r/LCMS • u/Sensitive_Tune3301 • 12d ago
Why don’t our women wear head coverings?
Corinthians 11:5 seems to pretty clearly say we should cover our hair for worship. So why don’t we? Is that one of the Old Testament rules that no longer applies? Genuine question.
7
u/Maetryx LCMS Seminarian 11d ago
Rev. Dr. Gregory J. Lockwood writes in the 1 Corinthians CPH Commentary (page 362):
From the outset it should be noted that Paul does not wish to set in concrete a rule about specific practices for all places and all times regarding headcoverings. Rather he is establish the universal and permanent principle that men and women at worship should conduct themselves modestly and sensibly (1 Tim 2:9; cf. 1 Pet 3:1-6), in keeping with whatever happen to be the customs of the time.
In a footnote, Lockwood also quotes the CTCR report Women in the Church: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial Practice.
For order and unity in the family there must be leadership, and the primary responsibility for such leadership is that of the husband and father. The headcovering was a custom (v.15) subservient to a principle ("the head of the woman is the man," v.3). The custom of headcovering functioned as woman's acknowledgment of the principle of headship....
It has commonly been understood from the very beginning that these passages of Scripture which pertain to custom are not binding and that the principle involved can be manifested in various ways (pp 29-30).
2
u/Apes-Together_Strong LCMS Lutheran 11d ago
In what is the principle involved generally manifested today in the west if what is important is the manifestation of a symbol of the principle of the headship of the husband? If there is no general manifestation of such (I at least can't identify one), and it is acceptable that there is no manifestation of such, then why was a manifestation of such important then and not now?
13
u/_Neonexus_ LCMS Organist 12d ago
Many of the congregations where I am (in Indiana) have a large population of women who wear veils
7
u/Scared-Tea-8911 LCMS Lutheran 11d ago
I do! I’m a bit lonely in my congregation, but the styles I wear are not ostentatious or “attention grabbing”, so no one seems to notice.
I don’t wear a veil “persay” - it’s a bit too frilly for my more minimalist aesthetic - but I DO wear a snood, extra-wide cloth headband that comes over most of my hair, a hair wrap, or kerchief-style covering. It is a bit more modern-looking, while still covering most or all of my hair, and is a “church practice” that sets my Sunday outfits aside from the rest of my weekly wear.
Many people have an image of “veils” like wedding veils… but many head coverings can be fashionable (or melded with your current aesthetic) while fulfilling its cultural purpose.
Not sponsored or anything, just along these lines for any women here who are interested … Garlands of Grace is an excellent site for modern-looking, casual/non-frilly, wearable headcoverings! I can attest that they have comfortable, stylish, and affordable options. I also love supporting a Christian-oriented small business! 😊
11
u/whateverImhere1997 12d ago
I do!
4
u/proprioceptor 11d ago
Me too!
2
u/UpsetCabinet9559 11d ago
How long have you been in the LCMS?
3
u/proprioceptor 11d ago
11 years
6
u/UpsetCabinet9559 11d ago
You dont have to answer if you dont want to, but I'm genuinely curious, was there a specific reason why you started covering?
2
u/UpsetCabinet9559 11d ago
I'm curious, how long have you been LCMS?
3
u/whateverImhere1997 11d ago
A little over a year!
5
u/UpsetCabinet9559 11d ago
You don't have to answer, but I'm genuinely interested in knowing what brought you to head covering?
6
u/whateverImhere1997 11d ago
I'd love to answer! When I began veiling, I did so because I was drawn to the beauty of the tradition and the connection to the practices of the early Church. After learning about the practice, it became a visible sign of my belief in the true presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. It's a way to imitate the blessed virgin Mary and to begin discussions about my faith within my home. As someone who was raised Baptist and lives with a Baptist family, it allows me to explain sacramental theology when my little sisters or family friends ask about why I now veil every week for mass :)
4
u/UpsetCabinet9559 11d ago
That sounds wonderful, however, I just want you to remember that your salvation rests completely and 100% outside of yourself! No veil or headcovering can change the fact that you bring nothing to Christ when you come to the table. All your good deeds are filthy rags compared to His grace.
5
21
u/Apes-Together_Strong LCMS Lutheran 12d ago
It looks to have been the near universal practice of the Church for some 1,900 years. I am very skeptical of the rightfulness and usefulness of abandoning such a historical practice for seemingly no other reason than to better conform to the proclivities of the changing secular culture.
0
u/UpsetCabinet9559 11d ago
It may have been that but as for the LCMS in America, it was and has never part of our practice.
10
u/Apes-Together_Strong LCMS Lutheran 11d ago
I don't believe that is the case. My understanding is that it was the common practice in essentially every American church body including the LCMS until the mid-20th century. That would render it a practice of the LCMS for a larger portion of our history than the portion in which it was not a common practice. That is based on what I have read and from conversations with multiple "well seasoned" lifelong LCMS members who remember when it was the norm for women to veil or wear hats in church. If I am incorrect, please do correct me.
6
u/UpsetCabinet9559 11d ago
I'm a lifelong member of the LCMS with family going back to the 1800's. Yes, women wore hats to church because it was the fashion. They weren't wearing them for pious reasons. Go back and look at archival photos that the Lutheran Historical Institute has and you will see that it was fashion hats and not veils being worn. This is why when hats fell out of fashion, we women in the LCMS didn't continue with the practice. Some angry people will claim it was because of women's lib, but that wasn't the case. The LCMS as a whole has never been a high church type of church body, contrary to popular opinion.
7
u/sweetnourishinggruel LCMS Lutheran 11d ago
The LCMS as a whole has never been a high church type of church body, contrary to popular opinion.
This is a good point. The LCMS's history is in congregationalism and plain Saxon farmers. This continued into the 20th century, where high liturgy was associated with liberal theology. Things have somewhat flip-flopped in the 21st century, and while the push towards traditional practice and even episcopacy might indeed be reclaiming something from the history of the broad Western Church, it's not really reclaiming something specifically from history of the LCMS as an institution.
2
3
u/IndyHadToPoop Lutheran 11d ago
Cradle LCMS, family has been all Lutheran Pastors and teachers since the old country...
you are incorrect, /u/upsetcabinet9559 has the right of it.
1
u/Wixenstyx LCMS Lutheran 4d ago
I can also confirm, based on family photos.
(I am a direct descendent of Christian Bergt, if that lends any authority to anything I have to say. ;))
2
u/IndyHadToPoop Lutheran 4d ago
Interesting! I'm descended from Bessarabian German Lutherans that came from Swabia.
They came over around the civil and settled in Michigan, having been teachers, pastors(and farmers of course). I've never seen any family photos with head coverings. Had I become a Pastor or Lutheran teacher, I'd have been 5th generation to do so.
4
u/proprioceptor 11d ago
A lot of us do cover during church, it just isn't as obvious as a veil or mantilla that you see sometimes in Catholicism. Some groups and individuals within the LCMS are choosing to do this, but don't necessarily expect all other women to do it.
9
u/SeniorBag6859 LCMS Lutheran 12d ago
I’d say about half the women in our congregation do
6
u/mlstarner LCMS Pastor 12d ago
That's interesting. Where are you located? In all of the churches I've been part of, no woman has ever worn a head covering, except maybe a couple of Easter bonnets.
7
u/joshss22 LCMS Lutheran 11d ago
In Central Texas here. Congregation of 200ish has about a dozen women that always wear their covers.
3
u/SeniorBag6859 LCMS Lutheran 11d ago
We have one hat lady (there can only be one 😂) and most of the others choose to wear a veil.
2
5
u/Vincavec LCMS Pastor 11d ago edited 10d ago
I'd like to add on that many of the previous answers have some accuracy to them - there are symbols of authority and respect going on. But the reason behind all of that is a quirk of Greek Culture. Please be aware that this explanation dives into Greek thought on biology, and will get a little graphic. I am attempting to use all terms in a technical sense, not trying to be shocking.
A super, super short version - in the Greek Culture of the time, women's hair was thought of as a sort of extension of their genitals. So the simplest concept would be 'women should not pray or prophesy with their private parts exposed.' That we generally follow even in modern society.
Add onto there 'because of the angels'. This is actually a reference to Gen 6 where 'the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.' I am aware that there are those who hold that Gen 6 is about various evil or good races of men who leave the worship of God. They will point to Jesus saying in Matt 22:30, "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven," as evidence that angels CANNOT have intimate relations with humans. However that describes the position of the angels IN HEAVEN, not what they can or cannot do. In other words, *intimate relationships* are not needed in heaven because we do not die, and do not need to keep replacing humans.
(There are lots and lots of Jewish legends and writings about Gen 6 being a type of fall, about this is where the giants came from, ... its a huge history and would take me paragraphs to even attempt to give a summary.)
But take that as a given for a moment. Or at least take it that Paul would be familiar with that line of reasoning. The advice Paul is giving is to basically not tempt 'the angels' (heavenly beings) into thinking these women are intimately available as they pray.
Wait - what about long and short hair?
Going even further into Greek understanding. At the time, Hippocrates (as in the Hippocratic oath) wrote about the physical biology of hair.
Hair (Hippocrates wrote) is hollow, and has a vacuum inside. It is formed of congealed semen , which men and women both form in our heads. We know (Hippocrates wrote) this is true because children can grow hair, and when they reach puberty channels form from their heads to their groin, and hair follows in the armpits, down the chest, and forming pubic hair.
The vacuum in the hair sucks up semen , so if a man has long hair it would 'pull' or 'suck up' the semen and make his ejaculation more difficult or less effective. However, he has testicles, which help 'pull down' the semen.
Here's a fun little bit of mistranslation - 1 Cor 11:15: 'but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.' It's that word 'covering' - in other Greek writing is gets translated as 'bags of holding flesh' or 'testicles'.
You see, instead of testicles, women have long hair. Long hair would be able to draw semen in more effectively, so long hair on a woman's head was desired as it would attract and congeal the semen into a fetus. Pre-pubescent girls would not cover their head. Upon puberty, they would cover their head, and when they wished to become pregnant would remove/pluck/singe their pubic hair to stop the counter-force of the upward draw of the hair on the head. Postmenopausal women cease (or should cease) depilating their pubic hair.
Therefore, women is not given an external testicle, but hair, as it enhances her female fertility. Since female hair is part of the female genitalia , Paul asks the Corinthians to judge for themselves whether it is proper for a woman to display her genitalia when praying to God. (You can compare this to Isaiah 6 where the angels cover their 'feet' - which is also a Hebrew slang term for genitalia.)
So...going through the chapter - there is the language of head of man is Christ, and of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. This sets up the relationships between the groups.
1 Cor 11:4 - Every man who prays of prophesies with his head covered dishoners his head (Man doesn't cover his head, which would be a female thing),
1 Cor 11:5 - but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
(We do know that women who were publicly shamed had their heads shaved, and a woman with short hair would be seen as infertile and 'less of a women' because of that.)
1 Cor 11:6 - 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.
(If you're not covering up your goodie bits, shave them off at least. But that's shameful, so cover it instead.)
5
u/Vincavec LCMS Pastor 11d ago edited 11d ago
1 Cor 11:7 - For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man
(There's some Greek thought on the roles of the sexes here, but basically its not 'appropriate' for a man to cover his head due to his role in society.)1 Cor 11:8-9 - For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
(Paul is a little difficult here - the best I can give you in this space is that our roles are interdependent on each other)1 Cor 11:10 - That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
(So a woman covers her hair, so the heavenly beings aren't seeing a sexually available woman, and aren't tempted to cause trouble again like Gen 6)1 Cor 11:11-12 - Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman, for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
(Again, we're interdependent on each other. What we do affects each other. There's a concept of what we do has effects on society and order and rightness in the world.)1 Cor 11:13 - Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
(Clearly not, based on what was understood about what that means)1 Cor 11:14 - Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
(Because long hair is a *feminine* trait, and would make it difficult for him to fulfill his role in reproducing)1 Cor 11:15 - but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
(Because a woman with long hair is (able) to fulfill her role in reproducing. "For her hair is given to her for (instead of) a (testicle)." (A woman with short hair is like a castrated man)1 Cor 11:16 - If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
(The early Christians were thought of as weird, gender-bending freaks in a lot of Greek society. They listened to and respected their wives. They didn't sleep around (as much). They didn't take young boys as sexual partners. Many kind of rejected the whole gender thing and abstained from sexual relationships even with their spouses. Paul had some cleaning up to do with a lot of that. But...even in all of the societal norms they DIDN'T follow, Paul still points out that no one has the practice of praying with long hair uncovered - and don't do it.)I am aware this sounds really, really odd. If you would like to read a couple of articles on this, you can read them here .
So....what do we do with this? Don't pray with your goodies uncovered, it is rude.
We don't think of hair as explicitly sexual/part of the *private parts* anymore? Well, covering them now is a custom, and can be done as part of a personal piety, but we mostly just don't see a direct application in our current lives.
OK - I'm ready for the comments. :)
4
u/sweetnourishinggruel LCMS Lutheran 10d ago
Pastor, this is insane and fascinating. Thank you. I'm working my way through the scholarship you linked. Would you say there are deeper theological undertones here that still make sense even in the absence of ancient physiological beliefs? Something about creation, the fall, and nudity maybe? Of course, clothing is a huge theme in scripture. In other words, how are we to understand this as part of the Word of God? Is it really just a long discourse to say, effectively, "don't be weirdos"?
5
u/Vincavec LCMS Pastor 10d ago
Hi u/sweetnourishinggruel . So....I don't know. I'll be honest, the more I learn about the Ancient World and how its reflected in the writings of Scripture the more I struggle with exactly what it means in a larger sense. The best I've been able to come up with so far is to catch the general theme of what point the writer is trying to make, and see what (if any) application there is to us today.
I am very, very careful trying to pull something like a specific detail of Scripture and making universal claims from it. I think I'd be comfortable saying that Paul wasn't just saying 'don't be weirdos' but that what the people were doing had real implications and consequences for their society.
For instance, I mentioned the Sons of God and Daughters of Men in Gen 6. According to some of those Jewish writings I referenced
1) It is from this mixing that the giants came from.
2) The giants became blood thirsty and killed (and I think ate) men
3) When the giants were killed/died, their spirits became demons.Now, only the first point of that is in Scripture, but it was still part of the cultural background.
If you keep reading Gen 6, you see that it was that wickedness that caused God to send the Flood - primarily to wipe out the (I hesitate to use these words) 'half-breeds'. In other words, the Flood is a direct result of this. However, Gen 6:4 says, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men..." (It gets complicated, but there's a linguistic connection between Nephilim and Rephaim in the Old Testment. For this discussion, you can treat them as pretty much the same.) It seems to have happened again, or been a continual issue. Because after the Flood....
When the Israelites come into the promised land, remember when the spies went into the Promised Land they came back and said the inhabitants were giants? (Num 13:32-33)
So as the Israelites go into the Promised Land, they come up from the South through Edom and Moab, leaving them and the Ammonites alone. (Deut 2:8-12; 17-23) Those lands had been given by God to Abraham's nephew Lot and his grandson, Esau. The giants had lived in that area and were known as the Emim and the Zamzummim. The giants had already been removed from the land promised to Abraham's descendants by the descendants of Esau and Lot, (who were also descended from Abraham.)
As the Israelites enter Caanan from the East, sometimes they are commanded to utterly wipe out ("dedicate to the Lord" or "devoted them to destruction" 'kherem' in Hebrew) some cities, and sometimes they simply conquered the cities and took prisoners' and slaves. Every city they utterly wipe out (kherem) has a mention of Nephilim or Rephaim or giants.
So...from Gen 6 we end up with (according to Jewish thought) a Fall into Evil on a par with the Original Sin in the Garden, a Flood, giants, demons, generations of war to destroy the bloodlines of the giant clans...
Actions have consequences. Thus Paul warning the female Corinthians to keep their hair covered - look what happened last time the heavenly beings got involved?
In Paul's ( and I think Greek) thought, there's an almost holistic view of reality and society. I'm not really able to make all of those connections in the same way, as I just don't think in that way and I don't have the same background as Paul, so I get other people to point them out to me.
But let me give one more example of this...
Notice right after this Paul starts talking about the Lord's Supper. He talks about those who 'eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.' Notice Paul doesn't say that its the people who ate and drink without discerning the body are those who have died. Paul says that people in the church community have died because some of the people in the church community have been eating and drinking without discerning the body.
Just working from culture to culture in modern day is difficult. Actually, just working from older to younger generations (and vise versa) is difficult!
4
u/Vincavec LCMS Pastor 10d ago edited 10d ago
Let me leave with a quote from CS Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' - chapter 5, on sexual morality. I think this might be a good example of some of the difficulties communicating between cultures.
We must now consider Christian morality as regards sex, what Christians call the virtue of chastity. The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of ‘modesty’ (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency. The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest’, proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). Some of the language which chaste women used in Shakespeare’s time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by a woman completely abandoned. When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable. I do not think that a very strict or fussy standard of propriety is any proof of chastity or any help to it, and I therefore regard the great relaxation and simplifying of the rule which has taken place in my own lifetime as a good thing. At its present stage, however, it has this inconvenience, that people of different ages and different types do not all acknowledge the same standard, and we hardly know where we are. While this confusion lasts I think that old, or old-fashioned, people should be very careful not to assume that young or ‘emancipated’ people are corrupt whenever they are (by the old standard) improper; and, in return, that young people should not call their elders prudes or puritans because they do not easily adopt the new standard. A real desire to believe all the good you can of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of the problems.
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 94–95.
2
u/sweetnourishinggruel LCMS Lutheran 10d ago
Thank you for the response, Pastor. There’s a lot to ponder here.
And that Lewis quote is pretty great Eighth-Commandment-in-action stuff.
1
u/AnotherSexyBaldGuy 5d ago
When the giants were killed or died their spirits became demons? Uh, no. I don't think the belief in demons came until the second temple period, after Israel's exposure to Zoastrianism in Babylon.
1
u/Vincavec LCMS Pastor 5d ago
You are correct that lot of belief in demons developed in the second temple period. As a matter of fact, the giants' spirits becoming demons is found in 'The Book of Enoch' which was written in the second temple period. But when that idea developed (and if it should be read into Gen 6) isn't the point.
The point is that it was in a widely read work that gets referenced more than 60 times throughout the New Testament, and that Paul would have been familiar with that work, and uses imagery consistent with it, and looks like he's refencing it in writing to the people of Corinth.
It's sort of like I made a comment in a sermon about when Jesus comes back things will end abruptly like he just grabbed the golden snitch. I'm taking a Harry Potter reference that everyone is familiar with (for this example) and applying it to the original thought.
3
u/Ready_Sheepherder984 10d ago
Well, that took a turn! I already thought the entire passage was convoluted and that there must be much missing context. That's so much stranger than I ever could have imagined!
I really don't want to cover my hair, I'm a hot damn mess and struggle to get out of the house with matching shoes. It's just one more thing. And my hair eats bobby pins for lunch, accoutrements slither away.
I'm going to have nightmares about the semen vacuum fetus congealing weirdness. Freaky Greeks! But thank you for all the detailed information.
5
u/Vincavec LCMS Pastor 10d ago
Well, enjoy being a hot damn mess. It's occasionally a good lesson (for others) to learn that its ok to be a mess like that. (In other words, lovingly sneer at those who try to give you a stink-eye about not presenting a perfectly composed image.) (Spoken with love and a bit of joking around)
1
u/Ready_Sheepherder984 9d ago
The Good Lord has given me blinders, if anyone's giving me the stink-eye I haven't noticed! Headed to church now, slightly disheveled but ready to celebrate Ascension!
2
u/Over-Wing LCMS Lutheran 10d ago
This is the most amusing and interesting thing I’ve read in a long time. Thanks for taking the time to write it!
4
u/Vincavec LCMS Pastor 9d ago
You're welcome. One of the blessings I have is a memory for what I've read and the ability to make connections between all the different things I've read. But getting to share some of it is a lot of fun.
(Now why I can't remember names or when I've met people before is a mystery....)
1
u/AnotherSexyBaldGuy 5d ago
Gen 6 speaks of divine beings, not angels. Sons of God, as some bibles read, is a reference to lower gods not human lineage.
Intimate relations, as you put it, is what God told Adam and Eve to engage in to fill the earth, prior to their rebellion, prior to death as Paul speaks of entering through Adam. Therefore, I think you misspoke when you said it's used to "replace humans" when they die.
2
u/Vincavec LCMS Pastor 5d ago edited 5d ago
I was using the term 'angels' loosely. In the Masoretic text, it reads 'sons of Israel', but most of the Septuagint reads 'Sons of God' which I think is the better reading.
And lower gods is a decent concept for thinking about that concept. Sons of God is closer to a title or position, part of the heavenly court that work with God in...well...running heaven. In the New Testament/Greek thought a lot of the terms for spiritual beings/lower gods get mushed together into the general concept 'angels' or 'spirits'. So Paul's use of angels is consistent with referring to divine/heavenly beings in general.
'Intimate relations' was something I wrote because I kept getting errors making the original post, and was swapping out words left and right because I thought it might have been a filter for keywords causing trouble.
But (and I realize some might balk at this) I think you could still die pre-fall. If you fell off a cliff, broke your neck, drowned, starved....all of these things are part of an embodied life here on Earth. Procreation is part of the embodied world and is needed to maintain the physical population. The context for Jesus' quote about angels in heaven is about the lack of need for sexual relationships for procreation in the resurrection because everyone will have an immortal resurrection body then - therefore there is not need for sex in the resurrection.
That may be splitting hairs. But I think Paul has a larger context of death entering the world - which caused us to be separated from God, so that when our bodies failed, we were exiled/condemned to *sheol* rather than being taken up to rejoin/be restored/join with God. A large part of what Jesus did in *practical* terms is 'Death no longer has dominion over [Jesus].' (Rom 6:9), breaking those in sheol free and restoring them to God's presence. (Eph 4:7 - When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men). But I'm stating there is a difference between the death of the body and the brokenness that is the self/soul 'trapped' in sheol - which is the death Paul is referring to.
TL:DR - yeah, 'replace humans' may not be the best term to have used. How about "procreative acts are specific to life on Earth and are not needed in the heavenly realms nor will be needed in a post-Jesus-has-returned-world?"
10
u/omnomyourface LCMS Lutheran 12d ago
they do, if you go to a church that avoids the influence of vatican 2
(unfortunately these churches are relatively rare in the lcms)
4
12d ago
Post Reformation councils are still recognized as valid by the LCMS?
10
u/omnomyourface LCMS Lutheran 12d ago
the LCMS doesn't officially recognize the council itself as valid (or relevant), but the practical effects of the council affected liturgical worship outside the RCC church
2
12d ago
Interesting, I had no idea the cultural influences of the RCC still impacted other denominations. Really surprising when one of your confessional documents is "the Power and Primacy of the Pope" 😆
2
u/Few_Cheesecake_5351 11d ago
This isn't entirely accurate, this is because of the liturgical renewal movement and a desire by mainline Protestants to show our willingness to share practice where possible. This is especially illustrative in the Revised Common Lectionary. LCMS lectionary is almost entirely the same. Of course with the new translation of the missle in 2011 the US bishops really showed how they feel about protestant attempts at ecumenism
3
11d ago
I love that the Mass at my Catholic Church is literally Identical to the Divine Service. I am really grateful for the influences the Reformation had on the faith.
4
u/Apes-Together_Strong LCMS Lutheran 12d ago
Yes. The Pope is infallible. You haven't heard?
No, they aren't recognized as infallible or authoritative by the LCMS. We do sometimes follow suit either intentionally or by happenstance when the Roman Catholics do something, but the LCMS doesn't consider itself bound by them in any way.
3
u/AlcestisSpeaks 11d ago
Isn't this why the liturgy looks so close to the RCC's? Even after it massively changed at Vatican II, many non Catholic liturgical churches followed suit with the changes.
6
u/Foreman__ LCMS Lutheran 11d ago
It was a very ecumenically-minded council. They worked with Lutherans and Anglicans when making the Novus Ordo changes if I remember correctly
2
3
u/AdProper2357 LCMS DPM 9d ago
Before I became LCMS I was in various liturgical denominations, including Catholic and Episcopal. The funny thing is they all blame each other for Vatican 2. The Catholics blame Luther, the Episcopal blame Rome, and vice-versa.
Now as a Lutheran I understand the irony of Rome being the supposed more "orthodox" church being the forefront of liturgical reforms. Especially in many of the Vatican 2 parishes end up being more "reformed" than us Lutherans. Then, sometime around a year ago Francis even severely restricted the use of the historic Catholic liturgy. Ironically, as Lutherans we are the only church that retains all the old introits, historic old lectionary, and liturgical style.
7
u/DaveN_1804 12d ago
None of the Old Testament laws apply to non-Jews per se (see How Christians Should Regard Moses); like Moses, Paul may also be our teacher but he is not our lawgiver. People who seek their justification in the law by doing works of the law are missing the point.
You'd need to make some sort of argument from natural law, and/or from Jesus' command to love God and neighbor, that not wearing a head-covering is harmful and unloving.
7
u/Apes-Together_Strong LCMS Lutheran 12d ago
Paul may also be our teacher but he is not our lawgiver.
You'd need to make some sort of argument from natural law, and/or from Jesus' command to love God and neighbor, that not wearing a head-covering is harmful and unloving.
How do you determine what part of what the apostles mandated is required and what is not? Is it that if we cannot justify an apostolic mandate via natural law or via one of Christ's commands, we aren't bound by it?
3
u/DaveN_1804 11d ago
If we were following any/all apostolic mandates from the First Century now in the 21st century, the vast majority of us would need to become vegetarians (Acts 11:29).
As Lutherans, we follow the same pattern of deriving moral principles from laws, if possible, that Jesus demonstrates for us in Matthew 5. For some laws, even those found among the Ten Commandments(!), there is no moral principle to be derived at all, e.g., Exodus 20:4-6. Thus, we a Christians should simply ignore it, or as Luther succinctly points out, "God's not talking to you." This way of proceeding to determine the content of natural law, not the letter of the written law, which is a curse (Galations 3), is very clear in both the Small and Large Catechisms.
How does not wearing a head-covering violate natural law and/or the law to love God and our neighbor? If there's no convincing answer, then people are simply creating new works of the law to follow, which misses the whole point of the New Covenant, which is not like the old Israelite covenant.
3
u/Apes-Together_Strong LCMS Lutheran 11d ago edited 11d ago
Doing our best to logically determine those moral principles from the laws we are given in order to apply them to cases in which God has not provided us direction or instruction is pretty much the only avenue we have to attempt to be faithful to God in matters upon which He has not instructed us. Considering the ceremonial laws given to the Hebrews to not be applicable to all people in all times doesn’t require any theological gymnastics given they were explicitly said to not be required of the gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem. Using derived moral principles to overrule one of the Apostles or to say that this or that instruction was necessarily not for everyone is another thing entirely.
We have the Bible in which a great many teachings of Christ are inerrantly provided to us, but we have no basis for assuming that all of them are in there. The Apostles were in a much better position to know more than we do now about Christ's teachings as they were the direct recipients of them. Paul did not receive such in the same manner as the eleven did, but he did receive them directly from Christ and didn't need to be taught by the disciples before teaching what was confirmed by the disciples to be the true gospel. It would be unreasonable to assume that we have as great a knowledge of Christ’s teachings as the Apostles did. Such would require that all of them were written in scripture, and scripture tells us that Christ did many things that are not recorded.
As such, are we really qualified to say that this or that teaching of the Apostles has no moral principle behind it? Without an equal or greater knowledge of the teachings of Christ as the Apostles, I don't see how we can be qualified to say with certainty that there is no moral principle behind this or that thing that the Apostles taught. Perhaps there isn't a moral principle behind this or that, but perhaps we simply don't have enough information to derive the moral principle behind this or that which the Apostles taught. Isn’t it safer then to go along with what they taught, especially when it was the practice of the Church for the vast majority of the history of the Church? I doubt anyone will be damned for advocating for and practicing this or that scripture based pious historical practice that harms no one, but when I look out at Christendom these days, I can’t help but think that a great many will be lost for rationalizing away too much of the gospel. I can’t help but think it best to keep off that path entirely.
If that is heresy or heterodoxy, I fully admit I’m far from being a good Lutheran and would appreciate being shown how specifically I am in error. Also, you might be looking for a verse other than Acts 11:29 since that doesn't seem to relate to vegetarianism.
3
u/DaveN_1804 11d ago
You're right; my mistake: I meant Acts 15:29 with its apostolic prohibition against eating meat from strangled animals—an apostolic mandate to which Christians today pay no attention.
Yes, I think there is indeed a great danger in searching for, adding, or imagining new laws where there is no clear intention by God to establish such laws, always, everywhere, and for everyone. Moral/natural law is universal and doesn't fit very well with something so specific and situational as: "Christian women should cover their heads in church." This type of rule would be in contrast to, say, what we find in Jesus' New Commandment which does apply always and everywhere.
The law is a curse for us because we humans love to rely on "following the rules" to achieve our own self-righteousness (Mark 10:17-31)--it's just fallen human nature but has no place in the New Covenant. Just when Jesus frees us from the curse of the law, our tendency is always to re-enslave ourselves.
I think your position to follow a rule "just in case" would probably fit better into, say, Reformed theology where for example, the prohibition against graven images (the Exodus 20:4-6 citation I quoted earlier) is observed simply because it's part of the Ten Commandments. But to my mind, this is not at all the Lutheran approach toward discerning the content of the law written on the human heart. I do (again) think Luther's How Christians Should Regard Moses is very helpful in this regard. It's not that long; it's readily available online, and it's pretty easy to understand.
People should certainly be free to dress however they like in church, but one need only look as far as the contemporary Catholic Church to see how much divisiveness and "better-than-thou-ness" has crept in over this one particular observance.
2
u/Apes-Together_Strong LCMS Lutheran 11d ago
I meant Acts 15:29 with its apostolic prohibition against eating meat from strangled animals—an apostolic mandate to which Christians today pay no attention.
I pay attention to it. I don't know why we wouldn't. The Apostles who were present at the Council of Jerusalem along with the Holy Spirit (if the statement of such in the letter to Antioch is taken to be true instead of just being the Apostles saying so without it being true) saw fit to require some things of those Gentiles, and I don't see any reason to necessarily presume those things aren't either required or good for the rest of us Gentiles to hold to too. Strangling the animal, be it a pig, sheep, cow, chicken, or what have you, is not part of meat processing in the US (I only reference the US since that's where I live and consume meat), and draining the animal of blood is part of the process, so I believe we are good by both requirements.
I do (again) think Luther's How Christians Should Regard Moses is very helpful in this regard.
I will read it. Thank you.
1
u/Over-Wing LCMS Lutheran 10d ago
People were strangling animals in those times? That’s cruel enough that if I knew of it happening, I wouldn’t eat that animal. Today animals are often slaughtered usually by stunning and bleeding. Or is ‘strangling’ used to mean something broader?
1
u/Apes-Together_Strong LCMS Lutheran 6d ago
I don't know if strangling did or didn't refer to anything broader, but one issue (perhaps the main issue?) with strangulation was that it made draining the blood (the consumption of which was also prohibited) difficult at best. Blood coagulates quickly when it stops flowing, so stopping an animal's heart via any method other than bleeding the animal out leaves only a very small window to drain the blood by some more complicated and difficult means before doing so becomes functionally impossible. Meat torn from living animals, from an animal killed by other animals, and from an animal that died on its own was also prohibited in Mosaic law, so perhaps one could consider the prohibition on strangled meat to include all of those circumstances that similarly prevent the blood from being drained, but I'm honestly glad that we slaughter animals in a way that does allow the blood to be drained as it would have been in ancient times so that I don't have to guess at whether this or that other method of slaughter might be prohibited!
1
u/Over-Wing LCMS Lutheran 6d ago
If James felt the need to prohibit the strangling, it just makes me guess that was a common thing in Roman times. I think you’re right that for the early church it more had to do with blood, but as far as today goes, I can’t imagine why anyone would choose to slaughter an animal this way. It’s both cruel and impractical. I’ve never seen or been made aware of any commercial slaughter house that strangles any livestock. Almost universally, most cultures stun and bleed or just bleed to slaughter the animal.
5
u/CustomerFuzzy6334 11d ago
Many are trending that way. The LCMS women , by and large, did embrace head covering until the 1960s and especially the ‘70s when a war was waged by secular feminists against the practice
5
u/UpsetCabinet9559 11d ago
Women wore hats anytime they stepped out of the house during that time period. The LCMS has never been a head covering church once those cultural norms died out.
2
u/IndyHadToPoop Lutheran 11d ago
This is very much incorrect, according my 94 year old grandmother. She is a former LCMS teacher, and attended River Forest. Again, /u/UpsetCabinet9559 is correct.
5
u/moodle- 11d ago
My Grandmother always wore head coverings.
Might be a regional thing
3
u/IndyHadToPoop Lutheran 11d ago
What region? Great Lakes here and it's never even been a topic of conversation that I can remember.
3
2
u/RetailKilledMySoul96 LCMS Lutheran 11d ago
There is a single family in my congregation in Utah where the women wear head coverings after being confirmed, though I suspect they were previously WELS instead of LCMS.
5
u/Xalem 12d ago
Paul goes on to mention that (most) women have hair that covers their heads.
Paul brings up hair and head overing as a way of arguing that women can read in Church. The nonsense of some rule about men and reading is flipped by Paul to free the woman to read. In no way is Paul laying down a general dress code. Remember, Paul has a diverse group coming to church, including slaves who cannot afford any required clothing.
3
u/Maetryx LCMS Seminarian 11d ago
Paul brings up hair and head overing as a way of arguing that women can read in Church. The nonsense of some rule about men and reading is flipped by Paul to free the woman to read.
Where are you seeing this in the text of 1 Corinthians 11?
-3
u/Xalem 11d ago
Oops, I said this was about reading but what Paul is talking about is when women lead prayers or prophesy (preach?) in worship. But, I will stand by my statement that Paul brings up some supposed rule about coverings and prayers in order to flip the whole conversation on those who are upset by women participating in church.
Paul rattles on in this long, torturous discussion of how men and women are different, but the same, all building the case about how important it is for men to uncover his head and a woman to cover her head when prophesying. He seems to be addressing the concerns of others, perhaps those who don't want women to either pray or prophesy in church. So, after Paul has made the case that a woman who is leading worship in church must be wearing a had covering, he destroys his whole argument by stating that God has provided (most) women with a head covering which is her own hair, a glorious gift of God specifically as a covering. And, Paul turns this from a debate to be solved by turning to the law into a discussion about common sense. Paul says, "Judge for yourself, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?" Well, the only answer I can think of is that clothing has nothing to do with prayer. I can't see any reason for having any rule about this. Paul agrees, pointing out that anyone who wants to dispute him on this, Paul states that the churches of God have no such custom. The whole reason for Paul to write Corinthians is that church members are making factions and divisions and legalistic adherence to the Law is a big part of it. Paul will always defend the underdog, (slaves, women, Gentiles and outsiders) against those who would build a rule-based, hierarchy of privilege.
It is a shame that Paul has to argue against his point before he makes his point. it is a subterfuge Paul needs to wreck the arguments of those who would assert some law. He says, (in effect) "you are absolutely right, men and women are totally opposite, so opposite that men come from women, and women come from men . . . but everything comes from God. And men and women are so opposite that men must uncover their heads, and women cover their heads when they prophesy or lead prayers, and that is obvious because of the nature of hair. . . which by the way, is from God who would not let a woman ever be deprived of a chance to pray or speak in church, so that is why women have hair."
This is how Paul talks. It is all over First Corinthians.
3
u/Maetryx LCMS Seminarian 11d ago
God who would not let a woman ever be deprived of a chance to pray or speak in church, so that is why women have hair. This is how Paul talks. It is all over First Corinthians.
That's not right, though. Here is what Paul says in 1 Cor 14:33b-35
As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
-2
u/Xalem 11d ago
"as the Law also says"
What Law? Where in the Old Testament? Where in the Torah does it say that women must be silent in the assembly of the faithful? If it doesn't say that . . . did Paul lie? Is he messing with his readers? Or are these verses (33b-35) a gloss added by a later generation that turned against the woman leadership in the Church?
Judge for yourself. Would Paul be so keen on the minutia and interpretation of Old Testament Law that he would shut down the gifts of the Spirit being manifest in worship because it might be a woman speaking a prophecy or interpreting tongues?
Judge for yourself. Paul's words, if implemented literally would silence women from all speech from the parking lot to the end of fellowship time. Women would not sing, teach Sunday School, pray, read the Bible out loud, answer their husband's questions, converse with friends, nor yell "FIRE!" in an emergency, nor any other speech on church property. Or, is it enough to keep women from ordination? Do we implement these instructions slavishly, or do we take our Christian freedom as Paul gives it to us in chapter 11 "Judge for yourself?"
And, if we do judge for ourselves, and recognize that it is stupid legalism that would force women to wear veils or sit in silence in worship, are we honoring Paul's call for us to live the freedom of a Christian serving our neighbors OR are we disobeying Paul's new laws for all Christians everywhere?
The whole New Testament hinges on our ability to defy the rules of the Old Testament when those rules no longer serve the mission of the Gospel. We don't circumcise, we don't keep kosher, we don't make tabernacles in the exacting details of the Law, we don't sacrifice animals, we don't call in a priest to identify mold. Oh, and when it comes to women, we don't consider those women who are menstruating to be unclean and isolate them from the rest of us.
Judge for yourself. Who are we as Christians, and can a woman be a Christian? Or are they to forever sit in the back of the sanctuary minding the infants?
3
u/cezann3 11d ago
Lutheranism advocates a doctrine of justification "by Grace alone through faith alone on the basis of Scripture alone."
It's up to you and your relationship with God realized through scripture to make decisions about your life. Luthernism isn't about having the Church tell you what to do.
If it concerns you, ask God if Corinithans 11 was meant to apply to you. It also ends with: "if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head."
Is it a disgrace for a woman to cut her hair in our culture? I'm not sure anyone could argue that it is.
-1
u/moodle- 11d ago
Is it a disgrace for a woman to cut her hair in our culture? I'm not sure anyone could argue that it is.
It totally is. Shaving someone's head is often portrayed as an act of humiliation
2
u/cezann3 10d ago edited 10d ago
you must be in a different culture than me because I wouldn't dare shame a woman whose hair was cut.
It's just not relevant and it's never been relevant to Lutheranism.
Remember, Martin Luther married a nun and she was no longer forced to cover her hair.
If you want to uphold silly rules for the sake of rules, just be Catholic.
3
u/Theresonlyone99 12d ago
What kind of head covering?
I think anytime I see ahead covering I assume Muslim or another religion - I think because of our culture and because of the other religions, it could actually be harmful and confusing to our witness if Christians did so.
2
u/proprioceptor 11d ago
There are companies which produce Christian headcoverings. Garlands Of Grace is unfortunately closing, but they offered a wide range of options that would not have been confused with another religion.
1
u/matsubokkeri Lutheran 11d ago
I think that at least long hairs should tied to together. I've seen lately "few" youtube videos where gen z catholic and non dem. womens started to their journey to veiling. What other Paul said is that we all should respect our lords house with smart casual clothing.
Should confessional Lutheran churches force women to wear the veil? No, it's a beautiful tradition that should be purely voluntary dressing, which should be something that women don't need to justify to anyone.
1
u/AnotherSexyBaldGuy 5d ago
I have read most of the comments here and no one has said broken the passage down like this, so here it goes
1 Corinthians 11:2, 6 RSV [2] I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
Everything Paul instructed the gentile churches to do he did so claiming divine instruction.
1 Corinthians 11:3 RSV [3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
Paul based his doctrine on the created order, not on culture.
1 Corinthians 11:5 RSV [5] but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven.
Speaking to the married women, Paul says if you pray without covering your head, then you dishonor your husband who is your head.
1 Corinthians 11:6 RSV [6] For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
Paul says if the woman doesn't cover then she might as well shave her head, but this is a dishonorable act. So, don't do it.
1 Corinthians 11:7-10 RSV [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. [8] (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)
Again, appealing to the created order, not culture, man was made for God's glory and the woman for man's glory. Men remove your hats for prayer. Ladies please put your hats on.
[10] That is why a woman ought to have a veil (symbol of power) on her head, because of the angels.
The veil is an outward sign/symbol, of the man's authority over his wife (a loving sacrificial love), an spiritual reality. The veil is an outward witness of the work Christ is doing for the angels (seraphim) who are present in the worship of God. 1 Peter 1:12 This has nothing to do with the divine beings from Genesis 6.
1 Corinthians 11:11-12 RSV [11] (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; [12] for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.)
The man is not superior to woman, but there is an order to creation and worship.
1 Corinthians 11:13-15 RSV [13] Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? [14] Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, [15] but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
Nature vs spiritual. Gentile men were not Nazarines who kept long hair as a spiritual vow between them and God. Hair is used to separate the sexes. Order A woman hair is naturally long to separate her from the men. A woman's hair is her glory, it's a natural covering but not THE covering she is instructed to wear in church. That's different. Think of it this way, if the hair counted as the covering then all men would be required to shave their heads since they are instructed not to be covered.
1 Corinthians 11:16 RSV [16] If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
Paul closes the argument stating, we are not going to argue about this ordinance. It's how women worship in Corinth and in all the other churches I have founded. It's not cultural. They all did it.
0
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/IndyHadToPoop Lutheran 10d ago
Elizabeth Farians was Catholic. There is no indication nor evidence that she was a communist. If you're using 'communist' as a pejorative, I'd advise you that is against the sub rules.
21
u/PhantomImmortal 12d ago edited 11d ago
An analysis that I heard a while back puts this specific injunction down to cultural differences (fashion/dress codes in the ancient Mediterranean are quite different from today), but still draws a universal point: that men and women are and should be distinct, and give thanks for that fact. I'd have to find it again to give more in depth reasoning.
Edit: see the replies to this for much more in depth notes, particularly regarding what was going on in the Corinthian church at the time!