Headcoverings and the Reformed Tradition

[puriteen18]

Just wondering if there are any Reformed ladies here still wear headcovers.

If so how did you come to about to do this?

Have you always? or was it a recent conviction?

I personally believe that Christian ladies should wear them during worship (just as Christian men should not wear caps or hats), but I wanted to see what you thought of it?

Even non-Reformed ladies, I would like to hear what you think. But please, I do not want to hear any of this "You sexist male pig" stuff thrown at me. I'm not sexist; I just beleive that headcoverings are a Biblical and Godly practice.

Thanks.

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

If you read just a few verses down in the passage where Paul says a woman should have her head covered, he goes on to say that her hair is given to her as a covering. I find that very interesting myself.

[puriteen18]

I once did hold that veiw, but found it inconsistand with the whole of the women covered men not thing. Are men to shave thier heads?
I mean not to look down on any who don't agree, for I was raised in a normal SBC and no one ever talks about this (excepting some mild feminist who agrue against it amonst themselves), my mother doesn't wear one, my grandmother doesn't (although she did when she was young I found out), my Church of God family don't either, but they do grow their hair long for the purpose of a coverings.

This is my conviction now and I cannot deny what I believe to be true.

Oh yes, almost forgot, if those of you who respond wouldn't mind giving your denomination or affiliation I would really appreciate it.

And if any of you men have wives who wear them, please feel free to give a few words.

[PatrickM]

I once did hold that veiw, but found it inconsistand with the whole of the women covered men not thing. Are men to shave thier heads?
I mean not to look down on any who don't agree, for I was raised in a normal SBC and no one ever talks about this (excepting some mild feminist who agrue against it amonst themselves), my mother doesn't wear one, my grandmother doesn't (although she did when she was young I found out), my Church of God family don't either, but they do grow their hair long for the purpose of a coverings.

This is my conviction now and I cannot deny what I believe to be true.

Oh yes, almost forgot, if those of you who respond wouldn't mind giving your denomination or affiliation I would really appreciate it.

And if any of you men have wives who wear them, please feel free to give a few words.
Well, I'm not female, but would think what you feel as honor to God is ok. Remember, He looks more at the heart than the outward appearance, as He told Samuel re: David.

I think re: men "shaving" heads, is rather meant to be the way they cut their hair back then, versus actually *buzz* cut.

I think it admirable for a young person as yourself to be seeking such info. We need more like you! :clap:

[4christ88]

dunno bout the head coverings, if its compulsory.....but its still practiced in some places like Nigeria

[puriteen18]

Thanks PatrickM,

I know that it is more important what is on the inside. I just see covers as a way of practicing what is inside.

[puriteen18]

dunno bout the head coverings, if its compulsory.....but its still practiced in some places like Nigeria
There are a few I know of that still practice it in the US. The Covenanted Prebies. and one of the stricter Dutch Reformed (can't remember exactly which.)

I know R.C. Sproul's wife wears one.

What are the majority of Christian Nigerians? I know our church sends missionaries there, but I think there are only a few SBCs.

[HiredGoon]

I've been to a couple dutch Reformed churches, but haven't seen any head coverings. I do know of an ultra-conservative Latin Catholic church where the women have to wear a head covering. Personally I see the practice of head coverings for both men and women being realtive to time and place. That is, it's a tradition of men which has changed through history. We must be careful not to become legalistic on matters like this.

[RhetorTheo]

Puriteen, good question. I have United Pentecostals in my family, and they don't use headcoverings. However, when I looked at the scriptures long ago, it was my interpretation that headcoverings are required for women. This is not "hair" being spoken of, but a separate headcovering. If a woman without a headcovering is as bad a woman with no hair, it makes the scripture illogical to replace "headcovering" with "hair" ("a woman without hair is as bad as a woman without hair" makes no sense).

An interesting side note, when Paul says that women should wear headcoverings in church for the sake of the angels, some believe it's so that the angels would not look down and see how beautiful the daughters of men are and be tempted again, as they were in Genesis 6. (The Sons of God were interpreted as angels by that time, as the Book of Enoch shows.)

I'm told that women used to wear headcoverings to church in the first half of the 1900s in the U.S., but that's changed.

Does anyone have a link to a source, or know offhand, the sects that practice the "holiness standards"? I know of the UPC and the Apostolic Christians, but I suspect there are more.

TIA

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

However, when I looked at the scriptures long ago, it was my interpretation that headcoverings are required for women. This is not "hair" being spoken of, but a separate headcovering. If a woman without a headcovering is as bad a woman with no hair, it makes the scripture illogical to replace "headcovering" with "hair" ("a woman without hair is as bad as a woman without hair" makes no sense).

The problem is that you are denying what the scripture says. Here is the full text with added emphasis:

1 Cor 11: 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
...
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

It makes sense but you have to look at the society for which it was addressed. A woman with a shaved head was likely a prostitute who worked at a pagan temple. So it was shameful for a woman to have a shaved head. But it states that a woman's hair is given to her for a covering. You have to look at the whole passage to get the context, as well as historical sources. Paul also states "judge for yourselves" on the matter. This is odd as he does not say that this is a commandment or "I say" or "God says", but "Judge for yourselves". If we look at the society at the time and the manner of dress then we will find why he said this.

He confuses the issue by saying that a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, that woman was created for, but then saying that in the Lord women and men are not seperate. After saying all these things he then says to "judge for youselves". This is an example of Paul saying that we should not look like pagans in our worship. And it is one of the very few times that we are told to judge for ourselves. I do not think that a woman needs to wear anything extra to pray or prophesy as the passage says her hair is given to her for a covering.

Before you go into where he says she should have a symbol of authority, this is reference to married women only. So in light of the verses we can draw many conclusion, one of which is that married women must wear something and unmarried do not, this is logical as well. I choose to draw on the parts where he says that a woman's hair is given to her as a covering and if you don't think that is logical we can fall back on where he states that man and woman are not seperate in the Lord.

[RhetorTheo]

Looking at the whole text in context, he's clearly comparing a woman without a head covering to a woman without hair. Thus, it's crystal clear that the head covering referred to in 1 Cor 11:5-6 is something different from hair. Of course, hair on your head is a head covering, but it's not what's referred to in 1 Cor 11:5-6. If you believed that having hair on your head is a symbol of authority, and that as a man you must'nt wear such a symbol, then you would keep your head shaved off wouldn't you?

If you were correct and "head covering" meant hair, then the scripture would say this:

1 Cor 11: 5 But every woman whose head is shaved while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman has her head shaved, let her also have her head shaved; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shaved, let her not have her head shaved."

And that would make no sense, would it? Paul says: "A woman who does X is just as bad as a woman who does Y. If a woman is going to do X, let her also do Y; but if it is shameful to do Y, then she should not do X." It's clear that X and Y are not the same. He's comparing women who don't wear a head covering atop their hair in church to women of that time who had shaved heads (prostitutes).

Also, as you admitted, Paul says that women (and not men) should have head coverings to show they have authority over them. Clearly, the "head covering" Paul was referring to was not "hair" because both men and women had hair on their heads. Whatever you want to say the head covering is, it's something that women would have and men would not have at that time.

There is no reason to believe that "judge for yourself" means that Paul expresses no opinion. To the contrary, he clearly expresses the correct opinion on the matter. To say "judge everything I say against scripture" is not to say he has no opinion about whether his statements are scriptural, but rather it shows his firm confidence that he's right. Similarly, when someone tells you the basis for a belief, including how nature itself proves him right, and then says "don't just trust me, judge it for yourself," it means he's certain he's right and he's confident that his arguments speak for themselves.

Let me also mention, Paul says that a woman who has no head covering while praying or prophesying is the same as a woman whose head is shaved. Clearly, "head covering" refers to something temporary that can be put on while praying/prophesying and then taken back off, not your hairstyle.

[JVAC]

I don't know if this is at all relevant but there are older ladies in my Church who never come to Church without a hat. I think it is very nice and a respectable practice.

[RhetorTheo]

Let me just say that I don't think the practice is necessary or important. I'm not a bible literalist. I just think the scripture makes clear that Paul thought it was important.

[puriteen18]

I know Calvin clearly taught that the practice was Biblical. Of course, I don't put all of Calvin's words down as gospel truth (I am a Reformed Baptist), but I do respect what he had to say and do agree on a great deal of it. I consider myself a Calvinist and see the practice (along with alot of other now "non-Protestant" practices) going out the window.

I am not concerned because we are forsaking Reformed traditions as much as I believe that we are forsaking a Biblical and Apostlic traditions.

I do neither mean to be legalistic. For I know that coverings do not save in amy way, but I believe it to be a good and holy practice. Another work which God gives to us, who are His, to do.

[Jason1646]

Just wondering if there are any Reformed ladies here still wear headcovers.

If so how did you come to about to do this?

Have you always? or was it a recent conviction?

I personally believe that Christian ladies should wear them during worship (just as Christian men should not wear caps or hats), but I wanted to see what you thought of it?

Even non-Reformed ladies, I would like to hear what you think. But please, I do not want to hear any of this "You sexist male pig" stuff thrown at me. I'm not sexist; I just beleive that headcoverings are a Biblical and Godly practice.

Thanks.
I disagree with those who claim that the hair itself is a covering. This would end up making the argument in verse 5 unintelligible. At the same time, I don't believe the occassion for which these coverings were worn continue today. Paul specifically refers to the acts of praying and prophesying, not the general act of "coming together" (i.e., sunerxomai, which is used in verse 17). Since Reformed theologians do not believe that prophesy still takes place today, that is the easier one. However, there is still the question of prayer. By this I would understand Paul to be referring to the event of women leading in prayer under the special influence of the Holy Spirit, which is also associated with the charismata. For instance, Paul goes on at length to discuss the peculiar gifts of the Spirit and inspired prayers are included in that:

15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? (1 Corinthians 14:15 - 16).

By referring to praying and prophesy then, Paul essentially covers the general forms of inspired speech, whether it be a revelation or a prayer of thanksgiving, because either of these could be in a known or unknown tongue. Once we grant this connection between inspired utterances, the text makes a lot of sense. We know that in general, women were forbidden from public speaking in the worship services (1 Corinthians 14:34). Yet, at the same time, we know that women were given gifts for inspiration. It is my understanding then, that the wearing of a covering was to take place whenever a woman exercised these spiritual gifts. This was a custom instituted by the churches in order to display a sign of submission while she exercised what would otherwise be construed as inappropriate if it were not an inspired utterance. It makes more sense to me to understand this as particular to the verbal exercise of spiritual gifts than to believe that the covering is necessary in general, because a woman silently sitting by is not giving any kind of impression that she is being unsubmissive. Notice that in 1 Corinthians 14:34, for a woman to speak publicly in church is to be unsubmissive, so for Paul to argue for a sign of authority on a woman who does speak in church under the influence of the Spirit makes the most sense when I consider 1 Corinthians in its entirety.

My $.02,

~Jason

[PatrickM]

I know Calvin clearly taught that the practice was Biblical. Of course, I don't put all of Calvin's words down as gospel truth (I am a Reformed Baptist), but I do respect what he had to say and do agree on a great deal of it. I consider myself a Calvinist and see the practice (along with alot of other now "non-Protestant" practices) going out the window.

I am not concerned because we are forsaking Reformed traditions as much as I believe that we are forsaking a Biblical and Apostlic traditions.

I do neither mean to be legalistic. For I know that coverings do not save in amy way, but I believe it to be a good and holy practice. Another work which God gives to us, who are His, to do.
So, then, your question again is . . . ? (just jestin'!) :D

I think this last post of yours has been clear and plain. Even answered a few of my questions (i.e. didn't know what Calvin had said on the matter).

[A. believer]

I disagree with those who claim that the hair itself is a covering. This would end up making the argument in verse 5 unintelligible. At the same time, I don't believe the occassion for which these coverings were worn continue today. Paul specifically refers to the acts of praying and prophesying, not the general act of "coming together" (i.e., sunerxomai, which is used in verse 17). Since Reformed theologians do not believe that prophesy still takes place today, that is the easier one. However, there is still the question of prayer. By this I would understand Paul to be referring to the event of women leading in prayer under the special influence of the Holy Spirit, which is also associated with the charismata. For instance, Paul goes on at length to discuss the peculiar gifts of the Spirit and inspired prayers are included in that:

15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. 16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? (1 Corinthians 14:15 - 16).

By referring to praying and prophesy then, Paul essentially covers the general forms of inspired speech, whether it be a revelation or a prayer of thanksgiving, because either of these could be in a known or unknown tongue. Once we grant this connection between inspired utterances, the text makes a lot of sense. We know that in general, women were forbidden from public speaking in the worship services (1 Corinthians 14:34). Yet, at the same time, we know that women were given gifts for inspiration. It is my understanding then, that the wearing of a covering was to take place whenever a woman exercised these spiritual gifts. This was a custom instituted by the churches in order to display a sign of submission while she exercised what would otherwise be construed as inappropriate if it were not an inspired utterance. It makes more sense to me to understand this as particular to the verbal exercise of spiritual gifts than to believe that the covering is necessary in general, because a woman silently sitting by is not giving any kind of impression that she is being unsubmissive. Notice that in 1 Corinthians 14:34, for a woman to speak publicly in church is to be unsubmissive, so for Paul to argue for a sign of authority on a woman who does speak in church under the influence of the Spirit makes the most sense when I consider 1 Corinthians in its entirety.

My $.02,

~Jason
Hi Jason,

Have you ever read Eric's defense for the idea of the head covering being hair? I'm not entirely convinced, but it seems to make sense. Head Coverings For Women (http://www.elseroad.com/topics/house_church/ntrf/newsletters/head_coverings_for_women.htm)

I actually read it a long time ago, and I can't even remember precisely how he harmonized it all, but I remember it was interesting. :)

[Philo]

As someone else mentioned, the idea of headcoverings for women was (as best we can tell) based on the practice of temple prostitutes of the day shaving their heads. As former temple prostitutes very likely composed at least some of the membership of the Body of Christ in Corinth, it would make sense for Paul to address this point specifically to the Corinthians. The omission of anything hair-related in any of his other epistles indicates, at least to me, that it wasn't important enough (or in my view, relevent at all) to mention to other members of the Church throughout Asia minor and Europe. I think the key phrase in this section of the letter is verse 16, reading "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no [such] practice, nor have the churches of God."

[MariaRegina]

Just wondering if there are any Reformed ladies here still wear headcovers.

If so how did you come to about to do this?

Have you always? or was it a recent conviction?

I personally believe that Christian ladies should wear them during worship (just as Christian men should not wear caps or hats), but I wanted to see what you thought of it?

Even non-Reformed ladies, I would like to hear what you think. But please, I do not want to hear any of this "You sexist male pig" stuff thrown at me. I'm not sexist; I just beleive that headcoverings are a Biblical and Godly practice.

Thanks.


I'm not a Reformed Christian, just a Repentant Christian!

Anyway, since you invited responses -- just like to say that I like wearing headcovering -- inside church or outside -- it helps me to focus on the Lord and to remember St. Paul's command to pray unceasingly. Truly I wish we could go back in time to when women wore modest headcoverings and dress.

Don't some Christians believe that women should have their heads covered at all times, including sleeping?

I'm a bit confused about denominational beliefs -- hard to keep tract of all of them.

Yours in Christ our God,
Elizabeth :pray:

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Such denominations, such as the Gospel Hall, do require a womens head to be covered when in the santuary etc... My Grandfathers family is of Gospel Hall decent.

[Jenna]

I'm a covering lady, so I guess my opinion belongs here. lol

Last post first, there are some Christian women who wear coverings all of the time. For a woman who feels that it is her calling to cover her head during prayer, and who also prays without ceasing, it makes sense to her. :)

What I'd like to stress is that regardless of anyone else's opinion, if a woman feels called to cover, that is her right- not matter how judgemental other Christians choose to be. It has nothing to do with legalism or the outside of a person, and everything to do with striving for obedience. We all know that we aren't perfect and that it is beyond our human grasp. That said, it is also pretty clear in Scripture that striving to do God's will is to be as a good thing. Regardless of whether one person believe's a woman's hair is her covering or if a veil is most proper, it is the act itself of putting aside one's wants to do what they understand pleases the Lord that is most important. In that regard, what is on the inside IS most important, but that doesn't mean that showing it on the outside is wrong. :)

Anywho, I do not cover full time, though some women do. It seems clear to me that my hair is meant to be my glory, so I care for it as such. If it is meant for my husband, then it is his. *saucy wink* I don't think he can enjoy it much if it's always tucked under a scarf or cap. That said, it is not for me to distract someone else when we are in worship, and I know that it would. When's the last time that you saw a woman with long, well-kept hair and didn't find yourself a little distracted? For those who want to be funny and say that it isn't an issue, let me assure you that there are many men who are turned on as much by the feminine sight of long hair as they are the curve of a breast.

So, I cover my hair when in assembly, and during private prayer if I feel the need. I know that the covering itself has little to do with strands of hair, and much to do with putting aside the glories of this world in order to achieve those that are more important. I'm sure that God doesn't care if I come to him bareheaded, but I'm as equally sure that He smiles on me when I adjust my attitude- something that covering does very well for me.

I came to the decision to cover after a lot of reading, delving through Scripture till my eyes and brain hurt. I went through lesson upon lesson of history, expositions of original language, and every arguement against covering. When all was said and done, I saw the value in covering and could only see good coming from such a simple act of submission. The bottom line is that it isn't about legalism. It isn't about getting nit-picky about how long, how much, and who. It's up to each person to delve into their hearts and to see how they can best change their lives to bring about a more God-pleasing and loving mindset to bring about action.

Ok, so I know that I probably didn't write to my best or express myself as well as I had hoped. But, that's what I have to say. :) Have a blessed day everyone....