NO MORE EXCUSES! A SYSTEMATIC REFUTATION OF THE CREEDS THAT DISCOURAGE THE COVERING OF WOMEN TAUGHT IN 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 *** BY: A. A. BIELER Introduction “But they all with one accord began to •This study started out as a short make excuses…” assignment for a hermeneutics class: make (LUKE 14:18) sense out of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. But, as I started to apply the hermeneutic principles How can a group of men who believe I had learned in the class, I began to deduce different things each come to the same that this was a commandment that conclusion? Justifications are the key. What somehow wasn’t being taught in the Lord’s is a justification? Webster defines it as “the church. But, could a lowly novice be right act of defending or explaining or making and a thousand churches be wrong? excuses for by reasoning.” What is an I immediately started quizzing gospel excuse? Again the dictionary tells us that an preachers, investigating why they didn’t excuse is “a defense of some behavior.” teach headcovering for women. Their When men and women who study the responses and casual remarks were Bible find this passage, they naturally begin shocking: no two men gave me the same to wonder why it isn’t being obeyed. Those reasoning, and some stated beliefs that who actually care what the Bible teaches strongly contradicted the others! One begin to seek out men to explain these preacher claimed that covering was a passages and to “defend or explain” why cultural practice of the first-century and is covering isn’t being done. What do they find no longer binding, while another claimed when they ask these priests, pastors, and that headcovering is indeed binding, but ministers why it isn’t being obeyed? One of that the covering is long hair! Even worse, I literally dozens of various complementary found some preachers teaching these and contradicting responses. This Baptist contradictory doctrines at the same time! disagrees with that Lutheran. This Catholic (Several of these men have since claimed disagrees with that Mormon. This that I have misrepresented them, Presbyterian disagrees with that apparently because you are being Pentecostal. This gospel preacher disagrees “presumptuous” if you believe a preacher with that gospel preacher. Yet they all means what he says, or if you believe what somehow agree to not teach women to his relatives tell you. My advice to you is to cover their heads. get your preacher to commit his beliefs In the parable of the Wedding Feast, the about this topic to paper, if he will.) master gave one simple order: “Come, for The only common thread I found was that all things are now ready.” The men so each preacher offered a different reason offered didn’t want to come! Instead, they why this commandment wasn’t relevant for made “a defense.” One man used oxen as the church. Only one commentary I found his defense, another used land, another a had the courage to admit the evidences new wife. But they were all defending the supplied in other commentaries were same unlawful behavior. The lame excuses inadequate. If you search out the various satisfied those men, but they enraged the commentaries and sermon outline books for master. yourself, you will see the same things. Jesus combated uncritical “common NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 knowledge” with the truth in Matthew 5 & 6, The “Purposes & Substitutes” Problem when he challenged the doctrines of the • It is true that the washing of feet and the Jews who had “heard it said.” The veiling of women were both ancient justifications of the false-teachers excused customs, and it is true that Christians rarely such sins as dishonoring parents, abuse of wash another’s feet today. It has, however, the poor, using the temple as a money- been persuasively argued that we continue making business, swearing false oaths, and to keep the spirit of the example. worse. In each case, the Law of Moses gave Foot-washing was a function of an ordinance for the Hebrews to follow, and hospitality; bare feet get filthy from the these men found a way to “defend or road. The purpose for cleaning dirty feet explain” why they did not follow those laws was, for a widow, part of several activities as they were given. The Scribes and that show a history of hospitality to others. Pharisees preached a self-serving doctrine This is also indicated by her helping the sick, that could not bear the weight of God’s lodging strangers, and other good works (1 truth, but relied solely upon their position as Tim 5:10). Since most nations now have religious leaders and intimidation to justify access to socks and shoes, feet rarely get their disobedience. that filthy from travel, and washing clean As will be shown in the following study, feet is simply pointless. But there are still these “defenses and explanations” are other practical ways to be hospitable today undermined by one inescapable flaw: they that are just as humbling and useful (like cannot be taught from the Bible. This washing dirty socks), and true Christian apparently cannot be stressed enough. To widows will perform these acts. It should hold a positive position on headcovering, also be said that there is no good reason for one needs only open the Bible and read the any Christian today to refuse washing feet, passage aloud. The Spirit gave us all the especially if they need cleaning (in fact, this timeless and sacred reasons we’ll ever need author personally saw to the blistered feet of to understand this ordinance. Only for the another at the time of this writing). The only men and women who do not wish to cover reason that could be offered for refusing the do these plain passages of the Bible become act is “pride,” an unsatisfactory response at “difficult.” Only by invoking the failures of best (Proverbs 13:10). human wisdom (itching-ears, poor If we wish to compare headcovering to commentaries, uninspired scraps of ancient foot-washing, we must now ask: “What is literature, proof-text, the liberal the purpose of covering or uncovering the hermeneutics of culture-vs-Christ, word-of- head?” According to Scripture, a man must mouth doctrines) do these creeds of not have something on his head when he disobedience find any support in the prays or prophesies because men are the churches. “image and glory of God” (1 Corinthians 11:7) and that every man “dishonors Christ” if he covers his head when he prays or 1. “I heard the veiling of women was prophesies (1 Corinthians 11:4). Likewise, it just an ancient custom we no longer is written that a woman should be covered keep, like ‘foot-washing.’” because women are instead the “glory of man” and that she would dishonor her man Summary: Those who offer up this excuse (husband, father, guardian, etc.) to go are attempting to equate headcovering with the ancient custom of washing a uncovered in prayer or prophesy (1 traveler’s feet (John 12:3), which is no Corinthians 11:5). So Paul has revealed that longer widely observed. the purpose of a man keeping his head 2 NO MORE EXCUSES! - REVISION 3: 8/30/2007 1 CORINTHIANS 11:1-16 uncovered is to reveal God’s image and Egyptians.b Even the officiating minister is a glory, and thus honor Christ before His continuation of a traditional “priestly” role head, God the Father. The reason a woman the Catholics acquired from the heathens.c covers her head is to cover man’s glory It should go without saying that there before God, and thus honor her authority. is absolutely no New Testament This begs another important question: commandment (explicit or implied), nor a “What modern custom can replace the act of single practical reason, to observe any of uncovering or covering the head while these archaic traditions, some of which simultaneously keeping the purpose of predate the Law of Moses. covering? What custom can replace the It is true that in areas where the Scripture exposure of God’s image and glory (a man’s is silent on personal behavior, we are free to head) to honor Christ and the concealment exercise customs that do not contradict the of man’s glory (a woman’s head)?” The law of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:23), but answer is “none.” Logic concludes that, whereas the Scripture is silent on these unlike with the case of foot-washing, there is traditions, it is not silent on the role of no satisfactory substitute for women headcovering. So Christians are using the covering, nor for men taking covers off, nor age of headcovering to disregard the a practical reason to find one. Once again, commandments, while maintaining other the only real reason that could be offered is aged traditions that have no place in the “pride.” Bible. To associate Christ’s religion with antiquated seating or primitive marriage traditions, while at the same time stripping The “Everything is Ancient” Problem religious significance from an “old” God • As is seen in the first flaw, it isn’t the given ordinance is just plain hypocrisy. extreme oldness of foot-washing that Even more significant to this argument discourages it, but the practicality. The are the reasons Paul gives us for a woman custom of headcovering may be ancient, but being covered: there are plenty of ancient customs churches still keep, and worse, there is no • Men with Covered Heads Dishonor Biblical precedence for many of them.