A helpful pastoral discussion of headcoverings...
by David and Tim Bayly on January 9, 2010 - 9:47am
(Tim) We're now up to 85 or so comments under the post Because of the Angels, and those comments contain the only helpful discussion of headcoverings, and the visual cue they present within the corporate worship of the People of God of the submission of women, generally, to the authority of men, generally (Calvin's way of expressing it), that I've heard or read. So despite the length and (sometimes) heat of the discussion, I encourage everyone to go and read the comments.
Still, I must admit I've been wholly unsuccessful in getting anyone to read Calvin's doctrine of headcoverings, despite repeated attempts. So now, here is a compilation of Calvin's doctrine considerably shortened from what was put into the prior post. I do hope you'll all take the time to read this condensed version. There's really no substitude for Calvin's explanation of Scripture in any place, let alone one of the most controverted texts and themes in all of Scripture....
From Calvin's Commentary on 1Corinthians 11
The error of the Corinthians was the occasion of his showing, what part it was becoming to act in this matter. With the view of proving, that it is an unseemly thing for women to appear in a public assembly with their heads uncovered, and, on the other hand, for men to pray or prophesy with their heads covered, he sets out with noticing the arrangements that are divinely established.* * *
Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists.
* * *
Because he is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house — for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon. For example, If the person whom the prince has appointed as his lieutenant, does not. know how to maintain his proper station, and instead of this, exposes his dignity to contempt on the part of persons in the lowest station, does he not bring dishonor upon his prince? In like manner, if the man does not keep his own station — if he is not subject to Christ in such a way as to preside over his own family with authority, he obscures, to that extent, the glory of Christ, which shines forth in the well regulated order of marriage. The covering, as we shall see ere long, is all emblem of authority intermediate and interposed.
* * *
Prophesying I take here to mean — declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers, (as afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14.) as praying means preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people — which is the part of the public teacher, for Paul is not arguing here as to every kind of prayer, but as to solemn prayer in public. Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is to prepon— decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.
* * *
Every woman praying or prophesying. Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonor their head. For as the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection — involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church. (1Timothy 2:12.)It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses.
For it is all one as if she were shaven. He now maintains from other considerations, that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare. Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea — that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust.
* * *
...the man is the beginning of the woman and the end for which she was made...
* * *
"She is subject," says he, "let her then wear a token of subjection." In the term power, there is an instance of metonymy, for he means a token by which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband; and it is a covering, whether it be a robe, or a veil, or any other kind of covering. ["C’est la couuerture de teste, soit un chapperon, ou couurechef, ou coiffe, ou chose semblable;"—"It is a covering of the head, whether it be a hood, or a kerchief, or a coif, or anything of that kind."]
* * *
Because of the angels. This passage is explained in various ways. As the Prophet Malachi 2:7 calls priests angels of God, some are of opinion that Paul speaks of them; but the ministers of the word have nowhere that term applied to them by itself — that is, without something being added; and the meaning would be too forced. I understand it, therefore, in its proper signification. But it is asked, why it is that he would have women have their heads covered because of the angels — for what has this to do with them? Some answer: "Because they are present on occasion of the prayers of believers, and on this account are spectators of unseemliness, should there be any on such occasions." But what need is there for philosophizing with such refinement? We know that angels are in attendance, also, upon Christ as their head, and minister to him. When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying, as if he had said, "If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels too, will be witnesses of the outrage." And this interpretation suits well with the Apostle’s design. He is treating here of different ranks. Now he says that, when women assume a higher place than becomes them, they gain this by it — that they discover their impudence in the view of the angels of heaven.
* * *
Thus the man has no standing without the woman, for that would be the head severed from the body; nor has the woman without the man, for that were a body without a head. "Let, therefore, the man perform to the woman the office of the head in respect of ruling her, and let the woman perform to the man the office of the body in respect of assisting him, and that not merely in the married state, but also in celibacy; for I do not speak of cohabitation merely, but also of civil offices, for which there is occasion even in the unmarried state."
* * *
...the woman is a needful help to the man, inasmuch as a solitary life is not expedient for man. This decree of God exhorts us to cultivate mutual intercourse.
* * *
But all things of God. God is the Source of both sexes, and hence both of them ought with humility to accept and maintain the condition which the Lord has assigned to them. Let the man exercise his authority with moderation, and not insult over the woman who has been given him as his partner. Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex. Otherwise they will both of them throw off the yoke of God, who has not without good reason appointed this distinction of ranks.
* * *
16. But if any man seem. A contentious person is one whose humor inclines him to stir up disputes, and does not care what becomes of the truth. Of this description are all who, without any necessity, abolish good and useful customs — raise disputes respecting matters that are not doubtful — who do not yield to reasonings — who cannot endure that any one should be above them. Of this description, also, are those (akoinwnhtoi) would be singular persons who, from a foolish affectation, aim at some new and unusual way of acting. Such persons Paul does not reckon worthy of being replied to, inasmuch as contention is a pernicious thing, and ought, therefore, to be banished from the Churches. By this he teaches us, that those that are obstinate and fond of quarrelling, should rather be restrained by authority than confuted by lengthened disputations. For you will never have an end of contentions, if you are disposed to contend with a combative person until you have vanquished him; for though vanquished a hundred times, he would argue still. Let us therefore carefully mark this passage, that we may not allow ourselves to be carried away with needless disputations, provided at the same time we know how to distinguish contentious persons. For we must not always reckon as contentious the man who does not acquiesce in our decisions, or who ventures to contradict us; but when temper and obstinacy show themselves, let us then say with Paul, that contentions are at variance with the custom of the Church.
From Calvin's Commentary on Genesis 20:16
For Sarah is taught that the husband to whom she is joined was as a veil, with which she ought to be covered lest she should be exposed to others. Paul says, that the veil which the woman carries on her head, is the symbol of subjection. (1Corinthians 11:10.) This also belongs to unmarried persons, as referring to the end for which the sex is ordained; but it applies more aptly to married women; because they are veiled, as by the very ordinance of marriage.
From Calvin's Commentary on Genesis 24:64
Moses also says that she took a veil: which was a token of shame and modesty. For hence also, the Latin word which signifies "to marry," is derived, because it was the custom to give brides veiled to their husbands. That the same rite was also observed by the fathers, I have no doubt. So much the more shameful, and the less capable of excuse, is the licentiousness of our own age; in which the apparel of brides seems to be purposely contrived for the subversion of all modesty.
From Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah 4:1
Let thy name be called on us. It may be rendered, Let us be called by thy name; for when a woman passes into the family of her husband, she is called by his name, and loses her own, because the husband is her head. (1Corinthians 11:3.) Hence the vail is a token of subjection, and Abimelech said to Sarah, Thy husband Abraham shall be a covering to thy head. (Genesis 20:16.) But if she remain unmarried, she is concealed under the name of her family.
From Calvin's Sermons on Election and Reprobation; Seventh Sermon on Genesis 26:6-10
For marriage is as a safeguard, (as we have said) and God would have it honored in all ages. And although adulterers would abandon it, as Swine and Asses: yet notwithstanding they have always had remorse in it: and evermore even amongst the Painims [pagans, heathen], adulterers went not unpunished. It is known that if ever anything in this world was privileged, it was marriage: yea, and thefts and other crimes ought a great deal rather to be borne with, than such enormities
From Calvin's Institutes, IV.10.29-31
29. TRUE DECORUM IN WORSHIP, NOT THEATRICAL SHOW
As a consequence, we shall not say that decorum exists where there is nothing but vain pleasure. We see such an example in the theatrical props that the papists use in their sacred rites, where nothing appears but the mask of useless elegance and fruitless extravagance. But decorum for us will be something so fitted to the reverence of the sacred mysteries that it may be a suitable exercise for devotion, or at least will serve as an appropriate adornment of the act. And this should not be fruitless but should indicate to believers with how great modesty, piety, and reverence they ought to treat sacred things. Now, ceremonies, to be exercises of piety, ought to lead us straight to Christ.
Similarly, we shall not establish an order in those trifling pomps which have nothing but fleeting splendor, but in that arrangement which takes away all confusion, barbarity, obstinacy, turbulence, and dissension.
There are examples of the first sort in Paul: that profane drinking bouts should not be mingled with the Sacred Supper of the Lord [1Corinthians 11:21-22], and that women should not go out in public with uncovered heads [1Corinthians 11:5]. And we have many others in daily use, such as: that we pray with knees bent and head bare; that we administer the Lord’s sacraments not negligently, but with some dignity; that in burying the dead we use some decency; and other practices that belong to the same class.
Of the other kind are the hours set for public prayers, sermons, and sacraments. At sermons there are quiet and silence, appointed places, the singing together of hymns, fixed days for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the fact that Paul forbids women to teach in the church [1Corinthians 14:34], and the like. Especially are there those things which maintain discipline, such as catechizing, church censures, excommunication, fasting, and whatever can be referred to the same list.
Thus all ecclesiastical constitutions which we accept as holy and salutary should be reckoned under two heads: the first type pertains to rites and ceremonies; the second, to discipline and peace.
31. BONDAGE AND FREEDOM OVER AGAINST CHURCH CONSTITUTIONS
Now it is the duty of Christian people to keep the ordinances that have been established according to this rule with a free conscience, indeed, without superstition, yet with a pious and ready inclination to obey; not to despise them, not to pass over them in careless negligence. So far ought we to be from openly violating them through pride and obstinacy!
What sort of freedom of conscience could there be in such excessive attentiveness and caution? Indeed, it will be very clear when we consider that these are no fixed and permanent sanctions by which we are bound, but outward rudiments for human weakness. Although not all of us need them, we all use them, for we are mutually bound, one to another, to nourish mutual love. This may be recognized in the examples set forth above. What? Does religion consist in a woman’s shawl, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with a bare head? Is that decree of Paul’s concerning silence so holy that it cannot be broken without great offense? Is there in bending the knee or in burying a corpse any holy rite that cannot be neglected without offense? Not at all. For if a woman needs such haste to help a neighbor that she cannot stop to cover her head, she does not offend if she runs to her with head uncovered. And there is a place where it is no less proper for her to speak than elsewhere to remain silent. Also, nothing prohibits a man who cannot bend his knees because of disease from standing to pray. Finally, it is better to bury a dead man in due time than, where a shroud is lacking, or where there are no pallbearers to carry him, to wait until the unburied corpse decays. Nevertheless, the established custom of the region, or humanity itself and the rule of modesty, dictate what is to be done or avoided in these matters. In them a man commits no crime if out of imprudence or forgetfulness he departs from them; but if out of contempt, this willfulness is to be disapproved. Similarly, the days themselves, the hours, the structure of the places of worship, what psalms are to be sung on what day, are matters of no importance. But it is convenient to have definite days and stated hours, and a place suitable to receive all, if there is any concern for the preservation of peace. For confusion in such details would become the seed of great contentions if every man were allowed, as he pleased, to change matters affecting public order! For it will never happen that the same thing will please all if matters are regarded as indifferent and left to individual choice. But if anyone loudly complains and wishes here to be wiser than he ought, let him see with what reason he can defend his over-scrupulousness before the Lord. This saying of Paul’s ought to satisfy us: that it is not our custom to contend, or that of the churches of God [1Corinthians 11:16].
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (17)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Abortion euthanasia... (584)
Feminism (584)
Politics (366)
Reformed world (322)
PCA (302)
Evangelicalism (294)
Homosexuality (294)
Misc. (268)
Throw the radio in the bathtub (258)
Academia (256)
Reformed theology (234)
Culture (227)
Children are a blessing (217)
Emergent church (208)
R2K (Radical Two Kingdom) (196)
Recent Comments
- Kamilla on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Craig French on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Abram Hess on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Shaun DuFault on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
Comments
First to state (not in a thorough manner) my understanding of Calvin's systematic understanding of headcoverings:
1.)They are to be worn by women, not only in corporate worship, but also any time a woman is in public.
2.)That this is an issue of symbolism (headship) and of modesty.
3.)That they do not constitute a qualification in order that a woman may "pray or prophesy" (in the sense that is stated in 1 Cor. 11) in corporate worship, as "pray[ing] [and] prophesy[ing]" by women is disallowed by the later command that women are to be silent in corporate worship.
4.)That the angels would see the lack of a covering in public, esp. public worship, as an indecency in worship that is an affront to the same God that they are in submission to.
5.)That the type of covering stated by Paul is clearly not the hair of the woman, but is a piece of clothing.
6.)That other principles (his example given is "to help a neighbor" in distress) may govern so as not to make this command an ultimate command, but one that falls within a hierarchy of Christian ethics.
7.)That this (wearing of headcoverings) was a common practice in the churches of that day, and that this command would not be allowed to be contested.
Point #8 for Calvin (though not specifically related to headcoverings):
8.)"pray" and "prophesy" in this context (of 1 Cor. 11) are public actions, where praying means the leading of public prayer and prophesying means, "declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers" in the manner of a public teacher.
Now for my own position (w.r.t. each of my prior stated points of Calvin's understanding):
1.) Disagree (but I have never thought about the broadening of this command to all public behavior before)
2.) Agree
3.) Disagree
4.) Agree
5.) Agree
6.) Agree
7.) Agree
8.) Slight disagreement
To explain my disagreement (and to muster a defense for my understanding of this versus Calvin's):
Thesis: Women should wear a head-covering (piece of clothing on the head) when engaged in leading corporate prayer (not any type of corporate prayer, as some types of leading would be disallowed by virtue of being barred from the teaching office, but here I mean, praying aloud in public worship) and in prophecy (which is a spiritual gift of declaring verbatim the exact words of God, which gift has ceased, though analogous activities remain). Activities analogous to these should also be observed in a similar manner (singing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in choir or individual offering), and if a woman's reading of Scripture aloud in corporate worship is permitted (which I'm not sure of), then a headcovering would be applicable as well. A woman is nonetheless not permitted to preach to/teach the congregation, and elders should be careful about the types of speech allowed, even within the limits of prayer and prophecy.
Contra Calvin:
Point #3: It is a strange thing that Calvin states that Paul could have said this a different way, and that the language of prayer and prophecy could have been dispensed with here ("it might suit sufficiently well to say...") and these verses had the same effect (the extended quote is below):
"It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophesy even with a covering upon their head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he argues here as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses."
The disregarding of the language of prayer and prophecy seems to be inconsistent with a high view of Scripture's plenary inspiration.
I think that 1 Cor. 14 should be read in the context of 1 Cor. 11. In 1 Cor. 11, Paul is concerned about the manner in which women are praying/prophesying, not about the fact that they are doing so. They should be allowed to pray and prophesy in the manner laid out in 1 Cor. 11. It would therefore follow that 1 Cor. 14 (disallowing the speech of women in corporate worship) has to do with explanation (weighing) of Scripture/prophecy, and thus is the activity corresponding to preaching and teaching.
In 1 Cor. 14, it is clear that the prophecy being discussed in 1 Cor. is not any sort of preaching and teaching, but the spiritual gift of prophecy, declaring verbatim the very words of God. Thus the words would be weighed (1 Cor. 14:29), the message is called "a revelation" (verse 30), all congregants are urged to "earnestly desire" the gift of prophecy (14:1) etc. (as a side note: it does not therefore follow that the verse concerning earnestly desiring the gift of prophecy is no longer relevant, as since we now have the completed verbal revelation of God, that the Corinthians did not have, we should value it the more, and pay attention to what they longed to have.)
Calvin says, "Indeed, it will be very clear when we consider that these are no fixed and permanent sanctions by which we are bound, but outward rudiments for human weakness. Although not all of us need them, we all use them, for we are mutually bound, one to another, to nourish mutual love. This may be recognized in the examples set forth above. What? Does religion consist in a woman’s shawl, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with a bare head? ... Nevertheless, the established custom of the region, or humanity itself and the rule of modesty, dictate what is to be done or avoided in these matters. In them a man commits no crime if out of imprudence or forgetfulness he departs from them; but if out of contempt, this willfulness is to be disapproved."
Doesn't this imply that in the America of 2010 women should not wear head coverings in church, because such is not the local custom?
It's interesting that Calvin in this passage sounds like a supporter of Article 34 of the Church of England's 39 articles (which is basically Calvinist, so maybe it's not surprising). http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/thirtyni.htm
"Of the Traditions of the Church
It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word.
Whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly that other may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the conscience of the weak brethren.
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying."
I recognize that this is a position contrary to what I supported in a previous post--- that I think it's good to have diversity of practice in the wearing of headdresses.
Eric Rasmussen: "I recognize that this is a position contrary to what I supported in a previous post--- that I think it's good to have diversity of practice in the wearing of headdresses."
I'm fine with a diversity of practice too among different churches as led by their pastor/elder teams (James 3:1)
Because it seems by Scripture and by Calvin's exegesis of Scripture that the pastor/elder teams of churches have ...
... have
... (wait for it)
... have Christian liberty on whether to mandate headcoverings for women.
;-)
TUAD - I made a short response on the other thread. I think what is missing is that Christian liberty is based on us being fallen and in process. There is nuance between your dichotomy of mandated disfellowship and whatever-you-want "liberty". We are all both immediately justified by Christ's sacrifice and blood, and then continuing throughout the rest of our lives to be washed by Him. Headcoverings may not be the most important topic someone is dealing with at the current moment - that doesn't mean it isn't something for them to confront, or that lawlessness is allowed. Christian liberty is recognizing that we are all in different places of moving towards His throne, not that we don't have to get there through the excuse of "liberty".
So I don't think we have liberty on whether to mandate headcoverings. I think we grace upon *when* headcoverings are to be mandated. That difference is important, and the Godly women of the last post show why and how.
David L.,
I like your "Some greater ethical principle" qualifier as a nuance on the short "Christian Liberty" statement I made previously.
An example would be Stephanie's comment on the previous thread about why she doesn't wear a headcovering even though she personally would wear a headcovering herself.
-----------
Kevin Cassidy: "So I don't think we have liberty on whether to mandate headcoverings. I think we grace upon *when* headcoverings are to be mandated."
Works for me. I merely use the term "Christian Liberty" as code or shorthand for the open-ended, indefinite period for what you call "we grace upon *when* headcoverings are to be mandated."
------------------
PASTOR/ELDER TEAMS of the Local Church/Denomination: As far as the net end result between (1) "Christian Liberty" and (2) "Greater Ethical Principle" and (3) "Grace upon *when* headcoverings are to be mandated"...., they all cash out the same: a diversity of practice as Eric Rasmusen pointed out earlier.
And as I cited on the previous thread and on this thread: James 3:1. And I'm perfectly fine with that. I leave it to the Local Pastor/Elder team to decide when and whether to mandate headcoverings for women. Eg., however, whenever, if-ever, or never-ever that Fr. Bill, Tim Bayly, and Tim Keller, for example, want to or don't want to mandate headcoverings for the women in their congregation is fine with me.
Gracing Upon Christian Liberty when Invoking a Greater Ethical Principle,
TUAD
;-)
TUAD
I believe the underlying issue in this whole discussion is pride. Man has this evil habit of elevating self whenever possible. I say this as a warning, because it is something I battle in myself constantly. I can take pride in my liberty. I can take pride in my obedience. I have been in both camps, sometimes within the same hour.
Concerning headcoverings, I have recently begun to wear them. To give you a bit of background, I grew up a Baptist and went to Bob Jones University for 2 years. During my time there, women were required to wear hats on Sundays, much to my chagrin. I obeyed, but with a rebellious attitude. My understanding of their reasoning was to differentiate Sundays from the rest of the week. I don't know if that truly was their reason, but that was what I believed it was. Fast-forward 20 years to our coming into Pastor Bayly's church. I noticed the headcoverings right away...I find that areas of rebellion in my heart are very aware of challenges to them! There was no arm-twisting, no guilt trips, just a question to one of the pastors after we had been there for a few months. Oh, and God revealing my hardness of heart to authority all throughout my life...in me, a "good girl!" My husband and I had a discussion about it one night after reading I Cor. 11. His words to me were that he was not going to "make" me wear a symbol of submission, because that would surely lead to bitterness. He simply read what the Bible said and left me to ponder it. I actually struggled with tears over it that night (Saturday) before realizing that I was holding on to rebellion. If God had told me to do something extraordinary, or to offer up a great sacrifice, I believe it would have been easier. Instead, I submitted to the Word. I say this showing my sin, because the ability to do this was not from me. I also say this not shaking my finger at those who don't. I say this with the knowledge that God has performed a mighty work in me, and I give Him the glory. And now I am making a public statement so that anyone who sees me with a headcovering will know that God is to be praised for having mercy on this wretched sinner.
"If God had told me to do something extraordinary, or to offer up a great sacrifice, I believe it would have been easier."
Marta,
I find this true as well. It so much easier to give on the big things, so much harder to daily take up our cross and not fuss when someone cuts in line at the grocery store, when we get honked at in traffic, etc.
Daily? Try minute by minute, second by second -- that's how often I need to be reminded of my selfishness and pride.
Kamilla
>>Daily? Try minute by minute, second by second -- that's how often I need to be reminded of my selfishness and pride.
Yes. So true.
I am more confused on this topic then ever before.
Don't forget the perspicuity of Scripture, Lauren. And ask Brandon what he thinks honors God's Word and Truth.
Love,
David L.,
I was wondering if you would care to expand on your comment about women wearing headcoverings at all times while in public. I appreciated your post and when I read Calvin on this my conscience was pricked because I have been thinking about this a lot. After all, I do pray when in public, even if just to myself silently while walking through a store with my children in tow. Also, to me this is where prophesying may fit in. Women are not to speak in public worship, but very often women prophesy in one on one settings by having some sin revealed to them that needs to be addressed in one of our sisters, etc. So, I was just wondering what your thoughts were on this since you brought it up. My own husband is also thinking about these things and we would like to have your input.
Marta,
Thank you so much dear sister. I went through this same struggle in my heart and my husband said the same thing to me. He told me later that he was praying for me to respond to him in a godly way and was joyful when I did.
-Ginger
Hmm... The man is to follow Jesus and the woman the man? When did the invitation of Jesus for all to follow him become qualified in this way? Does the man not become the woman's god if she must follow him instead of God Himself?
The one great flaw in the whole argument is that there is no evidence that 1st century Corinthian women wore veils daily. When we consider that even the Roman Emperor wore veils in worship, Greek philosophers wore veils in the Symposium and the Jewish men covered their heads with the prayershawl as a sign of humility, the argument becomes even more hollow. Why did Paul argue that the women should wear veils in the church if they didn't outside the church and why should the men not wear veils in the church if they did so in both pagan and Jewish worship and in the schools of philsophers? Why would the Christian worship demand such a custom? Consider also that women were subjected in the Greek society, the Jewish religion and in Rome. Why was the veil a symbol of the Christian woman's subjection?
Tertullian (2nd century) couldn't find a law in the OT which mandated the wearing of veils for women, hence he argued that custom had sanctioned the practice. He wrote also that the woman ought to cover their faces with a veil to prevent the evil angels from lusting after the women. A novel idea not supported by other theologians.
In the fourth century the veil was considered a preserver of the woman's modesty, not a sign of subjection. It was this veil that was adopted by nuns as a sign of their vow of chastity.
Yet, despite the arguments for the veil, the theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries argued also that the cover was the woman's long hair which was her glory. The man ought not to let his hair grow long, which was in accordance to the Roman custom of men cutting their hair short.
Susanna Krizo: "Yet, despite the arguments for the veil, the theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries argued also that the cover was the woman's long hair which was her glory."
Were there, then, some women in the 4th and 5th centuries who didn't wear headcoverings when they went to worship in their local church?
I hear the serpent's hiss in Susanna's words. I'm sorry, but I can't help it. Can someone tell me where anyone hear has been teaching that, "The man is to follow Jesus and the woman the man"?
Kamilla
Hey Kamilla, I was just quoting Calvin's comment on 1 Cor 11 from above:
"Hence, as regards spiritual connection in the sight of God, and inwardly in the conscience, Christ is the head of the man and of the woman without any distinction, because, as to that, there is no regard paid to male or female; but as regards external arrangement and political decorum, the man follows Christ and the woman the man, so that they are not upon the same footing, but, on the contrary, this inequality exists."
Truth unites: We do not have all the writings from the era, any era for that matter, and the writings we do possess are extremly uniform in their content, which suggests that dissenting writings - that is, from the accepted majority position - were destroyed. Emperor Constantine especially wished to rule over a united church wherefore he sanctioned the persecution of the schismatic group called Donatists in North-Africa.
We find arguments for the veil in all the main writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, argued for it, for the protection of the woman's modesty in a public place. Augustine, who was taught by Ambrose, also advocated the veil, roughly for the same reason, although his view leaned more towards the Neo-Platonic ideal of soul-body, wherefore the woman had to wear the veil as a sign of the curbing of the lust of the body to allow the soul (i.e the man) to advance to higher things.
Chrysostom, the bishop of Constantinople, argued that the woman's long hair, which was the covering 1 Cor 11 mentions, was a lesson for a woman to cover herself with a veil to preserve her entire proper virtue by inducing her to look down.
Although we do not know for certain what women wore to church, we do have some information of sects from the furth century in which both men and women cut their hair short and wore men's clothing in order to make all equal. The same was found among virgins, before the era of large monasteries.
If we return to the second century, we find that initially the issue was about modesty and a false interpretation of the issue at hand:
Clement of Alexandria, (2nd century) wrote that "it is wicked thing for beauty to be snare for men," wherefore he prescribed a face-covering veil. Tertullian, who was adamant that also virgins ought to wear a veil, believed that women ought to veil themselves because they were under probation due to Eve's sin wherefore any recognition was unlawful; instead their lot was humility of every kind. Men, freed from sin (since Adam was innocent), had nothing to be ashamed of, wherefore they prayed rightly to God with their heads uncovered.
The veiling of women began as a North-African custom and later, Islam adopted the face-covering veil from Christianity precisely from the same region.
Well, Susanna, no, you didn't just quote Calvin. you quoted a snippet, editing it in a deliberate manner to obscure the context.
You know, in real estate they have a saying that the first three things that matter about a property are: location, location, location. Something similar might be said about quotations - context, context, context. If you had, indeed, "merely quoted Calvin", I wouldn't have so clearly heard the serpent hissing, "Indeed, has God said . . .?"
In the second instance, where you do give a fuller quote, we can easily see what Calvin meant. It is nothing more and nothing less than what the church has always and everywhere taught.
Now, if you have a dispute with *that* and claim that religious feminists (or the term some prefer, Egalitarians) now understand what the Holy Spirit *really* meant to say through Paul, then you've got a problem with more than just Calvin. You're going to have to take up your argument with the Holy Spirit and ask Him to explain why it's taken nigh on 2000 years to get around to explaining such a substantial issue.
Kamilla
Ah, so Calvin did not say what he said, instead he must be properly interpreted, i.e. he said what we think he said, or, rather, wish he said. I assume that you interpret his words as saying the woman follows the man as her head, not as her god?
BTW, you are pretty quick to come to your conclusions from one post, as if you had a divine sanction to function as the conscience of every Christian, admonishing them to repentance. But to pacify your fear of offending the Holy Spirit, let me assure you that I have taken up the problem with Him. I spent four years in research, a year writing it all in a book form and published it last year. And I can tell you that no, what Calvin wrote is not what the church has always and everywhere taught. The early church taught the equality of men and women as a created order, and the subjection of women as a result of sin. It was not until the 13th century that the creation account was changed due to the synthesis of Aristotle's philosophy and medieval theology. Thomas Aquinas argued that the woman was a misbegotten male who lacked the man's reason and was therefore in every way inferior to him. And because the wiser must rule, the man became the woman's ruler by God's design.
You can write to CBMW and ask them to provide you with a quote from the first 13 centuries which shows that the woman's subjection began at creation. They won't give one, for they do not have one. Of course there was many attempts. Some argued that the man was "first among equals," the Roman concept which was used by the emperors to avoid the title of a king; resorts to Platonism, i.e. the body ought not rule over the soul; Arianism, which saw the woman created for the man to serve him (as a lesser creature), etc.
You should study church history, it is an absolutely fascinating subject! It would also allow you to avoid believing everything you hear.
Nothing ever changes with you religious feminists, does it? Doesn't hauling around those tired old canards get, well, tiresome? Ever?
As for the lies about Aquinas, may I refer you to First Things? A few years back they published a nifty little article, "What Aquinas Never Said about Women" back in 1998. If the article is no longer available, feel free to contact me. The newest member of their editorial staff happens to be a friend of mine and I am sure he would pass along a copy of the article if I asked him to. You know, Susanna, for someone who claims to have spent four years in research you show an astounding lack of familiary with the original sources. This article would be helpful in pointing you back to Aquinas so you can read him for yourself.
You're kind of funny, though, telling me to study church history. In fact, my former church history professor has repeatedly encouraged me to earn my PhD in Church History. Another professor of Church History, one who happens to be a contributing editor of Touchstone and a friend of mine, has told me it would be his honor and a privilege to advise me in choosing a school, etc. should I ever decide to pursue the terminal degree. The author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization" and widely respected translator of Dante also happens to be a friend of mine and has also been a tremendous encouragement to me. And then there is Touchstone's former editor who once dubbed me, "Athanasius" as a compliment for my work fighting religious feminism (he terms it the Arianism of our day). So, I have to chuckle when you tell me I should study church history. You're not the first one to say so, though you apparently suggest it based upon what you assume to be my lack of knowledge.
I have no need to write to CBMW for a, "quote from the first 13 centuries which shows that the woman's subjection began at creation." I need look no further than St. Paul in his letter to Timothy. I am sure you have read the passage in I Timothy 2, including v. 13.
But we aren't left with this single witness to the order of Creation. No, it is shot through Holy Scripture. Eve was created from Adam, for Adam and brought to Adam. The husband is the head of the wife *as* Christ is head of the Church. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ, shall all be made alive. We see this order from the first Adam to the second Adam, from the first Eve to the second. We even see it at the culmination of history, in the biblical image of the wedding supper of the Lamb.
It's there in Scripture, from the first book to the last -- there plain for all but those with foolish hearts that are darkened.
You say I've judge you rather quickly - what you apparently don't know is that I am familiar with your story. I've read about your research and seen your interactions elsewhere on the internet. What you apparently didn't know about me is that I have studied things, too. I won't rehearse my history again here. If you're interested, you can poke around this blog or my own and you will find that even though I have been among the most foolish and rebellious women in the world, God has answered the prayers of righteous men and given me the grace to repent.
Kamilla
Let me ask you a question Susanna. Are you submissive to your husband? Does he decide things that you disagree with and then you do what he says anyway? Because that is submission and until you disagree and you do what he says anyway, then you have not truly been submissive. If you tell me that you never disagree then you are either a liar or he submits to you. So, let's get the bottom of this.
-Ginger
Susanna Krizo: "The early church taught the equality of men and women as a created order, and the subjection of women as a result of sin."
(1) If you please, can you provide some quotes with links to a fuller context?
(2) If the ECF did indeed teach the equality of men and women as a created order, did any of them advocate the ordination of women to the office of elder or bishop?
>>Susanna Krizo: "The early church taught the equality of men and women as a created order, and the subjection of women as a result of sin."
This is a lie. The church fathers were Church fathers--not demons from Hell fomenting rebellion against God and man.
With love,
Susanna,
>> "And I can tell you that no, what Calvin wrote is not what the church has always and everywhere taught. The early church taught the equality of men and women as a created order, and the subjection of women as a result of sin. It was not until the 13th century that the creation account was changed due to the synthesis of Aristotle's philosophy and medieval theology."
Kamilla is right in noting that Scripture provides the only source necessary to disprove your theories. That you should ignore its witness is unsurprising; more surprising is that you're so obviously ignorant of the patristic writers. Here's one quote among many I could have cited from the brightest and most reliable of them all:
"It is not fitting, after all, to suppose that even before sin the woman was made otherwise than to have the man lording it over her and to be herself turning towards him in service."
Augustine continues to explain that the woman's punishment in Genesis 3 turned what was a relation of submission proceeding from affection into a relation of submission based on status:
"But we can rightly take it that the service indicated here [i.e., her punishment] is one of social status rather than of affection; so this kind of service, by which human beings later on began to be the slaves of other human beings, turns out to have arisen from the punishment of sin." (Literal Commentary on Genesis, 11.37.50; trans. John E. Rotelle)
There's little in Calvin that's controversial that cannot also be taken straight back to Augustine, and from him, to St. Paul, and from Him, to the Holy Spirit. Yes, sin horribly corrupted the relationship between man and woman. But submission is not a consequence of corruption; it's the difficult but gracious gift from God, and you lie about its origin to your own foolishness and peril.
Sincerely,
Josh
Dear Mrs. Krizo,
You'll notice I've removed your most recent comments.
Your many words are all of a fabric, showing your delusional understanding of the Early Church Fathers flowing from your rebellion against God and His Word. Josh shows you a quote directly contradicting your ridiculous claims, and instead of acknowledging your gross error, you trot out thousands of words purportedly in support of your error, all of which in fact continue in the line of Josh's first quote clearly demonstrating your error.
As I've said a number of times before on this blog, the entire world is open to you selling your poisonous seductions, but not Baylyblog. David and I are both officers of Christ's Church, set apart by the Holy Spirit to guard the good deposit and the flock of God.
Thus, our obgligation toward your lies is to silence you, here. From now on, you are not allowed to comment. Dishonest scholarship is bad enough, but soliciting rebellion against God and his vice-regents, and doing it in His Name, is both blasphemy and misleading our Heavenly Father's precious "little ones." Thus, it is worse than having a millstone tied around your neck and being cast into the sea.
It is true that simply banning you from this blog does nothing to correct you, and you should be corrected with patience and love in the hope that you may come to repent and acknowledge God and His Truth. But you have a husband and (presumably) a pastor, and this is their duty, primarily. May God give you men who will fear Him more than they fear you and the consequences of rebuking your errors.
With love,
Susanna, if the Fall is the reason for headship, then why does Paul argue from pre-Fall creation order? Whether the Fall ever happened or not, Adam was still created first. Why does God give Adam the command to not eat of the tree of knowledge, then after EVE sinned God held ADAM accountable? Because he was the responsible party.
To add to something Josh said earlier, headship and submission is not a curse to women, but a blessing. Read Numbers 30 and see how well women are protected by the fact that they are "under" their father's/husband's authority. It is a blessing. Trust me, we men don't boast in the fact that we are given that responsibility, but we tremble, for we are to give an account before God for that.
"Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. 2Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved.
Teach and urge these things. 3If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain" (1 Timothy 6:1-5).
There are several important things in this passage. First, Paul encourages a slave's subjection to his Christian master on the basis of the fact that they are brothers. Paul therefore uses their fellowship of equality in Christ as justification for honoring the external authority relationship that exists between them. This could also be applied to husbands and wives, who love each other and obey the God-ordained authority relationship of husband over wife because of the fact that they are fellow heirs, and therefore wish to, above all, truly represent Christ and his relationship with his Church. In one sense, Christ and the Church are equals, because they are joint heirs in the eyes of God the Father. But this is because of Christ's sacrifice, and ultimately, Christ still has authority over his Church. Similarly, a husband and wife are joint heirs and therefore equals, but their highest goal should be the glorification of God through obedience, which includes a husband's sacrificial love for his wife, and a wife's godly submission to her husband. The joy that they have in a shared inheritance should cause the husband to love his wife all the more for her benefit because she is his sister. And the wife should submit to and respect her husband all the more because he is not only her husband, but her brother.
The second part of this passage should make you wonder, Susanna, if you are simply stirring up dissension out of pride and a complete lack of understanding. How amazing that the Holy Spirit spoke through Paul to include this section about dissension and pride right after a discussion of authority! All this discussion of the early church fathers is in some ways superfluous, considering that we have the God-breathed scriptures as guidance. And I fear that you have relied more on your own knowledge and understanding to guide you than on the discernment promised to those who through Christ have the Holy Spirit. Let us not depart too far from the Words of God, in order that we may not become puffed up with the conceit of research and credentials.
“12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual” (1 Corinthians 2:12-13).
Greg Price makes an argument I think needs to be addressed (and I am looking for what the Bible teaches, not my own way, Lord help me): looking for Scripture interpreting Scripture, he sees that in the Old Testament church, God commanded the priests to cover their heads (with a turban or headband? Exodus 28:4,40), so the specific practice must not be a creation based ordinance.
Price also lists verses from the Old Testament showing what men and women *did*, but these are weaker arguments because just because someone did something in the Old Testament doesn't mean they were doing right.
Price's arguments about the woman suspected of unfaithfulness and lepers having to be uncovered are also weak, because perhaps shame was associated with both of these cases. He also mentions Eve being uncovered, but I don't find that one convincing either - before the Fall, I am content to believe that her natural covering of hair was sufficient.
That leaves the priests. If head covering is a creation ordinance (and I tell you I was just about convinced), how could God command the priests otherwise? (One possibility: perhaps the turbans/headbands didn't cover their heads?)
Here's Price's short article:
http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/headcvr2/headcvr2.htm
Wanting to understand,
Wanting to obey,
Not wanting to run from the Word of the Lord any more,
-Daniel-
Daniel,
Just stumbled across this old post and your comment. They are good objections in the Greg Price article you linked to. I've thought about the same question and here are 2 possible solutions, I think the 2nd one is perhaps best:
1) A man not having his head covering when in public worship is not a creation ordinance, but a new covenant ordinance.
The OT codes (including priestly attire) having been fulfilled by Christ, Paul introduced a new code for Christians. This seems to be what Dan Wallace suggests when he says:
Taken from:
http://bible.org/article/what-head-covering-1-cor-112-16-and-does-it-app...
2) The 'covering' spoken of that was forbidden to men was the head covering women wore, not the thing that the priests wore.
A few reasons suggest this:
I also just recently came across an interesting quote from a 17th century discussion of this topic that draws the same conclusion:
This is from Thomas Wall's tract called "To Defend the Head from the Superfluity of Naughtinness" which can be found here: http://www.covenanter.org/Attire/Headcoverings/defendthehead.htm
I'd be interested to hear what you think.
In addition, I just came across Tertullian who seems to make a similar distinction as Thomas Wall:
So in Tertullian's mind, there clearly seems to be a difference between, for example, wearing a turban and the "covering" spoken of in 1Cor11.
Dear Henry,
I want to work out these questions, not on my own, but in cooperation with my pastors.
I do think Tertullian goes beyond the Scriptures in what he says about veiling.
My family has been reading through the Bible since my oldest, Tabitha, was 3 (she's 7 now) and by God's grace we have made it to the early chapters of 1 Corinthians. It will be interesting to see what Tabitha says when we get to 1 Corinthians 11. On the one hand I suspicion that our reasoning regarding not covering is tainted by a pre-existing desire not to cover. But on the other hand this is a question of propriety in worship, and God has ordained officers in His church to oversee such things. I want to obey God's Word AND submit to the authorities He has given my family and me. This will require some navigation, and it's easy to bump into things. "Obey God's Word" can be a pretext for "Listen to no one and cause division and schism everywhere". Protect me from it, Lord! May Your Word be lifted up and the pride of man be cut down, and may Your church be glorious!
Yes, it's important to be respectful in this sensitive topic.
I agree Tertullian goes beyond what is written. The point though, is not his correctness in face-veiling, but that he seems to make a similar basic distinction to others, that the 'covering' is fundamentally different than the hat/turban etc. The key point is the indication afforded by vs 15 which points to a similarity between the covering and long hair. Ergo the OT priests headgear is not in view when Paul is speaking about covered/uncovered.
It is interesting to note that in Roman Catholicism the pope wears a little white cap - they do not seem to see this as the type of covering Paul was forbidding, and the veils the women wear are certainly more long hair-like. See for example the pictures of George Bush's wife meeting the pope.
I have not read the whole Thomas Wall's tract but apparently one of his points was against men wearing long wigs etc... but not small caps. He didn't see this as contradicting Paul's prohibition on men covering their heads.
The conceit of Western culture today is that all past cultures were unenlightened, allowing various forms of bondage flowing from various forms of prejudice and stupidity to prevail. And of course, this conceit is constantly displayed among Biblical scholars and elders and pastors of the Church, particularly with respect to God's Order of Creation. The prevailing conviction is that ancient culture is our "ally ally in free." What's needed is particularities of ancient culture matched to particular commands of Scripture such that we may live in a safe haven of plausible deniability.
Dan Wallace is of this ilk.
What we want to get in the habit of looking for is a Godly father in the Faith who lived in a time when feminine deference and wifely submission were the rule universally recognized and honored, and yet this father argued against the Godly grain of his own culture that headcoverings are not a matter of Biblical obedience.
Instead, we're living in time of rebellion against feminine deference and wifely submission, yet we're reading scholars in bondage to that rebellion argue that the particularities of our rebellion are confirmed by subtleties of language and aspects of ancient history and insights of cultural anthropology and nuances of Greek grammar.
It seems evident headcoverings were understood by our church fathers and mothers as signatures of a full confession of God's Order of Creation of Adam first, then Eve. It seems evident that this is the overriding concern of the Apostle Paul (writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) and his faithful followers, Calvin and Luther and Knox...
So what steps do we take to confess this glorious truth in our rebellious age and time? Any? Any at all?
Why today, women not only don't wear headcoverings of any sort, they cut their hair short and then demonstrate their own and their husbands' and pastors' inanity by separating from other Christians over ridiculous things like a capella psalter only music.
Something about tithing mint and cummin?
Love,
>>> Yes, it's important to be respectful in this sensitive topic.
Not just respectful, not just sensitive topic. Yes, head coverings is a sensitive topic -- because it deals with a woman's place and station. But wouldn't it be ironical to attempt to get our practice there on a firmer biblical footing, but to do it in a way that shows we have no understanding of our own place and station as laymen in the church rather than officers?
This is not an argument against action. It is an argument for understanding our place so that as we take action we are not denying the truths we are seeking to affirm.
Add new comment