Hello! My name is Desiree Hausam. I am a homeschooling mom of 7, with kids ages 13 down through 4 months. Spare time is not something I have much of in this season of my life, but when there is, I enjoy writing, reading, cooking, hiking, and a good kettlebell workout. Read more
[Series introduction:This post is part of a series that will examine what certain leaders in church history believed about head covering. Their arguments, choice of language and conclusions should not be misconstrued as an endorsement from us. The purpose of this series is to faithfully show what they believe about covering rather than only selectively quoting the parts we agree with.]
John Bunyan (1628-1688) was an English, Baptist, Puritan author and preacher. He is the author of more than 60 books but most famously known for his classic novel, “The Pilgrim’s Progress“. Bunyan’s writings share the same clear and direct style as his immensely popular sermons, which were known to draw crowds of around 3,000 individuals on Sunday.
In 1683 Bunyan published a tract entitled “A Case of Conscience Resolved” dealing with women who segregated themselves and were gathering together privately for worship (with no men present). He was asked for his opinion on this practice and to respond to a Mr. Keach who permitted and defended these womens meetings. In his tract John Bunyan expresses disagreement with the practice and lays out a case for why worship must be men and women together, with men taking the lead.
Near the end of this tract John Bunyan refers to 1 Corinthians 11 several times and sheds light on his understanding of head covering. Read more
We wholeheartedly commend this sermon series by Pastor Milton to you. He unpacks this section of Scripture with exegetical precision (as we’d expect from a TMS graduate) and carefully uses high quality evidence and quotations. He deals with the issues and questions raised comprehensively and preaches with a gracious tone and pastoral sensitivity. He is very honest about his struggles through the text, describing his embrace of head covering as “the most tramatic interpretative decision in my 10.5 years of preaching”. He says he arrived at this conclusion with a bias against head covering in which his “heart would LEAP” whenever a commentator said it wasn’t for today. Despite his bias, he came to the conclusion that it is for today and in this series you will find the reasons that led him to that conclusion.
I am currently a student at Auburn University, and I’m studying Early Childhood Education. I became a Christian in September of 2011, so the last almost-two years have been an amazing learning experience, and I’m so excited for the years of growth ahead. I love drinking coffee and learning to make desserts, especially when in the company of friends. Having critical conversations about theology and Christian living is one of my favorite interests. My friends sharpen and encourage me a lot. Although I’m a bit of an introvert, I love people and appreciate it when my roommate gets me out of the apartment. Really, I’m an ordinary person who also has the privilege of living in saving grace and enjoying God. Read more
The Objection: Head Covering is “majoring in the minors”. It’s taking an obscure passage that’s only mentioned once in the Bible and forming an entire practice out of it. Rather than debating this issue we should be worried about more important things like feeding the poor and sharing the Gospel.
The head covering passage (1 Cor 11:2-16) is often classified under the “obscure” category in Scripture. One theologian said, “head covering here and the man of sin in II Thessalonians are two of the three most obscure passages in the New Testament“. But is that so? This section of Scripture is debatable and there are good objections to the practice that require much thought and study. But obscure? A truly obscure verse is not expanded upon, explained or defended. The meaning cannot be easily discerned because of its vagueness. Good examples of obscure verses are 1 Cor 15:29 (baptism for the dead), 1 Tim 2:15 (women saved through childbearing) and 1 Cor 11:10 (covering “because of the angels”). Now even though there’s an obscure verse in the head covering passage (1 Cor 11:10b), the section as a whole is not. Read more
When my wife sent me this video, I was awe-struck. I just couldn’t stop thinking about how beautiful this looks. I had to re-watch it again…and again.
Look. How. Many. Women. Cover! Could this look like an average North American church? Well, maybe your church does look this. I’ve personally never been a part of a church where covering was the dominant practice, nor have I even visited one. Maybe that’s why this video captured me so much.
As you watched this video, what thoughts did you have?
The Objection: In Paul’s day, prostitutes wore their hair short and did not cover their heads. Because it was customary in that culture for women to wear a head covering, failure to do so would readily identify a woman as a prostitute. Since the situation was local, a head covering is not necessary today.
While looking at the culture of the time can often be helpful, it becomes dangerous when we start assigning reasons for a command that are different than what the author gives.
R.C. Sproul says, “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.” 1) R.C Sproul – Knowing Scripture, 1977, ch 5, pg 110.
He goes on to say, “We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said.”2) R.C Sproul – Knowing Scripture, 1977, ch 5, pg 110.