WCF, LBCF, and Head-Covering

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I apologize if this is something well-known that I just wasn't aware of-- but I noticed something interesting looking at the 1689 Confession today. I noticed that in 1.6, when discussing the fact that some things which are not explicitly set down in Scripture are to be ordered by Christian prudence and the general rules of Word, they cite 1 Cor. 11:13 as a proof-text. The WCF did as well.

1 Corinthians 11:13 reads (in the KJV for historical accuracy): "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"

This would seem to indicate that the framers of the confessions saw this as a genuine invitation from Paul to judge for themselves-- that this is a matter of Christian prudence and not a fixed principle.

Of course, many interpreters today claim that Paul is addressing an issue of prudence because of a cultural issue, but I have always been under the impression that this was a relatively new interpretation. Advocates of head-covering in my experience seem to claim that their position was basically universal until the advent of 2nd-wave feminism. Would the use of this prooftext indicate that the divines held something closer to the "modern" position on the import of this passage?

 

[Northern Crofter]

I apologize if this is something well-known that I just wasn't aware of-- but I noticed something interesting looking at the 1689 Confession today. I noticed that in 1.6, when discussing the fact that some things which are not explicitly set down in Scripture are to be ordered by Christian prudence and the general rules of Word, they cite 1 Cor. 11:13 as a proof-text. The WCF did as well.

1 Corinthians 11:13 reads (in the KJV for historical accuracy): "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"

This would seem to indicate that the framers of the confessions saw this as a genuine invitation from Paul to judge for themselves-- that this is a matter of Christian prudence and not a fixed principle.

Of course, many interpreters today claim that Paul is addressing an issue of prudence because of a cultural issue, but I have always been under the impression that this was a relatively new interpretation. Advocates of head-covering in my experience seem to claim that their position was basically universal until the advent of 2nd-wave feminism. Would the use of this prooftext indicate that the divines held something closer to the "modern" position on the import of this passage?

The proof text is not just v.13 - it is vv.13-14: "13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" It is not just "Judge in yourselves" but also appealing to "nature itself." (EDIT: This is true for both the WCF and the LBCF).

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

The proof text is not just v.13 - it is vv.13-14: "13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" It is not just "Judge in yourselves" but also appealing to "nature itself." (EDIT: This is true for both the WCF and the LBCF).

Ah, that is a good catch! The spacing in my edition of the LBCF was a little off and I missed that. Thanks for pointing that out.

That certainly does shift the nuance in their citation.

 

[EvanF]

"which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence..."

I suppose the framers may have considered head coverings to be well ordered according to the light of nature rather than merely Christian prudence, but it is interesting that they use this specific passage to exemplify things that are not clearly regulated in scripture. Which, I suppose they must as the apostle himself appealed in this case not to scripture but to prudence and nature.

 

[St. Gerdt]

Piggybacking here, because I have had similar questions. . .

1. Is is correct to infer from WCF 1.6 that the divines considered head covering a circumstance of worship?

2. If yes, is it correct to assume that this practice may reasonably be influenced by time and culture?

3. If yes, how can the principle best be defined, so as to delineate between what is "always to be observed" and what is influenced by time and culture?

For example, it is commonly taught that the covering should be cloth—a veil, not a hat—that falls down and covers the sides of the head. But even if Paul is explicitly describing such a covering in this passage, wouldn't answering 'yes' to #s 1 and 2 above make his description of the coverings in Corinth irrelevant? Merely circumstantially prudent to that time and place—giving us an example of the principle in practice but not a rule?

 

[MW]

1. Is is correct to infer from WCF 1.6 that the divines considered head covering a circumstance of worship?

No; it is no part of worship. It is circumstantial to the social, moral order announced in 1 Cor. 11:3.

WCF 1 is not speaking about worship, but about Scripture. The divines do not refer to 1 Cor. 11 to maintain anything about worship, but merely to highlight that Scripture recognises there are norms outside of itself, contrary to fanatical views of Scripture.

 

[mpinckard]

Of course, many interpreters today claim that Paul is addressing an issue of prudence because of a cultural issue, but I have always been under the impression that this was a relatively new interpretation. Advocates of head-covering in my experience seem to claim that their position was basically universal until the advent of 2nd-wave feminism. Would the use of this prooftext indicate that the divines held something closer to the "modern" position on the import of this passage?

I'm not qualified to answer the question of what the majority of the divines meant, but I do know that to interpret the head covering as a culturally appropriate application of a universal principle is not a new interpretation. Matthew Henry takes that position in his commentary. My reading is limited, so I don't know who else, if anyone, from that era took the same position, but the way he states it in his commentary doesn't sound like how you'd write if you know your interpretation is novel and/or idiosyncratic.