Head coverings Bibical

Exposition Of I Corinthians 11:1-16

The first sixteen verses of the eleventh chapter of Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth has been the subject of much controversy. The verses themselves are not difficult to understand, and the controversy has not been so much over the meaning as it has been over their application. On the one hand it is taught that the passage has to do with customs of a people long since dead, and thus the passage is not binding today. On the other hand it is taught that the verses deal not simply with custom of days gone by, but rather constitute a command to be observed throughout the Christian era. As we study the passage let us keep some things clearly in mind:

1. This is a discussion concerning men and women as they pray and prophesy. The discussion does not concern men and women in their everyday activities of life nor how they ordinarily appear in public, but only how they appear as they pray or prophesy. It may be true, as some contend, that women of Paul’s day wen appearing in public always wore a veil, but this is not the subject the apostle discusses in these verses! His discussion concerns praying and prophesying. Hence, any reference to what men and women did or did not do in their ordinary activities of life is completely beside the point and a reference to such is not pertinent to the issue. This passage discusses worship-life, not every-day life.
2. Furthermore to say that women who appeared in public with their faces unveiled were branded as harlots and thus brought reproach upon the church is to make an assertion that is lacking in conclusive proof. Note this comment in Smith’s Bible Dictionary: "Veil. With regard to the use of the veil, it is important to observe that it was by no means so general in ancient times as in modern times. Much of the scrupulousness in respect to the use of the veil dates from the promulgation of the Koran" (Article on the Veil). Thus this eminent authority shows that the wearing of the veil was not nearly so prevalent as some seem to think.
3. All we know about the subject of covered and uncovered heads while praying and prophesying is found in these sixteen verses. It may be that other passages deal with the headship of Christ, the relationship of man and woman, the wearing of veils, and numerous other things, but no other passage in the Bible deals with the subject of covered and uncovered heads while praying and prophesying except I Corinthians 11:1-16. Hence to this passage we must go to find the truth on the subject.

With this brief introduction in mind, please read in your Bible I Corinthians 11:1-16 and then read the following comments:

VERSE ONE:

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."

In all probability this verse belongs as the last verse to the argument in chapter 10 and the American Standard Version so places it.

VERSE TWO:

"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I have delivered them to you."

The ordinances here spoken of are "the particular injunctions of Paul’s instructions" (Thayer), hence the will of God as expressed through the inspired apostle. Obviously those who keep such should be "praised."

VERSE THREE:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

The relationships described are as unchangeable as God Himself and as old as the race. They are not based on "custom" nor upon anything else except the Word of God Almighty. Christ is not man’s head because custom made it so, but because God made it so. Man is not woman’s head because custom so ordered, but because God so ordered. This is the divine order and has nothing to do with custom. Custom did not make these relationships, and custom cannot change them with God. Yet it is upon the high doctrine here asserted that the rest of the argument is based. This is the very foundation of the apostle’s argument and without it the rest is meaningless. Since then the very foundation transcends custom, would it not be passing strange if all the rest is completely custom?

VERSE FOUR:

"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head."

This verse grows out of and is based upon the relationship laid down in verse 3, viz. "Christ is head of man". But verse three is not founded on custom and therefore neither is this verse. Just as long as Christ remains the head of man, just that long man will dishonor Christ by praying with his head covered. Since man has no head between him and Christ, for a man to cover his physical head while praying or prophesying would be to dishonor his spiritual head, Christ. The covering under consideration is an artificial one such as a veil, a hat, etc., otherwise only bald headed men or men with shaven heads could pray acceptably! Man may not cover his head either with long hair, a hat or a veil when he prays to God. He may have it covered at other times but not when he prays or prophesies for if he does he "dishonors his head." Whatever covering this verse forbids a man wearing, verse five commands a woman to wear; and since this covering is an artificial one then the one a woman is to wear is likewise an artificial one. Whatever covering a man must leave off, a woman must put on.

VERSE FIVE:

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

He who denies this denies the Bible! But this verse also grows out of and is based upon verse three, and since the relationship described there is not simply custom neither is the statement made here. And as long as man remains "head of woman" just that long will woman dishonor man when she prays with her head uncovered! And not only so but in dishonoring her "head" (man), woman dishonors herself and God who made man the head of woman. Thus the woman who "prays or prophesies with her head uncovered" dishonors herself, man, and God as well.

The covering here spoken of cannot have reference to a woman’s hair for the apostle says that for a woman to be uncovered is "as if she were shaven" which shows plainly that she is not shaven (though her condition has the same effect). But since the woman is not shaven, she must have hair, yet the apostle says she is uncovered. So the woman herein described is one that is without covering but with hair, hence the hair cannot be the covering under consideration. Thus the covering is an artificial one such as a shawl, a veil, a hat, etc. Sometimes, however, the question is asked, "What size covering?" God no more designates the size than He does the color and I wonder sometimes if such questions are asked to learn the will of God or to set aside the teaching here given. As a matter of fact God doesn’t even tell what the covering is to be other than the obvious fact that it is to be an artificial one, such as already suggested. So then let none be guilty of accusing others of teaching that a woman must wear a hat. I know of no one who so teaches. We do teach that a woman must have her head covered and that a hat will do the job, but the covering does not have to be a hat. A shawl will do, or a kerchief. Any of these can make a covering.

Thus this verse shows plainly that a woman today when praying to God must cover her head with an artificial covering such as a veil, a shawl or a hat, etc. For her to refuse to do so is to bring dishonor upon her head, man, because a covered head on her part is a sign of her subjection to man (vs. 10). A refusal to have this covering is to show she is not in subjection to man nor God …hence the dishonor not only to man but God as well.

VERSE SIX:

"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

In other words, if a woman will not cover her head with an artificial covering, let her carry her defiance to its ultimate conclusion, let her save her head. But since a shaven head is a shame to a woman, she should do neither, but rather she should cover her head. The covering here spoken of cannot be the woman’s hair for this reason: The woman under consideration in this verse is "not covered" or without covering. Now if the covering and the hair are one and the same, we may substitute the word hair for the word covering in this verse and the meaning will be unchanged. Notice: "If the woman is without covering, let her also be shorn." "If the woman is without hair, let her also be shorn." See the absurdity in the last statement? How can a woman who is "without hair" "also be shorn? How can a woman without any hari, get her hair cut off? The word also in this verse shows plainly once and for all that the covering is not the woman’s hair but must be an artificial one as already described.

The word shear means "cut off" (Weymouth), "cut short" (Thayer), or "crop" (Expositor’s Greek Testament).

VERSE SEVEN:

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."

Please observe the God-given reason for a man not to cover his head, viz. he is the "image and glory of God". Paul does not say nor even hint that a man ought not to cover his head because os some custom of the day. Notice this contrast between what man says and what God says is the reason "a man ought not to cover his head". Man says: "Forasmuch as it is a custom". God says: "Forasmuch as man is the image and glory of God"

See the difference in the two statements? Now which will you accept, man’s statement or God’s? Since Paul did not base his statement on "custom" why should men today do what Paul did not and say what Paul said not? Was man’s being in the "image and glory of God" simply a custom? Is not man still, today, in the "image and glory of God"? If he is, he ought not to "cover" his head when praying or prophesying or worshiping God. So says the inspired apostle.

VERSE EIGHT:

"For the man is not of the woman: but the woman is of the man."

In the creation God made woman from man’s rib, not vice versa.

VERSES NINE AND TEN:

"Neither was the man created for the woman but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels…"

For what cause? Does the apostle say, "Because of custom?" He does not! He says because of the situation that obtained when God created man and woman that a woman ought to have "power on her head" or "a sign of authority" (American Standard Version). Again notice the contrast between what man says and what God says about why women ought to have a "sign of authority" on her head: Man says: "Because of custom." God says: "Because woman was created for man."

See the difference between the two statements? One of them is based upon a figment of man’s imagination; the other is based upon a plain and positive statement in the word of God. Which will you accept? Which will you practice?

The expression "power on her head" is translated as "sign of authority" in the American Standard Version. Goodspeed renders it, "That is why she ought to wear upon her head something to symbolize her subjection." Women who understand the Bible also understand why they cover their heads. Not simply because a hat, or shawl, or whatever is used as a covering is pretty nor to impress somebody, but as a "sign" of her God-given subjection to man.

"Because of the angels": While one may not know everything connected with this particular statement, it is given nonetheless as an inducement for woman to cover her head when "praying or prophesying". It may be, as some suggest, that angels who "minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14) are interested in the affairs of this life and are offended at any breach of the ordinance. Another explanation, and one that seems plausible is this: The apostle has been urging man to respect his proper place. And in connection with people keeping their proper places, notice Jude 6, "And the angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." When the angels left their proper place the got into trouble, and when man or woman leaves his or her proper place, they too, will get into trouble. A "sign" that woman has left her proper place is for her to pray uncovered, for by so doing she shows she is not in subjection to man. If this is not what "because of the angels" means this explanation certainly does no violence to the context.

VERSES ELEVEN AND TWELVE:

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man by the woman; but all things are of God."

Neither man or woman should think of themselves too highly nor become egotistical. God deems one just as important as the other and they are mutually dependent upon each other for existence and sustenance. There is "neither male nor female" in Christ (Galatians. 3:28). God took a rib from the side of man to make woman (Genesis 2:21,22), hence woman is "of man"; but now in the natural order of things man is "born of woman" (Job 14:1), hence he is "by the woman". Thus both are mutually dependent on the other and indeed "all things are of God".

VERSE THIRTEEN:

"Judge ye: is it comely that a woman pray to God uncovered?"

This is a rhetorical question: to ask it is to answer it. It is not comely (or befitting) for a woman to pray uncovered; this is the obvious answer to the question. Yet there are brethren who teach that it is comely for a woman to pray uncovered, and there are women who practice such, but they are not comely in God’s sight!

VERSES FOURTEEN AND FIFTEEN:

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering."

Nature is the native sense of propriety (Thayer) or of what is right. Paul does not say that the woman’s hair is her only covering, but that it is a covering. The fact that her hair is a covering should serve to show her that she should be covered. Thus when he teaches what is contained in these verses, woman should not be startled by them because her hair has already shown her the propriety of a covering in her case. A consideration of verses 4-6 clearly shows that two coverings are under consideration in them.

(Just as an incidental matter, I am sure that the pictures one so often sees of Christ is patently wrong because they all show Him with long hair. But the apostle says that long hair is a shame to a man. Would Christ "shame" Himself?).

VERSE SIXTEEN:

"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

The Revised Standard Version renders this passage: "If any one is disposed to be contentious we recognize no other practice, neither the churches of God." This should make it clear what is meant by the expression "contentious", is to contend for other than what is being taught herein. In other words, if, in view of all that the apostle has said, there are still some who would "contend" for the right of men to pray with covered heads or women with uncovered heads, let him know that he who so "contends" is alone in so doing. No apostle or church of God so taught. Since none of the apostles or churches of God taught that it would be permissible for women to pray with uncovered heads and men with covered heads, why in the name of reason will men teach it today?

OBJECTIONS:

Objections are often made against any Bible teaching and this one is no exception. We here notice a few of the ones we have heard:

1. OBJECTION:

   A hat does not mean to women today what a veil meant to women when Paul wrote these lines.

   ANSWER:

   We have already pointed out that nobody teaches that a woman must wear a hat but that something else will do as well as a hat. In the second place, the statement is true that it does not have the meaning today as it once did, but the reason is that preachers have failed to teach what the covering should mean! The fault does not lie in changing times but in the failure of preachers to faithfully teach God’s Word on the subject. By this same argument we could set aside the teaching of the Bible on the subject of marriage. Marriage does not mean today what it meant in Jesus’ day. Shall we, therefore, set aside His teaching simply because people ignore what the Bible says? Of course not. Neither should we set aside what I Corinthians 11:1-16 teaches just because preachers will not teach the truth on it. This objection then comes to naught.

2. OBJECTION:

   I Corinthians 11:1-16 pertains to the customs of Paul’s day and are not bound on us today.

   ANSWER:

   The comments on verses 4,7,9, and 16 show this to be an invalid objection. Please read those comments.

3. OBJECTION:

   I Corinthians 11:15 says that "woman’s hair is given her for a covering", hence the only covering spoken of is the woman’s hair.

   ANSWER:

   The comments on verses 5 and 6 show that two coverings are in the apostle’s mind, the hair being one covering and an artificial covering such as a shawl, a veil, a hat, etc., making two. Please read the comments on these verses.

4. OBJECTION:
   Paul said "If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom" and by that he meant that if anybody tries to cause trouble about this question we don’t have any such practice as woman praying with her head covered and a man with his head uncovered. It all just a custom anyway.
   ANSWER:
   This construction on what the apostle said in verse 16 is to to make him stultify himself with a vengeance! After showing that a woman should cover her head when she prays and that a man should not, and taking up or rather wasting fourteen verses to do it, the apostle now takes it all back simply because he is afraid somebody might argue about it! Believe it, who can? The Revised Standard Version evidently gives the true explanation of the text. See the comments on verse sixteen.
5. OBJECTION:
   If you are going to insist on "covering the head of woman" then the woman will have to cover her face for that is a part of her head.
   ANSWER:
   Jesus said in Matthew 6:17, "When thou fastest, anoint thy head and wash thy face…" recognizing a difference between the two.
6. OBJECTION:
   The word "prophesy" in verses 4 and 5 means to speak by inspiration, and since no man or woman today speaks by inspiration the rules laid down in I Corinthians 11:1-16 has passed away too.
   ANSWER:
   It is true that men today do not prophesy in the sense of speaking by inspiration, but I Corinthians 11:4 mentions "praying" as well as prophesying. The passage concerns prayer, too. Has prayer passed away? If it has not, then the rules laid down in 1 Corinthians 11 have not passed away. Not only so but while it is true that one does not speak by inspiration he speaks what inspiration revealed when he faithfully teaches the Scriptures. Hence I Corinthians 11 is still in effect.

These are some of the objections one usually hears concerning the teaching of the scripture in I Corinthians 11:1-16. These are not the only ones but the ones I have heard most frequently. None of them suffice to offset the teaching here given. Please study these things in your Bible and above all things, let us "keep the ordinances" that Paul therein "delivered" that we might "be praised" in the great day.

Additional Comments

Jim Sasser

The tract that you have just read, is one of if not the finest tract or teaching that I have been privileged to read upon this subject. I will say here and now that it is what I believe Paul is teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. I have requested and received permission to reproduce this tract from Hiram himself. I desire that you read it and meditate upon it in light of the Scriptures involved. If you have been holding a view contrary to the teaching herein, I trust that this will cause you to give up such view and accept the true teaching of the passage involved. I personally do not believe that there is anything in the New Testament scriptures concerning Christians that will give a man a contrary view to the one presented so well in this well-written tract. So, therefore, if a man has a contrary view, I am persuaded that he has received it from other sources than the New Testament.

I have had this passage under the deepest type of scrutiny in my 52 years of preaching, studying it with the help of sixty translations and twelve commentaries, but I have yet to see within the framework or context of the passage itself anything that would cause me to take any other stand or position on the passage than the one that I now hold and have held all of my preaching life. I have never heard a truly good argument against the position that Paul holds in these verses. I feel, as I believe Hiram feels, that I and he are espousing the same teaching that Paul has so able revealed and recorded for us with the help of the Holy Spirit.

I wish to make a comment of two here, not to change or detract from Hiram’s fine work but maybe to add some little thoughts that might be helpful. In verse 2, we have, "Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them to you." These traditions were from God and inspired. They are in contrast with the inspired traditions of men. I feel that this is borne out in such scriptures as II Thessalonians 2:15. Remember that Jesus Himself rebuked the Pharisees for holding to their man-made traditions to the detriment of the Word of God, Matthew 15:6. In verse 4, we read, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head." Barry’s Greek-English Interlinear of the New Testament says, "Having anything on his head," referring to an artificial covering. In verse 5, we have, "But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven." The Amplified Version and the Philips’ Translation along with many others say, bareheaded."

Brethren, sisters and friends, there are many more things that could be brought to bare that would help to clinch the position that has been taken by both Hiram and myself, along with many, many others, but these will more than suffice to show the honest and sincere seeker of truth the true meaning of I Corinthians 11:1-16. If you will study this with an open mind, I truly believe that you will reach the right conclusion concerning the teaching of the passage. May God help us all to "study to show ourselves approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth." (II Timothy 2:15).

Is the King James Bible too difficult to understand?

ANSWER:

1. THE KJV DOES HAVE SOME ANTIQUATED WORDS AND FORMS OF SPEECH, BUT THERE ARE NOT TOO MANY OF THESE.

The Trinitarian Bible Society publishes a list of 618 antiquated words. It is called Bible Word List. That is not very many, and most of them can be understood by considering the context. There are only about 300 antiquated words in the KJV that are so difficult that you really need a dictionary to understand them.

2. THE OVERALL READING LEVEL OF THE KJV IS NOT VERY HIGH.

The KJV is written on an 8th to 10th grade level. This has been proven from computer analysis made by Dr. Donald Waite. He ran several books of the KJV through the Right Writer program and found that Genesis 1, Exodus 1, and Romans 8 are on the 8th grade level; Romans 1 and Jude are on the 10th grade level; and Romans 3:1-23 is on the 6th grade level.

In the book The Art of Plain Talk (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946), Dr. Rudolf Flesch analyzed the reading level of various documents and rated them on a scale from Very Easy to Very Difficult. He testified, "The best example of very easy prose (about 20 affixes per 200 words) is the King James Version of the Bible..." Dr. Flesch became famous with the publication of his book Why Johnny Can't Read.

3. THE KJV HAS A SMALL VOCABULARY AND USES SIMPLE WORDS THROUGHOUT. MOST ARE ONLY ONE OR TWO SYLLABLES.

"While Shakespeare used a vocabulary of roughly 37,000 English words, the King James Bible used only 8,000" (John Wesley Sawyer, The Newe Testament by William Tindale, p. 10, quoting BBC TV, "The Story of English," copyright 1986).

4. THE KJV USES SIMPLE WORDS; MOST ARE ONLY ONE OR TWO SYLLABLES.
Consider Psalm 23, for example:

1 The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the
still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for
his name's sake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

Of the 119 words in this Psalm, only 24 are more than two syllables; 19 of those 24 words are two syllables and only 5 are three syllables.

This Psalm illustrates why the King James Bible is called "peerless among literary masterpieces," "unquestionably the most beautiful book in the world," "the noblest monument of English prose," "incomparably the best English translation in its rhythm," "the touchstone of affective power," "matchless in its literary qualities among all English translations," "the supremely literary English translation," "the touchstone of literary excellence," "stylistically the greatest English Bible translation ever produced." These quotes from various men are from the book The Word of God
in English by Leland Ryken (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002, pp. 270, 267, 258, 259, 206, 188, 163, 62, 51).

5. ACCURACY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SIMPLICITY IN A BIBLE VERSION.
The most important thing in a Bible translation is not simple language but faithfulness to the original. Dr. Waite made the following excellent comment in a recent edition of his newsletter:

"The Bible is not a first grade primer. It is God's book. It is a book that must be diligently read. It is only by 'searching the Scriptures' that we find what pertains to life and death. It tells of creation, of the mighty universe, of the future or the past, of the Mighty God and His wonders, of the Holy Spirit's ministry among Christians, of the Son of God's great sacrifice for sin, of home in Heaven for the believer, and of a fiery hell for the unsaved. How dare we assume that His Word can be capsulated in a comic book [or a version that reads 'like the morning newspaper']."

Also consider this statement by Leland Ryken, a professor of English at Wheaton College:

"An English Bible translation should strive for maximum readability only within the parameters of accurately expressing what the original actually says, including the difficulty inherent in the original text. The crucial question that should govern translation is what the original authors actually wrote, not our speculations over how they would express themselves
today or how we would express the content of the Bible. The fact that the New Testament was written in koine Greek should not lead translators to translate the Bible in a uniformly colloquial style. Finally, a good translation does not attempt to make the Bible simpler than it was for the original audience" (Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 100, 101).

6. PREVIOUS GENERATIONS EDUCATED THE PEOPLE UP TO THE BIBLE, AND THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD DO TODAY.

"Instead of lowering the Bible to a lowest common denominator, why should we not educate people to rise to the level required to experience the Bible in its full richness and exaltation? Instead of expecting the least from Bible readers, we should expect the most from them. The greatness of the Bible requires the best, not the least. ... The most difficult of modern English translations -- the King James -- is used most by segments of our society that are relatively uneducated as defined by formal education. ...
research has shown repeatedly that people are capable of rising to surprising and even amazing abilities to read and master a subject that is important to them. ... Previous generations did not find the King James Bible, with its theological heaviness, beyond their comprehension. Nor do readers and congregations who continue to use the King James translation find it incomprehensible. Neither of my parents finished grade school, and they learned to understand the King James Bible from their reading of it and the preaching they heard based on it. We do not need to assume a
theologically inept readership for the Bible. Furthermore, if modern readers are less adept at theology than they can and should be, it is the task of the church to educate them, not to give them Bible translations that will permanently deprive them of the theological content that is really present in the Bible." (Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 107, 109)

7. THERE ARE MANY TOOLS AVAILABLE TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE KJV.

Following are a few of these:
The Bible Word List from the Trinitarian Bible Society.

The Concise King James Bible Dictionary, available from Way of Life Literature.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

The Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity.

The Defined King James Bible available from Bible for Today, 800 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.

"If you abide in my word, then you are truly disciples of Mine: and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. . . . If the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." John 8.31, 32, 38

"DUSTY BIBLES LEAD TO DIRTY LIVES"

All the following verses are the evangelist's choice of the top 50 verses for memorizing: (Two verses together are considered one.) Every believer should know these verses by heart.

Gen. 3:15, Lev. 17:11, Joshua 24:15, 1 Sam.16:7, Job 19:25-27, Ps.9:17, 40:2,3, 51:4, 139:23,24; Prov. 3:5,6, 14:12; Isa. 1:18, 9:6, 26:3, 40:31, 45:22, 53:5, 55:8,9; 11, 59:2, 64:6; Jer. 13:23; Ezek. 3:18;
Matt. 10:28, 11:28-30; Mk. 8:36; Jn. 1:12, 1:29, 3:3, 3:16, 14:6, 15:13; Acts 4:12, 16:30b,31; Rom. 3:23, 5:12, 6:23, 2 Cor. 5:21; Eph. 2:8,9; Ph. 1:6; 1 Tim. 1:15, 2:5; 2 Tim. 2:15; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 9:22, 1 Pet. 5:8; 2 Pet. 1:20,21, 3:8; 1 Jn. 1:9; Rev. 3:20

EVANGELICAL DILEMMA

By William MacDonald

There is a CURIOUS PROBLEM today in the evangelical world---one that poses sobering questions for the church and for the individual believer. The PROBLEM in brief is this: a great army of personal soul-winners has been mobilized to reach the populace for Christ. They are EARNEST, ZEALOUS, ENTHUSIASTIC and PERSUASIVE. To their credit it must be said, that they are on the job. And it is one of the phenomena of our times, that they rack up an astounding number of conversions. Everything so far seems to be on the plus side.

But the PROBLEM is this: The CONVERSIONS DO NOT STICK. The fruit does not remain. Six months later there is nothing to be seen for all the aggressive evangelism. The capsule technique of soul winning has produced stillbirths (ie FALSE PROFESSIONS).

What lies at the back of all this MALPRACTICE in bringing souls to birth? Strangely enough, it begins with the valid determination to preach the PURE gospel of the grace of God. We want to keep the message SIMPLE – uncluttered by any suggestion that man can ever earn or deserve eternal life. Justification by faith alone, apart from the deeds of the law. Therefore the message is “ONLY BELIEVE>”

From there we reduce the message to a CONCISE FORMULA. For instance, the evangelical process is cut down to a few basic questions, and answers, as follows:

“Do you BELIEVE you are a sinner?”

“Yes”

“Do you BELIEVE Christ died for sinners?”

“Yes”

“Will you RECEIVE him as your saviour?”

“Yes”

“Then you ARE SAVED!”

“I am?”

“Yes, the Bible says you ARE SAVED.”

At first blush the method and the message might seem above criticism. But on closer study we are forced to have second thoughts and to conclude that – we have OVERSIMPLIFIED the gospel.

The FIRST FATAL FLAW --- is the missing emphasis on REPENTANCE. There can be NO true conversion without CONVICTION OF SIN. It is one thing to agree that I am a sinner; it is quite another thing to experience the convicting ministry of the HOLY SPIRIT in my life. Unless I have a Spirit-wrought consciousness of my utterly LOST CONDITION, I can never exercise saving faith. It is useless to tell unconvicted sinners to believe on Jesus---that message is only for those who KNOW they are lost. We sugar-coat the gospel when we de-emphasize man’s lost condition. With that kind of watered-down message people receive the Word with joy instead of deep contrition. They do not have deep roots, and though they might endure for a while, they soon give up all profession when persecution or trouble comes (Matthew 13 v 21). We have forgotten that the message is REPENTANCE TOWARD GOD as well as FAITH IN OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

A SECOND SERIOUS OMISSION --- is a missing emphasis on the LORDSHIP OF CHRIST. A light, jovial mental assent that Jesus is Saviour misses the point. Jesus is FIRST LORD, then Saviour. The New Testament always places His LORDSHIP before His Saviourhood. Do we present the full implications of His LORDSHIP to the people? HE ALWAYS DID.

A THIRD DEFECT in our message is our tendency to keep the terms of DISCIPLESHIP hidden until a decision has been made for Jesus. Our Lord never did this. The message He preached included the CROSS as well as the CROWN. “HE never hid His scars to win disciples.” He revealed the worst along with the best, then told His listeners to COUNT THE COST. We popularize the message and promise fun.

THE RESULT OF ALL THIS is that we have people believing without knowing what they believe. In many cases they have NO DOCTRINAL BASIS for their decision. They do not know the IMPLICATIONS of commitment to Christ. They have never experienced the mysterious, miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.

And of course we have others who are TALKED INTO A PROFESSION because of the slick salesmanship techniques of the soul-winner. Or some who want to please the affable. Personable young man with the winning smile. And some who only want to get id of this religious interloper who intruded on their privacy. Satan laughs when their conversions are announced on earth.

I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE SEVERAL QUESTIONS that might lead us to some changes in our STRATEGY of evangelism.

The FIRST QUESTION: Can we generally expect people to make an intelligent commitment to Christ, the first time they hear the gospel? Certainly, there is the exceptional case where a person has already been prepared by the Holy Spirit. But generally speaking, the process involves sowing the seed, watering it, then sometime later reaping the harvest. In our mania for instant conversion, we have forgotten that conception, gestation, and birth do not occur on the same day.

The SECOND QUESTION: Can capsule presentation of the gospel really do justice to so great a message? As one who has written several gospel tracts, I confess to a certain sense of misgiving in even attempting to condense the good news into four small pages. Would we not be wiser to give people the full presentation as it is found in the gospels, or in the New Testament?

The THIRD QUESTION: Is all this pressure for decisions really Scriptural? Where in the New Testament were people ever pressured into making a profession? We justify our practise by saying that if only one out of ten is genuine, it is worth it. But what about the other nine---DISILLUSIONED, BITTER, perhaps DECEIVED enroute to Hell by a FALSE PROFESSION?

The FOURTH QUESTION: Is all this boasting about conversions really accurate? You’ve met the of the man who solemnly tells you of ten people he contacted that day and all of them were saved. A young doctor testified that every he goes to a new city, he looks in the phone book for people with his last name. Then he calls them one by one and leads them through the 4 steps to salvation. Amazingly enough, every one of them opens the door of his heart to Jesus. I don’t want to doubt the honesty of people like this, but am I wrong in thinking that they are extremely naïve? WHERE ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAVED? They cannot be found.

In CONCLUSION: What it all means is that we should SERIOUSLY RE-EXAMINE our streamlined CAPSULE EVANGELISM. We should be willing to spend time preaching the gospel, laying a SOLID FOUNDATION doctrinally for faith to rest on. We should stress the NECESSITY -FOR REPENTANCE – a complete about-face with regard to sin. We should stress the FULL IMPLICATIONS of the LORDSHIP OF CHRIST and the CONDITIONS of TRUE DISCPLESHIP. We should explain what belief really involves. We should be willing to wait for the Holy Spirit produce genuine conviction of sin. Then we should be ready to lead the person to saving faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

If we do this, we’ll have less astronomical figures of so-called conversions, but more genuine cases of spiritual rebirth.

[Reprinted from “HELP and FOOD” Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune NJ]

Best Advice ever

Mary, mother of Jesus, in John 2:5. Speaking to the servants, regarding Jesus, she said:

Do whatever he tells you.

Shall we scratch the surface of Mormonism?

17. Church Prejudice Against Blacks

From the translated scroll written by Abraham comes the important doctrine that descendants of Cain (taught by Mormons to be African-Americans) are unworthy to hold the priesthood, the authority to act in God’s name. This clearly racist policy was changed in 1978 through another “revelation.” While Blacks could always be baptized into the Mormon Church, up until 1978 they could not hold the priesthood. This excluded them from the “saving ordinances” of the temple, and thus kept them from exaltation as the Mormons defined it.

Consider the following declarations by church Prophets and Apostles:

President Brigham Young:

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses 10:110)

President Joseph Fielding Smith:

“There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.” (Doctrines of Salvation, p. 61)

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:

“Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them… Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned…” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 343)

Apostle Mark E. Petersen:

“God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death…

“The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. “No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood” (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a “Nation of Priesthood holders…

“The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth…We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject…

“I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace’…

“Now let’s talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation…

“When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation…

“Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them…

“The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse — as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there…

“Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing - what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.

“Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood…This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa–if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.” (Apostle Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems - As They Affect The Church, Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)

Apologist Response

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie explained how earlier statements by church leaders on African-Americans and the priesthood should be disregarded because their understanding was limited at the time:

“There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

“We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore.” (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, All Are Alike Unto God, pp. 1-2)

Marvin Perkins explained the Book of Mormon teaching that those “cursed” with a “skin of blackness” could remove the “curse” by coming unto God:

“There are Blacks here today who are members of the Church. Why have we not turned White? But there are Blacks who have joined the Church, married White spouse, and their children became lighter than their Black parents. Then those kids grew up to marry those that believe as they do, which most are White, so they married White, and their kids became even lighter, and so on. Makes you think a bit, doesn’t it? (Marvin Perkins, Blacks and the Priesthood, FAIR)”

President Spencer W. Kimball described the process through which the church decided to bestow all church privileges upon African-Americans:

“It went on for some time as I was searching for this, because I wanted to be sure. We held a meeting of the Council of the Twelve in the temple on the regular day. We considered this very seriously and thoughtfully and prayerfully.
“I asked the Twelve not to go home when the time came. I said, ‘now would you be willing to remain in the temple with us?’ And they were. I offered the final prayer and I told the Lord if it wasn’t right, if He didn’t want this change to come in the Church that I would he true to it all the rest of my life, and I’d fight the world against it if that’s what He wanted.

“We had this special prayer circle, then I knew that the time had come. I had a great deal to fight, of course, myself largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life till my death and fight for it and defend it as it was. But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it.” (President Spencer W. Kimball, Deseret News, Church Section, January 6, 1979, p. 19)

According to President Gordon B. Hinckley, he simply doesn’t know why Blacks were denied the priesthood until 1978:

“HN: Until 1978 no person of color attained the priesthood in your church. Why did it take so long to overcome the racism?

“GBH: I don’t know. I don’t know. I can only say that. (long pause) But it’s here now. We’re carrying on a very substantial work on Africa for instance and in Brazil. We’re working among their people developing them. We’ve had them among the leadership of the Church and they’re able to do a great work and we love them and appreciate them and we respect them and we are trying to help them.” (Gordon B. Hinckley Interview, ZDF German Television, Salt Lake City, Utah, January 29, 2002, Conducted by Helmut Nemetschek)