1. The Origins of our Traditions
First, we wish to thank everyone who reads this and responds for having the emotional fortitude to discuss this matter in a rationally objective fashion. The usual range of reaction is from insult (that we consider their favourite doctrine to be a lie) to fear (that maybe we're right). So it is with prayer and a measure of frustration that we have pursued this topic which we feel is very important. Some of you may have already read a precursor to this paper, in which case you will notice that, through serious study and application, we have retracted and/or altered some of our views, always with the goal of learning the truth in mind. We believe that the ritualized head covering is clearly a case of lost meaning.
The Mormons have a really twisted doctrine about baptism for the dead which they base on a single passage in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 15:29) which appears to teach it.
No matter how the case is presented that the idea is completely misguided because of how it contradicts the rest of Scripture, this belief is tenaciously held on to because of how much tradition they have built up around it. And, of course, there is that one passage in Paul's letter.
We will not be dealing with this Mormon belief here, except to show that that is what it can be like to talk to Christadelphians about the issues of hair and head coverings. Whenever the question arises, I Corinthians. 11:3-15 is immediately turned to (the only passage there is) and it is presented as though it were a flat instruction to wear hats and regulate hair styles. Notice that this one passage happens to be in the same letter from Paul as the one the Mormons get their baptism for dead people from.
No matter how the case is presented that the idea is completely misguided because of how it contradicts the rest of Scripture, this belief is tenaciously held on to because of how much tradition has been built up around it. And, of course, there is that one passage in Paul's letter.
Of course, that's the safe, easy way out. It's already an established tradition, almost nobody disagrees with it, and anyone who asks about it is typically so poorly read of the scriptures or so unwilling to rock the boat that pointing out that one passage is normally enough to terminate the discussion. Besides which, if that doesn't work, the “giving offense” line is quite often tossed out as a means of shutting off discussion. So nobody challenges the traditional, face-value interpretation of the passage because, after all, the majority of people go along with it. And many ofthe other churches do it, don't they?
And that's partly why the Christadelphians adopted it in Victorian times when most women still wore some form of hat in public, usually for show. They did it because the Campbellites did it. The Campbellites did it because the Church of England did it. The Church of England did it because the Roman Catholics did it. It certainly did not come from anything proven using the Bible.
At www. kensmen.com/catholic/theveil.html you can find a document which presents the Catholic understanding of I Corinthians 11. With the exception of some references to Canon Law and “Our Lady”, it is - verbatim - the Christadelphian teaching on the subject.
The two articles published in the Christadelphian, in Volume 32 in 1895 and two years later in Volume 34, approach the matter in essentially the same way:they begin by stating the traditional understanding, then - without any serious investigation into the interpretation of the symbology or the use of the Greek words - they proceed to debate the merits of applying the practice today. The issues discussed revolve around whether or not Paul's authority extends to modern times and whether or not the practice should be applied beyond the scope of first century society, and no serious attempt is made to relate the symbols to the Old Testament or to define the meanings in Greek of the words Paul used.
What we will see is that the traditional symbology is in contradiction to the balance of scripture, which is something that the pioneer brethren would certainly have discovered had they been minded to investigate it properly. So rather than hammering the matter out through exhaustive Bible study, they indeed swallowed it whole. And it's easy to understand why. In the face of such enormous errors as infant baptism, supernatural demons, a “Triune Deity”, immortal souls, Mary - Queen of Heaven, and other such things, the head coverings issue would have seemed petty indeed - and this perception of it is reflected in Robert Roberts' article on the subject in 1895.
