Repost: Headcovering: Now More Than Ever

About a year ago I posted this little essay on the topic of headcovering. Given the absolute trainwreck that is happening in our culture, headcovering seems like a pretty minor topic. Don't we have bigger fish to fry? I would argue that we will never be truly faithful in the big stuff if we neglect the "small" stuff. I say "small" because nothing recorded in Scripture is small or minor. As we observe our cultural crashing down around us, it is more important than ever that we stand firmly on Scripture. It will increasingly set us apart as peculiar and "out of step" but that is how we should have been all along. So here is my post from last year, maybe you will find it interesting.

As an aside here are a couple of fairly recent posts from others on the topic of headcovering:

Should Single Women Wear Head Coverings?

Why I Love To Wear A Head Covering
-------

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)

This is a weird passage for a lot of Christians, one that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. It deals with a couple of awkward issues, like submission and a command to wear something on your head. You can see this awkwardness in the general way that it is treated in most sermons when the pastor comes to this passage and generally skips past it as fast as he can, The typical treatment of these verses is to dismiss them based on an alleged, unspoken cultural question that really has no bearing on the church today in our enlightened age. In general it is dismissed as a quaint, kind of confusing cultural relic that has no place in our modern church.

I would argue just the opposite. My wife has covered for many years, even when she was the only person in a gathering who did so. The practice kind of was in vogue in some circles a few years back and I blogged a bit about it but seems to have cooled off. Here in 2015 I am hoping to revive this conversation because if ever there was a time when the church needed it, it is now. I am not going to go back through and review the arguments for an actual covering versus long hair or a covering being replaced by a wedding ring, I have posts on those topics already if you are interested.

A covering is more than just an external sign of a submissive heart, although it is not less than that, The covering is also a quiet act of subversion against the culture that tells us that gender, like race, is whatever you want it to be, whatever you feel like at that moment. The covering reminds us that God intentionally made man and He intentionally made woman, He made them in a specific way and order and He made them to be distinct, interdependent and complementary. The two genders and how God designed them to relate with one another is integral to God's design for humanity and even for His plan of salvation. When we read the opening of the Gospel according to Matthew we see the genealogy of Jesus Christ, generation after generation. When we see the curse in Genesis 3 we also see the promise that would be fulfilled in Christ Jesus through the seed of the woman. When we see the promise to Abraham we know that it is fulfilled in the children of the union between man and woman. The covering is a critical, external symbol of recognition of the pivotal place of gender. Absolutely the heart is even more critical in this equation but you simply cannot negate the external sign commanded in Scripture, just as Christians are called to actually be baptized in water as an external sign of an inward reality.

As I said, the covering is a subversive statement today, a counter-cultural act that quietly witnesses to and stands in defiance of the prevailing culture. The culture says "be whatever you want to be, feel free to mutilate the canvas of your flesh". The cover says "I am a daughter of the Most High, made as a woman in His image and by His design and for His glory". The culture says "Men and women are indistinguishable and interchangeable" , the covering says "I am unique and irreplaceable as a woman and I have no desire to be a man". A woman with a covered head leaves no doubt as to the nature of men and women and her embrace of how God has made her. A husband blessed to have a wife at his side with a covering is a witness to the complementary nature of the genders and a recognition of his own incompleteness apart from his spouse. I don't want a woman who looks and acts like a man, I want a woman who is "a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:18).

The culture wars are over and the religious right lost. The casual immorality and confusion we see all around us speaks this truth loud and clear. Now is the time for the quiet way of the cross, a way that does not shout or seek power but also does not seek to hide or accommodate. Rather than seeking to blend in through capitulation or fighting for the last vestiges of political coercive power, we instead can follow a third way of quiet subversion via witness. The covering is an ancient symbol but one that carries with it powerful ramifications and a similarly powerful witness without saying a word. It says to the world that no matter what the nonsensical, ignorant chattering heads on The View or the writers of People magazine have to say, God has already spoken definitively on the question of men and women.

Sometimes the ancient practices are the best response to the modern errors.

My least popular blog series! Back by absolutely no demand whatsoever!

Had an interesting discussion today on Facebook on the issue of gender and realized I didn't have my series on patriarchy in one place anywhere so I thought I would put all of the links together. Almost nothing I have written has gotten quite the same negative response as this series (other than perhaps non-resistance) but far from being dissuaded I think this is a topic where I have come to an even more firm position. It is unpopular especially among the house church/organic church crowd but I gthink it is the most consistent. Anyway here are all of the links in order for your perusal and almost certain torch-and-pitchfork comments.

Biblical Patriarchy: Introduction

Biblical Patriarchy: Defining the Issue

Biblical Patriarchy: Old Testament

Biblical Patriarchy: New Testament

Biblical Patriarchy: Common Objections

Biblical Patriarchy: A Conclusion 

plus a special bonus entry on "mutual submission"!

Mutual Submission?

 

 

 

 

What submission is not

This is a simply great post on what submission is not from The Resurgence:

10 Things Submission Is Not

This one is my favorite:

6. Stifling

When submissive women are portrayed as stunted or limited in their freedom, they are being lied about. Submission is a safe place of protection where we are able to express our gifts and creativity for the glory of God and benefit of our marriages.

This is something important to check out amidst all of the misleading and erroneous talk about submission that is out there.

Make that six things

So R.C. Sproul Jr. wrote an article for the Ligonier Ministries blog titled 5 Things I’m Surprised I Can’t Find in the Bible. In it he looks at a few things that are important but that God has intentionally left vague in Scripture.

Some of what he wrote makes sense. The Bible does speak a lot about marriage but not very much about how to go about getting married. There is very little about the specifics of the church meeting. So the article is not without value. However there was one thing that jumped out at me because I have heard it stated before and it is such an unwarranted leap in a publication that gets a huge audience because of R.C. Sproul Jr.’s famous father that it bears being exposed.

I found it ironic that in a post about five things you can’t find in the Bible, we get the following dogmatic assertion that is likewise not in the Bible and then a huge leap from this non-existent principle to an even more onerous one:

The Bible is crystal clear that women are not to rule in the church, and that we are to submit to the elders over us. See Hebrews 13 for the latter. Thus the Reformers were correct to list discipline as a mark of the true church. If you are not under the authority of name-able specific elders, you are not part of the visible church and thus do not have a credible profession of faith. You should get under authority.

I am down with the women not leading in the church part because that actually does appear in the Bible. On the other hand…does Hebrews 13 tell us that a) church discipline is something carried out by elders, b) that the writer of Hebrews is even referencing elders at all, c) we are supposed to be under the authority of “name-able” elders and d) that if we aren’t, we aren’t part of the visible church and therefore our profession of faith is suspect?

Well, no it doesn’t. One must assume that he is referring to Hebrews 13:17 or one of the top posts in “most abused passages in the Bible”. Here it is:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17 ESV)

The traditional reading is that Hebrews 13:17 tells us we are to be subject to the pastor of the local church we are members of because of his ecclesiastical office. The problem is that this doesn’t actually appear in the text nor is it implied. I have gone over this before but who are the “leaders” we read of in Hebrews 13:17? Luckily we don’t have to guess or let other people define it for us. Ten verses earlier we read:

Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. (Hebrews 13:7 ESV)

Ah. So from this reading we see that the leaders are those who spoke (past tense) to the readers the word of God. Perhaps missionaries or evangelists of some sort, the initial preachers of the Gospel through whom God converted the readers of this letter? We don’t really know because we don’t know who the author is or who the audience is other than through conjecture or educated guesses. One thing is certain, it would take an enormous leap to presume that the “leaders” being spoken of who spoke the Word are the pastors of local churches. It doesn’t rule them out but neither does it affirm that contention. Also note that we are to consider their way of life along with obeying and submitting to them. Now we are hardly called to submit just to Pastor Smith at our local church that we selected because of a variety of criteria. In fact, we see lots of submission and subjection going on. Some has to do with elders but others do not. Look for example at 1 Corinthians 16:15-16….

Now I urge you, brothers—you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints— be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer. (1 Corinthians 16:15-16)

So here Paul tells us to the readers (and by proxy us) to be subject to every fellow worker and laborer. Now if the point of being subject is to defer to their authority in a hierarchical fashion, we kind of have a problem because now everyone has to submit to one another which is inherently non-hierarchical. What seems to be the consistent theme from Hebrews 13:7, 1 Corinthians 16: 15-16 as well as other places like 1 and 2 Timothy’s depictions of elders is that we should seek to be subject to those who serve and live out lives worthy of emulation, not that we should submit to leaders because they were selected to be a leader in a given local church or even that we should be subject only to those who are “members” of the same local church we belong to.

Hebrews 13 says a lot about a lot of things and it has a few things to say about the idea of authority but not what R.C. Sproul Jr. claims it does. It always bothers me and should always cause you to pay close attention when someone airily claims that a whole chapter of Scripture supports the point they are making without attempting to engage in the text at all and you should especially be on guard when they make statements with enormous implications to your very salvation based on these sweeping generalities. The idea that if you are not a member of a “proper” local church with name-able elders who carry out church discipline that you don’t have a credible profession of faith is a dangerous and Scripturally untenable statement. It sounds sweet to the ears of those who embrace certain church traditions but to question the salvation of someone because they don’t cling to your ecclesiastical traditions is arrogant and prideful.

The lesson here is that just because someone refers to a passage of Scripture and is published by a famous ministry doesn’t mean you should just take them at their word, especially not when they are questioning the salvation of other Christians.

Leadership in the home

Tim Challies has an interesting post out this morning on male headship in the home. Should elicit a great deal of lively and interesting discussion, as this topic always does.

Romans 13 and the Obama administration

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Romans 13: 1-7

So I have been pondering what the Obama administration means to Christians, especially in light of Romans 13. There has been a pretty heavy political tinge to my writings over the last month, but after all I have been a conservative a lot longer than I have been a Christian. So I am becoming concerned that maybe I should keep it down on political issues. Is my speaking out against the policies of the Obama administration a violation of Romans 13? Should we ignore the strictly political issues in submission to President Obama as one who rules over us? What is our responsibility? Meekly go along with the administration? Keep silent about issues, not just the issues of human life but purely political decisions like tax policy? I am speaking here of an individual Christian who is a citizen of the United States. I have no tolerance for someone claiming to be a minister of the Gospel preaching against tax policy from the pulpit.

It seems to me that one can speak out against policies while still submitting to authority. Romans 13:7 tells us: “Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.”. I pay my taxes (or would if I owed them), I obey the laws (except some of the traffic laws), I do not propose or endorse an armed insurrection or even civil disobedience. Barack Obama is the President of the United States, duly elected under the laws of this land and as far as his Constitutional authority extends I submit myself to his authority. I respect him as President, and I respect the office no matter who is in it. I often pray for President Obama, praying that God will convict him of the sin of abortion, homosexual marriage and harvesting humans for stem cell research. I pray most of all that God will break his heart and that Barack Obama is converted, born-again and saved from his sins.

But I don’t see where a Christian has to be silent about the issues. In fact I would say that I have a responsibility as a citizen of this country to speak out on the issues, provided I don’t blur the line between the political and the sectarian. I think that Romans 13 does not muzzle us, but it does curtail behavior. I think abortion is a horrific stain on our nation, infanticide for profit couched in terms of “choice”. But I also don’t think that blowing up clinics or attacking abortionists is permissible. Speaking out against abortion? That is not only permitted by Romans 13, or at least no prohibited, but I think it is incumbent on Christians to speak out in defense of those who are defenseless. So as long as I don’t slander unnecessarily or bear false witness against the puppet regime in the White House, I believe I am in compliance with Romans 13.

What do you think?