But I can't seem to get around it; I don't know how to ignore it, because the deeper I go in the study thereof, the more I see of it. Has the majority of the church been wrong for over 1900 years? And then right about it since the '60s? I'm just not sure which way to go in this matter. I think thus far I've been able to ignore it because I've been able to view it as an item of sanctification that neither my wife nor I have been very convicted about (or when I am, it passes, and fairly quickly).

I know what you mean, Kevin. My wife's parents do not practice it, nor a lot of things that the reformed church does. It's difficult to go against the practices you have been given by your parents.

 

[Miss Marple]

"This is the idea I felt in me, that of a modesty that was birthed from the practice of wearing it. No one agonizes over covering the rest of their body."

So does this go outside the worship service, as well? Do you feel immodest with your hair uncovered as you go about your day?

Please don't read an antagonistic or challenging tone into the questions, which are sincere. I wonder how far this feeling goes.

 

[inactivemember125]

"This is the idea I felt in me, that of a modesty that was birthed from the practice of wearing it. No one agonizes over covering the rest of their body."

So does this go outside the worship service, as well? Do you feel immodest with your hair uncovered as you go about your day?

Please don't read an antagonistic or challenging tone into the questions, which are sincere. I wonder how far this feeling goes.

Hi Miss Marple, and not to worry, I do not read you with any sense of antagonism, thank you for asking me. As I have mentioned previously, I no longer wear headcoverings but have adapted to my husbands wishes and let go of that particular form of modesty, while choosing in to comply with modern day church standards of dress.

But, when I was doing the headcovering, yes, that inner experience of modesty birthed from practicing it did extend outside church and home. I no longer experience that depth of modesty regarding my hair. I wear my hair long, because I like long hair, so does my husband. I would like wearing hats in church, but just have never done that. but its the attitude in the heart that matters most of all.

My personal conviction on the issue is, its not an essential of the faith for salvation, but a practice that was there for a reason. The reasons used by Paul were because of the angels or the messengers, and the order of creation. My personal thought is that the issue is about propriety and order. My opinion is that the headcovering serves a real bonafide purpose, but in our modern era we are not conditioned to see the purpose, so that particular scriptural passage is continuously and endlessly debated back and forth.
As I am a survivor of a cult and a lot of spiritual authority abuse, I had to learn it by the doing of it for the debate left me crosseyed and filled with headaches. lol.

 

[Abeard]

Does anyone who holds the cultural/hair interpretation know of any good resources that convinced you?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

While history can never be the deciding factor, neither should it be forgotten that headcovering was the universal practice of the church until the twentieth century. And we have no examples of any great pastor/theologian preaching or teaching against the practice. On the contrary just about anything one can find on the subject prior to the twentieth century treats I Corinthians 11 as requiring women to wear a literal headcovering. And none of their writtings give the slightest hint that there is any controversy about the matter. The only debates that one will find is on what kind of covering is required (full head scarf, veil, hat, etc.) and when a women has to be covered (all the time or only in worship).

Can a Christian go against the nearly universal witness of the Church down through the ages if he believes that witness is unbiblical? Yes. But he had better have a solid argument for why he is right and why he believes so many for so long have been wrong.

 

[inactivemember125]

I am positive you all have read Calvin's commentary on 1 Cor. 11. I am in the midst of reading it.

1 Corinthians 11 Calvin's Commentaries

Matthew Henry:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/mhcw/1_corinthians/11.htm

Chrysostom:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/chrysostom/1_corinthians/11.htm

all three of these men-- Calvin, Henry and Chrysostom seem to indicate the practice of custom and time, yet emphasize women are to show their place by some sign of subjection, namely in those times, a veil, which is the eastern show of female subjection to men being first in order.

 

[Logan]

Can a Christian go against the nearly universal witness of the Church down through the ages if he believes that witness is unbiblical? Yes. But he had better have a solid argument for why he is right and why he believes so many for so long have been wrong.

Without trying to be pedantic, there is a difference between the church practicing a thing, and the church holding it as a doctrine.

The "universal witness" of the church until the 20th century was that women did not wear pants. It is another thing to conclude that this was what the church held to.

It is quite possible that the church consistently held this as a universal practice taught by Paul. It is also possible that this was a non-issue for the church through the ages because it was the cultural practice. Did the Puritans strive to bend their culture to the practice, or was the practice already part of the culture?

I don't wish to be combative, but to look at this from all angles.

Calvin held that it was permissible for men to wear coverings in cold climates. Why is a covering cultural for the man but not for the woman when this passage would seem to restrict both?

 

[Abeard]

Without trying to be pedantic, there is a difference between the church practicing a thing, and the church holding it as a doctrine.

Thanks for the input Logan! could you give some examples of the church practicing a custom compared to holding the custom as a doctrine?

 

[Logan]

As one example, William Gouge, in "Of Domestical Duties" frequently argues strongly for a particular point or practice based on the current laws or practice in England. However, in certain cases he will strongly encourage (based on custom) it but say he dares not pronounce it absolutely necessary. One of these was marriage contract, another was the practice of waiting three weeks before marriage (which he says is a laudable custom).

Specifically on a husband's superiority over his wife, he mentions coverings (Wife's duties, section 3, point 6)

The very attire which nature and custom of all times and places have taught women to put on, confirms the same [regarding the husband's superiority]: as long hair, veils, and other coverings over the head: this and the former argument does the Apostle himself use to this very purpose.

Wife's duties, section 9

A wife's outward reverence towards her husband is a manifestation of her inward due respect of him. Now then seeing the intent of the heart, and inward disposition cannot be discerned by man simply in itself, that the husband may know his wife's good affection towards him, it is behoovefull that she manifest the same by her outward reverence. A wife's outward reverence consists in her reverend gesture and speech. For the first, that a reverend gesture and carriage of herself to her husband, and in her husband's presence, beseems a wife, was of old implied by the veil which the women used to put on, when she was brought unto her husband, as is noted in the example of Rebekah: whereunto the Apostle alludes in these words, the woman ought to have power on her head. That cover on the woman's head, as in general it implied subjection, so in particular this kind of subjection, viz, a reverend carriage and gesture. But most expressly is this duty set down by St Peter who exhorts wives to order their conversation before their husbands, so as it be pure, with reverence.

I do not recall Gouge saying head coverings were required, but certainly taught the general principle of showing subjection by our outward clothing and reverent speech. However, I have no doubt that head coverings were practiced in his day and that he thought it was a laudable custom. But again, the difference between laudable custom and universal command? Something to think about.

 

[Logan]

In addition to Calvin's commentary on 1Co 11 (which I agree seems to me to treat it as a cultural token of the general principle of submission) he has this to say (it's long but relevant). Unless I have misunderstood him, he seems to place head coverings in the category of laudable custom, but not universal commandment.

29. TRUE DECORUM IN WORSHIP, NOT THEATRICAL SHOW

As a consequence, we shall not say that decorum exists where there is nothing but vain pleasure. We see such an example in the theatrical props that the papists use in their sacred rites, where nothing appears but the mask of useless elegance and fruitless extravagance. But decorum for us will be something so fitted to the reverence of the sacred mysteries that it may be a suitable exercise for devotion, or at least will serve as an appropriate adornment of the act. And this should not be fruitless but should indicate to believers with how great modesty, piety, and reverence they ought to treat sacred things. Now, ceremonies, to be exercises of piety, ought to lead us straight to Christ.

Similarly, we shall not establish an order in those trifling pomps which have nothing but fleeting splendor, but in that arrangement which takes away all confusion, barbarity, obstinacy, turbulence, and dissension.

There are examples of the first sort in Paul: that profane drinking bouts should not be mingled with the Sacred Supper of the Lord [1 Corinthians 11:21-22], and that women should not go out in public with uncovered heads [1 Corinthians 11:5]. And we have many others in daily use, such as: that we pray with knees bent and head bare; that we administer the Lord’s sacraments not negligently, but with some dignity; that in burying the dead we use some decency; and other practices that belong to the same class.

Of the other kind are the hours set for public prayers, sermons, and sacraments. At sermons there are quiet and silence, appointed places, the singing together of hymns, fixed days for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the fact that Paul forbids women to teach in the church [1 Corinthians 14:34], and the like. Especially are there those things which maintain discipline, such as catechizing, church censures, excommunication, fasting, and whatever can be referred to the same list.

Thus all ecclesiastical constitutions which we accept as holy and salutary should be reckoned under two heads: the first type pertains to rites and ceremonies; the second, to discipline and peace.

30. BONDAGE AND FREEDOM OF CHURCH CONSTITUTIONS

But there is danger here lest, on the one hand, false bishops seize from this the pretext to excuse their impious and tyrannous laws, and on the other, lest some be overscrupulous and, warned of the above evils, leave no place whatever for holy laws. Consequently, it behooves me to declare that I approve only those human constitutions which are founded upon God’s authority, drawn from Scripture, and, therefore, wholly divine.

Let us take, for example, kneeling when solemn prayers are being said. The question is whether it is a human tradition, which any man may lawfully repudiate or neglect. I say that it is human, as it is also divine. It is of God in so far as it is a part of that decorum whose care and observance the apostle has commended to us [1 Corinthians 14:40]. But it is of men in so far as it specifically designates what had in general been suggested rather than explicitly stated.

By this one example we may judge what opinion we should have of this whole class. I mean that the Lord has in his sacred oracles faithfully embraced and clearly expressed both the whole sum of true righteousness, and all aspects of the worship of his majesty, and whatever was necessary to salvation; therefore, in these the Master alone is to be heard. But because he did not will in outward discipline and ceremonies to prescribe in detail what we ought to do (because he foresaw that this depended upon the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages), here we must take refuge in those general rules which he has given, that whatever the necessity of the church will require for order and decorum should be tested against these. Lastly, because he has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones. Indeed, I admit that we ought not to charge into innovation rashly, suddenly, for insufficient cause. But love will best judge what may hurt or edify; and if we let love be our guide, all will be safe.

31. BONDAGE AND FREEDOM OVER AGAINST CHURCH CONSTITUTIONS

Now it is the duty of Christian people to keep the ordinances that have been established according to this rule with a free conscience, indeed, without superstition, yet with a pious and ready inclination to obey; not to despise them, not to pass over them in careless negligence. So far ought we to be from openly violating them through pride and obstinacy!

What sort of freedom of conscience could there be in such excessive attentiveness and caution? Indeed, it will be very clear when we consider that these are no fixed and permanent sanctions by which we are bound, but outward rudiments for human weakness. Although not all of us need them, we all use them, for we are mutually bound, one to another, to nourish mutual love. This may be recognized in the examples set forth above. What? Does religion consist in a woman’s shawl, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with a bare head? Is that decree of Paul’s concerning silence so holy that it cannot be broken without great offense? Is there in bending the knee or in burying a corpse any holy rite that cannot be neglected without offense? Not at all. For if a woman needs such haste to help a neighbor that she cannot stop to cover her head, she does not offend if she runs to her with head uncovered. And there is a place where it is no less proper for her to speak than elsewhere to remain silent. Also, nothing prohibits a man who cannot bend his knees because of disease from standing to pray. Finally, it is better to bury a dead man in due time than, where a shroud is lacking, or where there are no pallbearers to carry him, to wait until the unburied corpse decays. Nevertheless, the established custom of the region, or humanity itself and the rule of modesty, dictate what is to be done or avoided in these matters. In them a man commits no crime if out of imprudence or forgetfulness he departs from them; but if out of contempt, this willfulness is to be disapproved. Similarly, the days themselves, the hours, the structure of the places of worship, what psalms are to be sung on what day, are matters of no importance. But it is convenient to have definite days and stated hours, and a place suitable to receive all, if there is any concern for the preservation of peace. For confusion in such details would become the seed of great contentions if every man were allowed, as he pleased, to change matters affecting public order! For it will never happen that the same thing will please all if matters are regarded as indifferent and left to individual choice. But if anyone loudly complains and wishes here to be wiser than he ought, let him see with what reason he can defend his over-scrupulousness before the Lord. This saying of Paul’s ought to satisfy us: that it is not our custom to contend, or that of the churches of God

 

[Afterthought]

Matthew Poole also believes the covering to be cultural. From his commentary:

"Dishonoureth his head; either dishonoureth Christ who is his Head, and whom he ought to represent, and doth as it were make the church the head to Christ, which is subject to him, while by covering his head he declares a subjection in his ministration. Or he dishonoureth his own head, (so many interpret it), to wit, he betrayeth his superiority, lesseneth himself as to that power and dignity which God hath clothed him with, by using a posture which is a token of inferiority and subjection. Interpreters rightly agree, that this and the following verses are to be interpreted from the customs of countries; and all that can be concluded from this verse is, that it is the duty of men employed in Divine ministrations, to look to behave themselves as those who are to represent the Lord Jesus Christ, behaving themselves with a just authority and gravity that becometh his ambassadors, which decent gravity is to be judged from the common opinion and account of the country wherein they live. So as all which this text requires of Christian ministers, is authority and gravity, and what are external ludications of it. Our learned Dr. Lightfoot observeth, that the Jewish priests were wont in the worship of God to veil their heads; so that Christian ministers praying or prophesying with their heads covered, Judaized, which he judgeth the reason of the apostle’s assertion. The heathens also, both Romans and Grecians, were wont to minister in their sacred things with their heads covered. Some think this was the reason why the Christians used the contrary gesture; but the apostle’s arguing from the man’s headship, seemeth to import that the reason of this assertion of the apostle was, because in Corinth the uncovered head was a sign of authority.

At this day the Mahometans (or Turks) speak to their superiors covered, and so are covered also in their religious performances. The custom with us in these western parts is quite otherwise; the uncovering of the head is a sign or token of subjection: hence ministers pray and preach with their heads uncovered, to denote their subjection to God and Christ: but yet this custom is not uniform, for in France the Reformed ministers preach with their heads covered; as they pray uncovered, to express their reverence and subjection to God, so they preach covered, as representing Christ, the great Teacher, from whom they derive, and whom they represent. Nothing in this is a further rule to Christians, than that it is the duty of ministers, in praying and preaching, to use postures and habits that are not naturally, nor according to the custom of the place where they live, uncomely and irreverent, and so looked upon. It is only the general observation of decency (which cannot by any be created, but ariseth either from nature, or custom, and prescription) which this text of the apostle maketh to be the duty of all Christians; though as to the Corinthians, he particularly required the man’s ministering in sacred things with his head uncovered, either to avoid the habit or posture used by Jews and pagans; or for the showing of his dignity and superiority over the woman, (whom we shall by and by find commanded to pray or prophesy covered), or that he represented Christ who was the Head of the church. The uncovering of the head being with them as much a sign of subjection, as it is with us of superiority and pre-eminence."


This thread has some more references.

 

[Abeard]

I'm going to try to get some thoughts out before I lose them

To me, head coverings seem to be a universal command by the fact that they are connected to Christ and His headship. Anything else connected to Christ in the New Testament outwardly is practiced by the Church universally (Baptism, Lord's supper, Lord's day, etc) These are all outward means to point to something spiritual. Head coverings also receive their authority when Paul points to the creation order to validate the custom. Other mandates instituted by God and finding their origin in the creation order would include the Sabbath, marriage, and work.

Those are my thoughts, hope they made sense.

PS. I'm not implying head coverings are as important as the Lord's Day, Baptism, Lord's Supper. I am just suggesting that they have more significance than the modern church gives them.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

The "universal witness" of the church until the 20th century was that women did not wear pants. It is another thing to conclude that this was what the church held to.

The difference between your example and headcovering is that we have no passage of Scripture explicitly forbidding the wearing of pants by women. However the practice of headcovering is one explicitly commanded by Scripture. And the practice itself is inextricably connected to Paul's theology of headship.

 

[kvanlaan]

Now here's a question: My wife has long said she is not convicted of covering, but will do so if I ask. But if I do ask, then is it not empty ritual until she is convicted of the practise herself? There is no meaning or directive for a current conformation to it in her eyes in scripture; it was a cultural practise, nothing more. But she says she will do so if I ask, but it is then mere motions for her, as she is not convinced.