Not veiling is a sin, just like not baptizing your babies

Continued from objection 2: “the hair is the covering”

A third objection to veiling goes beyond exegetical disagreement, and positively disallows veiling on the grounds of sectarianism.

Objectors will point out that if veiling is required by God, then not veiling is by definition a sin. Thus, they question the sincerity or consistency of proponents who claim not to judge those who worship unveiled. How could they avoid judging them? Given this inclination, they further argue that veiling ought to be disallowed in a church, since otherwise you will have women who believe they are being obedient to Jesus necessarily viewing the other women as continuing in disobedience. This is a recipe for division and misunderstanding. They will even go so far as to say that veiling in worship is sectarian, since it is an implicit public condemnation of those who don’t.

The phrasing above is essentially verbatim from actual comments I have both heard, and received.

That this objection seems to be coming out of the CREC, which allows both pedobaptism and credobaptism, is extremely ironic. Let us apply the same logic:

If pedobaptism is required by God, then not baptizing your babies is by definition a sin. Thus, how could pedobaptists avoid judging the credobaptists (and vice versa)? Will you not have parents who believe they are being obedient to Jesus necessarily viewing the other parents as continuing in disobedience? And is this not a recipe for division and misunderstanding? Pedobaptism is therefore sectarian, since it is an implicit public condemnation of those who don’t baptize their infants.

When you understand how pedobaptists can get along charitably with credobaptists, you will understand how veiling proponents can get along charitably with those who don’t veil.

The obviousness of this response makes me doubt that objectors are truly secure in their exegetical case against veiling. Were they thinking rationally, they would never use such a manipulative, hasty, and ill-considered line of argumentation. When ordinarily clear thinkers don’t notice that they’re pointing the gun at their own feet, it’s a good sign that they are so busy trying to hit something scary that they aren’t taking the time to aim.

If only they would aim. That way we could also avoid a lot of other childish objections that come along with this one—such as that there is a danger of vanity in veiling, and therefore we should avoid it. Imagine applying the same argument to church offices. Or, since there is a danger of drunkenness in wine, we should only have bread at the Lord’s Supper.

I have even heard (from a pulpit, no less) that since veiling is a matter of religious devotion, people who practice it may become dependent on a man-made object for devotion to God—which makes veiling idolatrous. Yet quite obviously, similar logic can be applied to all of the priestly garments of the Old Testament, making the entire Levitical cultus an exercise in potential idolatry.

There is also an extremely common objection that no one can say with certainty what 1 Corinthians 11 means, and we therefore need not obey it. Those who find this passage baffling, for whatever reason, will simply deny that anyone can find it clear—and further say that since every lasting ordinance of God is perspicuous, this ambiguity is proof that it no longer applies! This is rather like the feminist who dismisses the clear commands of scripture about women not preaching even when no men are present. But while there are unclear elements in 1 Corinthians 11, the command to veil is perfectly clear. Its purpose is fully explicable: to ensure that any glory not God’s is covered in worship. And its application requires only the slightest modicum of wisdom: if the woman’s hair is visibly glorious, the command is being neglected.

This denial is essentially weaponized incompetence. Imagine applying the same standard to the prohibition on blood, and arguing that since we don’t know exactly how to apply it—does it mean only literal blood, or also the red juices found in raw meat?—we therefore need not obey it. Or, to return to the title of this post, let’s apply the same logic to baptism. When God wants a law to be preserved for all generations, that law is unambiguous for all generations—so since it is unclear to many Christians whether we should baptize infants, infant baptism is not a requirement any longer. Indeed, since it is not stated with clarity how we are to baptize, let us dispense with the practice altogether!

This is a borderline blasphemous approach to scripture. Instead of a posture of humility that admits our own failure to read God’s word well, it foists all the blame back onto God for not being clear enough. But God was clear enough. The problem isn’t him. It is us.