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.

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)

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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”?

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?

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? 😆

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.

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.

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.

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.

It all just gets weirder and weirder.

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

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.

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.

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

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!

@ 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.

Victorious wrote:

…and let’s not forget the tight pants!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv7Ts4v5_Bs

Oh geeze. 😆

Ferrell reminds me of Ed Young Jr. in that skit. He kind of looks like him and sounds like him. (Ed Young Jr video)

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. 🙂

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. 😀

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.

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. 😛

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…)

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

My Greek prof said that during the first century and not long afterwards, men who didn’t wear beards were considered feminine and/or gay. Great. And here I sit without a beard. 😉

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.”

@ 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.

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…

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

@ 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! 😀

@ 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.

“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.

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…”

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…”

@ dee:

I haven’t seen a transcript, but there’s a podcast at http://media.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/a2f28d73-4770-4e0b-b255-7ac5ef1ec0e0.mp3.

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.

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.

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'”.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy: Nevertheless, I think Victorious has a point. (One with which I agree.)

@ 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.

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.

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…

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

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

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.)

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.

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.

@ 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.

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?”

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. 🙂

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

@ Beakerj: Ooh, beaks, can you do origami samurai helmets on spec?

I would love me one!

@ 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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

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

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/

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.

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.

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

Hester, I don’t think I answered you very well. I’m sorry.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Pacbox wrote:

Nine times out of eight

Yo – that’s the first time I’ve seen anybody else say that.

Glad you like 😀

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?

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.

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!

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?

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.

@ 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. 🙂

@ 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…)

@ 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.

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. 🙂

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.

I apologize for any errors and hogging the thread. It’s entirely my tablet’s fault. :p

@ 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.

@ 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”?

@ 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.)

Val wrote:

Head Coverings in Worship: Why Female Hair Is a T3sticl3

Holy cow that was weird. 😯 ❗

I hope Paul didn’t really believe what the page author said he did.

How could folks back then think of a woman’s hair that way when hair can be cut? If female hair really did serve that purpose, why would God have made it so easy to cut??

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”?”

@ Janey:

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

Josh wrote:

And I have no idea how Scientology has gotten any traction at all!

It’s all about “me”. 🙂

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.

@ 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.

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!”

@ 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

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

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.

@ 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!

@ 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.

@ 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?

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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

@ 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! :)]

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.

@ 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?

This link may interest readers: http://understandingbooksbible.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/women-head-coverings/

“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.

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.

@ Dee:

Keep your barf bag close by if you’re going to come up against The Monstrous Regiment.

@ 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.

Dear Wartburg Watch Reader:

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

Christian Socialist

@ Cindy K:
Baaah – that movie is only for US customers.

@ 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 …”

@ 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.

@ Clay Crouch:

Courtships are often nothing more than an arranged marriage, so they are already doing it with a less jarring name for it.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.