Head Coverings on the Rise: The Angels Are Watching You

It is not because angels are holier than men or devils that makes them angels, but because they do not expect holiness from one another, but from God only. William Blake link.

Nevil Diman-Wikicommons-AngelNevil Dimon Wikicommons

When Deb and I visited a Sovereign Grace Church around 5 years ago, we noticed that several women wore head coverings during  the church service. We had become acquainted with SGM through the SGM Survivors blog and were not terribly surprised.

Dorothy Patterson and hats

Around the same time, we learned that Mrs. Doctor Dorothy Patterson wears a hat. In fact, we eventually wrote a post about her opinion on head coverings called Dorothy Patterson on Biblical Head Coverings. Here is an excerpt from the post.

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.

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.

One might be tempted to say that Mrs. Patterson is just an elderly lady who likes hats, so what's the big deal? TWW believes that gender roles are being elevated to primary doctrine. Such doctrine will include issues like men being in authority over women and men being the leader in the home. As these doctrines get pushed, we believe that issues, such as head coverings, which were relegated to the cultural trash heap, will make a comeback. It will be important for those who really, really believe these doctrines to make a public statement of their adherence. They might even get a speaking slot at the next conference!

The Bayly brothers like head coverings because it exemplifies a "real" woman.

On July 17, 2013 the Baylyblog published A Good Resource on Christian Headcovering in Worship here. Speaking about the fact that his wife, Mary, wears a head covering in church, Tim Bayly says:

Mary Lee and I began this practice and commend it to each of you who are married. It is a clear confession of the Christian faith to postmoderns who are so twisted by our culture that they find themselves most comfortable with femininity in men (doubting themselves, using hedge words and phrases, wearing jewelry, abdicating authority, shedding tears, being vain in their appearance) and masculinity in women (taking leadership and authority, working out, getting ripped, teaching men, playing soldier, playing cop, playing pastor, being brash).

What constitutes gender bending according to Bayly?

So, women who ignore their roles commit such gender sins of:

  • ​Getting ripped (muscles, that is)
  • Playing cop and soldier
  • Being brash

Men who ignore their roles commit such gender sins of:

  • Shedding tears
  • Wearing jewelry
  • Caring about their appearance

According to the Bayly post, 20% of the women in their church wear head coverings. I pity the 80% who do not. Bayly then says:

Break out of your conformity to the androgynous patterns of our evil world. Be handsome and beautiful. Be man and wife. Take your manhood and womanhood to corporate worship this week and use them there to glorify God.

RC Sproul: The doctrinal leader in the head covering movement

So, is Tim Bayly coming up with this on his own? Of course not. He quotes RC Sproul as his evidence.

One blog, The Voice of One Crying Out in Suburbia link

 I like a lot of what he (Sproul) has to say here and his wife Vespa wears a hat in the corporate gathering of the church. He points out that the revolt against women covering their heads corresponded with the general revolt against the headship of the husband in the family. Little wonder that as men abandoned their leadership in the home and church, women filled the vacuum and stopped covering their heads along with taking over leadership in the church and home.

The blog Modesty:The Forgotten Virtue link documents some other quotes by RC Sproul on the matter. Here are a couple.

Head Coverings Are Required  for Women: “One’s dress reflects the principles that one lives by . . . . even our exterior must conform to the order that God has established, especially in matters pertaining to public worship. The apostle makes the point that the veil [a.k.a. head covering], as a symbol of authority, is inconsistent with the position of the man, but it is required for women, who are subordinate to men.” (18 June 1996)

The Head Covering Is God’s Command: “While [Charles] Hodge says that women should conform to the ‘rules of decorum,’ it must be maintained that these rules, regarding the worship of God, are established by God Himself not by the whims of culture. It is proper for a woman to have a symbol of authority upon her head; what that symbol consists of does not matter, but the necessity of the symbol remains fixed even as the authority of man remains fixed. . . . As in all things regarding worship, we must strive to be conformed to God’s regulations in all things, no matter how seemingly insignificant.” (21 June 1996)

Not surprisingly, a blog called The Head Covering Movement has recently been launched. They quote directly from Sproul on their homepage

The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church…? – R.C. Sproul

RC Sproul Jr gets in on the act

They quote from RC Sproul Jr on the subject as well.

I have never met a Christian husband or wife who regretted having his wife cover her head when gathered for corporate worship. I have met Christian husbands and wives who regret not having done so earlier.

Women must wear hats because of the angels!

Now, here is where it gets interesting. According Charles Spurgeon, women must cover their heads because of the angels!

The apostle says a woman is to have a covering because of the angels because the angels are present in the assembly and they mark every act of decorum.

Here is the "proof text" 1 Corinthians 11:7-10 NIV-Gateway

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 did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.

It is OK to build a doctrine on a "vague verse."

In a section on the head covering blog they wrote the Why Head Coverings? Reason #2 Angels link they say 

Since this is a very short and vague verse, there’s no way we can know with absolute certainty what it means. However, there are many Scriptures about angels that I believe shed light on this passage. Through examining them we’re going to end up with two possible conclusions to explain this verse. Both conclusions could be right as they don’t contradict each other, but it may be only one that Paul had meant.

Here is where it gets rather bizarre.

They see enemies of God now worshiping because they’re forgiven and redeemed. They see Jews and Gentiles worshiping together as members of one another in unity. They see males and females worshiping together as equals. On top of all that through head coverings our women show all present that their position as a woman is also redeemed. No longer are they at war usurping and longing for the mans position of authority (Gen 3:16). Instead they’re content in the role God ordained for them in Genesis 2.

The men likewise through their bare heads communicate that they will exercise authority in their respective roles. However, no longer will it be through domineering (Gen 3:16) or being passive like the first Adam. Their position as a man is also redeemed.

The angels with their jaws dropped must cry out as they watch this, “behold the manifold wisdom of God!”

Women wear hats because the angels will be reporting on you to God.

Did you think that it was odd to read comments at SGM Survivors that Sovereign Grace Ministry care group leaders were to make reports to the pastors about the meetings? You ain't seen nothing yet!

So in summary, if God is primarily concerned with the angels benefit, then this reason means one or two things. It would be an appeal to not offend the angels by our disobedience or a command to accurately show them a picture of the created order. If on the other hand God is primarily concerned with our benefit, then this is a warning as a means of accountability. God would be graciously reminding us that the angels are watching us worship and bringing our prayers before Him (Rev 8:3-4). They will let Him know if we’re obeying this command or not.

Keep an eye out for the rise of the head covering movement. We predict it might become the latest trend to mark the really, really dedicated, gospel women.  Remember, the angels are watching and reporting…

Lydia's Corner: 2 Chronicles 14:1-16:14 Romans 9:1-24 Psalm 19:1-14 Proverbs 20:1

Comments

Head Coverings on the Rise: The Angels Are Watching You — 320 Comments

  1. So I can fight my innate usurping nature by the application of a gospel hat? Such depth of insight 🙂

  2. Loved the Blake quote Dee! When you get the chance, google-up his engravings and water colors with the book of Job as subject. They are striking and evocative.

  3. I imagine that even now a wannabe celebrity conference speaker is crafting his first book, hoping it vaults him into instant contention for one of the speaker slots at the next gospelly conference. The title: Gospel Centered Head Coverings!

  4. PREEposterous.

    wish I had more to say.

    just noticed “headcoveringmovement.com”, a new website, is owned & operated solely by a man. (i regret giving him publicity here)

  5. Being a never married lady has its advantages, I guess. I wouldn’t be expected to wear a hat.

    They really are fixated on making rules for married women, though.

    Somewhere I have an old baseball cap with cartoon mice Pinky and the Brain on it. I’d love to go to one of those churches with my P&B cap on backwards.

    I think the hat thing mentioned in the New Testament was only for a particular culture and time period. I seriously doubt that the apostle expected all women in all eras to wear a hat for theological purposes.

    It’s sad how Jesus came to liberate people from strict rule-following, but Christians are eager to dump rules on people.

  6. I can’t even.

    Thanks, Beakerj…comic relief! I instantly thought of you running hither and thither usurping at will. Right there with ya, hon.

  7. @ TW:

    Wow! They now have something new to talk about! And they can reach their book-writing quota for their publishing contracts. Headcoverings saves the day!

  8. It’s really simple. First they made the women do silly things to show how important and in charge they are. Next they do it to the men. Women’s issues may be women’s issues but those who want to keep women down want just as much to keep men who aren’t in the inner sanctum down. Men, the first sign of a church that wants to keep you down is a church that wants to keep your wife down. They’ll make you feel good about your “strong” masculinity, then beat you up over your “rebellious spirit” and “sinful pride.”

  9. Bayly says “Take your manhood and womanhood to corporate worship this week and use them there to glorify God.” What the … ? I have never, ever, left my womanhood at home for any reason, at any time. What say you men? Are you in the habit of leaving your manhood at home?
    This whole gender role discussion has gone beyond the point of hilarity. But I will admit that as a single woman who dates (yes, that’s right, I date, I don’t court)this doctrine is beginning to present problems for me as most of the eligible men I have met in non-denom settings are buying this hogwash hook, line, and sinker. Heavy sigh …

  10. Regarding the guy with the “head covering movement” site (I’m in the process of skimming over its pages).

    Either he is totally nuts, or, let me guess, does he now, or does he in the future plan to, sell hats on his site?

    I’ve looked over his site and don’t see a page selling hats. Maybe he’ll add that later.

  11. Beakerj wrote:

    So I can fight my innate usurping nature by the application of a gospel hat? Such depth of insight

    Conversely, I can display my rebellious nature simply by *not* wearing a hat? I’m there!

    Seriously, I remember hearing about this several years ago and the first thought I had was, “I just don’t believe Jesus died so that I would have to wear a scarf on my head at church.” It’s so silly.

    As my husband predicted years ago of the SBC: First it’s the pulpit-pounders vs. the non-pulpit-pounders. Then it’s the right-handed pulpit-pounders vs. the left-handed pulpit-pounders. Then it’s the blue-eyed right-handed pulpit-pounders vs. the brown-eyed right-handed pulpit-pounders. And so on, and so on. You keep having to invent ways to be better than somebody.

  12. Modest Millenary movement? 0-o I guess they needed to find something new to sell people when the book and conference revenues decline. Holy Haberdashery, perhaps? 😉 How about Gospel Garb? 🙂 They’re creeping toward LDS, looks to me.

  13. Lori wrote:

    What the … ? I have never, ever, left my womanhood at home for any reason, at any time.

    I just saw a page about something similar to that on the CBE site.

    I think this might be it:
    Femininity

    I am female. I cannot become “more female”. Unless I were in the process of gender reassignment or was afflicted with a rare chromosomal abnormality, my gender is not a graded scale; it is a black and white, only-two-options phenomena, determined by my chromosomes.

    So- if I am as “female” as I am ever going to be, why would I waste time trying to be more female, or more “feminine?”

    It would seem rather silly, unless of course I equated “truly feminine” with an external checklist of subjective or objective qualities and attributes my adherence to which determined my femininity.

  14. I’ve heard the angels-are-watching-you thing before. It’s hardly solid, based on just a little passing reference at end of a vs. That whole passage is notoriously slippery and unclear (even when comps interpret it) so who knows.

    He is right (to my knowledge) that head coverings are a longstanding historical practice but that doesn’t automatically validate them. Honestly I was more shocked to hear Sproul Sr. being so insistent – I figured you were talking about Jr. until I got to his distinct section.

    What’s actually more disturbing is that the Bayly brothers think it’s effeminate for men to cry and wear jewelry. Do watches not count as “jewelry” anymore? You take them to a jeweler to get fixed, after all. And Jesus did what outside Lazarus’ tomb? Think hard, now. Hint: it’s the shortest verse in the Bible.

    The correct answer is, of course, that Jesus was a sissified weenie girly-man wussypants. That’s why He was able to endure several hours of being beaten, whipped and nailed to a cross. Duh!

  15. I notice R.C. Sproul makes specific mention of “fabric” head coverings (what else would it be?). I wonder how long it will take for them to determine what color it must be.

    Oh my… when will men stop spending so much time and energy (and scripture twisting) trying to convince women how to behave; how to dress; how and where to speak; and how to prove they are under someone’s authority?

  16. Daisy wrote:

    Somewhere I have an old baseball cap with cartoon mice Pinky and the Brain on it. I’d love to go to one of those churches with my P&B cap on backwards.

    “NARF!!!”

  17. On head coverings in my church (RCC)…

    I only see them occasionally at St Boniface, at least in the English-language Mass. The head covering is usually some sort of lace veil, like a large doily draped over the head like a mantle. The women wearing them appear to be very old or Mexican/Central American ethnics. My guess is head-coverings were either an older custom which fell out of practice after Vatican II, a tradition in some Latin American cultures, or both. Either way, nowadays either covered or uncovered heads are acceptable.

  18. Hester wrote:

    What’s actually more disturbing is that the Bayly brothers think it’s effeminate for men to cry and wear jewelry. Do watches not count as “jewelry” anymore? You take them to a jeweler to get fixed, after all.

    At last my hours of watching The History Channel get put to use! One some History Channel show I was watching (probably Pawn Stars or the Pickers), a small tid bit that was tossed out is that when wrist watches were introduced in the United States, men refused to wear them because they were considered feminine.

    Men had to be convinced to wear them, and they eventually did.

    History of the Wrist Watch

    Wristlets, as they were called, were reserved for women, and considered more of a passing fad than a serious timepiece. In fact, they were held in such disdain that many a gentlemen were actually quoted to say they “would sooner wear a skirt as wear a wristwatch”.

    … The established watchmaking community looked down on them as well.

    … This all started to change in the nineteenth century, when soldiers discovered their usefulness during wartime situations.

    I think that serves as a good reminder that some things we regard as masculine or feminine have their origins in cultural preferences and are not necessarily rooted in biblical concepts.

  19. Daisy wrote:

    Being a never married lady has its advantages, I guess. I wouldn’t be expected to wear a hat.
    They really are fixated on making rules for married women, though.

    Though I doubt the preachers in question have any sense of history, didn’t married Roman women wear a distinctive headcovering/mantle and claim the title “Matron”?

  20. Daisy, that’s interesting about wrist watches! Don’t some men in Europe carry handbags? Manly ones, of course.

  21. emr wrote:

    As my husband predicted years ago of the SBC: First it’s the pulpit-pounders vs. the non-pulpit-pounders. Then it’s the right-handed pulpit-pounders vs. the left-handed pulpit-pounders. Then it’s the blue-eyed right-handed pulpit-pounders vs. the brown-eyed right-handed pulpit-pounders. And so on, and so on. You keep having to invent ways to be better than somebody.

    Then it’s the blue-eyed right-handed pulpit pounders who crack their eggs at the large end vs. the blue-eyed right-handed pulpit pounders who crack their eggs at the small end…

    First the Heathen, then the Heretics.
    What do predators eat after they’ve killed off all the prey?

  22. Before Vatican II RCC women wore head coverings at mass, frequently a chapel veil or mantilla. I checked out some Catholic web sites, and there is apparently a movement among some lay Catholic women to wear head covering at mass, even though the Church no longer requires it. As far as I can tell, it did not have anything to do with actually being married, and it applied to all women and girl children.

    So now some Protestants want to re-purpose an older Catholic practice, re-imagine it as an indication of marriage, and market the idea. Well, it would certainly show who is married and who is not, according to their new idea of meaning. Another way to put down singles? Well, at least another way for married women to feel superior. This sounds a little like lengthening the tassels on one’s prayer shawl. Like doing ones works to be seen on men.

    Oh, hey, there could be a prayer shawl movement, and then a direct sales company to sell fabric related righteousness indicators including veils, shawls, prayer handkerchiefs and such. Monogramming extra. They could even be blessed by one of the great ones (for an extra fee) before being committed to the UPS or such for overnight delivery (before the blessing wears off.)

    You got to laugh or else you will cry at what we are coming to.

  23. I’m still reading the Head Covering Movement site.

    Good news, married ladies! He at least only insists you wear a hat or veil while in church services, and not, say, when you’re showering, gardening, or asleep in bed.

    Though he is totally down with Christians who d feel a married lady has to have her head covered 24/7 (all the time, in private and in public/church). (But isn’t keeping a woman covered constantly or in public an Islamic sharia burka thing?)

    Where are Head Coverings to be Practiced? In Church or Everywhere?

    His note at the end:

    *Note: Though this is our official position, we respect those who understand that this should not be limited to the local church gathering. Women who cover outside of church will not be treated differently then those who don’t on this site. We extend charity to you and hope you will extend it back to us in this matter.

    I’m curious how much charity is there for women (or men) who think making head coverings binding on all married women in all societies today is a lot of hooey? 😆

  24. I just wonder how much of this is just echoing wider cultural trends and then putting a theological spin on it.

    I know that in Australia women stopped wearing hats in church in the 1960’s about the same time that they stopped wearing hats in other places. Then since the turn of the century we have been wearing hats more in public to protect from skin cancer. So hats are again the norm.

    That would be interesting because after all it was a cultural issue in Corinth that led to the scripture requiring women to have their heads covered.

  25. Men who ignore their roles commit such gender sins of:
    • Shedding tears

    Deb, Dee, everybody (Godwin’s Law Alert):

    That brought up a memory-flashback of a scene from a WW2 movie I saw as a kid. Movie was probably made in the Forties, appeared to have been set in Germany, and illustrates such Hypermasculinity on steroids. Here’s the scene, as best as I can remember it:

    Kid has come home from a Hitler Youth event in uniform. Father keeps slapping him across the face, harder and harder each time, trying to make him cry, show some emotion, something. Kid never cries; after each slap, with completely dry eyes, he proclaims “Heil Hitler!” As the slaps get harder, the kid’s Heils get louder.

    The scene was obviously to show the dehumanizing conditioning of the Nazi regime. Interesting how a scene staged to demonstrate conditioning into inhuman Evil (The Gospel According to Mein Kampf?) in 1940-something uses the same hypermasculine response (dry-eyed “Witnessing”) as these Bayly Bros’ claim for Gospelly Manhood in 2010-something.

  26. Victorious wrote:

    Daisy, that’s interesting about wrist watches! Don’t some men in Europe carry handbags? Manly ones, of course.

    One of the manliest protagonists in all of Stephen King’s literary works, Roland of Gilead, carries a purse.

  27. @ Victorious:

    Yeah, there was some trend in Europe a few years ago for men to carry “man purses,” and I think the trend of men using man bags came to the United States, at least for a few years – and I think this was around ten years ago? I think Time magazine or New York Times did a page about it, it got to be so popular.

    Or maybe the trend re-emerged. I found this 2011 page about it:
    Rise of the Man Purse

    There was also a trend of men starting to get manicures, use toner on their skin, to care about their complexions, and so on, and men that were into that were called “metro[T]exual.”

  28. Hester wrote:

    And Jesus did what outside Lazarus’ tomb? Think hard, now. Hint: it’s the shortest verse in the Bible.

    Hester – I was going to ask everyone if I could take this one up, but you beat me to it. I’ll do this one instead:

    On that day,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ declares the Lord Almighty.

    And:

    But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.

    Besides, I’m less concerned about women who play pastor than about (usually male) entrepreneurs and motivational speakers who play pastor. Or “bible teacher”. They’re meddling in things that are beyond their divinely-appointed gifting, and it shows. Each time, for instance, they come out with this kind of shite.

  29. Nancy wrote:

    Well, it would certainly show who is married and who is not, according to their new idea of meaning. Another way to put down singles? Well, at least another way for married women to feel superior.

    I guess it could be a put down of sorts to single ladies, but as a single (never married) woman myself, I kind of laugh, because I would not want to wear a hat in a church service. I view this as being one of the very few times unmarried ladies come out on top of things. 🙂

  30. 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

    And therein lies the rub. The neo-Calvinists are very much concerned with this “creation order” business because they have no knowledge of any new creation. Is it really possible to have met the risen Christ and still be that obsessed with the Law?

    P.S. my last comment is in moderation, but check it out – it’s brilliant.

  31. Bayly then says:

    Break out of your conformity to the androgynous patterns of our evil world.

    “Androgynous”?
    As in “no clear distinction between male and female”?
    Or just a new Christianese word for “Faggy(TM)”?

  32. Daisy wrote:

    There was also a trend of men starting to get manicures, use toner on their skin, to care about their complexions, and so on, and men that were into that were called “metro[T]exual.”

    When South Park dedicates an entire episode to your Trend(TM), that should tell you something.

  33. Moxie wrote:

    It all just gets weirder and weirder.

    “It just keeps getting Weirder and Weirder…”
    — Adventures of Johnny Bravo, “Date with an Antelope”

    “When the going gets weird, The Weird Turn Pro.”
    — Hunter S Thompson

  34. I’m still just a little bemused by these two items listed as men forgetting their masculinity: “doubting themselves, using hedge words and phrases.”

    Doubting themselves. Like thinking just maybe they aren’t right all the time.

    Hedge words and phrases. Like “I think” or “I believe” rather than just stating your position like it was Fact and Truth.

    Last I checked, those were traits of– you guessed it, humility. Apparently it’s unmanly to be humble. Once humility has been relegated to the effeminate, then there are no checks on human pride– if you happen to be male. Insisting on head coverings is simply the next symptom of this disease to manifest.

  35. TW wrote:

    I imagine that even now a wannabe celebrity conference speaker is crafting his first book, hoping it vaults him into instant contention for one of the speaker slots at the next gospelly conference. The title: Gospel Centered Head Coverings!

    Hmm, I rather like the title “I Kissed Bare Heads Goodbye”.

  36. Victorious wrote:

    I notice R.C. Sproul makes specific mention of “fabric” head coverings (what else would it be?). I wonder how long it will take for them to determine what color it must be.

    I noticed that too. Who knows? Maybe the Coneheads will make a comeback.

    I also like the hats that the guys from Devo used to wear–the ones with the different levels? Each level of the hat could symbolize increasing levels of sanctification and approval garnered from the angels by virtue of wearing the hat — er, uh, I mean head covering.

  37. Re “man purse”, Jerry Seinfeld says, “It’s not a purse, it’s European!”

    Maybe Mrs. Doctor Dorothy Patterson should wear an apron to church along with her hat to show she’s under her husband’s authority because a single woman may also show up with a hat and then what is Mrs. Doctor Dorothy Patterson proving?

    It’s all so silly. The Bible says, “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. – Romans 14:1-2

    Or in this case, “One woman’s faith allows her to go hatless, but another woman, whose faith is weak, wears hats.”

  38. So. If I want to look good, and do P90x and have good muscle definition, that’s…….bad.

  39. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    The neo-Calvinists are very much concerned with this “creation order” business because they have no knowledge of any new creation.

    Great insight!

  40. @ Victorious: Men ahve been carrying “shoulder bags” (really, various sorts of satchels and messenger bags) in Europe for decades now. But then, most kids have school satchels, so I don’t think it’s any great leap from that to other kinds of satchels.

    the bottom line: it’s practical. i’m willing to bet that the US messenger bag trend comes from Americans finally having noticed that European men carry bags.

  41. @ Nancy: Err… there *is* a prayer shawl movement. I 1st became aware of it back in the 90s. At that time, it was mainly a Third Wave/New Apostolic Reformation fad, but it’s spread.

  42. @ Nancy:

    You should read some of the garbage Catholic women come up with in trying to force other Catholic women to do what they do. Oh, there are men involved but it’s more women’s focus.

    In the Catholic Church under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, women were required to wear a headcovering, which at least in the 20th century was a hat. Mantillas, the lace veils of Spanish origin, came in to fashion with Jackie Kennedy in the 60s. At least in that point in time ,most women wore hats while out in publuc soit was not a big deal. Then, fashion changed. And a (well I can’t remember if he was a monsignor or a bishop) made the remark that headcovering was a custom and not a law (it’s in a Vatican paper titled or least beginning with “Inter…”) and women quit headcovering. The 1983 Code of Canon Law no longer required women to headcover so no woman does unless they choose to and it is a private devotion. Eastern Orthodox still require headcoveting, I believe but it is the Church that requires it, not lay people but only for Divine Liturgy.

    However, I have seen some logical gymnastics performed by some to say that headcovering is still in force. Yet, since the Catholic Church hasn’t said anything, it is up to personal choice. You also can hear about hiw girls who forgot their chapel hat would wear a Kleenex pinned to their hair. I’ve even heard of one instance where a girl wore a glove on their head. The letter of the law was deemed more important than the spirit. Many women who grew up during the 60s and earlier are grateful that the requirement to headcover is gone.

    There are differences in mantilla color: white for unmarried, black for married. Again, the mantilla came from Spain and was passed on to who are now Mexicans. Also to point out, headcovering depended on culture. I wish I remembered who but in one culture unmarried women went around with their hair uncovered but when they got married they got a special covering and it might have changed upon widowhood.

    Also to point out, the Scripture verse that everyone pulls out to support headcovering was specific to a time and place where Paul was pointing out that pagans who worshipped in a specific temple wore their hair uncovered and that these Christian women shouldn’t so as to be different and yet at the end of the passage says they don’t have a custom of headcovering (the major problem I always see is they never read the passage, only the prooftexts they want).

  43. It’s funny: I never get the urge to cuss until I read nonsense like this. Head coverings . . . What’s next — “The Length of One’s Hair Movement.com”? (1 Cor. 11:14-15) I’m not sure what religion these folks are practicing (some Amish-esque folk religion with Calvinism thrown in for good measure), but it doesn’t exactly resemble redemptive, re-creation New Testament Christianity.

    (I’ve been gone for a bit. It’s great to be back. Work has been insane.)

  44. Daisy wrote:

    “Head Coverings on the Rise: The Angels Are Watching You”
    If that is true, it’s kind of creepy. And angels need to develop some new hobbies.

    Crikey! Not only is ceiling cat watching me, so are the angels! Other totally true gospelly orthodox doctrine that I learned this evening: God isn’t omniscient and omnipresent after all. He needs angels to watch us and tattle on us when we’re naughty.

    Kindakrunchy wrote:

    So. If I want to look good, and do P90x and have good muscle definition, that’s…….bad.

    Yes.

    …they find themselves most comfortable with femininity in men (doubting themselves, using hedge words and phrases, wearing jewelry, abdicating authority, shedding tears, being vain in their appearance)

    As a person whose 5ex and gender are clearly male, but whose gender expression would never be mistaken to be hyper-masculine, I feel that I should show my support. While I won’t be wearing a watch because I can’t stand stuff on my wrists, I’ll don a hat and throw on a necklace for good measure. Unfortunately, my workplace requires a professional appearance, so piercings are right out (sadly, because that would be fun!). Instead, I’ll have to content myself with spending a bit more time reining in my cuticles each week. 😀

  45. I really do hope the Baylys turn out to be some kind of elaborate long-form performance art project. The alternative – that they really believe the things they say – is so depressing that it makes me want to, er, shed tears…

  46. William Birch wrote:

    It’s funny: I never get the urge to cuss until I read nonsense like this. Head coverings . . . What’s next — “The Length of One’s Hair Movement.com”? (1 Cor. 11:14-15) I’m not sure what religion these folks are practicing (some Amish-esque folk religion with Calvinism thrown in for good measure), but it doesn’t exactly resemble redemptive, re-creation New Testament Christianity.

    Couldn’t you say, though, that hair length legalism ebbs and flows? Long hair on men was taboo for a while, though it’s acceptable in a larger number of churches at the moment. Of course, if one goes back a few hundred years, one readily finds pictures of men – including ministers – with long, flowing, fabulous wigs! So, obviously, it wasn’t always taboo.

    The area of taboos concerning short hair for women is something about which I am regretfully under-informed. I know some fundamentalist pentecostal movements stress that the cutting of women’s “glory” (hair) is forbidden. Like you, I wonder if or when this trend will hit the neo-calvinista tribe.

  47. @ Josh:

    Good one! I won’t mention the name of a prominent Southern Baptist Greek professor who thinks that all men should wear beards (he said so in class). My thought: Hey, just add that one to the already long list of other legalistic things I have to do in order to be considered holy and biblical.

    Yeah . . . and I’ve lost tons of sleep about it, too. 😀

  48. William Birch wrote:

    Good one! I won’t mention the name of a prominent Southern Baptist Greek professor who thinks that all men should wear beards (he said so in class). My thought: Hey, just add that one to the already long list of other legalistic things I have to do in order to be considered holy and biblical.
    Yeah . . . and I’ve lost tons of sleep about it, too. 😀

    It pains me to say this, but his position has more scripshrull support than that of the fundamentalist Baptists of my youth, who maintained that beards were rebellious and un-scripshrull.

    Heh, it seems the only way to protest this one is to groom one’s facial hair in a way that involves shaving part of the face. 😛

  49. William Birch wrote:

    Good one! I won’t mention the name of a prominent Southern Baptist Greek professor who thinks that all men should wear beards (he said so in class).

    That anything like the pre-Peter the Great reason Russian men wore long beards? They thought that God had a beard and made Men in God’s image with beards, and that shaving off your beard was blasphemy. (Personally, I think they reasoned backwards from the fact they had beards…)

  50. William Birch wrote:

    It’s funny: I never get the urge to cuss until I read nonsense like this. Head coverings . . . What’s next — “The Length of One’s Hair Movement.com”? (1 Cor. 11:14-15)

    I remember that being fought over during The Sixties — including pictures of Jesus with short hair (since He couldn’t have worn his hair long like Those Hippies…)

  51. Sergius Martin-George wrote:

    Victorious wrote:

    I notice R.C. Sproul makes specific mention of “fabric” head coverings (what else would it be?). I wonder how long it will take for them to determine what color it must be.

    I noticed that too. Who knows? Maybe the Coneheads will make a comeback.

    Taking the Gospel to Remulak (which is a small town in France — We Are From France…)?

  52. The most logical explanation of I Cor. 11:7-10 that I have seen thus far has been that of Cheryl Schatz. Her blog, mmoutreach.org/wim contains a wealth of information regarding women in ministry. She exegetes every passage in the Bible having to do with men and women and their relationship to each other. Her writing and dvd’s exhibit graciousness and humility.

    When I read Dee’s post, I went to Cheryl’s site so that I could copy and paste her interpretation regarding the head covering passage. It was there that I learned that she has cancer and is asking for prayer. Please lift this dear, sweet Sister in Christ up to the Lord.

    Here is a snippet of an article she wrote May 17, 2008 entitled “Is ‘A Woman’ Representative of ‘All Women’?

    “Secondly Matt connects the order of creation with “authority” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:10. This is another error of Matt’s since 1 Cor. 11:10 does not have men in authority over women. The Greek word used in verse 10 is exousia and it is the authority that the person has themselves not an authority that is over them. It is never used in scripture to mean that the person is under authority. The words “a symbol of” in verse 10 are not in the original manuscripts but have been added by the translators. The inspired word is that the woman is to have authority over her own head. She is to have authority to make a decision because of the angels. Paul’s use of “because of the angels” is clear when we go back to his reference of the angels earlier in his letter to the Corinthians.

    1Cor 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?
    1Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?

    Since the saints will judge the world and they will also judge angels, the woman is to have power to make her own decision concerning what she does or doesn’t wear on her head because in the next life she will also have the responsibility to judge the world and the angels. There is no reference to a man having authority over the woman in this verse at all.”

  53. Lori wrote:

    Bayly says “Take your manhood and womanhood to corporate worship this week and use them there to glorify God.” What the … ? I have never, ever, left my womanhood at home for any reason, at any time. What say you men? Are you in the habit of leaving your manhood at home?

    You almost owed me a new monitor!

  54. @ Josh: Back in the 20s, women who bobbed their hair (got it cut fairly short) were considered daring, and there are songs form the period telling women that they were going against God’s commandments.

    What goes around, comes around.

  55. Josh wrote:

    Couldn’t you say, though, that hair length legalism ebbs and flows?

    I’d say that fashions change; the more fundy-type churches tend to react…

  56. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Moxie wrote:
    It all just gets weirder and weirder.
    “It just keeps getting Weirder and Weirder…”
    – Adventures of Johnny Bravo, “Date with an Antelope”
    “When the going gets weird, The Weird Turn Pro.”
    – Hunter S Thompson

    Vive la weird.
    Violetta, Smoke Knight from Girl Genius

  57. Sproul Jr. said he never met a woman who regretted covering during church. I have. One woman at our former church did do headcovering for several years and then stopped. I was curious why she stopped since she and her husband had previously tried to convince Mr. Hoppy and I how important it is “because of the angels.” She said she had to stop because headcoverings were making her prideful and feeling superior to all the other women (all homeschooling, mostly quiverful) who didn’t cover.

    Her best friend and the friend’s husband went and joined the Amish. They didn’t want to just love simply, they wanted to be Amish. Ugh! I was told the friend was inspired after visiting the dairy farm of the Amish couple they bought their milk from. That man used to work for NASA and eventually decided he wanted to be Amish and have a dairy farm.

    Yes, I know a lot of extreme people. I think it would be a lot easier to be a Mother Earth News back-to-the-land type hippie than to join a group that doesn’t allow zippers.

  58. Wesley wrote:

    It’s really simple. First they made the women do silly things to show how important and in charge they are. Next they do it to the men. Women’s issues may be women’s issues but those who want to keep women down want just as much to keep men who aren’t in the inner sanctum down. Men, the first sign of a church that wants to keep you down is a church that wants to keep your wife down. They’ll make you feel good about your “strong” masculinity, then beat you up over your “rebellious spirit” and “sinful pride.”

    This is insightful! Now I realize that this is what we saw in our church.

  59. I was so full of zeal without knowledge as a new believer that I did anything anyone told me to do. Had they told me to wear a head covering I would have. But for each step I could take to visually show the public that I was acting in a spiritual manner, it put another brick in my wall of pride!

  60. Beware any pastor whose wife is into head covering.

    We had a pastor whose wife always wore hats. He removed women from every form of leadership at my old church. His method was very clever. He changed all of the “committee chairs” to “elders” one year. Then the next year he said elders, biblically, had to be men.

    We heaved a sigh of relief when he left. So did his next church. I wonder where he is now. I don’t see him on LinkedIn.

  61. Yep. Because to get ripped you might have to go to a gym; without a head covering. And when you are ripped it might lead to you to want to become a soldier or a cop, in other words…….wait for it: a man! /sarcasm off/ Kindakrunchy wrote:

    So. If I want to look good, and do P90x and have good muscle definition, that’s…….bad.

  62. That Bad Dog wrote:

    I really do hope the Baylys turn out to be some kind of elaborate long-form performance art project. The alternative – that they really believe the things they say – is so depressing that it makes me want to, er, shed tears…

    That Bad Dog — It’s really depressing to me because I knew their brilliant and insightful dad. I’m shocked at how judgmental and legalistic the Bayly boys turned out. Such a shame.

  63. Shannon H. wrote:

    Maybe Mrs. Doctor Dorothy Patterson should wear an apron to church along with her hat to show she’s under her husband’s authority because a single woman may also show up with a hat and then what is Mrs. Doctor Dorothy Patterson proving?

    Mrs. Dr. Dorothy Patterson is the least submissive wife I’ve seen in a long time. She berates and scolds and orders her husband around in front of people. And he just smiles and obeys.

  64. Katie wrote:

    I was so full of zeal without knowledge as a new believer that I did anything anyone told me to do. Had they told me to wear a head covering I would have. But for each step I could take to visually show the public that I was acting in a spiritual manner, it put another brick in my wall of pride!

    Katie – me too. Though as a man, obviously I wouldn’t have been told to wear a hat.

    During his infamous interview with Justin Brierley of Christianity Magazine (here in the UK), Park Fiscal at one point challenged Brierley by demanding to know: Do you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins?. Astonishingly, when Brierley said he did, Fiscal responded: You sound like a coward when you say that. I.e., you don’t properly believe it like I do. (He later complained that Brierley had been hostile and disrespectful.) It was a transparent attempt to gain control of the interview and assert his alpha male status.

    The idea that God would become human, and in doing so would suffer and die alongside us and on our behalf, is an astonishing one. The man whose touting of that doctrine moves him to pride and self-righteousness has not even begun to understand it.

  65. I’m pretty confused about what’s so bad (and unbiblical, I guess) with using ‘hedge words and phrases’… I suppose that, since I’m of the man persuasion, they think I should be more assertive and direct in my usage of the language.

    For example, a feminine person of the womanly persuasion may say: ‘It seems to me that trying to live without friends is like milking a bear to get cream for your morning coffee. It is a whole lot of trouble, and then not worth much after you get it.’ (Zora Neale Hurston)

    Apparently, the ‘it seems to me’ is the hedge phrase. And ‘apparently’ is apparently a hedge word.

    I guess that a masculine manly macho man hombre should say something like: ‘I like friends. I don’t like living with no friends. No point on that…’ But maybe those are already too many words, and why waste time on such niceties: ‘Me man! Me friend! You friend? Me friend with you! Me like ribs, football and cage fighting’.

    Disclaimer: fans of ribs, football and cage fighting, please, don’t take offence.

  66. I am the only woman at my SBC church who wears a head covering—a long scarf of linen. So I look very biblical. In fact I think one elderly woman thought I could have been a Muslim–hehe. Our extremely arrogant pastor has said from the pulpit that 1 Cor 11 does not mean women should wear head coverings. He is a Master’s Seminary student, so it will be interesting to see if he ever retracts his comment. Interestingly, I came to wear the head covering after doing a study on the fallen angels and 1 Cor 11.

    I also, very interestingly, believe men should also wear head coverings; which I realize seems in opposition to the main theme of 1 Cor 11. In summary, I believe 1 Cor 11 is telling men not to veil themselves as women do. Throughout the Bible men do cover their heads when in the presence of God. Why do you think Jewish men wear the Tallit (Prayer Shawl) to this day? Some have postulated that the Apostle Paul was a Tallit maker not a tent maker. Tent was shorthand for “tallit”. It would not have made sense for Paul to be a tent maker as tents were large and required tons of animal skins, etc. which would not have been easy for Paul to make while traveling. What do you think Jesus meant when he told his disciples to go into their “prayer closets”? Ancient people did not have their own bedrooms much less a closet. He was talking about the prayer shawl, mantle, or tallit to COVER ONE’S HEAD. Also, the ancient Levitical high priests wore turbans and covered their heads when in the presence of the Almighty. Therefore, men and women should tremble and cover their heads. Why do you think reverent Jewish men cover their heads to this day?

  67. Katie wrote:

    I was so full of zeal without knowledge as a new believer that I did anything anyone told me to do.

    I did the same thing. Thankfully, the churches I attended up north were not into silly rules like hats, etc.

  68. @ Martos: I too occasionally get heckled by people (men and women, actually) because I use too many words and am too careful about what I say; I don’t like, for instance, to assert more than I can definitively prove based on the evidence available. I’ve even got into trouble with some people on this very blog because I won’t judge someone as an abuser until I’ve seen all the necessary evidence. (I don’t hold it against them, btw; there’s plenty of room for all of us on the blogsphere, to say nothing of the infinite room in God’s heart.)

    By the same token, scientists aren’t cool in the English-speaking world. But the history of science is a history of replacing boldly-asserted bovine leavings with more cautious statements of verifiable fact. Or put it this way: if Isaac Newton had been a neo-calvinist, we’d still all be wearing dead chickens to ward off the plague.

  69. Anon 2 wrote:

    Mrs. Dr. Dorothy Patterson is the least submissive wife I’ve seen in a long time. She berates and scolds and orders her husband around in front of people. And he just smiles and obeys.

    So long as she wears her hat, she’s submissive even if she isn’t.

  70. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Justin Brierley of Christianity Magazine (here in the UK), Park Fiscal at one point challenged Brierley by demanding to know: Do you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins?. Astonishingly, when Brierley said he did, Fiscal responded: You sound like a coward when you say that. I.e., you don’t properly believe it like I do. (He later complained that Brierley had been hostile and disrespectful.) It was a transparent attempt to gain control of the interview and assert his alpha male status.

    Nick, I would love to see a transcript of that interview. That would make a great post. Do you know when it occurred?

  71. Back in the early 80’s, I took a job in the Lancaster County, PA area and ended up meeting a Mennonite gal in a Bible study. She wore a head covering. Her reasons had partly to do with her upbringing in the Mennonite church, but also had to do with a thorough study of scripture on the subject. I had no background with this, but I respected her for her beliefs and we started dating and eventually married. 30+ years later we are still married and have enjoyed a great life serving the Lord together…and she still wears the veiling.

    Naomi and I relate well with all sorts of people, but we find that those having the most problem with her veiling are Christian women; not non-Christians. I won’t pretend to know the reasons for this. We are not pushy about this. It’s simply a choice we have made to honor God. There have been many situations where non-Christians have asked about the veiling and her response has been that it is a way of showing her love and devotion to God. This has led to many opportunities to witness. Regarding the angel verse, we sort of see it that the first sin was Satan and his angels stepping out from under God’s authority and this is Naomi’s opportunity to make a statement to them that she has chosen God’s structure of authority. I’m not a theologian so I won’t stake my life on that interpretation.

    I have no doubt that there are some who would use this teaching to control women and some women who are legalisticly bound to this practice, but please don’t trash those who have chosen this lifestyle to honor our Creator.

  72. @ Josh & William Birch:

    I once heard a piece of a New England Indian conversion narrative in which the Indian became convinced that his long hair was a sin (it made him sad at first because he liked his long hair). So some Puritan in my neck of the woods must have been preaching that men having long hair was sinful at some point.

  73. I live in a town where a few different large churches impose this head-covering thing on their women members, and they have for years. We derisively call them the “Hat Churches” or the “Hat-Wearing Churches,” and we women who are musically inclined especially know the annoyance. You can’t sing in the choir in these churches without a hat, and so if you’re in a visiting group, they have a box of uglies in the back for you to chose from. Yummers!

    One church is from the Ian Paisley “denomination” of “Free” Presbyterians. I don’t think any more explanation is necessary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Presbyterian_Church_of_Ulster

    The other is wholly independent and thoroughly crazy-town: http://mountcalvarybaptist.org/ Go. Go look at all those hats. All over!

    The second example has as its progeny a church that requires is “elder board” to sign on with the Danvers Statement as a kind of confession. Yes, male-headeship is literally part of their “orthodoxy.” That pastor is already intertwined with The Gospel Coalition. http://www.ebcupstate.com/about/what-we-believe/biblical-manhood-amp-womanhood

    I say all that to say that this particular expression of fundy-extreme might be an exemplar for the larger trend. My town is a “Burned-Over District,” unfortunately. So much harsh religion, and so little Jesus.

  74. The R.C Sproul quote on head covering site got me to thinin’. I bet it won’t be long until the arranged marriage to makes a comeback. I should secure http://www.TheArrangedMarriage.com site now.

    These YRR preachers really need to get out the Christian GhettoTM and mix it up with the rest of us.

  75. I’ve been around long enough to see this type of religious rule making over and over.

    The more rules the church makes, the more spiritual and righteous they feel.

    It’s a type of “works”. Gotta do something for God…gotta be more holy…so if I do this one thing, it makes me (or you) more acceptable to God.

    It’s works. It’s legalism.

    Mark my words. As soon as people become overtired of these burdens, and leave the movement, they will dump the head-coverings (which shows it really had nothing to do with their relationship to Christ.)

  76. Sarah Ruden, a Quaker writer, in her excellent book, “Paul Among the People”, has a different take on the head-covering command — one that transforms the narrative. According to her (she’s a scholar of the ancient world, not a theologian), the passage refers to all adult women in the congregation. These would have included former prostitutes, single women and others not permitted to wear the veil (a sign of respectability) in ancient Greek and Roman society. In effect, Paul is saying that all women are to be honored equally, all are on the same level in Christ. She calls the veil, “the flag of female virtue, status, and security” — a sign everyone would have recognized in that society. And now it is to be worn by all women, not just those deemed worthy! I find this lovely and hopeful, in its context. I think, in light of the recent discussion about singleness, it would be good to see this as almost a command to view all people in our church as equal in status under Christ….

  77. Lori wrote:

    Bayly says “Take your manhood and womanhood to corporate worship this week and use them there to glorify God.” What the … ? I have never, ever, left my womanhood at home for any reason,

    Very good point.

    I had a different reaction though.

    With all this concern over outward expressions of manhood and womanhood, all I can ever think of are the Baal and Ashtaroth who were the idols of ‘lordship’ and ‘fertility’ and were the epitome in symbols of masculinity and femininity.

    So, to me, when Bayley commands us to take our manhood and womanhood to corporate worship, all I can picture is a bunch of people taking their idols to church and glorifying those little gods of baal and ashtaroth and defiling the church of the One True God.

    Not saying this IS what it going on by their excesses. But I am saying that that is the first thing I thought of when they read their command that their idols of manhood and womanhood be incorporated in public worship.

  78. last sentence should say: “But I am saying that that is the first thing I though of when I read their command that their idols of manhood and womanhood be incorporated in public worship.”

    Sorry.

  79. I find it interesting how the Bayly bunch word it when they talk about the roles that some women do, but, according to them, they shouldn’t… For them, those women simply ‘play’ soldier, ‘play’ cop, ‘play’ pastor.

    I guess that means that those women are just like kids, playing childish games and mimicking the older, more mature guys who really know what they’re doing… Last time I checked, a female soldier or cop bleeds the same way than their male colleagues if they’re wounded. They are not playing games.

    It’s an extremely condescending attitude.

    @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Hehe! I’ve been told by my PhD supervisor that I’m too ‘wordy’ at times and that reading my reports felt almost like reading a novel 🙂 I’ve certainly improved on that, writing more concisely… But the question is that’s something that comes out from who I am. I have always been rather ‘wordy’ and tend to make short stories long. Besides, I do prefer to be cautious on my speak if possible.

  80. Mark wrote:

    but we find that those having the most problem with her veiling are Christian women; not non-Christians. I won’t pretend to know the reasons for this. We are not pushy about this. It’s simply a choice we have made to honor God.

    It’s why so many “Christians disparage other denominations. If they aren’t doing it “my way” one of us must be wrong. And surely it can’t be me…..

  81. Clay Crouch wrote:

    William Birch wrote:

    men who didn’t wear beards were considered feminine and/or gay.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that!;)

    I am of the opinion that an excellent response to “you’re so gay” is “and..?”

    Mara wrote:

    So, to me, when Bayley commands us to take our manhood and womanhood to corporate worship, all I can picture is a bunch of people taking their idols to church and glorifying those little gods of baal and ashtaroth and defiling the church of the One True God.

    That paints such a vivid picture! I’ll never again hear the terms “Biblical manhood” and “Biblical womanhood” in the same way.

  82. @ Hester:

    That’s so ridiculous. What about all those pictures of Jesus I’ve seen with long hair? I grew up with those on our Sunday School walls. I’d hear the teacher talk about boys having short hair (while the women in my church had very, very short hair — hello?), and then I’d look at the picture of Jesus on the wall, with His long brown hair, and think, What? No wonder I’m in therapy! 😀

  83. @ NC Now:

    I’m not sure the point of the post is to say that head coverings are wrong, per se. However, demanding that a woman wear one is.

  84. Mara wrote:

    With all this concern over outward expressions of manhood and womanhood, all I can ever think of are the Baal and Ashtaroth who were the idols of ‘lordship’ and ‘fertility’ and were the epitome in symbols of masculinity and femininity.

    Something that jumped out at me:

    Baal = masculinity = “lordship” = POWER over others = “COLONIZE, PENETRATE, CONQUER, PLANT!”
    Ashtaroth = feminity = “fertility” = SEX OBJECT and Breeder.

    Sound like anything you get in “Biblical Gender Roles” and Quiverfull?

  85. “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.”

    I don’t mean to be snarky here, but the problem is, this ISN’T a way of “bearing testimony” to your marital status (or your views on submission) because no one in our culture interprets it this way anymore.

    “postmoderns who are so twisted by our culture that they find themselves most comfortable with femininity in men (doubting themselves, using hedge words and phrases, wearing jewelry, abdicating authority, shedding tears, being vain in their appearance) and masculinity in women (taking leadership and authority, working out, getting ripped, teaching men, playing soldier, playing cop, playing pastor, being brash).”

    Apparently sanity is closed for business at this church. Men shedding tears is feminine (and thus wrong)? I can’t imagine the therapy that the little boys in that church will need some day. Not to mention, it is extremely dangerous to tell men that ever second-guessing their own decisions is wrong. If you take that to its logical conclusion (and I don’t believe I’m exaggerating his intent here) you get guys who are blinded to their own faults and thus more easily make mistakes, because they can never back down or admit to being wrong. If that’s NOT what he meant, then he’s doing a terrible job of getting his real message across.

    “I have never met a Christian husband or wife who regretted having his wife cover her head when gathered for corporate worship. I have met Christian husbands and wives who regret not having done so earlier.”

    This is so stupid. I’ve met way MORE Christians who don’t do the hat thing AND never regretted it. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that every couple who’ve ever tried this have NEVER ended up deciding it was a unnecessary rule.

    By the way, go get your vomit bucket: I have seen the head coverings thing used to blame women for being raped (i.e. if she had been wearing a head covering, maybe the angels would have been quicker to help her. Too bad). I’m not making that up.

  86. Martos wrote:

    I find it interesting how the Bayly bunch word it when they talk about the roles that some women do, but, according to them, they shouldn’t… For them, those women simply ‘play’ soldier, ‘play’ cop, ‘play’ pastor.

    I guess that means that those women are just like kids, playing childish games and mimicking the older, more mature guys who really know what they’re doing…

    i.e. Women are Perpetual Children, not like Grown-Up MEN.

    And if Women are Perpetual Children (under Daddy/Hubby), there’s not that much difference between a woman and an actual little girl.

    Including Penetrating, Colonizing, Conquering, and Planting.

    Anyone wonder why we’ve got so many stories of child sexual abuse (female children) in this branch of Biblical Gospelly Fundagelicalism?

  87. Anon 2 wrote:

    Mrs. Dr. Dorothy Patterson is the least submissive wife I’ve seen in a long time. She berates and scolds and orders her husband around in front of people. And he just smiles and obeys.

    Can you say P-whipped?

    (whiny henpecked husband voice) “Yes, dear…”

  88. Daisy wrote:

    There was a scene in Blades of Glory where Ferrell’s character was possessive of his fancy hair brush. But he was more than willing to share his “Mane and Tail” shampoo with Jon Heder.

    “Mane and Tail” shampoo? Where did he pick that up, Ponyville Spa? Or did he burgle Carousel Boutique and steal Rarity’s stash?

  89. HoppyTheToad wrote:

    Her best friend and the friend’s husband went and joined the Amish. They didn’t want to just love simply, they wanted to be Amish. Ugh! I was told the friend was inspired after visiting the dairy farm of the Amish couple they bought their milk from. That man used to work for NASA and eventually decided he wanted to be Amish and have a dairy farm.

    I think I can top that, though it is hearsay.

    Years ago, someone told me about a guy who wanted to be “A plant… because a plant is the Perfect Organism…”

  90. sad observer wrote:

    By the way, go get your vomit bucket: I have seen the head coverings thing used to blame women for being raped (i.e. if she had been wearing a head covering, maybe the angels would have been quicker to help her. Too bad). I’m not making that up.

    Ayatollah Khomeini and Mullah Omar would agree.

  91. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Can you say P-whipped?
    (whiny henpecked husband voice) “Yes, dear…”

    These terms are extremely vulgar and condescending to women. For the life of me I can’t understand why you would choose to use them.

  92. Clay Crouch wrote:

    Clay Crouch on Tue Aug 06, 2013 at 09:54 AM said: @ NC Now:
    I’m not sure the point of the post is to say that head coverings are wrong, per se. However, demanding that a woman wear one is.

    No, I think the teaching about it is being trashed as well.

  93. Anon 2 wrote:

    Mrs. Dr. Dorothy Patterson is the least submissive wife I’ve seen in a long time. She berates and scolds and orders her husband around in front of people. And he just smiles and obeys.

    Yes, but he makes up for it by filling up his home with articles of slaughtered wildlife – he has removed most photos from his website, but there are still two powerpoint presentations there that show some of the animals he has killed, and his home, where he has stuffed dead animals in every corner and on every wall – really creepy.

    What does he think he can prove by this?

    And don’t get me wrong – man has always hunted for food – but a man of god whose whose greatest joy is leaving a trail of death and destruction among god’s creation – seems wrong to me.

    (You can find the presentations here: http://paigepatterson.info/presentations.cfm

  94. Mara wrote:

    So, to me, when Bayley commands us to take our manhood and womanhood to corporate worship, all I can picture is a bunch of people taking their idols to church and glorifying those little gods of baal and ashtaroth and defiling the church of the One True God.

    Insightful. Thanks.

  95. Daisy wrote:

    Somewhere I have an old baseball cap with cartoon mice Pinky and the Brain on it. I’d love to go to one of those churches with my P&B cap on backwards.

    Are you TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD? You uppity woman! Stay at home under your husband’s iron fist… I mean, his loving headship!

  96. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Besides, I’m less concerned about women who play pastor than about (usually male) entrepreneurs and motivational speakers who play pastor. Or “bible teacher”. They’re meddling in things that are beyond their divinely-appointed gifting, and it shows.

    You wouldn’t care to name a few names, would you?

    But that’s it: “entrepreneurs and motivational speakers who play pastor or ‘bible teacher'”.

  97. numo wrote:

    @ Josh: Back in the 20s, women who bobbed their hair (got it cut fairly short) were considered daring, and there are songs form the period telling women that they were going against God’s commandments.

    In 1941, there was a book written called “Bobbed hair, bossy wives and woman preachers.”

    Guess which three things the writer ranted against “from the Bible”?

  98. There is just something so weird about this. Who are these men that have some way in which they can leave their manhood at home when they go to church? In my experience I never saw a man who could do that. For example, for a long time (and many years ago admittedly) I worked in a (then) predominately male profession. I have tried to think back, but I cannot identify one man in that situation who worried about his masculinity one way or the other, or who ever left it at home and had to go back and get it. One of my children teaches in a high school and knows most of the coaches. Thy don’t
    t seem worried about the expression of their maleness. Another of my children makes his living doing verbal combat in a courtroom. Neither he nor his opponents seem worried in this matter. There is just something I am missing here.

    And if there are such men, and if the men writing this stuff are aware of it, and if they have not solved this in the men (whatever it is) how on earth do they think they are qualified to comment about women one way or the other? Seeing, apparently, that they cannot even relate to themselves as men, how can they relate to women as women? So they need outward clues (beards and scarves) to tip them off as to who is male and who is female? I understand that there are cultural differences that regulate the expression of social behavior, but this repeated questioning of innate maleness is problematic. What’s with that?

    An who would listen to these guys anyhow? I am thinking that maybe the words manhood and womanhood are code words for something that I have not clued into. If some of you can explain this to me I would appreciate it. I really do not want to think that the men who go to church are somehow less than the men who do not go to church, but the church goers do seem to be the ones worried about their manhood.

    I agree with the commenter who said (more or less) that some people need to get out in the real world with the rest of us more.

  99. I cannot remember where on the Internet I got this. It was a site that Kristen Rosser, who comments here, also writes for. But this was written by a man:

    He say his wife came home from some church lady gathering and told him she wanted to wear a head covering “to show her submission to him.”
    “I don’t want you to wear a head covering” he said.

    She got one anyway – “to show her submission” – while not submitting to her actual husband’s wishes on the matter…

  100. Good gravy. What’s the equivalent here for Paul’s tirade in Galatians: “Oh, that they would just go all the way and castrate themselves!” ‘Cause that’s how I feel about this.

  101. gus wrote:

    scolds and orders her husband around in front of people. And he just smiles and obeys.
    Yes, but he makes up for it by filling up his home with articles of slaughtered wildlife – he has removed most photos from his website, but there are still two powerpoint presentations there that show some of the animals he has killed, and his home, where he has stuffed dead animals in every corner and on every wall – really creepy.
    What does he think he can prove by this?
    And don’t get me wrong – man has always hunted for food – but a man of god whose whose greatest joy is leaving a trail of death and destruction among god’s creation – seems wrong to me.
    (You can find the presentations here: http://paigepatterson.info/presentations.cfm

    Thanks Gus.
    “Really creepy” is an understatement. The great MOG, white bwahnah big game hunter. Ugh. All the ugly sterotypes rolled into one. Those “Lifestyles of the rich and Famous” photos. Makes one feel queasy. And his wife wants women to wear the <a href="http://cgi.unc.edu/arabsinamerica/islam-in-america/muslim-veiling-in-the-united-states/what-is-the-hijab-and-why-do-women-wear-it&quot;hejab? Very creepy.

    “Let me tell you about the very rich…They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different.”
    — F. Scott Fitzgerald, Rich Boy (1925)

  102. Retha Faurie wrote:

    She got one anyway – “to show her submission” – while not submitting to her actual husband’s wishes on the matter…

    “…so that they may be seen by men.”

  103. Nancy wrote:

    I agree with the commenter who said (more or less) that some people need to get out in the real world with the rest of us more.

    And risk contamination by Heathen Cooties?

  104. gus wrote:

    Yes, but he makes up for it by filling up his home with articles of slaughtered wildlife – he has removed most photos from his website, but there are still two powerpoint presentations there that show some of the animals he has killed, and his home, where he has stuffed dead animals in every corner and on every wall – really creepy.
    What does he think he can prove by this?

    What else? “ME MAN! ME REAL MAN! NOT WRAPPED AROUND LITTLE FINGER OF SHE-WHO-MUST-BE-OBEYED!”

    General pulls rank on the Colonel.
    Colonel pulls rank on the Major.
    Major pulls rank on the Captain.
    Captain pulls rank on the Lieutenant.
    Lieutenant pulls rank on Sergeant Snorkel.
    Sergeant Snorkel pulls rank on Private Beetle Bailey.
    Private Beetle Bailey kicks the barracks’ dog.

  105. Victorious wrote:

    These terms are extremely vulgar and condescending to women. For the life of me I can’t understand why you would choose to use them.

    For the impact. Blunt and crude words are direct and have impact. As well as conveying the contempt that hides behind the Gospelly coat of paint.

    I grew up in a family where everything was Nicey Nicey Nice Nice Nice and nothing was ever spoken of directly. It took blunt and crude terms to get through the “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA EVERYTHING’S NICE NICE NICE NICE NICE LA LA LA LA!”

  106. TedS. wrote:

    “Really creepy” is an understatement. The great MOG, white bwahnah big game hunter. Ugh. All the ugly sterotypes rolled into one.

    I hang out with redneck types. (They’re very direct.) I’ve known some hunters. I also know my way around firearms, both their operation and safety precautions.

    And I’ve encountered “white bwana big game hunter” wannabes who are firearms accidents waiting to happen. Or should that be *******(ed)

    It’s the hunter version of the buttery doughy cage-fight fanboy, proving to himself he’s so tough and manly. (Or the 400-pound spheroid with terminal acne who brags about Being a Ninja — “I’m a Ninja! I can KILL you with my little finger!”) In Transactional Analysis, this is a mind game with an actual name — “Tough Guy”.

  107. Mark wrote:

    don’t trash those who have chosen this lifestyle to honor our Creator.

    Trash? I called into question the Scriptural interpretation for the practice.
    I am most interested in why you both feel that this practice honors God more than not wearing the veil.

  108. gus wrote:

    there are still two powerpoint presentations there that show some of the animals he has killed, and his home, where he has stuffed dead animals in every corner and on every wall – really creepy.

    I, too, have found his predilection for killing beautiful animals for fun creepy.

  109. NC Now wrote:

    It’s why so many “Christians disparage other denominations. If they aren’t doing it “my way” one of us must be wrong. And surely it can’t be me…..

    I think my point in this post was to discover why people wear the veil and how it reflects on certain beliefs on gender. Also, using vague Scripture to show that women should wear hats so that the angels will know what is going on seemed a bit bizarre to me.

  110. Mark wrote:

    I think the teaching about it is being trashed as well.

    When it come to the angels part of the whole thing, I do believe that there is some funny Scriptural interpretation going on. Cone to think of it, when Mrs. Doctor Dorothy claims she is wearing a hat because she is standing under her husband’s authority, I do have to question that interpretation as well.

  111. @ Nancy:
    Perhaps there should be door keepers (male of course), who check each person coming into church to see if they have their manhood and womanhood on.

  112. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I think you are right about that contempt thing. The religious leadership that seems to be backing this thinking continues to show contempt for the men who don’t agree with them, contempt for the women, contempt for the abused children, contempt for the secular authorities, contempt for any theologian with more education than they have, contempt for non-legalists while pretending to preach grace, contempt for the religious competition in the church down the road, and on and on.

    I don’t know what model they are following, but it does not look like the Jesus of scripture or the saints of the centuries since.

  113. dee wrote:

    @ Nancy:
    Perhaps there should be door keepers (male of course), who check each person coming into church to see if they have their manhood and womanhood on.

    Next thing you know, people will have to start coming two hours early to make it through the checkpoint in time before the service starts…

  114. dee wrote:

    I, too, have found his predilection for killing beautiful animals for fun creepy.

    It’s part of hypermasculinity, plus the intimidation factor of “I KILLED all of these! Don’t Mess With ME!” The hunting trophies stuffed into every corner like Velvet Elvis paintings sounds like overkill in more ways than one. I’ve known real hunters, and they DON’T advertise their kills in-your-face like that. This is a guy who’s compensating for something, big time. A guy obsessed with PROVING he’s THE Alpha Male.

    It also ties in with his wife wearing the pants behind closed doors (as well as a Proper Biblical Submission hat in public). To a male supremacist, being henpecked by She Who Must Be Obeyed In Secret has got to be emasculating and he’ll make up for it any way he can — whether cage-fight fanboy, sporthunting wannabe, or bedding beta females of any age (the younger the better). He has to prove he’s still a MAN, and in hypermasculinity the only two ways to do so are violence and sexual aggression when he’s out of sight of She Who Must Be Obeyed. (Like that one momma’s boy serial killer whose name I don’t remember who preyed on women to act out getting even with Mommy by proxy.)

    I would also expect lots of preaching against male homosexuality, as that is also a BIG threat to hypermasculinity, as “un-manly” as you can get. Again, “ME MAN! REALLY! I AM! ME MAN!”

    It all fits toether — as one sick dynamic under the Jesus Juke coat of paint.

  115. Josh wrote:

    Next thing you know, people will have to start coming two hours early to make it through the checkpoint in time before the service starts…

    So, well, the comments don’t support images (I completely understand). I’ll trust you’ve seen the photos of the TSA agents with their blue gloves. Keep that image in mind to understand the hidden context of my comment. 😮

  116. dee wrote:

    Perhaps there should be door keepers (male of course), who check each person coming into church to see if they have their manhood and womanhood on.

    How? Drop trou and show the hardware?

    With an additional “manual check” for the women to be sure?

    This can get really sicko really fast…

  117. gus wrote:

    And don’t get me wrong – man has always hunted for food – but a man of god whose whose greatest joy is leaving a trail of death and destruction among god’s creation – seems wrong to me.

    I’ve heard of an alien predator species that would probably like to stalk and make a trophy of Patterson for his collection.

  118. The angels know perfectly well I look ridiculous in a hat.

    And I don’t think God needs them to tell Him anything.

  119. dee wrote:

    Nick, I would love to see a transcript of that interview. That would make a great post. Do you know when it occurred?

    I don’t know about the exact program, but you might be able to find it on Brierley’s online audio or video show.

    The top half of the following page has a video selection of his interviews, and if you scroll down that same page, there is page one (of 36 pages) of audio interviews (under the heading “Listen on Demand”) Brierley does with atheists, ex- Christians, and other people.

    Sometimes he has Christians on his show who debate other Christians over Bible-related topics.

    At the top of this page are blue buttons. If you find this page too confusing, you can click on the blue button that says “topics,” where he’s divided his shows up by category, which may make for easier searching.

    Justin Brierley – Unbelievable

    Brierley’s site’s audio files don’t work well in some browsers. You may have to jump between using Chrome, Fire Fox, or even IE to listen to them.

    Brierley’s shows are very interesting. Out of the shows I’ve heard so far (and I’ve listened to a lot), he’s very kind, respectful, and fair to every one, so any time someone claims he was rude to them when they were on the show, I tend to be very skeptical of that.

  120. Muff Potter wrote:

    I’ve heard of an alien predator species that would probably like to stalk and make a trophy of Patterson for his collection.

    Assuming the Preds think he’s worth the effort.

    (Talking with hunters who are also SF movie buffs, the consensus was that to the Preds, hunting for the most dangerous game were some sort of religious ritual. And there is a tradition in classic big-game hunting that the hunter should be in actual danger from the quarry; it isn’t snipe from a blind in safety.)

  121. Okay, that’s me decided then. I’m going to open an etsy shop selling my origami hats made out of actual Bible pages &, especially for the neo-calvies, pages quoting the Bible from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology (almost wrote ‘ systematic sheology’…wasn’t that his list?)…now us womenfolk can sit under the scriptures in the purest possible sense. I expect the Bayley brothers to put in a laaaaaarge order for all the adoring women their astoundingly clear masculinity causes to swoon in their paths daily. I hear Jesus looks up to those boys these days.

  122. Regarding people who feel they are obeying God or honoring Him by wearing a veil or hat.

    I suppose if that’s their personal choice, and they’re not demanding it of others (saying it’s a biblical commandment all women must follow), that’s peachy keen, and I won’t dispute it.

    One of my areas of concern, though, is that it’s sort of a self-induced form of legalism, which Christ was trying to do away with.

    In the Old Testament, males who wanted to follow the God of Israel had to be circumcised. By the time we get to the early formation of the church, that rule has been done away with; God no longer requires an outward show or symbol of devotion.

    Same thing with hair. There were Jews in the OT who were told by God to never cut their hair, and/or it became a cultural thing with some of them.

    If Paul was telling a church in one letter roughly 2,000 years ago that the ladies of that church ought to wear a veil/hat (and because of some local dispute about a womans’ role in that city), I would figure that it’s more for them specifically in their particular church and not intended to be a rule for all women for all eternity to follow.

    God sent a vision to Peter of pigs in a blanket and told him to eat the pigs. The message being the old dietary laws were no longer binding on believers.

    Then there’s a passage that talks about weak Christians vs the ones who know they are liberated under Christ.

    As far as I’m still a Christian, the older I get, I lean more towards the liberated view. When I was younger and super enthralled to be wholly obedient to God, I tended to be a little more of a Law keeper, wanting to always do the right thing, even in small matters.

    Now that I’m older, I get that God does not care so much about stuff like if we eat bacon or not or wear a hat in church or not. People who are ‘weak’ believers get caught up on little details and therefore putting themselves under bondage.

    What I see in the Bible is that God is more concerned with heart attitude, how you treat others, and that you carry out the intent of the Law, not the letter of it (he desires mercy not sacrifice). Which means he’s more concerned you are showing compassion to people are you vs whether you wear a hat to church.

    f you’re wearing a hat to church every week but at the same time ignoring the bruised and bloody mugging victim on the street on your way to the church service, your hat wearing amounts to nothing.

    The same Paul that wrote about hats and women wrote this:

    Colossians 2
    Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

  123. sad observer wrote:

    By the way, go get your vomit bucket: I have seen the head coverings thing used to blame women for being raped (i.e. if she had been wearing a head covering, maybe the angels would have been quicker to help her. Too bad). I’m not making that up.

    I’ve read something similar about an imam who said something like women who don’t wear a veil/ burka are “uncovered meat” (his term), so when they get raped, it’s their fault for being so irresistible to rapists.

    Imam [Sheik Taj el-Dene Elhilaly] justifies rape of unveiled women – WorldNetDaily

  124. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “Mane and Tail” shampoo? Where did he pick that up, Ponyville Spa?

    You can actually buy bottles of that shampoo brand at some drug stores. I used to buy it. I think Wal Mart carries it, or Wal Green’s. I forget where I bought my bottle. But it was a huge, huge bottle. It lasts forever.

  125. @ Retha Faurie:

    I’ve never married, but if I went to a church that required me to wear a hat, I’d have to mess with their hat rule by wearing my Pinky and Brain cap – and wear it gangsta, turned backwards.

    Either that or a cool Frank Sinatra / Don Draper Fedora.

    If I was told I had to wear a hat, a rule I find ridiculous, I would totally mess with it.

    I am not against hats. I usually wear a ball cap when I go on my bike rides or to do yard work, to keep the hair out of my eyes on windy days, but I hardly ever wear them on other occasions. Wearing one after I styled my hair to go out to church or somewhere else would mess my hair up.

  126. Retha Faurie wrote:

    She got one anyway – “to show her submission” – while not submitting to her actual husband’s wishes on the matter…

    Funny 😆

  127. Retha Faurie wrote:

    I cannot remember where on the Internet I got this. It was a site that Kristen Rosser, who comments here, also writes for. But this was written by a man:
    He say his wife came home from some church lady gathering and told him she wanted to wear a head covering “to show her submission to him.”
    “I don’t want you to wear a head covering” he said.
    She got one anyway – “to show her submission” – while not submitting to her actual husband’s wishes on the matter…

    That wasn’t from me, Retha. I hadn’t heard it before, and I’m glad you shared it! What I have said to the occasional snarky complementarian who tells me to shut up and submit to my husband’s headship, is “My husband wants me to be his equal. So how is it that I’m not submitting to him?”

  128. Mark wrote:

    Naomi and I relate well with all sorts of people, but we find that those having the most problem with her veiling are Christian women; not non-Christians. I won’t pretend to know the reasons for this. We are not pushy about this. It’s simply a choice we have made to honor God. There have been many situations where non-Christians have asked about the veiling and her response has been that it is a way of showing her love and devotion to God. This has led to many opportunities to witness. Regarding the angel verse, we sort of see it that the first sin was Satan and his angels stepping out from under God’s authority and this is Naomi’s opportunity to make a statement to them that she has chosen God’s structure of authority. I’m not a theologian so I won’t stake my life on that interpretation.
    I have no doubt that there are some who would use this teaching to control women and some women who are legalisticly bound to this practice, but please don’t trash those who have chosen this lifestyle to honor our Creator.

    I can understand why Christian women would have more of a problem with it than non-Christians. To a non-Christian your wife is merely expressing her own faith, which should be honored just as a Sikh’s turban is honored. But a Christian woman knows exactly why she’s wearing the covering and may disagree with the reasoning behind it in a very fundamental way. This is not to say other Christian women should give your wife a hard time about it– they shouldn’t– but a head covering does say, “I believe in male headship as part of a hierarchy of authority, and that a woman should wear a symbol of being under it.” And if a person is going to make a public, symbolic statement like that, she probably shouldn’t be surprised if others who disagree want to voice their disagreement with her publicly shown position.

  129. In the Pentecostal tradition they have a different twist on the “head covering” interpretation. They take 1 Corinthians 11:15, “But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering,” to mean that the woman’s actual long hair was intended to be the covering, not a cloth or hat. That’s why the women in these denominations do not cut their hair. But I have to say, the observations that others have already made in these comments about the “head coverings” being a source of pride are spot on. In my experience, there is tremendous spiritual superiority in women who follow these teachings. I think that’s why other Christians may take more issue with it than non-Christians. Other Christians will probably pick up on the fact that they’re being judged or looked down upon for not being as spiritual as the one with a “head covering.” It used to amaze me when I worked for women who wore pants, make-up, and cut their hair who showed more love, grace, and compassion than the women I went to church with. So much for the “head covering” showing honor to God. 🙂

  130. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    For the impact. Blunt and crude words are direct and have impact. As well as conveying the contempt that hides behind the Gospelly coat of paint.
    I grew up in a family where everything was Nicey Nicey Nice Nice Nice and nothing was ever spoken of directly. It took blunt and crude terms to get through the “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA EVERYTHING’S NICE NICE NICE NICE NICE LA LA LA LA!”

    I have a sister who regularly uses vulgar language, and she doesn’t feel bad about it at all. For most of my life, I hardly ever used vulgar words or cuss words.

    She knows for the longest time I was sensitive to vulgar language, so she would sometimes apologize to me if she slipped and said a naughty word around me.

    (As I find myself disenchanted with Christianity after years of being a Christian, I don’t find myself as offended by obscene language. Of I’m on the fence about it more these days.)

    Anyway, I notice that the few times I could get through to my sister, when she badgers me on stuff (and she can be a very persistent nag), when I would get so frustrated I would blurt out things in her terms (by using offensive language), a light bulb would go off over her head (I can actually see her eyes light up with understanding), she would get it, and stop badgering me.

    It’s like if you are not using vulgar language when talking to her, if you are being proper and classy, you are speaking a foreign language to her.

    She only understands (or understands faster) if you get down in the mud and use language she can grasp, which is usually crass or obscene.

    I also grew up in a family where my Mom was nicey nicey nice and was never blunt. But my dad was extremely so… so I got insulted by Dad frequently but Mom raised me to just sit there and not be direct and defend myself from that kind of thing from dad, teachers, coworkers, bosses, and whomever else. Both types of parenting create problems.

  131. dee wrote:

    I am most interested in why you both feel that this practice honors God more than not wearing the veil.

    I’m curious, too, how the pro- veil / hat wearing folks think a never-married woman can honor God during a church service? It’s interesting how singles get left out of these sorts of things.

  132. @ dee:

    gus wrote: “…the animals he has killed, …he has stuffed dead animals in every corner and on every wall – really creepy.

    dee wrote: “I, too, have found his predilection for killing beautiful animals for fun creepy.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    It is immoral.

    Causing pain & taking life for sport. (& whatever emotional overcompensation is going on) The picture and/or video I’ve seen of his display brought such sadness and revulsion.

    shameless moron

  133. KR Wordgazer wrote:

    That wasn’t from me, Retha. I hadn’t heard it before, and I’m glad you shared it! What I have said to the occasional snarky complementarian who tells me to shut up and submit to my husband’s headship, is “My husband wants me to be his equal. So how is it that I’m not submitting to him?”

    I know. I said you wrote articles for that site (could the name be something like Take Heart Project?) but this was by another writer on the site, a male.

  134. I’m listening to the mp3 Nick linked to where Brierly is interviewing Driscoll.

    Driscoll is operating under the assumption that people who support a gender egalitarian position (people who are not opposed to women being preachers, etc) do not believe that there is an eternal Hell where people under-go conscious torment.

    I hate to disappoint Driscoll, but I am a gender egalitarian, but I do also believe in an eternal Hell where people will be conscious and tormented for eternity. I do not agree with Annihilation.

    Driscoll also sets up a false dichotomy, asking Brierly, “do you believe God is like a mom who hugs everyone or like a father who disciplines people.” The Bible teaches both concepts. God has both sets of characteristics; he is a holy God but also a merciful one. God is both Mom- and Dad- like.

    Driscoll is indicating he believes God is only masculine (which to Driscoll means God is a punisher, heavy on the holiness no mercy / forgivenes).

    Driscoll also labels anyone who is a gender egalitarian a “liberal” (in this interview). I hate to disappoint him yet again, but while I lean more towards egalitarianism, I do not consider myself a liberal on theological or political matters.

  135. Daisy wrote:

    dee wrote:

    I am most interested in why you both feel that this practice honors God more than not wearing the veil.

    I’m curious, too, how the pro- veil / hat wearing folks think a never-married woman can honor God during a church service? It’s interesting how singles get left out of these sorts of things.

    Daisy wrote:
    I’m curious, too, how the pro- veil / hat wearing folks think a never-married woman can honor God during a church service? It’s interesting how singles get left out of these sorts of things.

    In some Catholic circles aka traditionalists ( Catholic fundies) they require all women veil even down to infants arguing that women are under the headship of their fathers if their not married. They also like to argue that women who veil are like the Virgin Mary who veiled, that “holy things” are covered with a veil like the tabernacle, that because women have a womb they carry life so must be protected, that it makes women more modest so that a man will want to married a young lady who veils because already knows how to be submissive. They come up with all sorts of reasons in flowery lamguage to force women to veil and to make them feel guilty of the unforgivable sin if they don’t. I’ve read it all.

    Now I have no problem if a woman wants to wear a headcovering. As long as it her choice chosen of her own free will, not forced or emotionally manipulated into it. And not forcing or manipulating other women to folliw their personal choice as an edict from God himself.

  136. Oops. That didn’t quite work out. Sorry, Daisy I was trying to quote you and respond and it got goofed. Problems of working from a tablet with a small screen.

  137. @ Mark:

    “Naomi and I relate well with all sorts of people, but we find that those having the most problem with her veiling are Christian women; not non-Christians. I won’t pretend to know the reasons for this. We are not pushy about this. It’s simply a choice we have made to honor God.”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    I”m sure the reasons are somewhat complex.

    it brings to mind a week my family & I spent at a Christian conference center in my childhood. People totally dressed down in shorts, jeans, tshirts, tank tops, flannel shirts.

    Except for one woman — a somewhat well-known wife of a wealthy publisher. She chose to wear expensive-looking extravagant clothing, sometimes sporting a turban-with-a-twist of sorts with prominent diamond earrings, perfect make up. It put the other women off in that she intentionally set herself apart from everyone else — her choice of clothing / appearance being truly superior in quality, beauty and style was the dividing line. Superiority was the dividing line. It surely tested the “Christian” thought and attitude choices of many who were present, in ways they weren’t anticipating.

    I believe you, Mark, when you say you are not pushy, and your description of best intentions and motivations behind the headcovering your wife wears. I have to say, though, that to many women it will come across as a dividing line of superiority. In this case, spiritual superiority. Despite your good motivations. To many it will come across as your wife dividing herself off from all the other women into a superior class, which they are not a part of.

  138. Daisy wrote:

    You can actually buy bottles of that shampoo brand at some drug stores. I used to buy it. I think Wal Mart carries it, or Wal Green’s. I forget where I bought my bottle. But it was a huge, huge bottle. It lasts forever.

    So “Mane & Tail” is a REAL shampoo brand?

    Make a good gag gift for a Brony…

  139. Dana wrote:

    Partial Driscoll Brierly Transscript

    I listened to the mp3 of that interview Nick gave us, but just read over the transcript you provided, and reading it brought a few other thoughts to mind.

    You know where Driscoll hammers B (Brierly) on B’s preacher wife not drawing in the young men by the droves to her church?

    Driscoll assumes he’s drawing them in to his church because of his awesomeness, or by being manly in the pulpit.

    Driscoll says to B on B’s wife not drawing in legions of males to church,
    “This is where the excuses come, not the verses. This is where the excuses come, not the verses.”

    The same point can be made to Driscoll: where are your verses to support your views on these topics?

    Where does the Bible say that to draw young men to the church, that
    1. only a male pastor can do it
    and that
    2. said male preacher must talk about things in church services that culture deems manly, such as monster truck racing and NFL?
    How often did the Apostle Paul make appeals to arm wrestling, NFL, boxing matches with sharks, or stock car racing in the New Testament, to get the men to attend or interested in Jesus?

    What about all the American churches where young men, or men of other ages, are not showing up (and they’re not; many single Christian men in their 30s and older do not attend church)?

    Those churches lacking single males ages 30 and up have male preachers; they are also conservative in teaching and beliefs. You can’t blame women preachers on those churches.

    Men are just not going to church, even in conservative ones with hipster, manly male preachers.

    Neither are women going to church as much, according to various books by Christians I’ve seen, and news stories and Barna information.

    Unmarried women in particular are dropping out in large batches the last few years (like me! And I’ve explained before why church is a turn off for adult single ladies).

    If we use Driscoll’s logic, should churches use female-tailored tactics to get the single females back in?

    So, should all churches have women preachers who wear pink robes and sermonize about flowers, puppies, and hugging?

    (Even then I might be turned off. I’m neither quite the tom boy I was in youth, nor a complete girly-girl. I’m a little bit of both these days.)

    When B explains that yes, his wife’s church has drawn a few men, Driscoll asks this most irrelevant, stupid, pointless, insulting question:

    What kind of men? Strong men?

    Did Jesus say the Gospel was only to appeal to, or only for, masculine, strong, manly He-Men?

    I personally would not want to date a guy I would personally find wimpy, but, I don’t think it’s cool to exclude males who don’t live up to the “I can crush a beer can in one hand!” types, either.

  140. @ KR Wordgazer: I also think that xtian people who have no understanding of Mennonite customs would be the 1st to misunderstand… just sayin’. (I grew up in/now live in a heavily Mennonite area, though relatively few women wear the old-style cap – or any other kind of head covering – these days.)

  141. @ numo: When I was small, I was told that the cap was part of their religious beliefs, and not to stare or gawk. (This from my Lutheran parents.)

    End of story.

  142. @ Daisy:
    The grocery stores in my area carry the shampoo and conditioner. So does Amazon. What memories. I used this stuff in Junior High. 🙂 It was very popular then.

  143. @ dee:

    “Park Fiscal at one point challenged Brierley by demanding to know: Do you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins?. Astonishingly, when Brierley said he did, Fiscal responded: You sound like a coward when you say that. I.e., you don’t properly believe it like I do. (He later complained that Brierley had been hostile and disrespectful.) It was a transparent attempt to gain control of the interview and assert his alpha male status.
    +++++++++++++++++

    He’s become a mascot, just like Chuck E. Cheese, Micky Mouse, and the Pillsbury Doughboy. A mascot, a symbol of “christian @xxhxle”. His image on screens every Sunday morning just reinforces his unwitting identity. I expect to see MD dolls that you poke in the tummy and out comes some supremacist, rude, hostile voiced comment.

  144. @ numo:
    I think you’re right that Christians from an anabaptist background don’t tend to come across as superior because of their head coverings. It’s just a part of their traditions. The issues tend to be with other Christians who adopt the practice.

  145. Pacbox wrote:

    In some Catholic circles aka traditionalists ( Catholic fundies) they require all women veil even down to infants arguing that women are under the headship of their fathers if their not married.

    Other than general imperatives asking all believers to submit to one another, the only “woman submit” passages I see are towards married women. I don’t see any that teach a woman is under male headship to any male.

    I do not see the Bible teaching that a female is under her father’s headship or authority.

    I wonder what these people do when the woman is past the age of 30 and/or not living at home anymore, or the father is deceased?

    I have seen a few churches advise women in those positions turn to a male preacher as their head/ covering (or whatever terminology), something else I don’t see supported in the Bible at all.

  146. numo wrote:

    @ Josh: Back in the 20s, women who bobbed their hair (got it cut fairly short) were considered daring, and there are songs form the period telling women that they were going against God’s commandments.
    What goes around, comes around.

    I remember coming across a poem once that said a woman who bobbed her hair was going to go to hell because she did so.

  147. @ numo:
    True. I’ve also known a number of Romanian Christians who wear kerchiefs on their head. They never made a big deal about it either.

  148. @ Daisy:

    The points you highlighted are a sample of the reasons Fiscal is evidently an entrepreneur playing at pastor and “bible teacher”. He simply does not have the intellectual strength to grapple with even the slightest complexity. And although he has learned to use theological terminology it is clear, when one listens at length to his attempts to use it, that he does not actually understand it.

    Paradoxically, it is precisely this lack of awareness that underpins much of his brashness and self-confidence (which, by nature, human beings are inherently drawn to and which is the root of what he considers his success). He believes he is right because he is not capable of seeing that he isn’t, even when his claims are so patently absurd as to be very difficult to answer. How, after all, would you go about proving two and two don’t make five to a person who calmly mocks your efforts to do so? If that goes on for long enough you’ll give up, he’ll claim to have “won the argument” and a certain class of person will be impressed by his wisdom and humility.

  149. @ Daisy:
    @ numo:

    They argue tradition with a big “T” (which it isn’t) and then pull out documents or saints writings from hundreds of years ago to proof-text their beliefs. Usually with qotes taken out of context and uncheckable anecdotes that some how but really don’t demonstrate that their view is the only acceptable one. Nine times out of eight it’s an emotional argument predicated on quotes and Bible verses taken out of context.

    Catholic teaching might say that a man is the spiritual head of the household but it’s all about being a positive spiritual role model not a brutal taskmaster though unfortunately many men and women have interpreted it to mean that especially inregards to abuse. A lot of what TWW has written about here has also popped up in Catholic circles with a lot of the same results and hurt but many who adhere to these beliefs wave them around as means of saving the Catholic Church from Catholics (because you know, those Catholics that don’t veil and allow their women to wear pants are the Devil pushed on by those despicable Protestants even though their beliefs come from those Protestants and not the Catholic Church.)

    Catholic Traddies are just as abusive as fundies, sometimes even more so because they pull priests and the Church into their abusiveness. And sometimes it’s hard to distance yourself from them let alone get away from them because they can legitamately claim to have Church teaching on their side even if it’s so twisted and bent out of shape as to be unrecognizable due to Traddies misinterpretation.

  150. @ Pacbox: I wasn’t even talking about Traditionalists; just people from countries where scarves and mantillas in church have never entirely disappeared.

  151. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Daisy wrote:

    There was a scene in Blades of Glory where Ferrell’s character was possessive of his fancy hair brush. But he was more than willing to share his “Mane and Tail” shampoo with Jon Heder.

    “Mane and Tail” shampoo? Where did he pick that up, Ponyville Spa? Or did he burgle Carousel Boutique and steal Rarity’s stash?

    You can get it at any Wal-Mart in Kentucky. Very popular.
    http://manentail.com/

  152. @ numo:

    I know but it gets brought up in Traddie circles because it’s done in those places then women have to veil with mantillas just like them. It’s their argument about “tradition” and turning it into divine revelation when whats it’s really about is cultural custom, as you’ve pointed out. Traddies are of the mindset that if it’s been done th

  153. What is this about the angels being tattle-tales? Are they actually saying that the omniscient God does not know what is going on unless somebody tells Him?

    Is He getting old? Should we get another god? May it never be. There is something so wrong with this on so many levels.

    I am thinking that the idea of every man his own theologian is a really bad idea. And I am thinking that if we do not understand the cultural implications of what was being said in scripture, at the time, then we best leave it alone until we do have that information. And I am thinking that if we know little at all about angels, then we best keep our mouths shut lest we misrepresent and malign those servants of God.

  154. @ Pacbox:

    because women have a womb they carry life so must be protected

    Don’t men carry life too? The sperm is just as much a part of the conceived baby as the egg. Not just scientifically either – this could be interpreted as having Biblical precedent, because of the justification for Abraham’s tithe in Hebrews 7:9-10. Lots of the same groups that practice headcovering also insist that Hebrews makes tithing mandatory for Christians, so logically they should accept this reasoning.

  155. Okay, that was weird. As I was trying to say, Traddies are of the mindset that if it occurred before 1962, then it must be a necessary part of the Catholic faith and must be.maintained as a part of Catholic Tradition.

    You pointed out that it was a cultural custom, numo. Among Traddies that’s practically inscribed in stone never to be changed not even by God.

    So of course they have fits when the Church changed the rule and said it was non-binding and there have been veiling wars among Catholics ever since.

    Cultural custom doesn’t bother me, I even encourage it. But I have a problem when people take a cultural custom and turn it into a universal norm. I grew up in parishes where we had older Mexican ladies who wore mantillas. Didn’t really notice or care because no one made a big deal or even a deal at all. It was entirely personal and cultural and it neverwas a problem. It just didn’t matter.

    Hopefully that sort of explains why I quoted you. If not, I apologize.

  156. sad observer wrote:

    By the way, go get your vomit bucket: I have seen the head coverings thing used to blame women for being raped (i.e. if she had been wearing a head covering, maybe the angels would have been quicker to help her. Too bad). I’m not making that up.

    Nothing like a little superstition to spice up one’s victim blaming.

  157. this is just too funny. I wonder if she has to wear the hat while receiving “christian discipline”?

  158. Hester wrote:

    @ Pacbox:

    because women have a womb they carry life so must be protected

    Don’t men carry life too? The sperm is just as much a part of the conceived baby as the egg. Not just scientifically either – this could be interpreted as having Biblical precedent, because of the justification for Abraham’s tithe in Hebrews 7:9-10. Lots of the same groups that practice headcovering also insist that Hebrews makes tithing mandatory for Christians, so logically they should accept this reasoning.

    There’s not a lot of logic to some of a Traddies reasons for things. Since only women can give birth (and about the only thing they’re good for in Traddie circles, I kid you not), women need protected so they can keep having babies since motherhood is the highest and greatest thing women can be. They typically don’t have a high view of women though not all Traddies are that extreme. I’m not knocking motherhood for those who choose it but I don’t think women are only to be wives and mothers.

    As for tithing, it depends. I’ve heard 10% where at least 5% goes to the parish and the rest to charity. I’ve also heard to give of thr first fruits. Mostly, it comes down to what can give while also taking care of your “family” (even if it’s just you.) Like I said, it depends, usually on which parish you attend.

  159. Just to add to the discussion on angels here is an interesting take on headcovering from a blog called Joyful Christian Homemaking: :=0

    Other blessings…

    Angels look down, and see my headcovering. Fallen angels see I am under my husband’s headship and the Lord’s protection. I am therefore not available for an incubus rendezvous, or to offer up my genetics to create any new wave of Nephilim.

    My headcovering is a gentle, constant reminder that my husband is my head. It also blesses him, because it reminds him to be a good leader and provider of the family.

    I am not lusted after as much, which is a big praise. As a Christian woman, especially a married one, it is not comfortable to be lusted after, or flirted with. I am respected more by the opposite gender.

    My favorite blessing is definitely how the covering draws people to me, to ask questions, and I get a chance to share Christ with them.

  160. Mykingdomforahorse wrote:

    Angels look down, and see my headcovering. Fallen angels see I am under my husband’s headship and the Lord’s protection. I am therefore not available for an incubus rendezvous, or to offer up my genetics to create any new wave of Nephilim.

    So it’s a Magickal protective Ward against Sex Demons from the Malleus Malefacarium.

    (Insert “Boing! Cuckoo!” sound effect loop from Rocky & Bullwinkile…)

    Wasn’t one of the beefs the Romans had was that these Christians weren’t superstitious enough to be a REAL religion? Not enough magickal thinking?

  161. nmgirl wrote:

    this is just too funny. I wonder if she has to wear the hat while receiving “christian discipline”?

    If it’s Christian Domestic Discipline(TM), no. She just has to hike her skirt up and pull down her ladylike underwear for the paddle. (I can’t believe I just typed that, but it’s too good a straight line, I couldn’t pass it up…)

  162. Hester wrote:

    @ Pacbox:
    because women have a womb they carry life so must be protected
    Don’t men carry life too? The sperm is just as much a part of the conceived baby as the egg.

    But from Biblical times through the Middle Ages, it was believed that the “seed” came completely from the male (homunculi of all future generations nested within each other in the sperm) and the female just acted as an incubator. It was all sperm and no egg back then. Incubator for the man’s “seed”, nothing more.

  163. Pacbox wrote:

    Cultural custom doesn’t bother me, I even encourage it.

    You said what I was trying to say. I think it is nice to have a cultural tradition such a Mennonite women wearing their little hats. My Russian grandmother always wore her babushka when she went for a walk. It becomes a problem when we claim that one group is somehow more honoring to God for wearing a veil/hat whatever.We honor God by living in His grace and being thankful for His forgiveness.

  164. Mykingdomforahorse wrote:

    Angels look down, and see my headcovering. Fallen angels see I am under my husband’s headship and the Lord’s protection. I am therefore not available for an incubus rendezvous, or to offer up my genetics to create any new wave of Nephilim.

    OK-Now it is really getting weird. I have got to see that site. Thank you for informing me. Incubus-Oh Good night!

  165. @ Dee:
    Thanks I wasn’t sure if I was clear or if I was going to have to post a comment apologizing for all my previous comments and maybe avoid commenting for a while. Sometimes I’m not sure if people get what I’m trying to say or even if people are reading what I write. I’ve been ignored and even told my words/what I say doesn’t matter for so long that I’m never sure if people will even read what I say/write and I think I’m probably stupid for saying anything at all.

  166. I’m sorry to say this about other Christians, but the Bayly stuff on here (if it has been accurately reported, though it does sound congruent with what else I’ve heard about them) is arrant nonsense and completely unscriptural. What is so appalling is that these men are passing themselves off as Christian conservative evangelical leaders.

    As Hester and others have pointed out, Jesus wept on more than one occasion (at Lazarus’ tomb; over Jerusalem). The Psalms often talk about the Psalmist’s tears. Paul also had tears in his eyes on at least one occasion according to his own testimony. Elisha wept at the thought of what Hazael was going to do. And so forth. The idea that tears are unmanly is a relevantly recent innovation and furthermore rather confined to the Anglo-Saxon or Germanic world – Russians are more open about their grief, funnily enough, and so I believe are Latins.

    Personally I am not a big fan of women with the “ripped” appearance for purely aesthetic reasons, but I can’t think of any overriding scriptural reason why a woman shouldn’t strengthen herself physically. Come to think of it, I’m not keen on the look of extreme bodybuilders of either sex, but that’s their choice and again I see no primary scriptural prohibition. Until all work is done by droids, it may actually make sense for someone such as a hospital nurse to build up her strength – hospital work can be physically very demanding.

    Jewellery is purely a cultural thing, but it’s interesting to note that in Exodus it seems that both men and women possessed it (correct me if I’m wrong) and it was given away to aid in the work of building the sanctuary, not because it was sinful per se. Nick Burbeck has pointed out Zerubbabel and the ring. I wear a wristwatch, and when I was married I saw nothing “androgynous” about wearing a wedding ring – on the contrary, I thought it helped me in my Christian life because the ring was a sign of my marriage to my wife and discreetly but publicly gave notice that I was already partnered to her.

    Playing cop and soldier? This just gets more silly, frankly. Female police are needed, if only to help female members of the public in distress (especially victims of sexual assault) and sometimes for searching female suspects. As for female soldiers, although I have some practical reservations about full-on front-line use, it has to be acknowledged that Israeli men and women know how to defend their country, just as Russian women sometimes served in the Red Army in the desperate days of WWII. Hitler by contrast wanted women to stay at home – “kitchen, children, church” – and so his labour force was instead diluted with unwilling foreign slave labour who were understandably happy to sabotage production.

    Not caring about personal appearance? If anything one of the criticisms that women make about men, particularly husbands, is that they don’t bother about their appearance – the stereotypical image of the fat unshaven slob with stains on his clothes watching TV comes to mind. I’m not a snappy dresser myself, but I wouldn’t go out on a date with a woman if I were unwashed, unshaven, uncombed and with crumpled clothes not even tucked in. This seems an odd statement coming from what one might term the more conservative end of the Christian spectrum, since the traditional view of fundamentalists has always been that they wear suits and ties on nearly every occasion. Perhaps we have misunderstood them?

  167. Mykingdomforahorse wrote:

    I am therefore not available for an incubus rendezvous, or to offer up my genetics to create any new wave of Nephilim.

    That was all weird, but as to that part, besides being weird, what protection does the Lord pro-offer a 40 something still not married woman? Nada?

    It’s like the preacher I heard in a TV sermon months ago who said married women’s “protector” and “covering” was their husband.

    So God leaves the single women up the creek without a paddle, I suppose.

  168. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Wasn’t one of the beefs the Romans had was that these Christians weren’t superstitious enough to be a REAL religion? Not enough magickal thinking?

    One thing some Christians don’t lack for these days is pure weirdness.

  169. “If on the other hand God is primarily concerned with our benefit, then this is a warning as a means of accountability. God would be graciously reminding us that the angels are watching us worship and bringing our prayers before Him (Rev 8:3-4). They will let Him know if we’re obeying this command or not.”

    Hey, you know what else I just realized this reminds me of? Seventh-Day Adventism.

    “Every man’s work passes in review before God…Opposite each name in the books of heaven is entered, with terrible exactness, every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. Heaven-sent warnings or reproofs neglected, wasted moments, unimproved opportunities, the influence exerted for good or for evil, with its far-reaching results, all are chronicled by the recording angel.” -Ellen White

  170. @ Pacbox:

    I’ve been reading your posts, if that matters. I don’t always have anything to add to people’s posts or conversations is all. 🙂

  171. @ Pacbox:
    I probably made a poor choice using the word “tradition” in my comment. The confusion may be my fault. I think you, numo, and I are all in agreement that, to use Dee’s phrase, “cultural traditions” are different from what this post is addressing. I think I understand what you were saying. When some Christians try to enforce their traditions on others as being spiritually superior the true spirit of Christianity suffers.

  172. @ Pacbox: I hear you, believe me! Vatican II was one of the best things that ever happened to Catholicism; it pains me to see so many people trying to turn back the clock.

    As far as custom goes, many Muslim women wear headscarves (hijab) for the same reason – tradition. (I know lots of Americans don’t believe that, but nevertheless…)

  173. Pacbox wrote:

    I grew up in parishes where we had older Mexican ladies who wore mantillas. Didn’t really notice or care because no one made a big deal or even a deal at all. It was entirely personal and cultural and it neverwas a problem. It just didn’t matter.

    Exactly – it’s the same thing around here re. Mennonite women and caps (or other head coverings), though as I mentioned upthread, most don’t these days, even in my area, which is home to lots of conservative Anabaptists.

  174. @ Pacbox: No worries, Pacbox – I got kind of confused, is all. 🙂

    P.S.: I lived in a small convent (rented house) with 9 nuns back in the early 70s, when I was in college. Loved them.

  175. @ BeenThereDoneThat: I got a bit confused – maybe we were all a bit confused? I know for sure that I was ready to take a nap when I wrote my 1st comment above on Mennonite women and caps, etc. – I was pretty well brain-fogged at the time!

  176. Beakerj wrote:

    So I can fight my innate usurping nature by the application of a gospel hat? Such depth of insight

    I just finished reading the post and it made my head hurt but then I saw your comment and it made me laugh Beakerj. 🙂

  177. @ BeenThereDoneThat:

    Maybe not poor, just needed some clarification. It happens. Sometimes it’s just a matter of providing and explanation of the term you’re using in the context. I know I use words, especially Catholic words that may not have the same meaning or application as I use them.

    My dad is an engineer so learned to ask for clarification when I couldn’t translate from engineerese to English. 😀 Plus with a background in the Social Sciences I learned not to take what I read for granted to be easily understood. Okay, that didn’t make sense. Basically, there are times what I’m reading may not be easily understood and so I ask for clarification. Otherwise, I just bumble on ahead till somebody notices and says something.

  178. Something I should point out in general since I may not have done so earlier: in Catholicism, Tradition with a big T is part of deposit of the faith that has come down through the ages and cannot change. Small t tradition, however, can change. An example of big T Tradition would be the lineage of the popes that we can trace back to St. Peter. An example of a small t tradition, besides veiling, would be the colors for liturgical seasons, such as white for Easter and Christmas and purple for Advent and Lent.

    Hopefully, this helps in understanding that tradition as a term among Catholics can be misunderstood easily especially when some Catholics want to turn small t traditions into big T traditions and saying the Church got it wrong. But it’s their personal opinion so you don’t have to give iy much credence.

  179. Don’t worry numo, we all get confused sometimes. As long as there’s good chocolate to go around wjo cares. That’s awesome about the nuns. @ numo:

  180. @ Pacbox:
    I had no idea that the word “tradition” would have more meaning to someone with knowledge of Catholicism. I admit I don’t know much about the Catholic faith, terminology, customs, etc. Thank you for the explanation. A few months back, numo told some fascinating stories in one of the threads about her time with the nuns. It gave me a whole different perspective. When everyone shares their part here, we all learn from one another.

  181. @ BeenThereDoneThat:
    As a Catholic, I’ve become aware of the differences in terms like tradition when communicating with other Catholics and people who have no knowledge of Catholicism. Now, for some reason I’ve got “Tradition” (I think that’s the song) from Fiddler on the Roof stuck in my head.

  182. @ Martos:
    It bothered me too.

    Women “play” cop, seriously? If he called the police for some important reason, would he treat a female cop with respect? Would he say something stupid, like, “send a real cop”?

  183. I’m late to this thread – long weekend in my Province, and sunny in my neck of the woods, so I had to go out and enjoy it 🙂 however, this discussion would not be complete without this other (actually pretty funny) thought about head coverings from Greco Roman times (remember, they had many very whacky views on human reproduction).

    http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.ca/2012/09/head-coverings-in-worship-why-female.html

    It is interesting, at least. Well, whatever the reason, it is good to realize the Apostle Paul wrote letters, in Greek, to Greco-Roman churches and we are simply eavesdroppers, we won’t necessarily understand every line he wrote, it wasn’t to us. The letters survived because there were lessons for everyone embedded in personal, audience specific letters. The Word is a tool useful for: a) everything? b) making church rules? or c) making you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. The answer, of course, is (c). Not every sentence of Paul’s letters needs to be understood by us and debated, and used and so on, if it is not making us wise for salvation. Frankly the Patterson’s, Bayly’s, Sproul and other “angles will get you” types are not making people wise for salvation through faith in Christ, no, they are using the tool to bludgeon people over the head with drivel and nonsense and make them less wise for Christ.

    I use a pen (useful tool), but I don’t sit there and stare at the manufacture’s number embedded in the plastic on the lower side, trying to figure out if my pen will pop a whiteout bottle out of it’s end if I press on the embedded plastic numbers. Nor do I take the tool of the Word and stare at a verse that will not really make me a better or worse Christian, loving person, etc. and more likely, trying to decipher that verse instead of reading the rest of the Bible is like staring at the plastic embedded numbers instead of writing down what I need to. A distraction is not a useful tool. And, like the embedded numbers on the pen, those items on my useful tools are for me, they are for the original handlers (the company inspectors who make pens/ the original audience Paul was writing to). Since we are not original handlers, not everything in the Bible is going to be fore us. It was useful to them, but not us, that is OK.

  184. @ Pacbox: Dude! 😀 I *do* get what you’re saying about capital-T Tradition vs. lowercase-t version of same. If I’d been a bit less mentally foggy yesterday, I’d have caught that – but hey, I think we’re on the same page now.

    Although I’m not Catholic, I picked up enough Catholic terms (and shades of meaning) earlier in my life that sometimes I’ve said things (here and elsewhere) that were crystal clear to me, but completely opaque to others. so I’ve been there and done that myself. (btw, I’m Lutheran – born and raised – and, in many ways, was a stranger wandering in evangelical/charismatic-land… I have a lot of difficulty understanding things about low-church Protestant denoms, as the church culture – cultures, really – is so different to what I grew up with.)

  185. @ Pacbox: Yep, that’s the musical!

    Odd that you should bring that up, as I once saw it performed by the students and an RC boys’ school. They did a very good job!

  186. @ Val:
    Val wrote:

    Marto

    No, he would gnash his teeth. Really.

    Let me be clear, here: I am not saying that Christian men should rebel against authority when, contrary to God’s Creation order, it is exercised by woman. If a female police officer pulls me over and tickets me, I’ll respect and submit to her, not because she has a gun and a radio, but because she has been placed over me by God, bearing the sword in His behalf.

    Still, I will recognize that her authority is contrary to God’s creation order in the matter of sexuality, and it will grieve me causing me, like Lot, to gnash my teeth. And this is how every biblical Christian should view the exercise of authority by woman over man no matter where it occurs.
    http://baylyblog.com/blog/2007/04/what-feminism

    Despite the fact that, in Bayly’s twisted mind, God has violated His own “creation order” by placing a woman in authority over him. The mental gymnastics these whining men go through to prove how superior they are is mind boggling.

  187. Sorry, Val’s quote above (in moderation at the moment) should have said: “Women “play” cop, seriously? If he called the police for some important reason, would he treat a female cop with respect? Would he say something stupid, like, “send a real cop”?”

  188. Hester wrote:

    Hey, you know what else I just realized this reminds me of? Seventh-Day Adventism.

    “Every man’s work passes in review before God…Opposite each name in the books of heaven is entered, with terrible exactness, every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. Heaven-sent warnings or reproofs neglected, wasted moments, unimproved opportunities, the influence exerted for good or for evil, with its far-reaching results, all are chronicled by the recording angel.” -Ellen White

    Hester — Good point. Seventh-day Adventists have some extremely heretical teachings. It’s shocking that they have their own paraphrase of the Bible, the Clear Word that rewrites Scripture to insert their prophet Ellen G. White’s teachings. They’ve been given a pass for a lot of years, but Walter Martin (the original Bible Answer Man and president of Christian Research Institute), just before his death, said, “I fear that if they continue to progress at this rate, that the classification of a cult can’t possibly miss being re-applied to Seventh Day [sic] Adventism.”

    A former Adventist wrote this booklet: http://www.rose-publishing.com/10-QA-on-Seventh-day-Adventism-pamphlet-P826.aspx

  189. Martos wrote:

    Last time I checked, a female soldier or cop bleeds the same way than their male colleagues if they’re wounded. They are not playing games.
    It’s an extremely condescending attitude.

    The Baylys must have a rule book for what women can, and cannot, do. It must be hard for them, living in a world in which women show they can be just as good as men in roles such as the law. I wonder, does he gnash his teeth when she hands him a ticket or act all nicey, nicey?

  190. @ Val:

    Oh my goodness, that makes so much sense in trying to pull all the various ideas together about veiling. It would explain how someone would think that a woman’s hair was the glory of her husband. And did not Paul allude the shame of a woman having a shaved head? I heard a supposed explanation of that, but I would like to hear your explanation as to why a shaved head on a woman would be a “shame” in that day. The explanation I heard had to do with women who sold their “abilities” in the marketplace.

    Pacbox: Please keep on commenting. I grew up pre-Vatican II in an area where there were a lot of Catholics but I was never a Catholic. Looking at Catholicism from the outside is not the same and from the inside. However, I do seem to see a lot of influence of older Catholic thought and practice in the later developments resulting from the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention. Some of them seem to take some poorly understood older ideas, repackage them and rename them and develop new explanations for them, and then present them as fresh commitment to scripture. If that sounds strange–it is.

    But look at it this way: post Vatican II catholicism has dropped some of the pre-Vatican II practices. Read: the presumed copyright or patent expired. They are now up for grabs to be picked up by any person or group that wants or needs traditions. little t. However, to market said traditions to sola scriptura non-tradition oriented people the tradition must be a Tradition, required by scripture, or else it will be rejected. The way you make a tradition into a Tradition in evangelical circles is that you say “the Bible says” within the context of verbal plenary inspiration.

    I am saying this in response to the commenter who said that she did not understand evangelical thinking. Those of us with a past in evangelical Christianity, especially those of us who were before the conservative resurgence, think more like Val (see comment above) thinks about scripture. The conservatives think that we are heretics or worse, and we think that they are pitiful and dangerous. Of course, we all deny that that is what we think.

    I want to again say that I left that past behind me, and am now a Methodist. For those of you who do not know what that means, officially we recognize the validity of what Wesley said about what people believe; that it is determined by scripture (prima scriptura), tradition, reason and experience. That leaves, of course, some room for individual variation in some matters not clearly taught by scripture. That idea is abhorrent to some folks, that there is any room for freedom of belief in anything. That is going to have to be their problem.

    And to those of you have have more or different information or insight into this issue of veiling and all, please speak up. We all (well, I sure do) value what you have to say.

  191. @ Janey:

    SDAs are theological crackpots on the level of Mormonism IMO. How that denomination has survived for over 150 years is completely beyond me.

  192. Hester wrote:

    @ Janey:
    SDAs are theological crackpots on the level of Mormonism IMO. How that denomination has survived for over 150 years is completely beyond me.

    To be blunt, I’m not sure how Mormonism has thrived as much as it has, either. And I have no idea how Scientology has gotten any traction at all!

  193. God’s love isn’t for everyone, but rather for the 0.1% that follow my narrow-minded plan for salvation of which I am the goddess. I make the rules.

    Ladies:

    Keep your bodies covered up, and if that includes your head I approve. I’ve always been an undercover Mennonite, like I was raised, but kept it a secret and dressed like everyone else because a. I’m a hypocrite b. I love clothes c. I wanted to keep my Mennonite agenda hidden and instead promote it to the unassuming women whom I lorded over in SGM, who believed what I taught was the gospel truth. I wanted them to suffer religious oppression while I lived above them in an attempt to escape my seething envy and have the best of both worlds.

    You may enjoy limited amounts of time on the Internet, but follow my example and do not allow questions, comments or replies to your tweets from the great unwashed who do not follow my plan of salvation. Use quotes on Twitter to appear deep, spiritual, as if you’re a true chosen one. And speaking of unwashed, are you keeping your countertops (mine are granite) clear of clutter?

    When suggest you follow my teachings, I’m not suggesting you follow the Lord. Have you noticed? Honesty doesn’t pay very well.

    Keep your heads down, ladies, focused on the footsteps of the men who should always be in front of you, and keep them covered – like I do all my secrets.

  194. I found your blog while I was looking for information on Steven Furtick and the Elevation Church (one of my sisters-in-law has taken to putting links to Furtick’s sermons on Facebook with notations like “We must ALL listen to this!!!” and I wondered what the hell was up). So far I am finding your blog quite interesting and enjoyable.

    Re: headcoverings–I was wondering if you’ve ever looked at the blogs belonging to Steven Anderson and his wife Zsuzsanna? They have a small church in Phoenix, AZ, and as far as total Christian Crazypants, they are right in the vanguard. (Zsuazsanna writes at stevenandersonfamily.blogspot.com, and Steven Anderson’s blog is at http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org).

    Steven Anderson wrote an entire essay on his blog about why women should NOT wear headcoverings, and why all of the verses used to support headcoverings for women actually refer to women not cutting their hair rather than women wearing something on their heads in church. He is VERY passionate about it (he is passionate about everything) and goes to great lengths to “prove” that headcoverings on women are not at all biblical.

    I must warn you that when you get to the part of his belief system where he thinks women should not vote and homosexuals should get the death penalty, you might throw up in your mouth a little, but his stuff makes for some fascinating reading.

  195. Josh wrote:

    Hester wrote:
    @ Janey:
    SDAs are theological crackpots on the level of Mormonism IMO. How that denomination has survived for over 150 years is completely beyond me.
    To be blunt, I’m not sure how Mormonism has thrived as much as it has, either…

    Mormons surround the new person with practical help and meet all their social needs. Simultaneously, they hook the whole family. For a woman, 3 other women are assigned to her, they come to her home 3 times a week to help her with housework, the kids, set up her pantry, and whatever needs doing. It has the effect of personal brain washing and absorbing the person’s life. Outsiders get the message that their old friend is not available any longer … unless they want to join in the “fun”, too! 😉

    To ever leave means to give up one’s entire social structure, family structure, and in most cases requires a move. To top it off, you’ve already seen the warnings of how badly it can go when the church shuns you, which in many cases also means none of the Mormons will do business with you anymore. It can mean the death of a business, loss of a job, or an inability to get a new job. That would make anyone think twice before leaving.

    I think this is why the Mormons have lasted so long and done so well. It’s certainly not because their message makes sense or has any validity in history.

  196. @ Leila:

    i’m just enjoying the visual image of him “gnashing” (“nyuh nyuh nyuh nyuh” with facial contortions & saliva dripping down…??) is that gnashing? nobody correct me, I like my mental picture here.

    I hope this happens in her presence.

  197. Val wrote:

    …and Jesus wept
    Must mean Jesus is one of those girly-men Bayly dreads.

    Which is why they preach Turbo-Jesus filling the Jezreel Valley with blood “up to the horses’ bridles” at Armageddon like something out of Warhammer 40K. “WAAAAGH! DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!”

  198. Leila wrote:

    Still, I will recognize that her authority is contrary to God’s creation

    I know of zilch biblical proof for that view point.

    Any time the Bible mentions a woman submitting to a guy, it’s only in terms of marriage, a wife to a husband (and even then, I think the gender complementarians misunderstand that passage – and the one about women teaching in church).

  199. @ Julie:

    Here’s a page at his site about head coverings:

    Why Women Should Not Wear Head-Coverings

    There’s a page on there called “Jesus wore pants not a dress.”

    The minute I saw this on his home page, I already had him/his church figured for lunacy:

    “We are an old-fashioned, independent, fundamental, King James Bible only, soul-winning Baptist church.”

    His home page also says, “Faithful Word Baptist Church is a young, family-integrated church.”

    FIC (family integrated) is Christian code speak for “we have made family/ marriage/ having children into idols. No room for singles here. Singles not wanted.”

    A Critique of the Family-Integrated Church Movement

  200. @ Val:

    Do you mean that some old papyri and animal parchments with large Greek letters all run together are to be read and studied with reason and common sense?

    My answer would be yes and that this approach was used widely in times past by both scholars and lay students of the Bible. It has only been over the last 40-45 years that Paul has become a sort of new Moses to the gentiles. Whether it’s head coverings, women in the pulpit, things which were once matters of individual conscience have now attained a sort of Levitical status, with the Almighty still thundering out of Sinai through Paul.

  201. @ Julie:

    I just found a page at his site,

    What’s Wrong with Male Gynecologists?

    by Pastor Steven L Anderson, 2006

    1. Is nudity before the opposite gender a sin?
    2. Are male obstetricians or gynecologists condoned in the Bible?
    3. Are male gynecologists professionals or perverts?

    He affirms that nudity for any reason (other than between husband and wife) is a sin (quote: “Given that nudity before a person of the opposite gender is a sin”).

    He is against male obstetricians or gynecologists… but if he’s into strict gender roles, I would assume he would also be against women being doctors(?) so who should a pregnant lady see for health issues?

    He says, “God intended women to assist other women with these types of medical issues.”

    And you’d probably want those women to have had some medical training, which means they’d have to go to college and medical school. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he condemns women getting higher education or working outside the home elsewhere on his site.

    You can find that nutty page under “Text Studies” by clicking on the “text” button on the top of his site’s home page.

    Oh, on a page called “Birth control in light of the Bible,” he says, “They [birth control] thin and harden the lining of the uterus.” Uh, isn’t he contradicting himself? He feels it’s sinful for a man to look at, study, or think about “intimate parts” of the female body, but he used the word “uterus,” so obviously he’s done some reading or study on the topic…

    So, it’s wrong for a man to get a medical degree to study the female body (according to him), but it’s okay for him, a Baptist preacher, to study it to condemn birth control? That is a double standard.

  202. @ Daisy: HAHA! I’ve read his rant about how all male gynecologists are perverts. The thing that fascinates me is how obsessed he seems to be with gay people. He refers to them as “sodomites” or “homos”, advocates their eradication, and rails against them with a fervor that pretty much forces you to speculate about Anderson’s own sexual preferences. I don’t usually subscribe to the “People who yell loudest about hating gay rights are usually closeted” school of thought, but in Steven Andersons case one has to wonder.

    If you get a minute, read his series about how he met and married his wife. He notes that during their courtship, she seemed to be taken aback when he told her how he felt about “homos” because she was raised in Europe and had been “corrupted” by all that touchy-feely-humanisty-Europy stuff. She apparently came around though because I think they have 7 kids at last count.

  203. Daisy wrote:

    FIC (family integrated) is Christian code speak for “we have made family/ marriage/ having children into idols. No room for singles here. Singles not wanted.”

    Yup. At the FIC we attended, there was one single woman who came on and off. I can’t remember if she was divorced or if she had never married her sons father. I remember one of her “friends” (an elder) complaining to us one time that she didn’t do enough Bible reading. Later, after talking to her, I found out she doesn’t like to read anything and doesn’t consider herself good at reading.

    The elder and his wife had been so frustrated over this woman’s lack of “spiritual progress” that the friendship was dissolving. The next time he and his wife started to complaint to me, I told him what the woman had told me. I suggested encouraging her (as I may have done) to listen to an audio Bible instead. I don’t know if he took my advice, but I did notice soon after that they seemed to have somewhat reconciled.

    It’s amazing how people will presume that someone is a bad Christian because of of things like these, when really, the other person doesn’t like reading or doesn’t know how to form new habits like prayer or Bible reading. I’ve been reading a lot about habit formation lately and it’s something most people struggle with, in different areas. Some people are great about Bible reading but never floss their teeth. Some floss their teeth but can’t seem to remember to plan meals ahead of time instead of getting fast food.

    When other Christians around us don’t have good habits in the various spiritual disciplines, instead of assuming they aren’t interested, we should give them the benefit the of doubt: they either don’t know how important the discipline is, or they know it’s a good idea and just can’t figure out how to make it a regular part of their life.

    At the FIC, most or all families had family devotions after supper every night. They saw these evening devotions as the mark of a good Christian father (because the dad was supposed to lead them). We stopped after we left that church and in fact, have done almost no Bible reading for the last 2 1/2 years. So many verses were just too painful for me. Now I am starting to feel that the time is right to start up again.

    This time, instead of viewing evening Bible reading as a “must do,” I am going to look at it from a psychology point of view. According to Professor BJ Fogg and books like Charles Duhigg’s “The Power of Habit,” the key to forming a new habit is to tie the habit to an anchor that you do every day. An example is: Each day after I drink my morning coffee, I will unload the dishwasher.

    So the reason these families were so regular in their devotions was not because they were super Christians like they thought, but because they had tied the habit to the anchor of eating supper, something they did at home every day. Even if they were at another friend’s house, that family did the same thing, so they’d participate in another family’s reading.

  204. @ Daisy:

    I think the people who consider all nudity a sin need to prove their case. The “proof-text” about modesty in one of Paul’s letters has nothing to do with showing too much skin. Instead, Paul complains about the women trying to out-do each other with their ridiculous hair styles and jewelry, practices I have read were part of polytheistic Greeks worship. I’ve heard this verse used over and over to tell women to cover up, but everyone using it that way is ignoring the clear context of the verse! They forget the word “modest” in English also means to not show off.

  205. Victorious wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Can you say P-whipped?
    (whiny henpecked husband voice) “Yes, dear…”
    These terms are extremely vulgar and condescending to women. For the life of me I can’t understand why you would choose to use them.

    Thank you Headless Unicorn. That was exactly what I was thinking.

  206. I just saw this post and did not have time to go through the comments.

    Thank you so much for posting this. I had no idea.

    The question is going to be what if some woman shows up at our church doing this? If it’s a cool hat with a matching outfit, it could be really chic.

    I also don’t mind Mrs. Patterson. She has done that for so long, I just always saw her as a representative of the pre-war era, even though she is younger.

    Unfortunately, if this shows up at our church, I bet it won’t be chic, and it won’t be an nice old lady with old fashioned tastes.

    It will probably be some attractive, young woman, wearing a sheet on head and clothes that make her look frumpy!

    Not sure what I am going to do if that occurs.

    If we say nothing but well, everyone has their own interpretation, that would be correct, but the potential effect would be to infect other young women. And soon, we’ll have 10% or of our women doing this.

    I am afraid it will have to be war if this shows up. I hate the thought of that, so I am hoping and praying for this not to show up.

  207. Julie wrote:

    Victorious wrote:
    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Can you say P-whipped?
    (whiny henpecked husband voice) “Yes, dear…”
    These terms are extremely vulgar and condescending to women. For the life of me I can’t understand why you would choose to use them.

    Thank you Headless Unicorn. That was exactly what I was thinking.

    If that a response to my original comment or Victorious’s comment on my comment?

    P.S. And a Complementarian(TM) in that position has to prove he’s REALLY THE MAN IN CHARGE(TM), whether by filling every wall in his house with Hunting Trophies, preaching Male Supremacy Uber Alles, or taking it out upon his inferiors (including forcing himself on his female inferiors). Because he doesn’t dare stand up to She Who Must Be Obeyed Behind Closed Doors.

  208. Daisy wrote:

    Oh, on a page called “Birth control in light of the Bible,” he says, “They [birth control] thin and harden the lining of the uterus.” Uh, isn’t he contradicting himself?

    At least it isn’t dead embryos stacking up in the uterine lining…

  209. Daisy wrote:

    There’s a page on there called “Jesus wore pants not a dress.”

    That’s a strong indicator of either Hypermasculinity (“ME MAN! NO SISSIES!”) or “fear of Homos has driven him off the cliff with his congregation in the car” like so many others.

  210. Anonymous wrote:

    It will probably be some attractive, young woman, wearing a sheet on head and clothes that make her look frumpy!

    Isn’t that called “Christianese Modesty/Holiness Fashion”?

    (Which makes you want to drag the wearer to Carousel Boutique in Ponyville and throw her to the white unicorn within — “MAKEOVER!!!!”)

  211. @ Daisy:

    “He is against male obstetricians or gynecologists… but if he’s into strict gender roles, I would assume he would also be against women being doctors(?) so who should a pregnant lady see for health issues?”

    This is probably the reason why others here have shared stories about girls rescued from FIC churches, who had never had a gynecological exam of any kind. One of them (23) had a massive tumor that had to be removed. Probably also the source of the stories of courtship couples who…let’s just say couldn’t make things work on their wedding nights.

    The Abeka (Pensacola Christian College) health curriculum features no diagrams at all of the reproductive system of either sex. They did talk about STDs (which shocked me) but said that you got them by disobeying God.

  212. @ Hoppy:

    The only justification I ever heard was the phrase “uncover the nakedness of” in Leviticus. I.e., if it says to not uncover the nakedness of your sister, this isn’t a euphemism for sex but a blanket ban on ever seeing your sister without her clothes.

  213. Hester wrote:

    And if he was consistent…

    The thing is that nobody who wants to be justified by law (as the saying goes) will ever be consistent.

    The early followers of Jesus, who had both grown up under the Mosaic Law and lived alongside the Man who was, in person, the Law’s ultimate fulfilment, understood this. They knew that nobody is righteous before the law, that everybody pays lip-service to the parts of it they like whilst at the same time breaking other parts of it. And they knew that the determinedly self-righteous legalist will simply write his own law that paints a target around whatever he can easily achieve. And he’ll defend it by flinging accusations at anyone who questions him (as does his spiritual father). The heart is desperately deceitful and self-justifying, and no law (not even God’s – and He makes no bones about it) has ever changed that.

  214. Some of the women at my former church read a magazine called “An Encouraging Word.” It was a blank and white, non-glossy magazine. It is important to understand that the resolution of the photos of the women who ran the magazine wasn’t very good.

    In one issue, the one of the editors wrote that they had received several nasty letters along the lines of “None of you are wearing your headcoverings in your photos. What happened? Don’t you believe the Bible any more?” The women replied that they all were wearing them in the photos: 1. One couldn’t be seen because the way the the woman’s hair was. 2. The wind blew it off just as they took the photo (or some similar problem.) Apparently the editor thought she really needed to defend their “godliness,” rather than think about what kind of spiritual pride would make 24/7 headcovering women write nasty letters like that.

  215. I should add that in the patriarchal homeschooling movement, many (maybe most) women who wear headcoverings wear them all the time, not just at church. They wear handkerchiefs or other types of cloth, not hats. Hats would be far too fashionable.

    I do like Daisy’s idea of a Pinky and the Brain baseball cap.

  216. Hester wrote:

    And if he was consistent, he’d also go after proctologists and mammogram technicians.

    He’d also have to campaign for lots of men to sign up to be nurses and nurses aids. Even better, he’d have to tell men to change their own dad’s/male relative’s adult diapers instead of expecting his wife to care for her father-in-law.

  217. In fact, maybe men should change all the diapers their sons ever have, as well as doing the potty training.

    Maybe medical schools should make sure male medical students only dissect male cadavers.

    Is it any wonder more average Christians consider these fundamentalist types to be very anti-intellectual? They can’t see how ridiculous their reasoning is when followed to its logical conclusion. I bet even most Muslim women are allowed to have male OBs.

  218. I just got this post, and I want to say something in RC Sproul (sr)’s defense. From everything I’ve read by him he regards it as a secondary issue where genuine believers disagree. His personal conviction is that head coverings should be used, but, unless his stance has changed, he does not even teach this in his own church. That is, I heard him speak about this and he said his wife and daughters were the only ones in his church who wore head coverings.

    I think he’s wrong, but if his view hasn’t changed and he still regards it as something that is personal conviction and a secondary issue, I don’t think it’s right to lump him in with the Blyly’s and others who are making this a top tier issue, and it isn’t right for them to appeal to his “teaching” on this when he’s reluctant to teach it. I’m thinking specifically of his book “knowing scripture” where he brings up this very issue and does not give an opinion one way or the other.

    If he has changed his tune in recent years, then I apologize for not keeping up.

  219. @ Hester:
    Hester wrote:

    The Abeka (Pensacola Christian College) health curriculum features no diagrams at all of the reproductive system of either sex.

    This is pathetic. Is it more pathetic that it surprised me, even though I know their reputation? It sounds like oldest may have had a better understanding of reproduction by age five or six. It’s hard to avoid questions about menstruation when your son is always bursting into the bathroom on you.

  220. @ Jeff S:

    I don’t know much about Sproul Sr, but since what I’ve heard sounds normal enough, I’ve wondered how Jr. wound up being such a whacko.

  221. Hester wrote:

    And if he was consistent, he’d also go after proctologists and mammogram technicians.

    This reminds me.

    One problem of a million I see in a lot of Christian teaching about dating, marriage, and things like that, is a tendency to [T]exualize things that have nothing to do with [T]ex.

    (Put the letter “S” in place of the [T]. I’m trying not to trip off the moderator bot.)

    It’s so strange that unmarried women such as me are perceived by some married Christians as being Jezebels plotting to sleep with married men – when some of us, like me, have never even had sex, I’ve always wanted to wait until marriage – but then you have these married guys, preachers to boot, who obsessed about [T]ex.

    These married preacher men who make non-Texual things Texual – they seem to have the hang ups about Tex, not the unmarried people.

    It would not occur to me to assume that just because a health problem has to deal with, say, the gen1tals that this automatically makes it [T]exual.

  222. @ Daisy:

    One of the “s” words went through okay in my post above, but in the past when using the “s” word, my post was in moderation. Hmm.

  223. numo wrote:

    @ Beakerj: Ooh, beaks, can you do origami samurai helmets on spec?
    I would love me one!

    Oh you are so on! Although it is *possible* that a samurai helmet may not be the most godlygirly hat I could imagine…Still, doff this bible laden titfer & feel all that rebellion drain away…

  224. Daisy wrote:

    It would not occur to me to assume that just because a health problem has to deal with, say, the gen1tals that this automatically makes it [T]exual.

    Having given birth twice, there is not much that is less Texual than being in labor.

    [TMI alert!] Considering that most women poop at least a bit during the actual pushing part, I really, really doubt an OB would be turned on by the process. The whole process is so loud and gross.

  225. @ HoppyTheToad: Not TMI. I can’t imagine how anyone could *not* poop at least a bit during labor. After all, the baby’s pressing against all of that part of the plumbing pretty darned hard!

  226. numo wrote:

    @ Beakerj: That’s exactly why I want a samurai helmet, though.

    Specify whether you want the light Jingasa helmet or the full elaborate Kabuto with Mempo face mask in the form of a fierce Oni.

  227. @ HoppyTheToad:
    Sproul Sr. is definitely patriarchal in his thinking, I’m afraid. It’s not the crazy over-the-top version of his son, and I’ve heard him be gracious to opposing viewpoints, but it is there and it does come out at times. I think he doesn’t harp on it and make it a top tier issue, but there’s no doubt it influences his thinking at a deeper than surface level. It’s one of the issues that has led me to listen to him less now than I have in the past.

    My guess is that he is more like the Balyly’s in his personal convictions than he lets on, but that he tries to be gracious with other viewpoints.

    There’s a whole section in this book we’re studying at church where he talks about his leaving the PC(USA). As you may be aware, the straw that broke the camel’s back was women’s ordination. That’s why the PCA exists (though the PC(USA) has become more liberal since). Both Sproul and Keller say they were willing to serve and respect women elders, but that they would not participate in ordination ceremonies. They both claim that this was not good enough for the PC(USA), so they were forced to leave. Interestingly enough, in the book we are studying Sproul suggested the PC(USA) ought to have considered him as a “weaker brother” and worked with him to find a middle ground. What I find interesting to think about is that none of the current complementarians (except maybe Keller since he has women teaching and preaching is church even now) would today be willing to serve alongside women elders today the way Sproul claimed he would back in the day. I think the gulf has widened, sadly.

  228. @ Hoppy:

    It was actually even more pathetic than that. On the anatomy chart in the back of the book, they omitted not just the reproductive system, but the urinary system too, because at the end of a man’s urinary system is something they can’t show. Instead they buried the urinary system in the section on UTIs, and even then the urethra just went off into empty space with no anatomical context at all.

  229. @ Jeff S.:

    “Interestingly enough, in the book we are studying Sproul suggested the PC(USA) ought to have considered him as a ‘weaker brother’ and worked with him to find a middle ground.”

    I am curious what the middle ground would have been, as women either can be ordained to the pastorate or they can’t. Did he mean deaconesses?

  230. HoppyTheToad wrote:

    So the reason these families were so regular in their devotions was not because they were super Christians like they thought, but because they had tied the habit to the anchor of eating supper, something they did at home every day.

    “Your god may be your little Christian habit— the habit of prayer or Bible reading at certain times of your day. Watch how your Father will upset your schedule if you begin to worship your habit instead of what the habit symbolizes. We say, “I can’t do that right now; this is my time alone with God.” No, this is your time alone with your habit.” — Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest

  231. Jeff S wrote:

    he tries to be gracious with other viewpoints.

    You mean like calling those of us who do not toe his exacting standards “barely Christians.” I feel such warm fuzzies with that one.

  232. @ Daisy:
    I wonder what he would think about a hermaphrodite being a gynaecologist (he/she wouldn’t fit any prescribed gendered roles). I once had a miserable pastor’s wife tell me a hermaphrodite wasn’t “Glorifying to God”- she was furious when I showed her how wrong she was ( I pointed out that snails weren’t glorifying to God by her standards – as snails are evolutionarily pre-gender specific sexual reproducers, I like to stir pots with inconvenient truth ladles 🙂 ).

  233. I’m trying this from my phone since my tablet kept freezing and then going back to the main screen. I have no idea why.

    A point I’ve trying to make there times already has been this: prior to the 1970s, fashion required that women to wear something on their head when they went out in public. Wearing something on a womann’s head fell out of fashion. It was not thrown out or forgotten, as some say. So now bringing up headcovering as as a gospel thing to do, is well, a little out of whack. Forty years later and fashion becomes more important than Jesu
    Nancy, a Catholic and a woman at that, it’s strange to see older Catholic devotions pop up in Baptist circles. A lot of devotions, private devotions, were never really abandoned but rather revamped or left to die because they had served their purpose and now were not needed.

    As a Catholic, there are some things about evangelicals and fundamentalists that I don’t get either, not being raised in that kind of context. I have heard of something called the Emergent movement that seen to incorporate parts of liturgical worship into their worship and being accused of being Catholic burn that’s been a few years and I have no idea what’s going with that.

    I read TWW because I’ve seen a lot of what they write about here popping up in Catholic circles especially the whole beliefs surrounding homeschooling, the strict gender roles, the fearmongering, abuse. I appreciate that I can give a Catholic point of view, along with HUG though he has the added background that I don’t. I was born and raised Catholic and have been Catholic my entire life so I know I see things.differently than others that post here. That’s the nice thing about TWW: you can have multiple points of view as long as you aren’t rude or calling people names or breaking the rules. I know Catholic forums and blogs where this isn’t true: if you don’t tow their party line, they consider the Devil.

    I will try to comment when I can. Some topics just don’t interest me enough to comment or my tablet, which is currently being a brat, may not let me and so it comes down to me either getting on my phone or going to the public library.

  234. @ Daisy:
    I know, it never ceases to amaze me how these silly ideas could perpetuate in a culture – but, they did (and do). I wonder what future generations will think about us – when politicians think a women who is raped can’t get pregnant?!? Ariel Castro anyone????

    Here is another really obviously wrong view (although most Greek Scholars no longer attribute the book of Hebrews to the Apostle Paul) a biblical author had about reproduction. First, ask yourself – were you ever inside your ancestors? Of course we are never inside our grandparents – yes, some genetic material lasts from one generation to the next, but that would be like saying every European descendant is inside every other European descendant (as we all share some common ancestors thousands of years back) – No Way, we are individuals all made up of DNA copies (not original DNA materials) of our ancestors! Hitler had no part of me in him, nor is there part of him in me. The Hebrew writer would never have got that far, however, because he or she is thinking about the complete person as resting in their great (however many) great grandfather.

    Hebrews 7:9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

    The view was that humans were all created at once by their gods (for the Jews, God) and that a man’s seed was a complete human being, and inside each “seed- child” was all of that “seed-child’s” future offspring. So, for the Jews, the whole human race was inside Adam and hence, his fall was our fall. Now, this is patently wrong on many, many fronts 1) we are not all descendants of the the same human parents – as the homo sapien sapien arose as a population, not a breeding pair, in East Africa about 200,000 years ago – meaning you and I may well have different human parents all the way back to the dawn of humanity ( we were all the same race though – black 🙂 I bet the Fundy neo-nazis would just love to know that), 2) humans are unique creations at conception and are only 50% genetically the same as one parent, however, due to recombination, for example, you may inherit blue eyes from your mother, but your mom may have brown eyes, 3) you are technically more related to your mother than father, so being in even your father’s loins is impossible – you have another set of DNA called mitochondrial DNA that is only inherited through your mother, so, you are 51% of your mother’s DNA and 49% of your fathers (well, that is just a ball park guess on percentages), but it slightly favours the mother in every human – it likely is your mom’s fault 😉

    Knowing all this, there is no way that Levi even existed when Abraham paid the tithe, yet all the biblical writers of Paul’s day believed that men were carrying around their future off-spring in their bodies. So, hey, why not believe that a women’s hair had powers to suck up sperm (see my link above, if that sounds really weird to you ).

    I lived in India and Nepal for a year and I had, by North American standards, quite long hair (curly though, so it snapped up). Anyways, this was a constant question I got: Why did you cut your hair? It baffled me at first. I was thinking, oh, I must have washed it and it looked curlier than usual, but even people who had only met me an hour ago asked me this, so, it couldn’t have been that I looked different. So, I enquired, and they didn’t understand why western women cut their hair at all. I couldn’t get a straight answer from anyone about hair cutting – even if it was long hair – but it seemed to be around health. Healthy hair = healthy woman. So, some of that ancient stuff still lingers in the east. It certainly isn’t about beauty, because the absolute majority of women there tied their hair up in a bun, so it was something they publicly displayed (back to that article on private parts). That, and brushing your hair in public is considered a sexually explicit move – I kid you not, and I learned that the hard way (on a bus, with every male drooling at me, and me thinking they were all perverted idiots with their wives beside them, ah culture clashes, gotta love them). Oh, and i didn’t brush it, I simply, slipped my hand under my hair and pulled it out of a sweater I had just put on, but, being the only female with her long hair down in the first place, I guess it got everyone’s attention.

  235. @ Hester:
    The middle ground both he and Keller said (I read this in different, unrelated places from each of them) that they would minister along side women elders, but that they would not participate in the ordination ceremonies. The PC(USA) rejected this position.

  236. @ dee:
    And, Dee, I know you’ve effectively written him off after learning he said that. That’s reasonable and I won’t try to dissuade you from your feelings toward him. Sadly, I’ve said similar things about non-Calvinists in my not too distant past, though I’ve definitely recanted of those statements now. (And I thought I was being gracious when I said it too- unfortunately).

    I used to view Arminians as prideful people who thought they were smarter than unbelievers and wielded their beliefs like a sword against anyone who disagreed with them, because they were the best for having chosen the right path. That pretty much described most of the Arminians I’d been around, whereas the (few) Calvinists I’d met had genuine humility and treated others with respect. It’s ironic that so many here have had exactly the opposite experience 🙁

    I have definitely gotten to know some prideful Calvinists more recently, and some humble Arminians.

  237. Jeff S wrote:

    Sproul Sr. is definitely patriarchal in his thinking, I’m afraid.

    Ugh. That’s disappointing. Oh well. I don’t listen to the radio shows of anybody anymore. I really find I’m learning so much more from blogs like this.

  238. emr wrote:

    “Your god may be your little Christian habit— the habit of prayer or Bible reading at certain times of your day. Watch how your Father will upset your schedule if you begin to worship your habit instead of what the habit symbolizes. We say, “I can’t do that right now; this is my time alone with God.” No, this is your time alone with your habit.” — Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest

    That is a great quote.

  239. Val wrote:

    I wonder what he would think about a hermaphrodite being a gynaecologist

    A few months ago I spent an hour or two reading websites about inter-sex people. Some people are chimeras, which means some of their cells have male chromosomes and others have female chromosomes. So DNA tests can be unreliable or inconclusive for these people. (Personally, I wonder how many transgendered people might have some condition like this.) Other people were born with both sets or ambiguous genitals.

    Plus, there are women with just one X chromosome, women with XXX, and men with XXY. While most people are clearly one gender or the other, there are some people that just don’t seem to fit. I have yet to see a gender hierarchal person acknowledge this and discuss how to deal with it. My bet is they don’t know these problems occur and if they do, they don’t see it as worth bothering to discuss.

  240. @ Jeff S:

    At the FIC church we went to, Calvinism was the one thing there was an unofficial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about. I think 80-90% of the families were Calvinists, but it wasn’t something you could really ask about. I know two families that definitely weren’t and one that seemed to be on the fence. If asked, that family probably would’ve said they were Calvinists, but I don’t think they believed it as much as they thought they did.

  241. @ Nancy:

    Both Cheryl Schatz and Katharine Bushnell have done excellent work explaining the headcoverings passage. This scripture has been turned on its head by most English translations (biased translators?) and by exploring the original Greek, we get a much clearer picture.

    The basic conclusion: Paul had taught the believers (male and female) to worship unveiled (forsaking the Jewish custom of the Tallith for the men that was meant to convey shame). However, due to the notions of the culture as well as the womens’ husbands who were not believers and not ok with this, he makes an allowance for letting the women wear the covering if they need to, to avoid unnecessary trouble. Yet another call to forsake the customs that the religious Jews wanted to place on them and yet make gracious allowances for those with weaker faith or difficult circumstances.

    Nothing in the passage nor the custom of headcovering has anything to do with submission/subjection. Interestingly, this is the only place in scripture where the word for “authority/power” -“exousia”- is translated “a sign of authority” with the authority actually belonging to another who exercises it over the person. Verse 10 should read: “For this reason, the woman should have authority over her own head…” meaning just that and giving women authority. Compare to Matthew 9:6- exact same word and sentence structure but exousia translated quite differently. Hmmmm..

    Fwiw, I have family members who believe a different interpretation of the passage and do wear a covering. I know that they do it out of a sincere desire to obey what they think scripture says and I’ve never felt judged by them for not agreeing with them, nor felt like they thought themselves spiritually superior. I’ve also experienced quite the opposite around some other prescribers to the custom. Quite the opposite indeed.

  242. @ Val:

    “as snails are evolutionarily pre-gender specific sexual reproducers”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    hmmm… I once caught 2 snails doing it. Quite pornographic. The snail on top had a pee pee.

    so, what does pre-gender specific mean exactly?

    [snail porn — at LAST I can join the conversation! :)]

  243. @ HoppyTheToad:

    No kidding, eh?

    The sex chromosomes, aka the 23rd pair, are the smallest chromosomes in our genome. If we consider Trisomy 21 (Downes Syndrome) is the second smallest chromosomal pair (#21), and we are now giving most Downes babies a diagnosis of 50 years or so, then how many more 23rd pair chromosomal children are growing up in our midst (the smaller the chromosome, the more survivable a genetic defect is)? There are many conditions, as you point out, that create non-fully gendered humans, some are truly intersexed (Mosaic Turners Y chromosome, Silent Y and a bunch of others) But, as you point out, where does XXY fall on the continuum? What would Piper say about that? The child would grow up to be male, but with very feminine traits like breast development. What about a Turners Mosaic Y-factor? Or a Silent Y child? The Turners Mosaic Y child could be truly half and half – then what? Testicles and Ovaries together – which gender should they follow?

    Add to this that I live in the most gay-positive province in Canada (the Universe) and intersexed children are not operated on and if parents tried to take the child to the States to have something done (and they were Christian, sorry feeling snarky about Islamic rights to do whatever and no interference from the government, because it is cultural darling) I am sure Social Services (Child Protection) would be banging down their door to nab the child and return him/her to his/her intersexed state. I have had 2 children in schools I have worked at who had gender reassignment before puberty – and I agree, the only way that was done was due to unmentioned genetic issues, otherwise, waiting till after puberty would be necessary to prevent growth hormone damage.

    But, seriously, what about those born with out a clear gender? What would Owen Strachan do? He is already mad that Sesame street had Elmo playing with a doll, what if an intersexed child was featured on that show? Would he be mad at a child who was made in God’s image?

    Here is a final parting point. In the Greek language, Jesus appears in a vision to the Apostle John, the description in English give Mark Driscoll confidence that Jesus is a prized MMA fighter, however, since Mark Driscoll doesn’t like reading in Greek, let’s go do that 😉 OK here is the Greek:

    periezOsmenonpros tois mastois zwnhn crushn

    which literally reads as
    having-been-girded-about towards the BREASTS with-girdle golden

    But he word used here for Breasts is Mastois (depending on the translation) and that means “nursing breasts” in Greek, and depicts exclusively feminine breasts.

    So in English versions we get: Revelations 1:13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his *chest*, while in the original, it was Jesus with nursing Breasts.

    Don’t tell Mark Driscoll this, it would shatter his image of a tough, cage-fighting, kick-butt Jesus returning to earth. But don’t worry, Mark doesn’t read Greek, he thinks it’s a waste of time, because the Bible is clear in plain English. Piper really doesn’t bother with this idea either, as he thinks women will be eternally submitted to men in heaven, despite there being no male or female in the new Heaven or Earth, and the Bayly brothers, Sproul, et al. if they found out, would likely either commission a new Greek interlinear testament or a new Greek dictionary to erase this inconvenient truth.

    But it really makes me wonder, in John’s vision, why are the newer English translations so quick to hide gender issues (they do this with Junia the female apostle too)? King James calls them Paps??? and Wycliff calls them “teats” (seriously?), but all the more recent ones say “chest” – hiding something there translators?

  244. HoppyTheToad wrote:

    emr wrote:

    “Your god may be your little Christian habit— the habit of prayer or Bible reading at certain times of your day. Watch how your Father will upset your schedule if you begin to worship your habit instead of what the habit symbolizes. We say, “I can’t do that right now; this is my time alone with God.” No, this is your time alone with your habit.” — Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest

    That is a great quote.

    I like Chambers, although I don’t always agree with him. He pulls no punches.

  245. @ Jeff S.:

    Thanks for the info. Seems sensible… Doesn’t the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (I think that’s its name – its basically between the PCUSA and the PCA) allow for both comp and egal positions?

  246. @ Hester:
    It seems sensible to me, but I’m describing it as explained by both Keller and Sproul. Coming from a PC(USA) perspective it might have seemed a little different.

    If supposed if they believed that being against women ordination is oppressive to women then I can see why the wouldn’t allow even a mild stand against it. Certainly we wouldn’t allow someone to take that stance over race. The difference is that there is Biblical warrant and historical precedent for the position of prohibiting women elders. It’s a difficult task to allow the two views to co-exist. Yet somehow folks like McArthur and Sproul can get along famously while disagreeing over baptism . . .

    And yes, I think it is the EPC that sits in the middle and allows for individual churches (or maybe Presbyteries) to decide what they believe about women ordination. I actually did look for one when I moved recently, but the closest was a 45 minute drive.

    I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it before, but my sister is actually an elder at a PC(USA) church . . .

  247. “There’s a whole section in this book we’re studying at church where he talks about his leaving the PC(USA). As you may be aware, the straw that broke the camel’s back was women’s ordination. That’s why the PCA exists (though the PC(USA) has become more liberal since).”

    Jeff, that is interesting about him leaving the PCAUSA as he would definitely not have the independence there he does now. When former Ligonier donors sought to have him disciplined by the ecclesiastical courts of the PCA for financial fraud (as Sproul teaches this accountability for pew sitters) they were astonished to find his church, St Andrews, was not a part of the PCA at all. He is independent and is not accountable to the PCA polity. He had led folks to believe his church was PCA.

  248. @ Anon 1:
    Yes, but he is ordained by the PCA. There is a relationship there, but I’m not sure what it is. My guess is that he probably served in the PCA before St. Andrews, but I don’t really know. I know he wasn’t pastoring a church at all before becoming a teaching elder at St. Andrews.

    As I’ve said, I’ve really distanced myself from Sproul these days, though his teaching has meant a lot to me in the past. However, the class I am in at church is using some of his materials so I am still reading that.

  249. Val wrote:

    o, I enquired, and they didn’t understand why western women cut their hair at all. I

    Because long hair is a pain in the behind to care for, especially if you are a daily shampooer such as me.

    About the males there thinking hair brushing = sexy (I so hope my post goes through; sometimes, the “s” word seems to trigger the moderator bot, at other times, no), I learned similar things in sociology class years ago.

    What one culture considers sexual another does not.

    I learned about a tribe in Africa that does not consider female breasts the least bit sexy, so the women there walk around topless all day, and the males never give them a second glance.

    However, white facial paint markings are considered very erotic to the males, so the females paint white designs on their faces.

    I learned about other examples like that. It’s interesting and weird to see what one society considers sexual another does not.

  250. Addendum @ Dee:

    I should have grabbed mine earlier today when I accidentally found a commenter on a men’s rights blog bemoaning the fact that men can no longer use a scold’s bridles on “bitchy” women. (And thankfully no, it didn’t appear to be a Christian site.)

  251. @ Val: Until relatively recent centuries (i.e., all though the Middle Ages and the Renaissance) Western women kept their hair pretty well covered. Allowing one’s hair to be seen in public was considered very off-limits for anyone who wanted to be “respectable,” and as for something like *brushing* it in public, well… I think perhaps our current ideas about grooming and hair are baffling to many people from other societies, and not necessarily because said societies are “backward” – just different from ours.

  252. @ Val: Where (in India) did you live? One reason I’m asking is that it seems as if lots of women do wear their hair down, though not all the time.

  253. Dear Wartburg Watch Reader:

    The message is clear: one can never have too many addendums to the doctrine of justification by faith.

    Christian Socialist

  254. Christian Socialist wrote:

    The message is clear: one can never have too many addendums to the doctrine of justification by faith.
    Christian Socialist

    And so it shall be until Jesus comes again….Darn

  255. @ numo:
    In Nepal I lived in Pokhara (younger women wore it very loosely), in India I lived in Jaipur (Rajasthan) in Naygali Circle area (rich ‘burbs). The bus incident was on the way to Kashmir (a very different culture in Sirinagar, so that may have been why it caused such a stir). Any married woman has her hair up, younger women and modern women, not so much. The poorer women, who do most of their bathing and cooking outside certainly had their hair down in the morning before getting ready (but notice they never brush it outside), as did the women owners at the guest houses/hotels, but once they were dressed and everyone in their family was dressed and ready, their hair was tied back. On the train, women would often sit in the lower bunks near the back and fix their hair, often with mom-in-law or husband sitting between them and the isle, but that was because they were captive and had no where to go brush their hair.

    Now, I was there in the late 90s and India is creening into the 21st Century, longer (not down to their butts) styled hair is now being worn by many women, but in the 90s, when I was out in the crowded areas, virtually no women in traditional clothing (saris, langas or punjabi suits/siliwar kameeze) wore their long hair loose. If she had “cut” her hair (mid back, styled, etc.) and wore jeans then, yes, it was loose (but those were university girls of the very well-to-do classes and not at all typical of the general population). I also lived well away from the tourist areas and the majority of the women I interacted with or met day to day wore traditional Indian clothes and hairstyles. If the girls/young women today are in jeans (western clothing), then I am sure they are wearing western hairstyles now too, but they stood out in the crowd when I was out and about in India in the 90s.

  256. @ numo:

    I know, I am just waiting for the Sproul crowd to point this out “back in the days when all women knew their place, they hid their heads from public view, now, they have minds and lives of their own (*gasp*) and don’t hide their heads – proof that putting on a magic head-covering will return us to be wonderful medieval paradise of gender distinction …”

  257. @ Val: times change. my grandma used to get dressed up to go shopping, and she was typical of women of her generation.

    some customs are perpetuated precisely because they are customs, i think.

  258. @ Val

    Netflix doesn’t want to be responsible for spewing ignorance and high demand religion to other nations. It’s bad enough that we have to deal with it! It’s a duty to protect the world!

  259. @ numo: Well, they won’t like the “fashion” aspect of it one little bit, which might be why they haven’t already cited this.

    Looking at illustrations in illuminated manuscripts + altarpiece paintings and, later, portraits, it quickly becomes clear that while hats/veils/head coverings of some kind were about respectability, they were also markers of social status and taste. (Often in a very haute couture way.)

  260. Pingback: “Be a Man” – Christianity and Gender Mystiques UNITED STATES

  261. I find it interesting that men still “uncover” thier heads as indicated in the passage. Most men will remove thier hats when praying, so are they being ridiculous too?

  262. Pingback: Are Christian men not supposed to cry? | Understanding the Books of the Bible UNITED STATES

  263. ARRRGGHHHHH !!! I love wearing hats. I look good in them, they’re practical in both hot and cold weather — for both sexes — especially in Texas summers, and they hide my hair on humid days. I also like wearing aprons when I cook because they have extra pockets and keep the schmutz off my clothing. Thanks to these dweebs, I will never enjoy wearing a hat to church as much, knowing that someone might think I’m part of this movement,

  264. I grew up in African-American churches (since I am African-American!). I can tell you that in these congregations, hats are strictly fashion that did not disappear when hats went away from the rest of the culture (sometime after Jackie Kennedy quit wearing pillbox hats). Not only do the women at the church I grew up in wear still wear hats, they also wear gloves that went with the entire outfit! I remember as a teen in the mid 70s trying to talk my mom out of wearing a hat (“nobody wears hats anymore”). Her reply was that SHE did, as did the majority of the moms and grandmas in our church. There was no nonsense about submission to men or anything; a hat was simply what one wore to church-just proper attire, your Sunday best. both she and my granny wore hats and gloves to AM worship until they died. Younger black women have in the last decade revived the fashion of wearing Sunday hats that match their outfits, but there is no social pressure for other women to conform to this; my oldest sister wears hats to church, my middle sister does not, and neither tries to get the other to change. I am not sure why these men you speak of are trying to push for head coverings. I have no memory of any African American pastor preaching that our women should have their heads covered at church. Perhaps it’s because they know that trying to tell a black woman who is not his wife how to dress is endangering his life…I’m just saying.

  265. Lori wrote:

    most of the eligible men I have met in non-denom settings are buying this hogwash hook, line, and sinker. Heavy sigh …

    Good for you for finding out now. Better to find out that the guys for this stuff before you’re married than after! What happened to conforming ourselves (hearts) to the image of Christ? Folks find it much easier to live by a visible checklist of dos and don’ts (the law) than by knowing their Bibles and being lead by the Holy Spirit.

  266. Karen wrote:

    Thanks to these dweebs, I will never enjoy wearing a hat to church as much, knowing that someone might think I’m part of this movement,

    Don’t let them ruin it for you.

  267. Christianity Today just wrote on this subject this week, and I posted a question which was not answered there (yet) but perhaps can be answered here…and I am dead serious, not sarcastic. My question was why, if a woman is supposed to wear a head covering as a symbol of her submission to her husband’s authority, is she not being told to wear it seven days a week? Perhaps CT readers thought I was just being snarky.

    I am equally serious when I say that things like this remind me of how thankful I am to be single, as well as remind me that even in my churchgoing days I didn’t necessarily want to marry a Christian if I ever did marry.

  268. Lucie

    In some circles, women are donning the headcovering 7 days a week. I find it fascinating that you raised the question. If one is to take the Bible literally, it would seem that the answer to your question is that a woman should wear it 7 days a week.  Dorothy Patterson likes to wear her hat whenever she goes out. However, you wanna bet she doesn’t wear it at home?

  269. Lucie wrote:

    I am equally serious when I say that things like this remind me of how thankful I am to be single, as well as remind me that even in my churchgoing days I didn’t necessarily want to marry a Christian if I ever did marry.

    You and me both.

    Which is funny, because up until about two years ago, I was totally committed to the idea of marrying only a Christian.

    Now I’m okay with the idea of marrying a Non Christian person, should a suitable specimen appear.

    Lately, I’m seeing all sorts of weirdness from Christians about gender and marital role expectations, and I don’t want to live with that stuff, not to mention there simply are not enough single Christian men for the single ladies anyhow. It’s not as though a single Christian woman has millions of single Christian guys to choose from.

    @ dee

    If one is to take the Bible literally, it would seem that the answer to your question is that a woman should wear it 7 days a week. Dorothy Patterson likes to wear her hat whenever she goes out. However, you wanna bet she doesn’t wear it at home?

    And what about wearing a shower cap when showering? 😆 The angels can see you in the shower, too.