The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Head Coverings

A question came up recently regarding a perennial issue of whether or not women and/or men should cover their heads during public worship. There have been many books and articles written about the subject but this one article on Head Covering by John Murray seems worthy of serious consideration. What do you think and what is the practice of your church? Would you reprove a man who wears a hat in worship? and if so would you likewise reprove a woman who does not cover her head in worship?

I am in favor of head coverings as long as they are approved by the American Chiropractic Association as some can be quite heavy, same thing applies for long hair.

I thought you might be interested in looking at a thread on another Reformed board that I frequent on this subject.
One poster that I have grown to apreciate actually changed his views on the matter because of the thread.
http://www.reformedreader.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=907

Tom

I've never been to a church who enforced women to cover their heads.

It's all in how your interpret God's Word I suppose. I personally believe that there was instruction in the New Testament that was for the believers during that time and that it wasn't meant for the church during every age.

I believe that enforcing a rule for women to cover their heads is pretty legalistic and strays from the true gospel.

But I'm fallible and now I only see in part. So I could very well be wrong.

savedbygrace97,

Nice to see you back.

1. I'm curious if you read Murray's article which chestnutmare linked to in the original post before expressing your comment? (btw, Murray doesn't believe in 'enforcing' head coverings either.)

2. How can one know how to determine what was applicable to a certain period of time and not for all time? Do you have a hermeneutical principle you follow?

3. And lastly, what about a man who wears a hat during worship. Do you think that he should be asked to remove it? If so, then why not the reverse in regard to women.

I'm glad someone was willing to pickup the ball on this subject. It's one that I believe should be discussed and it should prove to be fruitful for all.

In His grace,

I believe that the Bible teaches that women should wear head coverings in public worship. I go to a church that believes in it, and the women submit to God in that matter.

It is something I always wondered about when I went to churches that did not practice it. I believe that it's something that's hard to stomach in today's world that has been tainted by feminism. The head covering is needed more than ever today as a sign of women's submission to their head (their husband).

It is not something I would debate with another Chistian. You must see it in the Bible, and then you must obey it.

My church does not require women to cover however, after doing some extensive reading on the subject, both sides, I personally have become convinced that Scripture speaks plainly on the matter and therefore women should cover their heads. I do leave it up to the conscience of others to decide for themselves however, I would not consider it legalistic should the church decide to require head covering. I would also think it odd for a man to wear a hat in worship and would hope that the men of the church would speak to such an individual to encourage them not to continue for it is not appropriate again according to Scripture.

I am also curious as to what you thought of Murray's article. The arguments against head covering simply are not persuasive enough for me to deny what I read in Scripture. Women I believe should indeed wear head coverings.

Has the link been broken to Murray's article. I couldn't open it.

My view is that the principle taught in the passage is still in effect today and will be in the future. I do not believe the practice of head covering is required today because applying the principle by covering one's head does not convey the same attitude as it did in the Corinthian culture. The authority and submissive principles are the same but the passage is about the principle, not the cultural practice.

Should still work. Here's the full URL: http://www.the-highway.com/headcovering_Murray.html

"I do leave it up to the conscience of others to decide for themselves however, I would not consider it legalistic should the church decide to require head covering. I would also think it odd for a man to wear a hat in worship and would hope that the men of the church would speak to such an individual to encourage them not to continue for it is not appropriate again according to Scripture." - quote from Chestnutmare

I agree with your view on this completely. My church does not require it either. We leave it to conscience. When visitors come in among us, they are not required to wear the head covering. Like the Lord's supper, once believers are properly grounded in the truth, they will obey the teachings of Scripture.

I read linked article and found it to be a very good and scholarly treatment of the subject. That will be a "keeper."

Thanks Jeff, nice to be back.

First, I would like to point out that both chestnutmare and Pilgrim called me on not actually reading John Murray's letter concerning head coverings in the Church. So I have now done so.


I have to say that I don't agree with Murray.


First I would like to say that this isn't a matter of Justification. If the focus here ever turns towards justification, then this would absolutely be legalistic. For we are all saved by grace and only through the pure righteousness of Jesus Christ and not by any works of our own.


God is truly a God of Law and Order. I do believe that there should be authority within the people of God.

I do believe that when women are truly convicted by the Word of God they will start to want to obey it, meaning that they will start to desire to want to submit to the authority of men and especially their own husbands and their fathers.

I'm not disputing this.

But I believe that head coverings was a symbol to represent authority during the first century. Therefore, it was proper at that time, to demonstrate a willingness by women to submit to men in the area of sanctification or in growing closer to the likeness of Christ.

Just like Baptism and Communion is the symbol of our commitment to Jesus Christ.

But in our culture today, head coverings isn't a symbol of authority any more.

My point is that it's what is going on inside our hearts that is what is important and not what is outwardly displayed.

Everyone can act like a good Christian... I know this because I see it almost everyday. But whether they truly love Christ and each other is an entirely different story.

Whether a women wears something on her head or wears her hair long doesn't mean that she truly desires to submit to her husband or father or to the male elders in her Church. Only God knows her heart.

Dave

I believe that women should cover their heads during worship. However, I also believe it is equally important to teach the "whys" of matters like this. All too often I have found that Churches continue to practice things such as women wearing a covering in worship and prayer, but many who practice these things have no idea why they practice them.
I believe that one of the reasons that most churches do not practice things like this, is mainly because the meaning has been lost to them and it becomes a cultural thing, rather than something that should be continued to be practiced.
This may or may not have anything to do with people's heart attitudes, or view of Scripture.
I need to admit when it comes to this particular matter, although obviously I have a view concerning this issue and am not afraid to state it. I also am not as sure of my position, as I am in matters such as regeneration, justification and sanctification, if you understand my point.
My main reason for taking my particular stance on this topic, rather than the cultural view is because I believe the cultural arguments do not stand up when I compare them with Scripture. I also believe that if it is true that it is a cultural matter, the principle would still be the same and women would be required both in a heart attitude and physical attribute to find out what is culturally applicable in today’s society.

Tom

I understand what your saying Tom. It is your individual Biblical interpretation and conviction that I Corinthians 11:2-16 is a Godly mandate for the Church in every age.

The New Testament also talks a lot about slavery, but I don't believe that it's God's will for slavery to exist. My point is that it is my personal interpretation and conviction that I Corinthians 11:2-16 as far as head coverings was a cultural mandate during the first century.

But I do agree with you in that, I too believe that there are a lot of churches now days that do rely on tradition rather then the Word of God in their worship and practice.

Dave

...

It would be of great interest to me and doubtless to others here if you could give a reason why you don't agree with Murray.

I think we are all in agreement on this, i.e., it is not a matter concerning one's justification. But rather, it is a matter of sanctification. We all would hopefully desire to be more and more conformed to Christ and to follow all that God desires of us according to His revealed will, both in our everyday lives but especially in how we conduct ourselves in the corporate worship of God as the body of Christ.


1. This is without doubt a hermeneutical issue. How are we to interpret Scripture rightly? Hopefully, we would first of all agree that the understanding of Scripture is not a matter of "one's own private interpretation" (2Pet 1:20). Our hermeneutics are to be derived from Scripture itself, aka; the Analogy of Faith, comparing Scripture with Scripture. Thus we develop our hermeneutical principles based upon how the writers of Scripture interpreted the inspired texts. With that in mind and the principle applied:

2. Let's see if your interpretation (hermeneutical principle) works out when applied to other places in Scripture which are similar in kind. You mentioned "Baptism and Communion", so let's simply move on down the chapter (1Cor 11:23-27) to where Paul immediately (still discussing how believers are to conduct themselves when they are gathered together for corporate worship) changes the subject to "communion", the Lord's Supper. Hoping I have grasped your argument as held by you, I believe it would go something like this:

a) The concession - the principle that an ordinance commemorating the death of Christ in a meal is to be observed is permanent.

b) The assumption - bread and wine were the normal elements of food and drink in the 1st Century AD (undoubtedly true) and can be assumed were only used in the Lord’s supper for cultural reasons.

c) The conclusion - We are to remember Christ’s death by communal partaking of food and drink, but the precise elements will depend on the culture of time and place (tea and biscuits or coke and crisps etc.).

Without question, this doesn't work for me. And, I could give a couple more examples where the "cultural argument" falls short and/or goes too far.

Let's consider next Paul's prohibition of women speaking, teaching and prophesying in the public assemblies but rather they should be in subjection. (1Cor 14:34) Paul bases this prohibition of speaking and of the woman's subjection upon the "law". I would like to suggest that he is referring to Genesis 3:16. And notice, that Paul also brings in the matter of church "tradition", v. 33 which he likewise mentions in the passage under discussion, 1Cor 11:18f. Are we then to conclude that the matter of women speaking in church and their subjection to their husbands was cultural and thus women should be allowed to speak because silence was cultural in Paul's day but is not recognized as a matter of subjection today?

Okay, one last example of trying to apply the "principle is universal but the expression is cultural" hermeneutic. Let's jump over to 1Tim 2:9-15 and Paul's application of that passage to what immediately follows in 3:1-13. In vv. 9-15, once again Paul uses the creation ordinance as he did in 1Cor 11:1-16 as the basis for teaching about the role (subjection) of women to men. And immediately he applies this principle to the matter of office bearers in the Church; elders and deacons. Clearly, Paul writes that men only are qualified to serve as elders and deacons, e.g. they must be the "husband of one wife" and a "man who knows how to rule his household well", and all the places where men are implied through the use of the pronoun "he". Are we therefore to conclude that women's subjection to men is the universal principle but the prohibition of women to serve as elder or deacon in the church is "cultural" and thus not to be practiced today but rather women should be universally allowed to serve in those offices?

3. Lastly, there are these words that preface Paul's discussion of headcoverings:

1 Corinthians 11:1-2 (ASV) "Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you."

It would seem that Paul is stating that what he is about to write concerning the demarcation of male and female and how men and women are to conduct themselves in public corporate worship in regard to 'decorum' is something which was already the practice of the Church in other places outside the culture of Corinth. It was the accepted practice in the churches at large for women to wear some kind of covering on their heads during public worship and to which Paul says the Corinthian churches are to imitate for two reasons: 1) It is the manner in which Paul conducted himself which was fashioned after that of Christ Himself. 2) And, it was the a tradition which they were to 'hold fast' exactly as they were written. Paul emphasizes this even more at the end of his teaching by saying:

1 Corinthians 11:16 (ASV) "But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

The warning is quite clear, is it not? For those who would be 'contentious', i.e., disagree that women should enter the worship covered, "we" the Apostles, nor "the churches" [universal] have no such "custom" [practice]. It was a unanimous understanding and teaching among all of the Apostles and a universal practice among all of the churches everywhere in which there were various cultural practices that women should wear a covering in the assemblies.

It is upon what I believe to be sound biblical hermeneutics and thus these brief observations and more that I personally have to conclude that the Bible teaches that women are to wear a headcovering in public worship; today and until the Lord returns.

In His grace,