Hugo McCord

A sincere brother, standing up for what he thinks is right, is circulating ideas in a local congregation that could cause trouble.

I. A HEAD COVERING

Some Christian women had had an apostle to lay hands on them making them prophetesses (Acts 18:8; 21:9). Since it was "a disgrace for a woman to speak in the congregation" (1 Corinthians 14:35, FHV), prophetess or not, their prophesying or leading in a prayer (1 Corinthians 11:5) was never in the church assembly, but in ladies’ classes.

So, in a ladies’ class (and it would carry over into the church assembly, 1 Corinthians 11:17-18), Paul said that women in general, not simply prophetesses, should cover their heads, and that if they did not, they might as well have their long hair "sheared" or their heads "shaved" (1 Corinthians 11:6). With Paul, who was "writing" to the Corinthians "the Lord’s command" (14:37), it was two coverings or none at all. He based his teaching, not on a local culture, but going back to a divinely arranged order: "God is the head of Christ," "Christ is the head of every man," and "the man is the head of the woman" (1 Corinthians 11:3).

However, some able Bible students believe that a woman’s long hair is the only covering required (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:15). Since there is honest disagreement, I believe Romans 14:4 should apply: "Who are you to condemn another man’s servant? It is the concern of his own Master whether he stands or falls," for "Each one of us shall give an account of himself to God" (Romans 14:12).

I taught the young women at Oklahoma Christian College that each one must study for herself, and make up her own mind, and that even if a woman’s husband believes she should wear a covering, if she herself does not believe that is what the Bible teaches, she sins if she puts on the covering, for "whatsoever is not of faith [that is, personal conviction] is sin" (Romans 14:23).

Furthermore, if a husband demands that his wife wear a covering when she herself is not convinced that she should, then he is exercising his headship in a dictatorial way, and shows that he loves himself and his authority more than he loves his wife. No woman should go against her own conscience; she must "obey God" rather than her husband (Acts 5:29).

The Pauline parallel is clear: a thing can be right in itself before God, but wrong to a learning Christian. This principle Paul explained by the fact that some uninformed Christians still thought that certain foods (as pork chops) were not kosher, and that those foods must not be eaten. He wrote, "Nothing is unclean of itself, except it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean" (Romans 14:14), and "Each one of us shall give an account of himself [or, herself] to God (Romans 14:12).

Moreover, I do not believe that a woman’s being bare-headed or a man’s wearing a hat is as important as our obeying the second greatest commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39). If we "bite and devour one another" (Galatians 5:15) and cause church trouble, outsiders will know, said Jesus, that we are truly not his disciples (John 13:35). But those who love each other will "pursue peaceful things, and things that build up one another" (Romans 14:19).

II. ONE CUP

Honest people have different beliefs about the number of containers to be used in distributing the fruit of the vine in the Lord’s Supper. Since Jesus only used one container, some conclude that we should only use one. But are we not missing the meaning of the Lord’s Supper if our minds are on the number of containers? Jesus observed the Lord’s Supper in an "upstairs room" (Mark 14:15) at "night" (John 13:30). If we conclude today that the fruit of the vine must be in only one container, could we not just as logically conclude that the Supper must be observed only in an upstairs room and only at night? What significance is there in the place of observance, or the time of the day, or the number of containers for the fruit of the vine?

Moreover, we read: "The cup of blessing, for which we give thanks, is it not a sharing of Christ’s blood?" (1 Corinthians 10:16). Is the container a sharing of Christ’s blood, or the fruit of the vine in the container? Furthermore, we read that Jesus "took a cup, and gave thanks, and said, ‘Take this and distribute it among yourselves’" (Luke 22:17). If he meant for the container to be distributed, we are left confused; if he meant for the contents of the cup to be distributed, we have a clear understanding.

In addition, we read that "we all partake of the one bread and of the one cup" (1 Corinthians 10:17, Uncials F and G). In Ephesus, Paul partook of "the one bread and of the one cup," but on the same day the Christians at Corinth were partaking of "the one bread and of the one cup." If all over the world there is only "one cup," and if the "cup" means the container holding the fruit of the vine (which it does not), how could Christians 300 miles away (Corinth from Ephesus) partake of the "one cup"? But if we understand that the "one cup" is not the container but the fruit of the vine, and that two cups might mean apple juice and the fruit of the vine, and that three cups might mean orange juice and apple juice and the fruit of the vine, then it becomes clear how Christians all over the world partake of "one cup" each Lord’s Day.

Since honest people who love the Bible differ about the number of containers for the fruit of the vine, let us pray and apply Paul’s words to the "one cup" discussion: "Therefore, let us no longer judge one another" (Romans 14:13). As with the head covering discussion, so with the "one cup," let us "pursue peaceful things, and things that build up one another" (Romans 14:19).

III. FOOT-WASHING

In Bible lands, where a few people rode donkeys, but where most people walked in sandals with no socks on dusty, unpaved roads, the first act of hospitality of a host was to provide a pan of water that a guest might wash his feet. To the tired traveler, to dip his feet into water and to wash them indeed was most refreshing. For a guest to have to say, "You gave me no water for my feet," was evidence of a host’s discourtesy (Luke 7:44).

The host provided the pan and the water, and the guest washed his own feet (Genesis 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; Judges 19:21). However, in one Bible example, Abigail displayed a willing heart to serve others when she said to David’s men: "Behold, your maidservant is a maid to wash the feet of my lord’s servants" (1 Samuel 25:41). Jesus displayed the same willing heart to serve others when he washed his apostles’ feet (John 13:3-17).

The feet Jesus washed had not been carefully washed before Jesus did the chore. Neither did he wash one foot of each man as a religious ceremony. Both feet of the men were dirty from walking, both were washed, and the washing was for cleansing. Jesus was setting forth "an example," he said to the apostles, "that you should do as I did to you" (John 13:15). He was teaching by an action, more vivid than by words, that everyone should be willing to help others.

That help to others might be to wash the feet of anyone having a need (1 Timothy 5:10), or to bandage wounds (Luke 10:34), or to bathe a corpse (Acts 9:37). But no religious ceremony was ever connected with feet-washing or wound bandaging or corpse-bathing. The church came together for a religious ceremony to observe the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:20-34), but never to wash feet nor to bandage wounds nor to bathe corpses.

Sincere people today come together once a month to wash one foot, a practice they have learned from preachers, not from the Bible. All such humanly-originated religious practices Jesus condemned when he quoted God as saying, "They worship me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9).

Again, as with the head covering discussion, and as with the "one cup" discussion, so with the one foot-washing discussion, let us "pursue peaceful things, and things that build up one another," and "let brotherly love continue" (Romans 14:19; Hebrew 13:1).