Head Coverings

[Ovedya]

And Biblically speaking, when is there ever a source without there being the implication of control or authority? God's throne is the source of the river of water of life and the tree of life in Revelation. Jesus even said that the Father was His source.

[firehill]

LT

My question in case you missed it was: How is this requirement in Cor. 11 for women having their head veiled cultural?

Your question thus phrased as 'How is this requirement in Cor. 11 for women having their head veiled cultural?', is very telling. If you re-read Chp. 11 it is very obvious that Paul is not teaching covering to be a requirement. There is no biblical command for women to wear head coverings. Paul argued on the bases of custom and propriety not a directive, command or hubands/man

[firehill]

And Biblically speaking, when is there ever a source without there being the implication of control or authority? God's throne is the source of the river of water of life and the tree of life in Revelation. Jesus even said that the Father was His source.

Where is such claimed implication is the question?

[Ovedya]

And Biblically speaking, when is there ever a source without there being the implication of control or authority? God's throne is the source of the river of water of life and the tree of life in Revelation. Jesus even said that the Father was His source.

Where is such claimed implication is the question?

[firehill]

And Biblically speaking, when is there ever a source without there being the implication of control or authority? God's throne is the source of the river of water of life and the tree of life in Revelation. Jesus even said that the Father was His source.

Where is such claimed implication is the question?

[Smalcald]

But lets face it how many congregations today follow this, even the most conservative and literal? The only place I have seen it is some very traditional Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, some Mennonites, and I have seen a smattering of other women do it in various denominations, but it seems to be a more of a choice, versus a doctrine of the congregation.

So why is that?

Smalcald, you ask several questions, each with interesting responses. Taking them in turn ...

But lets face it how many congregations today follow this, even the most conservative and literal?

A couple of things to reply here. First of all, what is the point of asking how many obey Paul's teaching? Do you suggest that Apostolic authority is to be assessed by a head-count? I don't think you do, from what I've read by you elsewhere. But, your question makes me ask this one in reply. Remember, Paul is the Apostle who wrote to the same church "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." Does anyone seriously think that 1 Cor. 11:1-16 are excluded from this? And, if this teaching is included in Paul's writings that are the commandment of the Lord, how do we dismiss the Lord's commandment so easily?

Second, I'd still think that the sheer number of those Christian women who cover in worship outnumber those who do not. Now, it is true (for I believe your report) that in the places you circulate the statistics run far in the other direction. But, Catholics in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe still cover, even though Vatican II supposedly dropped the practice as a requirement (it actually didn't). Throw in the Orthodox worldwide, and the 80 or so Anglican Christians in Africa alone, another 20 or so million Anglicans in India and SE Asia,and add any number of Protestant groups here and around the world, (yes, Mennonites, but also most that are like them from our perspective -- Christian Apostolics, several of the Brethren groups) ... well, Smalcald, you just get out enough!

Third, did you ever read Chesterton on the awful authority of the mob? Let me know if not, and I'll post the quote here. In summary, Chesterton was pointing out that tradition in the Church is simply the way we acknowledge the faith and practice of our ancestors. It is, as he so amusingly put it, the most democratic of values, giving "votes" to those most obscure people, those in heaven. Even Paul invoked them, and he did so with respect to the covering: "16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."

Finally (on this angle), the consideration Chesterton addresses is one of the more fundamental reasons 21st Century American evangelicals do not follow the practice. Their ecclesiology is so utterly immaterial, almost gnostic, that what was done in the past is utterly irrelevant. "The Church" is this wholly intangible, never apprehended, completely invisible, and (therefore) dismissible entity. Meanwhile, those who just happen to show up on Sunday morning can pretty well do as they please. They are the people and wisdom will die with them. Meanwhile, if you want to count heads, count all of them, since the days Paul delivered this to the Church. Care to guess what tiny sliver of that august body refuse to cover? All of them inhabit the last 2 percent of the Church's life.

For the record, the only women in my parish who do not cover are visitors. And those who have remained with us after visiting adopt the practice with nary a word from me, or (so far as I know) from anyone else.

... but it seems to be a more of a choice, versus a doctrine of the congregation.?

I suppose by "doctrine of the congregation" you mean a teaching or policy which is enforced at the congregational level. Yes, I know some Brethren groups who do this. Women who visit their assemblies, even for a long time, are not required to cover. But, if they wish to become members of the congregation (with the rights and privileges that attend this), they are required to adopt the practice.

On the other hand, when I was a boy visiting the cathedrals of Mexico, each Cathedral had a stash of scarves and mantillas in the narthex of the churches, so female touristas could cover before entering. In a Swiss-German group in Illinois and is my father-in-law's cradle community, the cover is standard (I've described it elsehwere in these boards), and there are a dozen or so of these available for visiting women to place on their heads in their worship services. I'm told by travellers in Europe that the provision of covers I saw in Mexico as a boy were also available throughout Catholic Europe before Vatican II.

The point: many Christian groups -- from Catholics to small German-pietist groups -- have never felt the need to teach and defend the practice before requiring compliance with it. And, in the one case of a Brethren assembly I'm familiar with, they do not even require that the women who cover embrace the church's doctrinal exposition of the passage. There is a policy, and there is Paul's teaching to undergird the policy. The policy can be mandated and enforced, the conviction that what Paul teaches is truth cannot be mandated (and the elders understand this). But, since they have the conviction and are Christ's stewards of the assembly, they promulgate and enforce the policy, as faithful stewards should.

And, though you did't exactly ask this question, I'm going to answer it here: so, what's the big deal?

There's a couple of big deals, but the one I want to mention in closing is the big deal that attends ignoring Paul at this point. To do so trains Christians -- men and women alike -- to cherry pick their way through the deposit of faith that comes to us from Christ and the Apostles in the Bible. It leads to Christians who take the words of the Bible and claim to believe them while they never practice them. They'll do things as James says are indicative of a dead faith -- professions with no concrete consequences. Singing choruses about bowing down before the Lord, but not a knee ever bends. That kind of thing.

Enough for now.

Spook

Thanks for your response Spook.

You are correct on several things you point out. One of them however is a trap that I fall into and I think many in the US fall into, and that is our own egocentrism. When I said why don't more do it, certainly I was forgetting most of the Christian world, which exists outside of the United States.

Anyway good points I will ponder them. I doubt if I will change these things in my denomination or change because of it, but you bring a good perspective to this teaching.

Their ecclesiology is so utterly immaterial, almost gnostic, that what was done in the past is utterly irrelevant. "The Church" is this wholly intangible, never apprehended, completely invisible, and (therefore) dismissible entity. Meanwhile, those who just happen to show up on Sunday morning can pretty well do as they please. They are the people and wisdom will die with them. Meanwhile, if you want to count heads, count all of them, since the days Paul delivered this to the Church. Care to guess what tiny sliver of that august body refuse to cover?

Interesting points and good ones.

[Ovedya]

And Biblically speaking, when is there ever a source without there being the implication of control or authority? God's throne is the source of the river of water of life and the tree of life in Revelation. Jesus even said that the Father was His source.

Where is such claimed implication is the question?

[Floatingaxe]

LT

My question in case you missed it was: How is this requirement in Cor. 11 for women having their head veiled cultural?

Your question thus phrased as 'How is this requirement in Cor. 11 for women having their head veiled cultural?', is very telling. If you re-read Chp. 11 it is very obvious that Paul is not teaching covering to be a requirement. There is no biblical command for women to wear head coverings. Paul argued on the bases of custom and propriety not a directive, command or hubands/man

[larryt]

But lets face it how many congregations today follow this, even the most conservative and literal? The only place I have seen it is some very traditional Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, some Mennonites, and I have seen a smattering of other women do it in various denominations, but it seems to be a more of a choice, versus a doctrine of the congregation.

So why is that?

Smalcald, you ask several questions, each with interesting responses. Taking them in turn ...

But lets face it how many congregations today follow this, even the most conservative and literal?

A couple of things to reply here. First of all, what is the point of asking how many obey Paul's teaching? Do you suggest that Apostolic authority is to be assessed by a head-count? I don't think you do, from what I've read by you elsewhere. But, your question makes me ask this one in reply. Remember, Paul is the Apostle who wrote to the same church "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." Does anyone seriously think that 1 Cor. 11:1-16 are excluded from this? And, if this teaching is included in Paul's writings that are the commandment of the Lord, how do we dismiss the Lord's commandment so easily?

Second, I'd still think that the sheer number of those Christian women who cover in worship outnumber those who do not. Now, it is true (for I believe your report) that in the places you circulate the statistics run far in the other direction. But, Catholics in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe still cover, even though Vatican II supposedly dropped the practice as a requirement (it actually didn't). Throw in the Orthodox worldwide, and the 80 or so Anglican Christians in Africa alone, another 20 or so million Anglicans in India and SE Asia,and add any number of Protestant groups here and around the world, (yes, Mennonites, but also most that are like them from our perspective -- Christian Apostolics, several of the Brethren groups) ... well, Smalcald, you just get out enough!

Third, did you ever read Chesterton on the awful authority of the mob? Let me know if not, and I'll post the quote here. In summary, Chesterton was pointing out that tradition in the Church is simply the way we acknowledge the faith and practice of our ancestors. It is, as he so amusingly put it, the most democratic of values, giving "votes" to those most obscure people, those in heaven. Even Paul invoked them, and he did so with respect to the covering: "16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."

Finally (on this angle), the consideration Chesterton addresses is one of the more fundamental reasons 21st Century American evangelicals do not follow the practice. Their ecclesiology is so utterly immaterial, almost gnostic, that what was done in the past is utterly irrelevant. "The Church" is this wholly intangible, never apprehended, completely invisible, and (therefore) dismissible entity. Meanwhile, those who just happen to show up on Sunday morning can pretty well do as they please. They are the people and wisdom will die with them. Meanwhile, if you want to count heads, count all of them, since the days Paul delivered this to the Church. Care to guess what tiny sliver of that august body refuse to cover? All of them inhabit the last 2 percent of the Church's life.

For the record, the only women in my parish who do not cover are visitors. And those who have remained with us after visiting adopt the practice with nary a word from me, or (so far as I know) from anyone else.

... but it seems to be a more of a choice, versus a doctrine of the congregation.?

I suppose by "doctrine of the congregation" you mean a teaching or policy which is enforced at the congregational level. Yes, I know some Brethren groups who do this. Women who visit their assemblies, even for a long time, are not required to cover. But, if they wish to become members of the congregation (with the rights and privileges that attend this), they are required to adopt the practice.

On the other hand, when I was a boy visiting the cathedrals of Mexico, each Cathedral had a stash of scarves and mantillas in the narthex of the churches, so female touristas could cover before entering. In a Swiss-German group in Illinois and is my father-in-law's cradle community, the cover is standard (I've described it elsehwere in these boards), and there are a dozen or so of these available for visiting women to place on their heads in their worship services. I'm told by travellers in Europe that the provision of covers I saw in Mexico as a boy were also available throughout Catholic Europe before Vatican II.

The point: many Christian groups -- from Catholics to small German-pietist groups -- have never felt the need to teach and defend the practice before requiring compliance with it. And, in the one case of a Brethren assembly I'm familiar with, they do not even require that the women who cover embrace the church's doctrinal exposition of the passage. There is a policy, and there is Paul's teaching to undergird the policy. The policy can be mandated and enforced, the conviction that what Paul teaches is truth cannot be mandated (and the elders understand this). But, since they have the conviction and are Christ's stewards of the assembly, they promulgate and enforce the policy, as faithful stewards should.

And, though you did't exactly ask this question, I'm going to answer it here: so, what's the big deal?

There's a couple of big deals, but the one I want to mention in closing is the big deal that attends ignoring Paul at this point. To do so trains Christians -- men and women alike -- to cherry pick their way through the deposit of faith that comes to us from Christ and the Apostles in the Bible. It leads to Christians who take the words of the Bible and claim to believe them while they never practice them. They'll do things as James says are indicative of a dead faith -- professions with no concrete consequences. Singing choruses about bowing down before the Lord, but not a knee ever bends. That kind of thing.

Enough for now.

Spook

Hi Spook,

Wish I was better at writing. Very well said.

LT

[larryt]

I'm reading this and wondering, "Why cover?" What I'm hearing is, "Because Paul says so." But why else? I'm not saying that's not good enough. I'm just curious. Why did he say that?

It is an outward sign of an inward reality of submission to authority, to briefly state it.

LT