Women's Covering

[OPC'n]

I could probably be convinced of head coverings if every Christian man felt it was a sin to have long hair and every Christian woman felt it was a sin to have short hair. That command is also tucked into this Scripture, but I don't see anyone having trouble with women having short hair. I really haven't seen too many Christian men having long hair so I don't think it would be a large issue, but there are many Christian women who have very short hair.

I wonder if our liberty has come into play concerning this?
As he points to nature, Paul says its shameful for men to have long hair... that should settle it for us. I've seen men from behind or from the side and could've sworn that it was a woman... the new age, often "metrosexual" clothing these days doesn't help at all. But also the same with women, I've seen them from another angle and thought for sure it was a man... this is bad!
Paul also says that a woman's glory is her long hair... it is so befitting for a woman... it is feminine and natural... seems to call attention to creation if you ask me and people have just let it go.

But we have to remember that Paul was talking first to the Corinthians when he wrote this and not to us first. During Biblical times, it wasn't shameful for a man to have long hair. We know this because of the nazarite.

 

[ChananBachiyr]

But we have to remember that Paul was talking first to the Corinthians when he wrote this and not to us first. During Biblical times, it wasn't shameful for a man to have long hair. We know this because of the nazarite.

Indeed... hmmm...
So maybe that comment should be chalked up to the "cultural" category.
Its interesting that he would say that it is shameful while knowing the laws and customs of the jewish priests and nazarites...

 

[TylerRay]

For those who believe that Paul's argument was an argument from culture, what do you think women covering their heads symbolizes in today's culture?

In other words, what do people think of when they see women covering their heads in worship today?

I think that the meaning had changed, so I'd be wary of basing whether to cover or not on that alone. The cultural argument necessarily changes, and I'm not sure I could definitively assert what covering for women and not covering for men symbolizes in our culture. For example, among men, it seems that covering/wearing a hat in the assembly showed authority in time past among the Jews and still does in some cultures today.

Gillespie noted in his English Popish Ceremonies that the meaning of covering/uncovering had changed, and that at the time, men covered in worship. This is covered in Naphtali Press edition p. 247-248. I can get quotes later if anyone is interested/doesn't have the volume.

I wouldn't presume to make an argument on that alone, brother.

In my opinion, it is clear enough to anyone in our culture that when women cover their heads in worship and men uncover their heads, there is a clear distinction between the sexes, witnessing to their distinct roles.

My point in asking the question was to illustrate that, though the symbol speaks clearly in our culture*, folks still want to buck against the ordinance. They're making a cultural argument against the practice simply because they think it does away with the requirement. It's a heart issue.

I know that there are exceptions to my generalizations in this post; I really believe the generalizations hold true, though, on the whole.

*People can deny that clarity if they want--for my part, I think people know what they are seeing when they look at Anabaptists or Muslims, for example. I only bring up Muslims and Anabaptists because everyone in the U. S. (not to mention the world) will readily acknowledge them as people who systematically cover; I don't intend to endorse the views of those groups on the particulars of feminine submission.

 

[Logan]

You never did mention what you do associate it with. Merely out of curiosity, what do you associate it with (if anything)? Do you think of 1 Cor. 11 when you see a woman covering her head in worship?

Honestly? Legalism or tradition, coming from a region with a large Mennonite population. Yet I know mentally that these aren't the only motivations and I wouldn't imply that of anyone here. But my reaction doesn't determine truth so I wouldn't focus on that. And I guess I would have to say that yes, I do think of 1 Cor. 11.

 

[OPC'n]

But we have to remember that Paul was talking first to the Corinthians when he wrote this and not to us first. During Biblical times, it wasn't shameful for a man to have long hair. We know this because of the nazarite.

Indeed... hmmm...
So maybe that comment should be chalked up to the "cultural" category.
Its interesting that he would say that it is shameful while knowing the laws and customs of the jewish priests and nazarites...

Or perhaps he's not talking about physical hair or physical head coverings, but instead, is talking about man being the head of woman as Christ is head of the church and women being submissive to their husbands (single women submissive to the church) which places them under the leadership of Christ. You can't say one part of the chapter is culture while the other part is not culture. It all has to fit and be logical.

 

[lynnie]

I can't seem to copy and paste the straightforward Greek from the online interlinears. But you can look it up. Same Greek Paul is using.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. ( followed by section on headcoverings)

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:...

You have to keep the two together or your logic is flawed.

I don't know why we even get off into these culture discussions. Paul is crystal clear:

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

The ONLY question is what the angels think when they see a headcovering. The only discussion is about whether or not it still means the same to the angels in modern times. Angels are smart, so you can debate if they think it has any meaning today or not. But debating about what the culture thinks is irrelevant to the passage. If you think the angels no longer regard it the way they did 2000 years ago, then fine, you can argue that. But please, keep it about the angels.

 

[Dachaser]

I think that Paul was addressing local customs of the time in how to regulate status of women in the assembly of the saints, but also that he was using that as application to the much greater spiritual aspect that you are alluding to here!

 

[ChananBachiyr]

This guy has 5 seriously good arguments for an artificial covering. (7 Minutes long)
What is a head covering? Is it a woman's long hair or a veil?

Also, I was thinking earlier... about men with long hair and women with short... doesn't that just throw fuel on the sexuality and identity flames of the day??

 

[Jake]

For those who believe that Paul's argument was an argument from culture, what do you think women covering their heads symbolizes in today's culture?

In other words, what do people think of when they see women covering their heads in worship today?

I think that the meaning had changed, so I'd be wary of basing whether to cover or not on that alone. The cultural argument necessarily changes, and I'm not sure I could definitively assert what covering for women and not covering for men symbolizes in our culture. For example, among men, it seems that covering/wearing a hat in the assembly showed authority in time past among the Jews and still does in some cultures today.

Gillespie noted in his English Popish Ceremonies that the meaning of covering/uncovering had changed, and that at the time, men covered in worship. This is covered in Naphtali Press edition p. 247-248. I can get quotes later if anyone is interested/doesn't have the volume.

I wouldn't presume to make an argument on that alone, brother.

In my opinion, it is clear enough to anyone in our culture that when women cover their heads in worship and men uncover their heads, there is a clear distinction between the sexes, witnessing to their distinct roles.

My point in asking the question was to illustrate that, though the symbol speaks clearly in our culture*, folks still want to buck against the ordinance. They're making a cultural argument against the practice simply because they think it does away with the requirement. It's a heart issue.

I know that there are exceptions to my generalizations in this post; I really believe the generalizations hold true, though, on the whole.

*People can deny that clarity if they want--for my part, I think people know what they are seeing when they look at Anabaptists or Muslims, for example. I only bring up Muslims and Anabaptists because everyone in the U. S. (not to mention the world) will readily acknowledge them as people who systematically cover; I don't intend to endorse the views of those groups on the particulars of feminine submission.

Yes, I know this wouldn't be how we would argue for headcoverings. I don't think the cultural argument would also lead to headcovering today because I don't think there is a consistent message in the modern day for our culture that headcovering signifies. If you had asked me 10 years ago, despite growing up in the church, I would say, at best, it represented legalism as others in this thread have noted. However, to be fair, there are cultures where at least some combination of men or women uncovering or covering for worship does signify something, such as in Jewish assemblies even in the pre-Christian era. I believe in the era of the Reformers/Puritans, despite the fact that many (as Logan noted) viewed the passage as cultural, headcovering was still the norm. It shouldn't be today with that as the interpretation.

However, I do know someone who is a member of the OPC but visits with congregations from time-to-time where female headcovering is the norm. She does not cover in the OPC where she would be the alone in the practice, but does when visiting a Free Church for example, because there the covering is seen as a symbol of submission. I can see how this would be consistent with a cultural interpretation of the passage, just as modesty is cultural.

I don't know why we even get off into these culture discussions. Paul is crystal clear:

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

The ONLY question is what the angels think when they see a headcovering. The only discussion is about whether or not it still means the same to the angels in modern times. Angels are smart, so you can debate if they think it has any meaning today or not. But debating about what the culture thinks is irrelevant to the passage. If you think the angels no longer regard it the way they did 2000 years ago, then fine, you can argue that. But please, keep it about the angels.

I'm not sure the mention of the angels affects whether the particular manifestation of men uncovering and women covering is cultural or not. The argument should be whether its the eternal ordinance of God, and the angels would desire that which is in keeping with the ordinance. I have trouble reducing the entire question down to this verse which seems at least a little unclear to me.

We're also asked to judge in ourselves whether it is good for a woman to pray uncovered (I Corinthians 11:13). The question does not come down to us judging God's law.

 

[MW]

Do you believe men praying uncovered to be a mere custom while women praying covered to be required?

I think the passage as a whole is directed to the issue of women praying and prophesying with the gifts of the Spirit. It is not about head coverings per se, but head coverings are brought in as an argument why the women should be silent. They would have to take off their covering to speak, which would be dishonourable to masculine headship. It is not a moral issue, but an issue which concerns decency and order. I liken it to sitting at the table for communion. Sitting is the appropriate posture. It would be disruptive for someone to stand up or kneel while everyone else was sitting; and if one argued for freedom to stand or kneel it would be appropriate to show from Scripture that sitting is the norm. Likewise, a covered head is fitting for a woman in order to cover her natural glory and show that the head of the woman is the man.

As for men, it is appropriate to have the head uncovered in order to reflect the basic principle that he is not under a visible head, but under the headship of the unseen Christ in the Christian assembly. Having said that, there are different customs. If we take the English, who are the majority of the commentators in the earlier post, they wore a hat and a cap; and when the hat was removed the wearing of the cap would be considered as if the head were uncovered.

It is clear from the dispute about the English Popish ceremonies that the men were accustomed to take their hats off in order to show reverence in some parts of the worship. They would also do so in the case of swearing an oath. I think I remember correctly that the men uncovered their heads when they entered into the Solemn League and Covenant.

 

[Jake]

Do you believe men praying uncovered to be a mere custom while women praying covered to be required?

I think the passage as a whole is directed to the issue of women praying and prophesying with the gifts of the Spirit. It is not about head coverings per se, but head coverings are brought in as an argument why the women should be silent. They would have to take off their covering to speak, which would be dishonourable to masculine headship. It is not a moral issue, but an issue which concerns decency and order. I liken it to sitting at the table for communion. Sitting is the appropriate posture. It would be disruptive for someone to stand up or kneel while everyone else was sitting; and if one argued for freedom to stand or kneel it would be appropriate to show from Scripture that sitting is the norm. Likewise, a covered head is fitting for a women in order to cover her natural glory and show that the head of the woman is the man.

As for men, it is appropriate to have the head uncovered in order to reflect the basic principle that he is not under a visible head, but under the headship of the unseen Christ in the Christian assembly. Having said that, there are different customs. If we take the English, who are the majority of the commentators in the earlier post, they wore a hat and a cap; and when the hat was removed the wearing of the cap would be considered as if the head were uncovered.

It is clear from the dispute about the English Popish ceremonies that the men were accustomed to take their hats off in order to show reverence in some parts of the worship. They would also do so in the case of swearing an oath. I think I remember correctly that the men uncovered their heads when they entered into the Solemn League and Covenant.

Thanks for your comments Mr. Winzer.

As far as I can tell Gillespie had no issue with men having their heads covered during worship and then uncovering when taking communion for example. I think based on what you're saying we're thinking of the same section. Would this be consistent with him interpreting the headcovering primarily in light of the customs/practices of the day and wishing to not cause offense to what was customary and in decent orders, but not an absolute command for men to uncover during worship?

I do appreciate your explanation of it being about decency and order. This makes sense of the passage as well as some of the commentators from earlier times.

 

[MW]

As far as I can tell Gillespie had no issue with men having their heads covered during worship and then uncovering when taking communion for example. I think based on what you're saying we're thinking of the same section. Would this be consistent with him interpreting the headcovering primarily in light of the customs/practices of the day and wishing to not cause offense to what was customary and in decent orders, but not an absolute command for men to uncover during worship?

Jake, The issue comes up in the general literature on the ceremonies, not just in Gillespie; but yes, the section you are thinking of in EPC is the type of thing I had in mind, and it is typically dealt with in the literature from the English Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian perspective. They would not see it as "regulative," since it was a custom, but at the same time they would follow customary manners in things which pertained to "the light of nature" and "Christian prudence."

I suppose the problem we have today is that the unisex culture casts off all customs. At that point we are left without any guide and nothing to appeal to in society, which means everyone does what is right in his own eyes. At that point I find it to be the safest course to respect the Christian practice which has a clearer view on the place and roles of men and women.

 

[Jake]

As far as I can tell Gillespie had no issue with men having their heads covered during worship and then uncovering when taking communion for example. I think based on what you're saying we're thinking of the same section. Would this be consistent with him interpreting the headcovering primarily in light of the customs/practices of the day and wishing to not cause offense to what was customary and in decent orders, but not an absolute command for men to uncover during worship?

Jake, The issue comes up in the general literature on the ceremonies, not just in Gillespie; but yes, the section you are thinking of in EPC is the type of thing I had in mind, and it is typically dealt with in the literature from the English Puritan and Scottish Presbyterian perspective. They would not see it as "regulative," since it was a custom, but at the same time they would follow customary manners in things which pertained to "the light of nature" and "Christian prudence."

I suppose the problem we have today is that the unisex culture casts off all customs. At that point we are left without any guide and nothing to appeal to in society, which means everyone does what is right in his own eyes. At that point I find it to be the safest course to respect the Christian practice which has a clearer view on the place and roles of men and women.

Thanks, that's helpful. Regarding your last paragraph, on what basis would you call this the Christian practice, that men's heads should be uncovered in public worship and women's covered? Would this be on the basis of Paul's instructions to the Corinthians? Because if this was cultural admonition, it would not necessarily be the same among all of the churches; indeed, it seemed to be a break from the Jewish custom of the time (I could be wrong, but I would think both men and women would cover in the assembly then). Or is on the basis of received Christian history? Also, I would argue that even with a more unisex culture it is still generally clear from nature that long hair pertains to a woman and short to the man, though both hair lengths are shorter than in, say, Gillespie's day. Likewise, there are yet differences between men and women in dress, especially in more formal attire.

 

[Afterthought]

They would have to take off their covering to speak, which would be dishonourable to masculine headship. It is not a moral issue, but an issue which concerns decency and order. I liken it to sitting at the table for communion. Sitting is the appropriate posture. It would be disruptive for someone to stand up or kneel while everyone else was sitting; and if one argued for freedom to stand or kneel it would be appropriate to show from Scripture that sitting is the norm. Likewise, a covered head is fitting for a women in order to cover her natural glory and show that the head of the woman is the man.

From this analogy with sitting at the table, are you arguing that (a) the passage in question universally (even today) requires a man's head to be uncovered and a woman's head to be covered but (b) what is considered to be "uncovered" or "covered" is what is cultural? Would there be a cultural case in which the man would have his head covered and the woman not?

Regarding men having their heads covered for some elements of worship and uncovered for others, I had heard that this was a practical matter (keeping from getting cold, etc.). Because the issue was one of custom not worship, there could be no harm in "violating" custom in the interest of things such as self-preservation. Is that the case?

 

[Jake]

They would have to take off their covering to speak, which would be dishonourable to masculine headship. It is not a moral issue, but an issue which concerns decency and order. I liken it to sitting at the table for communion. Sitting is the appropriate posture. It would be disruptive for someone to stand up or kneel while everyone else was sitting; and if one argued for freedom to stand or kneel it would be appropriate to show from Scripture that sitting is the norm. Likewise, a covered head is fitting for a women in order to cover her natural glory and show that the head of the woman is the man.

From this analogy with sitting at the table, are you arguing that (a) the passage in question requires a man's head to be uncovered and a woman's head to be covered but (b) what is considered to be "uncovered" or "covered" is what is cultural? Would there be a cultural case in which the man would have his head covered and the woman not?

Regarding men having their heads covered for some elements of worship and uncovered for others, I had heard that this was a practical matter (keeping from getting cold, etc.). Because the issue was one of custom not worship, there could be no harm in "violating" custom in the interest of things such as self-preservation. Is that the case?

Gillespie, p. 248: "customary signs have likewise place in divine service; for so a man coming into one of our churches in time of public worship, if he sees the hearers covered, he knows by this customary sign that sermon has begun"

 

[MW]

Regarding your last paragraph, on what basis would you call this the Christian practice, that men's heads should be uncovered in public worship and women's covered? Would this be on the basis of Paul's instructions to the Corinthians? Because if this was cultural admonition, it would not necessarily be the same among all of the churches; indeed, it seemed to be a break from the Jewish custom of the time (I could be wrong, but I would think both men and women would cover in the assembly then). Or is on the basis of received Christian history? Also, I would argue that even with a more unisex culture it is still generally clear from nature that long hair pertains to a woman and short to the man, though both hair lengths are shorter than in, say, Gillespie's day. Likewise, there are yet differences between men and women in dress, especially in more formal attire.

As I understand it, the Jews did not meet in the way we are accustomed to see in a Christian assembly. Christ brought men and women together in the new creation, and that new scenario is part of the situation which required clear instruction from the apostle. The Jewish customs pertained to divine adoration, which could be no guide to a Christian since these were the "commandments of men" which were taught for "doctrines."

I think there is a respect due to the Christian tradition in a matter of this nature unless there is some moral reason which imposes itself on the issue. If there were a gospel-issue at stake then we are free to forego customs in accord with 1 Cor. 9. But I don't think anyone would be stumbled by the practice unless he were deliberately trying to find fault with the church, as when someone brings up the practice of the Mohammedans. The difference between the two practices is such that it would be worth keeping the Christian practice just to show the liberality of the gospel in contrast to the bondage of Mohammedanism.

It is interesting that you bring up formal attire. I have found the same patterns. But then we face another issue in that more people today do not see a need for formal attire in public worship. This might even raise the question as to whether attitudes on these two things go hand in hand.

 

[MW]

Because the issue was one of custom not worship, there could be no harm in "violating" custom in the interest of things such as self-preservation. Is that the case?

The general rule is, Morals take precedence over rituals. Thomas Manton has a very instructive sermon on it in his Works; I think it is in volume 2.

 

[Afterthought]

The general rule is, Morals take precedence over rituals. Thomas Manton has a very instructive sermon on it in his Works; I think it is in volume 2.

Sorry for not being clear. I was wondering whether this principle was behind men leaving their heads covered for some of the worship service and removing the covering for other parts of the service. Re-reading Poole mentioned earlier, this does not seem to be the case. Instead, it seems that a variety of customs were in place--including men not having a covering on the head. The one thing that is uniform though is that...a custom that differentiated between men and women was in place, rather than both men and women going uncovered (or both covered).

It is still not clear to me though if,

"[A]re you arguing that (a) the passage in question requires a man's head to be uncovered and a woman's head to be covered but (b) what is considered to be "uncovered" or "covered" is what is cultural? Would there be a cultural case in which the man would have his head covered and the woman not?"

Likewise, there are yet differences between men and women in dress, especially in more formal attire.

It is interesting that you bring up formal attire. I have found the same patterns. But then we face another issue in that more people today do not see a need for formal attire in public worship. This might even raise the question as to whether attitudes on these two things go hand in hand.

Interesting. My short explanation to those unfamiliar with our headcovering practice is in terms of formal attire (e.g., I say that the men usually dress this way, and the women usually dress that way and usually also wear a hat or other head covering).

 

[MW]

Raymond, sorry for misunderstanding. I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking if this has been a real custom or if it falls within the realms of acceptable custom?

 

[ChananBachiyr]

It is interesting that you bring up formal attire. I have found the same patterns. But then we face another issue in that more people today do not see a need for formal attire in public worship. This might even raise the question as to whether attitudes on these two things go hand in hand.

Lets not forget about the ever blurring of the lines in today's culture...

 

[ChananBachiyr]

Raymond, sorry for misunderstanding. I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking if this has been a real custom or if it falls within the realms of acceptable custom?

Rev. Winzer,
I think that Raymond is asking
1) Do you interpret the passage in a way that you think women covering and men uncovering during worship is biblical?
And if you do, then do you believe that it should be adjusted to conform to different cultures?
For example, if there were a place (and hes asking if there is) where it is customary for men to cover and women not to cover, would we as Christians need to adjust to the custom of the time/place or strickly stick to our conviction of men don't and women do?

This is how I'm understanding the question... I hope I'm on the right track.

 

[Afterthought]

Raymond, sorry for misunderstanding. I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking if this has been a real custom or if it falls within the realms of acceptable custom?

I am asking two questions. One of them is historical and the other is your opinion concerning the interpretation and application of 1 Cor. 11 today (which, I guess, is in part asking about what falls within the realms of acceptable custom). The goal of the latter question was to determine what precisely was determined by cultural concerns and what precisely was mandated (if anything); this question was raised in my mind because of the analogy raised between head coverings and sitting at the table. We sit at the table in order to most appropriately fulfill the circumstances of worship regarding the Lord's Supper; it is most appropriate (it's the cultural posture we usually take when eating at a table) and less likely to lead to superstition because this is the way the Supper was originally observed. But what it means to "sit" at the table will vary across cultures.

The historical question was about the practice of men having their heads covered for some elements of worship and uncovered for other elements of worship. I was wondering whether the reason for not having the head uncovered for the whole service was practical, e.g., keeping from getting cold? I then noted that I may have answered my own question: From Poole's comments, it seems that if the custom was initially motivated by practical concerns, by Poole's time it was due to custom, not practical reasons that men did not have their head uncovered the whole time.


The question of interpretation and application is multifacted and is as follows. (1) Are you arguing that 1 Cor. 11 across all cultures requires that men ought (as a matter of decorum) always to uncover their heads and women cover their heads? And so, (2) Although men must always be uncovered and women must always be covered, do culture and custom determine what it means to be "uncovered" or "covered"? That is, the command to be covered or uncovered is always obeyed, but the intent of the command is fulfilled in different ways in different cultures: What is considered to be "covered" and what that "covering" consists of (cloth, hats, etc.) is determined by custom?

Furthermore, (3) could culture and custom ever reverse the situation, i.e., so that men wear something on thier heads while women wear nothing on their heads, or can this never be the case, i.e., culture and custom determine what "uncovered" or "covered" means, but "covered" must be relative to something being worn on the head? Finally (which, I guess, supposes that (1) is false), (4) could culture and custom ever determine that men and women are both to be covered (or both uncovered)? Similarly, could culture and custom determine that men and women are both to wear something on the head (or not wear something on the head)?

 

[MW]

Thankyou for clarifying. Historically, I can't think of such a situation. Hypothetically, I suppose it could happen that the order and function of men and women reflect the biblical ideal and yet the signs of that order and function have changed. One would have to see it to assess it, but if it reflected the biblical ideal I think the goal of the apostle's instructions would be honoured in spirit although not following the strict letter. And I take the Reformed position to be one of basic consent that circumstances of decency and order are not a matter of "regulation," but of the "general rules of the Word."

But in today's western society, shaped as it is by biblical values, and seeing the tendency today is to oppose the biblical view of life, I think it is safest to adhere to the practice which has best reflected biblical values.

 

[ChananBachiyr]

Thank you everyone for your studies and feedback!
Great conversation here!

 

[KGP]

Thank you everyone for your studies and feedback!
Great conversation here!

Agreed; I haven't thought on this topic much at all in recent years. Very good discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BG]

[QUOTE="OPC'n, You can't say one part of the chapter is culture while the other part is not culture. It all has to fit and be logical.[/QUOTE]
Amen, great point

 

[Dachaser]

I am asking two questions. One of them is historical and the other is your opinion concerning the interpretation and application of 1 Cor. 11 today (which, I guess, is in part asking about what falls within the realms of acceptable custom). The goal of the latter question was to determine what precisely was determined by cultural concerns and what precisely was mandated (if anything); this question was raised in my mind because of the analogy raised between head coverings and sitting at the table. We sit at the table in order to most appropriately fulfill the circumstances of worship regarding the Lord's Supper; it is most appropriate (it's the cultural posture we usually take when eating at a table) and less likely to lead to superstition because this is the way the Supper was originally observed. But what it means to "sit" at the table will vary across cultures.

The historical question was about the practice of men having their heads covered for some elements of worship and uncovered for other elements of worship. I was wondering whether the reason for not having the head uncovered for the whole service was practical, e.g., keeping from getting cold? I then noted that I may have answered my own question: From Poole's comments, it seems that if the custom was initially motivated by practical concerns, by Poole's time it was due to custom, not practical reasons that men did not have their head uncovered the whole time.


The question of interpretation and application is multifacted and is as follows. (1) Are you arguing that 1 Cor. 11 across all cultures requires that men ought (as a matter of decorum) always to uncover their heads and women cover their heads? And so, (2) Although men must always be uncovered and women must always be covered, do culture and custom determine what it means to be "uncovered" or "covered"? That is, the command to be covered or uncovered is always obeyed, but the intent of the command is fulfilled in different ways in different cultures: What is considered to be "covered" and what that "covering" consists of (cloth, hats, etc.) is determined by custom?

Furthermore, (3) could culture and custom ever reverse the situation, i.e., so that men wear something on thier heads while women wear nothing on their heads, or can this never be the case, i.e., culture and custom determine what "uncovered" or "covered" means, but "covered" must be relative to something being worn on the head? Finally (which, I guess, supposes that (1) is false), (4) could culture and custom ever determine that men and women are both to be covered (or both uncovered)? Similarly, could culture and custom determine that men and women are both to wear something on the head (or not wear something on the head)?

Would not all of that passage though be due to the situation historically of the time? That Paul adapted cultural norms and application to how the local church was to handle this? The principle ofheadship covering as authority such as Jesus over the Church, over the Husband and thus his wife would stand, but is not the actual custom of headwearing not really for today in church?

 

[au5t1n]

The general rule is, Morals take precedence over rituals. Thomas Manton has a very instructive sermon on it in his Works; I think it is in volume 2.

Yes, it is in volume 2. I have read the sermon ("The Preference of Duties: Morals before Rituals") and it was one of the more profitable, convicting, and memorable Puritan sermons I have read. Highly recommend.

 

[BG]

If Paul is here engaging in situational ethics for the sake of cultural norms this would in essence destroy the authority of Scripture leaving the Church with the most tyrannical form of government that being mans opinion.

If someone quotes a passage that says that women can not be deacons or elders or that homosexuality is wrong you can just declare those passages as cultural.

 

[au5t1n]

If Paul is here engaging in situational ethics for the sake of cultural norms this would in essence destroy the authority of Scripture leaving the Church with the most tyrannical form of government that being mans opinion.

If someone quotes a passage that says that women can not be deacons or elders or that homosexuality is wrong you can just declare those passages as cultural.

I support head covering for women during the worship service, but I do not understand this type of response. Everyone believes there are cultural/customary elements in Scriptural commands. A common example is the "holy kiss" which some epistles enjoin. What is needed is a robust hermeneutical approach that can aid us in distinguishing when Scripture is addressing changeable customs and when it is not, so that we avoid the trap of declaring any practice cultural which we do not want to keep, as well as distinguishing when moral and cultural elements are mixed in the same instruction. What I would be interested to see on a head covering thread is a proposal for what distinguishing marks in a passage of Scripture identify changeable customs.