- Jun 5, 2016
- 1,946
- 1,724
- 38
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
I was just reading this passage in my daily readings today! How providential.
I have a bit of a different take....
One of my professors at Concordia indicated that this was in fact not a customary mandate from St. Paul; to the contrary, the common custom in Judaism was for the *men* to cover their heads while praying, as occurs in Judaism today as well. And yet, he says men should not cover their heads. Further, he ascribes the impetus for women wearing head coverings to offending the Holy Angels. What care have they for local custom?
Someone said above that the Church has no universal rule in this regard, but historically women covered their heads in the Divine Service. In living memory this was the case even in our Churches. The fact that this has ceased is the result of modernity. We should be upfront about this fact even when discussing whether or not it is a universal requirement-it WAS, essentially, a universal custom.
Someone above said that St. Paul said hair will "do the trick." Not so. He said if women don't cover their heads, they might as well have shorn heads, which is a disgrace. Long hair is a symbol of submission to God's created order in the world. A head covering is a further symbol of submission in the Church, mysteriously so as not to offend the Angels, who were our tutors in times past concerning God's created order.
Here's a closing anecdote: In one of the conservative Lutheran Facebook discussion groups, the fact that "we don't require head coverings, either" was used to bolster the argument that God's appointed order for the Holy Ministry was also an antiquated "custom." Women should not have to be "silent in the Churches" either, they say, but should be allowed to preach, as these were simply "local customs." But to the contrary, there were plenty of temple priestesses in antiquity, just as there were men praying with heads covered. The context of the passages do not seem to imply custom at all.
I would welcome critiques of these points!
That's interesting - thank you. If this is a position that strictly advocates for head covering, that's a position that is contrary to what the Lutheran Study Bible and the Kretzmann Bible says, if I remember correctly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I can appreciate and agree with the context, but I still believe in a distinction between the underlying universal truth that Paul is making and a local application of that truth. I can perhaps concede that this could be an ideal reflection of the underlying point, which is why Paul does argue for it - so it's not for purely cultural reasons - but I don't think Paul is saying it's absolute in any way. I think the heart of Paul's concern is to keep people from misusing the freedom they have in Christ. I don't think he's laying down a particular practice, although it was already common both in Judaism and the Roman world - for different purposes.
I would have to disagree with the statement you found on Facebook that this is somehow comparable to or to be used as an argument for women's ordination, for there Paul does not use the expression "custom/practice" but writes "As in all the churches of the saints ...", implying something universal, and moreover from the clear instructions in 1 Timothy.
Paul undoubtedly has a very deep understanding regarding the created order, and he appeals to it in a few places - it's interesting how they are often prone to confusion in our day.
Upvote
0