To stand alone is hard, real hard. It’s tough to go against the grain and be different. There is comfort and safety in numbers. No one wants to be stared at, looked down upon, laughed at or left out. No one wants to be the crazy, different person. For many women who are convinced head covering is for today, taking the leap to practice it alone is often the scariest part. “If only there were others” is their cry.
The Lone Dancer
I remember watching a TED talk a few years back about how a movement is started. 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 Knox (1514-1572) was a Scottish clergyman and leader in the Protestant Reformation. With five other reformers, Knox wrote the Scottish Confession of Faith and established the Reformed Presbyterian church, known as the Church of Scotland.
In 1558 John Knox penned “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women“. This work which he published anonymously was a fiery case that female rule is contrary to Biblical teaching. His letter was aimed at the female sovereigns of England and Scotland during his time.
In his writing he quotes extensively from the Bible and appeals to various leaders throughout church history. He does this to demonstrate that women having a subordinate position is Biblical and has been taught by Christians throughout the ages. In this work he briefly stops on 1 Corinthians 11 and also quotes from a defense of head covering by John Chrysostom. His purpose in quoting these sections is not to teach on covering, but to prove his central point that women shouldn’t rule. However, when we look at these quotations we can gain some insights on his own view of head covering. Read more
The Objection: Appropriate hair lengths are dictated by culture, not nature. In many cultures long hair on men is normative such as the Native American Indians. When Paul mentioned ‘nature’ he was appealing to their cultural perception of what was right to them.
One objection to calling long hair unnatural for men is the fact that in many cultures it isn’t seen as offensive. One example often cited is the Native American Indians in which many men wore their hair long. If in some cultures it’s acceptable for men to wear long hair, how can we say nature teaches the opposite?
Right In Their Own Eyes
First it’s important to establish that just because a culture embraces something does not make it right. A good example are the Mosuo people of China where the heads of their households are women. Though they probably see this as right in their own eyes, it is not how God designed it to be. It is the opposite of God’s created order (1 Cor 11:3).
Was Long Hair on Men Shameful?
Another misconception is a wrong view of Paul’s own culture. Since Paul called long hair on men “dishonorable” (1 Cor 11:14) those who advocate a cultural view of hair lengths assume that long hair on men would have been seen as shameful. The problem with this view is that solid literary evidence suggests otherwise. Read more
I listen to a lot of music and for me it’s one of those things that are most connected to specific events in my life. Certain songs or albums recall vivid moments from my past. One song reminds me of a high school dance, another reminds me of my wedding day while another recalls living in a certain place. I’m sure you’ve experienced this too where you hear a certain song and you’re instantly taking a trip down memory lane. This extends beyond music too as your mind can connect almost anything to past events that will open the floodgates of memories when you think of it. Your particular object then becomes symbolic of a past time or event. This is wonderful if it’s connected to a good memory, but not all are.
Growing in Grace
Though head covering is now a minority view, certain groups have continued this practice to this day. Unfortunately, many of these groups hold to heretical teachings and/or are legalistic. When one is a part of these bad churches, head covering often is seen as one of the things that separate them from other churches. It becomes a distinction of that particular church/movement and becomes closely associated with it in ones mind. Read more
Why is the phrase “a symbol of” (1 Cor 11:10) not in the Greek but it’s in my English Bible?
Before we tackle this question let’s take a look at 1 Cor 11:10. It reads:
Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
In many Bibles you will find the phrase “a symbol of” appears in italics whereas the rest of the sentence does not. The reason it appears this way is to let you know that the words in italics have been added by the translators to improve clarity. It’s not that they’re adding words to Scripture, but rather they’re making sure what the author meant doesn’t get lost in translation. This is a necessary process when going from one language to another that should not cause concern. 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.]
William Tyndale (1494–1536) was an English biblical scholar and foundational figure leading up to the Reformation. Tyndale was educated at Oxford and Cambridge and developed a reputation as a gifted linguist, fluent in French, Greek, Hebrew, German, Italian, Latin, and Spanish. Influenced by Erasmus and Luther, he translated the New Testament and the Pentateuch from Greek and Hebrew into English—against the wishes of the Roman Catholic Church. Betrayed to the authorities, Tyndale was condemned as a heretic and burned alive in 1536.
In 1528 William Tyndale wrote The Obedience of a Christian Man, a book which has a special emphasis on how Christian rulers should govern. He addressed various authority positions under the header ‘The Duty of Kings, and of the Judges and Officers’. In this writing he spent a significant amount of time dealing with the abuse and doctrinal errors of the pope and the Bishop of Rochester. It is in the midst of this rebuke that we learn about his view of head covering. Read more
I am a complementarian. This means I believe that while men and women are both created in the image of God and are equals in value and worth; they each serve a different function. In the home, the husband has been given the authority (headship) to lead his wife whereas the wife was created to help her husband and follow his leadership (submission). I believe the authority and submission in the home, pictures the relationship between Christ and His church. I also believe this was God’s original design; a pre-fall masterpiece, not a post-fall disaster.
I am encouraged by the large resurgence of complementarians and the numerous biblical scholars who defend this truth. They uphold male authority and female submission in the home and believe the office of elder (pastor) is for men only.
Within complementarianism, I hold to what is now a minority position. I believe that the functional difference between men and women should be symbolized to both men and angels when the church gathers together for worship. Yes, I believe that head covering (as taught in 1 Corinthians 11) is a timeless, transcultural symbol for Christians under the new covenant. Read more
