The source for the Luther material was taken from Susan C. Karant-Nunn; Merry E. Wiesner – Luther on Women: A Sourcebook (Cambridge University Press, 2003). The authors have included a portion of Ein schöner Sermon . . . von dem Ehestande (Sermon on the Estate of Marriage) [Jn 2:1ff] (15 Jan 1525), WA 17.1:8-12. this sermon is scheduled to be translated in full in a forthcoming edition of Luther's works. Till then, here is the snippet from Luther on Women. Decide for yourself if Luther is arguing Christians wives must always have their heads / hair covered:
For what it's worth, the comment section of the blog post in question has some interesting debate.
So it's not that the bible prescribes women to cover, but rather that it prescribes women to obey their husbands, and if their husbands ask them to cover - due to wanting to avoid unfriendly talk from their wives - the woman should cover. Am I understanding this right?
ReplyDeleteOn another note the argument that this was merely accommodating 16th century Europe leaves me confused, if I was in a muslim country this is obviously telling us to cover our wives because it's otherwise seen as not honoring the husband. But we know they only think this because they're living in islamic lands. But how did 16th century Europe start seeing head covering as a sign of loyalty? Doesn't that imply Christianity originally did mandate head coverings? (edit) I think I've answered my own question; Paul is writing 1 Corinthians before Christianity was remotely influencing European society, therefore the presence of head coverings Paul refers to are actually a non-christian custom. I think the strongest evidence against head coverings being mandated is the mention that a woman's own hair is her covering in the verses immediately following those on head-coverings [1Cor11:15]. I've heard some say the word used is different when they refer to hair; "it was 'covering', but now the word used with hair means 'glorious covering'". It's still a covering. Why do you need a covering for your covering? I believe Paul's only mandate here is that a woman is to look distinct from men in society, and whatever the norms are for gender roles depending on the location, be all things to all people. I've also heard it can't mean hair because paul says if she's uncovered it'd be better to have her shorn [1Cor11:6]. To me this was never an issue, if a woman has a woman's hair cut she's following what paul refers to 'even nature' tells us to do [1Cor11:14-15]. If she has a boys hair cut, she consequently has removed her covering and it'd be better if she had no hair at all - hence better she be shorn. This makes perfect sense to me but at the end of the day I don't care about being right, I just want to serve Christ. So correct me, WITH SCRIPTURE! if I am missing something.
Hi Gabriel.
ReplyDeleteThanks for reminding me of this old post. I don't have anything meaningful to say at this point on the general topic of head coverings for women.
On the other hand, because you left this comment, I revisited the documentation provided to Luther's writings. From a fresh cursory look of the source used (Susan C. Karant-Nunn; Merry E. Wiesner – Luther on Women: A Sourcebook), I discovered that the Luther sermon that was quoted may not have a strong pedigree of authenticity. That is, significant portions of it may not be the words of Luther! Time allowing, I'm going to put together a fresh post on this topic.