The Head Covering Issue

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=80 BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF" bgproperties="fixed" background="04100500dvldtc.gif"> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#FFCC66" FACE="Papyrus" ><B>Offensive Words.com</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#FFFFCC" FACE="Arial" ><B>     |     </B></FONT><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Words.com"><U><B><IMG SRC="33f32320.gif" border=0 width="50" height="50" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></U></A><B>  </B><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#FFFFCC" FACE="Arial" ><B>    </B></FONT></div> <div>                                                   </div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=210 BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF" background="042d2c00dvldtc.gif"> <bR> <div> <TABLE BORDER="5" CELLPADDING="2" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="157" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#0099FF" BORDERCOLORDARK="#FF00FF" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 30 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Words.com"><U><B>Offensive Words</B></U></A><B> Home</B></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="30" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="id144.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Site Map"><U>Offensive Site  Map</U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="33" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="id98.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="OffensiveBuletin Board"><U><B>OffensiveBuletin Board</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="33" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 ><NOBR><div> <A HREF="current_events.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Words about Current Events"><U><B>Current Events</B></U></A></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="families.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Words about Families"><U><B>Families</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="scripture.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Words from Scripture"><U><B>Scripture</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="forefathers.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Words from our ForeFathers"><U><B>Forefathers</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 17 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="articles.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Articles"><U><B>Articles</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP><NOBR><div> <B><IMG SRC="12d0e0e0.gif" border=0 width="14" height="14" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B></div> </NOBR></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="quotes.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Quotes"><U><B>Quotes</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="hymns.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Hymns"><U><B>Hymns</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="church.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Words about the Church"><U><B>Church</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="government.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Words about the Government"><U><B>Government</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="environment.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Words about the Environment"><U><B>Environment</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 ><NOBR><div> <A HREF="id94.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Statement of Faith"><U><B>Statement of Faith</B></U></A></div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 28 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="id174.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Preaching"><U><B>Offensive Preaching</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="28" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="links.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Offensive Links"><U><B>Links</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="119"><div> <A HREF="comments.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact Us"><U><B>Comments</B></U></A></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="13"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="13" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> </td> <td valign="top" height=400 BGCOLOR="#330099" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <I>The Head Covering Issue</I></div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <B>The Head Covering Issue</B></div> <div> <B>April Long</B></div> <div> <B>Monday, September 10, 2001</B></div> <div> <B>With the assistance and guidance of my parents</B></div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <B>"I'm persuaded that the principle of covering the head is still in effect because it was built into creation.  Even though it's not culturally accepted anymore in our society, I still believe it's principal.  I think that the symbol should remain intact as a sign of our obedience to God."                  R.C. Sproul  </B></div> <div> <B>  </B></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>           About a month ago, my family and I had the privilege of attending a small conservative Mennonite Church for three nights. While there, we were quickly reminded that there are many aspects of the Mennonite faith that we disagree with, but there are also certain aspects of their worship and life style that we very much appreciate.  I was curious about how all the women wore head coverings, so after the service, I spoke with some girls my age and asked them about it. They showed me the passage in I Corinthians 11, and I was amazed at how the scripture seemed so clear. I had never carefully looked over that passage and once I did, I wondered why we did not obey it. The church’s I have attended have always taught that head coverings were cultural, but I decided to prove if that were true or not for myself.</B></div> <div> <B>In this essay, I will present the information that I found.  I started this project thinking I would find what I have always been taught, that head coverings were a temporary practice and not for today, but as I began reading the commentaries and study books, I quickly saw that this issue was not as easily dismissed as I thought.  I was amazed at the words of great men of God like Calvin, Luther, Bunyan, Warfield, and even R.C. Sproul who all endorse the Biblical instruction of head covering as permanent. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>I was also shocked to learn that the literal practice of head coverings did not stop with the New Testament culture, but rather continued throughout history up until as recently as a few decades ago.  One needs only go back to the 50’s and 60’s to discover that a woman would not have dreamed of attending church without a hat or some sort of covering on her head.  I am not just speaking of Mennonite or Amish, but every denomination including Presbyterian and Independent.  Having such clear evidence before me, I had to question, what has changed in the past 50 years to nullify this Scriptural mandate?  I have concluded that the only thing that has changed is the role, and attitude of women in modern society.  We have made a steady decline away from God’s order in creation. The practice of women wearing a head covering as God has instructed in 1Corinthians 11, is "a sign of their willingness to submit to the leadership or headship of their husbands".  (R.C. Sproul)  This is a difficult instruction in the culture we live in.  </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>I have learned that an important thing to remember is that 1 Corinthians 11 is not about women, but rather it is about the proper way to pray in light of God’s order of creation.  In verse 4, God instructs, first, the man in the importance of having his head uncovered in prayer, then goes on to instruct the woman in the importance of the opposite.  We are quick to dismiss the instruction for the woman, but how do we interpret this instruction for the man?  Has anyone ever questioned the man’s need to remove his hat in church, during a family prayer, or even at a ball game prayer?  How many mothers throughout the ages and this past Sunday,  have scolded their young boys to remove their hat when a public prayer is imminent?</B></div> <div> <B>  Why do we do this?  It is because of 1 Corinthians 11 and it is this exact same passage and principal that instruct the women to cover their heads.  Why has the female half been dismissed and the male half retained.  I believe it is because, in spite of the feminization of the patriarchal man, the basic role of the male gender has not changed.  The role of the helpmate female however, has changed dramatically, and the bulk of that change has taken place in the last 100 years.  The exact same time period in which the head covering has disappeared. </B></div> <div> <B>    "We regularly rebuke young men for wearing hats in worship. But this would only make sense if we were considering the hat as an additional covering and therefore inappropriate for a man to wear during worship. And if we consider the hat an inappropriate covering on a man who already has short hair, then we certainly have no reason to gripe at a woman who wears an additional covering over already long hair."         Ben Merkle</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>The basic meaning of the head covering as I have learned, is this.  God instructs us, through Paul, that a woman should cover her head to show her subjection to men.  ICorinthians 11:3 says that "The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."  Man’s headship over woman is of God’s direct design and has it’s origins in Creation itself. It is not just a result of the fall, but was established in the Garden of Eden in that woman was created out of man and was a "helper comparable to him." Genesis 2:18.  When Eve sinned, she in a sense broke this headship principle by disobeying God and tempting Adam. She took advantage of her place as helper.  God’s word speaks of a woman’s need to cover her head as a symbol of authority (1 Corinthians 11:10) The reason a man does not cover his head is because he is the image and glory of God. He represents the authority of God. "Woman, also is created in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, but she does not represent God’s authority." She is the glory of man, meaning that she is subordinate to the man.</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>    People say that it was "only for Paul’s day", and "We shouldn’t worry about the little things or issues but should concentrate on doing God’s will."  If we have the nerve to excuse ourselves from obeying the Almighty God’s laws, then how can we say we are doing God’s will? We are doing God’s will when we obey God, not just in the big things, but the little things also. Why would God command little things if he didn’t want us to obey them. If we say the little things such as the head covering issue are cultural, then why don’t we just dismiss the communion, which is in the same chapter! We should never write off scripture without scriptures consent. Why is it that we quickly dismiss the commands of God we don’t want to follow, but say we are obeying the scriptures? It is our sinful nature. When we come across something in Scripture we question, we must study it, instead of just ignoring it, and passing it off to culture. These scriptures prove how it is not just Paul’s culture and that we are to obey "the little things"</B></div> <div> <B>1 Corinthians 14:37 "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord."</B></div> <div> <B>John 14:15 "If you love me, keep my commandments."</B></div> <div> <B>Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My father in heaven."</B></div> <div> <B>Mark 7:9 "He said to them, ‘All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition."</B></div> <div> <B>James 4:17 "Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."</B></div> <div> <B>It is not about the issue being ‘major’ or ‘minor’.  It is about obeying Christ or not.</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>I am sorry that this report has to be so long with so many quotes and references when it would seem that the answer could be clearly found in the 13 short verses in ICorinthians 11, but I fear that sometimes the Word of God is not enough for us to accept instruction on an issue that is beyond our comfort level.  If a passage offends us, we think that surely it does not mean what it says.  It must be cultural or symbolic or a miss-translation. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"Instead of searching for what we are commanded to do, our discussion centers on what the passage doesn’t teach. It’s as if we received a command from God to come out from amongst the pagans and idolaters and we quickly replied, "you mean that spiritually right? You don’t mean to physically separate ourselves from them?" Then we promptly pull out our lexicons and systematic textbooks and point out how the context of the entire head covering passage is of the heavenly register and therefore the entire passage should be taken as figurative and having no real relevance down here on earth. But if we want to be honest Christians, we are bound to take the command and to apply it to our lives."          Ben Merkle</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    "Do you only obey in the things you understand and agree with the reasons for? If your parents commanded you to take out the trash and you refused because you didn't think it needed taking out yet: is this obedience? Would any not conclude that this is in reality disobedience? But do we not many times do the same thing with the word of God? If we cannot understand it; if it doesn't seem reasonable; if it is clear that such a course will not "work"; if it would make us "odd"; if it is not in agreement with modern psychology or other worldly wisdom; etc; etc.. Of course, we do not call it disobedience. Instead, we conclude that the scripture statement is so out of tune with modern wisdom and respectability that it obviously does not mean what it clearly says. Yet faith reasons differently. God's command is our best course regardless of all other wisdom to the contrary. Whatever God has said is best, is best; because He will make it so. God's wisdom truly is wisdom -- our own reason and all worldly "wisdom" to the contrary. How do we know that we truly have faith and are obedient to God? The clearest proof is that we trust and obey when everything else tells us its the wrong thing to do."            Clyde V.  McKnight </B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> Section 1.    An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 11 </B></div> <div> <B> Section 2.   The Words of our Forefathers </B></div> <div> <B> Section 3.    Common Objections </B></div> <div> <B> Section 4.    General Modesty</B></div> <div> <B>  Section 5.    In Conclusion</B></div> <div> <B>Section 6.  Bibliography</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."   2 Timothy 3:16-17</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> </B><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Verdana" ><B>Section 1.    An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 11 </B></FONT></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>The scripture reference that is the basis of this issue, is</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>I Corinthians 11:2-16 NKJV</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>2. "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.</B></div> <div> <B>3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.</B></div> <div> <B>4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.</B></div> <div> <B>5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as     if her head was shaved.</B></div> <div> <B>6. For if a woman is not covered let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be     covered.</B></div> <div> <B>7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.</B></div> <div> <B>8. For man is not from woman, but woman from man.</B></div> <div> <B>9. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.</B></div> <div> <B>10. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.</B></div> <div> <B>11. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.</B></div> <div> <B>12. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.</B></div> <div> <B>13. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?</B></div> <div> <B>14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?</B></div> <div> <B>15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.</B></div> <div> <B>16. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."      </B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Some commentary on this Passage.</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>I Corinthians 11:2-16 NKJV</B></div> <div> <B>2. "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.</B></div> <div> <B>Many people stop right here with the word traditions, and figure this is enough to prove that this passage is not law, but simply culture. Tradition itself is neutral, neither good nor bad. The word traditions, "paradosis" literally means "a handing down or over," here referring to the doctrines or ordinances and teachings Paul had previously given them in person.  An apostolic tradition is not bad like a tradition of men.  When Paul writes to Thessalonica and commands the Christians to hold to the traditions which they were taught and to withdraw from every brother who did not walk according to the tradition which they received from the apostles, he was referring to biblical teachings (II Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). Paul uses the word ‘tradition’ to describe such teachings as head coverings, the Lords Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23), and the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3).  </B></div> <div> <B>3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.</B></div> <div> <B>This is God’s order of authority in nature and creation and it is very far reaching.  "Head" in this </B><B>verse is referring to headship or authority.  All the verses that follow depend on this natural order.  </B></div> <div> <B>4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head</B><B>.</B></div> <div> <B>This is why, to this day, it is unacceptable for a young man to wear his hat in church. </B></div> <div> <B>5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors he</B><B>r head, for that is one and the same as if her head was shaved.</B></div> <div> <B>"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.  (1 Timothy 2:12.)</B></div> <div> <B>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 1 Corinthians 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."</B></div> <div> <B> John Calvin</B></div> <div> <B>     He is here speaking of the propriety of women speaking in public unveiled, and therefore he says nothing about the propriety of their speaking in public in itself. When that subject comes up, he expresses his judgment in the clearest terms, 14:34. In here disapproving of the one, says Calvin, he does not approve of the other. </B></div> <div> <B>     CHARLES HODGE </B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>6. For if a woman is not covered let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.</B></div> <div> <B>Shorn means cut hair.  Why would Paul demand that if a woman refused to wear a veil she should then cut off all her hair?  Plainly it is because her glory is to be covered, and if she rejects the veil, which serves that purpose, then her hair (glory) should be sheared off.  Also, as I will discuss later, if the covering is the woman’s hair and she does not  choose to wear it, how could she cut off what is not there?  "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."  John Calvin</B></div> <div> <B>     "Therefore if a woman is not covered — If she will throw off the badge of subjection, let her appear with her hair cut like a man’s. But if it be shameful far a woman to appear thus in public, especially in a religious assembly, let her, for the same reason, keep on her veil."  John Wesley</B></div> <div> <B>7. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.</B></div> <div> <B>      "In the dominion he bears over the creation, representing the supreme dominion of God, which is his glory. But the woman is only matter of glory to the man, who has a becoming dominion over her. Therefore she ought not to appear, but with her head veiled, as a tacit acknowledgment of it."  John Wesley   "So God created man in His own image;  in the image of God He created him;  male and female He created them." Genesis 1:27</B></div> <div> <B>8. For man is not from woman, but woman from man.</B></div> <div> <B>"He establishes by two arguments the pre-eminence, which he had assigned to men above women. The first is, that as the woman derives her origin from the man, she is therefore inferior in rank. The second is, that as the woman was created for the sake of the man, she is therefore subject to him, as the work ultimately produced is to its cause.19 That the man is the beginning of the woman and the end for which she was made, is evident from the law." (Genesis 2:18.)  John Calvin</B></div> <div> <B>9. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.</B></div> <div> <B>Genesis 2:18.  "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone;  I will make him a helper comparable to him."</B></div> <div> <B>10. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.</B></div> <div> <B>"The woman ought to have a veiling on because it functions to represent the subjection she shows to her authority, man, and ultimately to God. The veil Is meant to represent the inner reality of her relationship with God and specifically with man as her head she has the continuous reminder of what her life should exemplify by it. Rebecca, when she was told that it was Isaac, her future husband, coming across the field to meet her, took a veil and covered herself. (Gen.24:64-65). The veiling simply serves to outwardly express the God-ordained fact that in this age woman is governmentally under man's headship and authority (Gen.3:16 "...he shall rule over you. ")."  Tom Shank </B></div> <div> <B>There is much confusion and speculation on what "because of the angels" means</B></div> <div> <B>"the angels who attend there, and before whom they should be careful not to do anything indecent or irregular."  John Wesley  </B></div> <div> <B>.   11. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.</B></div> <div> <B>     "Verses 11-12 relieve the emphasis laid on the authority of the man over the woman lest it be taken in some way harsher than that intended. That the woman is spiritually equal with the man is stated in Gal. 3:28. One can see that superiority is not in view from verse 3 where we are also told that God is the head of Christ."  Clyde V. McKnight </B></div> <div> <B>     12. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.</B></div> <div> <B>     "Again, he stresses their interdependence and that man is born of woman, the case even of Jesus in His great condescension. But all things originate in God, for "...of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Ro. 11:36)."  Tom Shank</B></div> <div> <B>13. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?</B></div> <div> <B>     "Paul challenges the believers to reflect deeply upon the truths and their application which he had conveyed to them. Based upon the important principles he had established, could it possibly be fitting for a woman to pray to God with an unveiled head? He knew what answer they could only but give, according to his teaching, which had full apostolic authority and was inspired by the Holy Spirit."  Tom Shank.</B></div> <div> <B>      "For what need of more arguments if so plain a case? Is it decent for a woman to pray to God — The Most High, with that bold and undaunted air which she must have, when, contrary to universal custom, she appears in public with her head uncovered?"  John Wesley </B></div> <div> <B>14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?</B></div> <div> <B>"For a man to have long hair, carefully adjusted, is such a mark of effeminacy as is a disgrace to him."  John Wesley</B></div> <div> <B>     "The word 'nature' here (phusis) would Imply Instinct, or a native sense of what is right, as in Ro.2: 14, and negatively as in Ro. 1:26. Dishonor (atimia) means just that - a disgrace, and It stands in contrast to 'glory' In v. 15. Paul Is saying that God's perspective on the matter is that long hair is a dishonor to man. Outward distinctions between the sexes is a scriptural injunction and the length of hair is meant to be a primary witness of it. Though the definition of 'long' will vary among different cultures and times, a spiritually discerning person should be able to sense just where the line is for himself and those under his authority."  Tom Shank </B></div> <div> <B>     15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.</B></div> <div> <B>     "All serious commentaries which I have found concur that Paul is arguing in this verse that God shows that the woman's naturally long hair illustrates from nature that it is both proper and natural that the woman should be covered, and that the man's naturally and properly short hair shows that he should not. These verses are not intended as isolated statements about the hair, but as integral with Paul's other arguments for the veiling of women. There are some who would make the woman's hair here to be the covering spoken of earlier in the passage. There is no sense of this if we follow Paul's arguments. There are also indications from the different Greek words used for "covering" in the two sections that the hair is not the covering (more will be said on this later). In addition, we note that the "covering" of the earlier part of the passage was not the woman's glory as here, but a covering for the man's glory -- that is, the woman herself."   </B></div> <div> <B>Clyde V. McKnight </B></div> <div> <B>16. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."  </B></div> <div> <B>     "With full apostolic authority, Paul emphatically states that if anyone is contentious (philaneikos - to love strife) on this matter, they had no such practice in all the churches of God. What practice - veiling, or unveiling? One has to be amazed at the commentators who imply that Paul is in this one verse abolishing all that he has said in verses 1-15. The word translated 'such' here is 'toioutos', which simply means 'such as', and not 'other' as some translations misinterpret. It is soon obvious to anyone studying this passage that 'such custom' is referring to and answering his question in verse 13, "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with, her head uncovered?'. In the Greek, the grammatical structure of this verse is such in case, number and gender to make it agree only with the pronoun 'yourselves' in verse 13. Thus verses 14 and 15 are a parenthesis between verses 13 and 16, where he appeals to their native sense in the matter of hair length for each sex. Paul proclaims boldly that in every church the sisters wore the head veiling, and he flatly commands them to step in line with universal apostolic practice. Early church writings and pictures in the earliest Christian art in the catacombs of Rome give clear evidence that this was the case."  Tom Shank </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     William Barclay’s translation of verse 16.</B></div> <div> <B>     "Let it suffice to say that we have no such custom as the participation of unveiled women in public worship, nor have the congregations of God."</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>     </B></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>What is the Purpose of a Covering?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     The covering is a sign that the woman accepts the headship of man and lives in submission to him.  Genesis 3:16 says "To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you." Since creation the woman was under the authority of her husband. The covering’s purpose is to cover the woman’s glory, her hair. The woman’s long hair is glorious, and it is a glorious thing that the woman was created to be under the authority of a man.   It is a symbol to point others to God, in that when they see someone wearing it they know that person is trying to live a holy life instead of being conformed to this world. Women always wore coverings in the Bible because it was a natural thing. The reason Paul wrote this was because some of the women were falling away. </B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>The History of Coverings</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     Since creation, women wore coverings. But in the 1800’s, women started to replace their coverings with big fancy hats. They thought that as long as their hair was covered it was okay. When the hats went out of style, the coverings went too. Now women are wearing nothing on their heads. This doesn’t mean the scripture doesn’t apply anymore.</B></div> <div> <B>J.C. Wenger points out that the American churches in the late 19th century replaced the veil of England and the Continent with ordinary headgear. "It was usual in American Christian churches for women to have their heads at least covered in worship until the latter years of the 19th century (testimony of Bishop S. F. Coffman, 1872-1954). That which altered the practice of many American Protestant groups was the introduction of huge hats in the 1890's (these hats were nicknamed 'Merry Widows'). </B></div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <B>Section  2.   The Words of our ForeFathers?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Below is a letter written by Professor John Murray to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (Australia).  Professor Murray (1898-1975) was Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. He wrote this letter on November 16, 1973 from his home in Badbea, Scotland.  This letter was later published in the winter of 1992 in an issue of Presbyterian Reformed Magazine.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     "The main question of the use of head coverings in worship turns, of course, on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.  Permit me to offer some of my reflections in order.  </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     1.  Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (Vss.3b, vss 7ff), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising therefrom.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     2.  I am convinced that a head covering is definitely in view forbidden for the man (Vss 4 & 7) and enjoined for the woman (Vss 5,6, 15). In the case of the woman the covering is not simply her long hair. This supposition would make nonsense of  verse 6. For the thought there is, that if she does not have a covering she might as well be shorn or shaven, a supposition without any force whatever if the hair covering is deemed sufficient. In this connection it is not proper to interpret verse 15b as meaning that the hair was given the woman to take the place of the head covering in view of verses 5,6. The Greek of verse 15 is surely the Greek of equivalence as used quite often in the New Testament, and so the Greek can be rendered: "the hair is given to her for a covering." This is within the scope of the particular argument of verses 14,15 and does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5,6,13. Verses 14 and 15 adduce a consideration from the order of nature in support of that which is enjoined earlier in the passage but is not itself tantamount to it. In other words, the long hair is an indication from "nature" of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering required (Vss 5, 6, 13) is in line with what "nature" teaches.</B></div> <div> <B>     </B></div> <div> <B>     3.  There is good reason for believing that the apostle is thinking of conduct in the public assemblies of the church of God and of worship exercises therein. In verse 17, this is clearly the case, and verse 18 is confirmatory. But there is a distinct similarity between the terms of verse 17 and of verse 2. Verse 2 begins, "Now I praise you" and verse 17, "Now in this... I praise you not."  The virtually identical expressions, the one positive and the other negative, would suggest , if not require, that both have in view the behavior of the saints in their assemblies, that is , that in respect of denotation the same people are in view in the same identity as worshippers. If a radical difference, that between private and public, were contemplated, it would be difficult to maintain the appropriateness of the contrast between " I praise you" and  "I praise you not."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     4.  Beyond the question it is in reference to praying and prophesying that the injunctions pertain, the absence of head coverings for men and the presence for women. It might seem therefore that the passage has nothing to do with a head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church if they are not engaged in praying or prophesying, that is, in leading of prayer or the exercising the gift of prophesying. And the implication would be that only when they performed these functions were they required to use head covering. The further implication would be that they would be at liberty to perform these functions provided they wore head gear.  This view could easily be adopted if it were not so that Paul forbids such exercises on the part of women and does so in the same epistle ( I Corinthians  14:33b-36): "As in all the churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak." (Vss 33b-34a).  It is impossible to think that Paul would, by implication, lend approval in chapter 11, to what he so expressly prohibits in chapter 14. Hence we shall have to conclude that he does not contemplate praying or prophesying on the part of women in the Church in chapter 11.  The question arises: how can this be, and how can we interpret 11:5,6,13?  It is possible to interpret the verses in chapter 11 in a way that is compatible with chapter 14: 33b-36. </B></div> <div> <B>It is as follows:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>a.  In chapter 11 the decorum prescribed in 14:33b-36 is distinctly in view and Paul is showing its propriety. Praying and prophesying are functions that imply authority, the authority that  belongs to the man as distinguished from the woman according to the ordinance of creation. The man in exercising this authority in praying and prophesying must not wear a head covering. Why not? The head covering is the sign of  subjection, the opposite of the authority that belongs to him, exemplified in praying and prophesying, hence 11:4,7. In a word, head covering in praying and prophesying would be a contradiction.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>b.  But precisely here enters the relevance of verses 5, 6, 13 as they pertain to women. If women are to pray and prophesy in the assemblies, they perform functions that imply authority and would require therefore, to remove the head covering. To do so with the head covering would involve the contradiction referred to already. But it is the impropriety of removing the head covering that is enforced in 11:5,6 & 13. In other words, the apostle is pressing home the impropriety of the exercise of  these functions - praying and prophesying - on the part of women by showing the impropriety of what it would involve, namely the removal of the head covering. And so the rhetorical question of verse 13: "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?"</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     c.  This interpretation removes all discrepancy between 11:5, 6 ,13 and 14:33b-36 and it seems to me feasible, and consonant with the whole drift of 11:2-16.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>5.  The foregoing implies that the head covering for women was understood to belong to the decorum of public worship.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>6.  The above line of thought would derive confirmation from 1 Corinthians 11:10.  Admittedly the reference to the angels is not immediately perspicuous.  But a reasonable interpretation is that the presence of the angels with the people of God and therefore their presence in the congregations of the saints.  What is being pleaded is the offence given to the holy angels when the impropriety concerned mars the sanctity of God’s worship.  But, in any case, the obligation asserted is apparent.  It is that the woman ought to have upon her head the sign of authority to which she is subject, in other words, the sign of her subjection.  But this subjection pertains throughout and not simply when in the exercise of praying and prophesying according to the supposition that such is permitted.  I submit, therefore, that the verse concerned (Vs 10) enunciates a requirement that is general within the scope of the subject with which Paul is dealing, namely, the decorum of worship in the assembly of saints.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     On these grounds my judgment is that presupposed in the Apostle’s words is the accepted practice of head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church, that apparently, this part of decorum was recognized, and that the main point of verses 5,6 10, 13 was the impropriety of any interruption of the practice if women were to pray or prophesy, for, in that event, it would be necessary to remove the head covering in order to signify the authority that praying and prophesying entailed, an authority not possessed by women, a non-possession signified, in turn, but the use of the covering."  </B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Following are just a few of the great theologians and Men of God who make reference to the usefulness of this passage, and no mention of it not applying to our culture.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     Charles Hodge         "But in the dominion with which man was invested over the earth, Adam was the representative of God. He is the glory of God, because in him the divine majesty is specially manifested. But the woman is the glory of the man. That is, the woman is in this respect subordinate to the man. She is not designed to reflect the glory of God as a ruler. She is the glory of the man. She receives and reveals what there is of majesty in him. She always assumes his station; becomes a queen if he is a king, and manifests to others the wealth and honor which may belong to her husband...The apostle says, the veil is inconsistent with the position of the man, but is required by that of the women. "</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Clement of Alexandia (A.D. 150-220.) This church leader appealed to 1 Corinthians 11 to strengthen the conviction for the veiling. He also appealed to a sense of modesty. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-215). About the year A.D. 200, Tertullian wrote an essay entitled 'On the Veiling of Virgins'. As the title suggests, he argues that unmarried girls as well as married women should be veiled. Throughout his essay, Tertullian never questions the veiling of married women. In his appeal to 1 Cor. 11, he only makes is sue with the word woman, showing that the term included the unmarried as well as the married. He seems unconcerned with such questions as: Is the hair the only covering? Is 1 Cor. 11 authoritative for Christians of every time and place, etc.? Apparently, the veiling issues of our day were not the same as they were in Tertullian's day. He opens his treatise with these words: </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"I will show in Latin also that it behooves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed the turning-point of their age: that this observance is exacted by truth, on which no one can impose prescription-no space of items, no influence of persons, no privilege of regions. For these, for the most part are the sources whence, from some ignorance or simplicity, custom finds its beginning; and then it is successfully confirmed by usage, and thus is maintained in opposition to truth. But our Lord Christ surnamed Himself Truth, not custom." </B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Hippolytus (died ca. A.D. 236). "And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering." </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (ca. A.D. 250-325). This collection of writings cite 1 Corinthians 11 as authority, uphold man's headship and requires women to be covered in worship. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"Finally, let me suggest that there are fragments of the apostle's (Paul) instructions everywhere scattered throughout his epistles, such as the minute canon concerning the veiling of women in acts of worship, insisting upon it with a length of argument which in one of the apostolic fathers would be considered childish. He also insisted that his tradition is from the Lord." </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Apparently the truth of the woman's need to be covered was so plain to them that they thought it "childish" that Paul spent so much time explaining the reasons for it; but then they weren't anticipating the darkness of this present generation! </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Chrysostom (A.D. 344-407). In a sermon on 1 Corinthians ll, Chrysostom urged women to worship with veiled heads and men with bared heads. He warned women against "pride and undue assumption of authority." </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Jerome (A.D. 345-429). Jerome confirms that Christian women wore the veil in his time in both Egypt and Syria. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Augustine (A.D. 354-430). Augustine insisted that women not uncover their hair. He also based his argument on the teaching of the N.T. as these quotes will show: "It is not becoming even in married women to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands the women to keep their heads covered." And at another place: "For she is instructed for this very reason to cover her head, which he is forbidden to do because he is the image of God." </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>J.C. Wenger describes the veil worn in Swiss Reformed cities of the 17th and 18th centuries. He concludes; 'The wearing of this white or black veil seems to have been common in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, and England - and likely in all of Europe." </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>AD 800     It is likely that headgear for women was becoming more common by the seventh century. It seems that Christian morality (based on St Paul's edicts) was influential in this respect. By the eighth century it seems that headcoverings were worn by all women. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>AD 1100-1200  In the 11th and 12th c. it is very unusual to see a man wearing a hat, though the women, unless they are very young or representing some virtue, inevitably have some sort of headress on…while most women wore something that was more or less a derivative of a veil. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>John Knox (1505-1572) </B></div> <div> <B>"First, I say, the woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him. As saint Paule doth reason in these wordes: 'Man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. And man was created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of man; and therfore oght the woman to have a power upon her head,' (that is, a coverture in signe of subjection)."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>John Calvin (1509-1564) </B></div> <div> <B>The great theologian of the Reformation preached three sermons from 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 from which the following excerpts are taken. </B></div> <div> <B>"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature….So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."</B></div> <div> <B>"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</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>George Gillespie (1613-1648) Gillespie, the youngest and one of the most brilliant commissioners at the Westminster Assembly, addresses the issue of women speaking as a voice of one in the public worship services of the church when he says:</B></div> <div> <B>"But where find we that women who were prophetesses, and immediately inspired, were allowed to deliver their prophecy in the church? I suppose he had a respect to 1 Cor. xi:5, 'But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head,' which is meant of the public assembly, for the Apostle is speaking of covering or uncovering the head in the church. . . . So that the Geneva annotation upon ver. 5, gives a good sense of that text, 'That women which show themselves in public and ecclesiastical assemblies, without the sign and token of their subjection, that is to say, uncovered, shame themselves."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A Group of Presbyterian Ministers from London during the time of the Westminster Assembly (1646) </B></div> <div> <B>"Yet a word to the Female Sex only, who come into the Assembly with their hair the most part uncovered, short to shorn, to the shame of their Natures as afore-shew'd: as they may read [Num.5.18.], that that Woman that had her hair uncovered before the Lord, in the Assembly or Worship of God, were only such Women that their Husbands accused them for being dishonest, so were tried by the Law for Jealousie. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Henry Alford (1810-1871) </B></div> <div> <B>"[1 Corinthians 11] 2-16. The law of subjection of the woman to the man (2-12), and natural decency itself (13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Frederick Godet (1812-1900) </B></div> <div> <B>"The phrase [in 1 Corinthians 11:4], "'having down from the head,' that is to say, wearing a kerchief in the form of a veil coming down from the head over the shoulders. And since the woman does not naturally belong to public life, if it happen that in the spiritual domain she has to exercise a function which brings her into prominence, she ought to strive the more to put herself out of view by covering herself with the veil, which declares the dependence in which she remains relatively to her husband."</B></div> <div> <B>In the 1830s Women kept their heads modestly covered most of the time. They wore "day caps" of fine linen or cotton, with ruffles around the face, and chin ties. These were even worn under the cape hood, or under the summer straw bonnet or winter quilted bonnet. Ladies of fashion wore elaborately decorated bonnets when they left home: flowers, feathers, lace, ribbons, ruchings and ruffles abounded."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>A. R. Fausset (1821-1910) </B></div> <div> <B>Fausset co-authored with David Brown and Robert Jamieson the work, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments. </B></div> <div> <B>"In putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man (which is her true 'honor'), and of her connection with Christ, man's Head. Moreover, the head covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Gen. xxiv: 65), and chastity (Gen. xx: 16). By its unlawful excitement in assemblies is avoided, women not attracting attention. Scripture sanctions not the emancipation of woman from subjection: modesty is her true ornament." </B></div> <div> <B>"It hath a threefold use, For decoration, as in Isa. iii. 23. 2. For a sign of modesty, pleaded for by the apostle, 1 Cor. xi. 6. 3. And mainly a sign of women's subjection to their own husbands..." (Banner of Truth reprint of 1840 edition; </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>M. R. Vincent (His Word Studies in the New Testament was published in 1886) "The head-dress of Greek women consisted of nets, hair-bags, or kerchiefs, sometimes covering the whole head. A shawl which enveloped the body was also often thrown over the head, especially at marriages or funerals. This costume the Corinthian women had disused in the Christian assemblies, perhaps as an assertion of the abolition of sexual distinctions, and the spiritual equality of the woman with the man in the presence of Christ. This custom was discountenanced by Paul as striking at the divinely ordained subjection of the woman to the man."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>John Bunyan</B></div> <div> <B>     "Methinks, holy and beloved sisters, you should be content to wear this power, or badge of your inferiority, since the cause </B></div> <div> <B>thereof arose at first from yourselves. It was the woman that at first the serpent made use of, and by whom he then overthrew the </B></div> <div> <B>world: wherefore the women, to the world's end, must wear tokens of her underlingship in all matters of worship. To say nothing of </B></div> <div> <B>that which she cannot shake off, to wit, her pains and sorrows in child-bearing, which God has riveted to her nature, there is her </B></div> <div> <B>silence, and shame, and a covering for her face, in token of it, which she ought to be exercised with, whenever the church comes </B></div> <div> <B>together to worship (Gen 3:16; 1 Tim 2:15; 1 Cor 11:13; 1 Tim </B></div> <div> <B>2:9).</B></div> <div> <B>     Do you think that God gave the woman her hair, that she might deck herself, and set off her fleshly beauty therewith? It was given her to cover her face with, in token of shame and silence, for that by the woman sin came into the world (1 Tim 2:9). And perhaps the reason why the angels cover their faces when they cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, in heaven, is to shew that they still bear in mind, with a kind of abhorrence, the remembrance of their fellows falling from times, especially in times of public worship, and the more of this is mixed with their grace and personage, the more beautiful they are both to God and men. But why must the women have shame-facedness, since they live honestly as the men? I answer, In remembrance of the fall of Eve, and to that the apostle applies it. For a woman, necessity has no law, to shave her head, and to look with open face in worship, as if she could be a leader there, is so far from doing that which becomes her, that it declares her to have forgot what God would have her for ever with shame remember."</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>G. G. Findlay (no specific date cited for his work on 1 Corinthians in The Expositor's Greek New Testament, but it was written in the late 19th century) </B></div> <div> <B>"For a woman to discard the veil means to cast off masculine authority, which is a fixed part of the Divine order, like man's subordination to Christ."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Matthew Henry </B></div> <div> <B>     "The thing he reprehends is the woman’s praying or prophesying uncovered or the mans doing either covered. To understand this it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare headed betokens subjection and being covered superiority and dominion." </B></div> <div> <B>Further along: </B></div> <div> <B>"She appears in the dress of her superior, and throws of the token of her subjection. She might with equal decency, cut her hair short or cut it close, which was the custom of the man in that age.... It was doing a thing which in that age of the world betokened superiority, and therefore a tacit claim of what did not belong to them but the other sex." </B></div> <div> <B>Still further: </B></div> <div> <B>"Now because evil angels will be sure to mix in all Christian assemblies, therefore should women wear the token of their shamefacedness and subjection, which in that age and country was a veil." </B></div> <div> <B>Many interpret Henry’s words to state the cultural argument but they do not.  The only cultural aspect mentioned is the style of the head covering, but the practice of covering the head Henry upholds as a permanent mandate for the church.</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>A. T. Robertson-1931) </B></div> <div> <B>In commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:4 ("having his head covered"), he points out:</B></div> <div> <B>"Literally, having a veil (kalumma understood) down from the head." Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 11:6, "Let her be veiled. . . . Let her cover up herself with the veil (down, kata, the Greek says, the veil hanging down from the head)."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>William Barclay, 1954 </B></div> <div> <B>"The problem was whether or not in the Christian Church a woman had the right to take part in the service unveiled. Paul's answer was bluntly this the veil is always a sign of subjection; it is worn by an inferior in the presence of a superior; now woman is inferior to man, in the sense that man is head of the household; therefore it is wrong for a man to appear at public worship veiled and it is equally wrong for a woman to appear unveiled."</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>J. Vernon McGee (1904-1990) </B></div> <div> <B>"Apparently some of the women in the church at Corinth were saying, 'All things are lawful for me, therefore, I won't cover my head.' Paul says this should not be done because the veil is a mark of subjection."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Watchman Nee   - sections from the chapter in the book 'Love One Another'</B></div> <div> <B>"The meaning of head covering is: I submit myself to God's government: I accept God's appointed position: I dare not nullify His government by the grace I have received; I do not even dare to think about it; on the contrary, I accept God's government. As Christ accepts God as His head, so should every man accept Christ as his head. Likewise, woman should representatively accept man as her head. In covering the head, the woman signifies that she is not head, that she is as if she has no head - for it is covered.... </B></div> <div> <B>When many of the sisters in the church take the place given to women and learn to cover their heads, they send out an unspoken word of testimony to the angels in the air, to the effect that God has obtained in the church what He desires. Because of this, woman must have on her head a sign of authority, a testimony to the angels.... </B></div> <div> <B>Let us remember that although in practice it is only the woman who has her head covered, yet, in reality, Christ has His head covered before God and every man has his head covered before Christ. Why is it that God only requires woman to have the practice of having her head covered? This indeed is marvelous, for it involves a very deep principle.... </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>When a sister covers her head, she is standing before God on the basis of Christ's position before God and man's position before Christ. God wants the woman to cover her head in order to manifest His government on earth. This privilege falls only to the woman. She does not cover her head merely for her own self; she does it representatively, It is because she represents man before Christ arid Christ before God. So when woman covers her head before God, it is Just the same as if Christ covered His head before God.... Man and woman should have no head since Christ is the head. If one's head is not covered, there will be two heads. Between God and Christ, one head must be covered; so too must it be between man and woman and so between Christ and every man."  </B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Charles Caldwell Ryrie (The Role of Women in the Church was published in 1958) </B></div> <div> <B>"If angels desire to look into things pertaining to salvation, then they should see as they look at veiled women in the assembly of Christians the voluntary submission of a woman to her head. Thus the early church (for this was the custom of the churches generally) while offering religious equality in spiritual privilege insisted on showing in public worship the principle of subordination of women by their being veiled."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Albrect Oepke (A contributor to the highly acclaimed Theological Dictionary of the New Testament which was published in 1965) </B></div> <div> <B>"The veiling of women is a custom in Israel. A disgraced woman comes veiled to judgment (katakekalummene). Yet one may suspect that a woman muffled up (katekalupsato to prosopon) and lurking by the wayside is a harlot (Gn. 38:15). This opens the way for an understanding of the relevant NT passage. The veiling of women in the NT and the contemporary world." </B></div> <div> <B>Bruce Waltke ("1 Corinthians 1:2-16:An Interpretation" was published in Bibliotheca Sacra in 1978) </B></div> <div> <B>"Although Paul does not use the word veil [kalumma GLP], it seems reasonable to suppose that he has this article of apparel in view. . . .To appear at the public assembly, then, with inappropriate headdress would disgrace one's head."</B></div> <div> <B>Before the revision in 1983, Canon law had stated that women must cover their heads "...especially when they approach the holy table" (can.1262.2). But in order to reduce such a growing collection of books, the new version of Canon law was subjected to concise changes. In the process, mention of head coverings was omitted.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Robert D. Culver (Contributed "A Traditional View" to Women in Ministry Four Views which was published in 1989) "God distinguishes sharply between the sexes as to appearance and activity in formal Christian assemblies. A man's hair is to be short and his head uncovered by hat or shawl, while a woman's hair is to be uncut and, in visible recognition of submission to God's order, she is to wear an additional head covering in order to veil, not her face, but head."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>AD 2000   "Orthodox women, according to the words of the holy Apostle Paul, go to God's church with covered heads. For nearly two thousand years now, this custom has been kept by faithful women and has been handed down from generation to generation. It is a custom not only of the local churches, but also of the Universal Church, and, therefore  whether we be in a Greek, in a Serbian or Russian church  the women in the church have their heads covered." (The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Washington, D.C.)</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>BB Warfield</B></div> <div> <B> We cannot infer that it would be proper for her to pray or prophesy in church if only she were veiled. There is nothing said about church in the passage or in the context. The word "church" does not occur until the 16th verse, and then not as ruling the reference of the passage, but only as supplying support for the injunction of the passage. There is no reason whatever for believing that "praying and prophesying" in church is meant. Neither was an exercise confined to the church. If, as in 1 Corinthians 14:14, the "praying" spoken of was an ecstatic exercise as its place by "prophesying" may suggest_then there would be the divine inspiration superceding all ordinary laws to be reckoned with. And there has already been occasion to observe that prayer in public is forbidden to women in 1 Timothy 2:8, 9_unless mere attendance at prayer is meant, in which case this passage is a close parallel of </B></div> <div> <B>1 Timothy 2:9</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Gerald A. Larue, professor of biblical history and archaeology at the school of religion in the University of Southern California. the Los Angeles Times, June 10, 1975. </B></div> <div> <B>     "If rules in the Corinthian correspondence about women keeping silent in the churches (I Cor. 14:34ff) and covering their heads during worship (I Cor. 11:4-10) are quietly ignored in our 20th-century culture, why are the statements about homosexuality selected as peculiarly authoritative and pertinent? Those who use the Bible as a weapon should be consistent_accept all of it, or justify the selection of a few passages to the exclusion of others. Better yet, they might apply selected biblical passages to their own lives, not the lives of others."</B></div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>If one reviews the historical evidence fully, it becomes evident that the bulk of the Christian church until this century believed that the command for men to worship with bared head, and for women to wear a covering, is permanently valid. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Up until this century, I have not been able to find a commentary or writing that did not speak positively of the Biblical practice of head covering as a practice that should be applied always.  It is only in the last 150 years that men have changed their view of the meaning of this passage, in fact, it is only in the past 50 years that women have stopped wearing hats to church. What has changed in this last century?  Has God’s Word?  Has Calvin’s works?  The answer is nothing has changed except our culture and our interpretation of Scripture.  There are exceptions, of course, to this modern day change of heart, the most notable being R.C. Sproul whom I will quote here. </B></div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>"Now that’s a good question"</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>"In I Corinthians 11, Paul deals with head coverings for women in the church.  How does this apply to the Christian church today?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>During my high school years when I went to church on Sunday Morning,</B></div> <div> <B> I never saw a woman in that church (this was a mainline Presbyterian church) whose head wasn't covered with a hat or veil. That is one of those customs that has simply disappeared for the most part from Christian culture. If you go to my Presbyterian church this Sunday, you'll see two women wearing hats. One is a woman from Holland who is dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and the other one is my wife because we are persuaded that that Biblical mandate is still in effect. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>We know that in the New Testament certain rules are dictated by custom and others are dictated by principle.  For example, when Jesus sent out the seventy disciples on a mission of evangelism, he told them to take no shoes with them.  That does not mean that all preaching and all evangelism for all times and all places has to be done in bare feet.  Billy Graham is not sinning by wearing shoes when he preaches the gospel.  But there are many questions like that that are not so obvious.  In that whole context of the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, women are called to cover their heads with a veil as a sign of their willingness to submit to the leadership or headship of their husbands.  There are three elements here:  the submission of the wife to the husband as the head of the home, the covering of the head, and the covering of the head by a veil.  How much is principle and how much is custom?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Many Christians believe that we should no longer tell women to submit to the headship of their husbands.  Therefore, women don't have to cover their heads.  Others say that the headship principle still stands in the home, but does not carry over into our day, and therefore the veil would be insignificant as well.  </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The third view of this passage is that it is describing a principle, and that women must cover their heads and use veils to do so.</B></div> <div> <B>     </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>I  am convinced that when Paul says the women are to cover their heads, he is basing that action on how God created male and female.  It would seem to me, using a principle of interpretation of what we call hermeneutics, that if there's ever an indication of a perpetual ordinance in the church, it is that which is based on an appeal to Creation.  I'm persuaded that the principle of covering the head is still in effect because it was built into creation.  And even though it's not culturally accepted anymore in our society, I still believe it's principle.  I don't think it matters one bit whether it's a babushka, a veil, or a hat, but I think that the symbol should remain intact as a sign of our obedience to  God."         R.C. Sproul</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Section 3.    Common Objections</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>"Instead of searching for what we are commanded to do, our discussion centers on what the passage doesn’t teach. It’s as if we received a command from God to come out from amongst the pagans and idolaters and we quickly replied, "you mean that spiritually right? You don’t mean to physically separate ourselves from them?" Then we promptly pull out our lexicons and systematic textbooks and point out how the context of the entire head covering passage is of the heavenly register and therefore the entire passage should be taken as figurative and having no real relevance down here on earth. But if we want to be honest Christians, we are bound to take the command and to apply it to our lives."    </B></div> <div> <B>      Ben Merkle</B></div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <B>Objection Number One- Hair</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>I Cor. 11:15  says that a woman's long hair is her covering.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>" But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering." </B></div> <div> <B>     Yes, the verse does say that her hair is her covering. But if you take a closer look at the passage you'll get very confused, because if you think that the only covering the Bible is talking about is the hair, then the passage does not really  make any sense.1 Corinthians 11 is talking about the need for two coverings. The woman’s long hair (see verses 6,15) is her covering. In verse 6 it says "if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn" If a woman is not covered, there would be no hair to cut, so the passage is evidentially speaking of two coverings that are necessary to be worn. If this verse was speaking of the hair as the only covering,  then all Christian women would have long hair and all Christian men would have to shave their heads, in obedience to the scriptures.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"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."  John Calvin</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"To say ‘the woman should wear a covering’ is wrong because her hair is her covering.</B></div> <div> <B>     This is a familiar argument and it remains popular in some circles still. It is based on the closing words of 1 Cor. 11:15- "her hair is given her for a covering." If the woman has hair, that is enough - so we are told. However, a careful reading of the whole passage reveals the weakness of this argument. The thrust of Paul’s message is to the effect that there should be a distinction between man and woman in public worship. Let us follow this though: if it is PROPER for women to worship with hair on her head ( i.e. COVERED), it is IMPROPER for men to worship with hair! It is quite ludicrous to interpret the passage as a tract advocating that women must have hair, but men must be bald while engaging in worship - yet this is the only conclusion possible if the head covering is only hair. Further, consider 1 Cor. 11:6 To make a woman’s hair her covering instead of a hat or some other object, would render this verse nonsensical - it would have to say, ‘if a woman did not have any hair on her head, then her hair was to be cut off.’ To say that this is an impossibility is to state the obvious!"     Timothy Nelson</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>John Murray says: "I am convinced that a head covering is definitely in view forbidden for the man (verses 4 & 7 ) and enjoined for the woman ( verses 5,6,15). In the case of the woman the covering is not simply her long hair. This supposition would make nonsense of verse 6. For the thought there is, that if she does not have a covering she might as well be shorn or shaven, a supposition without any force whatever if the hair covering is deemed  sufficient. In this connection it is not proper to interpret verse 15b as meaning that the hair was given the woman to take the place of the head covering in view of verses 5,6. The Greek of verse 15 is surely the Greek of equivalence as used quite often in the New Testament, and so the Greek can be rendered: "the hair is given to her for a covering." This is within the scope of the particular argument of verses 14,15, and does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5,6,13. Verses 14 and 15 adduce a consideration from the order of nature in support of that which is enjoined earlier in the passage but is not itself tantamount to it. In other words, the long hair is an indication from "nature" of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering required (Vss 5,6,13)  is in line with what "nature" teaches."</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>"Many today, in mimicking what they've heard, say that the woman's hair is her covering, as it seems to imply in verse 15. Such statements are not at all original or honest. Besides, the Greek word used for 'covering' in 1 Corinthians 11:15 ("for her hair is given her for a covering") is completely different from the one translated 'covered' prior to this in Chapter 11. This Greek word (peribolaion), here in verse 15, means to 'wrap around'. Hence the meaning would be ... "for her hair is given her for 'to be wrapped around'". There is no clear idea here, nor from any early Church writer, that the 'hair' is the women's 'covering'. Furthermore, it would seem to be negating what Paul had just spent 13 verses on prior to this in chapter 11. The words translated "covering", "covered" or "cover" prior to verse 15 in Chapter 11 use an entirely different Greek word (katakalupto). This one means to 'veil or cover up oneself'."</B></div> <div> <B>"It is equally clear that the Apostle Paul is describing an actual veil for the woman’s covering, rather than her hair. The two Greek words used for hair and covering are not interchangeable, for katakalupto means to cover wholly, indicating some cloth hanging down that covers. Peribolaion comes from peri – perimeter – indicating the natural hair around the head."</B></div> <div> <B>"1 Cor 11:15 goes on to reveal that woman's hair is given to her "instead of (something) thrown around" (Greek "anti peribolaion"). A good way to describe this long hair is as a "wrap-round", something which falls around her body, and provides a cover for her modesty. The usual translation "for a veil" fails to draw the necessary distinction between this word and those very different words used at 1 Cor 11:10 ("authority") and in 1 Cor 11:5 (something "down upon the head"). (This "wrap-round" is not a substitute for the "down upon the head" (1 Cor 11:5) as sometimes claimed, otherwise a man would need to be shaven in order not to have anything down upon his head!)"</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"We regularly rebuke young men for wearing hats in worship. But this would only make sense if we were considering the hat as an additional covering and therefore inappropriate for a man to wear during worship. And if we consider the hat an inappropriate covering on a man who already has short hair, then we certainly have no reason to gripe at a woman who wears an additional covering over already long hair." Ben Merkle</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Table Talk-  Wednesday, June 19--Hair or Veil</B></div> <div> <B>ICorinthians 11:6-7</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"In verse 14, Paul refers to a type of "covering" given in nature: long hair for the woman. Whenever we have a lesson both from the Scriptures and from nature, we are doubly bound to obey. We also must recognize that it is a rule rooted in nature, not custom. Regarding the covering of the woman, we have the example set before us that she is to be covered in the public assemblies just as she is covered by the hand of nature, established by God for the instruction of His divinely appointed order of authority. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     Given this example from nature, Paul makes the comment in verse 6 that if a woman does not cover her head in the public assembly, she should be consistent and cut off her hair. Having her hair shorn would (and should) be shameful to her because it goes against nature. If it is shameful for a woman to have her head shaved, then she must realize that it is just as shameful for her to enter public worship with her head uncovered. We must not confuse Paul’s use of hair as "nature’s covering" and the covering he is exhorting women to wear in public worship. They are not the same thing.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     The covering in public worship is not her hair. If it were, verse 6 would make no sense. If you assume the covering is hair in the first place, her hair would already be shorn for her not to be covered. This, however, is not the case for Paul says that if she is not covered, let her hair be shorn. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     The reason a man does not cover his head is because he is the image and glory of God i.e., he represents the authority of God. Woman, of course, is also made in the image of God in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. But she is not given the authority that a man is given. Instead, she is the "glory of man". "That is, the woman is in this respect subordinate to the man," Hodge wrote. "She is not designed to reflect the glory of God as a ruler. She is the glory of man. She receives and reveals what there is of majesty in him. She always assumes his station; becomes queen if he is a king, and manifests to others the wealth and honor which June belong to her husband." </B></div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> <B>                 </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Objection Number Two- Culture</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>It was strictly a practice for New Testament culture.</B></div> <div> <B>What about the verse, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." </B></div> <div> <B>(1 Corinthians 9:19-23)  </B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>    </B></div> <div> <B>    "It may be noted that to a great extent Paul's arguments still apply. The fact that Christ is still head of every man and the man is head of woman has not changed. Neither has the fact of creation, that woman was created from and for man. And whatever the meaning of the phrase "because of the angels," it is a safe bet that the angels have not changed. Women still wear their hair longer than men. Although it may be objected that modern man would not judge it improper for a woman to pray bareheaded, quite possibly Paul was appealing for them to judge in light of their Christian teaching, a fact which would well change the verdict. And although the general practice of the churches is no longer the same as it was in the first century, the fact that for nineteen hundred years the uniform practice of the churches was for men to pray bareheaded and women covered stands as an indictment of the modern practice."   </B></div> <div> <B>    "Paul uses theological arguments rather than cultural ones. It is noteworthy that he does not make the truly cultural argument that people would think that the women were prostitutes if they went without a headcovering, although it has often been asserted that this was the real reason that Paul gave this instruction. It would seem that it is not so much the culture of the first century which has produced the lack of head-coverings as it is the culture of the twentieth century. Three modern cultural factors seem to have produced the disregard for this teaching: (1) the fact that hats and/or veils are no longer considered stylish, (2) the move for greater women's rights and equality with men, and (3) the tendency toward lack of respect for authority. It is modern culture that would cause men and women to be contentious with the apostle Paul's teaching."           Bruce Terry</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>"Whether or not the woman is to cover her head is a matter to be decided by considerations of culture or fashion.</B></div> <div> <B>    "This argument implies that this was also the case in the church at Corinth- that these believers merely followed local custom, However this assertion is not supported by the facts. In the Jewish community the MAN was to have his head COVERED- and still is, to this day. There are numerous references to this in the Word of God eg. Exodus 28:40, 29:9, 39:28; Ezek.44:18; Daniel 3:21 etc. In the pagan Greek community (where Corinth was located) both men and women ‘worshipped’ with head UNCOVERED. With these facts established, it is plain that the practice enjoined by the apostle was contrary to the customs and culture of the day. The New Testament church was apart from the synagogue and the heathen temple - in this matter, the Christian woman was to be distinctive; she was to behave differently. We do not hesitate to say that the Christian should still be different in such things. We must take our pattern not from the fickle and fleeting customs of a faithless world, but from the unchanging and ever-relevant Word of God. Yes, the Christian is "in the world" - but he or she is NOT "of the world"." Timothy Nelson</B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>"Some very subtle means of relativizing the text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought not to be there. For example, with respect to the hair covering issue in Corinth, numerous commentators on the Epistle point out that the local sign of the prostitute in Corinth was the uncovered head. Therefore, the argument runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a scandalous appearance of Christian women in the external guise of prostitutes.</B></div> <div> <B>    What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and gave no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul’s stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisegesis.</B></div> <div> <B>    The creation ordinances are indicators of the transculteral principle. If any biblical principles transcend local customary limits, they are the appeals drawn from creation. Appeals to creation ordinances reflect stipulations a covenant God makes with man qua man. The laws of creation are not given to man as Hebrew or man as Christian or man as Corinthian, but are rooted in basic human responsibility to God. To set principles of creation aside as mere local custom is the worst kind of relativizing and dehistoricizing of the biblical content. Yet it is precisely at this point that many scholars have relativized scriptural principles. Here we see the existential method operating most blatantly."  </B></div> <div> <B>R.C. Sproul</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>    "Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (Vss. 3b,vss 7ff ), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising therefrom." </B></div> <div> <B>John Murray</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>    "Paul makes it clear 3 times that the principle of his teaching is not confined by a particular culture. </B></div> <div> <B>1.  The context of the head covering issue is the relationship between God, Christ, Man, and Woman in verse 3, which does not change from culture to culture. </B></div> <div> <B>2.  He goes on to appeal to "nature itself" in verse 14 </B></div> <div> <B>3.  and explains that none of the churches of God differ on this teaching, verse 16. </B></div> <div> <B>So whether this passage applies to us or not is not really the question. It is very clear that whatever principle Paul is teaching regarding head coverings remains applicable." </B></div> <div> <B>Ben Merkle</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    </B></div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <B>Objection Number Three- Endorsement of Women Praying and Prophesying in the Church?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"...permit you to pray or prophesy with your head uncovered..." In this verse Paul endorses women who prophesy.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    Paul is not endorsing women to prophesy. John Calvin says:</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    "Beyond the question it is in reference to praying and prophesying that the injunctions pertain, the absence of head coverings for men and the presence for women. It might seem, therefore, that the passage has nothing to do with a head covering for women in the assemblies of the church if they are not engaged in praying or prophesying, that is, in leading of prayer or exercising the gift of prophesying. And the implication would be that only when they performed these functions were they required to use head covering. The further implication would be that they would be at liberty to perform these functions provided they wore head gear. This view could easily be adopted if it were not so that Paul forbids such exercises on the part of women and does so in the same epistle (1 Corinthians 14:33b-36): "As in all the Churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak." (Vss 33b-34a). It is impossible to think that Paul would, by implication, lend approval in chapter 11, to what he so expressly prohibits in chapter 14. Hence we shall have to conclude that he does not contemplate praying or prophesying on the part of women in the Church in chapter 11. The question arises: how can this be, and how can we interpret 11:5,6,13? It is possible to interpret the verses in chapter 11 in a way that is compatible with chapter 14:33b-36."</B></div> <div> <B>John Calvin</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>"But precisely here enters the relevance of verses 5,6,13 as they pertain to women. If women are to pray and prophesy in the assemblies, they perform functions that imply authority and would require therefore, to remove the head covering. To do so with the head covering would involve the contradiction reterred to already. But it is the impropriety of removing the head covering that is enforced in 11:5,6&13. In other words, the apostle is pressing home the impropriety of the exercise of these functions- praying and prophesying- on the part of women by showing the impropriety of what it would involve, namely the removal of the head covering. And so the rhetorical question of verse 13: "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?" "The foregoing implies that the head covering for women was understood to belong to the decorum of public worship." </B></div> <div> <B>John Murray</B></div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Objection Number Four- Only Mentioned Once?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"The matter of head coverings appears to be of concern in only one chapter of the thousands in Scripture. That means it is not as important as, say, Justification or the deity of Christ or even his second coming."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    Of Course, the head covering issue is mild compared to Justification or the deity of Christ, but that doesn’t mean it is not a command of God that should be followed. After all, "All Scripture is inspired by God..".  Matthew 23:23 tells us not to disregard the little things. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay the tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and you have neglected the weightier matters of the law; justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." </B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>"God is not required to repeat His will in more than one place in Scripture in order for that instruction to be authoritative for all Christians. so that even if 1Corinthians 11 is the only place in the Scripture where women are commanded to wear fabric head coverings in corporate worship, it is sufficient since God has spoken. The "tradition"  is not ceremonial, thus it did not pass away with other ceremonial "shadows" at the coming of Christ and His finished work (as did circumcision and animal sacrifices). This "tradition" of head covering is not cultural, for where does Paul or any other writer in the New Testament go to such lengths to defend a "mere" cultural practice (using even an argument from God’s created order)? Thus, I submit that the only biblical alternative left to us is that this "tradition" of head covering is apostolic,  and therefore universal and binding for all females in cooperate worship and for all cultures until the coming of the Lord." </B></div> <div> <B>Greg L. Price</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    "One of the most common objections to the use of the covering is that it was just the custom of their day and is not necessary in our day. Many today don't "feel" the need or importance of the regulations concerning the covering. However, a person may not "feel" the need of baptism, the Lord's supper, abstaining from gossip, or even many of the major moral commandments, but this does not relieve him of the obligation to obey them. </B></div> <div> <B>Are there other scriptures which would suggest that this command has been changed? We know of none and have not seen even opponents of the practice of a headcovering suggest any. To the contrary, the exact opposite is true. We see this commandment stated and defended more thoroughly than many more familiar commandments such as those above (which we receive without question)."</B></div> <div> <B>   Clyde V. McKnight</B></div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> <B>                </B></div> <div> <B>Objection Number Five- Legalism</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Am I being legalistic if I wear a covering?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>First of all, what is legalism? </B></div> <div> <B>Legalism is the doctrine of salvation by good works; reliance on good works for salvation rather than on free grace. Christians have given this word a new meaning: if you are trying to be good, you are a legalist. That is not what the word means. If you are relying on your good works to save you, and not accepting God’s free gift of salvation, you are a legalist. Don’t let your good works get ahead of your salvation. Fix your eyes on Jesus.  But never cease in striving in the Holy Spirits power for good works, not for your salvation, but rather because of your salvation.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     "Whenever we deal with specific points of obedience as I am going to take the risk in doing we are in danger of sounding "legalistic." Jesus said (John 14:15), "If you love Me, keep My commandments." This is not legalism. True legalism is thinking I can somehow earn God's grace. We cannot add a single thing to what Jesus already accomplished through His death on the cross in purchasing our salvation. But when Christians purpose to obey the Lord explicitly they are often accused of legalism."                 </B></div> <div> <B> Jonathan Lindvall</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>    Objection Number Six- No One Else is doing it</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    What if my church doesn’t do this?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    If your church does not do this, and you are convinced that this is God’s will, most definitely pursue it.     There will always be people who criticize, or think differently. God convicts people of different things and at different times, and everyone has a different opinion or reason for the way they believe.</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <B>Objection Number Seven- Is the Covering just for Public Assembly?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>When should it be worn?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    I am not positive as to when the covering should be worn. Some people say that it should only be worn in public worship, while others say that the covering should be worn all the time because of the verse "pray without ceasing".   I think that the information that I wrote about at the beginning of this report bears greatly on this question.  The instruction on head covering is for men as well as women in opposite fashion.   Whenever it is deemed proper for a man to remove his hat today, using the same Biblical principal, it would at those same times be proper for a woman to cover her head.  In other words, whenever we are in attendance to a public prayer.  We do not need to be the ones leading in the prayer, but just to be listening silently and enjoining in spirit, would require the uncovering for men, and the covering for women.  </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Greg L Price says this: </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"The cultural practice of women wearing head coverings outside the worship service is not under consideration at all. There was no universal practice of women being veiled in public among the Greeks or Romans. However, it was a custom applied with particular stringency by the Jews, and yet it was more of an oriental custom than a distinctive Jewish custom. In fact "the Jew regarded it as typical of Gentile women that they should go about unveiled. It is quite wrong that Greek women were under some kind of compulsion to wear a veil in public." Neither are there any cultural considerations in this apostolic requirement to cover the head within the worship service. For just as Greek women in public and in their pagan worship were not required to wear a veil, but in Christian worship were required to do so; even so Greek and Jewish men may have covered their heads in public (and usually did so in their respective places of worship), but in Christian worship they were required not to cover their heads. Paul could not have made his inspired instruction more contrary to the culture within Corinth if he tried (Paul was contra mundum, i.e. against the world).</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"There is good reason for believing that the apostle is thinking of conduct in the public assemblies of the church of God and of worship exercises therein. In verse 17, This is clearly the case, and verse 18 is confirmatory. But there is a distinct similarity between the terms of verse 17 and of verse 2. Verse 2 begins, "Now I praise you" and verse 17, "Now in this... I praise you not." The virtually identical expressions, the one positive and the other negative, would suggest, if not require, that both have in view the behavior of the saints in their assemblies, that is, that in respect of denotation the same people are in view in the same identity as worshippers. If a radical difference, that between private and public, were contemplated, it would be difficult to maintain the appropriateness of the contrast between "I praise you" and "I praise you not." John Murray</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Tertullian expressed a concern that the veiling be worn consistently out of the assembly as well as in it.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B> "Identity (sameness) of nature abroad as at homeameness) of custom in the presence of men as of the Lord, consists in identity (sameness) of liberty. To what purpose, then, do they thrust their glory out of sight abroad, but expose it in the church? I demand a reason. Is it to please the brethren, or God Himself...? What cannot appear to be done for God's sake (because God wills not that it be done in such a way) is done for the sake of men - a thing, of course, primarily lawful, as betraying a lust for glory." </B></div> <bR> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>" If we accept that the woman should have her head covered, then surely this counsel should be applicable only to what goes on within the church building.</B></div> <div> <B>    This is an argument which has quite a number of  adherents in our day, judging by the practice of Christian women when meeting beyond the confines of the local church building. This betrays a failure to appreciate the point at issue. Surely what must be of paramount concern is not the building in which the gathering takes place -  but the nature and purpose of such a gathering, and the fact that it takes place at all. Paul writes at a time when purpose-built church edifices generally did not exist - he speaks of public worship wherever and whenever it takes place. If the woman is part of such a meeting, where attention is given to prayer and prophesying, her head should be covered."</B></div> <div> <B>Timothy Nelson</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>BB Warfield seems to imply that I Corinthians 11:1-15 is not speaking of the church but rather prayer in private life.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B> We cannot infer that it would be proper for her to pray or prophesy in church if only she were veiled. There is nothing said about church in the passage or in the context. The word "church" does not occur until the 16th verse, and then not as ruling the reference of the passage, but only as supplying support for the injunction of the passage. There is no reason whatever for believing that "praying and prophesying" in church is meant. Neither was an exercise confined to the church. If, as in 1 Corinthians 14:14, the </B></div> <div> <B>"praying" spoken of was an ecstatic exercise_as its place by "prophesying" may suggest_then there would be the divine inspiration superceding all ordinary laws to be reckoned with. And there has already been occasion to observe that prayer in public is forbidden to women in 1 Timothy 2:8, 9_unless mere attendance at prayer is meant, in which case this passage is a close parallel of </B></div> <div> <B>1 Timothy 2:9.</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>"We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonor Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have "power," that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels."    Matthew Henry</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>Section 4:  Modesty in General</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <B>In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 1 Timothy 2:9-10</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are an abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. Romans 14:13</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Romans 14:21</B></div> <div> <B>There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. Proverbs 30:12</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Isaiah 5:21</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>According to the Westminster Assembly´s Larger Catechism:</B></div> <div> <B>Q. 138. What are the duties required in the seventh commandment? A. The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior, and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto. </B></div> <div> <B>Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel… and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others. </B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>"You seem to think that dresses are holy and pants are not."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    I don’t mean to imply that. Nothing we wear, or do can make us holy. It is only what Christ has done. While on earth we should try to be as holy and good as we can, but must never lose sight of the cross. God certainly made distinctions between men and women. Women are to have long hair, and men are to have short hair. Women are to submit to their husbands, and men are to be the head of their wife and family. Man is the  image and glory of God, and woman is the glory of man.  I Corinthians 11:7.  We should dress in a feminine way since God has made clear all the differences between men and women, and has even told women not to dress like men and men to not dress as women (Deuteronomy 22:5). In 1 Timothy 2:9, God called for women to dress modestly, and to not wear jewelry with pride. In other words we are to dress most pleasing to God, being careful not to cause other men to sin. Jewelry and immodest dress cause men to look at a woman lustfully. We want to dress humbly and modestly. Pants show the shape of your legs and bottom, while dresses do not.  Shorts show your legs and shape. In Isaiah 47 it makes clear how it’s a shame to show off your body. Why would any man send his wife or daughter out of the house with the intent of allowing other men to observe and know the shape of her bottom.  I am not trying to criticize others. This is my conviction on how I can most please God and avoid sin in my dress.  The loss of the head covering and the wearing of pants are very closely related.  When women began to rebel from their God given roles, they threw off the symbol of subjection and began to wear pants to be equal to men.  The pants were a rebellion against God’s order of nature.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>6. "For if a woman is not covered let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered."</B></div> <div> <B>If a woman is not covered, it is the same amount of shame as if she was shaven. Shorn hair means cut hair, and is longer than the shaven head, but Paul writes them as equally shameful.  It is my personal opinion, out of modesty, to have my hair up and tucked away, rather than wearing it long and flowing. One reason for wearing the covering is to hide your glory, your hair. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B> "Paul is telling us that the way we wear our hair says something about our spiritual condition. He also describes this phenomena as universally true. In the Greek culture a woman in rebellion, particularly one in rebellion of a demonic nature, is commonly described with her hair being either shaved off or let loose in a wild manner. The prostitutes that staffed the temple to Aphrodite in Corinth all had shaven heads, and all were in a perverse sort of rebellion." </B></div> <div> <B>Ben Merkle</B></div> <div> <B>    </B></div> <div> <B>"When she exposes her glory she brings shame to her husband, because she belongs to him."</B></div> <div> <B>Gary D. Naler</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"When a young man is described as "clean cut" a particular hair cut is being used to picture what type of man he is. When a woman is said to "let her hair down" what does that signify? The same thing it always has, she is cutting loose." Ben Merkle</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>We seem to have a double standard when it comes to men and women.  We are quick to dismiss the passage in Deuteronomy regarding wearing the opposite genders clothing when we are faced with women wearing slacks, but if a man were to wear a dress, we would proclaim the passage equal to the Gospel itself.  It is the same with hair length.  When a woman wears her hair short, we say I Corinthians 11:15 does not apply.  We question, what is short anyway?  Short hair is subjective.  But when a man wears his hair long, we loose all subjectivity and loudly proclaim verse 14 and say it is a shame to him.  One other point.  Are we not worshiping the same God Sunday and Wednesday evening as we are Sunday morning?  What scripture do we use to justify casual attire when going before our Creator in the public assemble to worship and pray?</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>When Christians wear stylish, or immodest clothing, to adjust to today's culture and "fit in" with the world, they aren't setting a good example for other Christians who are trying to live a holy life. I know this because the reason I wanted to wear the stylish, immodest clothing was because all my Christian friends did. Because of the way they dressed and acted, I was tempted to sin in order to be like them.  When we dress immodestly, we may cause a brother to sin: Romans 14:13 "... but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or cause to fall in our brother’s way." and 14:21 "It is good neither to eat meat, nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or made weak." 1 Corinthians 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me but not all things edify." </B></div> <bR> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <B>"Many will wrestle the issue with arguments of God being more interested in our hearts than He is in our dress. That is like saying that God understands our hearts when we rob a bank! It is obvious that an innocent heart is not behind an immorally dressed sister. it does seem that they could be logically concluded. Women show their value system by their dress. What is the first thing that the early feminists did? They burned their undergarments. What is the attire that the flashy, sensual women of the 20's wore? Glitter, fringe, tight-fitting clothing was their way of expressing their independence, their spirit, their gaity.  Donald Norbie in his book on I Timothy: Timeless Truths for Today's Church states:</B></div> <div> <B>"Paul is here especially concerned with the appearance of women in the public</B></div> <div> <B>meetings of the church. Their dress is a statement of their values. Women </B></div> <div> <B>are to 'adorn' themselves, to dress attractively and neatly. Their dress should be</B></div> <div> <B>worn with propriety, a sense of what is right and what is wrong. They should</B></div> <div> <B>shrink from wearing what would be considered immodest or seductive.</B></div> <div> <B>They should reveal "moderation" or good sense in dress."  Many women when confronted with the issue of modest apparel will immediately ask you what you think is modest. One begins to wonder the heart behind such questions. Is it not proper that each woman know herself what is right? I doubt it a common practice though for women to stand before their wardrobes and ask Jesus what is right and what is not. I wonder if Jesus Christ were sitting in our meetings, if women would be so concerned with what is "cute" and what "matches" and what "looks good on" their bodies. I wonder if a woman could without any conscious knowledge of her sin cross her legs, reveal ½ of her thigh and and just smile at Jesus across the room as though nothing were the matter. Yet they do it every Sunday to their dear brothers in Christ. Brothers who literally have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. I wonder if the Holy Spirit being 'templed' in our bodies is pleased with our attire.</B></div> <div> <B>What is modesty in the biblical sense? What are the actual words being used in I Timothy and again in I Peter? A good thing to remember is if it is mentioned more than once in the Bible than the Holy Spirit felt it needed to be repeated. Have you ever noticed that modest apparel is even mentioned more often than the headcovering? Not to dismiss the importance of the covering and it's significance, but modesty and covering of the head would seem to go hand in hand, wouldn't it? Just like the swine with the ring in it's nose, in comparison to the woman that lacks discretion, Proverbs 11: 22, so is a woman with her head covered and her thigh being revealed!</B></div> <div> <B>Modesty is according to Webster's 1828 dictionary:</B></div> <div> <B>"That lowly temper which accompanies a moderate estimate of one's own worth and importance. Moderation; decency. In females, modesty has the like character as in males; but the word is used also as synonymous with chastity, or purity of manners. In this sense, modesty results from purity of mind, or from the fear of disgrace and ignominy fortified by education and principle. " 5</B></div> <div> <B>Modesty is synonymous with purity. Modesty, Webster states, is a result of purity of mind. I guess we could use the phrase, "Where your heart is , your dress will be also." </B></div> <div> <B>Paul uses the word, "shamefacedness" when he describes what a woman's dress should reflect. A healthy level of shame. A reverence for her LORD and the men of the assembly so as not to cause any stumbling or distraction. Webster once again adds clear definition in saying that shamefacedness is literally excess of modesty, bashfulness. It is obvious that most women are not bashful in today's society. It is obvious that many women are more concerned with what people think of them rather than what their dress says to others. You are making a statement sisters every time you dress. What are you saying?</B></div> <div> <B>Paul is concerned about distractions in the meeting. Satan works hard to distract, to cause disorder and doubt. Paul emphasizes in I Timothy 2: 9-10, in I Peter 3: 3-4, and in Titus 2: 5 the necessity of chastity and purity in a woman's life, which by his teachings, would include consideration to dress. </B></div> <div> <B>Sandi M. Krakowski</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>    "Take My Life and Let It Be Consecrated. My, how times have changed in the church in the past few decades. It used to be that young ladies dressed discreetly. Even if Christian modesty was not practiced at home, it was certainly respected in the worship service. Now today, 50 years later, we must cast our eyes downward, hoping our sons do the same, as the 3 young ladies in the pew in front of us wiggle their way to their seats. Short skirts and tight clothing leave little to the imagination. When did immodesty and nakedness creep into the church? How was it that God´s people didn’t notice? Was it our complacency or our active participation? "Take my life and let it be consecrated, Lord to Thee…." </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>Dressing modestly will not get you to heaven. It will not make you a "better" person and it will not save your soul. What it will do is display obedience to the Word of God. It will reflect a heart that is submitted to Him and a desire to dress "to the glory of God!"</B></div> <div> <B>Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>It is a sad day indeed when God´s chosen people flaunt their nakedness shamelessly all in the name of "Christian Liberty." We live in a day when His precious sons and daughters wreak of the world and resemble more the heathen, than the elect.</B></div> <div> <B>Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate…2 Corinthians 6:17 </B></div> <div> <B>But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 1 Pet 2:9 </B></div> <div> <B>Should we have the "liberty" to pick and choose what is worth obeying?</B></div> <div> <B>All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. II Timothy 3:16 </B></div> <div> <B>Sisters, let us repent of our arrogance and rebellion. Let us turn to the Lord with a humble and contrite heart and may the God of mercy grant us pardon for our worldly and selfish desire to dress contrary to the glory of God. </B></div> <div> <B>If you haven´t honestly and earnestly sought God in how He would have you dress, then I urge you dear sisters to do so now! I pray God gives you the grace to walk and dress as befits a child of the King. In so doing, you are considering your brother, loving your neighbor and honoring your God.</B></div> <div> <B>And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. II John 1:5 </B></div> <div> <B>By the grace of Him Who saved me, may I seek to give Him honor and glory in all that I do…and yes, all that I wear. "Take my will and make it Thine – It shall be no longer mine!"      Stacy McDonald</B></div> <bR> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <div> <B>Section 5:  In Conclusion</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>As you can most likely guess from the direction this research paper has gone, I have decided, with my parents blessing, that I would like to start wearing a headcovering in obedience to what I see as a direct instruction from God in the Scripture.  I have very carefully weighed the many sides of this issue and I have been convinced that it is what God would have me to do.  It is hard for me to argue with the likes of John Calvin or R.C. Sproul.  I have found enough credible evidence to convince my parents of this and in fact, Lord willing, my Mom will be wearing this symbol of submission very soon also.  I have accompanied my parents to meet with our OPC Pastor and a ruling elder and we have received our church’s full blessing in this decision also.  I am somewhat concerned at the reaction I will get from my friends and family and I am praying that God will bless that situation.  I have no desire to be a distraction or an offence.  I only want to love God and do what He commands.  One of my favorite hymns is by J. Edwin Orr, 1936. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"Search me, O God,  And know my heart today;</B></div> <div> <B>Try me, O Savior,  Know my thoughts, I pray.</B></div> <div> <B>See if there be  Some wicked way in me;</B></div> <div> <B>Cleanse me from every sin  And set me free. </B></div> <div> <B>I praise Thee, Lord,  For cleansing me from sin;</B></div> <div> <B>Fulfill Thy Word,  And make me pure within.</B></div> <div> <B>Fill me with fire  Where once I burned with shame;</B></div> <div> <B>Grant my desire  To magnify Thy Name. </B></div> <div> <B>Lord, take my life,  And make it wholly Thine;</B></div> <div> <B>Fill my poor heart  With Thy great love divine.</B></div> <div> <B>Take all my will,  My passion, self and pride;</B></div> <div> <B>I now surrender, Lord  In me abide. </B></div> <div> <B>O Holy Ghost,  Revival comes from Thee;</B></div> <div> <B>Send a revival,  Start the work in me.</B></div> <div> <B>Thy Word declares  Thou wilt supply our need;</B></div> <div> <B>For blessings now,  O Lord, I humbly plead."</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    I would like to close with one final quote by R.C. Sproul which I and my parents found to be as influential in this decision as any.  God bless you as you strive in the Holy Spirits power to live a holy life.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>"If you treat a passage that God intended to be binding on you forever, and treat it as a mere local custom and dismiss it, you are guilty of disobeying God and doing violence to His holy law because you have reduced a principal to a mere custom.  That violates God.  Or suppose it was a custom and wasn’t intended for today and you personally take it as a principal that you ought to obey.  And so you obey it even though you really don’t have to because it’s merely a matter of custom.  Now what you are guilty of, at best, is being over scrupulous and too obedient.  Which is worse?  Do you want to run the risk of being disobedient to God or over obedient to God.  It is far better to be over obedient to God than to be under obedient to God.  God is not going to punish you for being super scrupulous.  He may punish you for being super loose with the principals that He has set fourth before you.  The burden of proof must always be on those who argue that it is a mere custom.  Unless there is good and sound reason for treating a Biblical mandate as a custom then we ought always to treat it and apply it as principal.  That attitude God will honor."     R.C. Sproul</B></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>                            </B></div> <div> <B>                                            The End</B></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="0ba4d0c0.gif" border=0 width="589" height="12" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>My Bibliography</B></div> <div> <B>w    Calvin’s Commentaries (last updated June 7, 2001  ). {Website}. The Calvin Translation Society edition. </B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    Johnson, K. (1994). Head coverings and the 20th Century tract. 1539 Montclair Dr., Modesto, CA 95350</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    Knowing Scripture  [last updated 1997] [book] By R.C. Sproul published by InterVarsity Christian fellowship</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    Merkle, B. [article] Head coverings. From WWW.Credenda.org/issues/12-3recipio.php</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>    Modesty and Head coverings  [Web page] By Pilgrim Ministries</B></div> <div> <B>    Rudolph, W.  Why Christian Women