The Faithful Scribbler

A Catholic Mother In A Secular World

Headcovering vs. Tithe

on May 16, 2010

We at the Faithful Scribbler would like to know, for the purposes of our own edification, why Protestants are so quick to label headcovering as “legalistic” and “contrary to the new covenant”, and yet, those same Protestants would DIE before they would give one cent less (or sometimes one cent more!) than their 10% tithe?!

Tithing is mentioned in a legal sense in the Old Testament.  It was literally a requirement for Jewish people (and still is– many temples dont allow you in for holiday services if  you havent paid your yearly tithe) to pay their required amount.  And arent Protestants the ones always decrying every little old Old Testament law as “legalistic!?”.

Yet, headcovering, a practice done SOLELY out of love and respect for the Lord, is condemned by these same Protestants, who label it the dreaded L-word.  Strangely enough, HEADCOVERING is expressly ordered by St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians– which, as many of you are aware, is from the NEW Testament Scripture.  New Testament.  New Covenant.  Legalistic?  When done purely out of love and respect for the Lord?  Methinks not, friends.  I smell the strong, pungent, aroma of hypocrisy!

Now am I saying you shouldnt give your 10% to the Church?  Of course not.  What I am saying is that Protestant doctrines (thanks Unfortunate Heretic Martin Luther) are awful picksy and choosey about what they do and do NOT consider to be legalistic.  Sounds like one of those “inconvenient truths” the liberals are always getting so up in arms about! :)

While we’re on the subject of Legalism, Romans Ch 7 has THIS to say about it (emphases mine):

1 Are you unaware, brothers (for I am speaking to people who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over one as long as one lives?
Thus a married woman is bound by law to her living husband; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law in respect to her husband.
Consequently, while her husband is alive she will be called an adulteress if she consorts with another man. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and she is not an adulteress if she consorts with another man.
In the same way, my brothers, you also were put to death to the law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to the one who was raised from the dead in order that we might bear fruit for God.
For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, awakened by the law, worked in our members to bear fruit for death.
But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter.
2 3 What then can we say? That the law is sin? Of course not! Yet I did not know sin except through the law, and I did not know what it is to covet except that the law said, “You shall not covet.”
But sin, finding an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetousness. Apart from the law sin is dead.
I once lived outside the law, but when the commandment came, sin became alive;
then I died, and the commandment that was for life turned out to be death for me.
For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it put me to death.
So then the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
4 Did the good, then, become death for me? Of course not! Sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin, worked death in me through the good, so that sin might become sinful beyond measure through the commandment.
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold into slavery to sin.
What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate.
Now if I do what I do not want, I concur that the law is good.
So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh. The willing is ready at hand, but doing the good is not.
For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want.
Now if (I) do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand.
For I take delight in the law of God, in my inner self,
but I see in my members another principle at war with the law of my mind, taking me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 5
Miserable one that I am! Who will deliver me from this mortal body?
Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin.

So what can we draw from this?  First of all, theres NOTHING WRONG WITH FOLLOWING THE LAW!!!

The problem comes from following the law for the SAKE of the law, and not for following it out of love and submission to the Lord!  This is particularly true of the laws found in the New Testament, at which point the faithful fell under the New Covenant of the Lord– remember, Jesus didn’t come to negate the holy Scriptures– He came to fulfill them!

You can’t pick and choose which parts of the law you personally feel like following, and then slander the followers of the others as Legalistic.  When you do so, frankly, you demonstrate a poor understanding of the concept of New Covenant, and sound like an idiot.

But although you slander and insult me, from your false moral highground, I realize that your faith (not personally, but denominationally) is built upon a pillar of sand– incomplete at BEST.  And so, I will pray for your conversion to truth, although I know that true conversion can only happen after one is humbled, and the humbling wont be coming from me, because I am not  God.

(I realize that the tone of this particular post becomes increasingly agressive as my level of frustration has increased with writing and researching in the book of Romans.  I do not intend to attack any one person individually, but rather, the MOST UNFORTUNATE institution of Protestantism, which, once again, feeds people half-truths that cannot be reconciled with Scripture.  ESPECIALLY frustrating is that these same denominations claim to be built ONLY on Scripture!  May God have mercy on those who are willingly blind to the Truth!  And may He have mercy on those who have been led astray through no fault of their own…sigh).


7 responses to “Headcovering vs. Tithe

  1. Andi says:

    “MOST UNFORTUNATE” Really??? Come on, K. I can stand some things for the sake of debate. But not an insult to my particular denomination for the sake of bolstering yours. Again, why many don’t want to listen to begin with. . . I am glad that you believe you have “THE truth”. But in the way it is presented and described in all honesty it is not one that I would care to subscribe to, which is a shame because I think there are many things we can all learn from one another without denunciation. Oh well.

  2. Kristy says:

    Oh Andi. This is exactly the point. Protestantism IS unfortuante– the very institution of Protestantism breaks me heart.

    Not everyone can believe this– and I understand how difficult it would be to be brought up in something, fed from that one source your entire life, and then abandon it. I’m not sure many people could do that!

    There is only one God. One God, who gave us all One Truth. It defies logic, and the basic tenants of Christianity, that God would think all the division within Christianity is hunky-dory.

    I have to wonder if you’re more upset that I FIRMLY believe that Protestantism endangers the souls of so many, or because I needled liberals in the first section of the post? (admittedly, that was intended to be humorous, and while many found it to be so, I can imagine that someone who subscribed to the belief would not particularly enjoy that comment).

    If you go back and read the post on “Works of Mercy”, you will see that we have a responsiblity to point out what others do in contradiction to the Scripture– spreading the Truth IS a work of mercy, although it might not feel so merciful to the one who’s veiws are being challenged.

    It is not I, KRISTY, who has THE Truth. It is the holy Catholic and Apostolic church, which has maintained unceasingly the Tradition of Jesus himself. Jesus taught that salvation is a PROCESS (post forthcoming!), and this idea that it is immediate or simple is just a big fat lie.

    Yes, Protestantism is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because it is incomplete at best, and flat out wrong at worst (think: the “good news” Church’s who do not believe in teaching Old Testament AT ALL).

    I do not insult your denomination to bolster mine. Firstly, Catholicism is NOT a denomination. There can be no “denominations” of the faith of Jesus himself. I do not insult your denomination by calling it unfortunate– to believe I have done so is to deliberately misread me. What I DO, is express my VERY SINCERE sadness that “denominations” even exist in the first place! “Insulting” your denominations would do nothing to bolster Catholicism anyway, for it requires no bolstering! It is an ancient institution, commanded by God himself– the detractors of Catholicism seriously jeopardize themselves through their rejection of God and His words.

    The last line of my post is quite sincere– I DO pray that God has mercy on those who are willfully ignoring His Truth, and more importantly, I pray (and suspect) that He will have mercy on those who have been led astray through no fault of their own (which probably encompasses most Protestants today).

  3. Andi says:

    Comment edited by Faithful Scribbler.

  4. Jenni says:

    Here’s one for you, friend! I’m a die-hard Presbyterian, who practices head-covering for public worship! LOL I believe you are right about the head-covering. Actually, MOST Protestant denominations practiced head-covering up until our generation. For whatever reason, it has become one of those things that is quickly dismissed as legalism, but I agree with you that it is done out of love, respect and submission. All believers would do well to understand that THAT is the heart of obedience in all things anyway, right? Obedience that is not done in love and cheerfulness is not really obedience. :)

    I gotta tell ya, though… Definitely VERY abrasive on the Martin Luther and Protestant comments! LOL Although, it is your blog, so you get to write your beliefs here. I don’t think it would foster hugs and kisses between us though if I expressed my views on the Pope in the same way! I have just as strong feelings about him as you have about Luther, but I know better than to go barking up that tree with someone who is of your conviction. LOL Just sayin’. :)

  5. Kristy says:

    Jenni! Hello and welcome!

    It’s true the comments on Martin Luther do take a very VERY solid and harsh line. Because…well…I believe it. It probably wouldnt foster hugs and kisses if you expressed your beliefs about hte Pope– BUT!!– would you be anything but a convicted Protestant if you didnt have them!?

    I knwo what you’re saying– but fostering hugs and kisses isn’t really the goal. Do I believe Ecumenical cooperation is important? Yes, absolutely. BUT, I believe educating the readership about Catholic doctrine is MORE important, because, I believe it to be True.

    Also, my audience isn’t really comprised of convicted Protestants– based on the emails, I would say it’s primarily comprised of either Catholics who are searaching, or Protestants who are deeply considering conversion to Catholicism. So I’m not really barking up Andi’s tree, lol! I’m barking up another tree!

    But please always know that your comments and insight are MOST appreciated here at the Faithful Scribbler, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for your thoughtful conviction in your faith– mostly because it is just that– THOUGHTFUL! :) My experience (and I think probably yours too) is that “thoughtful conviction” can’t be said of most people, even the ones that argue against Catholicism. They often dont even know what their own denomination DOES believe! That is hugely problematic for me– because the details matter A LOT!!!

    Kuddos on the headcovering! FINALLY someone who understands that it is done from love, respect and reverence for the Lord! :)

  6. Mary says:

    I meant to post a comment when I first saw this post, but AMEN! I was raised Baptist and am now Catholic (Deo Gratias!) and I cover whenever I am in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

    I was amazed when I was attending RCIA and started attending daily mass that there were so many parts of the Bible that were NEVER addressed during all of the years I was in Sunday School, church and Vacation Bible School. I still don’t understand how some Protestants can defend that they believe sola scriptura or a literal interpretation of the Bible yet ignore John 6:50-67. I mean, Jews had and have no problem with symbolic meals (Passover anyone?).

  7. Kristy says:

    Hi Mary! Thanks for reading :)Comments and experiences are always welcome here!

    I think the problem lies in the loose personal interpretation of certain Scriptures amongst some denominations of Protestantism. The “what does this mean to ME” approach removes the fact that the writer (God) intended ONE meaning at the time of publication. Makes a big difference, you know?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: