Thoughts on Head-Coverings?

[Logan]

Is it national, regional, ethnic, familial? My initial criticism of your position is that it is arguing that the Church must adapt to its larger cultural context on this issue which removes the authority of the Church to determine its own culture.

Yes, it can be any of those. But if someone says "my church's 'culture' is x" then one has to ask the reason why, as the church is specifically to be informed from God's word. It would be like saying "our church culture is to use hymns instead of psalms". You'd better have good exegetical reasons for that, not just "culture".

That doesn't mean that there can't be things indifferent like say, your church has a culture of hugging, but that's different than saying "our church has a culture of x during corporate worship." That's close to conflating "culture" with the regulative principle, if you accept the cultural interpretation.

However, I would note that I have always found it strange that the perpetual head-covering interpretation has limited this to corporate worship when there seems to be nothing in the passage to limit it so. Is it only applicable during one hour or two on Sunday and the rest of the week head coverings are indifferent?

 

[Eyedoc84]

Yes, it can be any of those. But if someone says "my church's 'culture' is x" then one has to ask the reason why, as the church is specifically to be informed from God's word. It would be like saying "our church culture is to use hymns instead of psalms". You'd better have good exegetical reasons for that, not just "culture".

That doesn't mean that there can't be things indifferent like say, your church has a culture of hugging, but that's different than saying "our church has a culture of x during corporate worship." That's close to conflating "culture" with the regulative principle, if you accept the cultural interpretation.

However, I would note that I have always found it strange that the perpetual head-covering interpretation has limited this to corporate worship when there seems to be nothing in the passage to limit it so. Is it only applicable during one hour or two on Sunday and the rest of the week head coverings are indifferent?

Because the context of the passage is prayer, prophecy, the Lord's table, and the traditions handed down. The rest of the week is guided by what nature teaches, which is that women keep distinctly different hair styles than men.

 

[alexandermsmith]

To see demonstrated that the argument from creation and universal natural and spiritual principles does not hold, see pp. 42-45.

This particular section of your thesis does not prove what you think it does. You present the various practices listed- head covering, washing feet, holy kiss, the good conduct of women in 1 Timothy 5:10, shaking the dust from off one's feet, the use of oil in prayer- as if they are of the same nature: spiritual commands which express themselves in culturally determined ways. But they are not all the same. One of these has a very explicit command, argued at length, and based on Creation: the head covering; two appear to be general commands: washing feet and using oil in prayer; one is clearly restricted to the Apostles during their time of itinerant ministry: shaking the dust off one's feet; and the others- holy kiss and commendable female conduct- are circumstantial.

The last first: 1 Timothy 5:10 is clearly not requiring each single behaviour mentioned for a woman to be considered virtuous, as some women, for example, cannot bear children (the lack of children to care for the widow has already been mentioned by Paul a few verses earlier). The fact the verse ends with "if she have diligently followed every good work" confirms this (she must have performed every single good work imaginable?). Paul is saying that only older widows, of good character, should be maintained by the church. He is merely giving a list of those duties which are peculiarly female and for which such a woman should be commended. As for the holy kiss there is no argument from nature given to underpin this direction (I wouldn't even say it goes to the extent of a command). Each mention is within the context of salutations to the brethren. This was certainly a cultural practice of the time and so it is natural for Paul to use it.

The two which appear to be general commands aren't necessarily so. Poole, for example, argues that oil was used by those who had gifts of healing; such having ceased oil is no longer to be used. Your strongest point is the feet washing which Christ does indeed say is an example for the Apostles to follow. But is it a command specifically to wash each others' feet, or a command to be humble and adopt a serving attitude amongst themselves? Again in the culture in which they lived washing feet was a common practice. But elsewhere in Scripture do we see it commanded? Paul doesn't mention it in his directions for a proper participation in the Sacrament (at which it became a custom in the church at a later date). So it's not at all clear that Christ meant this as a perpetual commandment but as showing by example the humble spirit which the Lord's ministers are to adopt. It is not a practice which is required by the church at large (such as head covering). And even if He did mean it as a specific command, the failure to follow this one doesn't invalidate others.

But when we compare the command regarding head covering to the others- which you put together as if they are of the same category- then its distinctive quality is actually brought out in sharp relief. It is here where Paul grounds his argument not in the local customs of the Corinthians (nor assumes local custom, such as with the holy kiss) but in nature itself, going all the way back to the creation of Man and Woman. Where else is such an argument utilised? By Christ when discussing marriage. Is marriage between one man and one woman a mere cultural convention which can be done away with if the culture around us changes? (In which case we should be abandoning this view of marriage as the West plunges into sexual anarchy.) Of course not. Christ's reference to the Creation is in contrast to the human tradition traced back to Moses. Christ's argument from nature is an explicit repudiation of the cultural argument. And yet we are to believe that the straightforward reading of Paul's use of this reasoning is to the opposite end, to defend a cultural custom?

But we don't even need to assume Paul is making the same category of argument as Christ as he also contrasts his argument with custom: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." 1 Corinthians 11:16. Here Paul says clearly that if there are those who practise other than what he has taught (head covering), "we"- the church- do not hold to that practice which the contentious are promoting (non-head covering). "We have no such custom": we have no alternative practice to head covering. Paul is not promoting a local custom (the Corinthians weren't observing head covering which is why he wrote to them about it in the first place) but is telling them to follow the universal Christian practice.

And as regarding the section "Universal Reasons do Not make a Worship Practice Perpetually Binding" I must confess I am at a loss as to what point you are trying to prove with the numerous scripture references. That a particular command or practice having a universal reason given for it does not, for that reason alone, make the command or practice forever binding is true. The ceremonial law is the prime example of this: this law was given to Israel that they might, through sacrifices which were a type of Christ's sacrifice, make atonement for their sins. This was based on the universal laws of God's punishment of sin and the requirement of the shedding of blood for the remission of sins but the laws themselves were limited to the dispensation in which Israel lived. But we know these laws are no longer enforced because we are told so in the New Testament, just as we are told of other laws which bound Israel being abrogated with the advent of Christ. But we are not told that the law of head covering has been abrogated, indeed it is explicitly given in the New Testament. So you need to address the fact that those laws which were given to Israel, which were based on universal, spiritual laws but were temporary, were specifically annulled in the New Testament but this particular law we are discussing was not.

And I find this portion very confusing:

"The universal reasons given from God’s nature confirm his authority to do so. The further specific, natural and spiritual reasons given in the larger context reveal how the rites are in accord with nature and spiritual principles (or Christian prudence), they being expressions of those principles and devotion to God as they are obeyed. Yet those imposed observances, though not explicitly stated in the local text, were clearly meant to be temporal and circumstantially conditioned (Gen. 49:10; Deut. 14:2; 18:18–19; 2 Sam. 23:3–5; Isa. 66:18–21; Dan. 9:24–27; Mt. 15:20; Gal. 3:23–4:5; Heb. 11:9–10). Neither the universal nor specific spiritual reasons given meant these practices could not be otherwise."

This reads as if what is contained in the parenthesis are those laws and observances which have now been abrogated. But each (save the last three), so far as I can tell, contains nothing which has been abrogated in the New Testament dispensation. They contain either God's promise of the future coming of the Messiah or what He will do for His people (and the fact that Christ has now come does not annul these promises. The fulfilment of them gives us a ground for continuing to trust in God because we can see how faithful He is and that He keeps His promises). He uses symbolic and spiritual imagery when making these pronouncements, but their relation to the argument you are making is lost on me. The third-and-second last references are explaining the spiritual nature of the law but this is in contrast to the Jews who believed a mere formal observance- or their ethnic relationship to Abraham- was a ground of their salvation. Paul is reminding them that obedience to the Law is not merely in outward observance but in the posture of the soul and the obedience of the heart. This is not a change in the nature of the Law but a reasserting of its spiritual nature. And the last reference is merely Paul saying that Abraham knew Canaan was not his final home but was a type of Heaven, and it was towards that place that he looked. Again this does not represent a change or a disannulling. The Law was always spiritual and Canaan was always a type. Abraham knew it was a type, that is what Paul is saying.

Perhaps you meant these references to establish those spiritual realities which have been the underpinning of temporary commands but that is not how it reads. As I said, it is true that there were temporary observances commanded which were based on universal truths, but we are told what those are in the New Testament. We have no such directive that allows us to abandon the practice of head covering today.

One counter-argument is that in the Eastern societies head covering was a sign of submission and an uncovered head a sign of authority, whereas in the West it is the opposite. I have no reason to doubt that was true there and I won't dispute the part about the West (although it's slightly more complex in the West as both men and women have traditionally worn head coverings in society). If I understand correctly you accept that the principle of male authority continues but the expression of that is cultural. Well as has been asked already: what is today's expression of that principle? It's not wedding rings. A head covering seems to me a very obvious sign to use because of its visibility, because it so offends those who oppose male authority and because, you know, it's specifically mentioned in Scripture. Even if one were to accept that the head covering was merely a cultural expression of a universal rule, I cannot think of anything which, today, serves as a better sign. The fact that head covering generally (by both men and women) is in such decline actually strengthens the case for it because the uniform practice of women in the church wearing one sharply distinguishes the church from the surrounding society. So even the cultural argument supports the head covering rather than the abolition of it.

We must be very careful about saying any command in Scripture is cultural. The church is not meant to reflect the world: we are in it but not of it. Christians live in both spheres and there are circumstances to our practice which are common to all men but to assume that certain commandments must have been a reflection of a (pagan) culture is to operate on a principle which I don't think is Scriptural. If the head covering was purely cultural why was it not mentioned by Paul when he spoke of eating of meats and so be included amongst those things which Paul explicitly says are a matter of conscience and not of obligation? But it was mentioned by Paul alongside the Sacrament as two commands which were not being obeyed properly by the Corinthians. Where formers commands are not abrogated, and where local cultural practices are made a matter of conscience, Scripture tells us so. We have no such direction regarding this command. The fact that it was the cultural norm that a covered head was a sign of submission does not give us warrant to set aside what God's Word enjoins.

I acknowledge this is just in response to a very small portion of your book and perhaps you engage with some of these points elsewhere but I responded to this section because, as you yourself say, the creational argument is the primary argument used and you believe you have proven it wrong. However your treatment of it did no such thing.

 

[chuckd]

If the cultural assumption is removed from the argument, the confirmatory arguments do not by themselves necessitate the need of an artificial cultural custom to exemplify them.

The headship of the husband over the wife may and should be manifested in all cultures by the wife's submission to her husband. That is enough. There is no need for anything more necessarily.

Travis, thanks for the detailed reply. I know it takes time to respond to each person asking you questions on this thread.

I didn't want to quote your entire post, so I honed in on this as it seemed to be the substance of it. I understand you take it that if there is no cultural expression or symbol representing "woman was made for man", then we're not obligated to conjure one up.

First, I think head covering is almost universally recognized as that symbol today. 99% of people worldwide see a Muslim woman wearing a hijab and they don't need to ask her why. It is understood. We have that cultural assumption, we just don't practice it.

Second, in 1 Cor. 11:10, he doesn't say a wife should have a (culturally specific) head covering, but a (universally recognized) symbol. The symbol may change, but regardless "a wife ought to have a symbol."

 

[Northern Crofter]

That's close to conflating "culture" with the regulative principle, if you accept the cultural interpretation.

Yes, that is my concern with the work that has been presented.

However, I would note that I have always found it strange that the perpetual head-covering interpretation has limited this to corporate worship when there seems to be nothing in the passage to limit it so. Is it only applicable during one hour or two on Sunday and the rest of the week head coverings are indifferent?

There are many things people might find "strange" that a congregation does during corporate worship. There is no other time during the week that I sing out loud with other people (outside of my family), drink from the same cup, or stand to pray.

 

[alexandermsmith]

However, I would note that I have always found it strange that the perpetual head-covering interpretation has limited this to corporate worship when there seems to be nothing in the passage to limit it so. Is it only applicable during one hour or two on Sunday and the rest of the week head coverings are indifferent?

Do you mean it's strange that churches which hold to head covering don't require it of their women all the time, or just in all acts of worship (public and private)? If the former the simple answer is that Paul's command is within the context of worship not all of life. If the latter I think that is an interesting question as it seems the passage is referring to all worship, not just public, if we take 1 Corinthians 11:17 to represent a change of location from all worship to specifically the public worship (as Paul goes on to discuss the Lord's Supper). So when he says in v. 17 "that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse" this is only referring to what follows and not to what he has just been saying. If it refers to what has gone before as well as what follows, then it would be restricted to the public; if just what follows then there is a case to be made that women should cover their heads in public and private worship. This specific question doesn't keep me up at night but I have wondered about it in the past and I know of a couple of women, at least, in my church who do wear a head covering in family worship as well as public.

But I don't believe we can use this passage to require a constant covering of the head (like the exclusive brethren). The passage is clearly talking about worship. Which is another reason why the cultural argument doesn't persuade me. Paul is not addressing general practices to express male authority and female submission (in church and society) but is speaking specifically about religious worship. In the worship of God there should be a clear, visible manifestation of male authority and female submission. So to say that Paul is requiring head coverings in this particular area because, generally in the society head covering represented submission, is to miss what Paul is actually talking about. It's to assume he's speaking generally and just giving an example (worship) when actually his whole concern is the worship of God.

 

[Logan]

Because the context of the passage is prayer, prophecy, the Lord's table, and the traditions handed down. The rest of the week is guided by what nature teaches, which is that women keep distinctly different hair styles than men.

There are many things people might find "strange" that a congregation does during corporate worship. There is no other time during the week that I sing out loud with other people (outside of my family), drink from the same cup, or stand to pray.

Do you mean it's strange that churches which hold to head covering don't require it of their women all the time, or just in all acts of worship (public and private)? If the former the simple answer is that Paul's command is within the context of worship not all of life.

If head coverings cannot be cultural because it is "grounded in creation" (which you all apparently agree with), then it should follow that it is grounded in creation all the time, not merely during corporate worship.

There is no equivalent mention in the OT. Sometimes people prayed with their heads covered and uncovered. Thus it does not appear that it is "grounded in creation" as a regulating principle for corporate worship.

I don't see how you can have it both ways: guided by the light of nature (i.e., should be obvious to everybody everywhere), grounded in creation (i.e., from the beginning of the world) and yet have it only applicable to corporate worship, and only in the NT since it clearly wasn't observed strictly or as a principle in the Old. I'm not aware of any Reformed or Puritan commentator who takes your view here, but would be interested in being proven wrong.

I don't have strong feelings on this one way or the other, but I don't intend replying any more to anyone who isn't interacting with the material which has already been put forward. It's not common ground when I've read the argument and the rebuttal, and someone else just keeps bringing up the argument as though the rebuttal doesn't exist. I keep thinking "that's already been addressed, it needs to be clarified or rebutted but repeating the same thing multiple times without altering it it isn't helpful." Let's both try understand the positions of both sides before beginning the argument, please.

 

[Eyedoc84]

If head coverings cannot be cultural because it is "grounded in creation" (which you all apparently agree with), then it should follow that it is grounded in creation all the time, not merely during corporate worship

So women should never be allowed to speak or teach men?

 

[Logan]

So women should never be allowed to speak or teach men?

I feel like you're arguing without listening. Besides which I already said this:

I don't intend replying any more to anyone who isn't interacting with the material which has already been put forward.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I feel like you're arguing without listening. Besides which I already said this:

No my point was that you argued if something is grounded in creation then it must apply all the time. But Paul grounds women's behaviour in the church in creation, I don't think you are prepared to state women can never speak. Paul limited his context to worship/church life.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

I don’t see why, along the lines of Gill’s explanation in his introduction to 1 Cor 11, we can’t take female headcoverings in public worship to be an apostolic ordinance, with diverse reasons behind its appointment?

He praises them for keeping the apostolic ordinances but corrects them for some irregularities and explains the reasons behind the ordinances. There is no correction for not washing feet, or a holy kiss, or any similar reasoning offered for any of those things, nor are they mentioned in any context related to the public worship of Gods people generally. Just some further observations..

I’ve not read the whole of travis’ material yet so maybe I’ll get to a bit that discusses this point

 

[Logan]

No my point was that you argued if something is grounded in creation then it must apply all the time. But Paul grounds women's behaviour in the church in creation, I don't think you are prepared to state women can never speak. Paul limited his context to worship/church life.

I'm finding myself frustrated here because I feel like I clearly understand where you are coming from. Trust me, I do. I have read and re-read and accumulated all the pro-arguments for years. But my replies or concerns are being filtered through this one-sided view which still hasn't interacted with the material under discussion. So I'm equally confident I understand your reasoning and that you don't understand my concerns with that reasoning; and we just can't have a conversation like this. This would be greatly remedied I think if you would interact with the material so we can have some common understanding of reasoning and objections. I'm assuming knowledge of Travis' responses and you're not.

Travis has some extensive writing on natural and positive laws, creation, the OT with regard to head coverings, etc. We can disagree with none, some, or all of it but at least being aware of it would be helpful. Respond to his arguments, don't repeat the ones he's responded to as if they were never made.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

I'm finding myself frustrated here because I feel like I clearly understand where you are coming from. Trust me, I do. I have read and re-read and accumulated all the pro-arguments for years. But my replies or concerns are being filtered through this one-sided view which still hasn't interacted with the material under discussion. So I'm equally confident I understand your reasoning and that you don't understand my concerns with that reasoning; and we just can't have a conversation like this. This would be greatly remedied I think if you would interact with the material so we can have some common understanding of reasoning and objections. I'm assuming knowledge of Travis' responses and you're not.

Travis has some extensive writing on natural and positive laws, creation, the OT with regard to head coverings, etc. We can disagree with none, some, or all of it but at least being aware of it would be helpful. Respond to his arguments, don't repeat the ones he's responded to as if they were never made.

Logan, I think you are still misunderstanding, or at least talking beside the point. The point being made is not that the justification for head coverings is grounded in creation, and then ignoring the counter arguments relating to that. Rather, the point is specifically interacting with the counter argument cited (that then the command must apply all the time) and showing that it carries no weight, because if it did then that would also apply to the other instances where an argument is made from creation, with the consequence that you would have to say that the prohibition on women speaking must apply all the time, which is absurd.

Now, if you have a further counter argument which is specific to head coverings as distinct from the command that women keep silence, then it’s reasonable to bring that forward, rather than get frustrated that @Eyedoc84 is interacting with the argument in the thread rather than some other one that you may be thinking of.

 

[Logan]

Logan, I think you are still misunderstanding, or at least talking beside the point.

I'm very certain the misunderstanding is not on my end because I'm engaging with both perspectives. This is by no means a new topic to me. You guys are adding nothing new by continuing to avoid engaging the context of this entire discussion.

I bring up a question in that context with two other paragraphs in that context (which were ignored but are integrally related) and you're challenging me about one paragraph with a set of completely different assumptions than the context. Sorry I don't know how to explain it any better than that but this conversation can go nowhere if you guys continue to avoid the material.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

I don’t see why, along the lines of Gill’s explanation in his introduction to 1 Cor 11, we can’t take female headcoverings in public worship to be an apostolic ordinance, with diverse reasons behind its appointment?

He praises them for keeping the apostolic ordinances but corrects them for some irregularities and explains the reasons behind the ordinances. There is no correction for not washing feet, or a holy kiss, or any similar reasoning offered for any of those things, nor are they mentioned in any context related to the public worship of Gods people generally. Just some further observations..

I’ve not read the whole of travis’ material yet so maybe I’ll get to a bit that discusses this point

I'm in essential agreement with this comment. The Apostle may give a reason, or several, or none at all as a "basis" for his directions. At some level, there is the raw authority behind a command that requires compliance with or without a justification. As subjects, we are in no position to demand explanations; although in kindness God frequently suits our craving for mental satisfaction.

I am of the opinion that nature/creation grounds nothing so far as worship practice, nor is there much (if any) direct appeal to culture in Scripture as a way of promoting or prohibiting worship practice.* It is the pure will of God that authorizes and grounds every aspect of worship. TF takes the position that God doesn't so will a covering/uncovering rule; hence it becomes a violation of RPW to insist on it. By contrast, I (and others) think there is such a rule, but unlike some others I do not argue from "reasons," but that the Apostle's direction is the will of Christ.

*St.Paul's occasional references to nature do not serve to ground any religious point he makes; but are illustrative of particular teachings which always have theological or exegetical justifications.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Hugues, it is good to hear from you friend.

I know answering your question touches on a lot of people, and I mean nothing personal in my response to anyone. But the question is fair and deserves to be answered fairly.

By "binding" in your question I presume you mean head-coverings as a religious rite, and therefore transcultural and perpetual, a matter of the Word's doctrine.

WCF 1.6 cites head-coverings (1 Cor. 11:13-14) in proof-text for its doctrine that some circumstances common to society are to be ordered for worship by the light of nature, Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word.

WCF 21 deals with religiously significant, positive acts of worship, which are not taught by nature, nor can be (see WCF 21.1).

To hold that head-coverings are a positive expression of worship (such as in WCF 21) is to say that they are not taught by nature (or secondary laws of nature, such as from culture) but are given positively from the Lord in Scripture. Hence by definition they cannot be circumstances common to society.

Yet the Confession in its proof-texts holds that Corinthian head-coverings are common circumstances to society, and can be ordered by the light of nature. Yet the person holding that they are perpetually binding is saying they are beyond the light of nature, cannot be taught by it, and by definition are not circumstances common to society insofar as they are religiously significant as worship, and positively given of the Lord by special revelation.

Nor can something be both a common circumstance to society, taught by nature's light and accidental to worship (WCF 1.6), and positive and above the light of nature, necessary and religiously significant (WCF 21). The categories are mutually exclusive.

Hence such a position is a deviation from the proof-texts of the WCF. Even if one does not accept the proof-texts as binding, it can be historically proven that such a position is contrary to the original intention of the WCF, and is therefore unconfessional with respect to Westminster.

Head-coverings though, could be a "binding commandment" in a culture where it would be dishonorable not to wear one. Someone above mentioned India, for example.

It is theoretically conceivable that a person might try to justify perpetual female head-coverings for worship from WCF 1.6, that they are due to the light of nature and natural law. Note on this position they are not a specifically religious rite of worship (such as in WCF 21).

William Greenhill, an Independent Westminster divine, made some statements that would lean to perpetual coverings, though I do believe the contexts are ambiguous enough so that it is not clear if he was truly saying this, or on what exact grounds and what exact nature he was giving to them. Voet (see p. 168, footnote 520) held that a woman's covering for public was taught universally by nature, and hence applied to civil public as much as the church assembly, and was necessary, but he held that the covering may be her hair (alone, 1 Cor. 11:15) or "something additional". This fits into WCF 1.6.

Note on a view that head-coverings fit into WCF 1.6 and are a universal binding commandment from the light of nature (which Voet did not hold to, as he saw woman's hair being legitimate also), this entails that the women must wear them in civil public as a circumstance common to society. It also entails that they are taught by pure-nature (if they are universally binding, trans-culturally), which is impossible. I argue against such on pp. 47-50.

But see especially p. 18, footnote 21 where I argue "It is impossible for the perpetual head-covering view to be legitimately encompassed in" WCF 1.6.

I know these are difficult things. Let use commit to being faithful to the Lord in them.

Blessings friend, and the peace of God be with you.

Thank you Travis, for your answer. Even if I cannot agree with you concerning the proof-text of WCF 1.6, I deeply appreciate the time and energy you displayed to answer me. I will try to read your book in a near future and If I have any question or comment I will share it to you.

May the Lord bless you and all your dear family,

Hugues

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

I'm in essential agreement with this comment. The Apostle may give a reason, or several, or none at all as a "basis" for his directions. At some level, there is the raw authority behind a command that requires compliance with or without a justification. As subjects, we are in no position to demand explanations; although in kindness God frequently suits our craving for mental satisfaction.

I am of the opinion that nature/creation grounds nothing so far as worship practice, nor is there much (if any) direct appeal to culture in Scripture as a way of promoting or prohibiting worship practice.* It is the pure will of God that authorizes and grounds every aspect of worship. TF takes the position that God doesn't so will a covering/uncovering rule; hence it becomes a violation of RPW to insist on it. By contrast, I (and others) think there is such a rule, but unlike some others I do not argue from "reasons," but that the Apostle's direction is the will of Christ.

*St.Paul's occasional references to nature do not serve to ground any religious point he makes; but are illustrative of particular teachings which always have theological or exegetical justifications.

Wonder if I’m reading too much into what you’ve said, but is it always the pure will of God that grounds every aspect of worship? For example, when the Saviour says that “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth”, that gives me the impression that it’s the nature of God in this case, not necessarily the will of God, that grounds an aspect of worship.

But more to the point, I would agree with what you’re saying here on the whole.

This may be irrelevant, but I do think it’s beautiful that since the man is the glory of God and the woman is the glory of man, the head covering reflects how man’s glory ought to be veiled in the presence of God, akin to the seraphim covering their faces. Come to think of it, I wonder if that has anything to do with “because of the angels”? If angels veil their glory in the immediate presence of the Most High, how much more fitting for the glory of man, sinful man at that, to be veiled? The question of why it was not insisted on for public worship in the OT as far as we know is not something we can pry into, we’re not told why. But it’s insisted on in the New. As an aside, when Rebekah came into the presence of Jacob, she put on her veil out of respect, similar to angels covering their faces. But maybe that’s neither here nor there, because Elijah also covered his face with his mantle, although that might very well have just been a spontaneous gesture in the moment. Rebekah is a lovely analogy of the humility of the believer in the presence of Christ though.

It also seems quite beautiful that the roles of male and female reflect something of the relationship between Christ and His church, such that any man praying in public with his head covered dishonours his Head, Christ. (Before anyone mentions reformers preaching wearing caps, we remember that in cold weather or other risk to health, God will have mercy and not sacrifice.)

I digress..

 

[alexandermsmith]

If head coverings cannot be cultural because it is "grounded in creation" (which you all apparently agree with), then it should follow that it is grounded in creation all the time, not merely during corporate worship.

There is no equivalent mention in the OT. Sometimes people prayed with their heads covered and uncovered. Thus it does not appear that it is "grounded in creation" as a regulating principle for corporate worship.

I don't see how you can have it both ways: guided by the light of nature (i.e., should be obvious to everybody everywhere), grounded in creation (i.e., from the beginning of the world) and yet have it only applicable to corporate worship, and only in the NT since it clearly wasn't observed strictly or as a principle in the Old.

It is the command of God through the Apostle which is the basis for the practice. Whether or not it was a rule in the OT doesn't matter if it is made a rule in the New. However the examples that Travis cites from the OT of men covering their heads during worship, that I've seen, are from Temple worship which has been done away with so they aren't necessarily relevant to this discussion. He also cites Zechariah 3 which is a symbolic vision about justification and should not be used as determinative for ordinary public worship.

I haven't seen what examples of women worshipping without head coverings he is thinking of but are they in the context of corporate worship, or are they such instances as Miriam leading the women in song (which isn't an instance of oridinary public worship)?

I feel like you're arguing without listening. Besides which I already said this:

I'm finding myself frustrated here because I feel like I clearly understand where you are coming from. Trust me, I do. I have read and re-read and accumulated all the pro-arguments for years. But my replies or concerns are being filtered through this one-sided view which still hasn't interacted with the material under discussion. So I'm equally confident I understand your reasoning and that you don't understand my concerns with that reasoning; and we just can't have a conversation like this. This would be greatly remedied I think if you would interact with the material so we can have some common understanding of reasoning and objections. I'm assuming knowledge of Travis' responses and you're not.

Travis has some extensive writing on natural and positive laws, creation, the OT with regard to head coverings, etc. We can disagree with none, some, or all of it but at least being aware of it would be helpful. Respond to his arguments, don't repeat the ones he's responded to as if they were never made.

I'm very certain the misunderstanding is not on my end because I'm engaging with both perspectives. This is by no means a new topic to me. You guys are adding nothing new by continuing to avoid engaging the context of this entire discussion.

I bring up a question in that context with two other paragraphs in that context (which were ignored but are integrally related) and you're challenging me about one paragraph with a set of completely different assumptions than the context. Sorry I don't know how to explain it any better than that but this conversation can go nowhere if you guys continue to avoid the material.

Rather than getting frsutrated you should engage in the discussion which is actually happening in this thread. Individuals are responding to arguments you're making here and you're response is basically: "clearly you haven't read Travis's book because if you had you'd see why you're wrong." It is not good forum etiquette to drop a 300 page book and start a thread inviting thoughts on the topic of the book and reply to every post by referring the commenter to this and that page. That's not how a discussion is conducted on a forum.

But I have responded at length to a specific passage in Travis's book and neither he nor you have engaged with what I've said so who's avoiding the material now?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Wonder if I’m reading too much into what you’ve said, but is it always the pure will of God that grounds every aspect of worship? For example, when the Saviour says that “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth”, that gives me the impression that it’s the nature of God in this case, not necessarily the will of God, that grounds an aspect of worship.

I think we're digressing away from the thread subject (apologies to TF), but briefly to answer: I don't think Jesus is grounding true spiritual worship in the divine Being (ontologically). Grammatically, there is no "therefore" explicit or necessarily implied. I think the Lord is making a statement of correlation, i.e. it is most fitting and requisite to worship him in essentially this manner, if also in external forms that he ordains.

If divine ontology was the ground, one could argue that simple reason could or should teach the truth Christ articulates, granted that the qualitative nature of the true God was sufficiently apprehended. I doubt human creatures have that knowledge innate, and certainly do not in post-lapsarian condition. Which leads to the necessity of verbal revelation (even prior to the fall) to communicate the mind of God (i.e. his will) to creatures in order that they may rightly worship him.

 

[lynnie]

Wonder if I’m reading too much into what you’ve said, but is it always the pure will of God that grounds every aspect of worship? For example, when the Saviour says that “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth”, that gives me the impression that it’s the nature of God in this case, not necessarily the will of God, that grounds an aspect of worship.

But more to the point, I would agree with what you’re saying here on the whole.

This may be irrelevant, but I do think it’s beautiful that since the man is the glory of God and the woman is the glory of man, the head covering reflects how man’s glory ought to be veiled in the presence of God, akin to the seraphim covering their faces. Come to think of it, I wonder if that has anything to do with “because of the angels”? If angels veil their glory in the immediate presence of the Most High, how much more fitting for the glory of man, sinful man at that, to be veiled? The question of why it was not insisted on for public worship in the OT as far as we know is not something we can pry into, we’re not told why. But it’s insisted on in the New. As an aside, when Rebekah came into the presence of Jacob, she put on her veil out of respect, similar to angels covering their faces. But maybe that’s neither here nor there, because Elijah also covered his face with his mantle, although that might very well have just been a spontaneous gesture in the moment. Rebekah is a lovely analogy of the humility of the believer in the presence of Christ though.

It also seems quite beautiful that the roles of male and female reflect something of the relationship between Christ and His church, such that any man praying in public with his head covered dishonours his Head, Christ. (Before anyone mentions reformers preaching wearing caps, we remember that in cold weather or other risk to health, God will have mercy and not sacrifice.)

I digress..

Lovely post, thank you. I have always held to the "because of the angels" phrase as a primary reason for the command, and I find the talk of culture as a reason or non reason to be evasive. You are one of the few people in 40 years of my experience to actually dive right into the angels phrase. Your thoughts are very interesting and I've never heard that speculation before. It is not irrelevant at all to the topic, the phrase about angels should be central to the discussion.

I have personally come to the belief that the reference is to holy angels, ministering spirits, and not to fallen angels. But forty plus years ago in charismania, I knew women who were wearing them as some sort of protection from fallen evil angels that might attack the church and its saints. Bad theology in many ways, but at least they wanted to figure out what "because of the angels" meant.

I don't know why it relates to a woman prophesying or praying....what did the angels think or do when Phillip's four daughters prophesied? ( If they were not married, did they even wear one?) If I pray out loud at our midweek evening prayer meeting, why is my head covering there for the holy angels...what is the relationship? What does it mean? I don't know. But I really appreciate your thoughts and they make a lot of sense, they are beautiful. Thanks again.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

This particular section of your thesis does not prove what you think it does...

Alexander, thanks for your extended thoughts and interaction with parts of my book.

To only respond to some of the bigger points:

1. The Argument from Creation

You say that my referenced section doesn't prove what I think it does, and that my treatment did no such things as prove the argument from creation wrong. Please see the sections, "Scriptural Warrant & the Burden of Proof," and "Perpetualist Arguments & What will Happen," pp. 17-20.​

​

The circumstantial (cultural) view is proved so far as it goes on p. 18 top. Beyond that the circumstantial view doesn't have to prove anything, as circumstances need not be proved from Scripture. What must be proved is that head-coverings were more than circumstances, that is, a positive, religiously significant part of worship beyond they simply being ordered by nature's light, Christian prudence and the general principles of the Word. To prove this you must show with necessary consequence that Corinthian head-coverings are perpetual (WCF 1.6).​

​

In my referenced section against the creation argument, and other sections, I show that the argument from creational principles is not conclusive of itself and that another reading of the passage is possible. Therefore the perpetualist reading is not necessary.​

​

Please see again in my propositional argument in the original post, under Part I, propositions 1, 2, 6, 9, 11. All I have to show is that perpetualist arguments do not necessitate the perpetualist conclusion, and I have disproved the perpetualist position as being God's revealed will.​

​

You have continually asserted perpetualist readings of many passages and topics, and yet have not proven that those are the only possible readings, that your reading of them is necessary. And in fact there are more readings that are possible (such as ones I give in my book). Therefore your side still has not met the burden of proof, to show that the argument from Creation and your interpretation of 1 Cor. 11 is necessary and is established as doctrine and binding by God's will.​

​

Again, my section against the argument from creation did exactly what it was intended to do in the larger argument of the book, given at the beginning of the book: it showed that the argument from creation does not conclude a perpetualist conclusion by necessity, nor is that reading of the passage necessary. Therefore the perpetualist burden of proof is not met.​

​

2. Verses cited in Parentheses.

The many verses cited in the parentheses you quote prove exactly what comes before it, namely: "those imposed observances [in the OT], though not explicitly stated in the local text, were clearly meant to be temporal and circumstantially conditioned".​

​

The verses quoted from the OT show that the OT ceremonies were prophesied to fall away in the future, specifically with the coming of the Messiah. The NT ones simply confirm this. The point was that the local texts dealt with in the OT did not say they were temporary, but the larger context of Scripture did. And yet even by the context of those local texts, and their natures, it could have been known, and should have been known, that they were temporary. The point is very relevant to 1 Cor. 11, in that that passage need not explicitly say it is temporary for it to be understood by the things it deals with that it was temporary.​

​

3. " So even the cultural argument supports the head covering rather than the abolition of it."

My book does not go beyond arguing that head-coverings were cultural. It takes the discussion of head-coverings from WCF 21 (religiously significant parts of worship) to WCF 1.6 (circumstantial parts of worship which may be justified by culture).​

​

I in no way discuss in the book if head-coverings may be justified by culture in America or anywhere else in the world. If you agree that head-coverings are in the realm of WCF 1.6, as you seem to (maybe for the sake of argument?) in the above quote, this is inline with my book. If culture does warrant head-coverings in worship, then so be it. I allow that in my book (e.g. p. 274 and other places).​

​

4. "We must be very careful about saying any command in Scripture is cultural."

Many on this thread make a dichotomy between cultural things and things binding by apostolic authority, as if apostolic authority could not apply to cultural things, or as if Biblical commands must be wholly cultural or wholly moral, but cannot involve both aspects.​

​

Yet all that is far from the case. That is why my section on "Natural vs. Positive Laws", p. 46 is so important. As reformation and puritan theology held, all commands in specific circumstances are in some ways positive, albeit they may be some ways natural and moral as well. It is not either/or, but both/and. Paul may refer to cultural customs with natural and moral arguments supporting such (as I lay out in "Paul's Syllogism", pp. 62-64).​

​

On the cultural context of 1 Cor. 11, see pp. 230-31.​

​

I would recommend that you and others start at the beginning of my book to see how the issues are laid out. I do believe I prove everything I say I will prove in it. I do not have to disprove any and every perpetualist argument that persons bring up on the PB. They have to not simply assert and given some reasons for their position, but show that it is necessary, especially in light of the counter-arguments in my book.

Blessings Alexander; I am thankful for your evident concern to be faithful to God's Word.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

It is the command of God through the Apostle which is the basis for the practice. Whether or not it was a rule in the OT doesn't matter if it is made a rule in the New. However the examples that Travis cites from the OT of men covering their heads during worship, that I've seen, are from Temple worship which has been done away with so they aren't necessarily relevant to this discussion. He also cites Zechariah 3 which is a symbolic vision about justification and should not be used as determinative for ordinary public worship...

Alexander,

You have made some very specific arguments and interpretations above, which is helpful to advancing the discussion, though I am very much not persuaded of them.


"It is the command of God through the Apostle which is the basis for the practice."

Please prove this. And see pp. 38-45 and 51-64.​

​

"the examples that Travis cites from the OT of men covering their heads during worship, that I've seen, are from Temple worship which has been done away with so they aren't necessarily relevant to this discussion."

Numerous of the examples I cite are before the time of the Temple, occur outside of the Temple in otherwise ordinary life, and have no ceremonial aspects to them. Therefore your interpretation is untenable, unless you would like to prove it.​

"He also cites Zechariah 3 which is a symbolic vision about justification and should not be used as determinative for ordinary public worship."

A coherent position must be able to explain exceptions. How is it (on your view) that an exemplary vision uses a dishonorable practice to convey something honorable and good? Zechariah was a moral agent in that vision; how come he did not object that what he was required to do was sinful? If it wasn't sinful, perhaps head-coverings are not by Creation?​

​

It may be understood that the vision of Zech. 3 is used precisely because it corresponded with ordinary public worship in the OT, with men wearing turbans, etc. per their custom, in the Temple. And this interpretation cannot be ruled out, which you must do to show that your interpretation is necessary.​

I don't mean to be too direct and impolite, but for a position to hold, it must hold. Thank you for further considering these points. I hope we can all learn from these things.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

That was my point, too - your work is replete with use of the word "culture" but is never defined. Your first post in this thread states at the beginning that you "argue that the cultural view is conclusive from God's Word" but you fail to define what a culture is. Is it national, regional, ethnic, familial? My initial criticism of your position is that it is arguing that the Church must adapt to its larger cultural context on this issue which removes the authority of the Church to determine its own culture. For example, I would say that the culture in our congregation is to accept whatever decision each household comes to regarding head-coverings. Our society is pluralistic so this would seem to meet your requirement that Church practice meets cultural practice - some women in my national, regional, ethnic, and familial cultures cover their heads only when attending public worship and have done so for generations. But you do not seem to acknowledge that as a possibility in your position, instead taking a rather hard line and coming off as rather ungracious and judgmental of those wo maintain the culture of their Church/congregation. Arguing that head-coverings cannot be universally prescribed based on Scripture is one thing - you seem to be going far beyond that. te you interacting with my limited criticism above - I will engage with your work as I have time and work on a critical review and post it in the Book Review forum, with the caveat that my formal training is in History and Literature, not Theology.

Andrew, I do believe we are talking past each other a bit. To respond on a few points:

1. "your work is replete with use of the word "culture" but is never defined... you "argue that the cultural view is conclusive from God's Word" but you fail to define what a culture is. Is it national, regional, ethnic, familial?"

I didn't believe I needed to define it as "cultural" is set in opposition to a formally positive, religious rite appointed of the Lord and perpetual, and the difference between the two vast and easily understood. As my work does not depend on any specific definition of culture, any common dictionary definition will do. Here is one from Google which works just fine:​

​

"the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group."​

​

As to your specific question whether that entails national, regional, etc., that is beyond the scope of my book to specify, and I believe Logan rightly responded above that all those things have culture and are encompassed in culture.​

​

2. I believe we actually agree on about 98% of this, in that you, apparently, are seeking to justify head-coverings from culture (of a particular church).

One of the main points of my book is to bring head-coverings from the realm of a positive religious, perpetual rite (WCF 21) to being a circumstance of culture that might be justified in the worship of God (WCF 1.6). You apparently are founding your arguments for head-coverings on culture and WCF 1.6​

​

I only argue against head-coverings in the book when they are not justified from the light of nature or Scripture. But if they are justified by culture and hence the light of nature on your view, then my book speaks nothing against that.​

​

It is not in the scope of my book (see the Intro) to set up criteria for when head-coverings are or are not warranted by culture (even a church's culture).​

​

I believe you said that church's culture is to be based on the light of nature, Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word (WCF 1.6). If that is the case, then you are saying that the head-coverings you are advocating for a church's culture is based on the light of nature. My book does not speak against head-coverings when they are warranted by nature's light.​

​

The purpose of my book was not to argue against head-coverings simply, but as a religious positive, perpetual rite.​

​

3. The other issue, which Logan pointed out, is not if a tradition or custom is in the church (such as the elderly wearing head-coverings), but what is the grounds for such, such as grounds in the light of nature, culture, etc. We are not to worship God simply by tradition with no legitimate grounds (Mt. 15:9).

Hope these points clarify some things, and point toward the vast amount of agreement it appears that we have on the subject.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Friends,


If you desire to show that the argument of my book does not hold, you do not have to read it. The most clear, efficient and effective way to do that is to show particularly where the propositional argument I numerically lay out in the original post is not sound (it takes 2 min. to read).

You can do that by (1) proving one of the propositions to be false, (2) prove that a proposition does not follow, or (3) prove that the proposition does not conclude (with the other propositions) the conclusion of the argument. Please refer to the number of the propositions you refer to.

Also note that the material of Part II is substantial and of conclusive force. Even if Corinthian head-coverings are perpetual, neither the Scriptural or historical data necessitates veiling.

And even if it could be historically proven that veiling was necessary and universal at Corinth for obedient women, yet even this would not be by divine law such that it would bind all Christian women in all time. See "If Corinthian Head-Coverings be Perpetual, Veiling Cannot be Necessary by Divine Right," pp. 229.

I hope this will help to advance the discussion.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

After writing 300 pages nearly to defend this position, I don’t mean to denigrate the effort by responding so relatively briefly.. but I do think certain of the propositions are not true, or do not follow from the previous ones.



1. All positive, instituted worship must be “expressly set down in Scripture” or “by good and necessary consequence… deduced” therefrom; Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6. This is known as the Regulative Principle of Worship.



So far so good.



2. In Scripture head-coverings, or the lack thereof, bore a variety of contrary meanings and acceptability, or not, in worship. Hence they were clearly cultural.



How does it follow from this that they must be only cultural, specifically in 1 Cor 11?

Maybe this isn’t the best example but it’s one that springs to mind: the goat in Scripture bears a variety of significations, at times contrary one to another, and yet the use of goats for sacrifice, along with other significations attached to them, are not cultural, but divinely specified.


3. Head-coverings cannot be taught by pure-nature and have no intrinsic value for worshipping God.



The precise proportion of time for the Sabbath cannot be taught by pure nature, neither can it have any intrinsic value for worshipping God, but nevertheless it has been revealed as the will of God that the 1st day of every week be set apart for Him, and thus has been given value for worshipping Him. It follows that the same may hold true for head coverings in public worship.


4. Paul only uses the language of “dishonor,” “becometh,” “glory” and “custom” about head-coverings, which are all things of social decency, but do not reflect inherent sins. As with head-coverings, Paul uses imperatives in 1 Cor. 7 about things not intrinsically sinful.



Dishonouring the head, Christ, is more than just social decency, surely?

You assert that head covering is a “carnal ordinance”, by the same token is not sitting around a table and eating bread and drinking wine a “carnal ordinance”? If headcoverings in public worship reflect something of the humbling of man’s glory in the presence of God’s glory, they are most suited to the NT dispensation, when carnal and outward glory is veiled, and the more spiritual glory of Christ is brought to the fore, and headcoverings seem a most suitable, and simple token of this, in under the NT when worship is much more simple, and spiritual.

This ordinance is insisted upon in a unique way in the New Testament, particularly in the context of public worship. While you say it may not be necessary to conclude they are perpetual, it certainly seems most safe to do so, when it definitely does not seem
necessary to conclude they were merely cultural.



5. Some apostolic ordinances were circumstantially conditioned and mutable.



One example given was the prohibition of eating blood, and so this seems true. Head coverings are conditioned on the relation of Christ to His church, and the man to the woman as a reflection of this, which are not circumstantial things.



6. Universal moral reasons given for a practice, such as head-coverings, not eating creeping things (Lev. 11:41, 44), the holy kiss, foot-washing, etc. does not necessarily make it perpetual. A context is assumed and generals can only bind generally.



This could be pushed too far, so we ought to be very careful.



7. There is nothing in 1 Cor. 11 necessitating head-coverings to have a different meaning or use in worship than in society.



Surely the reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church is different to any use of head coverings in society. The connection between this ordinance and angels in relation to public worship, which is the entering into the more immediate gracious presence of God, also introduces a different meaning than that connected their use in society.



8. There is no necessary warrant Corinthian head-coverings were geographically or temporally universal in the apostolic churches; but if they were, this does not itself make an ordinance to be of positive religion, especially as the Greco-Roman culture (which head-coverings were appropriate to) was vast.



Female Head covering in public worship is attributed to “the churches of God” universally in 1 Cor 11, as a dissuasive motive against local Corinthian deviation from the practice.



9. Part I’s survey of all the relevant Scriptural head-covering data (consider it for yourself) shows there is no express or good and necessary consequence from these texts that Corinthian head-coverings were a positive, perpetual rite of religion (WCF 21.1) beyond circumstances common to human society, ordered by nature’s light, Christian prudence and the Word’s general principles (WCF 1.6), which things may be culturally relative.



Addressed previously.



10. These things being the case, Paul’s statement that improper head-covering “dishonoreth her head,” (v. 5) must be, not prescriptive, but descriptive, as the case was in that society (which it was). Hence Paul’s natural and spiritual arguments are contingent on this de factopremise. A change of the premise in a different culture where not covering is not dishonoring, changes the conclusion.



Also addressed previously.



11. Hence, as there is no express, necessary or valid consequence from Scripture Corinthian head-coverings were a matter of perpetual religion, this cannot be established as doctrine or a binding practice.



Does not follow, for reasons above mentioned.



12. To give a use or meaning to head-coverings for worship which nature or society does not bear and God’s Word has not given, is to worship God with a device of men, which God has prohibited by his Word (Mt. 15:9; WCF 21.1).



Thankfully the meaning and use given to head coverings is one which God’s Word *has* given.



Part II just seems quite dubious. In part one you stress the point that many Reformed theologians thought they were cultural, but that they were indeed physical coverings, not just a certain way of doing up the hair. Now you’re disagreeing with one of their main premises, that it was even a physical covering. So there’s picking and choosing of what to accept from the certain reformed theologians on your part too, is there not?

Besides, if it was dishonourable for a man in public worship to be veiled, then, on the view that the veil is having one’s hair up in a bun, that would mean that the prohibition is on men having their hair up in a bun.. but it’s assumed their hair wouldn’t be long enough to have up in a bun! The interpretation seems self refuting.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Alex,


Thank you for addressing my propositional argument in the original post directly.

If your points stand, then the argument of my book fails. If my responses stand, then my book's argument is thus far upheld. I will give the proposition's number, then a brief synopsis of it (in bold), and then your comments in quotes, with my response underneath. (I can't indent for some reason)


2. in relation to various meanings and acceptability of head-coverings in Scripture.

"How does it follow from this that they must be only cultural, specifically in 1 Cor 11?"

I grant my proposition is slightly ambiguous. Given that head-coverings in Scripture have various meanings and acceptability in worship, hence they were clearly cultural in and of themselves, generally. I grant you that this does not mean they could not be religiously appointed in 1 Cor. 11, and therefore the conclusion of the whole propositional argument does not follow from this one proposition.

I grant your argument from indifferent goats in the OT versus specifically appointed sacrificial goats. However, the cultural nature of head-coverings in the OT lends some prima facie plausibility that 1 Cor. 11 may be simply ordering a cultural thing (contrary to those who appeal to the "plain reading and meaning" of 1 Cor. 11).

However, showing the limitations of a non-essential proposition of the larger argument does not show that the conclusion of the larger argument fails.


3. Head-coverings are not by pure nature, nor have intrinsic value in worshipping God.

"The precise proportion of time for the Sabbath cannot be taught by pure nature, neither can it have any intrinsic value for worshipping God, but nevertheless it has been revealed as the will of God that the 1st day of every week be set apart for Him, and thus has been given value for worshipping Him. It follows that the same may hold true for head coverings in public worship."

I grant your argument here, that Corinthian head-coverings may be like the Sabbath in this regard. However, to prove that something is possible, or may be, does nothing to prove that it has been so established or ordained, nor is warrant for such.

Hence the conclusion of the larger argument, proposition 11, still stands, that "there is no express, necessary or valid consequence from Scripture Corinthian head-coverings were a matter of perpetual religion..."


4. Paul uses language in 1 Cor. 11 of social honor, not sin.

"Dishonouring the head, Christ, is more than just social decency, surely?"

One can dishonor Christ by upsetting social decency, but on this view, which I prefer in the book, the head-covering is still a matter of social decency.

You have asserted the view that covering or not in vv. 4-5 reflects directly on Christ the head (v. 3), but you have not proven that this view is necessary. And it can't be proven precisely because the other view, that the head-covering primarily dishonors the person's own head, is coherent, grounded and plausible, as many interpreters through Church history have taken it.

Therefore your view is not necessary from the text, and cannot established from God's Word by necessary consequence, as must be done to prove it is God's will and as Westminster requires.


"You assert that head covering is a “carnal ordinance”, by the same token is not sitting around a table and eating bread and drinking wine a “carnal ordinance”? If headcoverings in public worship reflect something of the humbling of man’s glory in the presence of God’s glory, they are most suited to the NT dispensation, when carnal and outward glory is veiled, and the more spiritual glory of Christ is brought to the fore, and headcoverings seem a most suitable, and simple token of this, in under the NT when worship is much more simple, and spiritual."

Head-coverings being a carnal ordinance is not essential to (nor even in) the propositional argument, nor essential to the book's argument.

There is a key difference between head-coverings and the Supper, namely that the Supper has been given a positive, spiritual significance. Yet head-coverings at best would only have a natural, creational significance (not redemptive), which you describe.

However, the humbling of man's glory is read into v. 7, the verse does not explicitly state it. I argue that this view cannot hold from the larger teaching of Scripture on p. 124 ff. And I show that another view, which I argue for is possible, coherent, and the best option. Because it is possible, your view is not necessary from the text, and so cannot be shown to derive by necessary consequence from Scripture or God's will.


"While you say it may not be necessary to conclude they are perpetual, it certainly seems most safe to do so, when it definitely does not seem necessary to conclude they were merely cultural."

In my book I show there is no necessary consequence from Scripture establishing the perpetual view; therefore it is not safe to conclude they are perpetual.

Please see pp. 17-20 on the Burden of Proof. I prove that head-coverings are at least circumstances to be ordered by the light of nature, Christian prudence and the general rules of God's Word on p. 18 top. That is proven. What is not proven by necessary consequence is that they are anything more than this.

The burden of proof doesn't affect both our views equally. Indifferent circumstances don't have to be proved from Scripture; religiously significant aspects of worship do have to be.


5. Mutable apostolic ordinances.

"Head coverings are conditioned on the relation of Christ to His church, and the man to the woman as a reflection of this, which are not circumstantial things."

I grant the relations of Christ to his Church and men to women are spiritual, natural and moral things, and are not indifferent. I grant that your reading of the passage is possible (in the abstract).

However I have demonstrated in and throughout my book that the opposite reading is also possible, well grounded and coherent, namely that the particular premise of a woman uncovering her head (v. 5) being socially dishonorable is the most logically foundational to Paul's argument, and his general, spiritual and natural arguments in the passage confirm Paul's injunction for proper social head-coverings. See pp. 62-64 and 70-71.

You have asserted your view but not proven it as necessary. And it can't be necessary from God's Word as long as there is another plausible, coherent view, such as the one I defend throughout my book.


7. There is no necessary difference of meaning in Corinthian head-coverings in worship versus society.

"Surely the reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church is different to any use of head coverings in society.

This has been answered in propositions 4-5 above.


"The connection between this ordinance and angels in relation to public worship, which is the entering into the more immediate gracious presence of God, also introduces a different meaning than that connected their use in society."

That difference is only one of degree in the relevance and importance of maintaining social decency; it is not a qualitative difference of kind between their civil use and use in worship. I mention this on p. 69 top. My view is possible; your view is not necessary.


8. No necessary warrant head coverings were universal.

"Female Head covering in public worship is attributed to “the churches of God” universally in 1 Cor 11..."

I show that there is no necessary warrant Corinthian head-coverings, even in light of v. 16, were temporally or geographically universal on pp. 55-58.


"Part II just seems quite dubious."

Part II is documented with a crazy amount of historical documentation.


"In part one you stress the point that many Reformed theologians thought they were cultural, but that they were indeed physical coverings, not just a certain way of doing up the hair. Now you’re disagreeing with one of their main premises, that it was even a physical covering. So there’s picking and choosing of what to accept from the certain reformed theologians on your part too, is there not?"

You are correct that reformed theologians are not my ultimate standard. The light of Scripture and nature is (in that order).

However there is a very important difference. The cultural vs. perpetuity issue is mainly one of theology and ethics. The issue of what the covering was hinges on mostly historical material, which they had much more limited information on. That is an important difference. I briefly discuss this on pp. 113-14.


"Besides, if it was dishonourable for a man in public worship to be veiled, then, on the view that the veil is having one’s hair up in a bun, that would mean that the prohibition is on men having their hair up in a bun.. but it’s assumed their hair wouldn’t be long enough to have up in a bun! The interpretation seems self refuting."

This gets into the issue that men and women's coverings may have been, and likely were different, as there is evidence in the passage itself to suggest this. I address this and give many reasons for this and my understanding (which follows numerous in Church history) on pp. 234-37 ff.


In conclusion I believe it has been seen my propositions stand as they were intended, and together still necessitate the conclusion of the larger argument, namely, "11... there is no express, necessary or valid consequence from Scripture Corinthian head-coverings were a matter of perpetual religion..."

I do thank you Alex for your thoughtful and patient demeanor (and hope mine has not overstepped the same), and hope you will give these things further consideration, as I continue to. Blessings to you brother.

 

[Gesetveemet]

No head coverings appear to be a modern tradition. I wonder why?

 

[Travis Fentiman]

No head coverings appear to be a modern tradition. I wonder why?

I assume you mean not veiling appears to be a modern tradition? That is not true.

Universal veiling, as documented in Part II of my book with a dump-truck full of documentation demonstrates that the Greeks nor Romans practiced regular veiling for lay-women in religious rites, nor was it required by Paul in Corinth.

That the Early Church did not universally practice female veiling for worship, see p. 91 of my book.

Voet, on pp. 168-69 footnote 520 says the regular custom both in public and in church, and as taught by Paul, was for women to be covered with their hair or "something additional", and this is confirmed there by linked collections of images from Dutch history.

Statements like this, that "No head coverings appear to be a modern tradition," as if all of history had one homogenous practice up until modern times, are historically absurd. Would you like to prove comprehensively that no head coverings are only a modern tradition, or are we to believe it upon your word?

In doing all the work I did on this subject, I also put together a universal history of head-coverings in the western tradition, as full and comprehensive as has ever been put together, it appears, by collecting linked sources onto a webpage documenting the practices through world history. You may see the great variety of practices through images through the eras and countries at 'On the Whole of History' at 'The History of Head Coverings' (RBO).

 

[Gesetveemet]

Travis,

Granted I am out of my league having a discussion with a learned man (respectfully). How about if I put it this way. Why are we seeing more and more the absence of head coverings in comparison to say 300 years ago.
I tend to believe and tell me if I am wrong, that Congregationalist, Baptist, Presbyterian, the Dutch Reformed, Reformed, Lutheran . . women all covered (vailed) their heads just like the denomination’s listed were all at one time Calvinistic.
If we were communicating face to face you would understand that I am not being snarky or argumentative as I live a rather poor life of much loneliness, but there seems to be a trend generally speaking of the putting away the old paths as if the modern church is more enlightened.
A small example, in a state where my former minister lived the young people in the community we’re turning to satan worship so much so that the churches in the area had a gathering to discuss the matter. My former minister showed up wearing a suit and a tie. While the other pastors showed up in jeans and street clothes. When someone said to my minister “what’s wrong with this picture” he kindly replied this is what I wear when I minister as unto the Lord.

kind regards,
William

 

[Gesetveemet]

Agh, I did not realize this thread has been up for some time and the OPer has written a book I in no way meant to criticize. I actually hope the best for the young man in the spreading of his theological wings but more so hope that he may be used in the spreading of that one thing needful.