Dorothy Patterson on ‘Biblical’ Head Coverings

"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

St. Augustine

Photo by Ken Touchton

Last month Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary hosted a conference on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (link)  Conference speakers included:  Paige Patterson, Russell Moore, Randy Stinson, Thomas White, and Dorothy Patterson, among others. 

As women, we were especially interested in the discussion on Biblical Womanhood featuring a panel of four women which included Dorothy Patterson, wife of SWBTS president Paige Patterson. The initial question, directed at the president's wife, was as follows: 

“Some have noticed that you often wear hats. Is that because of your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, and if not could you briefly elaborate on what that passage means for women today?”

Here is a transcript of Dorothy Patterson’s response:

“I wish I could say that I were sanctimonious and holy enough that I just believe because of the mention of head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 that I would definitely never leave my house without a hat. That is an argument that might be good to use with Dr. Patterson if he tightens the hat budget, which he does from time to time, but I am happy to report to you that in Florida I just met a man who said his wife died and she left sixty hats and he’s holding them for me. So we’re going to send a big van out to get those to replenish my supply because Dr. Patterson has cut off my hat allowance.

But getting back to the heart of the question, I do think 1 Corinthians 11 is a very important passage for not only women but for men and women because as I understand the passage, the principle of the passage is the headship of the husband in the home. Paul has written extensively about this; he’s done it from many different perspectives, and I think it’s also the heart of this passage. Another thing in the passage that’s very important is the interdependence of the man and the woman and the fact that they are equal before the Lord. But the head coverings come in, and that’s the important part to me because I think the head coverings are a manifestation of the principle. Now keep in mind when you’re doing manifestation or application of principles, you’re usually doing it so that the audience to which you’re speaking will understand that clearly, and in this first century this was something that was easily understood, a matter of covering, a woman’s covering her head.

In the modern day when we marry, we choose to marry, and as Christian women we want to say that we are under the headship of our husbands as we understand God to have prescribed in His creation order, we wear a wedding ring, and that says to anyone who sees us that we have chosen to marry. But at that time it seems to me from what I have seen in Biblical background and other things that it was not the wedding ring so much as it was this covering of the head that indicated the fact that a woman had chosen to marry and chosen to stand under the authority of her husband.

Now coming back to me, I’ve already confessed my sins. I’m not holy enough to say well every principle, every application in Scripture I’m going to put right into my life, whatever the century is. That’s not how my hat started. My hat started actually in Fayetteville, Arkansas where I had a lady who did some sewing for me. And she was and in her former professional career been a milliner; she had been making ladies’ hats. And she said to me one day when my mother sent me some money for a dress, she said you know there’s fabric left over, could I make a hat for you? And I said, ‘Oh, I would love that!’ And so once she did that and I saw how beautifully that hat completed the outfit, I decided you know, I’m gonna start wearing hats, and so I did.

Now Carmen my daughter has a different perspective. She said mother wears hats because they cover a multitude of sins, and I don’t do hair and Dr. Patterson will only let me go to the beauty shop once a week, so I have those in between days I have to deal with. And so whatever the reason, I do have some natural ways that led me into wearing hats, and I’ve always said to my students you know maybe the Lord knew, actually He knows everything, so perhaps the Lord decided because my husband was going to be in a public position and because I was going to have to find every way I could to show that I wanted to stand under his authority – I have a slight independent streak, it’s very slight but some people have picked it up – and so perhaps in light of that the Lord just put in my heart a desire to wear hats. And it was a fashion reason actually in the beginning, but as I have looked at this passage again and again I do feel very comfortable in saying yes I’m happy with that application if it is a way of bearing testimony to those who cross my path that I did choose to marry and I do choose to stand under the authority of my husband. So (a) very brief explanation.”


Why does Dorothy Patterson find it necessary to cover her head? Is her hat:

(a) A visible sign of submission to her husband

(b) A way to hide her unkempt hair

(c)  A fashion statement

(d) All of the above

Ironically, one of the reasons I don’t like wearing a hat is because it messes up my hairstyle. I do, however, enjoy wearing my wedding ring.

Dorothy may deny she is encouraging married Christian women to follow her as she follows Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1); however, it cannot be overly stressed that she is the ‘first lady’ of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, as touted by Thomas White when introducing her at the conference. By manifesting this first-century principle in her authoritative women's studies position and as the wife of the seminary president, Dorothy is setting a precedent for other women, especially young ladies under her tutelage in the art of homemaking. 

We believe one of Dorothy Patterson's intentions in routinely wearing a head covering is to influence other Christian women who may be gullible enough to follow her lead.  In responding to this question, we believe Dorothy should have followed the Apostle Paul's example.  When asked about his singleness, Paul explained that not everyone should imitate his lifestyle.  Dorothy could have made a similar statement in her response; instead, we believe she is not so subtly trying to influence other women to embrace her interpretation of this passage regarding head coverings.     

What a shame that someone found it necessary to ask such a question about the first lady of Southwestern's outward appearance.  Did not Jesus say in Matthew 6:25-33 (ESV):

"Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."

As our Lord clearly communicated, our continual focus should be on the kingdom of God and His righteousness, not on our outward appearance.  Therefore, all of us who profess Christ — both men and women — should be devoting our energy to confronting our culture with the Gospel message and demonstrating God's love to fellow believers as well as the lost.  For some it seems the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been reduced to demonstrating that we stand in submission to our husbands.

We believe that when there is such a wide range of scriptural interpretations of a particular Bible passage among those in conservative evangelical Christianity, it is obvious that we don’t really understand the passage and we had better be extremely careful about basing a firm theology on it. 

We believe that if God really wanted wives' heads to be 'covered' for all time until Jesus returns, He would have stated unequivocally that they must wear hats.  In all likelihood, head coverings had to do with the culture of Paul's day; therefore, we must not cherry pick Scripture and decide what is essential like wearing a hat to demonstrate to a watching world one's wifely submission. 

We must never forget God's truth as communicated in 1 Samuel 16:7 (ESV):

"For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."

Lydia's Corner:   1 Chronicles 28:1-29:30    Romans 5:6-21    Psalm 15:1-5    Proverbs 19:18-19


Dorothy Patterson on ‘Biblical’ Head Coverings — 68 Comments

  1. Whoa! That is TMI about hats; hard to keep focused enough to read that much about it. I agree with Deb’s comment: “What a shame that someone found it necessary to ask such a question about the first lady of Southwestern’s outward appearance.”

    I wear one when i do yardwork in the sun, so i don’t get a headache, in case anyone is curious…

  2. Wow! if that’s the standard of the way women are taught there, I suspect that they all end up totally confused! (Which is a good prerequisite for brainwashing — but I didn’t say that, did I? ) As far as I’m concerned, she can wear what she likes on her head, as long as she doesn’t expect me to do the same. But I can’t get past the little dig at the front that wearing a head covering for submission’s sake would make her more “holy”. Now there’s a theological can of worms — you can take your pick: extreme complementarianism, works righteousness, spiritual elitism, misapplication of scripture … and probably more!

    I haven’t done any research on the subject, but I remember being told once that in Greek society (and we’re talking Corinth here) an uncovered head was the badge of a prostitute. That doesn’t apply in our culture.

    In the interests of full disclosure, I wear a sunhat when I’m out for the day in our hot Australian sun — I’m fair skinned and I burn! I also wear a wedding ring proudly, NOT as a sign of submission (my husband wears one too!) but as a symbol of fidelity and commitment.

  3. Deb, are you sure she wasn’t answering veiled (hah!) accusations/gossip that she spends way too much on hats?! (Seriously… I can see where people could end up thinking that; plus hats as a de rigeur fashion item haven’t exactly been a big thing since the early 1950s….)

    How sad, though, that the whole speech is what it is.

    (fwiw, up here, some Mennonite women still wear head coverings.)

  4. Also… for a lot of well-dressed black women, hats are a must for church. I think they keep a lot of milliners in business, and their creativity is amazing.

  5. These people… sigh

    They seem to pile on one silly “should” after another. As I see it, the guidelines and requirements they come up with are generating the most awkward, nonintuitive, burdensome ideal for living life in one’s own skin. Such unnatural contortions to put oneself and one’s relationships through.

  6. I find it quite telling that she refers to her husband as “Dr Patterson” . A relative who used to be in his congregation recently used the term “pompous” in a description of him.

    Seems to me the lady just likes hats. Hope that’s all there is to it. Personally, I’ve only purchased one hat that I thought looked less than ridiculous on me. Mostly, they’re too hot for my thick hair. And on a bad hair day, I tend to look better than I ever would with after-hat helmet-head hair.

    We’ll know more about Hatgate should Carolyn Mahaney start sporting Jackie-syle pillboxes when she and nonDr. CJ waltz into their Baptist church on Capitol Hill over the next few weeks!

  7. [: Carolyn Mahaney in a pillbox – nonononono!!! :]

    As for the pomposity, some people just love to throw titles around.

    And yes, I agree that she just loves hats. Heck, I like hats, too, but find that they don’t like my hair. (Though I do put on a slightly spiffed-up version of a b-ball cap to run errands on bad hair days, and *love* cozy winter hats – they’re a necessity in 10 F windchill.)

  8. “In the modern day when we marry, we choose to marry…..But at that time it seems to me from what I have seen in Biblical background and other things that it was not the wedding ring so much as it was this covering of the head that indicated the fact that a woman had chosen to marry and chosen to stand under the authority of her husband.”

    I find it odd that in the middle of her hat discussion, she slips in a paragraph that begins by suggesting that while we choose to marry today, that might not have been true in biblical times but then finishes the paragraph declaring that women in the first century chose to marry. And of course she ties choosing to marry with standing under the authority of the husband.

    I know she was answering a question and not speaking from a prepared speech, but that just makes the comment more revealing to me.

  9. I agree. It sounds like Dorothy Patterson just likes hats, so personally, I didn’t care for her twisting it into a headship and spiritual authority issue.

    There were two things that stuck out to me. She said, “So we’re going to send a big van out to get those to replenish my supply because Dr. Patterson has cut off my hat allowance.” He has cut out her hat allowance, and yet plans to spend money on an interstate trip to pick up 60 hats??? That will be a very pricey trip – even if they just hire a guy to drive there and back. So, really, “Dr. Patterson” (why doesn’t she just call him Paige?) HASN’T cut out her hat allowance. On the contrary. He’s planning to fork over cash for a trip to get her MORE hats. And let’s be real – this isn’t about her submitting to his authority. This is because she likes hats, probably for a variety of reasons.

    She also said, “…I don’t do hair and Dr. Patterson will only let me go to the beauty shop once a week, so I have those in between days I have to deal with.” Huh? He ONLY lets her go to the beauty shop ONCE a week??? Well, she must be a fine woman to submit to that kind of authority! LOL. How about a little humility here?

  10. Wendy,

    Yes, those two comments by Dorothy Patterson were quite revealing.

    Glad that in this economy she can afford to go to the beauty parlor once a week. Some women can NEVER afford to go.

  11. Great comments everyone! I found Dorothy Patterson’s answer to the hat question extremely interesting, and that’s why I felt compelled to share it here.

    Dorothy has lived quite a life of privilege, as her bio indicates.

    About Dorothy Patterson

    “Dr. Patterson has traveled to more than 75 countries; she met with Pope John Paul in his private apartment in the Vatican; she served as Chair for President Ronald Reagan’s Presidential Bible Committee and was received in the Oval Office; she has had coffee with former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in his Knesset office; she’s been the guest of Yaser Arafat at a midnight banquet in Saddam Hussein’s palace guest house in Baghdad.”

    And “Dr. Dorothy Paterson” wasn’t held back with regard to her own education. The hypocrisy is truly incredible!

  12. Deb
    Ever wonder why she went to a banquet with a terrorist at Saddam Hussein’s palace?I might want to keep that one off my bio. Too many people, including American soldiers, have died over those men.

  13. Deb
    As for education, it is not terribly difficult to get a PhD from South Africa. Write a book and apply? Maybe we should try ti sometime. Dr Dee….I kinda like that.

  14. St Deb and MRR Dr Dee,
    I noticed Mrs Patterson’s “About” has a 1st paragraph describing her as wife of “Dr” Patterson, homemaker, and mother, with no mention about her being a “Dr” herself. Then the World Traveler paragraph describes “Dr Patterson” as “she”… Just strange.
    More seriously, her comments about her husband having her on hat and beauty shop allowances really show a deep down trivialization by her of authoritarian abuses in church and marriage, in my opinion.

  15. One could also, I suppose, speculate about the phrase “stand under my husband’s authority” used in preference to the more “biblical” “submit to my husband”. Just notice a constant substitution by these folks of submitting to “something” like authority, leadership, or headship belonging to a person rather than submitting in some manner to that person. Is that how they view our submission to Christ? As “standing under his authority”? I speculate that usually ends up meaning standing under various human systems of principles, or organizations (like the CBMW).
    Definition (from Webster’s 1913 edition) inspired by Dawkins post comments: Propagandist: a person who devotes himself to the spread of any system of principles.
    God’s Word, on the other hand, says, “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word”‘, or again, “Until I come, devote yourself to to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching, and to teaching…” and again, “and they (a household of converts) have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. I urge you, brothers, be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer.”

  16. And hooray for independent streaks! Heck, let the streak blaze fully.

    I don’t see how “independence” is at odds with respect and cooperation in any relationship, marriage or otherwise.

    What could be better than to be fully me, you be fully you, and we cooperate together to make life good. Sounds like fun.

  17. “her comments about her husband having her on hat and beauty shop allowances really show a deep down trivialization by her of authoritarian abuses in church and marriage, in my opinion.”

    Don’t attribute a turn of a phrase into an in depth interpretation of how their marriage works. In my marriage we don’t tell each other how much can be spent on such things. But we do discuss it and at times bring up things which we feel isn’t right. And then in public my wife will make comments just like those made by Mrs. Patterson.

    That doesn’t mean Mr. doesn’t dole out money weekly and set allowances but I would not jump to that conclusion based on her public comments.

  18. Hi, Lynn.

    Were it your wife who made this comment publicly we would not be having this conversation.

    It’s just that Pattersons & Co. have loaded their personnas with female discrimination as a virtue (all prettied-up with claims to godliness). They have invited such interpretations and commentary on their relationship.

    These people (CBMWlians) have made universal male authority and privilege and female submission, inhibition, and prohibition their life’s work, in a crusade fashion. It is more important than anything Jesus had to say. Were it possible to track sermon and speaking topics each week of those in their ilk, I would expect this to be very evident.

    It’s kind of like they have started their own mini-religion. They’ve certainly established quite the industry around it.

  19. Every now and then you folks boggle my mind. That was about as harmless a response to that question as I could imagine. And it was funny.

  20. This sounds like a classic case of Not Knowing How the Other Half Lives – and not really caring, either. (Maybe I’m being mean, but…)

  21. I could have phrased my comment more carefully. I really couldn’t possibly guess how their marriage works, even from their more carefully presented teachings. Indeed, If I were to guess, I’d guess that in general people who teach like this have some egalitarianism in their real life marriages. For example, a husband who draws up a hat budget might compromise on a specific over- budget hat in the interests of marital harmony. I think I was reminded of some “official” times of using trivial or rare examples to downplay concerns.
    “Life’s work, In a crusade fashion” and “more important than anything Jesus had to say”– great description! Since “life’s work” could also be called a “calling”, you remind me of another big beef I have with CBMW & Co.– frequent references to calling or called to in the context of fatherhood, womanhood, parenting, leadership, etc. Though I could say I’m called (non-crusade) to be a loving husband or parent, or to be a professor, or to be a janitor, etc none of these should be a “crusade fashion” calling. I did an exhaustive study of the over 50 specific NT descriptions of the Christian’s very high Calling. I found, without exception, that we’re called to 1: Christ Himself 2: His Gospel 3: Christ-likeness. If I missed any Calling TO any human relationships or work, I’m happy to be further enlightened.

  22. Joey

    I believe you are a male. I also imagine that you have never had to sit through insufferable women’s programs. Your comment shows the reason why some men have difficulty understanding why some women are frustrated with this sort of thing. It was not funny to me. In fact, I find it somewhat demeaning. Your amusement is not the point. But then again, aren’t you aware of a ministry that seems to equate bare countertops with godliness?

  23. “That is an argument that might be good to use with Dr. Patterson if he tightens the hat budget, which he does from time to time, but I am happy to report to you that in Florida I just met a man who said his wife died and she left sixty hats and he’s holding them for me. So we’re going to send a big van out to get those to replenish my supply because Dr. Patterson has cut off my hat allowance.” This actually sounds more like a joke to me than anything else.

  24. Anonymous
    Sometimes, things aren’t funny. Her husband has shown blatant disregard for domestic abuse, treated Sherri Klouda like dirt and has the missus, with her South African PhD, head up domestic studies at SWBTS, teaching woman how to arrange flowers. She then brags about eating midnight snacks with the likes of Yassar Arafat at Saddam Hussein’s palace. Can you imagine the people who have been harmed by these men? She is many things but she is NOT funny.

  25. Elastigirl

    Many women, from the time they are little, are told they must be submissive and respect the authority that is their husband. They never question the premise. Dorothy pretends she is the submissive little woman. However, she runs the Suzie Homemaker program at SWBTS and meets with shady characters (see Yassar Arafat) in her spare time. If this isn’t bizarre, I don’t know what is. It is a bunch of baloney.

  26. Dee – agreed!

    I am very thankful that I grew up in a denom where “submission” (in this sense) was never mentioned. I’ve always found this kind of thing bizarre, creepy and *not* a way I would ever want to live.

    And… this might sound odd to some, but I would far rather remain single than get into a marriage where I had to “submit” come hell or high water. (Again, “submit” in the way that CBMW advocates.) I don’t think I could do it, to be honest.

  27. Why don’t they just get it over with and insist that their women wear burkas from now on?

  28. Hi, Dee.

    Concerning my reference to the “women putting up with this nonsense”, I really saw it as not a punch line at all but as a true tragedy. Just couldn’t figure out a way to be clever with that thought.

    I wasn’t raised this way at all. However, — anyone remember School House Rock on Saturday mornings in the ’70s? — I do remember my mom really not liking the “Sufferin’ til Suffrage” episode (with the pony-tailed animated girl jumping and dancing around old b & w photos of Susan B. Anthony, Julia Howe, etc.) I never could understand why she felt that way — didn’t seem naughty to me. My 8 year old mind thought self-confident, effervescent girls and women were a fabulous thing. Maybe the singer sounded too much like Janis Joplin, which would have totally freaked my mom out. My parents were terrified and freaked out by the ’60s (both born in the 1930s, grew up in church, dad was an MK).

    Anyway, I also remember my mom reading the book “Ms Means Myself” — I remember seeing the cover, and I somehow understood it had something to do with women taking a back seat & the “godliness” of it, & the naughtiness of women being bold, confident, and strong (I actually haven’t read the book, so don’t know for sure). But that, too, seemed odd to my 8 year-oldness at the time. It bothered me, but these things were too grown up for me to be able to articulate my feelings.

    So, while my mom came from this mindset, I didn’t see it in our home (it was pretty egalitarian — except for the sex talk — my mom passed that one off to my dad completely & didn’t utter a peep or make any eye contact — oh it was awful).

    All in all, I’ve grown up with the reality that I’m a human being, my husband is a human being, we’re doing this thing together. No marriage proposal — we decided together.

    So — I’m totally monologuing here, & anyone reading is sure being patient and nice — I do know that some females grow up as you describe, Dee. And it’s so very wrong — totally incorrect — very bad for all. I’m just so glad I didn’t, and when I read things from the patriarchal camp, I get the feeling one has on a dark and stormy night & outside is so inhospitable, desperately cold, lonely, & uncomfortable, & you’re just so glad you’re inside, safe and cozy and warm — i’m just so SO darn glad that i’m safe and warm in mutual respect, & not subject to a complementarian / patriarchal existence.

    (although of course many are — & considering the tragedy of it, I’m not sure exactly what I can do about it)

    Here’s “Sufferin’ Till Suffrage”, for old times sake, if anyone’s interested:

  29. Pingback: Dorothy Patterson on 'Biblical' Head Coverings | The Wartburg Watch – Kingdom of God Worship Blogs

  30. Hi Dee

    If you’d like a PhD from UNISA, read the brochure here:
    UNISA is the premier long distance learning institution on the African continent and highly respected worldwide. Both my husband and my brother are UNISA graduates and worked hard for their qualifications.

    I realise your comment was meant ‘tongue in cheek’ but, as a South African, I can’t let it go unchallenged.

  31. Estelle

    Thank you for your comment.

    Could you help me with something? I have no doubt that you, as a South African, worked hard on your degree. But, I have heard that said institution gives all sorts of credits to those who have written books and are well-known speakers. Could there be a double standard in the degree granting?

    I find it interesting that Patterson, whose husband runs seminaries which grant doctorates, and she could even get a discount on the education, would decide to do long distance learning from half way around the world.

    Also, she lived near some major universities (Duke, UNC while in Wake Forest) and also lives near some fine institutions in the Dallas area. Very curious.

  32. Nickanme

    The scarf must be used for a quick head-covering when she is eating at the midnight buffets with Yassar Arafat types in Sadaam Hussein type palaces.

  33. Muff
    Have you ever watched The Duggars? The new burka is a long blue jean skirt because women must never, ever wear pants (she writes while wearing her adorable straight legged jeans from J Jill).

  34. Dee,

    I have not been through programs for women, that is true. I don’t think that has anything to do with whether Patterson’s response was winsome or not. I understand that folks will hear/read things different based on their own experiences, but it appears patently obvious that her answer was simply explaining why she wears hats all the time in a lighthearted, honest way. Also, she carefully avoided making it seem like there was anything biblical motivating her initially, and that she is simply fine with it communicating submission because it is good for her own soul.

    And yes, as you very well know, I am in SGM. I have heard mention of this clean counter tops thing. I didn’t read it, but I am inclined to believe that, much like this answer from Patterson, and many other examples on on the internet…something was written in an attempt to be helpful, or in answer to a question…and a segment of folks found ways to make it seem appalling. You don’t happen to have a link to what you referenced do you? I am curious.

  35. Hi, Joey.

    I have an honest question. It’s about “winsome”.

    I’ve heard the word “winsome” thrown around many, many times but only by christian men, no one else. To me, this is one of those obscure words that somehow gets plucked for common usage & somehow catches on (like in the ’80s when “radical”, shortened to “rad” was used to refer to anything remotely cool).

    When christian men use this word, what exactly to they mean? How & through whom did this become such a desirable word to use?

    Simply curious.

  36. Count me among the curious, too…

    Merriam-Webster says:

    1 : generally pleasing and engaging often because of a childlike charm and innocence <a winsome smile>
    2 : cheerful, lighthearted
    — win·some·ly adverb
    — win·some·ness noun

  37. Interesting question…I don’t hear it used much I guess. I know mom used it while I was growing up a bit. Mostly in terms of speech (being winsome in presenting the gospel, as opposed to combative…stuff like that). I can’t really answer for the way christian men use it…just me. I most often use it in a very similar way to the word ‘disarming’.

    I have no idea why you would have only heard it from christian men. Sorry I don’t have a better answer.

  38. Joey @ 11:10,

    Perfect answer! You are right on. I really think people way over analyze stuff sometimes. Then they start assigning motives to people they don’t even know.

  39. Shato
    How much do you know of the Pattersons? Are you familiar with their take on domestic abuse, the Sherri Klouda incident or the domestic studies program? How about their midnight buffet with Yassar Arafat? But maybe this is all “winsome” as defined by SGM?

  40. Long blue jean skirts are acceptable? No skin showing, no ankles, calves or feet right? I’m guessing painted toenails would be a sign of a Jezebel whore right?

  41. A family member attended FBC Dallas Academy during the time Paige was at Criswell. He spoke at chapel and had Dorothy come wearing a big hat. He said the reason she wears hats is to show everyone she is submissive to her husband. She encouraged the girls present that when they married to choose a symbol–such as a hat to show the world they were submissive and walked behind their husbands. The family member thoughtit a huge joke and said the students generally thought it all very weird. I suspect Dorothy rules the roost at home, but it is all about the image! Wish I knew more of the details–date, etc. of that chapel service.

  42. Shato,

    “I really think people way over analyze stuff sometimes. Then they start assigning motives to people they don’t even know.”

    No one is over-analyzing Dorothy Patterson. She said what she said. It’s all there in black and white above. No one needs to assign her motives – she made them quite clear.

    Nana said, “The family member thought it a huge joke and said the students generally thought it all very weird.” I hope it’s still true that students think it’s all very weird, because unfortunately, the Pattersons are in a position of influencing many. Thanks for sharing that, Nana.

  43. Nana

    Whoo hooo! Thank you for making my point. All of these folks who believe that the Missus was being humorous and self abasing need to read what you wrote. It was patently obvious to this woman what she was driving at.

  44. Wendy

    Certain people have been entrained in the SGM way of viewing the role of women and have a very difficult time reading the intent of some of these leaders.

  45. Muff
    Did you ever see our pictures of the cheerleaders at Bob Jones? They wear jean jackets to cover up their arms. Only a Jezebel wears short sleeves.

  46. Dee,

    Should we consider an addendum to this post featuring nana’s comment? It really does prove the point of the post.

  47. See how the monies are being spent by the 1% , who also claims that everyone who doesn’t accept their Jesus are going to burn in hell. Give Me a break … 160,000 people die a day in this world, of them, 90-95% are going to hell and the Elite are talking about Hair and Hats. What a Scarf.

    Also consider the Dress Allowance, Shoe Allowance, Jewelry Allowance, the Unmentionables Allowance, Makeup Allowance, Dining with the Gals Allowance, Travel Allowance….. these are high maintenance gals, know their way around these High Spending Husbands.

    Like, oh that hat, I’ve had it for years, as they put it aside until enough time has lapsed to bring it out.

    Do you believe for one moment that the Safari Animal Hunter, Dog Loving Paige Patterson cut his wife’s Hat Allowance? and just as this question if happens to pop up? Seams to be a set up.

    Women have their ways of getting even….. when the men put the squeeze on.

    So much for the Lost!

  48. I think Mrs Patterson wears hats to hide her very slight independent streak.

    Kidding aside, she probably should have just answered the question with, “I like hats.”

  49. Marg
    She answered the way that she did because she really does believe the hat is a good idea for showing submission. The Pattersons always have an agenda.

  50. TopHat

    You know about the Safari Hunting Patterson? I am impressed. You are right, they live large and spend lots of money. Did you know that there is an orphanage that is supported by the SBC right near his hunting grounds? Guess he can visit the orphanage and call it a mission and then go blow of the head of some beautiful animal and hang it on the walls of his office in Texas.

  51. Personally, I have met biligerent women with coverings or long hair and kind women like my mom with very short hair. Let’s judge people by the content of their character as the Martin Luther King Jr. would say.

  52. Dee, in respect to submission, this issue really has to do with with willingness to be flexible in relationships. As a counselor, I have met some strong women in independent professional roles that are also respecting of their husbands. They have their own mind, jobs, roles, but they listen and regard their husbands minds as well. The current extreme that I am seeing with the elder led (be submissive) movement seems to be more a kneejerk reaction to postmodernism rather than looking at matters and thinking them out with careful forethought.

  53. One must always keep in mind that the primary passage about wives submitting to husbands immediately follows a directive that all Christians should be submissive to each other. That does not establish a superior-inferior relationship. And immediately after the wives submit, it says that the husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church — i.e., be willing to die for her, as in yielding his own desire to live for her needs. Also does not sound like a superior-inferior relationship.

    Our language does not respect the meaning of the bible when we use the word “submission” and turns it into an abusive relationship of authority rather than a spirit of cooperation and love.

  54. Thank you, Arce, for calling attention to Ephesians 5:21. It helped me make a very interesting observation.

    I went to Bible Gateway to compare the various translations of Ephesians 5:21-33, and I discovered that some versions like ESV, KJV, NKJV, and NASB divide Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22 with a sub-heading like “Wives and Husbands” (ESV) or “Marriage – Christ and the Church” (NKJV).

    In all fairness, the NIV and other more contemporary translations add sub-headings as well, placing it just before Ephesians 5:21.

    The Apostle Paul didn’t divide his letter in this manner. Here is how his letter to the Ephesians reads, as featured in the 21st Century King James Version:

    Ephesians 5:21-33 (KJ21)

    “…submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord; for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, and He is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He hat loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself, and the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

    I am wondering whether adding such sub-tibles where they do not exist is in reality adding to scripture.

  55. Dee,

    I only read this article about Dorothy Patterson….I know absolutely nothing about her.(in fact, I doubt I’d be a Paige Patterson fan at all) I refuse to pick on someone because of their choice of attire. It was an impromptu answer on her part and I don’t think people should over analyze it.

    Believe me, I am not the feminine submissive type. However, I can respect people who have that preference. Because that is what it is and I do think that “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” is very good advice.

  56. Shato

    Please read Nana’s comment. We happen to know that Patterson does believe that a hat is a way to show submission. This answer was no more impromptu than many of Mahaney’s statements. They are born of an underlying belief system. Nana knows of the time when Patterson said what we claim she meant by her remarks. We stand by our assessment..

  57. Shato,

    I respectfully disagree. I believe the question was scripted, giving Dorothy Patterson the opportunity to advance her view on submission.