Jeremy Gardiner; natures teaches us: Head Covering P/15

                                                     Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to share on the Had Coverings Movement founded by Jeremy Gardiner.

He has written the following article: "Why Head Coverings? Reason No 3: Nature."

Jeremy Gardiner: "Paul's third reason for head coverings is an appeal to a person's sense of what is right based upon what nature teaches us."

Jeremy Gardiner: "There are two things that nature teaches us: 1.That there are distinct differences between men and women. 2. When a gender distinction is disregarded and crossed that dishonours a person. To illustrate this point Paul gave the example of our hair lengths. He said that women having long hair and men having short hair is one of these gender distinctions that is seen in nature and dishonourable if crossed. Now, a head covering in the context of the local church is a femine symbol of being under male authority. Since the symbol is rooted in our gender disctinctions nature teaches us that to cross this symbol would likewise be dishourable (1 Corinthians 11:4-5). So while head coverings are taught explicitly by special revelation, it is confirmed by what nature silently teaches us as well."

My Comment

Jeremy Gardiner is correct in saying that there are distinct differences between men and women. However, when God brought the woman to the man he first of all recognised that she was like him before recognizing that she was different from him because he was male and she was female as we know from Gensisis 2:23                                                                                                                        The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman for she was taken out of man."                                                                                                                         Having been taken out of him, she was a human being like him and, therefore, equal to him in every respect. This verse, once again, confirms what God said about the man and the woman in Genesis 1:26-28.... As for women having to have long hair as one of the gender distinctions, African women are not able to ever have long hair.....As for men never having long hair, Samson and others like him, never cut their hair....(Judges 13:5)....As for head coverings for women being a symbol of them being under male authority according to 1 Corinthians 11:4-5, these words are not Paul's words by are words by some of the religious leaders in the church in Corinth who wanted to keep women in their place, very much like some men today...(There is nothing new under the sun)...Head coverings are, therefore, not explicity taught by special revelation nor it is silently taught by nature.

Read Part Sixteen HERE

 

Jeremy Gardiner; angels are involved: Head Covering P/14

                                                      Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to share on the Head Coverings Movement founded by Jeremy Gardiner

He has written the following article: "Why Head Coverings? Reason No 2: Angels."

Jeremy Gardiner: "The Apostle Paul told us that we are to practice head coverings because of the angels as we know from 1 Corinthians 11:11 "Therefore ought the woman to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."  So no matter what this verse means in all its fullness, what we know we have is one of Paul's reasons.... The purpose for the head coverings is to provide a visual symbol to the gathered church. If angels are a reason we obey this command, it presupposes that they must be watching us worship. So, one understanding why we practice head coverings is so that we may rightly symbolise the created order to all present, both visible and invisible.... Through head covering our women show all present that their position as a women is also redeemed. No longer are they at war usurping and longing for the man's position of authority (Genesis 3:16c). Instead, they are content in the role God ordained for them in Genesis 2....

My Comment

Jeremy Gardiner does not realise that the words "a symbol of" in 1 Corinthians 11:11 have been added to the text by translators but are not part of the original text. He, furthermore, does not realise that the authority mentioned in this verse is, in fact, the woman's own authority.... As for the angels, we are not sure, what Paul refers to here.... As for head coverings symbolising the created order, in Genesis 1:26-28 we read that God created both the man and the woman to rule over creation....As for women showing that their position as a woman is redeemed by having head coverings, all women are redeemed through Christ's death on the Cross....As for women being at war usurping and longing for the man's position of authority, women have never been at war usurping and longing for the man's position of authority since the man was never given a position of authority over the woman but together with the woman was given authority over creation (Genesis 1:26-28)...The man did, however, take authority over the woman after the Fall, independent of God (Genesis 3:16d), which has been reversed by Christ at the Cross (Galatians 3:13).... At that time, the woman did turn to the man to have her needs met but she did not try and take away his so-called authority (Genesis 3:16c)..... As for women being content in the role God ordained for them in Genesis 2, God ordained for them to be "ezers kenegdo" or "equal partners" alongside men (Genesis 2:18) in confirmation of the Creation Account in Genesis 1:26-28.

Read Part Fifteen HERE

Jeremy Gardiner; because of Creation Order: Head Covering P/13

                                                      Read Part One HERE

  
In this post I will begin to share on the Head Coverings Movement founded by Jeremy Gardiner.

He has written the following article: "Why Head Coverings? Reason No 1: Creation Order.

Jeremy Gardiner: "There are four reasons for head coverings that the Apostle Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 11. The very first of these is the foundation, the deeper reality that head coverings point to. Let's take a look at the foundation. "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the Head of Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:3) God has made men and women equal in value and worth. We both need each other as the Scriptures say "In the Lord neither is woman independent of man, not is man independent of woman." (1 Corinthians 11:11) But just because we are equal does not mean we have the same role, authority or function. These differences can be seen throughout the creation, in angels and even God Himself. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is only one God, revealed in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now these three Persons are all fully God and fully equal but they are distinct in function, authority and person, as we have seen in the above verse "God is the Head of Christ." This submission of Jesus to the Father was not limited to His incarnation as some claim....So the very first reason for head coverings is because of the created order. This is not a cultural argument but a transcendent argument as the Father's headship is eternal and unchanging. Headship and authority is God's original intent. It was not a post-fall disaster, but a pre-fall masterpiece.

  

My Comment 

Jeremy Gardiner is correct in saying that men and women are equal in value and worth. Sadly, he then repeats the false doctrine of the Eternal Submission of the Son, which has already been corrected by a number of Theologians in 2016 but not repented of by other Theologians, including Professor Wayne A. Grudem. This false doctrine continues to be embraced by Jeremy Gardiner who understands the words "God is the Head of Christ" to mean that the Father is in authority over Christ, not just in His incarnation but in eternity....However, God as the Head or "Kephale" of Christ was the Source of life for Christ at the time of His incarnation.... Likewise, the first man was the source of life for the first woman and was not given "headship" or authority over her as Jeremy Gardiner seems to imply here by stating that women are to have head coverings because of the created order... God did indeed prove His authority over the first man and the first woman when He named them authoritatively (Genesis 5:2). As for the so-called creation order, God gave both the man and the woman the task of ruling over creation (Genesis 1:26-28), which is confirmed in Genesis 2:18. As for the man placing himself in authority over the woman, that took place after the Fall, independent of God, as a sign of his now sinful nature (Genesis 3:16d). This was indeed a post-Fall disaster and not a pre-Fall masterpiece. Thankfully, it has been reversed in Christ when He died on the Cross (Galatians 3:13).

Read Part Fourteen HERE

John MacArthur's View: Head Covering P/12

 

                                                      Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to discuss the subject of head covering since today there is a movement called the Head Covering Movement based on 1 Corinthians 11:5 and beyond

 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head -  it is just as though her head were shaved....

In this post I will share the viewpoint of well known Reformed Pastor John MacArthur (1939 - )

John MacArthur: "In Colossians chapter 1 Paul says Christ is the Head of the Church in verse 18. And in Colossians chapter 2, he repeats it again - Christ is the Head of the Church. In Ephesians 1 he says it again - Christ is the Head of the Church. In Ephesians 4 he says it again - Christ is the Head of the Church. And in that very familiar portion in Ephesians 5:22 and 23 he says that Christ is the Head of the Church, again in reference to understanding that women are to submit to their husbands as the Church submits to its Head, who is Christ Jesus. Clearly it is foundational to the understanding of the Church that we recognise the Lordship of Christ in His Church, the dominance of Christ in His Church, the Headship of Christ."

 

My Comment

Jon MacArthur is correct when he states that Scripture mentions a number of times that Christ is the Head of the Church. However, he does not mention that Christ's function as Head of His Church is connected to His function as Saviour of the Church, which is a sacrificial function and not a rulership function. He, furthermore, writes of the "headship" of Christ, which is not a biblical term but a man-made term brought into the Church by early Roman Catholic Church Fathers who came out of a pagan culture where women were considered inferior. These men understood the term "headship"  to mean "authority". John MacArthur, likewise, understands it to mean "authority" since he connects it to "lordship". The latter term too is not in Scripture but is a man-made term. However, one of Christ's functions is that of Lord and as Lord He rules and in that function He does indeed have authority.        As for women submitting to their husbands, Scripture teaches in Ephesians 5:21-22 mutual submission. And husbands as "heads" of their wives are to love their wives sacrificially as Christ as Head of His Church loves his Church sacrificially.

I have taken you on a quick journey through Church history to show you that Theologians, Pastors and other Leaders today still hold to the traditional view on women as brought into the Church by Roman Catholic Church Fathers such as Tertullian, St John Chrysostom, who were influenced by the pagan culture they came out of which viewed women as inferior beings. That same pagan view on women was then taken on by Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Knox and John Calvin even though they corrected much of the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. And even today, as you can see from the above post, that same pagan view on women is still popular. It is quite remarkable for Pastor John MacArthur is very clear on his opposition to Roman Catholic teachings, yet, at the same time, he is willing to bring into his Reformed Church pagan teaching on women. 

I would like to close this section with part  of a chapter from the influential book edited by Professor Wayne A. Grudem "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" titled "Women In The History Of The Church" written by Lutheran Pastor William Weinrich which proves my point. "We have emphasized the practice and the argument of the patristic and medieval periods of the church's history. It was during these centuries that patterns of conduct and ecclesial behaviour were developed and solidified. The evidence shows that the Pauline statements against women speaking in the church were consistently upheld... The practice of the early and medieval church was followed without question by the churches of the Reformation."                                                    Sadly, the practice of the early and medieval church is still being followed today without question in the Reformed world as we know from Pastor John MacArthur's teaching on the role of women.

P.S. In my next post I will begin to focus on the Head Covering Movement itself, which will prove that this traditional pagan view is alive and well in that part of the Church.

Read Part Thirteen HERE

 

 

 

R.C. Sproul Sr's View: Head Covering P/11

 

                                                      Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to discuss the subject of head covering since today there is a movement called the Head Covering Movement based on 1 Corinthians 11:5 and beyond

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is jut as though her head were shaved....

In this post I will share the viewpoint of well known  deceased Reformed Minister R.C. Sproul Sr (1939 -2017 A.D.)

He was the founder of Ligonier Ministries and has written the following:

R.C. Sproul Sr: "Our actions must conform to the principles that God has established... Do you disregard the exterior aspects of religion, saying the heart is all that matters? If so, confess your pride before God today."

R.C. Sprould Sr: "Whenever we have a lesson from both the Scriptures and from nature, we are doubly bound to obey. We must also regognise that it is a rule rooted in nature, not custom."

R.C. Sproul Sr: "It is shameful for a woman to have her head shaved, then she must realise that is just as shameful for her to enter public worship with her head uncovered. We must not confuse Paul's use of hair as "nature's covering" and the covering he is exhorting women to wear in public worship."

R.C. Sproul Sr: "Nowhere does Paul give cultural reasons for his teaching, i.e. abusive practices of pagan society that place prostitutes with shorn heads in the temple. Paul points back to God's established order in nature. Whenever a teaching in Scripture refers to "creation ordinances", that teaching is binding for all cultures in all ages...."

R.C. Sproul Sr: "The "rules of decorum"... regarding the worship of God are established by God Himself not by the whims of culture. It is proper for a woman to have a asymbol of authority on her head... The necessity of the symbol remains fixed even as the authority of the man remains fixed." (From "Table Talk" Devotional Guide for June 17-24, 1996, pp 36-43 - quoted by Sanseri op.cit.pp.278f.)."

My Comment

R.C. Sproul Sr misunderstood that according to the creation order or according to "nature" a man is in authority over a woman. Consequently, according to him, a woman is to wear a covering as a symbol on her head to prove her submission. However, according to the creation order, the first man was the "head" or "source of life" for the first woman as we know from 1 Corinthians 11:3 and the man as well as the woman were given the task of ruling over creation according to Genesis 1:26-28 which is confirmed in Genesis 2:18 where we read that the woman was formed as the man's "ezer kenegdo" or equal partner.                                                                                                                                            R.C. Sproul is simply repeating what theologians before him have taught on women, including what Roman Catholic Church Fathers such as Tertullian and St John Chrysostom, who brought into the Church pagan culture, have taught. He, thereby, continued to bring into the Church pagan culture.

Read Part Twelve HERE

John Wesley's View: Head Covering P/10

 

                                                      Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to discuss the subject of head covering since today there is a movement called the Head Covering Movement based on 1 Corinthians 11:5 and beyond

 And every women who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved....

In this post I will share the viewpoint of well known minister John Wesley (1703 -1791 A.D.)

The founder of Methodism was also a writer, evangelist and missionary. His tireless efforts had a profound and lasting effect on the church. His teaching on the role of women in the church was much different than many others who had come before him. One great area of difference was that John Wesley encouraged women not only to become involved in the ministry of the church, but also to become preachers of the gospel. He thought deeply and wrote extensively about the role of the woman in the church. Although women were allowed to preach in the Methodist ministry, the veil covering on a woman's head was required as a sign of "headship" to Christ. Concerning the theological significance of the veil, Wesley wrote, "For a man indeed ought not to veil his head because he is the image and glory of God in the dominion he bears over the creation, representing the supreme dominion of God, which is his glory. But the woman is a matter of glory to the man, who has a becoming dominion over her. Therefore, she ought not to appear except with her head veiled as a tacit acknowledgement of it."

 

My Comment

John Wesley did indeed allow women to teach and preach, no doubt, influenced by the example of his mother Susanna Wesley, Nevertheless, he apparently still believed that women ought to have their heads veiled as a sign that the man has dominon over her. He, thereby, shows that he misunderstood the creation account in Genesis 1:26-28 in wich God gives both the man and the woman the task of ruling over creation as confimed in Genesis 2:18. It is clear that, even he, unfortunately, followed the long-established man-made tradition of the so-called "headship" of the man and the so-called "headship" of Christ which has as its background pagan cultural influence brought into the Church by early Roman Catholic Church Fathers.

Read Part Eleven HERE

Matthew Henry's View: Head Covering P/9

                                                      Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to discuss the subject of head covering since today there is a movement called the Head Covering Movement based on 1 Corinthians 11:5 and beyond

 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is as though her head were shaved...

 In this post I will share the viewpoint of well known theologian Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714 A.D.)

 The following comment by Matthew Henry summarizes well the accepted practice of churches in almost every age. His words also express the weight and gravity that should be rightly attached to the headcovering, for its use demonstrates the Headship of Christ in the Church. He writes, "It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this or lay it aside."

My Comment

Mathew Henry has accepted the traditional view that women should be  veiled in public worship to demonstrate the" Headship" of Christ in the Church. He, thereby continued to bring into the Church pagan cultural thinking that had been brought into the Church by by Roman Catholic Church Fathers such as Tertullian, St John Chrysostom etc and continued on by Protestant Reformers. However, the Bible does not teach on the "Headship" of Christ in the Church but it teaches that Christ is the "Head" of the Church. The term "headship" whether it is related to the "Headship of Christ" or the "headship of the man" is a man-made tradition but is not taught in Scripture. The function of Christ as "Head" of the Church is a sacrificial function which is connected to his function as Saviour and is not a rulership function. Christ in his function as Lord rules. As for the veiling of women in worship, this was not taught by Paul but taught by some of the religious leaders in the Church in Corinth and Paul corrected their teachings in the second half of 1 Corinthians 11. 

Read Part Ten HERE

John Calvin's View: Head Covering P/8

                                                      Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to discuss the subject of head covering since today there is a movement called the Head Covering Movement based on 1 Corinthians 11:5 and beyond

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved....

In this post I will share the viewpoint of well know Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509 - 1564).

John Calvin has made the following comment on 1 Corinthians 11:5

 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head...

1.John Calvin: "When he (Paul) says her hair is for a covering, he does not mean that as long as a woman has hair, that should be enough for her. He rather teaches that our Lord is giving a directive that He desires to have observed and maintained. If a woman has long hair, this is equivalent to saying to her, "Use your head covering, use your hat, use your hood, do not expose yourself in that way. Why? Even if you have no head-covering, nor hood, yet you also have something to conceal yourself. You see that it would not be fitting to go bare-headed; that is something against nature. This is how this passage of St. Paul's must be understood."

2.John Calvin wrote as well: "Women ought to have theirs heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonour their head. For as the man honours his head by showing his liberty, so the woman by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection.... involving contempt of her husband....

My Comment

1. As for John Calvin's teaching that women are to use their hat or hood as a covering, he he is referring here to 1 Corinthians 11:5 "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovers dishonours her head"... The covering mentioned here is about "something coming down from the head." We are not entirely sure what it means exactly but we can be sure it is not talking about a hat or a hood.....since neither of them is an item" that comes down from the head." Moreover, 1 Corinthians 11:5 is  part of a quotation by some of the religious leaders in Corinth which Paul corrects later on in the chapter. What we see then is that Protestant Reformer John Calvin, like other Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Knox, still adopted the teachings of Roman Catholic Church Fathers, who were influenced by their pagan culture, if it suited hm eventhough he vehemently came against other teachings of them.

2. As for John Calvin writing that women who uncover their head shake off subjection, he did not understand that 1 Corinthians 11:5 is part of a quotation by some of the religious leaders in Corinth which is corrected by Paul later on in that chapter. Therefore, women do not shake off their subjection to their husbands since they were never placed under subjection to their husbands as we know from Genesis 1:26-28 where we read that God made the man and the woman to rule together over creation as a team. This was confirmed in Genesis 2:18 were we learn that God formed the woman as the man's equal partner or "ezer kenedgo."

Read Part Nine HERE

John Knox's View (cont): Head Covering P/7

                                                      Read Part One HERE

In this post I will continue to discuss the subject of head covering since today there is a movement called the Head Covering Movement based on 1 Corinthians 11:5 and beyond

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved...

 Today I will continue to share the viewpoint of well known Scottish Protestant Reformer John Knox (1505 - 1572 A.D.).

John Knox referred to the teachings of  Roman Catholic Church Father John Chrysostom, who was a believer in the timelessness of head covering, in his writings.

John Knox: "Chrysostom explained the words of 1 Corinthians 11:3 "The head of the woman is man," in the following manner, "Men and women ought to appear before God bearing the ensigns of the condition which they have received of Him. Man has received a certain glory and dignity above the woman; and therefore ought to appear before His high Majesty bearing the sign of his honour, having no cover upon his head, to witness that in earth man has no head." Chrysostom says that both the man and the woman must appear before God bearing the signs of their respective roles. The man who has a "glory and dignity above woman"must have no cover upon his head to show that he has no earthly head."

Knox then continues with his quotation where Chrysostom talks about the woman's sign: "But woman ought to be covered, to witness that in earth she had a head, that is man." 

My Comment

It is unthinkable to me that Scottish Protestant Reformer John Knox used the writings of Roman Catholic Church Father St John Chrysostom to defend his position of head covering of women since he would have written against the teachings of St John Chrysostom and other Roman Catholic Church Fathers as a Protestant Reformer. This speaks of double-mindedness on his part for he is willing to use some of their teachings if it suits him even while, no doubt, knowing that the teachings of men such as St John Chrysostom were influenced by pagan philosofies. He, thereby, brought into the Protestant Church not just Roman Catholic teachings which he is so opposed to, he brought into the Protestant Church unbiblical pagan thinking.

Read Part Eight HERE