Lenten Devotional (20), Head-Coverings, and Pastoral Training

Ten Theses on Head-Covering.

We have now reached the middle of Lent. The middle of anything can be a form of death or disorientation. You are far removed from the beginning, but the end is not in sight.

Sometimes, when you are in the midst of loss, it can feel hopeless. Hopelessness is a form of death. Death is painful, but you know what is more painful–going through death trusting a false god.

In the book of Jonah, the pastor’s theology comes through in this prayer of repentance inside the belly of the creature (Jonah 2). And it does come right in the middle of the book; in the middle of his journey. He is trying to obey God while leaving those he loves. The journey of leaving that thing is painful and the middle of it can feel deathly painful.

But the prophet knows that the Ninevites pay regard to vain idols. He knows that without Yahweh, their death experience will be filled with misery. He knows that their death will have no resurrection to life. He sees his life and desires as more worthy to be sacrificed than the pain of others. And by living in such a way, Jonah could see that the Ninevites needed something he could give. In the middle, Jonah is hopeful, and Yahweh remembers Jonah in his affliction. And Jonah remembers God.

“Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love.”

Lent ought to bind our lives to the steadfast love of God. Idols cannot bind us to true love. Any earthly possession can be lost; the thing we love can be put behind for the sake of the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus. Jonah sought out an unwavering love in his deep distress, in the middle of his Lent, and love rescued him.

Prayer: O God of love, too often I do not seek you in my affliction. Too often, I seek refuge in vain idols to cheer or reward me. But I know I am never content apart from your steadfast love. Do not leave me, O God, but in my affliction, I will pray to you and seek your favor through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen.

Notations

• Barabbas, whose name means “Son of the Father,” was not a petty thief. He was, as the language suggests, an insurrectionist—a murderer. Revolutionaries play a major role in Mark’s Gospel at the book's beginning and end. The paradox of the Gospel is that the son of the Father of lies goes free while the Son of the Father on high gives freedom in death.

• My friend Larson Hicks interviews one of my closest friends, Rich Lusk, on the topic of head-covering. It will be very informative to those who have encountered this topic and may be wrestling with it.

I offer ten theses against the use of head-covering. They require further development, but I want to leave it in its raw form:

a) I see the creation argument from which Paul draws his case, offering no substance to the idea/necessity of physical veils/coverings in the context of worship. The creational paradigm involves establishing male/female roles in the Church and the world.

b) The symbolism for "hair" in the Bible is richer than that of a physical veil; the symbolism alone is sufficient, especially when drawn from a rich pattern in creation and Old Testament writings. Hair signifies strength and honor. It is directly connected with ceremonial and liturgical rituals in the Torah. It is further the very root of the Nazirite vow, indicating dedication and glory.

c) Veiling is impractical and redundant in the context of the explicit theology of "hair" throughout the Scriptures; hair is already glory. There is no need to add another layer to the glory already given to the woman in her hair. It would be akin to adding merit to nature.

 d) Lusk argues through historical background that there were no practices of veiled women in the first-century context (he uses Noel Weeks as his historical source),

e) Chapters 11-14 come as a whole. Therefore, there are concerns about the validity of "gifts" beyond AD 70 in a cessationist framework. Why would the apostle state that women wear physical coverings if he knew the gift of tongues and prophecy would cease with the apostolic era?

 f) We affirm Pauline continuity with the Old, so what do we do with priestly turbans and coverings in the Old Testament for men? Why would Paul change the etiquette of the Church suddenly? There are no references to females wearing coverings in the Old in the context of worship, so if creation is the pattern, why wouldn't it be already applied in principle or liturgical form? The pattern for Paul is that man is the head. He is the priestly figure. For the woman to wear a covering would be to reverse the roles.

f) One has to deal with the singularity of such an imperative. Nothing even hints at head coverings elsewhere, and Paul had an excellent opportunity to elaborate on this in I Timothy 2. Still, he does not refer to head coverings when speaking of female modesty. Instead, he argues that women should avoid unnecessary decorations on their hair. But why is such an imperative necessary if they were already wearing coverings?

g) While most of Church History favors head coverings, there are also some notable exceptions, like Theodore Beza (Calvin’s student), who viewed head coverings as merely cultural. Additionally, other liturgical elements held by the Church historically are no longer practiced today, like the separation of men and women in the worship service. History is not as one-sided as the arguments suggest.

 h) Finally, physical head coverings pose a theological threat because they assume Christ's covering as HEAD is insufficient. My primary argument against "head coverings" is that they minimize the role of Christ's covering over both male and female. Thus, female head coverings are outwardly redundant and theologically unhelpful.

Nuntium

• It was a privilege to lead and learn during the Strawbridge Forum in Lancaster, PA. Keeping the forum to a small number allowed for fruitful conversations rooted in II John, Amos, and I Timothy.

  

  At All Saints Church in Lancaster, PA

• I have always wanted to meet this accomplished body-builder who trains professional athletes to put their lives in harmony and it’s an even greater joy to know that he is theologically as solid as muscles. Thanks for your generosity, Anthony Diehl:

  

  In front of the Smithsonian in Washington D.C.

Moving ever closer to Easter-morn:

Uriesou Brito