Welcome to a reading of the customary practice of head coverings, an exegetical historical study of 1 Corinthians 11, verses 2 to 16, presented in a series of letters by the Reverend Greg L. Price and read by W. J. Mankaro. Copyright 2011, Greg L. Price and published by Stillwater's Revival Books, www.PuritanDownloads.com. Introduction. The issue of women being covered in worship or not being covered in worship is a controversy that divides and separates churches and Christians within the visible Church. Thus, it is an issue worthy of discussion with a view to the peace, purity, and unity of Christ's Church. The present series of letters on the subject of head coverings occurred between the author and an officer in another Presbyterian church by way of an informal discussion of both Scripture and history. The author of these letters was a minister in the Reformed Presbytery in North America, RPNA, at the time that a position paper on the subject of head coverings in worship, which was the practice of head coverings in public worship, was adopted on June 4, 2001 by Presbytery. This position paper was written in order to repent of its former position, wherein the uncovered head of men and the covered head of women in worship were viewed as specifically regulated by Scripture per the regulative principle of worship, and in order to clarify its present position, that the uncovered head of men and the covered head of women in worship, as taught by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, were cultural and customary practices that are not specifically regulated by Scripture per the regulative principle of worship. being cultural and customary practices, they may be altered from culture to culture, from nation to nation, and from age to age. The thrust of the position paper, The Practice of Head Coverings in Public Worship, was more of a historical than an exegetical presentation, which on that account has led some to dismiss the position adopted by the RPNA. In the present series of letters on the subject of head coverings, there has been a concerted effort made to demonstrate that not only a historical evaluation, but most importantly, an exegetical evaluation of Paul's inspired words in his letter of 1 Corinthians 11, verses 2 to 16, leads to the same conclusion arrived by the Reformed Presbytery of North America, or PNA, in its position paper, The Practice of Head Coverings in Public Worship. The goal in this charitable exchange of letters was not debate, for debate's sake, but rather an earnest desire to strive for unity and uniformity in the truth of Jesus Christ. Likewise, the goal in making these letters public, which was also endorsed by the officer of the Presbyterian Church with whom the exchange occurred, is to endeavor a charitable presentation and testimony of the exegetical and historical reasons for the cultural and customary view of the uncovered head of men and covered head of women in worship from an analysis of 1 Corinthians 11, verses 2 to 16. There has been some slight editing of the original letters to correct spelling, punctuation, grammar, and in a few cases to fill out and clarify the meaning of a sentence or phrase. Also, all names and personal information have been edited out of these letters. An attempt to spell Greek words in English letters was made, but not having the proper font has placed limitations on the spelling of Greek words. The officer in the Presbyterian Church with whom the exchange occurred is simply designated by an underlined space in the text of the book. It is my earnest desire and prayer that the Lord may promote the unity and uniformity of His Church by means of these letters. My praise is offered to the Lord for this opportunity and thanks to the brother with whom the discussion in these letters transpired. Signed, Greg L. Price, August 2011. Letters Responding to Argument No. 1, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2, and the Position of the Westminster Standards. February 4, 2011. Thank you once again for allowing me an opportunity to respond to the main points of your position on women being veiled in worship as required by the Regulative Principle of Worship. I will not respond to each of your eight arguments all at one time in this first installment, but will break them down to responding to one or two of your arguments at a time in subsequent installments. In so doing, I can get a response back to you more quickly, even if it is not complete, and you may take the opportunity to reply to a more brief response from me, rather than having to reply to a more extensive response from me. I hope this facilitates more interaction between us on specific arguments, rather than treating them in a cursory manner. I would like to address in this first installment some historical testimony, particularly the Westminster Standards, and then address your first argument from 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2. Historical testimony, the Westminster Standards. At the outset, as I indicated in a previous email, I believe the divines of the First and Second Reformations spoke with one voice, that the veiling of women in view here in 1 Corinthians 11 did not fall under the category of the regulative principle of worship, but rather was an outward customary sign among the culture of the Corinthians, as in other locations of the ancient world. Yes, behind that customary sign for women and the lack of it for men were revealed moral principles that were unalterable and always to be observed in every age and culture in regard to submission, authority, proper gender distinctions, and proper decorum and worship. but that is quite different from saying that the customary sign itself is unalterable. If you have found any divines of the First or Second Reformations that state that the covered head, or lack of it, was not a customary sign in worship, but rather a moral or regulative principle sign for all ages and nations, I would appreciate knowing of any such divines. I realize that we cannot rest our case on the universal agreement of the divines of the First and Second Reformations. Our case must rest on Scripture. However, I have come over the years to appreciate the collective wisdom and amazing discernment granted to these extraordinary men, especially when they speak with one voice in unanimity. In regard to this historical testimony, I would also state that in the Westminster subordinate standards, the matter of covering the head for women in worship or the uncovering of the head for men in worship does not occur even once under the category of regulated worship, i.e., regulated according to the commandment of God, either in the confession of faith, in the directory for the public worship of God, or in the form of Presbyterial Church government. It should seem strange to any of us who know how careful these divines were in articulating what was required to be used in worship that they omitted this matter altogether, if it is specifically regulated by Scripture. Can you think of any other element or part of worship that is clearly authorized by God and His Word that was entirely omitted from the confession of faith, the directory for the public worship of God, or the form of Presbyterial Church government? I cannot think of one. The scripturally regulated use of covering for women and non-covering for men escapes mention altogether by the Westminster divines in the Confession of Faith in the list given of regulated elements and parts of worship, which are, from Westminster Confession of Faith 21.3, prayer with thanksgiving being one special part of religious worship is by God required of all men. the reading of the scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the word in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God besides religious oaths and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, and there are several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner." End quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith. Likewise, the scripturally regulated use of covering for women and non-covering for men escapes mention altogether by the Westminster divines in the Directory for the Public Worship of God. Certainly, in this document on worship that lists and describes the various ordinances that are regulated by God's Word, one would expect to find the covering of women and the uncovering of men if it was a scripturally regulated act of worship. However, as we consider the list of regulated ordinances that fall under the category of public worship, which are found as various headings within the Directory for the Public Worship of God, we find the following regulated ordinances mentioned. The reading of the Holy Scripture, public prayer, the preaching of the Word, the sacraments, days of fasting and thanksgiving, and the singing of psalms. But there is no mention of head coverings. Finally, the scripturally regulated use of covering for women and non-covering for men escapes mention altogether by the Westminster divines in the form of Presbyterial Church government. There is a list of scripturally regulated ordinances for a church found in the form of Presbyterial Church government under the heading of the ordinances in a particular congregation. That says, quote, the ordinances in a single congregation are prayer, thanksgiving, and singing of psalms, the word read, although there follows no immediate explication of what is read, the word expounded and applied, catechizing, the sacraments administered, collection made for the poor, dismissing the people with a blessing, unquote. But once again, there is absolute silence in regard to the use of head coverings in worship. How did the Westminster divines miss this in all of their various statements regarding worship, if indeed they believed that the veiling of women in worship and the non-veiling of men in worship were scripturally regulated acts or parts of worship? If you can give some explanation why you believe the Westminster divines omitted any mention of head coverings as a scripturally regulated act of worship, I would appreciate your thoughts. Surely there must be a reason if the veiling of women in worship and the non-veiling of men in worship was a divine ordinance specifically regulated by scripture. Although nothing at all is mentioned in the text of the Confession of Faith, the Directory for the Public Worship of God, or the former Presbyterial Church government about the veiling of women in worship or the non-veiling of men in worship, let alone it being a scripturally regulated practice in worship that is morally and perpetually required by God and His Word, when we consider the proof text used by the Westminster Divines, we find that 1 Corinthians 11, 13, and 14 that is, chapter 11, verses 13 and 14, was used as a proof text in the Confession of Faith, chapter 1, 6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." If I may briefly expound on three points in this portion of our Confession of Faith, to which we both subscribe. First, the placement of this proof text as found in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 13 and 14, and what it supports in the text is significant. For it is not provided as a proof text for any truths stated in the entire first sentence. In the first sentence, it is stated that, quote, the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, et cetera, unquote. And this would certainly include any ordinance of worship that is specifically regulated by scripture. For worship of the triune God clearly is necessary to, quote, His own glory, unquote, quote, man's salvation, unquote, and, quote, faith, unquote. And every ordinance of worship that is specifically regulated by Scripture must be, quote, either expressly set down in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unquote. Thus, if the veiling of women in worship and the unveiling of men in worship is specifically governed by the regulative principle of worship or by the moral law of God, they must be comprehended under this first sentence in the Confession of Faith, chapter 1, 6. Second, there is a clear contrast that begins with the second sentence as indicated by the word, quote, nevertheless, unquote. While the objective testimony of Scripture is sufficient for all things necessary to God's glory, man's salvation, and all matters of faith, including worship that is regulated expressly or deductively by God's Word, there is also the subjective, inward illumination of the Holy Spirit that is necessary for the, quote, saving understanding, unquote, of all things objectively set forth in Scripture. Then, after the semicolon in the second sentence, there appears the connective word and, which indicates that what follows is also a part of the contrast to the first sentence, i.e., what is said after the semicolon is also part of the contrast that begins with the word nevertheless. and that there are some circumstances concerning the Word of God and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed." And the emphasis there is the first word, and, of that part of the confession. Third, That which is here distinguished in the second sentence after the semicolon is that which is not expressly or deductively set down in scripture from that in the first sentence which is expressly or deductively set down in scripture. After the semicolon, the divines began to deal with, quote, some circumstances concerning the worship of God, not in sacra, i.e., in worship, but circa sacra, i.e., concerning worship. and government of the Church, continuing with the quote from the Confession, common to human actions and societies." This is the place where the Westminster divines chose to place the proof text concerning head coverings as found in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 13 and 14. Why didn't they place that proof text in the first sentence, where all scripturally regulated worship must be included? Why did they place that proof text in the second sentence, which addresses, quote, some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the church common to human actions and societies, unquote, instead of in the first sentence, where all ordinances of scripturally regulated worship would surely occur? My brother, I submit it was because the Assembly of Divines did not believe that the veiling of women or the non-veiling of men was an ordinance of worship governed by the regulative principle of worship. To the contrary, they believed the veiling of women and the non-veiling of men fell into the category of, quote, circumstances common to human actions and societies, unquote, which circumstances indeed vary from culture to culture, from age to age, and from nation to nation. These circumstances common to human actions and societies are not regulated by scripture, either expressly or inferentially, but are to be ordered by the, quote, light of nature, unquote, quote, Christian prudence, unquote, and the, quote, general rules of the word, unquote, all from the confession. Because the veiling of women and the non-veiling of men as a common action within the society of Corinth in distinguishing the respective roles of men and women was agreeable to the light of nature, the veiling of women and the non-veiling of men in worship ought not to be cast aside when they engaged in the public of worship of God. In other words, it is because the veiling of women and non-veiling of men was practice as a human action, common to the society of Corinth, and because the practice was agreeable to the light of nature, which teaches the headship of men and the submission of women, that women were not to remove their head covering when they entered the church to worship, and that men were not to cover their heads when they entered the church to worship. Both women and men were to use the same customary signs in worship that were used in human society at large. Moreover, the actual statements of commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, as well as the practice of the Faithful Church of Scotland in her purest times, confirm this is the proper interpretation of this section of the Confession of Faith and its proof texts. George Gillespie discusses three kinds of signs, natural, customary, and voluntary. He places head coverings among the customary signs. Here is a quotation from A Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies, published by Naphtali Press, pages 247 and 248. Quote, there are three sorts of signs here to be distinguished. One, natural signs, so smoke is a sign of fire, and the dawning of the day is a sign of the rising of the sun. Two, customable signs, and so the uncovering of the head, which of old was a sign of preeminence, has, through custom, become a sign of subjection. 3. Voluntary signs, which are called signa instituta, or instituted signs. These are either sacred or civil. To appoint sacred signs of heavenly mysteries or spiritual graces is God's own peculiar prerogative, and of this kind are the holy sacraments. Civil signs for civil and moral uses may be, and are, commendably appointed by men, both in church and commonwealth, and thus the tolling of a bell is a sign given for assembling and has the same signification both for ecclesiastical and secular assemblings. Secondly, customary signs have likewise place in divine service. For so a man coming into one of our churches in time of public worship, if he see the hearers covered, Apparently, as an aside, both men and women were covered in the Scottish worship service, contrary to what Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11, where a distinction is to be made between the covering of women and the non-covering of men. And going on with George Gillespie, let's back up here for a moment before the comment. Secondly, customary signs have likewise place in divine service. For so a man coming into one of our churches in time of public worship, if he sees the hearers covered, he knows by this customary sign that sermon has begun," from George Gillespie in a dispute against English Popish ceremonies. Please note that Gillespie, like the Westminster Standards, distinguishes between unalterable regulated signs in worship and customary signs in worship that are subject to alteration from culture to culture, from nation to nation, and from age to age. Also note how the customary practice of the faithful Church of Scotland did not follow the customary practice of the Church of Corinth, as articulated by the Apostle Paul. Samuel Rutherford likewise agrees with Gillespie. when he states in his book, The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, published by Stillwater's Revival Books, pages 89 and 90, quote from Rutherford, ìThe Jews to this day as of old use not uncovering the head as a sign of honor, but by the contrary covering was a sign of honor. If therefore the Jews, being made a visible church, shall receive the Lord's Supper, and pray and prophesy with covered heads, men would judge it no dishonoring of their head, or not of disrespect of the ordinances of God, though Paul, having regard to a national custom, did so esteem it." End quote from Rutherford. Rutherford indicates that the covered head was a customary and national sign of honor to the Jews, although Paul viewed the covered head as just the opposite in Corinth. I firmly believe that sufficient testimony is herein presented to indicate that neither the confession of faith, nor the directory for the public worship of God, nor the form of Presbyterial Church government, which are our subordinate standards, give any shred of evidence to the view that the veiling of women in worship or the non-veiling of men in worship was to be specifically regulated by Scripture, either expressly or deductively. To the contrary, the complete omission of the veiling of women in worship and the non-veiling of men in worship, and the placing of the only proof text dealing with the veiling of women in worship within a section of the Confession of Faith that deals with, quote, circumstances common to human actions and societies, unquote, indicate that our subordinate standards do not allow us to make the veiling of women and the non-veiling of men in worship an ordinance in worship that is regulated by Scripture, either expressly or deductively. If you know of some place in our subordinate standards where the veiling of women and the non-veiling of men in worship is taught and comprehended under the regulative principle of worship, please identify that place or those places. My brother, my concern at this point is that in requiring the veiling of women in worship as being an ordinance governed by the regulative principle of worship removes us from the clear teaching of our subordinate standards. I would submit that any session, presbytery, synod, or general assembly that subscribes to the Westminster Standards should in all honesty take exception to the teaching of the Westminster Standards if they should require women to be covered and men to be uncovered in worship on the basis of the regulative principle of worship or the moral law of God, for such a view is not agreeable to the Westminster Standards. But even more importantly, as I hope to demonstrate in emails that will follow, to make the covering of women and uncovering of men in worship an ordinance of worship governed by the regulative principle of worship is adding a sacred sign to worship which God has not commanded or authorized. The Westminster Confession of Faith says in Chapter 20, Part 2, quote, God alone is Lord of the conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to His Word or beside it in matters of faith or worship. Thank you for your patience in allowing me to set forward what appears to me to be the clear teaching of our subordinate standards. First argument from 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2. In the remainder of this email, I would like to respond to your first scriptural argument from 1 Corinthians 11, which you state as follows, quote, Paul begins chapter 11, verse 2 by praising those who kept the ordinances, but what ordinances? I understand the ordinances he is about to speak of, which are the proper use of head covering, the proper observance of the Lord's Supper, and proper use of spiritual gifts," from your email dated January 20, 2011. First, Paul's praise of the Corinthian Church includes not only their remembering Paul, but also their keeping or holding to the ordinances, as Paul delivered them to the Church. 1 Corinthians 11 verse 2 says, quote, now I praise you brethren that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I deliver them to you, unquote. Paul is here commending them for keeping and holding to, which certainly would mean that the church was also faithfully practicing whatever ordinances Paul had in mind. For you can hardly be praised for keeping or holding to that which you are not practicing. For instance, would we praise our respective congregations for keeping the ordinance of psalms singing in worship if our congregations were singing hymns in worship, or singing hymns along with psalms in worship? Absolutely not. That is simply to say that I cannot understand from the words of Paul that he includes in the, quote, ordinances, unquote, for which the Church of Corinth is praised, the covering of women in worship and the non-covering of men in worship. For the women, at least some significant portion of the women, were not covering themselves in worship, and possibly the men were covering themselves in worship. If, for the sake of argument, the covering of women in worship was one of the ordinances in worship governed by the regulative principle of worship, and was one of the ordinances for which Paul commended them for keeping, how can Paul, in the immediately following verses, 1 Corinthians 11 3-16, imply that the women in the church of Corinth were not covering themselves in worship, and therefore not keeping the ordinances according to your position? Why would Paul praise them for keeping an ordinance that they are not keeping, and which the Presbyterian Corinth is not keeping by tolerating the uncovering of the women in worship? I submit that Paul has in view unnamed ordinances in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 2 that were actually being faithfully kept and practiced by the Church of Corinth, and thus the reason for his commendation and praise of the Church for keeping them. Paul begins with sincere commendation for the Church, where they can be commended. I do not believe Paul is commending the Church for allowing women to do what is non-commendatory, i.e., uncovering themselves in worship. Such a supposition would make the words of Paul laughable and would evacuate all significance, what it means to actually keep the divine ordinances that God has committed to us. Thus, I do not understand that Paul is calling the veiling of women an ordinance in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2. Second, the word ordinances refers to the traditions, paradoxes, of the Apostles. The traditions of the Apostles were inspired apostolic revelations received from Christ and delivered, paradidomi, either in the writing of Scripture or handed down by word of mouth to the Church. reference 2 Thessalonians 2.15 and 2 Thessalonians 3.6. Examples of this apostolic tradition specifically identified as such in 1 Corinthians include the Lord's Supper, 1 Corinthians 11.23, and the Gospel, 1 Corinthians 15.3. Both Jesus and Paul abominate the traditions of men, Matthew 15, verses 3 and 6, Galatians 1, verse 14, and Colossians 2, verse 8, for they elevate themselves to an equal or superior authority to apostolic traditions received from Christ by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If, for the sake of argument, the veiling of women and the non-veiling of men in worship is a, quote, tradition, unquote, then it must be that which was directly received by the apostles through divine revelation of the Holy Spirit. That would make the sign of the veiling of women in worship a tradition equal to that of the Lord's Supper and to the Gospel itself. It seems that if the veiling of women and non-veiling of men in worship was such an apostolic tradition, received directly by revelation from Christ, that Paul omitted the weightiest argument in favor of a woman being covered and a man being uncovered in worship. However, the veiling of women in worship, beginning with the actual discussion of it by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 3, is never called a tradition or one of the traditions, whereas the Lord's Supper is referred to as that which was, quote, delivered by way of apostolic tradition to the Church of Corinth, 1 Corinthians 11.23. Thus, the only clear reference to that which was a tradition in 1 Corinthians 11.14 is the Lord's Supper, not the veiling of women. Third, if, for the sake of argument, the veiling of women in worship and the non-veiling of men in worship was an ordinance or tradition governed by the regulative principle of worship, when did it begin to be such? Nothing is stated in the Old Testament about women being required by scriptural regulation to be covered in worship or men to be uncovered in worship. Moreover, clearly men, at least the priests, were covered in worship. See Exodus 28, verses 4, 37, and 40, contrary to what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 4. Moreover, Jesus did not address the issue at all, nor did the other apostles do so in any of their epistles. If the veiling of women in worship and the non-veiling of men in worship is specifically regulated by Scripture, it seems odd, to say the least, that this alleged regulated ordinance was first introduced by Paul. Did Eve wear a head covering as an ordinance commanded by God in her worship of the Lord while yet in the Garden of Eden? Scripture states both Adam and Eve were naked. And nothing is mentioned about a head covering for Eve, even though the moral principles of headship and submission were clearly to be observed, even in their innocent state. Thus, was this the only regulated part of worship that was introduced by Paul exclusively? All the other regulated parts of New Covenant worship clearly had their origin in the Old Testament and were continued into the New Testament, such as prayer, the reading of Scripture, exposition of Scripture, psalm singing, the benediction, the sacraments, oaths, vows, and covenants, the Sabbath. And although the outward administration of the sacraments and the Sabbath has changed, they are in essence the same as that which was instituted in the Old Testament. However, if one changes the use of the covered head so that men, at least the priests, if not all men, are required to be covered in worship in the Old Testament, but required to be uncovered in the New Testament, one has altered the very essence of the meaning of the head covering as taught by Paul, which is that to be covered is an unalterable sign of submission to the opposite gender in worship, and to be uncovered is an unalterable sign of headship to the opposite gender in worship. Is the veiling of women and the non-veiling of men in worship the only regulated act or practice in New Covenant worship that does not have its origins in the Old Testament? I do not believe the Scripture warrants such a position. However, my brother, I would be open to an explanation from you for such a unique standing of this alleged divine ordinance of the covered head in worship. Fourth, I jump ahead to 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16 for a moment. where Paul infers that the veiling of a woman in worship was a custom. For when Paul states, quote, we have no such custom, unquote, I take that to mean that we have no such custom of women praying unto God uncovered, 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13. Therefore, I deduce that if it was not a custom for women to pray uncovered, Paul infers it was a custom for women to pray covered. That makes Paul's remarks in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 14 and 15, parenthetical. For Paul asks the following question in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 13, ìIs it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?î And then he answers that question in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, ìWe have no such custom.î The word custom, sunnethia, according to Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, is a, quote, habit, custom, usage, unquote, and that's from a Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, page 797. The only other usage of this Greek word for custom, sunnethia, in the received text of the New Testament, is found in John 18, verse 39, where it refers to the, quote, custom, unquote, of the Jews to release one prisoner at the time of the Passover, which was obviously a national custom for the nation of the Jews, just as the covered head for women was a national custom among the nations and societies of the Greeks. Here, Paul refers to the veiling of women as a custom. which is precisely what the Reformers called it as well, a custom or customary sign. But a custom or customary sign is not the same thing as a scripturally regulated act or practice of worship. A customary sign first becomes a custom in the society or culture at large, and is then carried over into worship when a church is planted in that cultural society, because to dismiss such a customary sign in worship would introduce confusion, disorder, and schism into the church, especially when that customary sign is agreeable to the light of nature, which teaches the submission of women and the headship of men in all societies and in all ages. However, when in a society, nation, or culture there is no such general or universal custom of women covering their heads when they are in public, or for men to uncover their heads when they are in public, I submit there is no sound reason for the covering of the head in the case of women and the uncovering of the head in the case of men to be required in the public worship of God. The Corinthians are here rebuked by Paul because the women removed the customary sign of a covered head, and perhaps the men added the customary sign of a covered head, when they appeared in public worship, thus completely inverting their respective roles as outwardly indicated by the customary signs of that general society within Corinth, and presumably other Greek cities and provinces as well. No other divine ordinance in Scripture is ever referred to as a custom or habit, sunnethia. Thus I submit that Paul distinguishes the veiling of women as a custom within Greek society at large, in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 16, from the regulated divine ordinances or traditions referred to in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 2 and 23, which the covered head of a woman or the uncovered head of a man in 1 Corinthians 11, 3-15 is never said to be. I will have more to say about 1 Corinthians 11, 16 when I come to your 8th argument. I will stop there for now and allow you to reply to this, my first response to your first argument from 1 Corinthians 11 verse 2. I will stop there for now and allow you to reply to this, my first response to your first argument from 1 Corinthians 11 verse 2. I look forward to our continued discussion of this matter in Brotherly Charity with the firm hope that such a discussion might lead to an organic union of churches and Christians within the Visible Church of Christ. For the Cause of Christ, Greg L. Price. March 7, 2011 I do appreciate the care that you and the elders are taking to study the matter of head coverings. Whether we should be adding to or taking away from the duties that are ours in worship, it is very serious business. If I might take a few minutes to comment on the three possibilities you mentioned with regard to the omission of head coverings as a prescribed act of worship in the Westminster Standards. I thought synthesizing the possible explanations for this omission from the Westminster Standards was very helpful. You stated in your e-mail, dated February 15, 2011, quote, We all agreed that it was certainly a curiosity that head covering was never mentioned by the Church during the writing of the Standards. I put three questions to my elders. I asked them if they thought that the writers of the Westminster Standards, one, overlooked the practice, which seems highly unlikely, two, or it was so obvious it need hardly be mentioned, also pretty unlikely, Or three, it was roundly agreed that head covering was cultural and therefore no arguments needed to take place." If I might briefly respond to each of these three possible explanations for the omission of head coverings within the Westminster Standards as a prescribed duty in worship, I will proceed to do so. Option one. The first option, the writers of the Westminster Standards, quote, overlooked the practice, unquote. I would submit that this position is not tenable, since the divines actually did not omit the mention of head coverings in the Westminster Standards. They included the mention of head coverings as a proof text, 1 Corinthians 11, verses 13 and 14, within the Confession of Faith. That's from chapter 1, part 6. And as an approved proof text, the divines clearly did not place the use of head coverings in worship as a regulated act in worship authorized in Scripture, but rather under, quote, some circumstances concerning the worship of God common to human actions and societies, unquote. In other words, there really is not a total silence on the part of the divines in regard to the use of head coverings in worship. To the contrary, they not only mention head coverings, but place them outside the acts of worship that are specifically to be regulated by Holy Scripture. Thus, I must conclude that the divines did not overlook the practice within the Westminster standards. Option 2. The second possibility you mention is that, quote, it was so obvious it need hardly be mentioned, unquote. I would submit this option is likewise not tenable unless one believes it is the only prescribed act in worship that was so obvious that it need not be mentioned. For was it not even more obvious from a study of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, that the use of prayer in worship, and the use of reading and explication of the Word of God in worship, were prescribed parts of worship specifically ordained by God? And yet, as obvious as these two regulated parts of worship are in Scripture, they are nevertheless included among the various lists of acts and parts of worship mentioned in the Westminster Standards. In fact, what regulated part of worship would any of us say was so obvious to the divines that they decided not to include it within their lists of regulated worship, whether in the Confession of Faith, the Director for the Public Worship of God, or the form of Presbyterial Church Government? The lists of regulated acts of worship are very complete and thorough in the Westminster Standards. Furthermore, how would we respond if someone presented the same argument for the omission of instruments in worship from the text of the Westminster Standards? Should we be persuaded by the same argument from silence that the omission of instruments as a prescribed part of New Covenant worship in the Westminster Standards was due to the fact that the use of instruments was so obvious that it need hardly be mentioned? Such an argument from silence would lead to a host of acts being incorporated into worship if one believed that a regulated act of worship was omitted by the Westminster divines simply because it was so obvious that it need hardly be mentioned. E.g., the use of incense in worship, the use of holy water, the use of an altar, and the use of choirs could all find warrant in our worship services by a similar argument from silence in the Westminster standards. Rather than assume that a prescribed act of worship was intentionally omitted, or any number of prescribed acts of worship were intentionally omitted by the Westminster divines, I conclude they did not intend to leave such important matters as the worship of God to guesswork in what they penned, but rather they listed for us in the Westminster standards what they clearly believed alone had biblical warrant to be used in the public worship of God. Option 3. The third possibility, quote, it was roundly agreed that head covering was cultural and therefore no arguments needed to take place, unquote, is that which fits with the evidence both within the Westminster standards and within the ecclesiastical practice of the Westminster divines at that time in the use of head coverings. The Westminster Divines did not use the terms cultural circumstances or customs within the standards, but did use language pointing to the same reason for Paul's direction in regard to the use of head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 13 and 14, which were proof texts for the confession of faith. Chapter 1, part 6, quote, some circumstances concerning the worship of God, which are common to human actions and societies, unquote. These acts of worship included here in the Confession of Faith would include cultural acts that may change from society to society, when and if a head covering should be used for men or women or both, what postures are appropriate for prayer, preaching, singing, what outward forms of greeting are appropriate, whether kissing, embracing, or handshaking on the part of both genders, what outward forms of grief and sorrow are appropriate, whether covering the head, rending a garment, crying loudly or quietly, what outward forms of loving service to one another are appropriate, whether washing the feet of the disciples or some other act, etc. For the reasons stated in my previous letter, dated February 4, 2011, and for the insuperable problems with the other two options addressed in this letter, I submit we are cast upon this third option as the only viable consideration. Thanks again for allowing me this opportunity. For the cause of Christ, Greg L. Price. March 7, 2011. Thank you so very much for your response and questions of clarification. This makes our discussion all the more beneficial, not only for us, but also for anyone else who is following this discussion. In the first place, perhaps it would be helpful to make certain distinctions between customary signs and practices and regulative principle signs and practices. On the one hand, customary signs and practices have a place in worship not because they have been specifically appointed by God for such a sacred use in worship, but because they have a civil use in society at large in maintaining some degree of order and uniform practice within a cultural setting. Thus, to alter or change that customary sign or practice would introduce confusion and disorder into the worship of God. For example, if it is a customary practice to have gender-segregated seating in civil public meetings, with the men sitting near the front and the women sitting near the back, as an expression of the respective place and order within society between men and women, then such a customary practice ought to be used in the public meetings of the Church as well. For to introduce gender-integrated seating within worship in a cultural setting where gender-segregated seating is practiced in society at large would bring great confusion and disorder into the worship of God. Or, if it was a customary sign and practice within society at large to bow as a sign of submission and respect when speaking to a superior, then it would introduce confusion into the worship of God to stand upright in prayer when addressing God, the divine superior. On the other hand, regulative principle signs and practices are used in worship specifically because they are set apart by the Lord for a holy use and appointed for a sacred use in the worship of God and not for a civil use in society at large. For example, the sacred signs and seals of baptism in the Lord's Supper do not have a customary practice outside of worship in society at large, but only a regulated use in worship alone, and so likewise prayer, preaching, singing of psalms, etc. Number two, on the one hand, customary signs and practices are alterable within churches from nation to nation. On the other hand, regulative principle signs and practices are not alterable within churches from nation to nation. 3. On the one hand, customary signs and practices may express general principles that are taught by the light of nature within man, e.g., gender distinctions and roles, order, submission, charity, respect, etc. On the other hand, regulative principle signs and practices express specifically revealed truths taught in scripture, e.g., the cleansing of sin, union and communion with Christ, etc. In the second place, yes, in answer to your question, I would understand all customary signs as falling under the confessional category of, quote, circumstances common to human actions and societies, unquote. for a customary sign or practice first obtains a general usage among the actions of humans within society at large. As Calvin indicates in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, a custom is that which is, quote, confirmed by length of time and common use, unquote, within a society. See his footnote on 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verse 15. This is the very definition and meaning of custom. In the third place, I distinguish between the light of nature revealed within the very constitution of man and between outward customary signs that teach those light of nature principles. On the one hand, the light of nature is that knowledge of the law of nature within man that reflects, to some degree, general moral principles. Those general moral principles revealed by the light of nature within man are unalterable from nation to nation, from culture to culture, from church to church. On the other hand, the customary sign is the outward sign or practice within a given society that may reflect that moral principle revealed by the light of nature within man. For example, the inward light of nature teaches gender distinctions, whereas the outward customary practice within the Corinthian society that expressed the respective roles of men and women was the covered head for women and the uncovered head for men in public. Likewise, the inward light of nature teaches the moral principle of headship and submission within the home, whereas the outward customary sign and practice of a servant to bow to his master or for a son to bow to his father within ancient cultures are clearly distinguishable the one from the other. Thus, I would not understand that moral principles taught by light of nature differ from one society to another, even though the degree of light that one society may have over another may differ, or from one church to another, even though the outward customary sign within one society, and therefore within a church in that society, may differ from another society, and therefore from another church in that society, in expressing the same moral principle taught by the light of nature. In the fourth place, I will try to fill out for you very briefly the three following categories that you have outlined in your email. Your three listed categories in which you seek clarification are Regulative Principle of Worship, Light of Nature, and Customary Signs. 1. Regulative principle of worship i.e. psalm singing, reading of the word, preaching of the word, prayer, etc. 2. light of nature, i.e., time of meeting, type of seating, etc." This category seems to need some clarification, at least from my perspective. For as I understand it, the items that you have listed after light of nature, time of meeting, type of seating, are not specifically the general moral principles themselves that are taught by the light of nature within man. To the contrary, the general moral principles that are taught by the Light of Nature within man are order, edification, and charity, rather than time of meeting, type of seating, etc. In other words, the time of meeting and the type of seating are matters within society in general that are to be ordered by the Light of Nature, but are not the Light of Nature themselves, or are to be ordered by the general principles of the Word, or are to be ordered by those actions that are common to human societies. The light of nature teaches that public meetings should meet in an orderly and edifying manner for all in attendance. But the light of nature is not the time of meeting or the type of seating. The time of meeting and type of seating are rather the customary practices that are common to human actions in societies. Third, quote, customary signs, i.e. Gillespie head covering, unquote. It is the third category that you have listed, customary signs and practices in society at large, that is used by churches within that society to determine what would be the most orderly, the most edifying, and the most charitable practices for the time of meeting, type of seating, etc. As for a couple of more examples of customary signs and practices, I would suggest the examples I used above. Gender, segregated seating in public places, and bowing to superiors. Also, the holy kiss and foot washing are also examples of customary signs and practices. I hope this is helpful to some degree in clarifying these three categories you mentioned. Feel free to follow up with further questions if it is still not clear to you. In the fifth place, you state, quote, I agree that the historical testimony of the Westminster Assembly, especially arguing from silence and one proof text, leans toward a belief that the Westminster Assembly treated head covering as a cultural practice, unquote. When you use the words leans toward a belief that the Westminster Assembly treated head coverings as a cultural practice, it sounds a little tentative, as if there might be another position that has some degree of credibility. I would ask, is there any other position that the Westminster Divines might have embraced that you think has any plausibility in dealing with the complete omission of head coverings in any section of the standards that addresses regulated worship, whether the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Directory for the Public Worship of God, or the form of Presbyterial Church government, or has any plausibility in dealing with the placement of 1 Corinthians 11, verses 13 and 14 under the category of, quote, circumstances common to human actions and societies, unquote, found in Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6. In the sixth place, you state in your last paragraph the following, ìI will remain open-minded about the use of the word ëcustomí in verse 16. I know that you would like to treat that at a further time. I am not aware of anything done in a worship service that would be done according to ëcustomí. Maybe you can think of an example of some other customs that have changed during various church ages.î I would ask if you had any disagreement with the argument that I presented in favor of head coverings be addressed by Paul as a custom. In other words, if the churches do not have a custom of women praying uncovered in worship, then we may deduce that they had a custom of women praying covered in worship. I do not see how one avoids this deductive argument and conclusion. Which, if true, means then that Paul calls the covered head of a woman in worship a custom, which is quite different from a regulated act in worship. See the distinctions I made above between regulated worship and customary signs and practices. As I also indicated above, seating, whether in chairs or on the ground, whether gender-segregated or gender-integrated, and gestures, whether bowing or standing in prayer, whether standing or sitting while preaching, whether giving or not giving a holy kiss, all of these are cultural practices that pertain to worship and yet are alterable from age to age within churches, depending upon the practices within society at large. I will stop at this point and wait to hear from you as to whether the matters needing clarification were sufficiently clarified in this response of mine. For the cause of Christ, Greg L. Price. March 9, 2011. I had one more argument that I wanted to add to our discussion surrounding 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2. Sometimes refinements in arguments or a mental flash do not immediately appear, but come gradually. Thanks for considering this argument as well. Yours, Greg L. Price. One remaining argument from 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2. Your first argument from 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2 was submitted in the following words, quote, Paul begins chapter 11, verse 2, by praising those who kept the ordinances, but what ordinances? I understand the ordinances he is about to speak of, which are the proper use of head covering, the proper observance of the Lord's Supper, and proper use of spiritual gifts, unquote, from your email dated January 20, 2011. I would like to submit one more argument from 1 Corinthians 11.3 that, in my judgment, further demonstrates that Paul did not intend to include among the ordinances, or literally traditions, which the Corinthians were keeping and for which they were praised anything mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.3-15. Once again, we consider 1 Corinthians 11, 2, quote, now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances, in Greek, paradosis, as I delivered, Greek, paradidomi, them to you. Without the interjections, quote, now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you, unquote. First, undoubtedly Paul teaches that the Lord's Supper was such an ordinance, i.e. apostolic tradition received from Christ and delivered by the apostles to the Church, when he states in 1 Corinthians 11.23, ìFor I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered.î Paradidomi is used by Paul here in 1 Corinthians 11.23 and is the verbal form of the noun that is used in 1 Corinthians 11.2, paradosis, i.e. ordinances. Again, 1 Corinthians 11, 23, without the interjection, quote, For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, unquote. Thus, at least in this instance of the Lord's Supper, we can be sure that there is an ordinance, an apostolic tradition, addressed in 1 Corinthians 11-14. However, is this an ordinance for which Paul can praise the Corinthians for keeping, as stated in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2? To the contrary, Paul does not praise the Corinthians because they were not keeping this ordinance of the Lord's Supper. Quote, Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, that ye come together, not for the better, but for the worse, unquote. And that is 1 Corinthians 11, verse 17. Second, in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2, Paul states, I praise you. And that praise proceeds from the fact that the Corinthians remembered Paul and were keeping the ordinances that Paul delivered to them. However, in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 17, Paul states, I praise you not. Why? Because they were not keeping the ordinance or apostolic tradition of the Lord's Supper. The contrast could not be more clear in the Greek language. I praise Epaino, you, in 1 Corinthians 11.2, and I praise you not, Eukei Epaino, in 1 Corinthians 11.17. Third, in other words, here is just another reason why I submit that the ordinances or apostolic traditions mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11-2 must be unnamed ordinances or apostolic traditions that the Corinthians were actually keeping and for which they were sincerely praised by Paul. Finally, whatever the ordinances the Corinthians were keeping, and for which they were praised by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, verse 2, those ordinances could not be that for which the Corinthians are subsequently rebuked and corrected by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, verses 3-15, and are told that he does not praise them because they were not keeping them. Still Waters Revival Books is now located at PuritanDownloads.com. It's your worldwide online Reformation home for the very best in free and discounted classic and contemporary Puritan and Reformed books, mp3s, and videos. For much more information on the Puritans and Reformers, including the best free and discounted classic and contemporary books, mp3s, digital downloads and videos, please visit Still Waters Revival Books at PuritanDownloads.com. Stillwater's Revival Books also publishes the Puritan Hard Drive, the most powerful and practical Christian study tool ever produced. All thanks and glory be to the mercy, grace, and love of the Lord Jesus Christ for this remarkable and wonderful new Christian study tool. The Puritan hard drive contains over 12,500 of the best Reformation books, MP3s, and videos ever gathered onto one portable Christian study tool. An extraordinary collection of Puritan, Protestant, Calvinistic, Presbyterian, Covenanter, and Reformed Baptist resources, it's fully upgradable and it's small enough to fit in your pocket. The Puritan hard drive combines an embedded database containing many millions of records with the most amazing and extraordinary custom Christian search and research software ever created. The Puritan Hard Drive has been produced to assist you in the fascinating and exhilarating spiritual, intellectual, familial, ecclesiastical, and societal adventure that is living the Christian life. It has been specifically designed so that you might more faithfully know, serve, and love the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as to help you to do all you can to bring glory to His great name. If you want to love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind, then the Puritan Hard Drive is for you. Visit PuritanDownloads.com today for much more information on the Puritan Hard Drive and to take advantage of all the free and discounted Reformation and Puritan books, mp3s, and videos that we offer at Still Waters Revival Books.