I think this was well put and marvel how you can talk and drive and theologize without driving literally into a ditch! God bless and may all roads be perspecuitus ones 🤣
The golf cart is Pastor Foskey’s rolling pulpit and cigar lounge. Superior Theology is a mobile concept. I like the idea that the custom is outdated and need not be practiced in modern times. I also like the idea that those who DO choose to practice the custom are not told they are “wrong”.
I'm personally of the third position for the following reasons: I don't see anything in the text that suggests that the headcovering is only for Corinth. (as opposed to headcoverings being cultural) The passage refers to not wearing one as being the same as having hair cut short. (as opposed to hair being a covering) The reasons given go back to creation. (as opposed to headcoverings and male headship being cultural) I've also heard another view that says that women are to wear headcoverings when participating in ministry such as choir and teaching Sunday School.
I hold similarly to this view, however, slightly different in that the passage is referring to our conduct in corporate worship and says Christ is the glory of Man and man is covered by his wife, whose glory is her hair, and her hair should be covered, as in prayer and corporate worship we should only be glorifying God. I hold similarly to the idea of Sproul that says that there may well be a command for it, regardless of interpretation and while it’s a maybe issue, there is no definitive command not to cover the woman’s hair.
The part directly after head coverings is that of communion. Why is it that we read head coverings as not for now, but communion is followed very seriously 😐 also.. what about the angels?
Michael Heiser did a great podcast on this topic. The short version is that the world at the time believed that hair had a major function in reproduction. It was essentially part of the genitals. Yes, I am serious. Head coverings for women and long hair was a modesty issue. It shines a major light on Paul's phrasing and takes a lot of the "difficulty" out of the passage.
LCMS guy here To be fair Pastor Foskey, I don't think this issue wouldn't have been terribly controversial until less than 100 years ago. With the growth of feminism, I think a lot of people are concerned to broach anything that might cause women to get angry. We aren't used to correcting women, especially in church. If our culture entirely discarded Feminism and went back to a Biblical understanding of gender roles, I think the teaching of headcoverings would come back. I also don't think this teaching is as unclear as people say. My view of this is probably not popular in my Synod (still new). But I think there is a reason for both the Principle and the Custom. A woman's hair is her glory. Covering what God calls her glory is showing humble submission to her husband and God. That is the Principle in its fullness. The Principle informs the Custom. I believe in Western Civilization, we have a tendency of discarding a custom, even ones informed by a Principle. Our custom is to defy custom, and we often do this by redefining the Principles behind them. I think we do that with a lot of things, like who gets to preach, who is the head of the house, etc. Now, if I am a man, and I sin, I am expected to go to confession to my Pastor. But if a woman blatantly disregards what I think is a clear command, well, to keep the peace we don't even broach the topic. I think that is our custom, and there isn't a valid principle behind it.
And let me add this Pastor Foskey. Before I was LCMS, I would go to churches where we had special music where the artist(s) would go up front and do their thing. A lot of things would happen up front. I never thought anything weird about it until I began attending our Divine Services at my church. Everything we do is designed to point to Christ, and not even risk distraction from Him. Even during special services, choir will not go up front but remain behind the congregation. It all clicked in my head how important this was, and a part of me wonders if St. Paul was trying to convey the importance of taking distractions away during service so we remained focused on Christ. The people who don't know what I am talking about have either A) never been a young unmarried man in church surrounded by beautiful young ladies or B) Forgot what it is like to be a young unmarried man in church surrounded by beautiful young ladies 🤣 We could go through several parts in the Bible that explain the opposite being a problem. Even King Solomon talked about what he called "Crafty Women" and would refer to the men they enticed like they were hunted animals. I think there is a major difference between how the Current Church talks about women and how the God's Breathed Word does. God's Biblical Anthropology for men and especially women is harsher than what we are used to admitting.
Very well explained. Whenever this topic comes up, I'm reminded of going to church as a child. I was born in 1955, and back then men often wore hats, mainly fedoras, in public but removed them indoors, especially in church . Women most often wore hats, especially in church, but it was by no means to demonstrate submission but a showy fashion statement, almost the opposite of the principle Keith discusses, the custom was practiced but not the principle. One of my favorite comic strips is "Curtis", about an African-American family with two young sons. Occasionally its Sunday comic will feature Curtis and his brother sitting in church making good-natured fun of some of the outlandish, gaudy hats some of the women are wearing to show off. Brings back memories. Thanks again.
This wasn't a controversial issue less than 100 years ago. In fact the church across denominational spectrums pretty much agreed on the use of headcoverings. I wonder what changed?
Thank you! Thoughtful commentary. It then seems the head covering was an outward act that was supposed to reflect the inward submission to one's husband and to Christ.
There is another position that explains the “angel” part as well and that doesn’t diminish the prayer and prophecy part either. The “Angelous” are messengers, not necessarily floaty creatures with wings that scare the humans every time they appear. So Paul would be referring to the itinerant preachers when he says angelous. An itinerant preacher comes in and sees a woman praying and prophesying, they become very attractive, not just for procreation but for ministry as well. This can cause the angelos to sway into sin. So when a woman prays or prophesies before the congregation she covers her head. This would not only provide a recognition of submission to authority for the congregation, and the angelos (itinerant preacher), but also herself as well. When she is done she would remove the cover. The passage is only concerned about head coverings when the woman speaks, not at all times.
Thank you for using the mic this time to reduce and even remove the wind noise. You are easier to understand in this one. Thank you for not adding a backing music track as in the first one. It was easier to focus on what you were saying this time.
I always answer the same way to my brothers who demand head covering: Do you really think that the Apostle Paul, who spent most of his ministry fighting against culturally imposed customs on the gentiles, went about 180° to impose one himself?
Exactly... In verse 16 he pretty much says there is no doctrine so don't get contentious. Roman men covered their head when praying, prophesying and sacrificing to their Gods. He was talking about men as well and respect.
Season 1: Theology from a Golf Cart Season 2: Theology from a Bass Boat Season 3: Theology from a Hunting Stand Season 4: Theology from a Aircraft Carrier Season 5: Theology from a (well you get the idea) And you're welcome :)
Pastor Keith. Might I suggest that has the "4th position" is not actually a stand-alone position, but a justification for the "2nd position," the one you hold? Also, my family and I attend a Presbyterian church, and have been members there for about 13 years now. The women of our church seem to differ on this. Some wear head coverings, some don't. I fairly certain my Pastor holds to head coverings, but it's by no means something anyone expects, or even brings up. As you said, it's not entirely clear, so there's no need to divide. Personally, I'm completely undecided. My wife has worn hats to church, and other days, hasn't.
I kinda though that about the 4th position, but I separated it because it’s at least distinguishable from my position enough to point out. But I agree, they conclude the same thing. Thanks bro!
I saw a video of RC Sproul and some other gentleman on the dias and discussing Q&A and RC said that he believed that the head covering was for today and that he was sure that was an unpopular opinion.
“For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.” How do you reconcile your belief with this scripture. Essentially, you are stating if she does not have long hair then cut her hair short which is apparently some sort of paradox because it’s already cut short and that is disgraceful, so cover her head. The logic is clearly out of line with the text.
Thing is, the gift of prophecy didn't cease, and it wasn't just the Corinthian culture that practiced head covering but also others e.g. Roman culture.
I can find no other consistent explanation for "Because of the angels" except for that we ought to follow God's design for male headship during worship, lest the observing angels see the church disobeying God's clear command for male headship and orderly worship. I believe that if the norm of the culture is that women wear headcoverings, women should wear headcoverings. If the norm is that women do not wear headcoverings, it is then up to the believer's discretion
Love the topic, so much tradition not much context today. Paul started positive in Chapter 11. Told men they shouldn't put their togas on their head when praying and prophesying as was custom. Told women it was inappropriate not to have their head covered when praying and prophesying as some cultures. Went on to give an example about nature and men with long hair, women with short and respect for each other and Christ. Then said women's hair was a covering and instructed no contention as the ekklēsia has no official policy other than the respect of Christ. Then he went to the serious issue regarding communion. God bless 🙏
A similar hot debate is people thinking that women must wear only skirts or dresses, usually citing Deuteronomy 22:5, but such people intentionally ignore the fact that in Bible times, everybody wore robes, which were basically dresses, and in some cultures, men still do.
You should do a bow-tie dialog with Bryan Wolfmueller on Baptism or Predestination/Election while you are both driving your respective vehicles! Better yet... a ride-a-long. 😅 Love your ministry! Keep up the good work! It has been edifying and blessing in my life.
I understand it a bit differently. Why does Paul say that it’s disgraceful for men to cover their heads while prophesying and praying? He is an Israelite, and God specifically outlines the priestly garments (including a turban/head covering) for men to wear during religious ceremonies. For Paul to say that it is disgraceful for men to have their heads covered when praying goes against the Jewish beliefs, as Jews to this day cover their heads as a form of submission and honor to God. This tells me this section of the Corinthians is more cultural pointed than we think. If it’s disgraceful for men to cover their heads in Corinth, but not in Israel, it must be because of culture - that men are regularly shaven and groomed, where women’s “glory/beauty” is in their hair. In a culture, and more importantly a church where there were serious problems with adultery, Paul advising women to wear a “sign” of submission such as a head covering makes sense, but I don’t believe it is tied to one’s salvation or should be a mandatory rule in a church where the culture today is completely different than what it was 2000 years ago.
I suppose this would be in line with your belief. That the principle is eternal, but the custom is not. Godly Headship in Christian homes is super important. As a husband and father, we all need to strive to reflect Godly love to our wife and children. Headship is not an excuse to be a dictator of your own home. It should reflect how God loves each and everyone of us.
Gen 20:16 KJV And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved. What does this passage mean?
Amen brother!! Thank you so much for how you covered this topic! I used to be exactly where you are, then ran headfirst into this conflict and came out with a much MUCH more detailed reason to be exactly where you are😅 I pretty much took this verse as “yeah, no cross dressing and be modest. Simple enough” and then I met some young women who wore head coverings that almost made them look like they had cancer because they were so adamant to not show their hair… they then made me feel like I was still in “baby Christian phase” or not at the same status as them because I didn’t “understand” their higher moral standards. Yeah. So I wrote out seven distinct and detailed reasons they were wrong and boycotted hats and headbands for a year🫠 the boycott was admittedly less mature, but their attitudes really affected me for a while… At first making me doubt my own validity (thankfully that didn’t last very long!) then made me angry because of how wrong the whole thing was. It was very cultish and nothing I could say made any difference… so now it just makes me sad. One more note from my research, they don’t tend to remember the first half of this verse… you said it at the start of the video and I’ve never met anyone who’s caught this, but according to their own reading of the text, men are not allowed to wear hats without violating the same rule. So your awesome baseball cap would be effeminate by their standards! Yet the same people who harp on head coverings wouldn’t bat an eye at a man wearing a hat. Gotta love the double standard🙃
When we left our church, our pastor placed the headcovering in the top 3 of the doctrines that we should look for in our new church...we didn't exactly agree.
My brother in Christ, seriously, have you considered the teaching of Michael heiser on this particular issue? Would love to hear what you think about it.
You missed a 5th one. This is similar to the 2nd view, but in the specific context of Corinthian church. They were meeting in a rented synagogue. "The Law" the Paul references in 14:34 is not the Law of Moses, it was the Law of the synagogue, the mechitzah separation. Wives shouldn't yell a question at their husband across the room during church. The "angels" is better understood as messengers in the passage, the Jews keeping an eye on the Christians using the synagogue. Are the Christians observing our rules while using your facilities? That is the context. From that context, the custom of the time was for men to not have long hair (literally hanging down from the head). Women who tied their hair up in elaborate head dressings (every watch a Chinese costume drama, you'll see what I"m talking about) were in defiance to authority. That is why 1 Tim. 2:9-10 talks of this "putting on" of proper attitude instead of this elaborate dressing. With that background of understanding, I see it as "covering" is having your long hair down if your a woman, and having your hair short if your a man; and it is specifically talking about public prayer and forthtelling (prophecy) the Word, on your side of the mechitzah. The modern application is women are to ware their wedding rings, as that is the culturally equivalent symbol of authority today. And men don't ware hats in church. Especially if your preaching or doing the congregational prayer or scripture reading.
The Amish and Mennonite’s use Genesis 24:66 as part of their justification for head coverings because Rebekah covered herself when she was about to meet Issac. This is a passage I have struggled with and at one time wore a head covering but don’t any longer. It’s just a complicated subject.
It’s because there is no evidence that this passage is referring to the worship service. It’s talking in general. Many people assume it’s talking about church/public worship but that can’t be ascertained from what’s written here.
You need to read it in literary and historical context. That chapter telling women to not speak in church is all about order in the church and this would've been the first time in their lives that those women were at an equal place with men. It's much more like a modern middle school teacher saying to his students, "guys, appreciate the enthusiasm but stop disrupting class, I have things I need to cover. Talk to me or your parents after class, if you have questions" than a hard and fast rule of women speaking in church. I read it more as about responsibility and ordrr in the church, then gender bias.
Thank you! Being a Baptist since I was twelve and Reformed for 10 years or more, I have occasionally considered this topic. I find your reasoning very useful and agree with your conclusions. Admittedly, I hadn't come to the same conclusion since I had come to no conclusion at all. No church I have attended has ever said women should cover their heads, actually, never preached on it at all, as I recall. Not at all what I was expecting on this episode of the golf cart, based on what you said in your podcast, though. This was very informative and answered several questions for me. Thanks, Charlie D.
Has anyone heard Michael Heiser talk about head coverings? Wild stuff. But if he’s right, then all of those other options completely miss the point. I personally don’t know what to do with this passage.
In america, we cant do the headcoverings because nobody does it, the USA will not all of a sudden do these things. Pastors will try to say long hair is bad on a man but their women have short butch pixie haircuts.
Our family began doing so within the last year and have only had one person ask a question about it, and was very open to hearing why my wife and daughter wear them. I would worry that if you are scared to do something because no one else is doing it, that you are going to have much bigger issues in your walk in Christianity. We are called out from the world, to be a people set apart from worldly culture.
@@MattH-nd9qkMen have a great amount of requirements, from loving and leading their wives, families, and churches, from which God will hold accountable for all our actions in leadership to providing for our wives and families. All men are essentially pastors of their own little churches in which a great heavy weight is upon all men. It’s incredibly immature to take a small portion of scripture and make a vast generalization that somehow more is required of women than men. Look to Genesis 3, where Eve usurped the created order, Adam was held accountable. And through Adam(not Eve) all mankind.
This is a point of discussion in my household. I hold a similar principle/custom position that Keith does, and I believe that a woman taking her husband's last name at marriage is showing submission in Western culture. That is the standard I expect from my wife and daughter. My daughter has fallen in with a crowd that holds that it's a physical covering that is required by this passage of scripture. I won't push this point much because this is not essential for orthodoxy or the gospel. As I read 1 Corinthians 11:13-16, it seems to make this topic a point of liberty as discussed in Romans 14.
Paul directly ties the command to eternal things and to natural law and it was universally understood by all Christians until about 1960 when the veils were burned by feminists. The better question: Is a minister, who's wife doesn't wear one, ruling his household well?
That same verse also says its shameful for men to have head coverings too. Yet for most of history, even in Christian societies, men weren't considered fully dressed unless they had a hat on. That is a decent argument for the custom theory.
@@matthewvanburen6415 While praying or prophesying in church. "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head." Men must remove head coverings, which they still do, and women must put them on.
I (not a theologian) agree. A prior pastor said the custom is cultural and time-bound. The principle is not. OTOH: are you using a cell phone to record these? If you have an iPhone Pro >12 available, it should, via OIS (Optical Image Stabilization), remove some of the cart’s roof movements.
That’s helpful, thank you! I am using my iPhone 15, but I was using the Rode Capture software. I may need to change that to the native iPhone video app and make sure OIS is on.
I'll tell ya, headcoverings can cultivate so much pride amongst the sisters - as you mentioned, how large should the headcovering be? When I was going through my headcovering phase (not conviction but pressure) I had it said to me that my covering was not large enough. I was also told that a larger covering was needed when doing personal study 🤔😅 Maybe a sombrero, I thought to myself 😂 It was also a bit ironic that the ones for headcoverings would also be the first to slander their own husbands.
I completely disagree with this principle as a poor compromise of a people not wanting to submit to Biblical authority, using excuses similar to other liberal Christianity and calling it in some form tolerance in line. One would have to show me where it is stated not to wear the covering clearly when there appears to be an apostolic authoritative statement requiring the opposite of that idea. The passage otherwise does not make sense to mean the hair or some invisible principle. At its root it may seem harmless but is compromising on the authority of Scripture, which is wholly unacceptable. I am not out to argue or create arguments but do feel it’s a concerning idea that within the reformed movement there are people who seem to think so lowly of the passage.
It is a distinction without a difference. The custom existed because the principle of a woman's hair being her glory, and her covering it was showing humility to God and her husband. Why do we do this? Because in the Divine Service, it is God who gets all the glory.
Your answer to the historical tradition across multiple cultures at the end of video wasn't satisfactory, IMO. Another question that I don't see on this subject is: is it honoring to God for a husband to wear a headcovering (ball cap or cowboy hat) during a church service? Most will answer this with an obvious and clear NO! But for some reason we are okay with women not covering. Paul was clear that this applied to more than just the culture of the Corinthian church when he tied his argument to creation and male headship. Now, this is not a doctrine worth fighting over or causing division in the body. But it is fun to discuss 😊
Thanks for this one. I haven't had time to go listen to your sermon on it (hopefully soon). I really like the principle vs. custom view there. Especially since that view cannot be used to undermine the prohibition against woman preachers in 1 Timothy 2 since that's not a single text thing like this custom is.
If head coverings are just cultural can't we say any part of the Bible is? God's word is not a choose your own morality book. Ladies should follow God's word and wear head coverings.
Its a tough question to address and come to a solid answer on. we see that scripture contains many types of literature and addresses two major cultures. For example, I've lived in cultures where it would be normal even today to "greet each other with a holy kiss" as commanded several times in the Pauline epistles. But how many people greet each other with a holy kiss on Sunday in western churches? One must just be sensitive to the context and use that and the rest of scripture as a guide.
I cover. I don't accept that this is cultural when it is based upon submission. In 1 Cor 11:10, Paul writes regarding head coverings and headship: That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (ESV) I believe this refers to the Genesis 6 angelic fall. It has nothing to do with culture. And I believe that the pattern of independence exercised by today's Christian women is a significant insult to the living God. We have left the home and cast the children into the void. We don't support our husbands, we don't invest in our children, and we struggle to balance the world with the faith. Well, that struggle is absurd as we are called to submit to our husbands and to conform to the image to Christ.
As far as how much culture goes into this... One thing to understand is that culture isnt neutral its either of God or of Satan. So saying something is just cultural seems to me to be a bit naive.
But it’s not really. Otherwise the woman who has a shaved head should shave her head for shaving her head, is essentially how the passage would read. Literally makes no sense in that area.
Talk about opening a can of worms. Congratulations well done. Back in the days of the early church, before the gifting of prayer and prophecy by women ceased... Now, are you saying that the combination of prayer and prophecy by women have ceased in the church? It's no wonder you wanted to discuss this topic in a golf cart. What you should have done is stopped the cart and opened your bible to 1Cor. 11. As ridiculous as your doctrine that prophecy has ceased, we all are sure that prayer in the church whether by men or women has certainly not and seeing these two things are combined together equally, how can you possibly say one has ceased and the other has not? What you have actually done is shown another Scriptural proof of that neither prayer nor prophecy have ceased in the church today. Well done.
Its been my experience that most of the people hung up on this issue and demanding that women wear head coverings today in the United States have a totalitarian streak in them that I can live without.
I am sorry, I forgot to put in the links for the sermon and apologia Utah vid. They are now in the description. Thanks everyone for your comments!
I think this was well put and marvel how you can talk and drive and theologize without driving literally into a ditch! God bless and may all roads be perspecuitus ones 🤣
This is the most Florida thing I've seen! Fantastic work brother!
The golf cart is Pastor Foskey’s rolling pulpit and cigar lounge. Superior Theology is a mobile concept.
I like the idea that the custom is outdated and need not be practiced in modern times. I also like the idea that those who DO choose to practice the custom are not told they are “wrong”.
Love this. Thanks. I will also show this to my son as we were discussing this just last night.
Have you talked to Mike Winger about an appropriate video length for this subject? 20 minutes seems short...😂
Bought the wife a gift and then took it over like a true baptist 😂💪🏼🤙
I'm personally of the third position for the following reasons:
I don't see anything in the text that suggests that the headcovering is only for Corinth. (as opposed to headcoverings being cultural)
The passage refers to not wearing one as being the same as having hair cut short. (as opposed to hair being a covering)
The reasons given go back to creation. (as opposed to headcoverings and male headship being cultural)
I've also heard another view that says that women are to wear headcoverings when participating in ministry such as choir and teaching Sunday School.
I hold similarly to this view, however, slightly different in that the passage is referring to our conduct in corporate worship and says Christ is the glory of Man and man is covered by his wife, whose glory is her hair, and her hair should be covered, as in prayer and corporate worship we should only be glorifying God. I hold similarly to the idea of Sproul that says that there may well be a command for it, regardless of interpretation and while it’s a maybe issue, there is no definitive command not to cover the woman’s hair.
@@thelibitinarius4320 I forgot to mention those two reasons. They are good reasons.
The part directly after head coverings is that of communion. Why is it that we read head coverings as not for now, but communion is followed very seriously 😐 also.. what about the angels?
Michael Heiser did a great podcast on this topic. The short version is that the world at the time believed that hair had a major function in reproduction. It was essentially part of the genitals. Yes, I am serious. Head coverings for women and long hair was a modesty issue. It shines a major light on Paul's phrasing and takes a lot of the "difficulty" out of the passage.
I think you are intellectually fair. Nice. Godspeed.
LCMS guy here
To be fair Pastor Foskey, I don't think this issue wouldn't have been terribly controversial until less than 100 years ago. With the growth of feminism, I think a lot of people are concerned to broach anything that might cause women to get angry. We aren't used to correcting women, especially in church. If our culture entirely discarded Feminism and went back to a Biblical understanding of gender roles, I think the teaching of headcoverings would come back. I also don't think this teaching is as unclear as people say.
My view of this is probably not popular in my Synod (still new). But I think there is a reason for both the Principle and the Custom.
A woman's hair is her glory. Covering what God calls her glory is showing humble submission to her husband and God. That is the Principle in its fullness. The Principle informs the Custom. I believe in Western Civilization, we have a tendency of discarding a custom, even ones informed by a Principle. Our custom is to defy custom, and we often do this by redefining the Principles behind them. I think we do that with a lot of things, like who gets to preach, who is the head of the house, etc.
Now, if I am a man, and I sin, I am expected to go to confession to my Pastor. But if a woman blatantly disregards what I think is a clear command, well, to keep the peace we don't even broach the topic. I think that is our custom, and there isn't a valid principle behind it.
And let me add this Pastor Foskey. Before I was LCMS, I would go to churches where we had special music where the artist(s) would go up front and do their thing. A lot of things would happen up front.
I never thought anything weird about it until I began attending our Divine Services at my church. Everything we do is designed to point to Christ, and not even risk distraction from Him. Even during special services, choir will not go up front but remain behind the congregation. It all clicked in my head how important this was, and a part of me wonders if St. Paul was trying to convey the importance of taking distractions away during service so we remained focused on Christ. The people who don't know what I am talking about have either A) never been a young unmarried man in church surrounded by beautiful young ladies or B) Forgot what it is like to be a young unmarried man in church surrounded by beautiful young ladies 🤣
We could go through several parts in the Bible that explain the opposite being a problem. Even King Solomon talked about what he called "Crafty Women" and would refer to the men they enticed like they were hunted animals. I think there is a major difference between how the Current Church talks about women and how the God's Breathed Word does. God's Biblical Anthropology for men and especially women is harsher than what we are used to admitting.
@@RomanZeNine I really appreciate the thoughtful comments. Thanks brother!
Very well explained. Whenever this topic comes up, I'm reminded of going to church as a child. I was born in 1955, and back then men often wore hats, mainly fedoras, in public but removed them indoors, especially in church . Women most often wore hats, especially in church, but it was by no means to demonstrate submission but a showy fashion statement, almost the opposite of the principle Keith discusses, the custom was practiced but not the principle. One of my favorite comic strips is "Curtis", about an African-American family with two young sons. Occasionally its Sunday comic will feature Curtis and his brother sitting in church making good-natured fun of some of the outlandish, gaudy hats some of the women are wearing to show off. Brings back memories. Thanks again.
I bet you can get some sweet air in that buggy 😂
Haha, I may already know the answer to that! lol
That how your grandma broke her coccyx.
This wasn't a controversial issue less than 100 years ago. In fact the church across denominational spectrums pretty much agreed on the use of headcoverings. I wonder what changed?
Thank you! Thoughtful commentary. It then seems the head covering was an outward act that was supposed to reflect the inward submission to one's husband and to Christ.
Principle and Custom -- Reminds me of Sproul's lectures on hermeneutics in his last video
There is another position that explains the “angel” part as well and that doesn’t diminish the prayer and prophecy part either. The “Angelous” are messengers, not necessarily floaty creatures with wings that scare the humans every time they appear. So Paul would be referring to the itinerant preachers when he says angelous. An itinerant preacher comes in and sees a woman praying and prophesying, they become very attractive, not just for procreation but for ministry as well. This can cause the angelos to sway into sin. So when a woman prays or prophesies before the congregation she covers her head. This would not only provide a recognition of submission to authority for the congregation, and the angelos (itinerant preacher), but also herself as well. When she is done she would remove the cover. The passage is only concerned about head coverings when the woman speaks, not at all times.
How is Keith steering while talking with both hands?
Is it a Tesla golf cart?
With his knees, obviously 😂
it's that superior theology kicking in.
Thank you for using the mic this time to reduce and even remove the wind noise. You are easier to understand in this one.
Thank you for not adding a backing music track as in the first one. It was easier to focus on what you were saying this time.
I always answer the same way to my brothers who demand head covering: Do you really think that the Apostle Paul, who spent most of his ministry fighting against culturally imposed customs on the gentiles, went about 180° to impose one himself?
Exactly...
In verse 16 he pretty much says there is no doctrine so don't get contentious.
Roman men covered their head when praying, prophesying and sacrificing to their Gods. He was talking about men as well and respect.
I don't agree with everything that Dale Partridge teaches but his book on head coverings is a good resource on the topic.
Season 1: Theology from a Golf Cart
Season 2: Theology from a Bass Boat
Season 3: Theology from a Hunting Stand
Season 4: Theology from a Aircraft Carrier
Season 5: Theology from a (well you get the idea)
And you're welcome :)
Pastor Keith. Might I suggest that has the "4th position" is not actually a stand-alone position, but a justification for the "2nd position," the one you hold?
Also, my family and I attend a Presbyterian church, and have been members there for about 13 years now. The women of our church seem to differ on this. Some wear head coverings, some don't. I fairly certain my Pastor holds to head coverings, but it's by no means something anyone expects, or even brings up. As you said, it's not entirely clear, so there's no need to divide.
Personally, I'm completely undecided. My wife has worn hats to church, and other days, hasn't.
I kinda though that about the 4th position, but I separated it because it’s at least distinguishable from my position enough to point out. But I agree, they conclude the same thing.
Thanks bro!
I saw a video of RC Sproul and some other gentleman on the dias and discussing Q&A and RC said that he believed that the head covering was for today and that he was sure that was an unpopular opinion.
Sproul has a good take but few women will even consider it. I see it as women should have long hair and men should have short hair.
But then that would assume the text is speaking about hair throughout, which you may hold to. Keith didn't seem convinced, and neither am I.
“For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.”
How do you reconcile your belief with this scripture. Essentially, you are stating if she does not have long hair then cut her hair short which is apparently some sort of paradox because it’s already cut short and that is disgraceful, so cover her head. The logic is clearly out of line with the text.
Thank you Pastor Foskey. Could you do a video of your understanding of Genesis 6:1-4?
Thing is, the gift of prophecy didn't cease, and it wasn't just the Corinthian culture that practiced head covering but also others e.g. Roman culture.
I can find no other consistent explanation for "Because of the angels" except for that we ought to follow God's design for male headship during worship, lest the observing angels see the church disobeying God's clear command for male headship and orderly worship.
I believe that if the norm of the culture is that women wear headcoverings, women should wear headcoverings. If the norm is that women do not wear headcoverings, it is then up to the believer's discretion
Love the topic, so much tradition not much context today.
Paul started positive in Chapter 11.
Told men they shouldn't put their togas on their head when praying and prophesying as was custom. Told women it was inappropriate not to have their head covered when praying and prophesying as some cultures.
Went on to give an example about nature and men with long hair, women with short and respect for each other and Christ.
Then said women's hair was a covering and instructed no contention as the ekklēsia has no official policy other than the respect of Christ.
Then he went to the serious issue regarding communion.
God bless 🙏
I would generally agree with your position. Though the position of the guy in Utah sounds interesting and does not really conflict with that.
Would love to hear your sermon, but cannot find the link. 😮
I am sorry, I forgot to put in the links for the sermon and apologia Utah vid. They are now in the description. Thanks everyone for your comments!
@ Thanks!
This may be the most Presbyterian thing in the history of the internet.
Did I miss the link to the sermon concerning this passage?
I am sorry, I forgot to put in the links for the sermon and apologia Utah vid. They are now in the description. Thanks everyone for your comments!
A similar hot debate is people thinking that women must wear only skirts or dresses, usually citing Deuteronomy 22:5, but such people intentionally ignore the fact that in Bible times, everybody wore robes, which were basically dresses, and in some cultures, men still do.
You should do a bow-tie dialog with Bryan Wolfmueller on Baptism or Predestination/Election while you are both driving your respective vehicles! Better yet... a ride-a-long. 😅 Love your ministry! Keep up the good work! It has been edifying and blessing in my life.
I understand it a bit differently.
Why does Paul say that it’s disgraceful for men to cover their heads while prophesying and praying? He is an Israelite, and God specifically outlines the priestly garments (including a turban/head covering) for men to wear during religious ceremonies. For Paul to say that it is disgraceful for men to have their heads covered when praying goes against the Jewish beliefs, as Jews to this day cover their heads as a form of submission and honor to God.
This tells me this section of the Corinthians is more cultural pointed than we think. If it’s disgraceful for men to cover their heads in Corinth, but not in Israel, it must be because of culture - that men are regularly shaven and groomed, where women’s “glory/beauty” is in their hair.
In a culture, and more importantly a church where there were serious problems with adultery, Paul advising women to wear a “sign” of submission such as a head covering makes sense, but I don’t believe it is tied to one’s salvation or should be a mandatory rule in a church where the culture today is completely different than what it was 2000 years ago.
I suppose this would be in line with your belief. That the principle is eternal, but the custom is not.
Godly Headship in Christian homes is super important. As a husband and father, we all need to strive to reflect Godly love to our wife and children. Headship is not an excuse to be a dictator of your own home. It should reflect how God loves each and everyone of us.
How much for the ball cap
I think your position makes the most sense.
Gen 20:16 KJV And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.
What does this passage mean?
Amen brother!! Thank you so much for how you covered this topic! I used to be exactly where you are, then ran headfirst into this conflict and came out with a much MUCH more detailed reason to be exactly where you are😅 I pretty much took this verse as “yeah, no cross dressing and be modest. Simple enough” and then I met some young women who wore head coverings that almost made them look like they had cancer because they were so adamant to not show their hair… they then made me feel like I was still in “baby Christian phase” or not at the same status as them because I didn’t “understand” their higher moral standards. Yeah. So I wrote out seven distinct and detailed reasons they were wrong and boycotted hats and headbands for a year🫠 the boycott was admittedly less mature, but their attitudes really affected me for a while… At first making me doubt my own validity (thankfully that didn’t last very long!) then made me angry because of how wrong the whole thing was. It was very cultish and nothing I could say made any difference… so now it just makes me sad.
One more note from my research, they don’t tend to remember the first half of this verse… you said it at the start of the video and I’ve never met anyone who’s caught this, but according to their own reading of the text, men are not allowed to wear hats without violating the same rule. So your awesome baseball cap would be effeminate by their standards! Yet the same people who harp on head coverings wouldn’t bat an eye at a man wearing a hat. Gotta love the double standard🙃
When we left our church, our pastor placed the headcovering in the top 3 of the doctrines that we should look for in our new church...we didn't exactly agree.
My brother in Christ, seriously, have you considered the teaching of Michael heiser on this particular issue?
Would love to hear what you think about it.
You missed a 5th one. This is similar to the 2nd view, but in the specific context of Corinthian church. They were meeting in a rented synagogue. "The Law" the Paul references in 14:34 is not the Law of Moses, it was the Law of the synagogue, the mechitzah separation. Wives shouldn't yell a question at their husband across the room during church. The "angels" is better understood as messengers in the passage, the Jews keeping an eye on the Christians using the synagogue. Are the Christians observing our rules while using your facilities? That is the context. From that context, the custom of the time was for men to not have long hair (literally hanging down from the head). Women who tied their hair up in elaborate head dressings (every watch a Chinese costume drama, you'll see what I"m talking about) were in defiance to authority. That is why 1 Tim. 2:9-10 talks of this "putting on" of proper attitude instead of this elaborate dressing. With that background of understanding, I see it as "covering" is having your long hair down if your a woman, and having your hair short if your a man; and it is specifically talking about public prayer and forthtelling (prophecy) the Word, on your side of the mechitzah. The modern application is women are to ware their wedding rings, as that is the culturally equivalent symbol of authority today. And men don't ware hats in church. Especially if your preaching or doing the congregational prayer or scripture reading.
The Amish and Mennonite’s use Genesis 24:66 as part of their justification for head coverings because Rebekah covered herself when she was about to meet Issac. This is a passage I have struggled with and at one time wore a head covering but don’t any longer. It’s just a complicated subject.
I can’t help but wonder; if women were to remain silent in church, then how could they be praying and prophesying?
The early church didn't have a problem with it. It was when they were outside the church they could do so.
I would assume it's outside of church. Like Wednesday bible study or moms groups. Or evangelizing in the public square etc
It’s because there is no evidence that this passage is referring to the worship service. It’s talking in general. Many people assume it’s talking about church/public worship but that can’t be ascertained from what’s written here.
It's almost like, "silent" is a bad interpretation of that verse 🤯
You need to read it in literary and historical context. That chapter telling women to not speak in church is all about order in the church and this would've been the first time in their lives that those women were at an equal place with men. It's much more like a modern middle school teacher saying to his students, "guys, appreciate the enthusiasm but stop disrupting class, I have things I need to cover. Talk to me or your parents after class, if you have questions" than a hard and fast rule of women speaking in church. I read it more as about responsibility and ordrr in the church, then gender bias.
Thank you! Being a Baptist since I was twelve and Reformed for 10 years or more, I have occasionally considered this topic. I find your reasoning very useful and agree with your conclusions. Admittedly, I hadn't come to the same conclusion since I had come to no conclusion at all. No church I have attended has ever said women should cover their heads, actually, never preached on it at all, as I recall.
Not at all what I was expecting on this episode of the golf cart, based on what you said in your podcast, though. This was very informative and answered several questions for me.
Thanks,
Charlie D.
I think each man needs to be fully convinced in his own mind. And each woman needs to submit to her wife.
If head coverings were to show a wife's submission to her husband, does that mean unmarried women did not need to wear them?
That’s actually something that is debated. Another issue which is not entirely clear. Thanks for the comment!
Has anyone heard Michael Heiser talk about head coverings? Wild stuff. But if he’s right, then all of those other options completely miss the point. I personally don’t know what to do with this passage.
Yes!👀. Heiser wrote about it in Reversing Hermon. It blew me away because of how unconventional and different his explanation was.
In america, we cant do the headcoverings because nobody does it, the USA will not all of a sudden do these things. Pastors will try to say long hair is bad on a man but their women have short butch pixie haircuts.
Our family began doing so within the last year and have only had one person ask a question about it, and was very open to hearing why my wife and daughter wear them.
I would worry that if you are scared to do something because no one else is doing it, that you are going to have much bigger issues in your walk in Christianity. We are called out from the world, to be a people set apart from worldly culture.
@thelibitinarius4320 I'm a man so I don't have to worry about head coverings, men have like zero requirements
@@MattH-nd9qkMen have a great amount of requirements, from loving and leading their wives, families, and churches, from which God will hold accountable for all our actions in leadership to providing for our wives and families. All men are essentially pastors of their own little churches in which a great heavy weight is upon all men. It’s incredibly immature to take a small portion of scripture and make a vast generalization that somehow more is required of women than men. Look to Genesis 3, where Eve usurped the created order, Adam was held accountable. And through Adam(not Eve) all mankind.
@@thelibitinarius4320 I assume he's refering to making this a rule in a church and not just a personal conviction.
Does a head covering save a woman or the death and resurrection of Jesus?
This is a point of discussion in my household. I hold a similar principle/custom position that Keith does, and I believe that a woman taking her husband's last name at marriage is showing submission in Western culture. That is the standard I expect from my wife and daughter. My daughter has fallen in with a crowd that holds that it's a physical covering that is required by this passage of scripture.
I won't push this point much because this is not essential for orthodoxy or the gospel. As I read 1 Corinthians 11:13-16, it seems to make this topic a point of liberty as discussed in Romans 14.
Paul directly ties the command to eternal things and to natural law and it was universally understood by all Christians until about 1960 when the veils were burned by feminists. The better question: Is a minister, who's wife doesn't wear one, ruling his household well?
That same verse also says its shameful for men to have head coverings too. Yet for most of history, even in Christian societies, men weren't considered fully dressed unless they had a hat on. That is a decent argument for the custom theory.
@@matthewvanburen6415 While praying or prophesying in church.
"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head."
Men must remove head coverings, which they still do, and women must put them on.
I (not a theologian) agree.
A prior pastor said the custom is cultural and time-bound. The principle is not.
OTOH: are you using a cell phone to record these? If you have an iPhone Pro >12 available, it should, via OIS (Optical Image Stabilization), remove some of the cart’s roof movements.
That’s helpful, thank you! I am using my iPhone 15, but I was using the Rode Capture software. I may need to change that to the native iPhone video app and make sure OIS is on.
Keith, can you link that video from Apologia Utah?
I am sorry, I forgot to put in the links for the sermon and apologia Utah vid. They are now in the description. Thanks everyone for your comments!
So are we not hearing from God through prophecy in this group?
🤠🤙
I'll tell ya, headcoverings can cultivate so much pride amongst the sisters - as you mentioned, how large should the headcovering be? When I was going through my headcovering phase (not conviction but pressure) I had it said to me that my covering was not large enough. I was also told that a larger covering was needed when doing personal study 🤔😅 Maybe a sombrero, I thought to myself 😂 It was also a bit ironic that the ones for headcoverings would also be the first to slander their own husbands.
I'm with Keith on this one. Principle yes, but custom, not required.
I completely disagree with this principle as a poor compromise of a people not wanting to submit to Biblical authority, using excuses similar to other liberal Christianity and calling it in some form tolerance in line. One would have to show me where it is stated not to wear the covering clearly when there appears to be an apostolic authoritative statement requiring the opposite of that idea. The passage otherwise does not make sense to mean the hair or some invisible principle.
At its root it may seem harmless but is compromising on the authority of Scripture, which is wholly unacceptable. I am not out to argue or create arguments but do feel it’s a concerning idea that within the reformed movement there are people who seem to think so lowly of the passage.
It is a distinction without a difference. The custom existed because the principle of a woman's hair being her glory, and her covering it was showing humility to God and her husband. Why do we do this? Because in the Divine Service, it is God who gets all the glory.
Your answer to the historical tradition across multiple cultures at the end of video wasn't satisfactory, IMO. Another question that I don't see on this subject is: is it honoring to God for a husband to wear a headcovering (ball cap or cowboy hat) during a church service? Most will answer this with an obvious and clear NO! But for some reason we are okay with women not covering. Paul was clear that this applied to more than just the culture of the Corinthian church when he tied his argument to creation and male headship. Now, this is not a doctrine worth fighting over or causing division in the body. But it is fun to discuss 😊
Thanks for this one. I haven't had time to go listen to your sermon on it (hopefully soon). I really like the principle vs. custom view there. Especially since that view cannot be used to undermine the prohibition against woman preachers in 1 Timothy 2 since that's not a single text thing like this custom is.
The historical practicality of men and women covering their heads had A Lot to do with cleanliness; and often times, status.
If head coverings are just cultural can't we say any part of the Bible is? God's word is not a choose your own morality book. Ladies should follow God's word and wear head coverings.
Its a tough question to address and come to a solid answer on. we see that scripture contains many types of literature and addresses two major cultures. For example, I've lived in cultures where it would be normal even today to "greet each other with a holy kiss" as commanded several times in the Pauline epistles. But how many people greet each other with a holy kiss on Sunday in western churches? One must just be sensitive to the context and use that and the rest of scripture as a guide.
@clausewitz41_plus_1 Except that Paul gives explicit reasons WHY women should wear head coverings.
@@clausewitz41_plus_1or just greet with a holy kiss?
I cover. I don't accept that this is cultural when it is based upon submission. In 1 Cor 11:10, Paul writes regarding head coverings and headship:
That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (ESV)
I believe this refers to the Genesis 6 angelic fall. It has nothing to do with culture. And I believe that the pattern of independence exercised by today's Christian women is a significant insult to the living God. We have left the home and cast the children into the void. We don't support our husbands, we don't invest in our children, and we struggle to balance the world with the faith. Well, that struggle is absurd as we are called to submit to our husbands and to conform to the image to Christ.
As far as how much culture goes into this... One thing to understand is that culture isnt neutral its either of God or of Satan. So saying something is just cultural seems to me to be a bit naive.
Meow
Leave it to the English language to use the word perspicuity to mean ‘clear’, ‘understandable’…
Hahaha 😂 I know, right!!!
I believe Corinthians 11 may be dealing with androgyny and a need to keep the identity of male and female pure….because of the angels.
But it’s not really. Otherwise the woman who has a shaved head should shave her head for shaving her head, is essentially how the passage would read. Literally makes no sense in that area.
Talk about opening a can of worms. Congratulations well done. Back in the days of the early church, before the gifting of prayer and prophecy by women ceased... Now, are you saying that the combination of prayer and prophecy by women have ceased in the church? It's no wonder you wanted to discuss this topic in a golf cart. What you should have done is stopped the cart and opened your bible to 1Cor. 11. As ridiculous as your doctrine that prophecy has ceased, we all are sure that prayer in the church whether by men or women has certainly not and seeing these two things are combined together equally, how can you possibly say one has ceased and the other has not? What you have actually done is shown another Scriptural proof of that neither prayer nor prophecy have ceased in the church today. Well done.
I'd take this comment more seriously if you didn't speak as though Balaam were riding you.
Its been my experience that most of the people hung up on this issue and demanding that women wear head coverings today in the United States have a totalitarian streak in them that I can live without.
If it's important enough to say, isn't it important enough to stop and say? Distracted driving much? 🫤