There is a grave concern about this issue within the Namibia Annual Conference. Basically the conviction of the majority of the elderly is that women should be properly dressed when going to church. Properly means their heads should be covered when attending church services, more especially the "Holy Communion". I have observed that most of our female pastors never cover their heads and this situation is also being experienced now in the Namibia Annual Conference. Needless to say, is it bringing up debates among the youth and the elderly. What I am trying to establish is, do you also experience similar situations in your Conferences and how did you resolve the matter? What is the position of the Methodist Polity and the AME Church at large? Rev. A. Eberhardt Biwa

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

Answers

Rev Biwa,

As you well know, the Bible contains several references to the reason why we cover the head, but as far as I am aware the Church's Official stance is found in I Corinthians 11:6

"If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head."

I recently observed during a Sunday School Convention that the ushers covered two women's heads twice at communion and each time they pretended that they tilted their head and the covering fell off. Each time the ushers replaced it they did the same. The last time they each did it as they received the wine. Much too my sorrow these were both ministers of the Word. For to me this showed not only disrespect but was full of deceit as well.

Yes, there is a growing concern throughout the Church that people who ought to know better and those who ought to teach us are the main offenders of deception, disorder and doing wrong.

My Bishop has adopted as the Official theme of the Distinct, "Family of Faith: Doing God's Work, God's Way" One of the supporting scriptural texts is, "Let all things be done decently and in order." - I Corinthians 14:40

God is a God of order and not of confusion deceit, and disrespect. When those who lead us practice and teach others disobedience, disloyalty and disrespect it is as Jesus has said, better for them that a millstone were hanged about their neck, and they were cast into the sea.

Everywhere I go the Lay is deeply concerned about what we hear and see. I believe we will find that the next General Conference will be an interesting one to say the least. Many people, who think not, will get a rude awakening and they will be either tried, reprimanded or put in check

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

This is an interesting issue which I have observed in my travels across the US over the last 5 years. There was a time when all women, regardless of whether you were a stewardess, deaconess, missionary, etc., the hat was worn. I have attended churches inside and outside my District where the practice of women wearing "hats" during communion is now non-uniform. The problem unfortunately is due to any credible "enforcement" policy. Even if folks are aware of the Paulist admonition which Robert notes, many will continue to be non-conformists. Discretion is recognized as the norm. My own church no longer requires this policy. So, if some women feel it is unnecessary to be adorned with the "hats" at communion they are granted the "liberty" to do so. Ironically, some of the same protestors of wearing the communion hats do wear some incredible looking dress hats. QED

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

I shall attempt to answer your concern from a practical rather than a theological perspective Pastor Biwa. I hope it is of some help to you.

In my former charge, a beautiful lady had a concern for this issue. She came to me and offered to make some white "coverings" that women could use if they did not come in a hat. The "Coverings" as I call them, turned out to be round lace type dowlies that a woman could place on the top her head very easily without messing up her hair. We had a brief discussion about "requiring" them of all women without a hat but I was not comfortable with that. Instead, we made them available to any woman who wished to use them. The numbers who chose to do so were small at first but grew each month. Our Stewardess had them so they were available as the women came in line to be served Communion They simply return them to a stewardess as they depart the altar area. Since I moved to my new Charge last November I had not given this practice much thought. Several months ago we discussed this passage of Scripure in one of our Bible Studies. I shared with the group how we had addressed this issue in my former Charge. The response was positive. I sat the lady from my former Church a month or so ago and asked her if she would be kind enough to make some of those same coverings for my new Church. She graciously agreed and we introduced them for the first time this past Sunday. My observation was that about 30% of the women with no hat chose to use them which I thought was pretty good considering it was the first time. I think when it is done this way as a voulntary act of worship it is a beautiful thing and does not become a divisive issue. I hope that in some way helps....

blessings, Pastor Mike Barta

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

Shouldn't we be careful to distinguish things that are cultural and traditional choices from things that are directives of God? Failure to make the distinction, it seems to me, puts people in religious shackels. Do we really think the God of creation and redemption and justice and liberation is concerned about..head coverings? Jesus took the Pharisees to task for caring more about adherence to traditional norms than love for one another and true holiness. Head coverings? We need to make sure we are covered by the blood of Jesus!(Can I get a QED on that?)

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

The point I make here is that we are a denominational church. As a result no Bishop, Presiding Elder, Pastor, Church or member has any right to change the rules. If we are uncomfortable or disagree with the rules our choices are two. We can either leave the AME Church or work to change the rules. ONLY The General Conference may do the latter. History tells us that this will, can and may be done.

Not Bethel, Allen or any other church, clergy, or member has any right to break or change the rules. In a denomination church the body rules and the power of the body in our case rest solely and unequivocally with the General Conference. This includes the Order of Worship as well and the fact that our communion elements MUST consist of unleavens bread and UNFERMENTED Fruit of the vine: white linen and silver vessels.

In my opinion,changing the rules is tantamount to my being stopped for speeding and saying to the officer, "Oh that sign is just a guide". However in the Church of God it is a more serious matterindeed.

As I see it, in a denomination church it is not a matter of choice but accepting the rule of the church until such a time as they are properly, examined discussed and changed. We therefor must work for change, if we find such a change is warranted and acceptable to God.

I have in my possession Allen's First Discipline of 1817. Based on the Biblical interpretation of that day, this Discipline specifically states the at No time may women and men sit together in the church. It further states that the structure and design of every church building should be simple and at no time should they be elaborate or ornate in any way and that all talking in the congregation either before or after worship should be reprimanded and cease to be.

Obviously as time progressed we reconsidered these rules to be inconsistent what what we believed. It is apparent here that some Biblical admonition are lifted out of the time and context in which they were written and inconsistent with their intent. However until the whole church examines what the precepts are, they must remain as what we know and deem the truth to be.

I don't entirely agree with the rule, which requires all officers to tithe. Furthermore I think it is unenforceable since no church I know has W2 Forms of all the member who attend However we are compelled to abide by the rules of the Church to which we belong. This is especially true of Leaders and the Clergy.

Allen himself lobbied for and changed the rule that no woman should speak in the church. When Jarena Lee asked him if Christ did not die for the woman as well as the man, he agreed and thus later allowed her to preach. He also allowed a visiting English Woman, Miss Ripley, to address the congregation of Bethel Church. Thus subsequent General Conferences and Disciplines reflected this change. The AME Discipline and Polity represent 216 years of doing things in order. Who am I-- Johnny come lately--to say that they are wrong? Again to draw from Some Paul, all things are lawful but not expedient. Yet if it causes my brother or sister to stumble I will refrain for the good of all.

Change can and does occur but they must be done in order and through proper channels for the good of all. Somebody is watching you and somebody is watching me. As Leaders and members of the Body of Christ we must die daily to self (EGO) and what we think, take up the cross and follow HIM!

-- Anonymous, September 03, 2002

My Brothers & Sisters:

First of all, we need to understand the context of Paul or whoever wrote the particular passage of scripture, concerning women in general. We must understand that I am sad to say that the Bible was written from a patriachal point of view, which often times means that it is very negative towards women. Now that we understand that the context of the day was a patriachal society and those viewpoints were infused in their writings, then we can look at this issue from a different perspective.

Bro. Byrd is correct, we have lifted up our traditions so high, that we think that is is the gospel. It is not. We think that just because we do something one way that it is the correct way. Traditions in our church are very regional.

The churches that I have served all say the reason they were covering, heads and I said were because of the traditions of the past and when pressed even further, they stated the passage of scripture cited in my brothers misinterpretation of the text. When looking at the text we must interpret it in light of what was going on culturally and historically. When we unpack the text and says what does it mean today, then we can look at things from a much broader perspective.

And for all of you fundamentalist, I don't see of you telling women to not get a divorce if they are in an physically and emotionally abusive relationship, because the bible says not that women can't divorce their husbands

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002

The problem that I have with us AME's is that we always confused issues. We try to address one issue and in the process attempt to bring in two or more issues and put our debates on the basis of the first issue. My question is clear and simple. What is the position of the AME Church on the issue at stake, wearing of hats by women to church and more especially at the Holy communion table. I just want the position of the church, I am not interested to hear philosophies and ideologies, NO! I am concerned because this issue is soon going to become a heated debate in our Conference.

For the Bishop informed two female pastors on two separate occasions that they need not to wear any hats, or need not to cover their heads if their are in full "regalia". Now the youngsters have picked it up and misinterpretations of the statement is travelling fast. Soon we will find ourselves with the situation that nobody is following ICor. 11. As to some arguments that you have put forward, if that is the basis on which we are to argue, transforming the prescribtions and advices in the bibble as portions of scripture that were used to address the situation in the past then my question is what in the Bibble is then relevant to us.

What is it that is essential to us? What is then the significance of Pauline's teachings if we have to bring them down today simply because we consider it of something of the past?

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002

Well, Rev. Byrd I must confess I too would rather be covered with The Blood!! To set the record straight I love wearing hats but can't get my wife to wear hats. Are we indeed running the risk of becoming neo-Pharaisaic in our zealous devotion to matters which are indeed cultural indiosyncracies and rooted in tradition? This fundamental question raised by Rev. Byrd requires a thoughtful response. I'm sure honorable men like Robert and Rev. Biwa would skillfully argue in the negative. Robert's last post is particularly instructive because he offers the appropriate mechanism for revision of policy or change, i.e. General Conference. But, I'm not sure if this particular issue has ever been written in stone that the wearing of hats during communion is compulsory. The enlightened discussion provided by Mike Barta, Byrd and Rev. Williams demonstrates, at least to me, a concerted effort to maintain a sort of ecclesiastical equilibrium. Tradition and custom has its place but it should always be subservient to our theological mandate. Since we are all Paulists in our discovery of theological truth, remember Paul discouraged the practice of eating meat if it represented a stumbling block to some in their faith walk. It seems to me the wearing of hats is analogous to the practice of women wearing hats. I sure would like to read a woman's perspective on this issue :-) QED

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002

~~~ Taking a break from medicaid data entry and I find....~~~

Oh my goodness, what a segregated dicussion. Well, being the lone female( since this post is primarily concerning us), I'll give my .02 on the matter.

As far as the denomination taking a stand on the issue of head coverings, I've never heard or seen it. It appears to be a personal choice or something that is encouraged by a local church, but acutally I feel there are too many more pressing battles for the denomination than this, so....

As a child, yes, my mother dressed me with those cute Easter bonnets so much that I could'nt stand hats when I got older. However, when reading the passage in 1Cor., there came a deeper meaning for me. It's not just about the wearing of the hat, but covering your head as an act of showing reverence to God in His holy place. Still, I had to come to terms with this act myself, for I also felt it only related to single women because with married women, their husbands are their covering. Being a single woman, it wasn't/isn't an issue for me....I understand that He said to study to show "myself" approved... Once again, I read the scripture and it still impresses upon me soley an act of reverence. Which in fact, is what we are to do...to fear the Lord is to revere the Lord.

So what's the problem....well...interpretation!! Just as we have varying ideas about makeup, jewelry, here is another one. Being a choir member and understanding my priority role in the worship service in attire also, I've wondered why we are not allowed to wear earrings with our robes, however, female ministers can wear them with their robes. To me, its hypocritical...sending skewed messages. But, hey, isn't that what the Pharisees got caught up in...rituals...traditions...which have their place, but understand why we do, not just ...Do!

To me, this is something that should be taught, explained, but not mandated. Too many other real kingdom building concerns outweigh this personal issue.

Hey, my .02....simplistically

Peace,

-- Anonymous, September 04, 2002

Thank you Rev. Biwa for raising this question in the Forum. I thought this is matter that we alone gapple with in Africa, and South Africa specifically. In fact, even in South Africa, I thought that it was only the question of debate and discussion among the black church communities.

We, in the 19th Episcopal District, especially in the East Transvaal Annual Conference, had debates on this matter. The debate took place a year following an objection by the Late Bishop Ming's visit to the opening worship of the Annual Conference in 1996. As the celebartion of the Eucharist was taking place, he noted an usher denying a person to come to the alter to receive communion before covering her head. in fact, if I recall well, the women was removed from the alter. At the subsequent Annual Conference, during the Conference Institute, this matter was tabled for discussion because who are pro-covering were apparently offended by the repudiation of the usher by the Late Bishop Ming.

What emerged clearly from that debate is that we will never agree on the intepretation of those text being branded about, regarding the covering of the head, wearing of jewelry, etc. Even from this debate, one can sense that coming out very clearly.

I fully agree to the point of view that decency should be the issue. My fear is that the matter of how women should dress is not necessary raised by women themselves. But, more often, it is men who are so concern to the point of referring to texts about these matters. I wonder what would happen the day women remind us that we should not be wearing trousers because that was not the tradition way for men to dress in the African tradition.

I also fully agree that there are critical matters, and they are so many, for the church to consider in these times than this matter. They matter of life and death, needing the attention of the church - including the epidemic that is fast spreading and the pervasive poverty, malnutrition etc., in our communities. Ours have been most about burying and it looks is though we are satisfied because we have been ordained for that purpose - ".....bury the dead....." - yet we should be preaching and teaching that he has come so that we may have life in abundance.

I wish the conference well as it meet. I pray the Lord that at that time, something more serious would have come for the attention of the conference.

I know, God is smiling on you therefore keep smiling.

-- Anonymous, September 05, 2002

It is sooo very sad to see this asinine discussion thread. When the world needs to know Jesus Christ and His righteousness, we Pharisees are discussing whether or not a woman ought to wear a doily. How ridiculous can this get? As usual AME's are too busy worrying about the outside rather than the inside. The idea of this being an issue at a general conference is beyond my imagination. To those who are trying to throw tissues, doilies or any other form of head covering on a woman's head during communion. Use common sense and welcome to the 21st Century. To those of you who insist on living a Pauline lifestyle,I want you to commit to a total Pauline lifestyle. Don't drive a car, walk everywhere, and complain constantly about the thorns you can't seem to shake. God Bless

-- Anonymous, September 08, 2002

Harold I was not going to respond to this thread for like you I am much more concerned about winning souls for Christ. But if one does not say anything then those who do speak out will be the only voices heard. I appreciate your honesty. Communion is the rememberance of our lord and savior Jesus Christ, of all that he is and all that he has done for us! It is not a rememberence of the things we do or wear. The focus should be on God and his son. There is another issue that is implied in this thread and it is "how women are suppose to dress and act" during communion. We are to wear hats, coverlets etc. But nothing is said about the men. Sexism is but one tool that the children of darkness use to divide and separate the body of Christ. We must be vigilante. And in terms of quotes from Paul we must look at the book and chapter in it's entirety. There were several women that worked with Paul in spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ and he admired them greatly. The church of corinth was an unusual church. This was a church that was more focused on patting itself on the back than taking care of the poor. First corinthians 13 from Paul is written to this church to tell them what real love is! For there were many in that church that boasted of the things that they did as opposed to showing love. There are theologians that also believe that the women in that church were particularly vocal about their points of views and were not listening to the holy spirit. It is thought that it is to these women that Paul was making his statement about silence. In another thread it is asked that we understand that what is written on the board cannot be fully interpreted because we can not see body language etc. This may be true, but we also need to be wary of what is posted on the this board also and ask the holy spirit for guidance. When statements that exclude part of the body of Christ are lifted up as truth, we then must look at what Jesus said and did. His ministry was one that was inclusive. To my sisters and brothers in Namibia pray with all of your heart and pray with women and men in attendence for guidance as to how you do communion. Jesus said "What you do to the least of these you do to me" Let them come to Christ as they are and he will cover them with his annointing, it will be the only "hat" that a woman or man will need.

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2002

Actually Bro. Harold's post is both comic relief and theological chastisement. Tradition and custom define our way of life, be it, at work, school, home or church. The purpose of tradition is to maintain an acceptable level of order since the alternative, anarchy, is far less desirable. I am a critic of church tradition only when the spiritual regulations are devoid of theological substance. For example, it is only by tradition that we attend church on Sunday. Can anyone point to NT Scripture which "commands" that our worship be limited to Sunday? I am persuaded that this form of tradtional church attendance (Sunday) is good since most folk work Monday-Saturday. However, let's not kid ourselves because clothing is always a source of disagreement about what is acceptable or unacceptable. Women are tradition-bound to honor a certain hem-line dress code when it comes to church attendance. It is an unwritten rule that attractive-looking women ought not wear dresses when the hem-line is "10 degrees north of her knee caps". No need being an accomplice to a roving-eyed male's journey into inequity according to the proponents of this regualtion. Likewise, men are tradition-bound to wear a dress shirt, pants and neckware accessories like neckties to church. I am not oppossed to this tradition, even if it is perceived as being burdensome, because I happen to think an impeccably dressed man exudes confidence and conviction. When I saw Bishop Murph in Tampa last June this is what immediately caught my eye. I happen to like wearing short pants but I know with my good-looking legs it would be advisable to keep the sisterhood in check, so like other men I wear pants. I sure hope my wife doesn't read that last sentence :-) QED

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2002

Once again I must respond.

In another string I have suggested that we read ALL that is written before we respond. The issue is not whether we are right or wrong. The issue is how we change the thinking or change what is wrong. As I have said above the Letters of Paul as well and many other scriptural texts are sometimes taken out of context and require reevaluation and a closer look. Often when we rant and rave about what is wrong, we really must bear the blame because we do not use the resources we already have at our disposal. The church is well aware of this fact and has provided a proper vehicle to correct and make the change.

As I indicated above Richard Allen was also aware of women's issues and effectively lobbied for change. When an issue is widespread and includes the whole church, as this one does, the vehicle for its correction is the General Conference where rules and misconceived notions are effectively challenged and changed. If we fail to use this method of change we are just spinning our wheels. A Prime example of this is the fact that the Council of Bishops is no longer all male.

Lest one should think that I am a male chauvinist and put women down let me quickly assure you that you are wrong. I am so pro woman that I have written and presented several documents on this very issue. One I entitled the, "The Daughters of Allen" and another "Women In Ministry". If you request I shall be more than happy to sed these to you.

Since my motherand sisters women whom I dearly respected and loved. I have no intent or purpose to put another woman down. I am sure this is true of all on this board. So we need to stop fighting and come to grips that change in needed and that we already have a vehicle to bring the change to pass. If we fail to do this it shall ever be thus.

-- Anonymous, September 10, 2002

I want thank Rev. A E Biwa for introducing this issue to the Forum and the participants for their contributions. The crux of the matter is that our African value systems are not respected. In Africa it is an unwritten tradition that women should cover their heads. Enters a new bishop with new policies, procedure and protocols based on his/her belief systems and convictions, the whole episcopal district is ordered to follow suit. We are a very vast denomination with diverse continental and cultural issues, and I think and proposed that our leaders must also respect local customs and traditions. Many of the Epistles written by Paul, Peter and even sayings of Jesus are contradictory, but we accept them and implement those selectively. For instance, Paul says that women should keep quite in the church, but we have a female bishops (very vocal one for that matter) and hundreds (even thousands!) of female leaders on all levels of the church! And we do not silence them. In my opinion, it is a matter of preference! If the American society prefers women not to cover their heads, an African elected to the Episcopacy should not go and force them to cover their heads. And versa vice. In my official capacity as a pastor I always preach that salvation is a personal matter, not a group issue - and if a lady come to the altar for both baptism and eucharist, I'll serve them with both sacraments. But if the elder generation in my local church, for the sake of uniformity, decency and order (and whatever motives) would require ladies to cover their heads, I would not stop them. The problem in the Namibia Annual Conference is not so much the debate about this, but the way the issue has been handled by the bishop. Now many a times, Rev. Hanse and Biwa are the only persons who raise their voices during such controversial issues and the majority sit there quite. And it has got to do with culture. In Africa followers do not speak about things they dislike in the presence of their leaders. This is true in cultural set up, national democratic intitiaiveas and alsoin the church! Many a times bishops stand on the floor and talk for hours and the people just sit there, quite, but that should not be misunderstood as approval. When we leave that session people start to talk and it never ceases to amaze me how and why people give a silent nod when they are displease. "The fact of the matter is that I should not make it official policy that everybody should take off their shoes when entering for worship simply because my wife does not wear shoes in worship".

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2002

Rev. Hanse:

Rest assured your observation regarding the silent majority acquiesencing to earthly and spiritual leaders holds equally true INSIDE the continential US. I hope your critical comments about women in the ministry and Biblical inconsistencies do not result in you "ex-communication" :-) QED

-- Anonymous, September 19, 2002