According to Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith was told by a heavenly messenger:

 

"For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory - remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins" (Doctrine and Covenants 27:2).

 

In similar vein writing in the Brethren publication Evangelist, Dr. Dale Stoffer defended the practice of accepting "baptism" of any form.  His argument is that principles "are the essential Biblical truths that must be believed regardless of culture," while forms "are the outward expression of principles which tend to vary from culture to culture (emphasis added)” (April 1995). Accordingly we are free to replace immersion with some other form of “baptism” depending upon cultural practices. Principles, we are told  are permanent but a cultural expression of that principle (e.g. immersion) can vary from place to place and from time to time.     

 

Grudem (p 333) takes this same approach to the head covering. He argues that Paul "is concerned because of what wearing a head covering symbolized to people in Corinth" (emphasis mine) and continues:

 

"So we should ask whether wearing a head covering symbolizes any of these things today. At least in twenty-first-century America, it symbolizes none of these things ... Whatever we think a head covering symbolized in first-century Corinth, it does not symbolize the same thing today. And that means if Paul's concern was over what a head covering symbolized, then he would not want women to wear a head covering in a situation where a head covering did not carry the same symbolic meaning.”

In similar vein:

 

“Today … pastoral experience has revealed that the presence of headcoverings results in confusion for visitors and those unfamiliar with the meaning of the symbol. This violates the principle that the church should not do things seemingly strange to “some who do not understand or some unbelievers [who] come in” (1Co 14:23 NIV).

 

If the practice of women wearing headcoverings is maintained, the church must wrestle with the difficulties this presents in reaching and retaining newcomers. The strong communication of the principle of headship that Paul is addressing remains, but confusion cannot be avoided when headcoverings are worn” (Should Women Wear Headcoverings?  Kenneth T. Wilson  Bibliotheca Sacra   148:592 Oct 1991 p. 462).

 

Using this reasoning suppose that in a particular cultural setting the use of bread and wine was traditionally associated with meetings at which sexual immorality, child sacrifice and violence were the accepted practice. Everyone in this society is aware of this fact and makes the association. Suppose that in another society baptism was recognised by all as the means of induction into an organization committed to ruthless exploitation, criminal behaviour and general mayhem. Again this fact is known to all in this culture for generations. Would we retain these symbols in the church and “wrestle with the difficulties this presents in reaching newcomers” or would we replace them with man-made substitutes? If we retained baptism and the Lord’s Supper would this violate “the principle that the church should not do things seemingly strange to ‘some who do not understand or some unbelievers [who] come in’”? In my view we should retain the God-ordained symbols and employ corrective teaching to imbue these symbols with new meaning. To be consistent I would take the same approach to the head covering.

 

 

Brother Roy Deaver’s approach to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is typical of most in the brotherhood today. He comments:

 

"The sacred principles taught here (1 Cor 11:2-16) are just as applicable now as they were when Paul penned these lines. The tragedy is that so often we get so bogged down in the details and the circumstances by which principles are taught that we fail to see the principles themselves. Principles are binding; customs are not" (Difficult Texts of the New Testament Explained Ed. Wendell Winkler p. 273).

 

Brother Deaver does not apply this reasoning to baptism or the Lord’s Supper. He does not argue that provided the principle of union with Christ is honoured the method of baptism is not important. He does not suggest that provided we have a memorial feast on the first day of the week “details” such as the use of bread, hamburgers, wine or soft drink are unimportant. He accepts that two symbols are grounded upon transcultural factors, but adopts a different approach to the third. Others take this approach further.  For example, while an instructor at Great Lakes Christian College one time believer John W Loftus wrote:

 

“Baptism pools (called mikvehs) were abundant throughout Israel in John the Baptist’s and in Jesus’ day. These pools pre-date the preaching of John the Baptist, who baptized Jews in preparation for Jesus’ coming. They were used in a ceremonial rite of cleansing in preparation for worship. To these people baptism symbolized purity…

 

Is it too hard to suppose such washings were brought into Christianity as a cultural symbol, yet divine requirement, of full commitment? There doesn't seem to be anything transcultural about the act of baptism itself. People from other cultures would not automatically recognize the act of baptism as indicating purity or suggesting full commitment. Perhaps baptism was a divine requirement to a people who understood its meaning. If so, then what would God think of believers in today’s culture who failed to be baptized because baptism was not viewed in the same way?” (Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?  Integrity July/August 1995 issue).

 

Responding to questions about his article Loftus wrote a few months later:

“Here are four positions on baptism: ….Position Four: Baptism is not included in their preaching, because it is just a cultural symbol of salvation. Baptism just isn’t that important” (Is Baptism Necessary--One More Time Integrity, Jan/Feb 1996).

 

To take brother Deaver’s position is to step onto a slippery slope.

 

Brother Deaver makes a distinction between “principles” and “customs” in dealing with the head covering. Others make this same distinction in dealing with the silence of women. Back in 1878 popular Connecticut preacher William Delosse Love wrote:

 

“The principle of man’s headship and woman’s helpmate relation to him are permanent and obligatory; while woman’s veiling and her silence are but customs, binding only as showing loyalty to the principle. The principle is based on a changeless distinction between the two sexes. The customs the apostle enjoined as a token and conservator of woman’s modesty, and of her fealty to man. Like other customs they have now lost much of their significance and binding authority.

At that time her silence was necessary to her acknowledgment of her relation. But what was the principle? 'Subjection' What the custom? 'Silence.'

 

The basal principle of woman’s office as helpmeet has in no wise changed. But two customs, veiling and silence, once expressive of the principle, have, as formerly observed, passed away" (Women Keeping Silence In Churches Bibliotheca Sacra Jan 1878).

 

Love fails to recognise that according to the text it is silence itself which is grounded upon creation order, not simply some general principle. Brother Deaver fails to recognise that according to the text it is the head covering itself which is grounded upon creation order, not simply some general principle. Brother Deaver deals with Paul’s head covering instructions by affirming that “principles are binding; customs are not” and Love deals with Paul’s instructions on silence in the same way.

 

 

Douglas Moo's approach

 

Moo does an excellent job of defending  Paul's teaching on male leadership in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 by reminding us that Paul appeals to the priority of Adam in creation. He explains:

"And by citing creation rather than a local situation or cultural circumstance as his basis for the prohibitions, Paul makes it clear that, while these local or cultural issues may have provided the context of the issue, they do not provide the reason for his advice. His reason for the prohibitions of verse 12 is the created role relationship of man and woman, and we may justly conclude that these prohibitions are applicable as long as this reason remains true."

 

In my view Moo is correct. He continues:

"It is sometimes said in opposition to this line of reasoning that even an appeal to creation does not demand that the prohibition involved be permanent. This may be granted, in the sense that New Testament authors will sometimes appeal to creation, or to the Old Testament generally, to establish a principle on which a specific form of behavior is demanded. In these cases, while the principle always remains in effect, the specific form of behavior will not. This seems to be the situation, for instance, in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where the appeal to creation grounds the headship of man, a theological principle, which is in turn applied to the specific issue of women’s head coverings. But the difference between this and 1 Timothy 2:12-13 is simply this: in 1 Timothy 2:12-18, the principle cannot be separated from the form of behavior. In other words, for a woman to teach a man or to have authority over a man is, by definition, to void the principle for which Paul quotes the creation account."

 

Moo points out that Paul makes an appeal to creation in both 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11. He then tries to explain why the transcultural principle is applied differently. He is correct that “in 1 Timothy 2:12-18, the principle cannot be separated from the form of behaviour"  The head covering on the other hand is separable from that which it symbolizes.  I will explain why I am not convinced by this approach.

If Moo is arguing that symbols cannot be grounded upon transcultural principles because they are separable from that which is symbolised this creates difficulties. By way of explanation, Scripture teaches that salvation is grounded upon the historical facts of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is this fixed unchanging historical event which generates the power to save man from his sin. But Scripture also says “baptism now save you“ (1 Pet 3:21). Thus scripture links salvation to the (1) death burial and resurrection of Jesus and scripture also links salvation (2) to baptism. The two differ however in that the power to forgive sin inheres in the former (death burial and resurrection of Christ) while the latter (baptism) is a symbolic reenactment of that event. The former is the very act which generates power to save, while the latter generates no such power but rather pictures the event which does. But while this difference is real it does not alter the fact that both are transculturally grounded. Yes the symbol (baptism) is separable from that which it symolizes (death burial and resurrection of Christ) but it does not follow from this that we are free to replace immersion in water with a culturally relevant substitute. Text is decisive.

This is also true in the case of (1) the blood of Christ and (2) the wine at the Lord’s Table. Clearly the former is inseparable from Christ’s salvific sacrifice in a way that the latter is not. Christ’s blood is the very source of the power which cleanses from sin. The wine on the other hand is the symbol of the blood. However it does not follow that the command to use wine at the Table is not transculturally grounded, and most brethren would not accept a culturally relevant replacement (eg coca cola). Text is decisive.

In my view we are to apply this same reasoning to the headcovering. Yes, wine, baptism and the headcovering are all symbols, but we are not at liberty to discard them by insisting that symbols cannot be grounded upon transcultural principles. This is not an argument from scrpture but an assumption.

An Old Testament example is also instructive. In the Old Testament the command to offer animal sacrifices was grounded upon a transcultural reality, namely the fact that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev 17:11) of the sacrificial beasts. In this case the transcultural reality upon which the command is based is a fact of creation as in 1 Cor 11:7. Thus both the command concerning sin offerings and the command concerning the head covering are grounded upon creation order. (The life of the flesh is in the blood, the male is the glory of God and the female the glory of man). So in both cases the transcultural principle undergirding the instructions is creation order.

However it is important to keep in mind that it is Christ’s blood not the blood of animals which generated power to remove sin in the Old Testament period (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:15). The blood of animals made atonement “Typically and in respect of the blood of Christ which it represented, by which the atonement is really made” (Wesley). This is relevant to Moo’s argument. Moo points out that “in 1 Timothy 2:12-18, the principle cannot be separated from the form of behavior." However this is not true in the case of animal sacrfices. Salvation through the blood of Christ is indeed separable from the blood of animals which simply functioned as a shadow. However the fact that salvation is separable from animal sacrifice does not mean that Old Testament worshippers were free to replace this “shadow” with one of their own devising. Moo’s attempt to draw a distinction between Paul’s appeal to creation order in 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11 is not based upon any biblical principle and it has far reaching implications.

In fairness to Douglas Moo, he also makes this very good point in a footnote:

"If, however, it were established that head-coverings for women are more directly involved in the appeal to creation, then exegetical faithfulness and hermeneutical consistency would demand not that we ignore the commands in both 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Timothy 2:12, but that we obey both. We are all for consistency, but consistency may well be better attained by obeying more Biblical commandments than we now do rather than seeing more of them as cultural accommodations (against, for instance, Fee, “Reflections on Church Order,” pp. 150-151)."

This is a good point, and I have argued that "head-coverings for women (and bareheadedness for men -Rex) are ... directly involved in the appeal to creation."

 

 

 

For Consideration

 

Most sports fans understand why various competitive teams choose names for themselves which suggest such characteristics as strength, aggression and predation.  We are familiar with teams like “The Lions” “The Tigers” “The Sea Eagles” “The Bulls”  “The Warriors” and suchlike.   Given the aggressiveness of professional contact sport these names are symbols designed to evoke the desired response, and generally speaking they convey the same message to people of all backgrounds. Regardless of cultural background  most would understand that roaring lions, charging bulls and swooping eagles with extended talons speak of readiness to do battle on the sports field.  In these cases there is an easily recognised correspondence between the symbol and the reality which it conveys. 

 

Often this is true of significant Bible symbols as well. In the OT, circumcision, which was a significant symbol, involved the removal of flesh.  “About 50 times (in the OT) ‘flesh’   represents the ‘physical aspect’ of man or animals as contrasted with the spirit, soul, or heart (the nonphysical aspect)” (Vine OT).  “Flesh is transitory, weak, mortal” (TWOT) so it is understandable if the removal of flesh is significant when entering a covenant relationship with the God who is none of these things.  Thus this symbol bore a unique correspondence to the spiritual realities which it represented in a way that other symbols did not. In the same way since "the life of the flesh is in the blood" animal sacrifices functioned as an appropriate "shadow" of Calvary.

 

This is also true of baptism in the New Testament. The significance of biblical baptism   is found in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus’ body was buried, not (for example) sprinkled with earth. Immersion in water followed by emergence from the “watery grave” functions as a picture of Jesus’ death burial and resurrection in a way that sprinkling with water (for example) cannot. Symbols may vary from culture to culture and change over time but regardless of tradition, as long as Roman 6 pictures baptism as “burial with (Christ)” sprinkling fails to convey what immersion does. As a symbol “burial” in water (immersion) corresponds to the facts of the gospel in a way that sprinkling, by the very nature of the act, cannot. I was sprinkled as a baby and until my 20s I had never witnessed immersion. However as soon as Rom 6:1ff was explained to me I recognised that burial in water corresponds to Christ’s burial in a way that sprinkling does not. Once again there is a correspondence between the symbol (burial in water followed by emergence) and the reality which it pictures (Christ’s death burial and resurrection).  To insist that various forms of “baptism” are acceptable and that forms are “the outward expression of principles which tend to vary from culture to culture” (Stoffer) is to miss an important point.

 

 

This is relevant to our present discussion of 1 Cor 2:1 -16.  Regardless of our understanding of first century head covering practices there is an appropriateness to Paul’s head covering instructions in 1 Cor 11:2-16 which transcend culture. In 1 Cor 11:7 Paul says that “a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God but the woman is the glory of man.” To cover is to conceal. Regardless of cultural convention, since man is the glory of God and woman the glory of man, Paul’s instructions naturally suggest that God’s glory is on display when the male head is uncovered and that man’s glory is concealed when the female head is covered. This is appropriate in worship. To cover the glory of God in worship by covering the man or to declare the glory of the man by exposing the woman is an acted contradiction. Since social convention does not change this fact about male and female glory the symbolic significance of the uncovered male head and the uncovered female head transcends culture.  Yes the authors of the Geneva Annotations do say that “for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection,” but if this reflected social custom in 1560 it does not alter the fact that since John Knox was the glory of God, it was God’s glory which was being concealed when he preached with his head covered. By obeying social custom Knox was unwittingly concealing God’s glory. Conventions change but realities do not. Like immersion, the head covering symbolizes an unchanging reality which is unaffected by custom.

 

 

Conclusion

 

·         Serious students of God’s word recognize that Kaiser’s distinction between “normative teaching” and “culturally-conditioned description” is essential to good bible study.

 

·         In making this distinction “it is not a matter simply of identifying a local or temporary circumstance to which a text is directed and concluding that the text is therefore limited in its application.“ For example if Paul’s instructions concerning male leadership in the assembly (1 Tim 2) and male headship in the family (Eph 5:21ff)  reflect first century practice this does not mean that these instructions are not part of the eternal apostolic pattern. The text is decisive. Text is also decisive in 1 Cor 11:2-16.

 

·         If a command “has roots in the nature of God, the gospel, or creation as God ordered it” this command is transculturally applicable. Symbols such as baptism, wine and the head covering are not exceptions to this rule, even if proselyte baptism, the use of wine as a memorial and the head covering were first century customs.

 

·         By the very nature of the act, immersion (burial) in water followed by emergence functions as an appropriate symbol for the death burial and resurrection of Christ. Since Christ’s body was buried not sprinkled with earth, sprinkling with water does not do so.

 

·         Man is the glory of God and woman the glory of man. Given these realities it is appropriate that the uncovered male head symbolizes the shining forth of divine glory while the covered female head symbolizes the concealment of man’s glory. NEXT