“Over the years I have learned that what is important in a dress is the woman who’s wearing it.” —Yves Saint Laurent
Frankly, I can’t remember all of what I’ve written in the past 12 years, I do find it nice, however, to luck upon an old post and think “Yep. got that one right.* Recently, that applied to Ravi Zacharias whom I claimed had faked his bio way back in 2015. Anyone who fakes a bio is most likely lying about other things. Good night! Was that ever an understatement. In this post you will see an old post I did on the topic of leggings!
TGC loves anything and anyone that is current and the proper type of Reformed, even if the people they feature are creepy. They were huge supporters of Mark Driscoll and CJ Mahaney until it was too gosh darn embarrassing. Let this post be a warning to all of you who think they carefully vet people and would never post anything by questionable people. They have done so in the past, they did so again today and will continue to do so in the future.
Today, TGC posted Going on a Bear Hunt: Head Coverings, Custom, and Proper Decorum: Revisiting 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 by Steven Wedgeworth
As any English teacher worth their salt will tell you, look at the author so you will have an idea what they might be driving at. So who is the author.
Who is Steven Wedgeworth?
Here is what is posted at TGC.
Sounds quite intellectual, doesn’t it? I wanted to understand him better and looked into the Davenant Trust. I’m so glad that I did. According to the website, this organization is named after:
an irenic English Reformed scholar and Bishop of Salisbury John Davenant (1572-1641
Regarding Davenant:
he modeled a theology that was forthrightly Reformed in the essentials and encouraged charity, diversity, and vigorous discussion in non-essentials
Ah, the word irenic gets thrown around by the boys quite a bit. It means:
favoring, conducive to, or operating toward peace, moderation, or conciliation
It can also mean
a part of Christian theology concerned with reconciling different denominations and sects.(from Oxford Languages)
So Steve sounds like a thoroughly jovial man with which to share a brew and discuss one’s differences “peacefully.” Except he doesn’t do that in real life, especially when he appears to be threatened by a woman. In this instance, the women are Aimee Byrd and Rachel Green Miller. He failed to mention his ties with the discredited geneva Commons. I wrote the following post: (Updated)Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller Attacked by Real Life Calvinistas: Genevan Commons Current Members…Be Ashamed.
Steve and TGC’s (by default) views on head coverings
What a guy! Given his view and treatment of women, as a member of Geneva Commons, it is a surprise that The Gospel Coalition featured him. Or, perhaps it isn’t. This group adored Mark Driscoll and we well remember his creepy views on women! Who could forget his depiction of Queen Esther as a slut?
Steve *the irenic’s* views of women and head coverings should now be suspect before reading this article. The same goes for any post on women on TGC. We should assume that he will attempt to put women in a subordinate position, given his treatment of women like Aimee and Rachel.
The following are just a view of my observations. However, the TWW community is quite sharp and I bet you will come up with much more that I missed.
Once again, here is a link to Going on a Bear Hunt: Head Coverings, Custom, and Proper Decorum: 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. Before we being, here is the NIV version of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Steve claims that Paul discusses this issue because of the need for social order in the church.
I warned you.
The circumstances of prayer and prophecy raise the underlying issue of the relationship between men and women in public assemblies, particularly the worship service. Paul isn’t giving an arbitrary dress code, but is commenting on the implications of public presentation of social order.
He says that Paul allowed women to pray and prophesy in the church. However, In order to do so properly, the head needed to be covered. In my trips to Israel and Greece with the Christian Medical Dental Associations, I learned of other cultural reasons for this which are not mentioned by Wedgeworth but I’ll come back to that shortly.
He claims that are controlling categories that inform Paul’s reasoning.
- Paul values tradition (1 Cor. 11:2)
- and custom (1 Cor. 11:16).
- He sees a certain hierarchical arrangement involved in social ordering (1 Cor. 11:3)
- related to the creation account (1 Cor. 11:8–12).
- outward decoration can and should provide glory and honor (1 Cor. 11:4–6, 15)
- and should do so in a manner consistent with biblical protology (1 Cor. 11:7–11) and the natural law (1 Cor. 11:14–15) (protology is the doctrine of first things, just as eschatology is the doctrine of last things).
Tradition, custom, and glory to God
It is interesting to me that Steve overlooks tradition in this instance. I learned the following from the historians who traveled with us. Women who had their heads shaved were often temple prostitutes. Women who cut their hair were often emancipated women who were not following the faith and often involved in some unsavory activities. Therefore, there was a reason that women in the church should endeavor not to be thought of, at first blush, as one of those women.
By keeping their head covered, due to this cultural norm of that day, they honored God.
Hierarchy in social ordering as well as in the Bible (protology)
This is where he goes off the reservation in my opinion. This passage does not discuss the creation account, hierarchy, or the word of the day, *protology.* I laughed when I saw that he used this word. People who subscribe to his way of thinking view it like this. Men were created first. Therefore, they are in charge of women because women were created second. There is a problem with this reasoning, When the Fall came, the relationship between man and woman became strained. In Genesis 3:16 NIV In other words, things got screwed up.
Your desire will be for your husband,and he will rule over you.”
But, then came the Cross and things changed but the Cross seems to be overlooked in Steve’s gender-biased world.
He claims Paul believes that clothing and hairstyles make deep statements about the structure of reality.
Notice the trajectory of his post. It seems like he might be saying that we need to be obedient in how we dress in order to identify with the *structure of reality* by which he means *look like a woman.* In fact, he says we shouldn’t be revolutionary or provocative in our fashion choices. I don’t understand why being provocative and revolutionary is ungodly. In the 1800s and early 1900s, women began to don swimsuits in order to go into the water as men did. It was revolutionary. It was also revolutionary when women began to wear pants. It allowed them more freedom as well as an ability to participate in certain work environments. One modern revolutionary move I personally endorse is the advent of leggings.
Five years ago I wrote Legalism and Leggings: A Neo-Calvinist Midrash. In this I said:
Legalistic rules often develop around the *it* subject which today is gender roles.
in the post, I noted that Owen Strachan was against leggings for women. He said this because leggings were traditionally worn by children so now women couldn’t wear them.
- Owen Strachan does not think adult women should wear leggings because only kids wear leggings.
- We’re in the age of the “Kidification” of America. We adults watch comic-book movies, wear the shorts and leggings that seven-year-olds have traditionally worn,
Much of what Steve says in this post seems to be about controlling the behavior of women.
the head covering was a custom with a particular purpose. It preserved proper order in public assemblies, even when a woman engaged in charismatic worship. With it, the woman could pray and prophesy without causing scandal. Without it, she couldn’t.
In the end, here are the things Steve says women must do in order to be obedient. (I’m not sure he means to him or to God.)
We must resist most fashion trends.
We should make sure our dress and behavior is consistent with what we believe about human sexuality, as well as modesty and respect for others. This means Christians need to learn to resist many fashions and trends
Dressing for comfort might offend our neighbor.
He obviously doesn’t live in my neighborhood.
We may sometimes wish to dress for comfort, but we must also always dress for the conscience of our neighbor.
Our fashion should demonstrate respect for authority.
So if I wear a skirt, the law enforcement officer will know I am respectful of his authority? Seriously?
Our public presentation should promote a respect for authority.
Our fashion should reflect our gender assignments.
Men are wearing earrings. Should I stop wearing them?
Our behavior ought to reflect who we are as God created us.
…actions that flow from our nature and that glorify our callings as male and female.
We need to respect the customs around us and never start a revolution
So, the Chinese women who had their feet bound should not have been encouraged to give up that custom? I think most of the women in Japan are really glad that custom has gone away.
Instead, we ought to respect the abiding customs in the place where we live, and we should reject revolutionary impulses, even if we believe them to be spiritually inspired.
He thinks we don’t have to go back to wearing head coverings in church.
Thank you, Steve.
I don’t believe that churches have to resurrect the custom of head coverings.
Fedoras are out!
On a side note, there has been much discussion on Twitter about the problems surrounding Doug Wilson. (Have you noticed my tweets now appearing on the home page?) I will be writing about this in the near future. One of the few amusing and weird things about Doug’s college is that the male students have taken to wearing fedoras. We now have a rule from irenic Steve. ROFL.
Wearing a fedora is a similar example. In earlier eras, it signified a certain ordinary politeness. Now, however, it carries a somewhat stipulated and even provocative public meaning.
News flash! Maybe fedoras are now in. Steve-what shall we do? From the Wall Street Journal: Discovering Hats, a New Generation Brims With Anxiety Over Etiquette: Old Rules Flummox Young Hipsters; ‘I’m Wearing an $80 Fedora!’
Steve ends on the note that we suspected he would when we investigated his background. Men are in charge. Period.
Intelligible customs that signify male headship or the glory of godly femininity should be respected and promoted.
Looks like Steve and TGC are in alignment.
What did you all see? What did I miss?
Numero uno?
Muff Potter,
I hope you are dressed in a godly, nnrevolutionary fashion this evening.
What women wear, from the “Truth about Moscow” (Idaho) website:
“I was raised Christian and attended Logos School, a Christian high school. While in high school, I suffered sexual abuse at the hands of my church doctrine teacher, a respected elder of the church affiliated with my school. Even after his misconduct was discovered, Christ Church still allowed Jim B. Nance to serve communion. He remains an active member of that community while I was told to clean out my closet of slutty clothing, but I only owned school uniforms. The school decided to deal with the issue internally instead of immediately bringing the situation to the police. Because of this choice, I suffered additional years of abuse.”
Keeping things “orderly”, apparently.
Dee, can you fix this?
You’re talking about China. Japan imported a lot of things (like kanji) from China, but footbinding was not one of them. Thanks!
Oh, and I’m absolutely disinterested in displaying the “glory of godly femininity.” I don’t see that Jesus taught that. And I know where that goes. It’s a race to the bottom to be more holy–don’t wear jewelry, don’t wear makeup, don’t wear pants, make sure your skirts come to your ankles, display your femininity by wearing Louboutins with the red soles and the five inch heels and on and on and on and on.
I don’t think that a standard Paul taught to one church should be imposed on every church, everywhere. But that’s a problem with ripping the texts out of their contexts.
This article is another attempt to wade into Plymouth Brethren territory. The o’le grab the bull by the head covering ploy.
But it falls flat like all other
attempts I’ve ever heard. If your going to handle Plymouth Brethren doctrines, it helps if you are Plymouth Brethren, and actually know their doctrines.
A great start would be to quit pondering the women in church, and gaze upon verse ten instead.
Nothing says “submissive “ like a tasteful hat. I’m all for it.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/304978206002895435/
Misc. reactions, in no particular order.
Women shouldn’t wear leggings because only kids wear leggings? Um, clearly Owen does not watch any Jane Austen themed movies. He’d realize leggings (or at least hose and stockings) are traditionally very manly, and might want to try them out.
The Gospel Coalition is going to get whiplash, they can’t decide if women are the problem or not: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/women-not-problem/
I happen to have a braid in my hair right now. Mental note to go repent when I can find a spare moment…
Pardon the sarcasm. I have been distance learning a kindergartener since August and my patience is reserved these days mostly for my immediate household. I have no more to spare. Good thing we’re on lock-down and I can be selective about who I see!
I suspect a lot of men that rule these churches are looking for exactly the type of woman who are candidates for their own wandering eyes….for starters. Compliance is a filter that weeds out those that would push back should the wandering shift from his lecherous eyes to other parts of his body. He has a church full of compliant women – or so he thinks.
No wonder many evangelicals are completely off the rocker – with leaders like these!
My head hurts reading that nonsense.
Obviously, New Calvinism is still struggling to find its identity. While some within their camp have already drifted deeply into anything-goes antinomianism, others are wielding authoritarian bats over followers to adhere to jots and tittles of the law. I’ve seen head-coverings for the brethren evolve within the movement from Driscoll’s spiky hairdo, to shiny bald crowns, to Fedoras! Now the Calvinistas are focusing on sistern hair! What a mess! In the meantime, you’ll have to find the Gospel preached somewhere else.
The Gospel (aka Calvinist) Coalition is the problem, not women!
Melissa Kruger, author of this piece, was hired by TGC to give the New Calvinist movement a more female-friendly face. The big-boys in the movement are just playing games with the sistern; they don’t really plan to give up rule over every area of their life.
The New Calvinism movement would come to a screeching halt if women ensnared by this mess would rise up en masse and declare “Enough is enough!” and drag their sorry husbands/boyfriends out of this mess.
New Calvinist women, Christ has set you free … act like it!
“Irenic” implies peace and reconciliation. There is nothing peaceful or reconciling about the New Calvinist movement! Its aberrations of faith have disrupted and divided congregations across America as the new reformers enter the backdoor through stealth and deception to takeover churches, plundering resources financed by non-Calvinist believers over generations. In a moment, the Calvinistas sweep in and steal what is not theirs for the glory of the new reformation.
Personally, I prefer a wide-brimmed straw hat, with the brim turned down, “coolie”-style. It keeps the sun off your face, which slows the development of wrinkles. Not smiling is also very helpful in that regard. 🙂
—
Re 1 Cor 11, the shaved heads of the temple prostitutes is a detail I had not heard of. It would support the hypothesis of this intriguing post (my apologies to those who have already seen this; it’s a fascinating and IMO persuasive argument)
https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-86-the-head-covering-of-1-corinthians-1113-15/
This discussion offers an explanation of why in that context, female head covering would have been a cultural norm. It’s related to ancient conceptions of reproductive physiology.
head-shaving in females may have been regarded to be a form of contraception, and by contemporaries would be considered to be contrary to their “nature”, since females are the child-bearers.
—–
In a cultural environment in which there is no longer a consensus about what the “norms” are, what is a stick-nose-in-others’ lives theologian to do?
That hat screams “best cat toy ever” but yeah, if I had a place to wear it, I’d be up for it.
I saw a series of tweets by a woman who had dressed up in a glittery evening gown for her vaccination. I rather like that idea, and then top it off with a hat and some opera gloves. Is that modest enough for you, sir?
Reading those verses (1 Corinthians 11:2-16), it strikes me that none of it really makes a darn lick of sense, at least in any logical way. He makes the various assertions about whose head is covered with what, and then he makes more assertions about who is dishonoring their head by praying covered or uncovered. He says these things as if one follows from what was just said previously – but it doesn’t whatsoever. And somehow the angels have something to do with the issue of women’s headcoverings.
If you read any of this in a book that was from some other religious tradition than what you currently identify with – would you think it a great idea to take seriously? Or would you perhaps think, “Well, it’s another seeker who spent too long in the sweat lodge and started rambling and thought he caught onto something profound.”
Rules! There must be intricate rules for everything! I’m confused, too. I’m sure some great theologian has written a book on whether or not fedoras are “Biblical.”
Samuel Conner,
I’ve been googling (briefly) about this a bit, and it seems that there isn’t a strong consensus that the prostitutes all had their heads shaved. Apparently artwork from the time of prostitutes depicts women with various lengths of hair? I kind of figure that having a shaved head would likely lower the marketability of the individual prostitute – so that wouldn’t make sense.
What(changed by ed). is “irenic”?
Of course they’re Biblical!
They’re 1950’s MEN’s wear!
NOT (ugh, retch) WIMMEN’s!
<blockquote cite="comment-441574"
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes: I saw a series of tweets by a woman who had dressed up in a glittery evening gown for her vaccination. I rather like that idea, and then top it off with a hat and some opera gloves. Is that modest enough for you, sir?
Maybe – the dress couldn’t be sleeveless.
But it IS Peace and Reconciliation(TM) — The CALVINIST Definition of Peace and Reconciliation, filtered through the lens of Power Struggle:
“No more Person, No more Problem.”
“My Dear Wormwood:
I refer you to my previous Epistle on redefinition of The Enemy’s words into their ‘diabolical meanings’. Nowhere do we corrupt so effectively as at the very foot of The Enemy’s altar!
Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape”
Wasn’t Alister Crowley raised STRICT Plymouth Brethren?
Ava Aaronson,
I am so grateful that some folks on Twitter are focusing on Doug Wilson. It is time these stories come to light and I will help with that.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
Thank you. I’m an idiot. I knew I should have checked that. Will fix.
Nathan Priddis,
Could you point me in the direction of Plymouth Brethren theology? Looks like I need to learn something.
Headless Unicorn Guy,
You seem to know just about everything. I’m impressed.
Slutty clothes?
I have all I can do to keep my anger in check.
Why is it that some men have so much trouble seeing that a cute outfit is just a cute outfit and no cause for alarm?
These guys would be much happier converting to fundamental Islam and immigrating to Pakistan.
Todd Wilhelm,
I was thinking about wearing something like that on Easter but it might clash with my mask.
Thank you for your comment. I hadn’t thought about it.
I really don’t like the explanation that ancient women covered their heads during worship so that the amount of hair would not show their (lack of) virtue.
Will Christianity ever shake off the idea that women are prostitutes unless proven otherwise?
As a bonus, of course, you can’t prove a negative.
I’m a VERY submissive woman/wife. I wear a red visor most of the time (though not to bed)! (Sure wish I could get another Old Navy red one. Looked everywhere. Bought mine years ago at a thrift shop.) But my issue is how do they deal with: “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God”? That would be cool if no calvinista could ever wear a baseball cap backwards—or forwards. And absolutely no cowboy hats! I once considered buying a house in Texas just to be able to wear cowboy hats without being sneered at.
“…in a manner consistent with biblical protology”
++++++++++
ooooo, my knees start knockin when christian men casually throw around the word protology
Rich,
There may be sense to Paul’s remarks within the worldview of the people he is addressing.
Per an intriguing discussion at this podcast,
https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-86-the-head-covering-of-1-corinthians-1113-15/
Paul’s contemporaries thought that the fetus was formed inside the female’s head and migrated lower during gestation. They also thought that human hair was hollow and exerted a suction effect from the head outward. The suction effect, in females, would promote the migration of semen to the head, while in males it would impede the emission of semen. That’s why short hair in females is “contrary to nature” — it impedes their reproductive function. Likewise, long hair in males impedes reproductive function. Short hair in a male is glory — part of his God-given ability to multiply — likewise long hair in females.
Given that the hair on a woman’s head was considered to be part of her reproductive anatomy, it makes sense that it would be covered during religious services, much as Hebrew priests were to take care when ascending to an altar to not flash themselves toward onlookers.
—
The bit about “because of the angels” is woolier, if one will pardon the pun. There is a contemporary Hebrew theological cosmology (in 1 Enoch) that elaborates on the mysterious story at the beginning of Genesis 6.
“Watcher” spirits descend to earth, mate with human females, producing dangerous offspring and also teaching humans forbidden skills, such as related to war-making.
Early (pre-Rabbinic) Jewish thinking about “what is wrong with the world” placed more emphasis on Genesis 6 (and also the Babel story) than we do — our focus is exclusively on Genesis 3 as the root of the problems of humanity. So we may miss nuances in ancient Jewish writing that allude to these concerns which are not a matter of concern to us.
Concealing this aspect of a female’s reproductive anatomy beneath a covering, or getting rid of it altogether by shaving it off, would make a human female appear less fecund to onlooking Watcher spirits and might protect the female from their unwanted attention.
One would not want a repeat of the bad consequences of the first Watcher intrusion.
So Paul appears to be making an argument for propriety in worship from within the worldview of his Greek hearers, and adding to that a safety concern that derives from contemporary Jewish thinking about the spirit world.
———–
As these beliefs are no longer widespread in our culture, we don’t need to draw the conclusions Paul draws about what kinds of garments are appropriate (and safe) to wear during religious meetings.
“Intelligible customs that signify male headship …should be respected and promoted.”
++++++++++
are they still going on about that??
i guess steve wedgeworth didn’t get the memo that promoting theology of phallic symbolism is…. silly, ridiculous, telling,…things like that.
These folks have obviously never spent one minute on a military installation, where hat-wearing has strict and somewhat complex rules, identical for male and female service members. It’s not just a question of wearing a hat outdoors and not indoors. In some outdoor places, such as covered walkways, signs might say NO HAT NO SALUTE AREA, so folks don’t get confused or offended.
American schools and colleges have moved away from the traditional rule that men remove their hats to show respect and women keep their hats on for the same reason. Before the National Anthem plays, everyone present is now asked to remove their hat. As a woman raised with the older rule, I am rather hard-wired to keep my hat on, but I do as asked in those settings.
Hey, be grateful that customs are now supposed to be intelligible. It’s a huge step up. 😉
Self control is on the…wane.
* To decrease gradually in size, number, strength, or intensity.
The New Calvinists will have their women dressing Amish style before this all over! They’ve nearly accomplished the desired “sit down and shut up” bondage of the sistern in some churches. I visited an SBC-YRR church plant in my area and observed family interactions. While the men laughed and high-fived each other, their wives and children sat quietly with sad countenances – oppression hanging over them like a dark cloud. I suppose such bondage is in varying degrees in New Calvinism depending on how hardcore individual church leaders are.
What’s this about “biblical proctology”? Some churches are too invasive!
Jacob,
yeah, i tried to find a way to bring that into my comment…
christian men showing off with lofty words that sound like proctology & imagery of the snap of a latex glove…
too good to pass up. i should have tried harder.
make it a female dr. and, well, this is just getting too fun.
He said, In social settings, our public presentation should be governed by humility, submission to appropriate authorities, and moderation.
hmmm…
With the multitude of present day religious wolves invariably in the pulpit, caution is expressly advised, searching the scriptures is always a necessity. Look before you leap is still good advice. How can a questionable sheepskin shingled individual keep watch over your immortal soul when he doesn’t even know your name, such is the church environment today.
Plus, Christian church social order is in moral shambles. If you think for a moment the hour a week recycled sermon preachers authority reaches beyond the church parking lot, you’re already so screwed.
Prescription for Christian church social order?
What?
My Fathers house is to be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of pew silencing, biblically misleading, misappropriated tithe thieves?
Up against the wall?
Take a closer look,
Order of the day?
An arbitrary pastoral moral code is more like it…
Fedoras conjure up images of dude bro mafiosos…for that upcoming movie “The Dude Bro Supremo.” The theologically dense story of the Fedora-wearing Dude Bro who could quote Calvin faster and more accurately than anyone else on Twitter.
(This is what happens to teachers after they punch grades into the computer for 250 students-the mind goes to strange places.)
Here you go: https://www.google.com/search?q=purchase+a+red+visir&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS832US832&oq=purchase+a+red+visir&aqs=chrome..69i57.8654j0j7&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&dlnr=1&sei=av83YJnIE43g-gSWz5mICQ
Todd Wilhelm,
Todd Wilhelm,
Thanks. But I’m kind of stuck on Old Navy. I’ve tried other red ones. They just don’t display my beauty in the same way! (-: And, ya know, you’ve got to look good for those manly men in your life!!!
Lol re dress codes!
Many Roman Catholics some places we have lived had strict dress codes for women. DH was raised RCC and woe to his sisters if they entered church uncovered or in pants. Today no one cares.
Now, on a non religious note, I did not appreciate the manly form many years ago in Colorado Springs of the young man who ran out of a dance studio to his car to get his phone wearing only dark green not particularly opaque leotard or pantyhose, whatever you call them.
Nor the woman in Durango who exited a yoga studio in a cropped tank top and nude colored panty hose only.
Personally, I do think we should bring back the full length mirror, especially the trifold ones where you can see yourself coming and going.
Many men and many women might be surprised how they are presenting themselves. I love to dress comfortably, and am allergic to many fabrics such as synthetics and to many fabric finishes such as perm press. So shopping is hard. But even with those restrictions it is possible to find comfortable, well fitted clothing appropriate to a woman in her 70’s. (Even at thrift stores.) Why would I want to look 13?
But I would tell the dude bros that they need to stop making their fashion preferences matters of religion. That said, I will give them that there is a certain level of covered up that applies. A swimsuit at the pool or ocean can be decent and attractive if chosen well, but just do not belong at wally world or a restaurant. Pop on some shorts and a t shirt over it.
In the same way, while there is nothing sinful in a say heavy set woman of 70 dresses like a spindly 12 year old she should not be offended if someone does a double take. After all, she has the perfect canvas for some of the most elegant fashions out there that are both regal and comfortable. Ditch the daisy dukes.
And equal opportunity, I don’t get why a handsome well built man covers himself with tats, grows a scraggly beard, shaves his head, and wears torn and stained dirty clothing despite bringing down a six figure income, unless he is doing his yard or working on his car or doing something at the community garden, etc. But show up that way to lead worship? Nah, grow up dude.
But those are my FASHION beliefs. What I find attractive and what I do not. Your mileage may vary, and I seriously doubt our good Lord is all that impressed by dress codes.
Based on how 1 Cor 11:2-16 is regularly translated in English versions, Rich is right, it does not make sense. In my book ‘Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts’ (IVP, 2019) I have two chapters on this passage in which I identify the misconceptions about this passage and explain how, when it is correctly translated, and the cultural background is understood, you can see that Paul presents a coherent, logical and consistent train of reasoning from v2 to v16. There isn’t room to explain here. Main points: (1) He is not writing about head coverings but is concerned about hairstyles because of their cultural significance in Corinth. (2) He is not writing about a hierarchy of men over women but about men and women contributing together in leading worship appropriately through prayer and prophecy.
Muff Potter,
Huh?
Muff Potter,
?
Coming to a church near you! In real life, every Sunday!!
Notice how he passes over the fact that Paul allows women to prophesy in the church. Because the charismatic gifts give them the heebie-jeebies, a lot of these guys teach that prophesying in the New Testament actually means preaching. But if you define it as preaching, doesn’t that directly contradict their interpretation of 1 Timothy were Paul does not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man? No matter how you define “prophesy”, Paul sure seems to go against a lot of the restrictions these same guys put on women regarding teaching and leadership in the church. I ran in these circles for many years, and I can tell you that for a group that’s so so champions “ cultural context” when interpreting the scripture, they sure do seem to ignore it when it doesn’t line up with their own beliefs and opinions.
Ruth Tucker,
Gotcha!
I’ve often said that the Bible suffers from the same two ills as science; not giving it the credence it deserves at one extreme, and making way too much of it at he other.
New Calvinism would not exist without a crafty manipulation of Scripture to fit their aberrant theology. Ignoring the whole of Scripture, cherry-picking verses, side-stepping the words in red, distortion of the epistles of Paul, taking text out of context, etc. is their modus operandi.
Where I come from hats are mandatory in certain denominations apart from the Brethren where the women not only have to wear hats but are not allowed jewellery, to wear trousers or cut their hair. Most of the women are recognisable by their hairstyle. They wear their hair in a bun generally. There are open Brethren who are less strict or tight as would be expressed here. Women in tight Baptist churches also have to wear a hat but they do cut their hair wear trousers jewellery and make up. The Free Presbyterian women are the same except wearing trousers is frowned on but this is changing.
The Baptist I used to belong to never said that you had to wear a hat except you need one to receive communion. We all knew you needed a hat for all services and meeting. I had quite the collection. I actually loved wearing hats and kinda miss it and will occasionally wear one to church.
Excellent, your work.
Whenever the DW brand shows up online, the Moscow, ID websites tell the rest of the story. The town is a witness.
Good grief.
– No regard for behavioral sciences (tho’ the brand includes Higher Ed – go figure. Yet, same story with SBC: Higher Ed with no regard for behavioral sciences).
– No regard for LE & DOJ in cases of DV & CSA.
– Odd regard for women, aka misogyny.
– Odd regard for US history, aka racism.
– No regard for intellectual property. Plagiarism.
Roy Hazelwood was a former FBI profiler of sex crimes and is regarded as the pioneer of profiling sexual predators. Hazelwood was also a devout Presbyterian.
The fact that highly regarded, successful, & world-renowned behavioral science authorities, experts, are also of deep Christian faith – this fact is lost on some “Xian” leaders who deny the science & expertise of behavioral science.
Can’t point you there, but I can give some insight. PB women cover their heads during services, although it has gone by the wayside in some less conservative groups. Conservative Mennonite women do all of time, at least for the most part. Reasoning is as follows, from the 1963 confession of faith”
We believe that in their relation to the Lord men and women are equal, for
in Christ there is neither male nor female. But in the order of creation God has
fitted man and woman for differing functions; man has been given a primary
leadership role, while the woman is especially fitted for nurture and service.
Being in Christ does not nullify these natural endowments, either in the home
or in the church. The New Testament symbols of man’s headship are to be his
short hair and uncovered head while praying or prophesying, and the symbols
of woman’s role are her long hair and her veiled head. The acceptance by both
men and women of the order of creation in no way limits
their rightful freedom, but rather ensures their finding the respective roles in
which they can most fruitfully and happily serve.
I would call it a symbol of “different but equal.” While women do not preach, or teach men, they have an equal role in determining the affairs of the church. Woe be unto the men, who do not carefully consider the views of the entirety of the church.
Added to that is the rather cryptic verses “because of angels.” We don’t really understand it, but there are mysteries of the unseen world that we really cannot.
Women do not wear pants, men will not appear in public in shorts or anything less modest than a button up short sleeve shirt. I guess one may not agree, but you know these standards when you join. To resign your membership, you only need ask. No shunning is done, and the only thing you cannot participate in is communion.
Celtic Rose,
Are you from Scotland? We visited there once, in a “Wee Free” church we felt right at home.
Judas Maccabeus,
Are there restrictions on education, or on types of work? I have heard that some Brethren don’t allow members to work outside the group.
Judas Maccabeus,
Just as the ultra-orthodox Jews in Brooklyn are super-Torah observant, Some Christian sects are super-Paul observant all over the country.
Lord have mercy!
I guess I would first ask if you are familiar with the name at all?
That would be a good start.
Since there are international followers/commenters on the blog, a person’s nationality would impact what PB means to them.
A head covering was a minor footnote of doctrine. But, so ingrained and automatic, that likely no thought was given as to why all the women where covered in a meeting. I can see if I can find a timeframe and an origin.
The woman…..The Woman to be exact…has power on her head. This is because of the angels. It is a sign and they are watching.
Friend,
First of all, I am Conservative Mennonite. We actually do have such restrictions, no work for the military, police or industry that supports the use of violence in any form. Since we refuse to engage in lawsuits, a lawyer or banker is out as well. Selling alcohol or tobacco would be off limits as well. Agriculture, education and healthcare are the largest employment in my conference.
As to Plymouth Brethren, the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church has such a rule, and is alone in that respect. Most consider it a cult. Other PB groups are not like that.
Friend,
Oh, yes. There are Mennonite groups that have such restrictions, some stopping education as soon as they can. I am not part of such a group. We have multiple PhDs in our membership. The average is a BA. Lots of nurses….
That being said, education just for the sake of education would likely be frowned on a bit. It is seen as a means to make a living.
I would estimate that if you grew up in an Assembly, you would likely have no idea you where “open”. Or, that “closed” existed. You would need a knowledgeable person to instruct you.
I’m aware that exclusive affiliations still exist, particularly in former Commonwealth countries.(PBCC) But for the most part, the historical attributes either are now unrecognizable, or extinct. I definitely viewed Exclusive as a dangerous heresy, and cultic, when I learned of them. Till then, older men never spoke of their existence.
Judas Maccabeus,
“We actually do have such restrictions, no work for the military, police or industry that supports the use of violence in any form. Since we refuse to engage in lawsuits, a lawyer or banker is out as well.”
+++++++++++++
hmmm…
do conservative Mennonites think there should be no military, police or banks?
@Judas Maccabeus
I am in Northern Ireland. The Free Presbyterian church would not be the same as the “wee Free church” but would be closely aligned in some things. I was once told that ministers were not allowed to travel on Sundays or to shave. I think they are mostly on the Islands off the west coast.
There is a large assembly of Exclusive brethren in our area. They seem to follow some man from America called Big Jim. A number of years ago the women were banned from wearing hats as apparently they were getting too fancy. Certain denominations here love their hats and it sometimes it seems like a day at Ascot. Anyways the women were told they had to wear scarves and not only at church but all the time. Very easy spotted when out. The men were not allowed to wear ties. They don’t eat with anyone other than themselves and this also means they are not allowed to live in a house that shares a roof with someone not Exclusive Brethren. So they have to buy detached which is a lot more expensive. They are also not allowed to have radios in their cars or use computers. No smart phones either. I think they have their own school.
Celtic Rose,
“Big Jim” was Jim Taylor Jr who led the Exclusive (Close) Brethren after the death of his father, an Irish businessman. He imposed restrictions what members could and couldn’t do, and who they could associate with, including their own family. It was reported in the Daily Mail newspaper that, shortly before his death in 1970 he had sexually assaulted a boy after an assembly in Ayrshire. The newspaper also reported that the boy, now an adult and father, had received compensation from the. Criminal Injuries Compensation. There was another incident with a married woman in Aberdeen, also reported in UK newspapers.
The first incident is reported here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268926/I-raped-leader-Exclusive-Brethren-Shock-testimony-man-alleges-abused-child-Big-Jim-Taylor-rocks-churchs-claim-charitable-status.html
Here is a Brethren website, outlining their history and beliefs
https://www.plymouthbrethrenchristianchurch.org/
My mother’s family arrived in America between 1620 and the mid-1800s. She was the first in the family to go to college, and she took that practical route, becoming a teacher. When it came to the education of her children, she told us to study whatever we loved, and just to work hard. All of us started with subjects we loved (literature, foreign languages, philosophy), all of us earned graduate degrees, and all of us supported ourselves in areas not directly related to our studies.
Education for its own sake is never a waste, never frippery. I no longer actively use my hard-won knowledge of labor camp systems in the mid 20th century, but you can jolly well bet I tell young adults what they need to know about today’s camps.
All right…I’m familiar with Apostolic (non-Trinitarian) Pentecostals. They don’t cover their heads. One of the marks of their belief is uncut hair for women. This has changed since the 1970s, when it was long hair. But I am serious, they have gone ALL IN on how uncut hair for women is THE STANDARD. There are stories going around about how Apostolic women will take down their long, uncut hair and then drape it over sick family members or others, and pray and they get healed. Of course there’s no proof, ever, just anecdotes. Wags call the doctrine “Holy Magic Hair.”
The preacher who spread this now-dogma among Apostolics is a guy named Lee Stoneking. You can find his videos on YouTube. It has since been taken up by the head of the United Pentecostal Church International, a guy by the name of David K. Bernard. Here’s an article on hair by Bernard from the “Apostolic Information Service.”
https://www.apostolic.edu/hair-entire-article/
Bernard is not a stupid man; he holds a BA from Rice University, a Juris Doctor from the University of Texas at Austin and a Doctorate of Theology from University of South Africa. But he will promote this stuff because it works as a way of separating out the “true believers” from the “world.”
https://www.plymouthbrethrenchristianchurch.org/who-we-are/faqs
(FAQ that gives the sect’s spin on its beliefs and practices)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Brethren_Christian_Church
That top link is to Exclusives that have recently formed a denomination. I remember hearing ,,there are a few Brethren in Australia and a couple other places..around the time I was 18. I suspect the site is only an add for PR purposes.
The Wiki link is a good start. It will drop names and give a timeline.
I consider the important timeframe to be 1827-1897. The importance lies in the successful transfer of Brethren ideas into other denominations, in particular, the US.
There would be no modern Evangelicalism without PB.
Judas Maccabeus,
There are similarities between this and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Here is their dress code.
https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/what-we-contend-for/distinctions-between-male-and-female/distinct-clothing-for-men-and-women/
Comes from being a kid genius and natural-talent speedreader who learned to read at age 4. By the time I was 10, I had read more than most people do in a lifetime — with NO way to sort it out. Result?
A massive mental database WITH NO SEARCH ENGINE, only a chaotic linked-list cascade where everything connects to everything at random. I literally don’t know what’s going to associate with anything and pop up out of nowhere.
And if you ever want to have a kid genetically-engineered as a Genius, DON’T.
Isolation, emotional/personality retardation, and general neurotic instability are part of the package.
Free but not Wee?
My writing partner (the burned-out country preacher) is Anabaptist and he described the Anabaptist rankings in Pennsylvania Dutch country as follows:
1) You have Anabaptists.
2) Mennonites are one step beyond Anabaptists.
3) Old Order Mennonites are one step beyond Mennonites.
4) Amish are one step beyond Old Order Mennonites.
5) Old Order Amish are one step beyond Amish.
6) I don’t think it’s possible to get beyond Old Order Amish.
Some to the point that they have “gone transhuman” and become nothing more than Observance animating a body.
Isn’t a Fedora part of the Uniform for one branch of Calvinistas?
Or was that for those Jerks from that Kirk in Moscow Idaho?
Or were they the ones into veddy-veddy British Derbies and Brollies?
In the words of Steven King, “A free tour of some interesting tracts of mental landscape”.
Or in the words of Uncle Duke from Doonesbury, “A field trip into the frontal lobes.”
A few things are going on that have riled me up. I am trying to work through them and will let you know about the issues soon, I hope. Don’ worry. I’m not in trouble. But I’m really mad.
dee,
Take care, Dee.
“Be ye angry, but sin not” 🙂
Hopefully, the New Calvinists will all become so irenic that they will just go off to remote places to do their thing and leave the real Church alone!
But then how can they Force their One True Way on everyone else?
I realized I overreached on my position that Steven Wedgeworth has blundered into Plymouth Brethren teachings. Yes, a huge yes, PB practiced headcovering.
But after commenting, but I realized that J.N.Darby’s strong Calvinism had to factored in. Sure enough, Calvin taught a women was to be covered. I forgot this.
I reviewed 3 commentaries: Darby, Calvin and Kelly.(assistant and editor to Darby) Darby and Calvin are consistent. Each mentions power on the head of the women, and the Angels. Each then reverts to discussing male /female order, without explaining the Angels. Power becomes a man’s power over the woman.
Kelly omits Angels entirely. His commentary is hostile to women.
So now I would say this:
The Reform camp has a muddled and intellectually inconsistent position on covering. They did not follow the instruct of their father to cover…for the most part.
Brethren have a slightly more consistent position, but not by much. They did follow their father’s (Darby) instruction to cover.
No theologian I am aware of can construct a systematic doctrine of covering. 1 Cor 11 had defied integration into broader doctrine.
Then they would go totally ballistic over the curly quasi-mullet sported by the pastor of the Spirit-filled storefront heretics in Quinlan.
You know, the ones I mentioned last week who kept their doors open 24/7 for anyone who lost power (and delivered food to those who couldn’t leave their houses) while the “9Marks approved congregation” remained shut the whole time? (PS–I got my tax refund this week and sent the heretics a donation to partially cover their electric bill)
You mean it’s not The Encyclopedia of Everything?
How about this: We want a dress code, so we’ll “find” one in the Bible.
Love this!
Friend,
There has been a theology of head coverings throughout the centuries, all based on what the Bible teaches, so no one has really had to try and invent one. Here’s a wee list of some of the sources – The Catacombs, Irenaeus,Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, John Knox, John Calvin, George Gillespie, Ministers at the Westminster Assembly, Matthew Henry, Henry Alford, Frederick Godet, R L Dabey, A R Fausset, T C Edwards, M R Vincent, G G Findlay, A T Robertson, William Barclay, H E Dana & J R Mantey, John Murray, William Arndt & F Wilbur Gingrich, C C Ryrie, Albrecht Oepke, R H Gundry, Bruce Waltke, Gordon Fee, Noel Weeks, Robert Culver, Susan Foh, George E Meisinger, Thomas Schreiner, R C Sproul. ( Source: Semper Reformanda, The Regulative Principle).
Is this the same Darby who invented Dispensationalism and The Rapture?
Lowlandseer,
I genuinely appreciate your list.
At the same time, coverings for women, from veils to wimples to bonnets, as well as the mandate of uncut hair, are always about women’s inferiority, sinfulness, etc. The specifics are always about membership and, in the extreme, about the state of the soul. Typically it is women who have a dress code that doesn’t blend in with society, although some groups do burden men this way.
Coverings in some cases might be said to demonstrate beauty, goodness, and worthiness—but don’t dare take them off!
Really, the hair God gave us (and maybe took away) is fine. I think there’s a verse about that.
. . . on what “they think” the bible teaches. They didn’t all come to those thoughts independently of those before them either.
But are any on this list explaining why there is power or why angels care if a woman has cloth on top of her head.
Or, are they advocating subordinate female status, guilt for sin entering the World, etc?
I can’t remember if Augustine discussed head covering, but he clearly blamed the Woman for sin entering the world, through her corrupted soul. Calvin would have adopted whatever Augustine said.
In antiquity, a cloth was probably normal for a woman, with no connection to emerging Christianity. Or at least to have hair pinned up. If you look at Darby and Calvin, they do connect it to Eden, but the back away without explanation.
Headless Unicorn Guy,
Yes.
Darby’s influence is unfortunately huge, at least in America. I think that just about every Baptist church and most non-denominational Evangelical churches have Dispensationalism as really the center of their theology.
jojo,
Beyond Old Order Amish-Desert Monks?
Nathan Priddis,
Angels are ministering angels around each believer and see what we get up to. I think the reference is to that, which in turn leads to what Paul was saying in the passage.
Friend,
There has long been a debate about whether the text references “hair” or a “head covering” and I think you need to delve into the practices of that period. I found the reference to the Catacombs interesting because the art depicted women wearing a covering so I tend to think that more than hair is meant. Having said that, I had an old friend (who was a “British Israelite”) saying that in those days all Romans had short hair and that the textt referenced the length of a woman’s hair. Who knows?
Yeah, years ago I came up with a list of groups and how they interpret the “women covered…because of the angels” passage. It’s all over the map and is absolutely NOT complete.
1) Pre-Vatican II Catholics the world over, now Catholics who go to the diocesan Latin masses (where they exist) and the various sedevacantist groups. Only on women, only in church.
2) Various Mennonite groups all the way through to Old Order Amish.
3) Some “Hebrew Roots” groups encourage women to wear headcoverings (usually tied-back scarves).
4) Apostolic Pentecostals, who, as I have said, are all in on uncut hair. But they don’t cover their hair. The hair is the covering.
5) Various individual women who have read 1 Cor 11 and have been convicted that they need to wear a head covering.
6) People who believe Paul was writing to this specific congregation and this was not intended to be imposed on every Christian woman everywhere for all time.
Now groupings 2-5 would ABSOLUTELY claim that they were following the inerrant word of God, but look, they’ve got disagreements on what exactly it means. 1 has changed its mind on the matter and 6 thinks headcovering was for its own time. My point is that you can claim what you want about the Bible, but the interpretations are all over the map. (I know I’m forgetting someone but I spent 7 hour working through an annoying intractable technical issue at work today and I am TIRED.)
For the record, because of the pandemic, I’ve only been to a salon once in the last year. Right now I’m half tempted to tell my brother to get out the Wahl clippers and the one inch guide and go to town. Only half-tempted, mind you.
A clarifying question. 🙂
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
You might want to check out this article about consequences:
The rumour mill was running in full force this weekend after local woman Marilynne Klassen, 32, went to one of those weltlijch city hairdressers and came back with the “shortest haircut we’ve ever seen!”
“Is she planning to leave her husband or what?” wondered Mrs. Froese to Mrs. Peters. “She has children at home, yet!”
Mrs. Peters had a slightly more nuanced, but nevertheless, misguided assessment of the situation, noting that Mrs. Froese had better just get used to it because that’s the way things are these days.
“You’re going to see more and more young ladies like that,” said Peters. “It’s the world we live in now. I hate to say it, but gone are the days when a woman’s glory and eternal salvation are found in the length of her hair.”
Mrs. Froese blamed all of this haircutting on the slippery slope established by no-fault divorce in the late 60s.
https://dailybonnet.com/rumours-fly-young-woman-gets-haircut/
The Daily Bonnet is a Mennonite satire website from Manitoba. From now on I’m going there for all my theological fine points. 😉
elastigirl,
We do. We just believe we should not be participating in them.
What you will fins is that Anabaptist theology is the polar opposite of reformed theology. While reformed theology would be perfectly comfortable running the government, look at reconstructionists for an example, we do our best to disassociate ourselves from it. We believe that one cannot follow the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, and be involved in any of the behavior that those jobs would necessitate. Our strict separation of church and state dates from the 16th century, about 300 years before the idea caught on in the new world. The sword of the Spirit can never be one with the sword of the state.
Friend,
It is satire of a particular brand of Canadian Mennonite culture, that came to Canada from what is now the Ukraine. Note the Dutch last names, not Swiss German. I am familiar with it, and I do not get most of the humor. Most of us here in the states will not.
Darby was no Calvinist. He was the father of premillianialism and dispensalationism. As such, his views are strongly rejected by just about all calvinists. His views posit a future for a literal Israel, most classical calvinists replace Israel with a “spiritual” Israel, which is the church.
One way of keeping Calvinists away is to put these things in your church doctrine and make it so it cannot be changed. It is like garlic to a vampire.
For most calvinists, head covering is a minor issue, if it hits the radar at all. The only reformed church I have ever seen heads covered in was a “continuing” Free Presbyterian church in Scotland. With the clothes and Accapella singing we fit right in.
No, I know some Modern Orthodox jews very well. It is as different as night and day. They get wound up about the hundreds of laws in the torah, as well as the ton of talmudical scholarship wrapped around it. For us, not so many rules, but seriously trying to put the sermon on the mount into practice. Actually, maybe the rules are easier.
Dee, in your article you said: “In my trips to Israel and Greece with the Christian Medical Dental Associations, I learned of other cultural reasons for this which are not mentioned by Wedgeworth but I’ll come back to that shortly.”
Did I miss where you came back to that? I’d be interested in that (sorry if I missed it)
Good nutshell point. The Bible is not the ‘how to’ mechanics manual that many crack it up to be.
Hmm, some of it will not be particularly opaque to the TWW crowd… 😉
Mennonite Church Accidentally Hires Seminary Graduate
“It seems we’ve been duped,” said Altona MEMBCM board chair John B. Friesen. “We never would have hired Pastor Jim had we known he was actually a highly-trained and educated individual.”
Friesen is referring to recent allegations that Pastor Jim may have received a Master of Divinity degree from a well-regarded Canadian seminary.
“He seems to have left that detail off his resume,” said Friesen. “We’re consulting our legal team to see if there’s some way we can terminate him for deceptive practices.” …
https://dailybonnet.com/mennonite-church-accidentally-hires-seminary-graduate/
That’s what I thought about Darby, until I found otherwise. I was confused why Calvinism could be found in PB groups. Then I learned I had it backwards. I was in Junior High when I witnessed a Calvinism fight. It confused me, but I realized it was serious, and bitter.
Covenant Theology is the arch-enemy of Dispensationism, but you could hold to all Five Heads of Dort + Rapture + future Israel, and be Dispensational. I don’t think Datby held to all five, but he was Calvinist. Remember. Calvin never included Revelation in his Commentary, so there is lot of slack if a person needed wiggle room on Eschatology.
When Darby came to the US, he was making headway among Presbyterians. They adopted his doctrine, but declined his come-out-ism. They stayed in the denomination.
The primary figure in the Niagara Conference developing Disp. was Rev. James H. Brooks, of St. Lewis, a Presbyterian and Princeton alum.
The Covenant/Disp schism would be later.
Q. Do Calvinists still permit the gift of prophecy to be exercised in their churches?
Q. Are Christian women made to be subordinate in Calvinist churches?
Q. Why would a Calvinist be concerned about how women dress?
Q. What happens when one challenges a Calvinists assumptions?
If a man can control how a woman dresses, he can control everything else about her.
The Calvinist walks away, noting that you’re not smart enough to understand his theology.
90+% of Christendom is non-Calvinist … they have been challenging the aberrations of Calvinist belief and practice for the past 500 years.
Calvinists I have known are cessationists … gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased to exist. “Prophecy” to them is preaching and only the pulpit has such ability.
New Calvinist women are taught the “beauty of complementarity” and submit to the teaching … or else.
Maybe you all would not have so many problems with reformed theology seeking in if you did not hire graduates from these places that are trained to do just that. The experience of conservative churches with seminary training is uniformly bad. Largely, these schools tend to train people to explain away the clear teachings of scripture than actually teach what ir means. Most Conservative churches in the states do not have paid pastors anyway, so such positions are not attractive to such people anyway.
There is slack, but few highly reformed people take it these days. While Darby may have had some elements of reformed theology in the mix, there is no way that a calvinist could stand on the three forms of unity and reject the replacement of Israel with the church.
Sometimes burning those who challenge their assertions at the stake.
Of course, they couldn’t do that these days even if they wanted to. So they substitute an overlord structure to control every jot and tittle of your life. Bondage is their new sword … bondage to the pastor/elders, bondage to aberrant theology, bondage of women, bondage to membership covenants, bondage to the threat of shunning/excommunication, etc. Why anyone in their right mind would want to be a member of a New Calvinist church is beyond me … but, of course, such folks are not in their right spiritual mind.
And I bless Providence that the founders of our Nation took steps to ensure that such is not allowed to happen on our shores. They were not ‘Biblical’ Christians (for the most part), they were men of the Enlightenment.
John Adams wrote to Jefferson in 1817:
“Oh! Lord! Do you think that a Protestant Popedom is annihilated in America? Do you recollect, or have you ever attended to the ecclesiastical Strifes in Maryland Pensilvania, New York, and every part of New England? What a mercy it is that these People cannot whip and crop, and pillory and roast, as yet in the U.S.! If they could they would.”
~From Brooke Allen’s Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers p-62~
Whew! I’ve seen Southern Baptists come close to that in contentious church business meetings! Yeah, the more I think about it, there was a lot wrong in SBC long before the New Calvinists showed up.
As of 2020 (in the US) I’d say Dispensationism is not in crisis, it’s an outright collapse. Rapture, and future Israel, still strong, but Rapture is showing the effects of constant attacks since the 1930’s. As a pessimistic eschatology, Disp was incompatible with Trumpism.
Among Charasmatics even, Disp is being abandoned. I’m surprised at the spread of concepts like Ladd’s Eschatology in Disp strongholds.
I would estimate a young Disp person would not be familiar with the Three Forms. They would likely be encountered in bible college years. If one adopted them, I would ask if it came as the result of mentorship.
As for PB. My view was they where on a suicide mission. Their young males where being exported, and Covenantalism was one destination.
It can’t collapse soon enough for me.
I got messed up by Dispy during the Age of Hal Lindsay, and the scars are still there. PESSIMISTIC is right.
“It’s All Gonna Burn” and “Christians for Nuclear War”.
Though they DO overlap in one way. As in the Dispys who voted for to to fulfill End Times Prophecy by jump-starting Armageddon. Remember “Christians for Nuclear War”.
What is “Ladd’s Eschatology”?
When I was in-country, Rapture/Dispy WAS SCRIPTURE.
Word-for-Word from the lips of God.
The “Plain Reading and Clear Meaning”.
George Eldon Ladd. He’s been dead for forty years. Joined the then Fuller campus in LA basin, circa 1950. Fuller was established to 1. defeat Disp. 2. function as ground zero of Neo- Evangelism, then about 3 years old.
Ladd’s teachings have hugely redirected Evangelicalism, but mostly through pastors reading his books, not pew sitters.
An oversimplification is there are four eschatological categories. Ladd’s would kinda be Historical Millinarianism. A remake of one apparently around prior to Augustine, and his Amillinism.
Academically rigorous seminaries exist, and not all seminaries are reformed. Academically rigorous seminaries will teach various points of view. This approach gets past literalism and inerrancy, drawing that all-important distinction between education and indoctrination.
Education is good, right? Teaching people how to analyze texts and understand them more deeply can build faith, right?
If he persuades the woman to worry about her hair and clothing all day long, she’ll heap all the suffering on herself, and he’ll have more free time.
I can catch a limit of crappie in the time it takes my dear wife to look for a new outfit. 🙂
Most of the SBC seminaries do indoctrination, not education. The place where i went to grad. school, (Shudder) was closed, taken over by another institution. Cut the Greek by 2/3, cut Hebrew out almost entirely. Cut systematic theology from six courses to two. Substituted it all with “methods” courses. Eliminated the Missions program, now there is “Christian Counseling” that does not lead to any sort of licensure. So yes, they exist, but are quite hard to find. Most seem to do indoctrination. (Note: I did not stick around long enough for a degree, 30 credits and I was OTD and overseas)
The place where I went to grad school had a significant PB presence. Mostly IFB though. I was “odd man out” and they almost did not admit me. It was a Dallas clone, and was solidly dispensational. Ladd was someone you came in contact when you were asked to refute his views. I did not get him, got Postmillinalism instead. That was in the mid 90s.
I was actually shocked when I ran into an old friend, from school, who shared a manuscript he wrote, wherein he mentioned the Heidelberg Catechism. In a positive light!!!!! How far has reformed theology come.
And you can catch another load of crappie if you don’t like the outfit. 😉
Buuuuuuuuuuut that’s not what the ranters in the hateful churches are doing. They are undermining and sometimes threatening women if the hair and clothes are not exactly as the men mandate.
Max,
Amen!
Scale em’, clean em’, batter em’, and get the fryer ready!
A prophet is without honor in his own town. The PB structure almost forced a lot out. You have to move to find your place in life and Reform Theology was waiting with open arms.
I don’t think it was by accident. It was a calculated strategy. Fuller was planned secretly while some of the founding persons where at other institutions, like Wheaton. That seemed to be modus operandi. The goal of Neo- Evangelicalism was a Calvinist ecumenical takeover.
I’ve racked my brain trying to remember what I heard of head coverings. It was harder then I thought, especially considering it’s preeminence in PB identity.
I don’t think PB men thought about it. But outsiders had some sort of fixation on heads with textile.
In general-
1. The Woman was deceived. Therefore, women are easily deceived, and women in leadership leads to bad doctrine.
…BUT..women often are more spiritually in tune, sensitive and discerning then a man. I could not reconcile these opposing statements. If males are mental clunks, why do we exclude females from decisions?
This is more in line with traditional Protestantism.
Specifically related to headcovering-
2. The headcovering was a symbol to be seen by angels. Angels definitely observe women. It was something ancient, related to angels who came down. This view would clearly mean the covering cloth was intended as some sort of warning. The women are taboo, to the angels, not men. But the logical connections of taboo, where never made. I recall the teaching strangely stopped at angel..period. It’s was as though reading the chapter was anesthesia.
Totally overlooked was the implications of the Woman being deceived. Why am I the only one thinking the Woman has a legal claim of innocence?
Law not life, pure and simple. Men of the flesh, not men of the Spirit. Religious adherence to jots and tittles, not relationship with Jesus.
Muff Potter,
I tied over 100 crappie jigs during the winter, Muff. I’m ready for the Spring crappie spawn. Heck, me and Jesus might even go fishing on Sundays together … churches don’t seem to want Him around much anymore!
Max,
There’s a place about 40 miles northwest of Green Bay where the bluegill and walleye are huge…
Nathan Priddis,
All this angst and contention over all things Paul (on gender), are, I would argue, not much more than 50 years old. Prior to that (in Lutheranism anyway) Paul’s missives were historically context bound, and unless they directly preached Christ, they were not that big of a deal. They didn’t fret and stress over every jot and tittle Paul put to parchment:
from: E.W. Bullinger’s Companion Bible p-1799:
To Timothy were given the earliest instructions for orderly arrangement in the church, these instructions being of the simplest nature, and, as Dean Alford well observes with regard to the Pastoral Epistles as a whole, the directions given “are altogether of an ethical, not of an hierarchical kind”. These directions afford no warrant whatsoever for the widespread organizations of the “churches” as carried on today.
I’m there right now, Muff … in my dreams.