Dean Burgon, the beleaguered white knight of the Bible versions wars

I've been skimming through Dean J W Burgon's Revision Revised again. I still very much enjoy his rather swashbuckling style, which I know others don't like. To me his style reflects the psychological position of someone with superior understanding having to cope with people with far less understanding who are nevertheless set as experts over him.

[added later: Since it is now the politically correct position to dismiss W&H's work as obsolete and Burgon's work therefore irrelevant, having been eclipsed by later and better texts such as more discoveries of old manuscripts, more work at putting together better versions of the Critical Text, etc., it needs to be said up front that this is merely a smokescreen. It may not be recognized as a smokescreen of course, it is no doubt sincerely believed by some as an important truth, but it is a smokescreen nevertheless, because these changes do not touch the fundamental faults of W&H but perpetuate them under cover of merely minor differences. Slight modifications to W&H's work are made, producing new editions of the Critical Text considered a great improvement over W&H, while their major errors continue to be accepted, as the very term Critical Text indicates: first of all the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and secondly even their horrifically bad translation, bad Greek, bad English. No, it ALL goes back to Westcott and Hort, it is ALL traceable to their doorstep, and Burgon's critique applies just as much now as ever and should be read as denouncing the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society's texts as carriers of the original W&H enormity, the same arguments applying.]

Burgon is genuinely astonished that Westcott and Hort and their committee of revisers are taken seriously at all. Their scholarship is so ridiculously deficient he can hardly believe his eyes. I suspect that this is what leads him to employ that strong sarcastic language, hoping, I think, that if he's very forceful in his denunciations this might wake some up to the seriousness of the situation, might persuade some to rethink their acceptance of the inferior Bible produced by the revising committee. This is how he comes across to me. Unfortunately this sort of tactic almost never works. Those who don't have his level of understanding dismiss him as "exaggerating" his case and "arguing like a lawyer more than a scholar" and are not led to rethink their own judgment at all.

I rather doubt any other tactic would have worked any better, however. He is simply in a thankless position if in fact his ability is so much greater than most of his opponents' which is what I suspect from his own attitude and tone. In that case his ability to judge both the Greek and the English of the 1881 revision is so far beyond that of those who produced it, and most of those today who are regarded as Greek scholars, it's like speaking a foreign language. But the revising committee had managed to gain much prestige in its ten years of producing what Burgon regards as their execrable mistreatment of both the Greek and the English, so that their judgment is accepted by sheer force of popular impression. Pehaps in the acceptance of W&H's work there was also some mixture of relief at the eclipse of the "hard" English of the KJV (no matter that this could have been accomplished with far less damage) and perhaps some infection with 19th century rationalist bias against the supernatural claims of the Bible, which W&H themselves exhibit in their private writings, and which we know subsequently overtook much of the Anglican church down to our day.

I don't know how many of today's students of the Bible versions are even exposed to Dean Burgon's writings at all, I suspect few if any. Some ridiculous things are said against him, slightingly dismissive remarks. To say he argues like a lawyer is true enough in a way, though I think of him as having a more of a literary critic's style than a lawyer's, but to say he doesn't do a scholar's work in refuting W&H is far from the truth. Most of his book is a laborious accounting and discussion of the errors he finds in their revision.

Revision Revised is a hard read unfortunately for someone who isn't prepared to make the comparisons Burgon so carefully brings to the reader's attention. Much of the book is a discussion of the differences between the readings in the texts that were used for the King James translation and those preferred by Westcott and Hort on which all the modern Bibles have been based. Only someone who knows Greek as well as he does could really appreciate it, but I can at least grasp WHAT he is saying even if I can't verify any of it for myself.

In one discussion for instance he objects that the revising committee lacked a grasp of idiomatic Hellenistic Greek so that they clumsily literally translate what was far better and more idiomatically translated by the King James translators. "Aeon" is a case in point. To translate it "age" instead of "world" or "ages of the ages" instead of "forever" is supposed by W&H to be more "accurate" whereas according to Burgon it merely demonstrates their ignorance of both languages. I trust Burgon. His passion for the right things seems indisputable to me. And nobody would make the very specific criticisms he does who didn't have the knowledge necessary; it simply wouldn't occur to him.

But his opponents won. All our present Bibles except the King James are treated as superior and "more accurate" for that very obtuse error among other things. But it would take a higher level of knowledge than most scholars of either language have these days to recognize this. In the days of the King James those who ended up on the translating committee were often men who had been raised from childhood reading Greek, and they certainly demonstrated a superior feeling for English as well. That just doesn't happen today.

He's dismissed as "exaggerating" how much W&H depended on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although to Burgon ANY dependence on either of them is indefensible. I've seen him denounced as a "conspiracy thinker," apparently lumping him together with some of today's more extreme King-James-only defenders, but he is far from any such thing. Anyone who would say that can't have read him

Burgon wrote other books, among them a lengthy defense of the authenticity of the last twelve verses of Mark. I suppose it's too scholarly for me though I'd like to read it. At 350 pages the level of detail he pursues in his defense has got to be beyond me, but perhaps as with Revision Revised I could appreciate his generalizations. I'm considering investing in it anyway because I like his thinking so much. I got Revision Revised from a second-hand outlet through Amazon.com but the book on the last twelve verses of Mark is a better deal through the Dean Burgon Society.

One continuing confusion in this dispute is the habit of those who defend the modern versions of lumping the KJV in with all of them as just another translation, obscuring the fact that it was done from a completely different set of Greek texts than Westcott and Hort used for their revision. W&H had no authorization for substituting the texts of their own preference for starters, but beyond that the texts they preferred were already considered by competent scholars to be corrupt in multiple ways. Burgon addresses the corruptions in Revision Revised as well as a separate book on the subject. This historical fact is strangely ignored in current discussions of the Bible text. The subject of the reliability of the Bible texts, for instance, will be discussed at great length without the slightest reference to this most crucial distinction between the King James Bible and its predecessors and the majority of current Bibles which are all based on some version or other of the corrupted texts preferred by Westcott and Hort.

Someone I discussed this with also said that the King-James-only people confuse Westcott and Hort's text with the Nestle-Aland text, and exaggerate how much of the N/A is based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. This just has to reflect some deficiency in how these things are taught, doesn't it? There is no confusion; any textual collection such as Nestle/Aland that makes use of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus AT ALL is following in the footsteps of Westcott/Hort. There are two equally serious complaints against W&H and one is that they used those corrupted manuscripts at all. The other is that their English translation is atrocious.

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark further defended

The post I wrote two weeks ago about the unwarranted doubt of the last verses of Mark was just a sudden inspiration I had on the subject, not expecting to have more to say. But I got a very encouraging comment on that post from a pastor James Snapp about it, with a link to his website where he has a summary of his own research into the manuscript evidence for the authenticity of the verses, and an invitation to write for his complete study. It looks very thorough and well worth reading but I don't think I have enough scholarly patience to pursue it myself right now, knowing that he has to address the many speculations and hypotheses about unknowable historical possibilities. I hope others will have the desire to follow it on out though.

Here is the manuscript summary at his own church site.

But it is also available for download at this address: Here's the site owner's introduction, and here's the whole manuscript.

(Some of the labels I've attached to this post reflect content in Pastor Snapp's study of the Bible manuscripts).

============

As I said in my own post on the subject, the only reason this passage is held in doubt is that Westcott and Hort happened to prefer a couple of early Greek manuscripts to those that had previously been accepted as the authoritative Greek text. Not only do the W&H manuscripts have really very little to recommend their authority over the traditional texts when you are aware of all the evidence, but they are notorious for throwing readings into doubt that had been accepted by Christians for all the centuries up until 1881 when W&H cast their spell over our Bible. Oh yes, there are many reasonings based on the texts themselves that support that doubting mentality, but it all started with those two men and their very questionable qualifications and their subterfuge in massively altering the Bible text when they were only commissioned to do a minimum of updating. Unfortunately those who defend this line of Bibles also manage to keep themselves from knowing about the arguments against it, such as the work of Dean John W Burgon, a contemporary of W&H.

Carnal versus spiritual Christians

I know that with my emphasis on Christians either operating in the spirit or operating in the flesh I am affirming a particular brand of Christian thinking that is not accepted by many. Some insist that there is no such thing as a "carnal Christian" but as with many dismissive arguments from one camp about another, this is merely a superficial technical claim that simply ignores the reasoning behind the idea. Technically, that is, you can't even be a Christian if you are carnal. But the other side points out that Paul addressed the Corinthians as carnal while not in any way implying they were not Christians. Christians may and do think carnally, that is, they think like unsaved people, and there are degrees of this according to faith and experience and so on. They have the basic faith in Christ to be Christians, but when it comes to particular teachings their faith may falter and they will consider the question carnally. This is true of all of us in the early stages but there are some who are more spiritual than others even from the beginning.

Sometimes you'll hear it said that because we're Christians we have "the mind of Christ" so that we can count on our thinking to reflect His just because we are Christians. Or that we have a "sanctified intellect" or "sanctified imagination" just because we are Christians. No other qualifier is needed. Similarly we've all had the baptism of the Holy Spirit because we're Christians. No experience necessary to ratify the assertion and the coldest driest mind qualifies.

Some theological clashes could perhaps be understood as a difference between fleshly and spiritual. For instance, the Arminian position is easy to understand and appeals to the natural/fleshly mind, while some tenets of the Calvinist persuasion, such as predestination and election, even the perseverance of the saints, usually take some spiritual growing-into. Nevertheless there certainly are some Arminians who have a deeper spiritual understanding of many facets of the Christian life than some Calvinists.

I've grown into this way of looking at these things over time and lately it's begun to consolidate in my mind in a more emphatic way than ever before. I don't know if I will put together a full defense of this position or not, but it seems good to affirm it now at least.

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. 12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. 13 And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them.

14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen

Why are we to doubt this passage? Don't we know for a fact, from the testimony of scripture itself, that the apostolic generation did have these experiences? Don't we know they cast out demons over and over and over? That they spoke in tongues? That Paul picked up a poisonous viper and shook it off without harm? Don't we know they healed the sick miraculously over and over and over? Why is there any doubt about this passage? Why do the scholars choose to believe the corrupted texts preferred by Westcott and Hort? Answer: They are trusting in their fallible minds instead of in GOD.

Yes, I know the problem with this text comes in with applying it to the church after the apostolic age, but taking it just as written there is no need to insist on that application, since we know it is almost word for word prophetic of the ministry of the apostles. We know mostly of Paul plus some accounts of a few others, but from their experience we shouldn't have any trouble surmising that all the apostles experienced such miraculous powers. Some other time I might even be willing to argue that they are still available today under certain circumstances, but for now just on the face of it this much-disputed passage in Mark ought to be regarded as unimpeachably the word of the Lord.

And then if you read the evidence for its legitimate transmission in the following you should have no more doubts at all. This is a page about Mark 16 from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory which gives historical reasons to accept the passage and gets at the mutilating effects of the fleshly mind on God's word:

Most scholars believe the original ending to Mark's Gospel has been lost. [3] If this is true, the concept of preserving the words of Scripture is forever annihilated. The words cannot be preserved and lost at the same time. However, textual scholars usually call for its inclusion even if they question its originality. Dr. Bruce Metzger departs from the maxim of modern textual critics, Brevior lectio potior (the shorter reading is preferable), and supports the longer ending even though admittedly he does not regard the passage as genuine. He considers it to be a legitimate part of the New Testament because of its traditional significance to the body of Christendom. [4] The passage is not contained in the Alexandrian texts, minuscule 2386, the Syrian Sinaitic Version, and a few other translations.

However, it is in many of the Greek uncials (A, C, D, K, X, D, Q, and P) dating between the fifth and ninth centuries. It is also contained in later dated Greek minuscules (137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, and 1582). It is the reading found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic versions and other early translations. Finally, it is cited (at least in part) by many of the early church fathers such as Justin (165 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) and Augustine (430 AD). [5]

In 177 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies. In it he cites from Mark 16:19, establishing that the longer reading was in existence at this time and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeus:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein. (3:10:5).

The difference here is extremely important. If we conclude that this passage is not authentic, then we must question what happened to the original ending of Mark. It is not logical that the Gospel would end at this place so abruptly. Nor is it likely, as some scholars have suggested, that the Gospel was never finished, calling biblical inspiration into question. The conclusion held by most textual scholars, whether liberal or conservative, that the original ending has been lost over the passage of time certainly denies the doctrine of biblical preservation.

Seems to me the W&H defenders need to shake off their trust in the scholarly establishment, or more to the point shake off their fleshly intellect and open their spiritual eyes! If you exercise your fleshly mind on these things without immersing yourself in prayer in the fear of God and abiding in Him, you will end up discarding His very word and missing the spiritual riches He has given us.

Doubt about the passage is based completely on accepting Westcott and Hort's text and their despising of the Textus Receptus which was the traditional text on which the KJV was based. It also suggests the liberal prejudice against the supernatural we're so familiar with today. Both inclinations have brought about the mutilation of the Biblical text which had been passed down through the centuries, a mutilation apparently accepted today even by the most conservative scholars, even those who are usually alert to this kind of destruction. Following Westcott and Hort's mugging of the Bible, today conscientious studious pastors of even the most Bible-focused churches determine the canon of Holy Scripture by the flesh rather than the spirit. That is why they have either done away with Mark 16:9-20 or hold it in oh-so-fussy head-proud "doubt."

I know so many sincere Christians who will defend the Westcott and Hort profanation of God's word. Otherwise good preachers trust in their scholarly training and their carnal intellectual strengths for judging God' word. The church is so weak compared to what it seems to me the Bible shows us is possible and desired by the Lord. The flesh can preach the Bible, can even preach spiritual truth (and I am susceptible to the same mistake), but only what is preached in the spirit has value and has power to save.

Fargo Prays

SO glad to see this, the churches in Fargo, North Dakota, praying with such focus for their flood-threatened city, a number of churches meeting in one place, doing without the usual high-tech aids but meeting in the simplicity of the early church for the basics -- hymns, prayer, fellowship. The title is typically worldly of course, as if church were not the city's salvation but human exertion were:

Fargo divides day between church, city's salvation

Of course prayer is presented as a sort of afterthought by some -- we do our best and THEN it is in God's hands; we do our best and THEN ask God to help when we see it isn't going to be enough. That gets it all backwards unfortunately. Of course the media aren't going to get it right so who knows what the Christians of Fargo were actually doing all along, I just hope many of them were praying their hearts out and actively putting all their trust in God the whole time they were moving those sandbags.

The expected worst seems not to have happened. Thank You, Lord.

The World Trade Center is a continuing target for God's wrath

Now they're arguing about what they are going to call the building chosen to replace the World Trade Center. The name "Freedom Tower" has been the working name for the last few years, but now ownership of the construction project has changed and the new owner wants to revert to "One World Trade Center" and this has the advocates of "Freedom Tower" upset.

The original architect designed a twisting form he wanted to imitate the Statue of Liberty, with a spire that rose to the deliberate height of 1,776 feet to recognize the year of American independence. Politicians called the tower proof of the country's triumph over terrorism.

Former Gov. George Pataki said visitors to the iconic skyscraper "will know our determination to overcome evil" in a 2003 speech that first gave the Freedom Tower its name.

Human hubris, the whole thing, it seems to me.

"Proof of the country's triumph over terrorism"? Not if it was God's judgment and the "triumph" is really the usual fallen human defiance of God's will, which is going to invite more judgment. "Our determinaton to overcome evil"? Jesus says "Do not resist evil." Jesus has a way of giving us commands that go against our fallen human nature, that seem impossible and even wrong to our fleshly judgment. But the secret to spiritual power is in obeying them. If we want to save America we have to do HIS will, not our own. The weapons He gave us for overcoming evil are not resisting our enemies but loving them, repenting of sin, praying for the nation, not rebuilding what He knocked down.

So many Christians in the West these days are what are sometimes called "carnal Christians." We believe the basics so we're saved, but our daily lives are not ruled by the mind of Christ but by our carnal minds. We decide how to deal with something like the attack on the WTC not by spiritual standards but fleshly fallen standards. No wonder the church is weak and worldly and spiritually limping. No wonder we don't have revival.

A truly spiritual church leadership that is truly obedient to Christ would have the women in the churches cover their heads for one small instance, the way they have the men uncover theirs, but no, this is judged carnally the way the Corinthians were judging it, which is why Paul was writing to them. A spiritual judgment of divorce and remarriage would lead pastors to give the strict interpretation because that is where spiritual strength will be found, but instead they appeal to a worldly fleshly standard of human happiness, attributing it to the mercy of God, to allow all kinds of disobedience of Christ rather than inconvenience anyone. Good grief, you hear Christians justifying "nukin" our enemies. You hear them defending immersing oneself in Harry Potter or sports or television sitcoms or any other worldly or demonic activity as Christian Liberty! And if you suggest there might be a problem wih any of that you get called a legalist. I'm not even mentioning the poor deluded Christians who think God just wants to give us lots of money if we have enough faith for it, and you'll even get upbraided for gossiping or slandering the televangelists if you try to show how they are fleecing the flock while they preach that rot! WAKE UP CHURCH!!!

We shouldn't be rebuilding anything at all on that site. 9/11 was God's judgment on America, a very small judgment compared to what it could have been, and it's fair to think of it as the beginning of worse judgment yet to come, but judgment for our national sins in any case.

With very few exceptions Christian pastors did not preach it as judgment, and there was no call to repentance from the nation's leaders either. Instead, the nation's sins that deserve the judgment were compounded by a sentimental cry of "God bless America," and our President, who should have called for a period of repentance and prayer, as former Presidents have done in times of national woe, instead called together a motley crew of religious leaders to pray for the country, leaders of religions that are the enemies of God and His Christ. Such an act can only be invitation to worse judgment to come.

And what have we been seeing? Plenty of judgment since then. The economic crisis is judgment, Obama's getting the Presidency is judgment. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It can only get worse because the only way to stop it is national repentance, or at least a strong movement of repentance in the churches on behalf of the nation. If it isn't too late, and it may be too late.

The nation was attacked on 9/11 in three major symbols of our national identity -- one is: money/trade/prosperity (and the world itself is judged as well in this symbol, not just the US, boding the worst for our economy plus the world's).

(If we have a "Freedom Tower" and the nation has not already gone under by then, it could be attacked too and would make a fine symbol of the loss of our freedoms as the nation goes more and more Marxist, and why not? We've been through a half century when our freedoms have come to mean freedom for sins of a sort never before officially sanctioned by any government I know of, so freedom itself is now corrupted, and the cry for freedom rings hollow until that is faced).

Second, the Pentagon, symbol of our military, was hit too, but just a nick compared to the symbol of trade and economy -- second on the judgment agenda perhaps. Well, we're certainly taking a battering from world opinion on our military work in Iraq. Yes, I know, our guys are good guys, we have probably the most humane army that was ever mobilized on earth, but if the nation has gone rotten our wars aren't going to be blessed by God any more. The leftist mindset wants to do away with the military altogether, which would be fine if we had a Christian mindset in which to do it, but we don't so it's just another form of God's judgment.

Third symbol the executive branch. Well, the White House didn't actually get hit, we only know it was a target and was spared. But Obama's being there now is certainly judgment on the nation, a judgment more destructive to the nation than demolishing the building would have been.*

(*not that McCain would have been much better, probably just a slower form of God's judgment. And while at first I was a strong fan of Sarah Palin I'm afraid the family's attitude about the daughter's pregnancy has lost me -- Christians must not rationalize or minimize sin as they have done. If you're going to represent the church in public office you need to do better than that. Bush was no Christian representative either. So of COURSE we've got an even worse President following on the officeholders and contenders we've had in recent years).

I'd say the symbolism of 9/11 has been playing out remarkably consistently. It's not yet a major enough crisis to bring the nation to abject misery, but what's to keep it from getting there?

So there shouldn't be ANYTHING constructed on that site. We've offended God enough without adding that offense.

If men are to remove their hats in church, shouldn't women cover their heads?

Since someone who has a website about head covering (Lisa) recently came along and posted here I've been thinking I need to do more on that subject. In fact I may have to start a separate blog because the topic can get very involved, as you can see if you visit that link and start tracking down other links from that site.

My own focus is strictly Biblical, and I do believe the Bible requires us to cover our heads. It's interesting that more women seem to be discovering this in the last few years, to judge by the number of blogs on the subject that have appeared recently.

I think that the more women spend time praying about this the more we'll see a move in this direction, because the Holy Spirit will certainly bring about that conviction for any who wait on Him for guidance. He would also show the wrongness of the idea that Paul was saying that long hair is the covering, or that he could have had a mere cultural custom in mind that is now no longer in force. I have no doubt about this. The churches understood Paul to be requiring a head covering and enforced it for 1800 years, until feminism came along.

This question, like too many others, has been too often decided by intellectual investigation of the scripture with too little prayer behind it. I'm convinced that serious dedicated prayer and meditation on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 along with diligent research into the history of the question would show that we are required to cover our heads. Research should be based on intimations from the Holy Spirit, it shouldn't itself be the foundation for arriving at a conclusion.

As I read that passage I don't connect it as directly with the other Biblical writings on women's role as many do. Of course it's not unrelated, but just in itself it isn't calling women to submissiveness or to modesty or even particular roles as other passages are, it's making a completely objective statement about the meaning of the head and whether it is covered or uncovered.

Paul says quite a bit about the necessity of the man's head being uncovered as well as the woman's being covered, and the fact that Jewish men did and still do cover their heads for worship helps prove that Paul was giving a specifically Christian directive. Even Roman men covered their heads for worship of their pagan gods.

Paul uses hair as an example for BOTH men and women. He points to the natural state of men's usually having shorter hair, even less hair than women if you consider that baldness is natural to men, as well as the natural state of women's hair being longer. When you recognize that he is addressing both sexes it may be easier to see that his point is that the natural state is to be reflected in men's uncovering their heads in church as well as women's covering theirs. Women's naturally longer way of wearing their hair (universal in Paul's day and in fact throughout history with some striking but rare exceptions) is to be taken as a cue to cover their heads, just as men's shorter hair is a natural cue to uncover.

Therefore: if we ask men to uncover their heads when they enter church, we should also ask women to cover their heads.

But we do the former and don't do the latter.

You'll often find discussions that treat it as a matter of a woman's conscience and advocate leaving it up to her whether to cover or not. Well, as long as church leadership doesn't take a position on it I suppose there's no other choice, but in the spirit of the teaching it's not about individual conscience, it's something the church should simply require of its members. Instead, they obey part of Paul's teaching and ask men to take off their hats while leaving the women's heads to their own discretion. This all by itself ought to show that the teaching has become infected with feminist hypersensitivities and is far from reflecting God's will.

The more I think about this the more I think it's far from a minor little thing, and Paul didn't treat it as minor. He appealed to God's order at Creation, he appealed to nature, he appealed to the fact that angels watch. I'm convinced this is one of the things the church is doing that offends God and has weakened us spiritually and in fact is bringing judgment against the church.

This topic is usually discussed in the blogs in tandem with modest feminine dress, and while I don't think it's specifically related in Paul's thinking in the passage about the head covering, both are certainly Paul's concern and I think there's a lot to be said about how women are pushing the envelope about dressing modestly, even in the conservative churches. I think this is apparent to anyone who gives it any serious thought. I'll take that up soon, or maybe I'll move all this to another blog.

Later: Here's my new blog Hidden Glory.