The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Head Coverings

I believe I did give my reason. I believe that the central meaning is that of authority and not about an outward symbol. So I don't agree with Murray in his belief that actual head coverings were transcendent.


First, I would like to ask in exactly what do you mean when you say that "this doesn't work for you?" Are we talking about sanctification or justification?

Second, there have been a multitude of Christian Missionaries who have had to do the very thing that your are against. Missionaries all across the world who find themselves without means to obtain wine or grape juice.

Again, this is an outward sign of an inward conviction.

I agree with the principle that this is about Biblical interpretation and I also believe that we should consider the whole Bible in our attempts to interpret scripture and that we shouldn't rely on our own private interpretation.

I also believe that there are many in the Church, who are true believers who interpret this part of Scripture the same as I do.

I truly believe that we, Christs' Body the Church, should be very focused on our sanctification. Therefore we should take seriously the role of Men and Women in regards to authority. But I still don't believe that this is all about an outward sign but rather about an inward conviction.

I would have no problem taking communion with just water and hardtack. I also have no problem with women not wearing head coverings and I would have no problem if man decided to wear a hat during service. Just as long and the Word of God is being preached, the gospel proclaimed and people listening and the Spirit of God transforming lives, I'm not too concerned about outward symbols.

As far as Baptism, if you want to baptize infants, adults, dunk or sprinkle makes no difference to me. It's the meaning behind the outward symbol.

Dave

Neither.... I was referring to your hermeneutical method applied to the examples given.

No argument there. I would heartily agree.

Here is where we have a serious disagreement. I do believe that the "outward symbols" are no less inspired than the principles they express. There is a good reason why the Holy Spirit inspired the holy men of God to write what they did and that every jot and tittle is God's truth. To so easily dismiss the "symbols" as being insignificant is a dangerous thing to do. It opens wide the door to all manner of errors which churches and denominations have fallen into and eventually fallen away from the faith once delivered unto the saints. Culture cannot and must not determine how the Church practices its worship of God; only God can and has revealed how He is to be worshiped in spirit and truth. The world has no truth to be found in it for it is under the power of the evil one. The Church consists of those who have been "called apart" from the world. Unfortunately today, the churches' modus operandi is to 'assimilate' the world in order to 'attract' the world into its assemblies so that those who come will 'feel at home'.

What I am wanting to have you see is that this idea of bifurcating the symbol from the principle with the use of a "Cultural Boundness" type hermeneutic can have disastrous effects.

In His grace,

I understand the calling for Christs' Church to be holy. I understand and am convicted by the Word of God that the people of God should take their sanctification seriously. I agree with all of that and I understand the significance and meaning behind head coverings and I agree that there should be an order of authority. But....


I attend a church where most of it's congregational members are ignorant of the Word of God. Where it's pastors and leaders are focused on human traditions rather then God's Word. In the PCUSA things are looking pretty bad and I know that the denomination as a whole is pretty lost.

But I've also attended a PCA church where sanctification was taken more seriously and I've also been to a very reformed or a very strict reform church from time to time in the area where I live.

Here is my point....

The PCUSA church is much larger then the two PCA churches I just mentioned. Of the two PCA churches the "strict reformed PCA church" is by far the smallest, it has under 100 people in attendance during it's Sunday worship.

But most of the men their wear suits and have "buzz cuts." All the women wear head coverings. They only sing psalms and only employ the use of a single piano. The sermons are from a true Scottish preacher and are very expository.

I'm serious about this and not making this up. We actually do have these different styles of Presbyterian churches all within 20 minutes of my house.

What I've learned is this.....

We are all sinners.

The good reformed and conservative Christians at the Reformed PCA church are just as sinful as the people at the very liberal and Biblically ignorant PCUSA church. Yes they are taking their sanctification more seriously. Yes they are focused on the Word of God and trying to conform closer into the likeness of Jesus Christ more and more as a whole congregation.

But there is just one problem. They are a very small church who tend to be so serious on their approach to holiness that they are not very open to unrepentant sinners. Unrepentant sinners do not feel comfortable at all in attending worship in that church. They come in during one worship and they might force themselves to stay during that worship or they might just leave before they even hear the Word of God being preached, but if they do stay, they certainly don't come back ever again, because it's too convicting and to "set apart."

That is my concern between "outward righteousness." and inward convictions.

I personally would love to attend that Reformed PCA church. Truly I would. I love good reformed Scottish preaching. I love the fact that the congregational members are taking God's Word and their approach to holiness seriously. But I also understand that if I'm going to preach the gospel to sinners then I have to be a little bit like them on the outside. I have to be sure to "keep the door open" so to speak for the tax collectors... or the drug addicts, the prostitute, the bum, the alcoholic, the abusive husband, the struggling married couple, the ex-Roman Catholic... etc...

I just wanted to add one more thing quickly.


I understand what you are saying Pilgrim.... as you label it... the "Cultural Boundness" type hermeneutic is tricky.

As I have already stated... the New Testament also talks about women not speaking, slavery and women being "keepers of the home." There are other examples as well.

So again.... Biblical interpretation or our hermeneutic is very important in our faith and practice. I fully agree and I fully agree that the Church should always try to be as careful as it can to teach sound doctrine and to try to observe and follow God's will given through His written word as best as it can.

But I again, right now I only see in part or a poor reflection of God's perfect truth and I am fallible. I might be falling short in my sanctification by not advocating that woman should literally wear some form of head covering. The right hermeneutic just might very well be that Jesus Christ does want His Church on earth to follow this rule for their sanctification. I can not really fully dispute this, I'm just not 100% sure.

But I also don't think that this should be a hill to die on and that more importantly is the love we have for our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Father, the true Gospel, the Church and each other.

So what I'm trying to say is that I respect very much the love that Pilgrim and others have extended to me on this discussion and the passion and conviction everyone here has for the written Word. That in itself is truly a wonderful witness.

Dave

Two points in reply:

First, no worship service should be "open" to unrepentant sinners! Worship is uniquely for God's own people. Those who are not His cannot worship Him and will be offended seeing true worship offered to God. Worship was not intended to appeal to unrepentant sinners, nor is the Church intended to be "open" to unrepentant sinners. It is and should be closed to them.

Second, we are to worship God as He has commanded according to His word rather than according to our own inventions, especially if those inventions are aimed at appealing to, attracting, or retaining larger numbers of unrepentant sinners.

The PCA church we left last year is in the midst of the very same error, hoping to attract unrepentant sinners rather than to worship God biblically. Worship is uniquely Christian. It is not something that unrepentant sinners are even capable of. In fact I dare say that so-called "worship" which does attract and satisfy unrepentant sinners is false worship, because it allows unrepentant sinners to feel comfortable in their rebellion rather than confronting them with God's justice as well as His mercy towards those who seek Him.

I don't know what you mean by "open", I agree with everything you say, but your "open" comment concerns me. How do we explain

As for worship, you made some good comments. It saddens me that instead of the pulpit ministry drawing the people into the presence of God, it has become a time of instruction, and many in the church treat the time and place like a common lecture or classroom instead of a "sanctuary" service. That is why moral, ethical or political messages fail, they are man focused instead of God focused. I believe more formal dress, head coverings etc, can be good to remind people that the service is about God not us.
This attitude of dressing down and being like the world has made the worship service like the world, a common lecture hall with some music thrown in. The unregenerate can mimic the church service today, which I believe is because God is absent from the service due to the focus of the message. No wonder the church has lost its impact in the world.

Wow, hey Robin. Long time no see.

Wow... I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you.

Can you support your views on closing the worship service to sinners?

I'm not sure how unrepentant sinners are going to hear the Word of God and the gospel if you have a closed services.

Now, I understand policing Communion... but to not let people off the street to come in and join your worship?

I really don't think that is Biblical at all. Again if you could try to explain this concept to me, I would be willing to hear you out, but I really don't think your going to convince me of this, ever.

Dave

Dave,

At the risk of being charged with ... although it would be great if others would jump into this particular discussion on headcovering, I would like to offer one more thing.

Here is a glowing example of how many today apply, even unwittingly, the "Culturally Bound" hermeneutic in regard to worship in general.

The text:

We don't know where these two brothers were living geographically to each other nor their occupations. But what we do know is that Abel was involved in raising sheep for he brought "of the firstlings of his flock". Whether Cain, however, also raised sheep we are not told but only that he
"brought of the fruit of the ground". Further, what learn from this text is that most surely, God had given instructions as to how He was to be worshiped and that included what was to be brought as an offering to Him; acceptable offering. Abel obeyed the Lord and thus his offering was accepted. However, Cain, laboring under a "Culturally Bound" hermeneutic took it upon himself to bring whatever pleased him before the Lord as an offering. He understood clearly what was required of him, i.e., the PRINCIPLE of worshiping Yahweh but apparently felt that as long as his heart was sincere he could choose what SYMBOL satisfied that principle. Perhaps in the culture in which he lived slaughtering lambs was not recognized as a means of worship?

What is most important to see here is that the Principle and the Symbol were inextricably bound together. God had specifically made known both. To deviate from what the LORD had commanded in either the Principle of Symbol was unacceptable worship.

I used this example for a good reason. If we are even vaguely familiar with Scripture we know that a "lamb" was used throughout the history of Israel as a sacrificial animal which represented the cleansing of sin through its shed blood (death). In the NT we read that the Lord Jesus Christ is referred to as "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jh 1:29, 36; Rev 5:6; 7:17; 15:3; et al). God the Father instituted acceptable worship from the very beginning and demanded strict adherence to both the Principle and Symbol. And the Spirit had more than good reason to have Moses pen those words found in Gen 4 for our instruction.

In short, a headcovering isn't introduced in 1Cor 11 for the very first time. Headcovering appears in various other passages and contexts and thus Paul's teaching concerning women covering their heads isn't something novel or new nor bound to the culture of Corinth. It has an ancient precedence. And so, we are to be extremely careful in how we "divide the Word of Truth"; in this case relegating a "symbol" (practice) of a mandated "principle" to a by-gone era based upon an alleged "passé culture".

In His grace,

The word "open" appeared first in the post I was replying to, and I mean it in opposition to inviting unrepentant sinners into the presence of God. I said it over and over again, in bold font, emphasizing the word unrepentant.

No unrepentant sinner can worship God, nor should any unrepentant sinner be invited into God's presence. It would be fatal to an unrepentant sinner, multiplying his guilt. It is the same principle as partaking of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. An unrepentant sinner multiplies wrath against himself by taking the Supper - and the Lord's Name - in vain. Worship is uniquely Christian. It is therefore open only to Christians.

This is not to say that churches cannot or should not conduct evangelistic services and invite everyone to attend! But an evangelistic service is not the same as a Lord's Day worship service. An evangelistic service is intended to reach the unregenerate. A worship service is intended for the Lord's people. Worship is not to include "room" for haters of God (unrepentant sinners).

There is no assumption in the 1st Corinthians passage that unrepentant sinners enter the believers' gathering by invitation. And those who do enter a worship service need to be confronted with prophecy (which is "for believers" according to verse 22) rather than confused by the unedifying sign gift of tongues, which was "for unbelievers (verse 22)".

Yes, worship is for sinners! But not for unrepentant sinners. Not for the unregenerate. Not for the unbelieving, lest they "eat and drink condemnation to themselves (1st Corinthians 11:29)."

I hope that helps clarify what I mean... and perhaps I misapplied the use of the word "open" in the post I was replying to.

Robin,

Wouldn't the Reformed doctrine of the Visible / Invisible church damage your argument for unrepentant sinners taking part in our worship services. The worship service is for believers to worship God as unbelievers cannot, yet unbelievers are welcome to visit. That is not say we should conduct our worship services to accomodate unbelievers as the Gospel should be preached with conviction.

I personally don't have a problem with anyone inviting the unsaved/unrepentent into the church worship service. If a person is receptive to coming to church, who knows if God is not already working in that person's heart? Do we gear worship to the world, of course not, worship is ascribing glory to God. However, if the church is the church it is supposed to be, then the person "invited" will either come under conviction or flee and not want to return. I am against soiling the church service in order for the unclean to feel comfortable, but I believe they can come to the worship service if they desire and someone from the church invited them. There is a difference between them being there and being members of the church body, I wouldn't allow an unrepentent person to join the church. Even then we can't be absolutely sure of a person's heart.

Just as we see in Isaiah 6, when Isaiah stood in the presence of God the doorposts shook. Holiness and sinfulness cannot coexist, there will be a shaking and it isn't God who will be shaking, but the sinner. I believe in the almighty power of God and if an unrepentent sinner comes into the assembly of saints, my prayer is that God has mercy on him. The problem today is that in many church services, God is absent and the unrepentent is quite comfortable. Worship can still be pure and acceptable even if there is an unrepentent sinner in the midst, I hardly believe that all the people I worship with are actually born again, but I'm not the one to judge. I know that quite a few left since the preaching/teaching became more heart searching because they didn't feel good from the services, go figure. Anyway, I suppose it all comes down to what we are expecting in a church service, I don't believe an unrepentent sinner is going to affect the congregation's worship experience if it is done in Spirit and truth.

I don't think that the Biblical truth of the Visible Church (the church as we see it, which is made up of both wheat and tares hiding among the wheat) and the Invisible Church (the church as God sees her with perfect vision, all the saints throughout time, pure and holy) necessarily requires that "wheat" be invited to join the "tares" in the field! It is inevitable and expected that tares will be found among the wheat, but worship is for the wheat.

I think we're all sayin' the same thing in different ways, actually; that our the church worship and liturgy should not be written to accommodate unrepentant sinners. God-haters. If they show up and stick around long enough to hear the truth and be converted, that's great! But worship is not for the world. It's for God's own people. That's all we're sayin'.

-Robin

Evangelism is ordinarily done in the marketplace, in the neighborhood, on the playground, etc., not in the worship service! Those who accept an invitation to church are almost always those who have responded positively to prior evangelistic messages or examples. I'm all for it! Please don't hear me to be saying that we should never invite unbelievers to church.

I'm sorry if I wasn't completely clear. And I must apologize also for likely long periods of time between my appearances here on the Highway. I travel all the time and rarely have opportunity to get online.

One of the underlying fears here and yes, I do mean fears, is that because of how the Modern Evangelical Church has conducted itself, the pendulum tends to sway from the extreme left to the extreme right.

What I mean to say is that, because the Modern Evangelical Church has abused "conforming" itself like the world, that there are conservatives who tend to run in the extreme opposite direction.

I have listed versus earlier in this discussion supporting my views. This is just a quick reply, so please refer to what I've already use to support my views.

I believe Paul tells us that he did what he had to do as to not "offend" his audience. I don't know what everyone's experiences are, how could I?, but, my experience is that it takes awhile before peoples hearts are ready to truly understand, believe and accept the gospel and follow Jesus.

I run a small Christian support group out of my home. I treat it as my ministry it's organized pretty much like a house church. The only difference being is that all the members belong to my church. So I do not conduct communion or baptism.

The members of my small group all call themselves or identify themselves as Christians. But they really don't show any fruit and or good works. So I would have to question if they really have a personal relationship with Jesus or not.... or in other words, if they truly identify themselves as sinners deserving hell and therefore repenting and putting their faith in Jesus and following him as their savior and lord.

But, that doesn't matter to me as far as administering and serving them. Whether they're "God-Haters," or Unbelievers or unrepentant sinners or what ever they may be, all I care about is that they are coming to my home; with a mature attitude, willing to sing, study scripture, listen to me preach and willing to pray for each other. So as long as they are willing to do that, I'm willing to "church" them and continue to share the gospel with them and pray for them and hope that God will really and truly open their hearts someday.

What I can tell you is that I'm not going to try to sit there and explain to the women that they should obey their husbands and also wear head coverings when they gather in my home. Because If I did that, they wouldn't come back and that would be a really shame, because they are hungry to learn more and grow more and it just seems a little silly to me to chase them off by trying to enforce the head covering rule.

But..... with saying that, at the same time, I do have set rules and my meetings are conducted in a very orderly and serious fashion. Unlike the Modern Evangelical Church, I'm preaching the whole gospel to them, I'm telling them that they are sinners and that there really is a Judgment Day and that sinners really will get thrown into the lake of fire and that their righteousness really is as filthy rags and that they really do need to put their love and faith into the only one person who can save them from eternal separation from God, which is Jesus.

I also teach them about sanctification and about keeping in step with His Spirit and about the fruits of His Spirit. I teach and encourage them about self-control, forgiveness, subjective and objective truth, and most of all loving God and each other with all their hearts.

But they are not ready in their hearts, they are not convicted to start wearing head coverings. I'm just using this as an example, I could use thousands of others examples from church planters and missionaries all across the world who are spreading the gospel and starting new churches in Christs' name. Things in these environments aren't and can not be as "orthodox" as some of us are used too. But that does not make them any less effectual in their ministry.

Is this conformity? Yes.... but the right kind of conformity, the kind that Paul talks about. It's just simply understanding and loving the people who you are sharing Jesus with.

Dave

Dave,

I'll let you have the last word on this one as I think my reply will suffice as my "closing remarks" on the subject, at least in regard to our exchange.

1. The example of "your house" meetings is irrelevant since it is not a church; elders, deacons, official preaching to the corporate gathering of the saints on the Lord's Day, gathering of offerings, administration of the sacraments, etc. Thus headcovering is not applicable.

2. Nowhere in all Scripture does Paul write that he "conformed himself" to the various people groups or cultures in regard to the public corporate worship of God's people. That which we read about corporate worship which Paul wrote is applicable and mandatory in all places for all time. Why? Because it is GOD Who has designed His own worship and not man, (ala: Cain), whereby men can pick and choose what they feel is appropriate and/or going to be acceptable to those called to worship. This is a truth which has for the most part been totally ignored today or rejected completely.

3. Sanctification is not restricted to the keeping of God's moral law. It is also being conformed in willing, heartfelt obedience to ALL of God's precepts, principles, commands, testimonies and laws. How we are to conduct ourselves before God in public corporate worship is not an exclusion wherein we can decide what is appropriate based upon the whims, prejudices or culture around us. God through the inspired Word is Who determines how men are to worship Him.

4. God's truth is always and everywhere to be taught to everyman and not truncated due to what people are allegedly "ready to receive". Paul was not ashamed to write that he preached and taught "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). And it is through this "whole counsel of God" that the Spirit works and is designed "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." (2Tim 3:16, 17) Isn't this another definition of Sanctification?

5. It is assuredly not an "over reaction" to the modern evangelical movement that we embrace and encourage others to see the biblical teaching concerning headcovering. For this practice has been in the Church for many centuries and was the generally accepted practice in nearly all the Reformed/Calvinistic churches which can be easily documented for you if you so desire. It's rejection is contemporary, perhaps due to the current mindset of the modern evangelical movement, e.g., rank individualism, broad toleration of ideas, weak view of Scripture and worship, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

I've enjoyed the exchange and hope that you would perhaps continue to give this truth concerning how believing men and women should conduct themselves in the worship of God. And, should the Spirit bring this truth to your heart, you would not go too far and insist that the practice be regulated by church order/law.

In His grace,