Reformed SHEology

In September 2008 I published an article which rejected the idea that Christian women need to downplay their looks in order to be holy. The following response was written by one of our male readers (who prefers to remain anonymous). His thoughts are being published with his permission.

Earlier this year, in mid February, I visited a friend’s blog site, Reformed SHEology, and in my browsing through some of the titles from the past therein, happened upon one posting from September 2008 that particularly captured my notice, on the topic of physical beauty in women, and/or lack thereof (“She's . . . but she sure can cook!”). The piece had a lot of humor in it, and I had a few or more good laughs as I read, but really the subject matter was not meant to be, essentially, lighthearted or frivolous in nature at all.

Approximately twenty-five years ago I was reading through Arnold Dallimore’s two-volume Life of George Whitefield. Something I read way back then, from the chapter in Volume II concerning Whitefield’s marriage to a woman named Elizabeth James, arrested my attention in a strange sort of way, and I have never forgotten it. Whitefield, just 26 at the time, was writing a letter to a friend, announcing that he had married, and this is how he described his new bride:

“I married … one who was a widow, of about thirty-six years of age … neither rich in fortune nor beautiful as to her person, but, I believe, a true child of God …” (my emphasis added)

Hmm . . . “nor beautiful as to her person.” Clearly Whitefield was referring to external, not internal, beauty. However, the less than glowing picture of marriage for this great and now famous man of God did not end simply with this emphasis upon the external. Dallimore went on to say, more or less as a summary statement,

" . . . on this basis Whitefield’s marriage proceeded. He proved a concerned and gracious husband and she a dutiful and helpful wife, and though there was probably no strong love on either side, their attitude toward one another was at least one of devotion and mild affection.”

At the risk of sounding a bit on the cynical side, I am not too sure, if the truth were known, that such a description does not fairly well describe a lot of marriages, even successful ones that last, even Christian ones, and even, I dare say, ones in which the physical attraction/ attractiveness IS strongly present, especially in the wife (because men are naturally more enamored by this than women, I have always heard, whereas women are far more interested in a man who will simply, really, love them).

Nearly four months ago, I was finishing up reading and studying through the book of Job. A verse there in the 42nd chapter particularly grabbed my attention, after all the unfathomable sufferings Job had endured:

“And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.” (v. 15)

As I sometimes do, I reached for the commentary of that dear man of God from seventeenth-century England, Matthew Henry, to see what he had to say about these exceedingly “fair” daughters of Job, with the former ones, and their brothers, having all died in the tragedy told of in Job Chapter 1. I can’t speak for anyone else who would read the same, but his words struck me as very moving, very profound (quoting from the online, unabridged commentary):

“Concerning these daughters we are here told, That God adorned them with great beauty, no women so fair as the daughters of Job, v. 15. In the Old Testament we often find women praised for their beauty, as Sarah, Rebekah, and many others; but we never find any women in the New Testament whose beauty is in the least taken notice of, no, not the virgin Mary herself, because the beauty of holiness is that which is brought to a much clearer light by the gospel.”

In the glorious providence and ways of God, it has often amazed me how something so profound, and even so obvious, as this can be veiled from one’s eyes, until such a time that God sees fit to unveil them. Truly, it had never occurred to me before, that the New Testament is so loudly, so curiously silent about this very matter that is indeed given such prominence, at least in places, in the Old Testament: Eve, Queens Vashti and Esther, Abigail, Delilah, Bathsheba, etc. I ended up having a very engaging time discussing the same — Mr. Henry’s commentary on Job’s daughters — that same night at home with our own many “beautiful daughters,” and my wife, in our family devotion.

Well, it is time to get real personal and honest with this, as much so as in anything I have ever written, I do believe. And this is what everything heretofore has been leading up to. While I would never claim to be, or try or pretend to be, a modern-day George Whitefield, I, like he, married a woman not particularly “beautiful as to her person.” Without at all wanting to go into a lot of my history as a young man, more than a few decades ago by now, I would simply sum up those later teenage years by saying that I was terribly bashful with regards to the opposite sex, most especially with the “gorgeous” girls that I surely took notice of. I was pretty well convinced that none such would ever want to go out on a date or any such with me, and so, I never asked. I just “worshiped” from afar (more about this in a few minutes). As I think back on those years - with no regrets whatsoever today, mind you — it was just inevitable, I believe, that when I did eventually marry (at age 27), it would be to a woman who was not, outwardly, particularly beautiful.

All of what I just said may strike some readers as just a bit sad, or bothersome perhaps, I don’t know. I mean, there may be some who believe — naively, from my perspective — that it is almost or even downright sinful not to think that one’s own wife, no matter what she looks like, is the most beautiful woman on earth! All that aside, the infinitely greater reality that was, and still is, going on in all of this, in the unerring providence of God for my life, is not at all sad, I am quite sure. For one thing, God has blessed me and my wife with a good, strong marriage for over 27 years now. We have been through a lot, an awful lot, together. Most specifically, I have been through two exceedingly deep spiritual valleys (dungeons, is more like it) during these years, about eight years apart, and totaling about 4 full years altogether (no adultery, no porn, just immense, spiritual trials in nature). And, although there is no way of ever knowing for certain, of course, I am fairly well convinced that an outwardly beautiful, but likely far less devoted wife, would have never endured all of that, but would’ve said “adios” in the midst of the ordeal, long ago. (Please don’t misunderstand me: I’m not of course suggesting that all very attractive women are “empty beauties,” but probably a disproportionate number of them are, especially the ones who spend - needlessly spend - more time in front of their mirrors than just about anyplace else.)

Well, as I was saying concerning “adios” in the preceding paragraph, not so with my wife. True to her wedding vows to me, she stood faithfully by my side through it all. Furthermore, knowing myself as I do, I am fairly well convinced that had I married a “glamour girl” sort of woman, I would have been mighty proud of her, and would have ended up virtually worshiping her, and this, I have come to believe in later, more mature years, is at the same time diabolical, pathetic, and destined for utter futility and disappointment: “worship[ping] … the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 1:25). I could never state it any more powerfully, or more poignantly, than in the next-to-last verse of Proverbs chapter 31:

“Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised.” (NKJV)

I could never end this confession, or call it what you will, without a bit of final commentary on what marriage is intended to symbolize: spiritual union between Christ, the truly and unfathomably glorious Bridegroom, and the Church, the Bride—made up of all true believers, from all over this planet—which, I am quite convinced, will in the end prove no “ugly bride” for such a Bridegroom. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8, my emphasis). Can you even begin to imagine, dear reader, what such a sight will be like, and how that, were it somehow possible to place the most stunning, jaw-dropping “Miss Universe” in history alongside our Heavenly Father and our glorified and resurrected Savior/Redeemer/Bridegroom, she would be, at the very best, a grotesque, fearful, monstrous hag, by comparison? In fact, I believe that analogy would fit, as well, for everyone who will worship and, as part of the Bride, be married to this Bridegroom someday, robed and bejeweled in a glorified body, most certainly to include any dear sisters in Christ who, here in this life, were not, or are not, endowed by their Fashioner, God, with a whole lot in the way of external beauty, and all for His greater purposes for them.

As I draw this to a close, a line from an old hymn, rarely sung any more it seems (“When We All Get to Heaven”), comes to mind: "Just one glimpse of Him in glory, will the toils of life repay.”

I am thankful indeed for a good, faithful woman, a wonderful mother to our many children, and for God’s preserving mercies through all the long years of our union thus far. I would be lying, very honestly, if I were to say that I take no notice of all of the beautiful, and mostly youthful, female faces “out there,” and occasionally even wonder a bit what life would have been like, had I ended up with such a one, instead. I can only restate, as I have already tried to do, that the spiritual reality is the greater, eternal reality. The Creator of the human form, and the human face — particularly all of these lovely daughters of Eve, men — and everything else our eyes behold in this vast and beauteous and mysterious universe, is, we really must realize, infinitely more beautiful than anything these eyeballs can behold, and even these minds can conceive of, or take in. Yes, Moses, in the only psalm attributed to him, said it very well, speaking of this greater beauty:

“And let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us” (Psalm 90, first part of verse 17).

Today is Reformation Day. Happy Reformation Day everyone! In honor of this very historic day, I thought I'd share the following photograph from my own personal photo album:



This photo was taken of me on October 31, 1995. I was a senior in college, and this was at a "Reformation Day Party". That's me, standing next to the 95 Theses, looking very pensive . . . and stroking my beard.

Ok, let me just address the first question: no, that is not a real beard that I grew on my own. The beard is made of crepe hair, which is a special kind of wool used to make theatrical beards and mustaches. You can get it at any magic shop or wherever theatrical makeup is sold. Crepe hair is cool because you can mix different colors and make your beard look like it has grey patches or red highlights, and match it exactly to your own hair so it looks very realistic.

Anyway, I had gone to college in Massachusetts and a bunch of my friends had heard that one of the Christian clubs over at MIT was having a "Reformation Day Party." Of course, costumes were encouraged because it was also Halloween. I did not want to wear a costume and was quite stubborn about it. But everyone was hassling me to wear a costume, so I decided to experiment a little with my stage makeup. I had just learned how to apply the crepe hair in my stage makeup class and I was really good at it (I got an A for my beards and goatees, but only a C- for my scars and bruises) so I decided, what fun it would be to just show up as myself with a full beard! Oh, and the best part: we decided to take public transportation to MIT!

You should have seen the looks I got! The bus was full so my friends and I had to move to the back, which means we had to walk past all the other passengers. I let my friends go first. People were smiling as they saw a clown, then a scarecrow, then a pumpkin. But they literally shrieked in horror when they saw me. Gruhahahaha!

There were gasps, whispers, and pointing of fingers. Just to make it clear that I was a girl (and not a guy with long hair) I had purposely worn a pink jacket and big hoop earrings. People could not stop staring. They knew it was October 31, but they just could not believe how realistic the beard looked on me. Their reaction was only natural, as I looked completely and utterly unnatural.

When we got off the bus, we had to walk a bit to MIT, so my friends insisted I be the one to ask people for directions. People were making quite a commotion over the bearded freakshow everywhere we went. At one point, a man who appeared to be homeless and carrying a bottle in a brown paper bag approached me from behind to ask what time it was. When I turned around, the man took one look at my face and exclaimed, "WHOA! Man, that ain't right! That just ain't right!"

We eventually made it to the party over at MIT, and 13 years later, I don't remember anything about that party (aside from the fact that I took a bunch of pictures). But I remember clearly the reactions I got from people for whom I was creating a visual disturbance. Why is that so memorable?

Well, after blogging for the last year about biblical gender roles, I would say in hindsight it makes sense that these people would react this way. Just look at what the scriptures say:

Because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20, emphasis mine)

When we start tinkering with God's perfect creation, everyone's conscience cries out: "That ain't right!" My little beard experiment proves it.

Perhaps one of the most awful questions a woman can ask a man is "Do you think I'm fat?" Equally as unpleasant for a man to hear are its cousins, "Do you think I need to lose some weight?"; "Does my butt look big in this?" as well as the self-evaluative, "I feel so fat today," and "I'm ugly," which, in spite of their declarative nature still beg for a response. Finally, there is the completely ruthless, "Do you think she's prettier than me?"

Ladies, is it not true that there is one and only one reason why we do this to men? See if your assessment lines up with mine . . .

Essentially, in evaluating my own heart and observing the actions of others, I believe the motive behind asking men questions such as these will always fall into into one of two categories:

1) I am insecure and need reassurance from a man, any man, that I am attractive;
2) I know I'm attractive and I want to force every man in my path to acknowledge it.

I am confident that these are the only two reasons in a woman's heart why she would ever ask a man questions of this nature. And although they appear to be opposites, the irony is, both stem from pride. This is true for me. Is it true for you? Let's look at Option 1.

I AM INSECURE
Insecurity is generally a fear that people will not like us for some reason and ultimately reject us. Insecurity is the need to be accepted by others and to gain their approval. When we are feeling ugly, fat, or undesirable in any way, we will often seek the approval of men by asking them to reassure us that we are gorgeous. Option 1, in my opinion, is the most common reason why women ask such questions of men and accounts for 99% of these types of discussions. Truth be told, the real motive here is a need to find completeness in something other than God. When we are not completely satisfied in who we are in Christ, we start to look to others to give us that validation. This might be obvious. But what is not so obvious is that when we are insecure, the number one priority on our list is self. Fear stops us from being real with another person. It causes us to withdraw and oftentimes demands that others go through unrealistic lengths to comfort us.

I AM FISHING FOR COMPLIMENTS
Although not as common as Option 1, Option 2 is still a very active catalyst for these types of questions. You look good, and you know it. You see that man looking at you, and you know what he's thinking but you want to hear him say it. What better way to drag a compliment out of him than to ask a ridiculous question that you know is obviously not true?

When I was in high school, I knew a girl who was the master of this technique. She had great legs and she knew it. When the weather started warming up, she'd put on a pair of short shorts and strut in front of all the guys. Then she'd take her long hair out of its ponytail, shrug her shoulders in despair and exclaim, "I'm so ugly!" We'd all watch in amazement as the boys would nearly trip over their own feet, careful not to drool on her as they approached her with their heartfelt words of consolation.

Sometimes she did not have to beg for the compliment. Sometimes a man would come right out and say, "Wow, you look great today." But just because she wanted to hear those words again, she'd say, "No, you're wrong! I'm hideous!" Or something equally nonsensical. The poor man would then fall right into her trap, insisting that she was the most gorgeous creature he'd ever seen.

DEPRAVITY IN ACTION
Obviously, both reasons for making these comments are examples of depravity in action. Although insecurity is the more common of the two, let me encourage you not to go down that path with your husband. When a woman is feeling pretty low, she normally asks this question because she wants consolation that she is loved. The problem is, it never works. (Men, if you're reading this, pay close attention:) The reason it never works is because a woman who is feeling insecure has already made up her mind that she is unattractive. Ladies, isn't it true that no matter what he says, we will be inconsolable?

Ladies, isn't it true that no matter what he says, we will be inconsolable? If the man says, "Yes, you're fat," we will burst into tears and feel even worse. If he answers, "No, I don't think so," we have either forced him into a position where he feels he needs to lie, or we have enouraged him to give an honest assessment, only to accuse him of lying as we run to another room, slamming the door behind us.

How we should respond instead. Men have an overwhelming desire to fix problems. They don't like seeing women upset. So when we appeal to a man to make us feel better and then ask him the one question for which he has no satisfactory answer, he is going to be left feeling exasperated and frustrated that he couldn't help.

So what should we do? First, when we are tempted to go to men for comfort, we should stop and seek comfort from God. We should focus on the fact that our fickle feelings are not reality. Our feelings do not dictate the truth of whether or not our husbands find us attractive.

Secondly, when we need comfort and words of affirmation from our husbands, we should simply say so. We should simply be honest and tell our husbands, "I am feeling low today," (or unattractive, or fat, etc). We should openly ask our husbands for the comfort we need, but resist the temptation to ask him what he thinks of our weight. The question is a trap for him, but also for us. An answer in the affirmative will only confirm our suspicions that we are ugly; an answer in the negative will leave us wondering if he is lying to spare our feelings.

Finally, when we are unhappy with our appearance, we should take an honest assessment of the situation and see what can be done to change it. The change does not have to be drastic. Maybe we can exercise more. Perhaps we can give up drinking soda or having that late night snack. Physical exercise and healthy eating is an excellent way to discipline the flesh and bring it under the authority of Christ. And remember, while God is faithful to complete the work He began in us (Philippians 1:6), our physical imperfections can often be the very limitations we need to help keep us humble.

Physical appearance is a concern that is commonly designated to women. Yet in our increasingly superficial society, more and more men are feeling the pressure to measure up to the culture's standard of attractiveness. Since our theme this month is true beauty, we thought we'd examine some of the issues surrounding male pattern baldness . . . and see if perhaps the Bible might have anything to say about the subject. In honor of our brothers in Christ, who are more visual, we've decided to go with more images in order to demonstrate that bald is beautiful!

Fact: Adults lose about 100 scalp hairs each and every day.

Scripture Says: The very hairs on your head are all numbered. (Matthew 10:30; Luke 12:7)

Fact: Men begin losing their hair as early as age 20. Therefore, baldness is not a sign of age.

Scripture says: The glory of young men is their strength,but the splendor of old men is their gray hair. (Proverbs 20:29, emphasis added)


Fact: Baldness is commonly regarded by many as a sign of weakness and disgrace. For this reason it is often the cause of great psychological distress in men.

Scripture says: [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. (2 Kings 2:23-24)"I bristle when I hear advertisements for hair growth. They make it sound like hair loss is the worst possible thing that could happen to you." ~Michael Chiklis, Actor

Fact: Most men are genetically predisposed to baldness. This is because baldness is caused by testosterone, the primary hormone responsible for both primary and secondary sex characteristics in men. (And I believe, just as long hair on a woman is a symbol of femininity, less hair on a man is a symbol of masculinity!)


Scripture says: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. (1 Corinthians 11:3-15, emphasis added).

We here at Reformed SHEology want to encourage our brothers in Christ to not grow anxious over seeing more skin up top. In the spirit of 1 Corinthians 11, we encourage you to say it loud: I'm bald and I'm proud! The world wants so much for us to focus on the flesh. For women, it's usually our weight, for men, it's their hair. Let's encourage one another in brotherly (and sisterly) love by praising one another for the way we strive to look more and more like Christ every day.

The following video features an interview with Patrick Stewart, who began losing his hair at age 19. We hope this video will inspire men to have the right attitude about the way God has chosen for them to look:

I am a huge fan of pop music of the 1950's and 1960's. As a child, I would listen to the oldies station on the radio and memorize both the lyrics and the backup vocals of songs that were made popular years before I was born. They seemed to take me back to a simpler time, where love and romance seemed far more pure, innocent, and genuine than the teenage dramas that were unfolding all around me. Although many of them had their share of "love at first sight" themes, many of these songs seemed to focus on character traits rather than physical attributes. The only problem with these songs was many of them insinuated that good character was not compatible with good looks. Consider the following select lyrics from these oldies but goodies:

The Temptations, Beauty's Only Skin Deep

Now, good looks, I've learned to do without.
'Cause now I know it's love that really counts.
A pretty face you may not possess,
but what I like about you is your tenderness

The Dave Clark Five, You Got What it Takes

Ow! You don't live in a beautiful place
And you don't dress in the best of taste
Nature didn't give you such a beautiful face
But baby, you got what it takes

And the Grand Poohba of all "Ugly Girl" Songs:
Jimmy Soul, If You Wanna Be Happy

Don't let your friends say you have no taste
Go ahead and marry her anyway
Her face is ugly, her eyes don't match
Take it from me, she's a better catch

If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So for my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you

(Spoken)Hey, Man! I saw your wife the other day!
Yeah?
Yeah and she's UGLY!
Yeah, she's ugly, but she sure can cook!

Physical attractiveness isn't everything, it's true. The Bible says that charm is deceitful and beauty is vain (Proverbs 31:30). It is the inner qualities of a woman that make her truly beautiful. But if a woman wishes to highlight her inner beauty, does that mean she needs to look like she was beaten with the ugly stick?

Many people embrace this philosophy, and will twist scripture to support it. They insist that women must be frumpy, plain, and unattractive in order to maintain their modesty. Here are the two scriptures from which many of these ideas originate:

Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. (1 Peter 3:3-4, NKJV)

In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. (1 Timothy 2:9, NKJV)

The point of these scriptures is not that a woman cannot look her best on the outside. The point of these scriptures is that a woman should primarily seek to cultivate beauty from within. In 1 Peter 3, the word merely is added to the original text to clarify this idea. Women should look good on the outside, but it doesn't stop there. A pretty face with no substance underneath will surely leave others wondering, "Is this all there is?" If a woman wishes to highlight her inner beauty, does that mean she needs to look like she was beaten with the ugly stick?

Likewise, the verse in 1 Timothy is not suggesting that a woman should only be clothed in good works (otherwise she'd be naked!), instead it is reminding women that they should not seek to gain attention with the external. I do not think the text is saying it is wrong for women to wear makeup or jewelery or nice clothes. Rather, I think the text is warning women not to let their outer appearance upstage their inner beauty.

While it is true that physical attractiveness is often a catalyst for vanity, it is not always a symptom of conceit. Likewise, marrying a woman who is downright ugly is no guarantee of her humility. "Ugly people" are no further along the road to sanctification than anyone else. And contrary to Jimmy Soul's music, men do not go around bragging about how ugly their wives are to one another! Men greatly appreciate when their wives make an effort to look good for them. Feldhahn (2004) states: "In a way, this issue for men is like the romance issue for us," (p. 168). In essence, when you take care of yourself, it makes your husband feel loved.

Physical beauty isn't everything, but this does not imply that physical beauty is something that should be discarded in the interest of "holiness." Much like the expression, "Money isn't everything," money still holds a function, provided it is used correctly and in a godly way. In the same fashion, physical beauty does not necessarily subtract from from one's character. Modesty means that there is a balance. Everything is in moderation. True modesty means we are not overdoing it in any areas. Too many times we fear we are overdoing a good thing, but I believe it is possible to overdo a bad thing as well. In your efforts to be modest, are you "overdoing" it a bit in downplaying your looks?

Reference
Feldhahn, S. (2004). For women only: What you need to know about the inner lives of men. Atlanta, GA: Multnomah.

Recently, one of our readers asked me, "What do you think about women wearing pants?" Anxious to write about some other issues surrounding biblical femininity, I originally told this reader that I'd save that for another time, but I've changed my mind and decided to write about it now. In light of all the discussion surrounding headcovering, it would not be fair for me to postpone writing about this topic as well, especially since it also relates to masculinity.

I personally have never been convicted that pants are unfeminine or unbiblical. Perhaps that will change for me one day, but I currently don't see any biblical reason for women to be made to feel that wearing pants is wrong.

From what I gather, the entire issue surrounds a mandate given in Deuteronomy 22:5, which reads in the NASB as follows: "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God". Other translations will make reference to a woman's cloak or a man's garment, but the meaning is the same from translation to translation -- men should wear men's clothes, and women should wear women's clothes.

The question is, what are women's clothes? Conversely, what are men's clothes? In my lifetime, most people have answered this by saying, "Skirts are for girls and pants are for boys. End of story." I am not so sure about that. I don't think there is anything in the scripture that makes such a distinction between pants or skirts. It just simply says, "clothes." I don't think God is saying "I want women to wear skirts and I want men to wear pants." Rather, I think God is simply saying, "I want women to look like women and men to look like men."

The real issue is that there is a distinction between male and female. God cares very deeply that we adhere to that distinction, because He created two types of people: men and women. When we try to blur that line, we are polluting His original design for the sexes. Things like cross-dressing, and the androgynous look that was so popular in the 80's are definitely examples of things that God is speaking out against in this passage. For example, God would be against this:


One of the things I will never forget is watching an episode of Beavis and Butt-head back in the 90's in which a Boy George video was featured. Upon hearing the lyric, "I'm a man," one of the characters said, "Uh, you're a man? Huh-huh. Huh-huh. Huh." It struck me that even two godless animated characters recognized that Boy George's appearance was unnatural and even confusing. When Boy George first came on the scene in the early 80's, I can remember countless debates in grade school as to whether or not he was actually male. We honestly did not know for sure!

Because God is a God of order and not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), I think God's intention for mandating how we are to dress is simply about making sure you can actually tell if the person is a "he" or a "she". No "its" or "she-males" allowed! That being said, I believe that women can wear pants, as long as they appear distinctly female while doing so.

There is even more compelling evidence that God wasn't even referring to pants at all, when we consider that pants did not even exist when Deuteronomy 22:5 was penned. In fact, pants are a relatively new fashion, even for men.

Kiltmen.com is a website dedicated to abolishing "Trouser Tyranny." The website does a nice job of advocating for a return to more traditional men's clothing, pointing out that men used to wear tunics all the time. It's true! Picture in your head all the drawings you have ever seen of male biblical characters such as Moses, David, and Paul. Did the artist's rendering ever depict these fellows in a pair of pants?

When I used to work at the Holy Land Experience, the men all wore tunics, even the actor playing Jesus. None of the park guests ever pointed to Deuteronomy 22:5 and cried "foul!" Not once did I ever hear a child ask, "Mommy, why is Jesus wearing a dress?" That's because it is understood by everyone that a tunic was the standard garment once worn by men. In similar fashion, women were also dressed in tunics, but theirs were distinctly feminine. The color, texture, and style of the tunic made it clear that it was a women's garment and not a man's garment.

(Sidenote: Although it is not a Christian site, Kiltmen.com does an amazing job addressing Deuteronomy 22:5 in its proper context. Not only does Kiltmen.com present its point from a historical/cultural perspective quite nicely, but it makes a killer argument from a biological perspective: kilts and tunics are actually better suited for men because they "do not confine the male genitals the way trousers do." Tight jeans have been known to significantly lower a man's sperm count because they create an uncomfortable and unhealthy environment for the testicles. The Bible states that children are a gift from the Lord and that we are to "be fruitful and multiply". The idea of men wearing tunics and kilts becomes even more sensible in light of the fact such garments promote a healthy sperm count and thus increase a man's chances of being a father. In this sense, the kilt is seen as a strong symbol of maleness and masculinity.)

Today, we have numerous examples of clothing being recognized as either men's or women's clothing by the color, texture, or style of those garments. Both men and women wear sneakers. Both men and women wear sandals. Both men and women wear jackets, button-down shirts, watches, sunglasses, hats, coats, and gloves. There is no distinction that says "Men wear sneakers and women wear sandals." The item is appropriate to be worn by either a man or a woman, provided that the man or woman is not wearing an article of clothing designed for the opposite gender. For example, I used to own a pair of pants in high school that were light grey with pink flowers all over them. Nobody asked me why I was wearing men's clothes. It was obvious by the color, texture, and style of my pants that I was wearing clothing designed for a female.

Finally, I will leave you with a cute little anecdote a Baptist preacher once shared with his congregation. It goes like this:

There was a certain pastor who decided once and for all he needed to enforce a strict dress code upon his congregation. He decreed that all women in his congregation immediately go through their closets and get rid of all their pants, because pants are "men's clothes." So all the ladies of the church got together and collected all of the pants and brought them to the church to decide what to do with them. One woman, who happened to be organizing the effort, noticed several pairs of pants that looked as though they were just the perfect size for the pastor. "It would be a shame to throw these away," she thought, so she took them to the pastor's home.

When the pastor opened the door, the woman offered him the pants. He asked her, "What am I supposed to do with these?" The woman explained that she thought the pants might fit him, and wondered if he might get some use out of them. The pastor looked at the woman in disbelief and said, "Surely you can't be serious! I can't wear these! These are women's clothes!"

This little story demonstrates that clothing can be recognized as either male or female, not for what type of garment it is, but for the way the garment looks. The Bible says God created them male and female. Unless your appearance is causing major confusion over your gender, I do not think God is displeased with your choice as a woman to wear pants if you so choose.

In this modern church age, covering one's head is often seen as an outdated practice reserved only for the extremely orthodox or downright legalistic Christian. A majority of today's Christians, both men and women alike, feel that the practice of headcovering is "not for today." Approximately three months ago, I began covering my head. I reached a point where the idea that headcovering was "a social custom for that particular time" did not hold any water for me. I am fully convinced that the practice of headcovering described in 1 Corinthians 11 is indeed for today, and I hope to describe why I have grown to love this practice and the way it has turbo-charged my love for God and His Word.

If you simply Google the phrase, "Is headcovering for today?" You will find several well-constructed, detailed arguments in support of this ritual. For this reason, I won't to spend too much time regurgitating what's already been written on the subject, but just touch on the basic points that sold me on the practice. First, let's look at the passage in Scripture where God commands us to cover: 1 Corinthians 11:2-17. I will not print the passage here, but encourage you to look at it in any version of your choice, and I have deliberately chosen to include verse 17 in this discussion because it was one of the verses that helped solidify my decision to cover.

Right from the beginning of the passage in vs. 2, Paul says he praises the Corinthians for the way they have observed this ordinance (some translations read "traditions"). In vs. 17, Paul states that he does not commend them for the way they are observing his instructions for the Lord's supper (another ordinance). Hence, the context of the entire chapter is about about spiritual ordinances that have great meaning. They are laws, commands from God that must be followed. (For some examples of Old Testament ordinances, click here.)
In addition to headcovering, I can think of two other ordinances were given in the New Testament: Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is the other ordinance addressed in 1 Corinthians 11. We still celebrate the Lord's supper today, and we still use bread and wine. We would never say the practice is "cultural" or "outdated," or think of using potato chips and Coca-Cola, arguing that these elements are more "culturally relevant." Likewise, we should not abandon headcovering because we feel it's not for today. We have been instructed to cover our heads, and we do not decide for ourselves the expiration date for those instructions. Some may argue that because ordinances are a type of law and we are no longer under the law, therefore we don't need to cover. This argument misses the point. It is true, we are not under the law because we are no longer condemned by it, having received the righteousness of Christ. But this doesn't mean we cease to obey. Even though we are no longer under the law, it's still a good idea to refrain from lying or stealing. But we also continue to follow the law out of love for God. When God issues a command, such as: "Preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15), or "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19), we obey that command, not because we will be condemned if we don't, but because we love the Lord, and He says "to obey is better than sacrifice . . . rebellion is as the sin of divination." (1 Samuel 15:22-23). Simply put, we cover our heads because God says so, and if we love Him, we will obey His commands.

But why would God command us to do such a thing? What is the purpose of covering? The answer is found in vs 10. We often talk about baptism being a symbol. We also consider the Lord's Supper to be a symbol. In vs. 10, headcovering is also described as a symbol of authority. Truly, the word "symbol" is injected into the translation and is not in the original Greek, but the point is, verse 10 and the entire headcovering passage is talking about authority. Specifically, the passage is addressing the order of authority in God's design. The most prominent argument against headcovering today is the idea that women were instructed to cover their heads to distinguish themselves from the local prostitutes. But nowhere in this passage can we infer such a thing. Not only are prostitutes not mentioned, but unbelievers are not mentioned either, nor their customs. Yet modern Christianity insists the passage is about a cultural custom, despite the fact the entire passage is about authority from beginning to end. If anyone wishes to know why women should cover, the answer is not in the cultural norms of the day. In verse 10, we are given a direct answer as to the reason why we should cover: "For this reason, a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head: because of the angels" (NKJV, emphasis mine). There are times when the Bible seems unclear, but this is certainly not one of them. In verse 10, we are explicitly told the concept of headcovering is directly tied to "the angels." I don't know about you, but I happen to subscribe to the idea that angels are not cultural.

But what does this mean? I have searched high and low and for answers. I have read several articles on this topic, some good, some that were really reaching . . . and all were in agreement that the headcovering means something to the angels, but what? If you Google the phrase, "Because of the angels," you will get a plethora of interesting theories. Although there are a few theories that seem to make sense, only one lit a fire in me, making the practice of headcovering irresistible. It was purely hypothetical, but I later discovered this view appears to be supported in the Scriptures.

MacArthur (1997) writes: "Women are to be submissive by wearing the symbol of authority so as not to offend those most holy and submissive creatures who watch the church, who were present at creation, when God designed the order of authority for men and women," (p. 1745). A headcovering brings joy to the angels, who submit to God just as we do. The symbol shows them that we are submitting to God alongside them. But that's only half the story.

Now, here's where it gets really interesting.

I also came upon another article that suggests this symbol also has great meaning to the fallen angels, those who chose to rebel against God. God's messengers are not the only ones present during our times of corporate or private worship. Demons are present as well. This is truly fascinating in light of the fact that we do not practice headcovering in the modern church. (It is no coincidence that the practice of headcovering seems to have decreased simultaneously with the increase of feminist consciousness.)

In the King James version, verse ten reads: "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." The word "power" is the Greek word exousia (Strong's #1849) in the original text (often translated as "authority" in some versions). Click here to see how this word is literally translated.

This word is always used whenever the Bible refers to "principalities and powers." (You can do your own study here.) The most commonly known verse discussing "principalities and powers" is Ephesians 6:12: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (NKJV). When a woman covers her head, I believe she is not only submitting to the godly authorities of her God and her husband. I believe she is also engaging in a very simple act of spiritual warfare against the ungodly authorities of this world.When we look at headcovering from this perspective, it becomes anything but oppressive. It becomes so gloriously empowering, you almost feel sorry for men that they cannot partake in this ritual!

This is truly compelling in light of the way so many people erroneously view Christianity, especially with regard to women. We are told that Christianity is oppressive to women, that practices such as headcovering are archaic and outdated, symbolizing a primitive culture where women are considered to be second-class citizens. Satan wants nothing more than for you to believe this lie, because in doing so, you are following the world according to his design, a world of rebellion and chaos.

But when you don a headcovering, you are communicating to all the fallen angels that you have submitted to God's order and not chosen to follow the devil's disorder. I have my own theory regarding this. I believe that when a woman wears a headcovering, she is making a very strong statement to the enemy of her soul. She is saying, "You may have deceived the first woman, and you may have deceived millions of women into rejecting God's design, but you will not deceive me!"

Dear readers, when we look at headcovering from this perspective, it becomes anything but oppressive. It becomes so gloriously empowering, you almost feel sorry for men that they cannot partake in this ritual!

This is why I cover. My prayer is that this article I've written will inspire you toward your own journey of discovering covering and the joy that comes with it. If so, you will probably be asking yourself, "How should I cover? When should I cover? What will it be like the first Sunday I walk into church with my new cover?" These were questions I had as well. I am still in a process of discovery myself, but I will share my insights on types of covers, how to wear them, when to wear them, and how to respond to any strange looks you may encounter, all in my next post.

Stay tuned . . .


Reference

MacArthur, J. (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible. Nashville, TN: Nelson Publishing, Inc.

When I was a child, I used to love my father's Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young albums. I must have listened to Deja Vu thousands of times. My favorite tracks on that album were "Everybody I Love You," "Carry On," "Helpless," "Four and Twenty," "Teach Your Children," "Woodstock" -- I must confess, the entire album is just a masterpiece. Even though I am a Christian, it remains one of my guilty pleasures to this day.

There is one song from that album though that runs through my head without fail every single time I think about cutting my hair. It's hypnotic. It's addicting. It's an anthem. (Click here for the lyrics).

Obviously, this is a song about rebellion, a favorite of every long-haired hippy and flower child of the Woodstock generation. Ironically, it also appeals to me as a "Reformed SHEologian." For me, growing my hair is an act of counter-rebellion. The Bible says:

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God (1 Corinthians 11:14-16, ESV.)

Now before anyone accuses me of legalism, let me just make it clear that having long hair or short hair does not affect one's status in the Kingdom of God. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, period. But even as Christians, there are certain practices that are familiar to us which symbolize our regeneration. Baptism is one. The Lord's Supper is another. And I happen to believe that another way we demonstrate that we have embraced God's order in creation is that we present ourselves as male or female by our physical appearance. Our physical appearance is an outward symbol of what's going on in our hearts.

Historically, cutting off one's hair has been a symbol of feminine rebellion for years. Countless movies and television shows will always show a woman cutting her hair after some falling out with a man. For example, the man leaves her for someone half her age, and what is the very next thing we see? The woman going out on the town, charging up all the man's credit cards to get a new wardrobe, a manicure, and of course a drastic haircut. Cutting the hair, especially in an act of "revenge" against a man communicates "I am taking charge of my life!" It is such a powerful image because the woman is taking control of something that she feels belongs to her and her alone: her body.

You might be saying, "So? What's the big deal? It's only hair." Well, here is why I think this is a very subtle, but crucial offense to a Holy God. In a prior post, I wrote the following:

We are in rebellion when we make any decree for ourselves that is against God's design. We are saying that we are in control of our situation, not God. We deny Him of His sovereignty and usurp His place as Most High . . . Whenever we make statements that disagree with Scripture, we are in rebellion. At best, we are insinuating that God's decree could use some fine-tuning. At worst, we allow ourselves to alter God's design completely to suit our own needs. This manifests itself in a wide spectrum of ways, from a simple matter of shirking responsibility or refusing to submit, to declaring oneself to be homosexual or a transgender individual. All of these attitudes are equally sinful because they all stem from the same argument of "I can't help it . . . that's how I was created".

In the above article, I draw a parallel between a simple refusal to submit and a homosexual lifestyle. Both come from the same mindset. If I insist that I have an outspoken personality and "that's how I was created," I will naturally toss aside any commands in God's Word which require me to submit. This is the same argument many homosexuals use to justify their lifestyle: "That's just how I was created." Likewise, when our drastic haircut is accompanied by the phrase, "This is my body and I'll do what I want with it," where is the boundary? Truly an attitude such as this is really no different from the woman who says, "This is my body and I'll fornicate with whomever I want to," or, "This is my body and I have a right to an abortion."

Again, please do not misunderstand where I am coming from. I am not saying cutting one's hair is a sin on par with fornication and murder. I am not saying that cutting one's hair is a sin at all. What I am saying is that the mentality behind some of our motives for cutting our hair is what displeases God. Cutting one's hair is often simply a matter of better hygiene. If your hair is dry or has tattered ends, it can look quite beautiful if it is shorter. In fact, many women wear their hair short and are absolutely stunning.

But cutting one's hair can be construed as sinful when it is done in an effort to undermine, rebel against, or equate oneself with male leadership or God's design. For example, in Splendor in the Grass, our film of the month, Deenie Loomis (Natalie Wood) is seen cutting off her hair after the infamous "bathtub scene." (See it here at 6:50.) Deenie has chosen to preserve her virginity as her mother advises. But when her boyfriend fornicates with another girl, she rages at her mother, saying, "I'm not spoiled! I'm just as fresh and as virginal as the day I was born! I'm a good little girl, mom! A good little, good little, good little girl! I always did everything daddy and mommy told me! I obeyed every word!" In the next scene we see Deenie hacking away at her hair with a pair of scissors. Deenie cuts her hair in a fit of anger, pain, and desperation. She tries to drop her "good girl" image in an effort to win back her boyfriend. This is the type of mentality that rejects God's prescription for holiness.

Although not every woman cuts her hair for these reasons, an overwhelming majority of us have cut our hair at least once in our lifetimes in an effort to "shed" our femininity. Cutting one's hair has become so synonymous with rebellion against traditional womanhood, I have chosen to counter-rebel against this practice by growing mine.


Truly, the only reason I cut my hair short was because I didn't have time to take care of it. I always said that I was too busy to worry about something as trivial as my hair. I wanted my morning routine to be easy, and eliminating an extra twenty minutes on my hair seemed like a good idea. But I thought to myself, if growing my hair is something that would show God that I have fully submitted to Him, shouldn't I make time for it? If the only reason I am not wearing my hair long is because it's a nuisance, what else will I cut short? Will I also sacrifice my daily study of God's Word, assuming I don't have time for that either? I know God doesn't love me any more with longer hair than with shorter hair. But this Jesus Freak feels like letting her freak flag fly. Let's just say, "I feel like I owe it to Someone."