Should Women Wear Hats in Church?
When I was a Christian, I thought that I should look to the Bible for insight and guidance regarding human nature and ultimate truth. In fact, since the book was authored by the author of human nature, it could give surprisingly clear insights into people’s motives and feelings. I had been taught that the seeds of the doctrine of natural law were found in the Bible and as a result had resulted in the best theory of morality available.
Now some of the writings were not meant to convey guidance for all times. For example, regulations regarding the temple only had to be followed when there was a temple. However, some to the teachings are meant to be timeless. I had been taught that appeals to human nature were examples of truths that should be regarded as intended for Christians today.
One example of the early appeal to natural law is found in Romans 1. Paul states that there are certain moral facts that God has made known to all mankind. However, as a result of man’s failure to glorify God, our thinking became darkened. A consequence of our disobedience is trading natural desires for unnatural desires. In essence, Paul is appealing to human nature as a clue to morality. Based upon this verse my church opposes gay marriage regardless of the popularity of the position within the culture at large.
However, it was clear to me that my church did not take all of the natural law arguments made by the Apostle Paul equally seriously. Consider 1 Corinthians 11:
3)Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4) Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5) And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6) If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7) A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8) For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9) neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10) For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
11) In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12) For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14) Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15) but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
Notice that Paul is appealing to man and woman’s creation to support his point. If Paul’s argument was ever valid, then it is valid now. Paul is appealing to the nature of humanity as guide to how we should behave. It is clear that Paul thinks women should cover their heads while praying. However, in my church women are not expected to wear hats. However, Paul’s conclusion is guided by the insight provided by the Holy Spirit, why should this passage be ignored?
This may seem like a trivial example, but when this passage was brought to my attention it weighed on me when I was a Christian. I was not about to impose on my wife that she needed to wear a hat. I thought require head covering seemed silly. It was evidence that I didn’t act like I believed the Bible was inspired, despite what I thought and proclaimed. My pastor had preached on this verse had given reasons other people didn’t think it applied today. However, he acknowledged that the reasons weren’t convincing. He just left it at that.
It is an open secret of many “Bible Believing” churches that only a small percentage of their members study the Bible with any degree of interest (see Dallas Willard in “Hearing God”). In retrospect, it seems that actually reading the Bible forces the Christian to deal with the division they have placed in their own minds. It is easier to proclaim belief and ignore the teaching of the Bible when you don’t actually read the Bible.
One example of the early appeal to natural law is found in Romans 1. Paul states that there are certain moral facts that God has made known to all mankind. However, as a result of man’s failure to glorify God, our thinking became darkened. A consequence of our disobedience is trading natural desires for unnatural desires. In essence, Paul is appealing to human nature as a clue to morality. Based upon this verse my church opposes gay marriage regardless of the popularity of the position within the culture at large.
However, it was clear to me that my church did not take all of the natural law arguments made by the Apostle Paul equally seriously. Consider 1 Corinthians 11:
3)Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4) Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5) And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6) If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7) A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8) For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9) neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10) For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
11) In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12) For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14) Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15) but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
Notice that Paul is appealing to man and woman’s creation to support his point. If Paul’s argument was ever valid, then it is valid now. Paul is appealing to the nature of humanity as guide to how we should behave. It is clear that Paul thinks women should cover their heads while praying. However, in my church women are not expected to wear hats. However, Paul’s conclusion is guided by the insight provided by the Holy Spirit, why should this passage be ignored?
This may seem like a trivial example, but when this passage was brought to my attention it weighed on me when I was a Christian. I was not about to impose on my wife that she needed to wear a hat. I thought require head covering seemed silly. It was evidence that I didn’t act like I believed the Bible was inspired, despite what I thought and proclaimed. My pastor had preached on this verse had given reasons other people didn’t think it applied today. However, he acknowledged that the reasons weren’t convincing. He just left it at that.
It is an open secret of many “Bible Believing” churches that only a small percentage of their members study the Bible with any degree of interest (see Dallas Willard in “Hearing God”). In retrospect, it seems that actually reading the Bible forces the Christian to deal with the division they have placed in their own minds. It is easier to proclaim belief and ignore the teaching of the Bible when you don’t actually read the Bible.
1 comments:
Pray for understanding.
Post a Comment