Expert: Cooper P. Abrams III - 10/7/2005

Question
First, let me say that I was raised in and am still a member of an IFB church.

I have read your answer to the headcovering question, but I still cannot get this issue completely settled in my mind.  Here are my reasons for leaning toward headcoverings.  I am curious to hear your reply.

My first issue with the "culture" argument is this:  If we as Baptist believe the Bible to be God's word for all people and all times why is this the exception? (and I am talking about NT practice, not OT)  Are there any other examples such as this, that do not apply to us because of the culture during the NT church?

Secondly:
We as Baptist say we believe that every word of scripture is inspired by God, is profitable for reproof, for doctrine, and for instruction in righteousness.  Then why do we believe that our all wise God would include in scripture something that would only apply to a certain church at a particular time in history?

Thirdly:
The Bible says that a woman is to pray and prophesy with her head covered because of the angels.  The only other references that I can find in the NT in which angels and prayer is mentioned is in Rev. 5:8, 8:4,5. There seems to be a connection between the prayers of the saints, incense (sweet odors), and angel. (please don't think I am in any way preoccupied with angels)But, to my point, if angels were present when NT Corinthian believers prayed, are they not present today when we pray?  If for some reason (even unknown to us) a woman was to have a sign of authority on her head (veil or covering?)because of the angels when and where does this reason become null and void?

Lastly:   
There are some references made to the priestessess of false religion and their temple prostitute's habit of shaving their heads in order to wear wigs as "advertisement" of their profession.  Again pointing to the belief that all scripture stands alone as our sole authority, why would God include in scripture something that needed to be explained away by commentators's historical documentary?    

I totally reject the teaching that a woman's hair is her covering, because if a woman's covering is her hair, then a man could not have ANY hair on his head in order to be uncovered. If a women's hair is to be her covering it must be her LONG hair.  Another thing that is not taught in Baptist churches today. I also find difficulties in arguments because their seems to be a major logical error in reasoning which I will not go into here, because the major thrust of you reply was a cultural one in which you seem to believe that the Corinthian women were to ware a physcial covering.

Please forgive me for writing such a volumne.  I know that I may come across as already having my mind made up, which is NOT the case.  I am just having alot of difficulty in accepting the "Baptist" explaination that I have heard since a child.  I wonder if we, as Baptist, have really given this issue careful consideration? or have we just stuck with our traditions?

Thank you so much for your ministry.

Robin  

Answer
Hi Robin,
     I am sorry to be so slow.   I think Allexperts expects us to answer too quickly.  Most time I can, but other times I am really busy and cannot.  I only do this as a service to others and it takes time to properly research the question/answer.

   The passage of 1 Cor. 11:5 is not addressing women's hair.   I am sure there were temple harlots who shaved there heads, but I do not think that is what Paul was addressing.
    
    The context shows that the issue was women speaking in public without a head covering or veil. (1 Cor. 11:3)     1 Cor. 11:4 says “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”    In their society a man who was in the presence of someone who was in authority over him was to undercover his head.      It was a mark of respect.   When men wore hats in our culture they would remove their hats in the presence of a woman, or dignitary as a sign of respect.  

  There was a women's lib movement in the church at Corinth and it seems women were publically speaking or "prophecying" in their services and they were removing their veils when doing this.   This practice showed a disrespect for the men and  leaders that were in the church.     The veil was worn in their society as a symbol of modesty and of submission to the man as the head of the home and women were to be in submission...as a help meet...to their husbands.   This is God's plan for the family and it extends into the churches as well. (Eph. 5:22-24).   God's plan is that men are to lead and be their providers,  and in oriental society in the Middle East...like it is today among the Arabs...the veil was a symbol of subordination and respect.   

   1 Corinthians 14:34-36  says,  "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?"   

   So the issue is women usurping leadership in a local church over the men who have the leadership.   1 Timothy 2:12  "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

   It is not teaching that women should wear veils or head covering.      That was proper in their society, but in occident (Western) society  there is no such practice.   However, the principle does apply that women should not take leadership over the men in their homes or in their churches.     

  The biblical principle clearly stated in several passages shows us God's plan is that the man, should take the leadership role.   (See 1 Tim. 2:9-15)   This role is transcultural.   However, wearing a veil or head coving is cultural and is not meant to be applied to universally.    The biblical doctrine is that principles in God's word do not change, but the application of the principle can have different applications in different situations or cultures.   The head covering issue is a prime example.          A clear example  would be that God commanded Israel to stone witches or those involve in the occult.  Clearly we are not to do the same.   The principle was that God's people are to avoid and be separated from demonic things.    Yet, we apply the principle today, but we do not stone those in the occult, but we remain totally separate from such practices and teach God's truth about them.    The principle then is not violated in either case.

        I hope this helps with your understanding of this matter.  If you have further comments or questions please ask.   Again, I apologize for being a little slow to respond and appreciate your understanding.

Cooper Abrams
http://bible-truth.org
Romans 12:1-2