Either way, it is very unusual today to see a woman in church with her head covered. Never in Protestantism (which is interesting in light of Sola Scriptura) and seldom in Roman Catholicism. Even within Orthodoxy, it is not universally practiced, except in the very conservative churches. The abbot of the monastery where Kathryn and I attend church has determined that parishioners will follow St Paul's instruction: women cover their heads, men do not.Is this practice really necessary? I don't know, I'm certainly no biblical scholar. But I do know that we start treading on dangerous ground when we start saying things like "Paul was writing to a particular culture/time/situation; his instruction doesn't apply to us here today in twenty-first century America," or "we definitely need to follow this part of Scripture, but not necessarily that one."
I also know that, when it comes to our worship of God Almighty, it is probably not such a bad idea to err on the side of humility and piety.
The following is from an Orthodox online forum. I thought it was worth passing along:
Dear Johanna,
There are so many aspects of our Orthodox faith, that if put to scrutiny, might not make sense from the worldly standpoint. Our Orthodox Faith is a Mystery, and as faithful sons and daughters of the Church, we are often called upon to accept in love, humility, and obedience that which the Church and those who God has put overs tells us is the right thing to do. We do not have the freedom to act upon our own opinions, for our being part of Christ's Church involves being together with one heart and one mind. Sad to say, in these last days, far too many people, even Hierarchs have gone on paths that could become dangerous. But for us, it is always to our advantage spiritually to adhere to even small good practices as best we can.
There have been some practices which have arisen over the years, and it is hard to pinpoint from whence they came. For instance, while serving at my first parish some twenty years ago, the local bishop issued an ukase requiring women to wear head coverings during Divine services, and not to wear lipstick if they planned on receiving communion at liturgy. After I had read the ukase ( directive), one of my prominent parishioners, a very good and active woman, approached me and said, "Father, I was taught that only a virgin covers her head during services, but a married woman only covers her head when she is about to go up to receive communion. That is what I learned, and that is what I am going to do!" I quietly said to her, "M., you are free to do as you wish, but our bishop, a successor of the Apostles has issued an official ukas on this matter. I obeyed him and read the ukase. If you wish to be disobedient to your bishop, what can I say? However, don't you think that if you follow the ukase, you will please God and the Holy Theotokos, the highest example of obedience and modesty?" She said nothing at the time, but a few weeks later, she appeared with a head covering, and so did the other women of the parish. Later, she came up and said, "You know Father, ever since I began to cover my head, I feel like I am in my own little "church" in my head-that is, I find that besides just singing as I do in the choir, I spend more time praying as well." Dear Johanna, it is never to our benefit to look at these situations with the eyes of the world, but with spiritual eyes, and then it will be given us to see.
Dear Johanna, when we allow ourselves to be concerned about what is "fair," or if such and such is a "sin" if we do not do it, we miss out on the opportunity To please God-not by blind submission or resentful obedience, but through love and humility. All too often we ask, "Why do I have to do that!" Better to do every little thing we can to please God.
Respectfully in Christ, hieromonk Averky
4 comments:
How can a bishop make an arbitrary decision like the lipstick decision? doesn't that open the door for abuse of power? Why is he considered the descendent of the Apostles? Can a different bishop in a different town make a decison
contrary to what his counter-part made? I have wondered about the head covering 'controversy' over the years. Although, looking at the middle eatern culture, where the women often wear head coverings all the time, I can see where the cultural explanation came from. Something to think about.
"How can a bishop make an arbitrary decision like the lipstick decision?"
Remember that Orthodox Christians kiss everything (another Middle Eastern/Greek thing), so if a bishop decides that he doesn't want lipstick smudges on the icons, crosses, chalices, etc, then it makes sense for him to tell his female parishioners to keep the lipstick at home.
"doesn't that open the door for abuse of power?"
I suppose. But what postion of authority isn't an opportunity for abuse? That's just part of the human condition.
"Why is he considered the descendent of the Apostles?"
Every Orthodox bishop can trace his ordination, on paper, all the way back to one of the Apostles. When the local Antiochian bishop, Bishop Mark, for example, became a bishop, at least two other bishops had to consecrate him by the laying on of hands. Each of those bishops had to be consecrated by at least two other bishops, who were consecrated by at least two others, and so on and so forth, all the way back to St Peter--yes that St Peter!--who was the first bishop of Antioch. This is what St Paul was talking about when he told Timothy "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2Tim 2.2).
"Can a different bishop in a different town make a decison contrary to what his counter-part made?"
Sure, if one bishop wants to allow lipstick or topless women (i.e. with no head covering), it's his responsibility to pastor the church as he sees fit, in whatever manner best allows him to shepherd his flock (Jn 21.15-17). The canons of the Church allow for a lot of flexibility so there will be some slight variation in practice from one church to the next. What bishops are not allowed to be flexible on is doctrine. That's why every single Orthodox church in the world will teach the exact same thing. This uniformity in belief seems to play out, more often than not, in uniformity in practice as well.
That explains the lipstick thing ... I wouldn't want red/pink/purple lips prints on everything either. We still question why Orthodoxy seems so 'hidden' in the USA ... such a secret. How are they trying to impact their community? We can talk more about it when you get here. But be ready for more questions.
Oh yeah, get your "hulk" on ... we need help fixing our broken bed:-)
"We still question why Orthodoxy seems so 'hidden' in the USA"
You and me both! Orthodoxy is the second biggest Christian group in the world (after the RCC) and yet they make up only 1% of the Christian population in the U.S. They're simply not getting the word out like they could/should (I mentioned in a previous post that there are things about the Orthodox Church that I'd like to see done differently. That's one of them). There's a reason that it's like this (it's a poor excuse but a reason nonetheless); I'll try to explain it the way I understand it when I see you, or I'll put it on its own post. We'll see.
Although even if the Orthodox did broadcast their message more widely, I'm not certain people would respond to it they way they do with the megachurches and the ones that provide entertainment. Orthodox worship and practice is so against the cultural grain in the U.S. that i don't expect it ever to be as prominent as Roman Catholicism or Protestantism.
"How are they trying to impact their community?"
I asked this question, too at the monastery. They (the Orthodox) feed the hungry and care for the sick etc, just like every other church does (or should), but the abbot of the monastery told me that first and foremost, the Orthodox Church is a hospital for souls. So the needs of this life take a backseat to the needs of the next.
I'm definitley willing to answer whatever questions I can.
Post a Comment