I, along with my volunteers at BCB, have been looking at various denominational websites for official positions on headcovering. We will soon have a list categorizing the official teaching of many denominations as Pro, Anti, or Silent on headcoverings. This will be a tool for men to use when moving or a downward spiral of anti-Christianity make it necessary to find a new church. It will also be useful when the practice of a particular congregation in a Pro denomination varies from the official stance of the denomination–It will be easy for anyone to use our list to find exactly where the denominational body teaches the subject.
We are also working on categorizing the official positions of various denominations on divorce and remarriage, and both of these lists will eventually be made public.
But, in doing the research, I noticed something unsettling–that it is among the conservative denominations that I find headcoverings being taught against.
For example, I have been told that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is the liberal Lutheran denomination. Since they allow sodomites to impersonate priests and bishops, they certainly cannot reasonably be called Christian. Yet a search of their denominational website returns no results for or against the Christian practice of headcovering.
I have been told that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is the conservative Lutheran denomination. They allow neither women nor sodomites to impersonate priests and bishops, yet a search of their denominational website returns this:
And it’s not just the Lutherans.
I have been told that the Presbyterian Church (USA) is the liberal Presbyterian denomination. Here again, we have a denomination that cannot accurately be called Christian, due to allowing women and sodomites to impersonate priests and bishops and blaspheme sacred offices, yet a search of the denominational website has no mention for or against the Christian practice of headcovering. In contrast, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which I have been told is the conservative Presbyterian denomination, does not allow women and sodomites to blaspheme sacred offices by playing dress-up. But a search of the denominational website quickly returns an article on headcovering, which states in part:
So all this is the official doctrine of the OPC because that’s what the Bible teaches; and our doctrinal standards agree. Then why do we not continue the earlier practice of head covering in worship? Because head covering doesn’t “say” the same thing in Paul’s day that it does today. A harlot was recognizable in New Testament times by the way she dressed, but especially by what she didn’t do with her hair. To let it loose and fall down was the sign of brazen independence then. Covering, on the other hand, was a sign of submission to her place in Christian society.
In verses 13 & 14, Paul says, “Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” Paul was appealing to custom or culture to make his point. He says as much in verse 16: “But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”
Now I still don’t like a man wearing long hair. Yet I don’t judge him for doing so any more than I judge a woman for having her hair cut short. But customs have changed! Nor does the apostle appeal to creation or the fall to make his point.
This is why we’re working to get BCB ready for use as soon as possible. It is the so called “conservative” denominations where we need agents. It is here that the battle lies.