Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 7
The speaker claims the practice wasn’t “Anabaptist” but “all Christians… from the beginning… until the mid-20th century,” then piles up evidence (church photo wall 1924–1969, R.C. Sproul’s memory, pastors in the 1930s “allowing” unveiled women); what would it mean for modern evangelicals if the historical default really was universal veiling, and how would that change the burden of proof in today’s debates?
Another way to ask: If head covering really was normal for most Christians until the mid-1900s, what would that mean for evangelicals today? How would that change who has to prove their point in today’s arguments?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
If the historical default was broadly universal veiling, the transcript implies modern evangelicals would need to explain why they stopped, not why someone continues. The burden of proof would shift from “prove it’s for today” to “justify the change,” especially since multiple traditions treated it as normal Christian practice.
- The speaker heard and investigated the claim: “women have been veiled in all Christian denominations everywhere… until the mid-20th century,” and he initially thought, “That’s just not possible.”
- Photo-wall evidence: a Church of Christ had Easter photos from “1924… until 1969,” and “all the women had head coverings.”
- R.C. Sproul memory (high school years, 1950s): “I never saw a woman… whose head wasn’t covered with a hat or veil.”
- 1930s example: a pastor was in the newspaper because he “began to allow women… without anything on their heads,” admitting it “was not the historical practice of the church.”
- Quotes list many movements (Calvin/Knox, Wesley, Church of England, Luther, Catholic canon law) as supporting covering in worship.
- Anabaptist comment in discussion: “Everybody did it… not… a distinctive… we kept… when everyone else changed.”