fbpx

Navigate / search

What R.C. Sproul Believes About Head Covering

In this video, R.C. Sproul shares what he believes about Christian head covering. He gives his answer in the context of teaching how to properly interpret the Bible as it relates to customs and principles. The book he references (Knowing Scripture) can be purchased here (affiliate) on Amazon.

This video was taken from the 2004 Shepherd’s Conference. He is sitting next to John MacArthur and R. Albert Mohler. You can watch the entire Q&A here.

An Open Letter to Complementarians about Head Covering

An Open Letter to Complementarians about Head Covering

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

The Understanding Test

The Understanding Test

Have you ever engaged someone in a friendly debate only to hear them say, “That’s not what I really believe” or “That’s not what I mean?” I’ve said that to others and have heard that said back to me. This often happens when we learn about a position from someone who doesn’t hold to it. Though it may be unintentional, when we disagree with a position we will usually not present it in the same way as if we agreed with it.

So how do we know if we truly understand a viewpoint or doctrine? Do we really understand Buddhism and Islam? Calvinism and Arminianism? How about the various views on head covering? How would we know if we really do understand them? Read more

Can we symbolize our roles using a different symbol?

Head Covering Objections
The Objection: Having your head covered today doesn’t have the same meaning it did in that time and culture. Using a different symbol would keep the spirit of the text and could more meaningfully symbolize our roles today.

This view would understand 1 Corinthians 11 essentially the same way we would, but proposes a different symbol than a head covering. In other words, they think only the principle is unchanging whereas the symbol itself can be modified. Joshua Harris, in his sermon on 1 Corinthians 11 proposed that we use wedding rings instead of a head covering. 1) ”Head Coverings” by Joshua Harris. Preached on Sept 2, 2007. Daniel Wallace listed some concerns with using wedding rings and proposed wearing modest clothing instead. 2) http://www.bible.org/article/what-head-covering-1-cor-112-16-and-does-it-apply-us-today Those are two of the most commonly suggested replacement symbols.

I’m concerned about the hermeneutic of separating the principle from the symbol and believe it can have dire consequences when taken to its logical conclusion. As you’ll see in a minute, this concern isn’t unfounded. A head covering is a visual picture of our gender roles and what scares me about the proposed hermeneutic is both baptism and the Lord’s supper are in that same category. They are symbols (visual pictures) that point to a greater reality. Read more

References

1.
 ”Head Coverings” by Joshua Harris. Preached on Sept 2, 2007.
Send this to a friend