The Ward - Schellekens Debate
Rudy Schellekens' Third Negative
"The scriptures teach that women today should
cover their heads when they pray."
Schellekens' Third Negative
Mark, moderators - I appreciate the patience which you have shown with my (temporary) delay in responding. Here is part 1
{EDITOR'S NOTE: Please note that what is INDENTED and in ITALICS is being copied from previous portions of this discussion and is followed by the respondent's reply. The readership is encouraged to read the entire discussion in order in order for the indentions to make the most sense in the flow of the discussion. Thanks. -mjw}
> Mark J. Ward's Third Affirmative
>
> "The scriptures teach that women today should cover their heads when they pray."
>
> Ward's Third Affirmative
>
> Greetings (again) to Rudy Schellekens, the list moderators of The Religious Debates Website, and to all the readers of this discussion. I would like to compliment my good brother Rudy for his continued kindnesses shown me in his second negative. I would encourage Rudy and the readers to take special note that it is Rudy's place to attempt to negate the affirmative arguments I have advanced in my previous speeches/articles. In my estimation, as we will continue to show in this article, Rudy has not met the burden of the negative so far in this discussion in showing wherein we err in any of the scriptural argumentation we have set forth proving the proposition before us, "The Scriptures teach that women today should cover their heads when they pray."Rudy writes:
Mark I too, appreciate the way in this discussion is going. SO far, no one has been judged to be neither liberal nor conservative, and I would hope we can keep it that way.
I also appreciate the patience of both you and the moderators. Life is a lot more hectic than it was when we started...
What all your arguments have proven thus far, is that yes, the women in Corinth, at the time Paul was writing, needed to have their heads covered while praying or prophesying.Mark wrote:
> Rudy takes up my answers to his questions and then makes comments on my 9 affirmative arguments, asking more questions, but not negating the argumentation. Let us look at our good brother's comments and questions of us in this Bible study as we continue to work toward agreement by pressing our points and showing wherein we believe the other errs in the spirit of loving kindness.
>
> As noted in the first two affirmations, I Corinthians 11:1-16 is the proof text to prove this proposition. My proposition stands proven having shown that God's Word teaches that women today are to cover their heads whenever they pray. Rudy agrees that some women (maybe wives ONLY???) were to cover their heads at Corinth (ONLY in that city???) when they prayed, but does not agree that such is necessary today. As in keeping with previous articles, let's see the sixteen verses again, this time from the American Standard Version (1901) and then proceed to take up Rudy's comments and questions:
>
> Rudy wrote: ...What IS proven is that the women to whom the letter was addressed were to pray or prophecy with their heads covered. What you need to prove is the fact that this is still the case TODAY. Your first question, "Will my opponent argue that women do not engage in 'praying' today?" needs to be answered with, "No, Mark, I do not argue such. As far as your statement, "The Bible clearly teaches that women dishonor their head when they pray bareheaded (See I Cor. 11:1-16)" is concerned, you have proven that point - as far as the Corinthian situation is concerned.
>
> So, Rudy admits:
1. The "women" to whom Paul wrote were to be covered during prayer.
2. "Women" today pray.
3. The "women" to whom Paul wrote dishonor their head when they pray bareheaded.
>
> Rudy simply does NOT believe:
> 1. That "every woman" (verse 5) at Corinth had to obey the passage.
> 2. That "every woman" (verse 5) of the first century had to obey the passage (New Testament age folks).
> 3. That "every woman" (verse 5) today is to obey the passage.
> 4. That "every woman" (verse 5) shames or dishonors by not covering during praying today.Rudy writes:
You are correct in the above assumptions.Mark wrote:
One can sometimes trace a departure from truth towards an incorrect practice or belief by noticing the area wherein one leaves the truth and begins to deviate. In my estimation, Rudy does this with his theory that "every woman" should be translated "every wife" in chapter 11 (thus excluding the non-wives at Corinth). Then, he proceeds to not apply the passage to other women in the first century (away from Corinth), and finally, concludes (sincerely) that such is not applicable for "every woman" praying today!Rudy writes:
From a purely personal point of view, Mark, I am not deviating from truth. You are binding something which was cultural and specific to a setting outside that culture, outside that specific application.Mark asked:
Rudy, did the "wives" at Ephesus (in New Testament times) who prayed bareheaded dishonor their heads?Rudy writes:
No, Mark, they did not dishonor their heads. And remember, this is the same letter where Paul discusses the idea of submission: Wives, submit to your husband. He is using the exact same words here as he is using in 1 Corinthians 11: Wives GUNAIKES (wives) must submit to their ANDRASIN (own husbands). Although the passage in Ephesians very specifically addresses the issue of submission and headship, no mention is made for the need of a head covering!Mark wrote:
Rudy asserts that the translators of the KJV, ASV, and NASB, for example, are incorrect (putting him at odds with over 150 scholars/translators) when he assumes "the woman" in verse 3 and "every woman" in verse 4 should be translated "the wife" and "every wife"! The scholars noted the contexts in EVERY chapter: 7, 11, and 14, for example, and translated forms of ANER - "man" (rather than "husband") and GUNE - "woman" (rather than "wife") in I Corinthians 11! Rudy, are you a scholar disputing the host of translating scholars who worked on those various versions of our English Bibles??? [NOTE: There are several other translations which we did not pile up on this particular point (i.e. just more versions of the Bible and more scholars opposing Rudy's assertion about it). Take a look at them for yourself. Its a good spiritual exercise! (NOTE: I am not saying you can't find a few translations that have the word "wife" and "husband" somewhere in chapter 11, Rudy <g>].Rudy writes:
I did not ask, Mark, what 150 scholars would do. I asked specifically: "Please explain how you would agree with the term "husband" in 1 Cor. 7, but so vehemently oppose the translation of ANER with husband in 1 Cor. 11? You even go so far as to call that idea a "liberal translation."You have not answered that question. Contextually (i.e. how words are used in similar context by the same author) "wives" and "husbands" can be pre-supposed as meaning. Not only can they pre-supposed by context, but when the same author uses the same terms in the same subject matter (submission), making a strong arguments that "wives must submit to their own husbands" than, to use your argument about "sameness of teaching", the Corinthian brethren must have understood this the same way the Ephesian brethren did.Rudy wrote, My question relating to the prophesying IS related to the subject, since the passage you use as a foundation for your case includes the prophesying. Now, when they do prophesy in the sense of, "uninspired teaching of God's word", do you expect them to cover their heads in those situations as well?
>
Yes, Rudy. God says "every woman" uncovered at times of "praying OR prophesying" dishonors her head (vs. 5). Thus, God expects women to cover their heads when engaging in uninspired teaching of God's Word. God also expects women to cover their heads when engaging in praying. The interpretation I place on I Corinthians 11:1-16 concerning the "prophesying" includes inspired and/or uninspired speech. Just as "teachers of good things" applies whether the teacher is teaching God's truth by inspiration or is uninspired (as in Titus 2:3) and just as "...A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country," (from Matthew 13:57, a form of STRONG's #4396) is true whether or not the prophet is inspired or uninspired, I believe that such an inclusive definition is warranted in I Corinthians 11. However, it must be noted, that the application today would be to uninspired folks since there are no living inspired people today. (Please note carefully "interpretation > and application, then and now" Thanks.).
But notice, please, the fact that IF "prophesying" were defined as inspired only activity, such would not negate in any way this discussion, since the proposition is discussing women today when they "pray". Prayer is NOT exclusively inspired activity by any stretch and women today pray. Please keep that in mind as we continue our study!
> Rudy also noted, I appreciate the answer to my question re. mixed/single gender meetings.
>
> Thanks, Rudy. Do you agree? At least, do you agree that Corinthian wives would need to cover their heads whenever and wherever they prayed (i.e. in or out of church assembly arrangements, whether in single gender or mixed gender settings)?Rudy writes:
Mark, I agree that the Corinthian wives would need to cover their heads when they prayed or prophesied.Mark wrote:
Rudy then spoke about conjecture, Yet, if I were to ask you for the reasons for the writing of the entire Corinthian correspondence, if I were to ask you about the kind of people Paul writes to, some of your answers WILL be based on conjecture! And rightly so, since we can only surmise a number of circumstances from what we can read in the letter! Having said that... We have to look at the circumstances surrounding this letter, since some of the statements Paul makes goes AGAINST God's revelation in the pages of the Old Testament!
>
> "Because of the angels" is a strange statement, and only, again, conjecture could be used for an answer. Could the angels be the leadership of the congregation (re. Rev. 1-3)? You list the reasons again why the women should have their heads covered while praying, but none of these give any clarification on the issue of angels.
>
> If we are asked a Bible question, and the Bible does not reveal the answer, we should NOT base our faith on conjecture. Since God did not reveal that particular matter to us, it must not be necessary to "life and godliness". Rudy actually admits to basing parts of his belief on conjecture in his writing above!Rudy writes:
Is part of my faith based on conjecture? No, that is not what I wrote. Part of our understanding of some of the Biblical literature is based on conjecture.Mark wrote:
(Rudy, if I misrepresent your position at any time, please bring it to my attention. This is certainly not my intent!) Rudy, please consider: God has given US all things that pertain to life and godliness according to 2 Peter 1:3. God has NOT given US all that was written and taught in New Testament times, whether by Paul or others. But whatever they taught does NOT contain anything that we don't have regarding "life and godliness". If you agree with that premise, then you SHOULD agree that we should base our faith on what is revealed and not argue from the silence of the scriptures, as you appear to do.Rudy writes:
So, Mark, explain to me than the very obvious conflict between head covering between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Explain to me the very obvious conflict between the Nazarite vow and the "shame" of 1 Corinthians 11.Mark wrote:
Next, Rudy asserted, My last question dealt with the reasons you see for extending this command beyond the Corinthian situation. You quoted a number of passages, and stated that "Paul taught the same thing in all the churches of the saints". That, too, is conjecture!
>
Yet, the BIBLE declares, "For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church." (I Cor. 4:17)
>
Now, if Rudy has a point on this at all, it must be that he believes that Paul refrained from teaching this part of whole counsel of God (i.e. the covering instruction) everywhere he taught. Who believes it? To be fair, Rudy, I know that Paul dealt with problems specific to churches that may not have been problems elsewhere, but the truth, the whole truth, was not diminished in any place wherein Paul taught.Rudy writes:
You still have not made the argument that a) the teaching was for all times, and b) the teaching went beyond Corinth. Once again, reading through the different letters, some issues are the same (and mentioned repeatedly), yet this issue is addressed nowhere else, even in a context extremely fitted for such an occasion, Ephesians 5!Rudy, on my Argument One wrote, Well, Mark, please substantiate that this is a teaching for ALL saints. There is nothing in the text to make this applicable to all saints. There is nothing in the text that supports the idea that it is "a command to be obeyed throughout all the ages"
>
We must be careful in discussions such as this to not misrepresent another's position. The use of quotes can be to quote another. They can also be use to "set off" words. I am not sure which way Rudy intended the use of the quote marks when he wrote "a command to be obeyed throughout all the ages" above, but please read on. Rudy, I don't believe that God's instruction on the coverings per I Corinthians 11:1-16 was given for the Patriarchal Age OR the Mosaical Age; but rather for the Gospel Age (in which we live). I do not believe that Rudy intentionally wrote "ages" with any impure motive, but I must point this out for everyone's benefit (since I do not believe the covering of I Cor. 11 was "a command to be obeyed throughout all the ages").Rudy writes:
I apologize for the confusion re. the statement "a command to be obeyed throughout the ages". The intention was not to put words into your mouth, Mark. It was merely a way of saying: All ages - starting at 1 Cor. 11, and beyond (i.e. 21st century).Mark wrote:
> Note what I wrote in my first affirmative: Since this teaching is an "ordinance of God" based on God-given reasons that still exist today, it is a command to be obeyed throughout the gospel age (applies now). And in my second affirmative, "Paul taught that this instruction concerning the matter of covered and uncovered heads was a ordinance or requirement of God that would be applicable to all saints (I Cor. 11:1-16; I Cor. 4:17). Since this teaching is an "ordinance of God" based on God-given reasons that still exist today, it is a command to be obeyed throughout the gospel age (applies now).Rudy writes:
Again, the passage which you quote does not provide evidence for Paul's teaching of the exact same content as in 1 Cor. 11. Was Paul's teaching re. the Gospel consistent? Surely, since that message goes beyond cultural bounds. That message is the same for one and all, throughout time. Yet, the head covering IS a cultural event, as I will make clear in my first affirmation.Mark wrote:
I hope that such is sufficient to make it clear that Rudy has not answered Argument One. The inspired reasons God gave for men to be uncovered and women to be covered exist today, so the instruction applies today. Answer, if you can, that argument Rudy. Thanks.
>
Rudy on my Argument Two (in part), I do not believe that the headship issue is tied to the head covering issue. Even without the issue of prayer, headship is still a fact. I have pointed out that husbands and wives would be included in following this instruction, since it concerns "every man" and "every woman"; but, the text's instruction doesn't exclude non-marrieds, Rudy. Furthermore, it was an inspired apostle named Paul who TIED headship to the covering in this passage! You have no point when you say "even without prayer, headship is still a fact" since Paul is discussing headship and covered and uncovered heads of every man and every woman at times of prayer! Shame is still a fact without prayer, Rudy, but ~with prayer~ God says men be uncovered and women be covered.Rudy writes:
Please quote the verse where it says that the head of every woman is every man. I have to date not been able to find that.Mark wrote:
Rudy AGREES with Argument Three, except he asserts that it is NOT a shame for non-married women at Corinth (if I understand him correctly), all other women at places other than at Corinth in the first century, and all women today can pray to God bareheaded with God's blessings! Who believes it? The BIBLE teaches it is a shame for "every woman". Rudy excludes women and makes a special class of "wives at Corinth"! Why, Rudy? Could it be that you have run away from the truth of the passage based on your assertion (re: "wives") wherein you find yourself opposing the scholars/translators of the KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB and NIV???Rudy writes:
Yes, Mark, you understand correctly that I believe that "all other women at places other than at Corinth in the first century, and all women today can pray to God bareheaded with God's blessings!"Mark wrote:
Rudy, on my Argument Four, Mark, you again jump to a conclusion: These truths are applicable today. Nothing in what you state here supports that point! I can think of a number of examples in the writings of Paul which were for that time, and that time only! But just for a short example: Greet one another with a holy kiss. Do you still practice that, Mark? If not, why not? It is written by the same author, with the same authority, as an imperative, to boot!
>
> Rudy, do you NOT believe that: Woman is the "glory of man" today as taught in verse 7 and in verse 9? Rudy, do you NOT believe that: God's Word also teaches us that the woman was "created for the man"? These are inspired, God-given reasons for women to pray with their heads covered. These truths are applicable today! This is inescapable Rudy. Please tell me you DO believe that woman is STILL the glory of man TODAY and it is still true TODAY that woman was created for the man! Then, continue to attempt to negate Argument Four that still stands proven in support of our proposition I affirm, "The Scriptures teach that women today should cover their heads when they pray."Rudy writes:
Mark, yes, I do believe that woman is the glory of man. Yes, I do believe that woman was created for man.Concerning the holy kiss: I practice it, Rudy. You mean you don't? I use the FIRST part of Romans 16:16, as well as the LATTER PART of the verse today in belief and practice. Is that unauthorized and non-applicable in your mind for folks today? Can I not obey the first part of verse 16 today, Rudy? Am I NOT to obey it? Can I not use the second part of verse 16 today either, Rudy? The verse reads, "Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you."
Rudy writes:
Mark, with a simple "yes" or "no" answer: Do you kiss your fellow believers as a greeting?Mark wrote:
Rudy on Argument Five and the angels, so, what DO the angels have to do with this? I know there are some who want to go back to Genesis 6 to find an explanation. Can you give me a little more insight?
>
I have dealt with this above. Even if I don't understand the reason God gives, He still gave it. My not understanding everything to do with the reason given (either due to God not deciding to reveal that part to me OR due to my inability to understand it, for reasons of lack of growth, etc) would still not NEGATE the instruction or invalidate the reason, as such. I will not get involved in conjecture. God gave the reason. Angels still exist today, Rudy. Where's your negating of the argument? The argument still stands, in this my last affirmative, in support of the proposition.Rudy writes:
I will go along with your statement of inability to understand the reference to angels. Too bad, because I was hoping that, finally, here is someone who can shed light on that specific statement!Mark wrote:
Rudy, on Argument Six goes Old Testament on us, Mark, please read through the dress of the High priest in the Old Testament. Tell me what you find about the covering he wears on his head. Now find the place where God tells him to take it off when he is praying...
>
The Old Testament was written for our learning according to Romans 15:4. But such is NOT instruction for the New Testament law age, the Gospel Age in which we live. If Rudy would spend more time in his negative speech in dealing with my arguments...Rudy writes:
Mark, where did God change his mind about the head dress for men, and where did God change his mind about men praying with uncovered head? Or are you saying we are looking at exactly that in 1 Corinthians 11? Are you saying, "This is where God decided that what He permitted and prescribed in the Old Testament was no longer valid"?Mark wrote:
Just as unclean meats were NOT allowed in one law age and ARE allowed in another, there is no problem with a practice being different in separate law ages. No point here, good brother! Rudy, compare your argument in question form above to the man who was at Corinth at the time of the writing of I Corinthians: You write as though you argue that since the High Priest under the OLD LAW was to do something different from the teaching of I Corinthians 11:1-16 (NEW LAW instruction), that such would have something to do with it not being applicable today! Is that what you are arguing. Rudy? Apply, dear Rudy and readers, Rudy's argument above to the men at the church of God at Corinth when Paul wrote I Corinthians (when "praying or prophesying"). Could they pray to God covered and be right, Rudy? What has the High Priest of the Old Testament got to do with it?Rudy writes:
The consistency of God is the point. How can something be "right" and "acceptable" to God at one time, and "wrong" and "unacceptable" to God at another? How van the long hair, as part of the Nazarite vow be pleasing to God at one point, and a shame the next?Mark wrote:
Dear readers, I hope you can see that the argumentation provided is not being negated by our good brother Rudy in this discussion. Let us continue.
> On my Argument Seven, Rudy notes, Well, Mark, I do not know where you are born and raised (or when, for that matter). I grew up during the sixties and seventies. I grew up in The Netherlands. At no time in my life was long hair for a man considered to be shame! Nor was short hair on a woman something to be ashamed of! The only people I ever remember speaking out against long hair were the American missionaries, working with churches in the Netherlands. Could this be an indication of a cultural issue? And if the long/short hair is a cultural issue today, could it have been a cultural issue in the Corinthian letter? And, bringing this back to the Bible. What was part of the Nazorite vow? Are you trying to convince me that Samson was unacceptable to God - where God set the conditions for the vow? Or are you planning to convince me that Samson did not pray as long as his hair was "long"?
>
> In the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve were living, nakedness was the order of the day! Rudy, you have no point here. The Netherlands' "custom" or "accepted societal norm" concerning long or short hair on men is NOT the standard by which we are to live. God's Word is the standard! Paul did not use custom or culture as a basis for his instruction to the church of God at Corinth on this matter. Concerning Samson, he lived and died under a different law age, Rudy! Samson was not under the instruction of the new covenant. Concerning the length of hair for men and women, Paul gave us the revelation from God for the New Testament age in verses 14,15. In fact, Paul stated that he had "no such custom" as what the contentious man would contend for according to verse 16.
> Concerning the Nazarite vow, we have another example that Rudy brings up from the Old Testament. Just as one practice (like unclean meats, for example) could be WRONG in one law age and RIGHT in another law age (ok to eat pork today per Acts 10, 11), the reverse can be true. What can be RIGHT in one law age (Nazarite vow with long hair as a practice) can be WRONG in another law age (long hair on man is a shame per I Cor. 11:14,15). No problem there Rudy. Where's the attempt to negate this argument good brother? The argument still stands proving our proposition.Rudy writes;
Now Mark, please show me where in the New Covenant God legislates about the length of hair!! Please show me where God has set the standard of hair for men and women!The ONLY standard set by God is nature itself: When a man lets his hair grow, it grows as long as a woman's hair! Nature in 1 Corinthians cannot possibly be "biological"! How long is too long, Mark? How short is too short?And as I read the text, it says that her LONG hair is given as a covering.-- Rudy Schellekens
[-end of third negative by Schellekens]
CLICK HERE TO GET BACK TO THE INDEX OF LINKS FOR THIS DEBATE
Email the Editor at markjward@yahoo.com
| CURRENT ISSUE | MAIN PAGE | BACK ISSUES | DISCUSSION PAGE |
| SPECIAL STUDIES | SERMON OUTLINES |