Tuesday, November 29, 2016

In Difficult Moments of Life

for my suffering friends

In difficult moments of life,
When sorrow constricts the heart,
A wondrous prayer to God
I steadily do recite.

              There is a blessed strength
In the accord of living words,
Within them a sacred charm
So indescribably breathes.

A burden is shed from the soul,
Doubt swiftly disappears,
Belief returns, and so do tears,
And all is light and clear.

- M. Yu. Lermontov

Translated from Russian by Natalia Sheniloff (source

Heavenly and soul-soothing hymn "Praise the Lord" 

Monday, November 28, 2016

An Open Letter to Egalitarian Friends about Liberalism by Wayne Grudem

A personal word from Wayne Grudem to his egalitarian friends who have not walked the path of liberalism. He writes the following in the introduction to Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?

On a more personal level, I want to say that I consider a number of the authors whom I name in this book to be my friends. And I consider a number of the executives at many of the colleges, seminaries, and publishing houses that I name in this book to be my friends as well. I want to say something to you at the outset.

I realize that many of you have not personally moved along the path toward liberalism that I describe in this book. 

You simply decided (for various reasons) that you thought the Bible does not prohibit women from being pastors or elders today, and you have changed nothing else in your theological system. 

You haven’t moved to liberalism and you wonder why I wrote this book arguing that evangelical feminism leads to liberalism.

In fact, I agree with your strong desire to see women’s gifts and ministries developed and encouraged in our churches, and I have written elsewhere about the many important ministries that I think should be open to both men and women.

In addition, I realize that most of you do not think you are leading churches and schools toward liberalism at all. After all, you personally love Jesus Christ and love the Bible and teach it effectively. 

How, you might think, could that contribute to liberalism? And furthermore, you know others who take the same approaches, and they haven’t become liberal, have they?

In fact, I have a number of egalitarian friends who have not moved one inch toward liberalism in the rest of their doctrinal convictions, and who still strongly believe and defend the inerrancy of the Bible. 

I include among this number strong defenders of biblical inerrancy such as Stan Gundry (senior vice president and editor in chief of the Book Group at Zondervan Publishing Company); Jack Hayford (founding pastor of the Church on the Way, Van Nuys, California); 

Walter Kaiser (former president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary); Roger Nicole (former professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and at Reformed Theological Seminary-Orlando); and Grant Osborne (professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois). 

These men are respected senior scholars and leaders in the evangelical world. If they can hold to an evangelical feminist or egalitarian position without moving toward liberalism themselves, then how can I argue in this book that evangelical feminism is a new path toward liberalism?

I do so because of the nature of the arguments used by evangelical feminists, arguments that I explain in some detail in the following pages. 

I realize that a person can adopt one of these arguments and not move any further than that single step down the path to liberalism for the rest of his life. Many of these leaders have done just that. But I think the reason they have not moved further toward liberalism is that they have not followed the implications of the kind of argument they are using and have not taken it into other areas of their convictions.

However, others who follow them will do so. Francis Schaeffer warned years ago that the first generation of Christians who lead the church astray doctrinally change only one key point in their doctrinal position and change nothing else, so it can seem for a time that the change is not too harmful.

But their followers and disciples in the next generation will take the logic of their arguments much further and will advocate much more extensive kinds of error.

I think that is happening in a regular, predictable way in evangelical feminism, and I have sought to document that in this book.

Therefore, to all of my egalitarian friends, I ask you to consider carefully the arguments and the pattern of arguments that I discuss in this book. 

You may think you are doing nothing wrong, or you may think that if you adopt a doubtful or questionable interpretation here or there, it won’t matter much. But I am asking you to stop and consider what is happening in the evangelical feminist movement as a whole, how the trend is to undermine the authority of Scripture again and again at this verse or in that phrase or this chapter or that context.

You may think your own role in this does not influence the larger debate, but, like the soldier in a battle line who thinks that his place is not that important, if you give way at one point you may provide a huge opening for an enemy to flood in and overrun large sections of the church.

It is easy to pick up a new article or book, skim through the argument, and think, “Well, I can’t agree with his (or her) approach to this verse, or that argument, but at least the book is supporting what I know to be right: the inclusion of women in all aspects of ministry. Maybe this argument or that one is not acceptable, but I can approve the result just the same.” 

And so, one after another, the egalitarian arguments that I list in this book accumulate and the Christian public accepts them.

But what if the assumptions made, and the interpretative principles used, actually do undermine the authority of Scripture time and again? 

Does that make any difference to you? If you allow arguments to stand that undermine Scripture again and again, just because you think the author “got the right answer for the wrong reason,” isn’t that eroding the foundation of your church for the future?

If Scripture-eroding arguments go unchallenged in your circles, how can you protect your church or your organization in the future? 

While you personally may not change much else in your beliefs, your students and others who follow your leadership will take the principles you have used much further and will abandon much more than you expect.

Please consider what I say in these pages. I hope you will be persuaded, and will perhaps even change your mind on some of the arguments you have used, or even on the conclusions you have drawn. 

But even if at the end you are still convinced that an egalitarian position is correct, will you at least decide to challenge publicly some of the evident steps toward liberalism that other egalitarians have supported?

With all of the steps toward liberalism that I detail in these pages, it surprises me to see how few egalitarian leaders publicly object to any of these arguments. I hope I can count on some of you to do so.

Feminism, Theological liberalism and Totalitarianism in the 21st century: "Gender Mainstreaming" and "Yogyakarta Principles"

Did you know?

that since 1999 Gender Mainstreaming (*1) is the “main guiding principle” of the German Federal Government?

that the goal of Gender Mainstreaming is not only the creation of “substantial equality” between men and women, but, rather, the dissolution of heterosexuality as the norm?

that Judith Butler aims to abolish “compulsory heterosexuality” by means ofsubversive confusion and multiplication of gender identities” and that she was awarded the €50,000 Theodor W. Adorno Prize of the City of Frankfurt on September 11, 2012?

that Alfred Kinsey was a sadomasochist, who attained his alleged representative
results by means of sexual abuse of children?

that since 1999 the European Parliament has adopted five resolutions which call for the prosecution of “homophobia”, defined as “irrational fear and rejection of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender persons”?

that the “Yogyakarta Principles”(*2) seek totalitarian changes in society to serve the interests of the LGBT minority?

that pornography is addictive and that 20% of male adolescents consume pornography every day, 42% weekly?

that by 2010, only 2.3 percent of people with homosexual orientation (about
0.06% of the population) have made use of the new legal institution of registered
partnership, which is to be totally adapted to the marriage of man and woman?

that the Sex Education Network (World Health Organization, International Planned Parenthood, German State institutions) promotes the “right” of children to have sexual activity as early as kindergarten age and teaches children that every kind of sexual activity and same-sex-marriage is acceptable.

that social and legal discrimination against Christians in Europe has grown
significantly, with over 800 cases having been documented during the past five

that the Green Party in Germany (Bündnis90/Die Grünen) introduced a bill on April 25, 2013, which seeks to ban therapeutic services for minors with homosexual orientation?

-Gabriele Kuby, The Global Sexual Revolution:  Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom


*1 [Gender Mainstreaming] (source)

CWR: What exactly is “gender mainstreaming”?

Gabriele Kuby: The term “gender” was introduced into official documents at the UN’s International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 held in Cairo, Egypt, and at the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 held in Beijing, China. 

The idea was to create the linguistic vehicle for a new ideology. “Gender” was to replace the term “sex” in the sense of referring to the binary sexual order of man and woman. Then radical feminist ideas and the LGBT agenda united and gave birth to the idea of “gender mainstreaming.”

The term “gender” implies that a person’s sexual identity need not necessarily be identical to that person’s biological sex. It breaks down the binary male-female sexual nature of human beings.

This dissolution of the binary sexual nature of man and woman serves two primary purposes: 

First, it aims to destroy the so-called “gender hierarchy” between man and woman. In other words, there are—according to gender theory—not two but many gender identities, which can include lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transsexual men and women. 

Second, it aims to dissolve heterosexuality as the norm. This gender-based conception of man and woman aims to enter the mainstream of society—and, indeed, this is already happening at an incredible speed !

*2 [the Yogyakarta Principles]

CWR: In Chapter V, you focus on the Yogyakarta Principles. What are they?

Gabriele Kuby: The Yogyakarta Principles [on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity] were formulated by a group of so-called human rights experts meeting in the Indonesia town of Yogyakarta. They were then presented to the world in March 2007 at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

This media event gave the world the impression that it was an official UN document. It is not! But if you do a quick search on the internet, you will be amazed to see how many governments, parties, and organizations are behind it.

I devoted a whole chapter to this document because it clearly illustrates the totalitarian drive of the LGBT agenda

For example, Principle 29 calls for the establishment of “independent and effective institutions and procedures to monitor the formulation and enforcement of laws and policies to ensure the elimination of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” 

This means that a super-structure above the level of the nation-state should be established to reorganize and control the whole of society towards the privileges of the LGBT movement.

I urge people to take a minute and read the Yogyakarta Principles—or at least just this one Principle 29—in order to get a sense of the document’s totalitarian agenda.

Principle 29


Everyone whose human rights, including rights addressed in these Principles, are violated is entitled to have those directly or indirectly responsible for the violation, whether they are government officials or not, held accountable for their actions in a manner that is proportionate to the seriousness of the violation. There should be no impunity for perpetrators of human rights violations related to sexual orientation or gender identity.

States shall:

a) Establish appropriate, accessible and effective criminal, civil, administrative and other procedures, as well as monitoring mechanisms, to ensure the accountability of perpetrators for human rights violations related to sexual orientation or gender identity;

b) Ensure that all allegations of crimes perpetrated on the basis of the actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim, including such crimes described in these Principles, are investigated promptly and thoroughly, and that, where appropriate evidence is found, those responsible are prosecuted, tried and duly punished;

c)  Establish independent and effective institutions and procedures to monitor the formulation and enforcement of laws and policies to ensure the elimination of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity;

d)  Remove any obstacles preventing persons responsible for human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity from being held accountable.

Related article:

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Within the Veil: Meditation on Heavenly Worship

God is present with us—let us fall and worship,
Holy is the place;

God is in the midst, our souls are silent,
Bowed before His Face.

Lord, we kneel before Thee,
Awed by love Divine,

We of Thee unworthy
Own that we are Thine.

Gladly cast before Thee all delights and pleasures,
All our hoarded store—

Lord, behold our hearts, our souls, and bodies,
Thine, and ours no more.

We, O God, Thine only,
Nevermore our own—

Thine the praise and honour,
Thine, and Thine alone.

Thou Who fillest all things, in Thee, living, moving,
Evermore are we;

Shoreless sea unsounded, mystery and wonder,
Sinks my soul in Thee—

I in Thee—no longer
Bound in self's dark prison,
And the life that moves me,

Fills me, Christ arisen.
Thou the Light that fillest all the endless heavens,

Shinest on my face,
As the tender flowers joyfully unfolding

In their silent grace,
Whilst the Sun beholds them—

Thus my soul is still,
Thine the glorious power,

Thine the mighty will.
Mine but to be simple; in the fields of heaven

All my sweet employ,
Loving and delighting, as a child that singeth
With unbiden joy—

As an eagle soaring
Up the radiant skies,

Even now to find Thee
In Thy Paradise.

-Gerhard Tersteegen

for my protestant readers

for my orthodox/eastern church readers

The Prophet: fully accepted of God and totally rejected by men

Excerpts from Picture of a Prophet
by Leonard Ravenhill

The prophet in his day is fully accepted of God and totally rejected by men.

The prophet comes to set up that which is upset. His work is to call into line those who are out of line! He is unpopular because he opposes the popular in morality and spirituality. 

In a day of faceless politicians and voiceless preachers, there is not a more urgent national need than that we cry to God for a prophet! The function of the prophet, as Austin-Sparks once said, "has almost always been that of recovery."

The prophet is God's detective seeking for a lost treasure. The degree of his effectiveness is determined by his measure of unpopularity. Compromise is not known to him.

      He has no price tags.
He is totally "otherworldly."

      He is unquestionably controversial and unpardonably hostile.

      He marches to another drummer!

      He breathes the rarefied air of inspiration.

      He is a "seer" who comes to lead the blind.

      He lives in the heights of God and comes into the valley 
      with a "thus saith the Lord."

      He shares some of the foreknowledge of God and 
so is aware of impending judgment.

      He lives in "splendid isolation."

      He is forthright and outright, but he claims no birthright.

      His message is "repent, be reconciled to God or else...!"

      His prophecies are parried.

      His truth brings torment, but his voice is never void.

      He is the villain of today and the hero of tomorrow.

      He is excommunicated while alive and exalted when dead!

      He is dishonored with epithets when breathing and 
honored with epitaphs when dead.

      He is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, 
      but few "make the grade" in his class.

      He is friendless while living and famous when dead.
      He is against the establishment in ministry; 
      then he is established as a saint by posterity.

      He eats daily the bread of affliction while he ministers, 
      but he feeds the Bread of Life to those who listen.

      He walks before men for days
      but has walked before God for years.

      He is a scourge to the nation before he is scourged by the nation.

      He announces, pronounces, and denounces!

      He has a heart like a volcano and his words are as fire.

      He talks to men about God.

      He carries the lamp of truth amongst heretics 
      while he is lampooned by men.

      He faces God before he faces men, but he is self-effacing.

      He hides with God in the secret place, 
      but he has nothing to hide in the marketplace.

      He is naturally sensitive but supernaturally spiritual.

      He has passion, purpose and pugnacity.

      He is ordained of God but disdained by men.

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. Gal 1:10 (ESV)

Friday, November 25, 2016

Holiness and Purity in French Christian Worship; The birth of the youtube channel "Richesses du répertoire chrétien" (=Richness of the Christian Songs Directory) By Sister Caroline

a beautiful french scenery, source

Dear readers, imagine that you are living in a city where there are five churches. Two of them are fairly liberal Protestant churches which deny the inspiration of the Bible blatantly. 

The remaining two are not liberal but one is a rock'n' roll-type of modern evangelical, seeker-friendly church and the other is a Pentecostal church which is preaching the Prosperity Gospel. The last one is a Catholic church whose priest is said to be a devout man of God. 

So, if you are a Bible-believing evangelical/pentecostal  Christian, which church would you choose to go?

Actually, this is not a hypothetical question but the bare reality which some of our Bible-believing Christians are facing in a certain city in France. So, you can imagine how hard it might be for one believer to be under such a dry spiritual environment. But, His Spirit is working right in the middle of the spiritual desert in France.

Our dear French sister Caroline has just established a Christian music channel called, "Richesses du répertoirechrétien" (=Richness of the Christian Songs Directory).

And she has already uploaded a very beautiful French hymn called, "Si Jésus quelqu’un veut te suivre" (=Jesus, if someone wants to follow You) which was composed by Mission Timothéewhich is a conservative Protestant church founded in 1972.

English translation

1. Jesus, if someone wants to follow you
He should always take up his cross.
He musts renounce to live for his own
And be ready to lose everything because of You.

Chorus :

O Lord You know I love You
I don’t want to care about myself
So I renounce myself
In order to follow my course with joy.
Your promise sustains me :
« He who loses his life shall find it »
In faith I trust your Word
Thus Your love will accomplish

2. Do you like your father or your mother,
Your wife or your children more than Me ?
If it’s your own life that you prefer
You can’t be worthy of Me.

3. Be crucified to the world
May the world be less and less attractive to you
So that the life of Christ abounds
Don’t be an enemy of the cross.


Our Heavenly Father, we come to worship You with a holy fear and sweet adoration. You know the desperate spiritual needs in the land of France, Belgium and other French-speaking nations. Many sincere believers are crying out for holiness and purity in Thy sanctuary. They want to worship You in spirit and in truth. 

We thank You for sending Caroline in our midst. We thank You for her genuine faith and passion for You and Your Kingdom. Please bless her heart and her youtube channel "Richesses du répertoire chrétien." May the holy and reverent hymns of God in her channel will fill the hills, mountains and spiritual deserts of many seeking souls in distant lands and nations. 

May the songs and spirituality of Mission Timothée will be the rebirth of French Reformation in the 21st century. In Jesus' name, we pray. Amen.

Related articles;

Here is the link for people who want to add subtitles to Caroline's channel :

The necessity of being fully-possessed by Him; An encouragement for young passionate Christian girls who are suffering from emotional instabilities

Take my love, my Lord, I pour
At Thy feet its treasure store.
Take myself and I will be
Ever, only, all for Thee.

-Frances R. Havergal, 1874

"Ever, only, all for Thee." At an age of 38, Miss Havergal wrote the above beautiful consecration hymn. Another passionate Christian woman and a missionary to India exclaimed;

Oh, Make me Thy fuel, Flame of God!

Amy Wilson Carmichael

It is a wonderful prayer, isn't it? But imagine you have become His fuel, flame of God indeed. Then what will happen? Do people rush to approach you, embrace you and accept you as you are? No way! The opposite is true. The people around you start to run away from you and even dismiss you, because of your extraordinary heat, passion and pure fire. 

Think of the life and character of Elijah, His fiery prophet. He was a flame of God, who proclaimed that the LORD of hosts liveth (1 Kings 18:15) and dared to confront the Baal worship preachers and prophets. 

Does he have a big supporting group then? No. Basically he was alone. To put it in other words, his divine mission and His flame in him somehow forced him to be treated by others like this. There was no other choice.

Great eagles fly alone; great lions hunt alone; great souls walk alone-alone with God. Such loneliness is hard to endure, and impossible to enjoy unless God accompanied. Prophets are lone men; they walk alone, pray alone and God makes them alone. 
-Leonard Ravenhill

Struggling point for young passionate sisters

So, if you are like me, you have a burning passion for Christ and His Kingdom. In a word, you are a living volcano in this generation. And in our dictionary,--fortunately or unfortunately--, there are no words like "moderate", "mediocre", "average" etc...

No matter how we try to be moderate, somehow our inherent passionate tendency will drive us to be "radical" and "extraordinary." Our cups are overfilled and boiled. 

However, many of us have common struggles; that is our emotional ups and downs. Because you have been rejected by people around you so many times so far (because of the above tendency) that, deep inside you, there exists an anxiety/fear to be rejected again or a longing for acceptance, which makes you feel vulnerable, insecure or deserted.


Now let me share with you how I have deal with these issues. First;

Nobody will (can) fully accept you or embrace you, expect God.

Let us face and calmly accept this simple fact. And accept it literally. Though it sounds like a solemn, merciless statement, I've learned that, to accept this simple truth is the starting point of our joyful spiritual journey. Why "joyful"? Because it is where our second climbing point starts; that is,

It is necessary--absolutely necessary--for young passionate sisters to be fully possessed by Him!

We are volcanoes, right? And the work of the living volcano is eruption. Natural and carnal eruption is dangerous, however if the whole volcano is fully possessed by Him, then her spiritual eruption brings incredible eternal fruits for His Kingdom!

So, young ladies, let us consecrate ourselves to Him fully and unreservedly today. O Lord, here we are. Possess us fully and make us Thy fuel, flame of God in this generation. In Jesus' name. Amen. 

Thursday, November 24, 2016

[Re-blog] Straightforward English Helps us Understand Headcovering; A Response To Pastor Steven Anderson's Sermon "Head Coverings in Light of the Bible"

written by Sister Jessica Roldan

Last night, I watched Steven Anderson’s sermon “Head Coverings in Light of the Bible” for the first time. For several months I had been planning to view it, but hadn’t felt quite up to the agitation I suspected would result.

Sadly, it was all I expected, and more. Pastor Anderson does not believe in headcovering, but thinks that long hair is all a woman needs to “cover” her while praying or prophesying. He believes that, and adamantly so.

I did not appreciate his approach. He referred to the revered Christian veil in a mocking tone, calling it a “bonnet,” a “coffee filter,” and a “sombrero” which elicited laughs from his congregation; it seems to me he did this intentionally. He also stated that headcovering is a false doctrine, basically equating it with heresy. He finished by warning of the dangers of immodestly drawing attention to oneself by wearing a headcovering.

At least he acknowledged that headcovering is a spreading, popular movement! So much so, in fact, that he felt compelled to caution his congregation against it.

The video was hard for me to watch, but I managed to get through the whole thing. The hardest part about it was that I have watched another video sermon by him on the topic of birth control, and on which I agreed with him completely. It was a great message, and I respected his boldness in addressing that controversial issue. 

However, I did not feel the same way after viewing his sermon on headcovering. One of the points (among many) which I found intriguing at the same time I found it disappointing, was his insistence on disregarding the Greek and focusing mainly on the English.

Well, the New Testament was not originally written in English. It seems logical to me that if we want to acquire a deeper understanding of the meaning of a text, it would certainly be useful to consult a Greek word dictionary! Sometimes meaning can be lost across translation; this is something I can relate to as a bilingual English/Spanish speaker. 

I know that those who translated the Bible into English tried their best, but at the same time I am able to admit that English has limitations. I have heard that the Greek language actually has more words (thousands more?) than English, and because of that, it has greater flexibility for communicating complex ideas. But, we are restricted to our own, English word forms. (By the way, I am not KJV only, which he staunchly is.)

However, I think he is right in emphasizing the importance of doing our best to understand the basic English meaning before diving into the Greek, and of letting the Bible interpret itself.

Therefore, that is what I will now attempt to do, in my own simple way. Let’s look at the English, and do our best to make sense of it.

1 Corinthians 11 
1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 
3 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.Up to here, I have no disagreement with Pastor Anderson in his interpretation. 
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Basic English: if a man has his head covered–in other words, there is something on top of it–he dishonors Christ, his spiritual head. When I say that something is covered, I always mean that there is something concealing what is beneath. I cover my bed with a blanket. I cover my walls with paint. I cover my pasta with sauce. Covered = on top of.

Having his head covered means that there is something on top of, concealing, his head. What would that be? The obvious answer is: a piece of cloth, since that is what I think of first with my English-speaking brain.

However, even if by some great stretch it was not a cloth and was his hair instead, then it would have to mean that for him to have any hair at all would be dishonorable, since hair covers the head. The text doesn’t say ” having his neck covered,” or “having his back covered”; that is what it should say if long hair were the issue, since long hair doesn’t only cover the head, but the neck and maybe even the back, too. 

But, it says, “having his head covered,” so it is the head which is in question, and even very short hair still covers the head. So, if the covering is the hair, then men need to shave it all off, so their heads won’t be covered.

Another point worthy of consideration: why is it that “praying or prophesying” are specifically mentioned? Because if it is a shame for a man to have long hair (and it is, as pointed out later in the passage), then it would be a shame for him all the time! Why are we not told instead, “every man at church, at work, at home, or on the street, having long hair, dishonors his head”? 

It seems clear to me that the reason praying or prophesying are pinpointed is because we are meant to understand that the covering is something removable, something that is only intended for certain times and not for others. A man cannot shave his head for praying or prophesying and then grow it all back when he’s done. Either he’s shaved all the time, or he’s not. It’s an all-the-time deal.

5 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.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Now for the woman. If she prays or prophesies with her head uncovered she dishonors her head, the man. When I read the word uncovered, I immediately think of something not on top of. So, if my table is uncovered, it doesn’t have a tablecloth on it. If my shoulders are uncovered, it’s because I didn’t put on a shirt with sleeves.

What does the text mean when it says that if she will not be covered, let her also be shorn? In basic English that is the same as saying, “if she won’t put something on top of her head, like a cloth, let her hair be cut off, too.” But, if hair were the covering, this verse wouldn’t make sense, since it would read, “if she won’t grow her hair long, then let her cut her hair short.” How can she cut her hair off if it’s already cut off?

If her head is uncovered, it is “even all one as if” she were shaven. In everyday English as if doesn’t mean “exactly the same as”; it means “like,” “similar to,” “kind of close.” If her head is uncovered, it’s similar to having her head shaved or her hair cut short. 

Similar to, but not the same as, because having short hair and being uncovered are not the same thing. It is shameful to have her hair cut short, to have it shaved, or to have it uncovered by not placing a cloth over it while praying or prophesying; those things may be equally shameful (or close to it), but they are notidentical actions.

In the video, Pastor Anderson makes it a big point to “prove” that being shorn and being shaven are the same thing. I think his logic runs like this: If the hair is the covering, then not being covered means having short hair; so, when the text says to “let her also be shorn,” it cannot mean having her hair cut short since by his interpretation it is already cut short, so we should understand the word “shorn” to be synonymous with “shaven.” 

We should assume that it is saying that a woman with already short hair should also be shaven, as an added level of shame; in other words, she should just go ahead and shave it all off to bring things to their logical conclusion. So, short hair is shaved off and becomes no hair.

He wants it to look like the only matter in view is whether she has long hair or short, and if she has short hair, that she should shave it off; he’s trying to take the cloth covering out of the equation. He is forced to interpret “shorn” as being the same as “shaven” since to interpret it as “cut short” would cause his reasoning to fall apart; his interpretation would no longer make sense.

He spends much time discussing the meaning of the word “shorn.” However, just as in English, in other languages too, one word can have different uses. So, to “trim the tree” can have at least two different meanings, depending on whether we are talking about a Christmas tree, or a tree out in the garden. 

I don’t think he really proves anything, not even with his sheep example: sheep have their hair shorn off, but honestly, it looks to me more of a cutting off than a shaving off. Nowadays they use electric razors, but back then they used shears (or sharp sickle-type knives, am I right?). Shears are scissors. As in, “the stylist used her shears instead of her electrical clipper to trim his hair.” So, being shorn and being shaven are not necessarily the same thing.

He reasons as he does, I think, to avoid the obvious conclusion that one would normally come to: a woman who refuses to put something on her head, like a veil, should either cut her hair short or shave it off altogether. If she will not wear a headcovering, let her also be shorn. There’s nothing fancy about that, it just makes sense.

 7 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. 
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Here we see two more reasons for covering. The first reason was given in verse three: 

1) God’s design for an authority structure, a hierarchy of roles, a headship order. Now, we are given two further reasons: 
2) the need to keep God’s glory (the man) uncovered and to keep man’s glory (the woman, and the woman’s hair) covered; and  
3) the creation order (the order and manner in which God created the male and the female.

Here’s my question: what covers up glory? How do you cover up brightness, splendor, radiance? By putting something over it, right? If a woman has long hair, that cannot be a sufficient covering since her hair is still showing, her glory is still shining. She must put something on over her hair in order to conceal her glory.

Additionally, the text says her hair is given her for a covering, not the covering. Pastor Anderson dismisses this point, but I think it’s important. 

In normal English, there can be a big difference between the word a and the word the. “I married a man,” and “I married the man,” have more than a little difference in meaning! A woman having long hair is what nature teaches is appropriate, forming an example that sets a precedent for the cloth covering.  However, special revelation reveals more detail that nature by itself does not.

Nature forms the supportive, fourth reason for covering. The fifth reason for covering, the angels, is not addressed in the sermon, and neither will I address it here.

A quick note: I usually lump reason number one (hierarchy and headship order) with reason number three (creation order) since I see them as being the same. Perhaps I am wrong to lump them together; I will continue to consider this. There may be a reason they are mentioned separately, and it may have to do with the fact that God’s authority structure seems to have changed some what after Christ’s death and resurrection.

In fact, a whole lot changed after that! We no longer need priests to minister to God for us; even the priests had to offer sacrifices for their own sins, which was never adequate, not even for them. Christ formed the bridge for us to have direct access to God. 

So, man is not supposed to cover his head to demonstrate the direct relationship there now exists between (believing) mankind and God. Woman, in order to demonstrate the preservation of human roles, covers her head: men and women’s roleshave not changed, but mankind’s relationship with God has. 

(I may be in error here on some points, but I need time to think about it. For now, please let me know what you think about it, too; that could help me to clarify this issue for myself.)

Pastor Anderson tries to show that since God commanded the priests to cover up with turbans in the Old Testament, and since what is a dishonor to Christ now would have been a dishonor to Christ then, therefore headcovering is not the real issue here, but hair lengths. 

However, after pondering over his reasoning for some time, I think it makes more sense to think that the headcovering practicehas indeed changed since Old Testament times because our relationship to God has changed.

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

Pastor Anderson does not address this verse. What custom did the churches of God have? History reveals that the churches did not teach the long hair is the coveringview, but they did expect women to place a veil over the top of their heads before coming together for the public assembly of believers. 

Their writings confirm this, and multiple paintings attest to it. We can see with our own eyes what their custom was. Any man who contradicts that custom is a contentious man.

It pains me to say this, but many leaders I respect greatly “seem to be contentious” in the area of headcovering. I wish that were not so. Please join me in praying that God would bring the truth to light for them, so they could see this issue clearly and bring their preaching in line with the Bible’s plain teaching.

If you end up watching the video, could you please share your thoughts? What did you think of Pastor Anderson’s objections to headcovering? Did they seem valid to you? Did they not? Why or why not? Thank you for sharing!



Related video (from the Head Covering Movement)

Just Released!🌷

Have you ever wondered why some women cover their heads in church, while men remove their hats? Have you thought about what this practice means and where it came from? 

It's not something that was picked up from the surrounding culture. Instead, it comes directly from 1 Corinthians 11 (in the Bible) where this practice is explained in surprising depth. In fifteen consecutive verses, the Apostle Paul explains and defends the practice of head covering. He appeals to apostolic tradition, to the created roles of men and women, to angels, to nature, and to the church's exclusive position on this topic.

Though head covering was practiced by the majority of Christians throughout Church history, it is now practiced only by a small minority. However, today many Christians are rediscovering this ancient practice, fueling a resurgence of head covering during church gatherings.

From the founder of the Head Covering Movement comes "Head Covering: A Forgotten Christian Practice for Modern Times." 

In this book, Jeremy Gardiner will walk you through the Scriptures so you will see how this symbol beautifully depicts the created differences between men and women. You'll hear the history of head covering, showing that it wasn't until the feminist revolution that this practice fell out of favor in the Western church. The most popular objections (the cultural view, the long hair view, and charges of legalism) are all answered in-depth. Finally, the book addresses practical questions regarding how this is to be carried out.

For too long, head covering has been neglected and stereotyped. Unfair associations with cults, legalism, unsophisticated theology, and frumpiness have turned many people off. We want to move past these stereotypes and into Scripture--because contrary to those views, head covering is biblical, beautiful, and relevant. 

This is not some new strange doctrine. This is a practice with an early and long history that is firmly based in the Bible. The rejection of this symbol is new, setting modern generations apart from the majority of believers throughout Church history. It's time we changed that.