Our Stance on Head Covering
by Jason Ashe
When God commanded Noah to build the ark, he told him to first spread tar on the inside before he attempted to do the same on the outside (Genesis 6:14). Perhaps Noah initially thought that the order didn’t matter seeing as the entire ark would eventually get covered anyway, but had he done things any differently, he would have been rebelling against the instructions of the Lord. This is a fitting example for us today.
As disciples of Christ, we are commanded to prioritize our inner life over all things external and seek to please Him on earth as we would in heaven (Matthew 23:26, 2 Corinthians 5:9). Therefore, as a church, we desire to obey God exactly even in non-essential biblical traditions and symbols. However, this is secondary to our desire to have the spiritual reality of these symbols in our heart and the truths which they proclaim made evident by our lives.
We believe that the practice of head covering as taught in 1 Corinthians 11 applies to Christians today.
The day of Pentecost established the paramount importance of both men and women in building the church and the spread of the gospel. This was the fulfillment of what was spoken about by the prophet Joel (Joel 2:28), a day when sons and daughters would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit to prophesy and become living witnesses for Jesus. Prophecy is the primary gift used to build the church and all believers are instructed to earnestly seek to prophesy so that everyone may be built up (1 Corinthians 14:1). “One who prophesies speaks to men for edification (to strengthen or uplift) and exhortation (to challenge) and consolation (to comfort or encourage)... For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted” (1 Corinthians 14:3, 31). Although women are not permitted to teach men or to have authority over them (1 Timothy 2:11-15), if a sister is humble enough to accept the requirement to cover her head, she is encouraged to pray and prophesy in the meetings.
This practice is meant to symbolize three things ensuring that only the glory of God is displayed:
That the glory of man—which is woman— is to be covered in the church (1 Corinthians 11:7)
That the glory of woman—which is long hair—should also be covered in the church (1 Corinthians 11:15)
That women are an example to the angels by being under the authority of the man—her husband, father, or elders (1 Corinthians 11:10)
God's Glory on Display
The first reason men do not cover their heads while praying or prophesying is because Christ is our figurative head. 1 Corinthians 11:3 says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” For a man to cover his physical head during the meeting he would be symbolically covering Christ.
Notice that the truth about God being the head of Christ is mentioned last rather than first in 1 Corinthians 11:3. The amazing thing about this is that when a woman reads this passage and learns that man is her head, she immediately reads that Christ also has someone as His figurative head. Here she can see that this is a matter of divine order and arrangement, not leadership ability or equality. In the book of John, it says that “before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is God Himself. He created everything there is—nothing exists that he didn’t make” (John 1:1-4, The Living Bible). God is the head of Christ, but the Bible is clear that Jesus and the Father are equally one. All members of the Trinity are equal in essence, but they do not have the same roles. It’s heresy to claim that there is an ontological submission of one member of the Trinity to another, but a quick read through the Bible shows that there is still a functional submission in which the Son submits to the Father and the Spirit submits to the Son.
Jesus was equal to God long before the creation of the world. His name was not Jesus or Christ at that time. He was the Son, the second person of the Trinity. The word “Christ” means: the Messiah—the anointed one, the savior. The Bible says that the Son was made Christ by God when He submitted to Him and was sent to the earth to die on our behalf (Acts 2:36). Simply put, God the Holy Spirit, conceived a body for God the Son, God the Son was born in that body and grew up before the eyes of God the Father (Isaiah 53:2). Although Jesus is God, the creator of the universe, He willingly chose to come to earth as a man (Philippians 2:6-7). That was a huge step and display of humility. Jesus laid aside His rights, His power and His glory as God (Philippians 2:6-7). Even though He did this, He never stopped being God. God can never cease being Himself (2 Timothy 2:14).
The sisters in the church are blessed to identify with Him by following His example of humility and submission despite their equality with man.
The second reason men do not cover their heads is because man is the glory of God in the creation order. Romans 3:23 says that the definition of sin is falling short of the glory of God, so attempting to even symbolically hide it in the church meeting can't be a good thing. 1 Corinthians 11:7-8 says, “For a man ought not to have his head covered since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.” Man is the image and glory of God but woman is the glory of man. This certainly doesn’t mean that women are not made in the image of God, that would be flat out heresy and a contradiction to what is written elsewhere in Scripture (Genesis 1:27). All human beings were created in the image of God. So by isolating the men here and saying that man not only bears the image of God but also displays His glory, it should cause us to take a closer look at the creation account.
Although 1 Corinthians doesn’t specifically tell us why man is the glory of God, it does tell us why woman is the glory of man. So if we understand why woman is the glory of man, I believe that we will also figure out why man is the glory of God. In the context of these verses, the word “for” in 1 Corinthians 11:9 is a synonym for “because.” We are then given two reasons as to why the woman is the glory of man. It is because:
She was created from man: “… for man does not originate from woman, but woman from man.”
She was created for man: “… for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.”
Both of these truths are clearly seen in Genesis 2 in the story of Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:18, 2:21-22). God created Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed life into his nostrils. God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden and commanded him to use his hands to take care of it (Genesis 2:15-20). In the early days, plants had not sprouted up because there was no rain and no one to cultivate the ground (Genesis 2:5). Although Adam was given authority over the whole earth, God also instructed him not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and presented him with the responsibility of giving all the animals a name (Genesis 2:15-20). All of this occurred before Eve was created. The animals were initially created as a helper for Adam, but none of them was a suitable helper. So God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep, fashioned Eve from Adam’s rib, and she became an equal partaker with him in the earthly dominion and a fellow heir (Genesis 1:27-28, 1 Peter 3:7).
Similar to how woman was created from man—his rib, and created for man—as a helper and fellow heir, man was also created from God—formed from the earth, and created for God—to care for the garden and be an earthly representative of his universal dominion. This is why sin came into the world only when Adam disobeyed God (Romans 5:12). He was given the responsibility to uphold God's order. Now, this is not to say that man’s primary purpose was to cultivate the Garden or that women aren't also called to glorify God, but it does indicate that man had a specific course assigned to Him by God in order that by the divine vocation, he may further glorify his creator through proper management of His creation. Baring this glory of God is another reason why men do not cover their heads.
One of the most beautiful things about the creation account is that despite being created first, being commissioned with the awesome task of cultivating the garden, naming the animals and even naming the female, Adam chose to call her woman meaning “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”—an equal. Different, but in no way inferior. In fact, after stating that man does not originate from women, that woman was created for man and should have a symbol of authority on her head when she prays and prophesies, 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 says, “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God” (1 Corinthians 11:11-12).
The first woman was created from the rib of the man in the Garden of Eden, but ever since then, man has always originated from the woman. We all know this. Without the man, there is no woman. And without the woman, there is no man. The Holy Spirit makes it a point to emphasize the equality of both men and women in the eyes of God. He does not want there to be any room for using this teaching to suggest the inferiority of women based on some silly idea that insinuates the sole importance of men.
The Bible actually makes it abundantly clear that men and women are both called to minister in some capacity in the local church. Galatians 3:26-28 says, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Many Christians have argued that this passage is implying that there doesn’t need to be any gender distinctions in the church, but we can see that this is not what this passage is suggesting when we read it in context. Verses 24-25 say, “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” The entire letter to the Galatians is marked by Paul reminding a group of seriously misguided brothers and sisters about their justification by faith, not law. These verses were written in an effort to reinforce the truth that there aren’t any special doorways into the family of God due to race, class, or gender. When it comes to one’s personal salvation, we must all become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ—the Law does nothing for us. Both men and women are equal in this regard. However, we differ due to the fact that the man was a direct creation from God, but the woman was created indirectly by God, through the man.
Our Glory Covered
1 Corinthians 11:7 tells us that woman is the glory of man because she was created from man and created for man. The glory of man has no place in the church. Therefore, the woman is commanded to be covered.
Likewise, the Bible teaches us that the glory of woman should also be covered in the meetings. The glory of women is long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14). The fact that women naturally glory in their hair in virtually every culture is not debatable. Have you ever thought about why Lazarus’ sister Mary used her long hair to wipe Jesus’ feet after pouring out her expensive perfume? You don’t have to be a genius to know that hair isn’t the best drying agent, even her clothes would have worked better. The thing that made what she did even more amazing than using that expensive perfume to wash dirty feet, was that this woman—even unknowingly—was also using that which naturally brought her glory to honor the Lord Jesus Christ. There’s a great lesson in that story that we often overlook.
It’s easy for a short-haired woman to read verse 15 and refuse to cover her head because according to it, she doesn’t have any natural glory. However, even without long hair, she is still the glory of man according to the order of creation simply because she is a woman. As such, during the meeting, she should have a covering on her head—the epicenter of the body—to symbolically prevent the glory of man from being displayed. The only alternative given is that “if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head” (1 Corinthians 11:6). The first “if” proves that this covering is one that the woman must decide upon whenever she attends a meeting.
The point of all of this is that no one within the body of Christ deserves glory but God. Only His glory is to be exalted and on display (Isaiah 42:8). Not man’s glory which is woman, or the woman’s glory which is her long hair. In the church, the glory of the woman must be covered just like the glory of man. Therefore, the woman’s long hair—that which gives her glory—must be covered when praying or prophesying.
A Symbol to Angels
The woman’s head covering also serves as a testimony to the angels. 1 Corinthians 11:10 says, “Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels" (1 Corinthians 11:10). I’ve heard it said that whenever we read the Bible and notice the word, “therefore”, we should always go back and see exactly what it’s “there for.”
As I've already mentioned, verses 7-9 summarizes part of the creation account—woman was created from man and woman was created for man. This is why the word “therefore” is used at the beginning of the verse. Together, the verses reads as follows, “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” The context reveals that this creation order is one of the primary reasons for this symbol of authority that angels can see. Two of the epistles that speak the most about church life, both make mention of the fact that the church is on display to heavenly beings (1 Corinthians 4:9, Ephesians 1:10). Therefore, this type of language shouldn’t come as a surprise to us. But with that said, what does “because of the angels” mean?
We cannot be overly dogmatic about its meaning seeing as no explanation is given. However, when we take the verse at face value, we can still understand the truth that it refers to. It’s speaking about the incredible privilege given to a human woman, created a little lower than the angels, to be an example in heaven of true submission and humility. This is a great testimony because angels have a free will just like us, and some of them have even rebelled against God’s authority in the past. “And angels who did not keep (hold onto, stay in) their own domain (role, position), but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in bonds under darkness for judgement of the great day” (Jude 1:6). They rejected their position and now must suffer the eternal consequences because of it. If no other reason then “because of the angels” was given, even without thorough understanding, it would still be more than enough to prove that we as the church need to be obedient to this teaching today. When we do, even the submissive angels can point to Christian women and marvel at them, saying, “Look at that! We are always obedient to God, but we’re angels, in heaven, before the actual throne of God. Those women are living on the evil earth and are still obeying God when so many others are not. Wow!”
What the devil and his angels failed to proclaim continually by submitting to God’s order, we can now proclaim in the body of Christ. If the sisters today choose to die to themselves, cast away their cultural influence and set aside their human reasoning, the church can be an even greater testimony to angelic beings that we cannot even see. I think that’s amazing!
Many of those who reject the practice of head covering will say, “It’s only a symbol, why does it matter?” I would then ask them the same question, “It’s only a symbol, why does it matter?” This isn’t even dealing with the far more important and costly issue of being submissive from the heart, it simply is suggesting an external representation of these hidden things.
Nearly every Christian denomination teaches that we should keep the tradition of baptism, which I believe they should, but baptism is also a symbol, though a very important one I might add. It’s not something essential to being born again for that would nullify the truth that we are saved by grace through faith and no works of our own (Ephesians 2:9). Regardless, I’ve seen churches baptize people in bathtubs when a tank wasn’t available just because they didn’t want an individual to have to wait to be baptized! I thank God for believers who have that kind of reverence toward even the non-essentials of salvation.
Let’s be real. Certain symbols are a big deal to many of us. Countless men and women will likely become anxious if they lose their wedding ring. The loss of the ring doesn’t mean that the marriage is over, nor is it an indication that any love has been lost. Still, it’s an important symbol none the less. In various countries, it’s illegal to revile or damage the national flag in public. Such crimes are punishable by law with a fine or imprisonment, but once again, a flag is merely a symbol. When we consider things like this, we obviously cannot deny the fact that symbols and signs are important things.
It’s strange and even a bit ironic that we follow the practice of breaking bread which is also another symbol and taught in the very same chapter of 1 Corinthians 11. This only further proves our error. We know that we generally turn to 1 Corinthians 11:23 whenever we come together for the breaking of bread, “The Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread…”, and so on, but that’s about all that we gather from the chapter. Verses 2-16 which pertain to head covering are like the dark shadowy place that Mufasa warned Simba about in the Lion King saying, “That’s beyond our borders, you must never go there!” How can we recognize the latter part of chapter 11 during our times of communion, while at the same time virtually ignore the first half of the same chapter by limiting it to the Corinthian culture?
Some people will say, “But that was specifically for Corinth because of the time and culture they were in. The prostitutes went about with their heads uncovered so they could easily be recognized. That’s why Paul was saying this. He didn’t want the Christian women to be mistaken for ladies of the night. Today that sort of thing really wouldn’t hold the same significance.” Whether the claim about the women in Corinth is true or not, it would in no way nullify the principles of this teaching. We need to be straightforward and just look at the verses. None of the arguments presented by Paul suggest that the presence of this commandment was the result of Corinthian culture. Hypothetically, if this was the case, immediately we would also have to acknowledge that the men are also given a clear commandment not to cover their heads. This would then pose the question, what was the cultural significance for that?
Although there are a few cultural commandments in the New Testament, when commandments, promises, or traditions are emphatically connected to numerous eternal realities which transcend time, culture, and geography, it should be a clear indication that such things cannot be limited to their original audience. For example, the tradition of the Lord’s Supper (known as Communion today) was originally established in a Jewish society with only Jewish people present as they obeyed the Jewish law to eat the Passover meal, and yet, it is not regarded as irrelevant on the grounds that many of us aren’t Jewish or that we happen to live in a different culture.
Why is that?
It’s because the practice finds its theological footing on the blood of the New Covenant, the broken body of Christ, and the unity of the church. These are three Christian fundamentals that stretch beyond societal boundaries. Head covering is no different. For this reason, the tradition of head covering was embraced by nearly all believers for over 1900 years, but as time began to change, compromise started to set in and the standard of morality among Christians lessened. Our rebellion toward Scripture has taken many forms, but very few have been celebrated like the development of Christian feminism.
During the second wave of feminism in the mid-1900’s, the women’s liberation movement began to grow like never before. Some of the frustrations that sparked this outcry were legitimate, no doubt. There’s no denying that. Very real atrocities have been committed by evil, misogynistic men who’ve demoted women to an inferior position. So at first, most of these ladies simply wanted to further the realization that a female’s life was just as valuable as man’s life, but this was soon overshadowed by female chauvinism and new-found gender ideologies. Phrases like, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” became even more commonplace as anti-gender socialization tirade’s shot forth from the mouth of even the most-mild women.
Among the Christian women who got behind this movement, I wonder how many of them ever took the time to consider whether or not the current structures of leadership and family governance were a man-made perversion of what God had originally designed? Tragically, the word “equal” became synonymous with “the same” and distorted doctrines about authority crept their way into the church, blurring the lines between the role of women in the body of Christ, and serving as a catalyst for the influx of divorce and remarriage, most of which was uncharacteristically initiated by women. In many congregations, submission became a new swear word, and those women who sought to fulfill their biblical role became somewhat of an anomaly.
Initially, pastors would often interrupt women’s-rights meetings with their Bible’s in hand and quoting from the Scriptures. But even these brothers in the church ceased to live as Scripture commanded and chose to embrace cowardice just to please their newly domineering wives. More compromise was soon to follow.
In this case, even the style of head covering was a reflection of this moral decline. The veils that women used to cover their heads gradually became smaller and exposed more and more of their beautifully styled hair that was hidden underneath. After this, the head covering became an extravagant fashion accessory or was restricted to a part of the deaconess’ uniform in certain congregations. Hats were then worn as a formality to merely accentuate a woman’s attire while simultaneously allowing them to maintain the appearance of willful obedience. Head covering became a debatable commandment once this occurred, which led to most Christian denominations justifying its avoidance, thus making it obsolete. This was a new kind of normal.
One of the most eye-opening things about this whole ordeal is that when the church initially began to turn away from this biblical tradition, even the unbelieving world took notice of our compromise. In 1935, a pastor in England made headlines simply because he began to teach that women shouldn’t be asked to cover their heads in church. Not only was the article written in a secular newspaper, it was also featured on the front page on the Montreal Gazette. An article in the Brooklyn Times references the same incident saying, "The only English church, so far as known, in which women may go hatless is in Kingston, Surrey." Evidently, this incident was considered newsworthy in 1935, and I believe that the primary reason for this was because it ran contrary to the beliefs and practices of most churches at the time.
This also isn’t the only instance in which the matter of head covering has made headlines. An article titled “Rector Bars Hatless Women” was seen in the New York Times on August 28, 1900. A similar piece “Hatless Women Barred”, was first published in the Indianapolis Journal on September 16, 1902. “Hatless Women in Church”, appeared in the Chicago Tribune on August 14, 1902, and, “Hatless to Church? No”, was issued by the same paper on September 25, 1905. Another article titled “Hatless Women in Church”, was written in The Chester Courant and released on September 6, 1905. It was circulated in the Chester area, Shropshire, Lancashire, Staffordshire, and North Wales. And there are thousands of similar articles (See gallery below).
Chicago Tribune, Sunday, October 20, 1935
Now, some people may say that these articles simply reflect the culture of that time. A time when even many non-church going women regularly wore headgear. We could agree with that claim if it wasn’t for the fact that nearly every church that was in defence of the practice of head covering—legalistic as some of them may have been—cited 1 Corinthians 11 as the basis for their argument. For most of them, the secular culture had absolutely nothing to do with their obedience. In the same way, it’s imperative that Christians today also stand apart from both the secular and religious world and preserve the standard outlined in the Word of God in this age of widespread compromise. People can say whatever they want about us because of this, but let God be proven true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4).
The Indianapolis Journal, Tuesday, September 16, 1902
Various news paper articles from 1900-1967
We need to understand that any boundary that God has set for us is for our good. Many people have died in car accidents that have occurred in residential areas just because they decided to exceed the speed limit. Some have even claimed the lives of others in the process. Had they simply obeyed the law of the land, they would still be alive today. Likewise, God has set specific guidelines for us as believers which if we fail to adhere to, will ultimately lead to us becoming a danger both to ourselves and to others. The true church can only be built when men and women, full of the Holy Spirit, learn to function together the way that God had originally intended. There is absolutely no other way. Therefore, let us humble ourselves in fear of the Lord.
Disagree in Love
Regardless of what we believe about this teaching, it should never be the source of contention, the Bible is clear about that. Discuss it? Of course, but we should never hold bitterness or anger toward those who hold a different opinion on this matter. If zealous folks wish to argue for or against such things, we do not have to join in with them. This teaching should also never become grounds for judgment or excluding ourselves from mingling with other believers, or other believers from mingling with us. We may not be permitted to partner in ministry with certain congregations based upon our convictions on other doctrinal matters, but we can still come together for times of mutual encouragement.
To those who are still vehemently opposed to this teaching of head covering, I would ask them to sit down and just think about what is being commanded of both sexes. Men should not cover their head during prayer and prophesying in the meetings, and women should cover their heads. How long does the average church meeting last? 2 hours, maybe? What’s so difficult about obeying this teaching for 2 hours? The mere fact that this issue of head covering is so controversial is valid proof that there is much more to it than just deciding to cover or not to cover one’s head. It’s a call to the body of Christ to deny ourselves, bear the reproach of men and symbolically give glory to God alone.
Suppose you were drinking a cup of coffee at your friend’s house. As you begin to place the cup on the wooden table in front of you, your friend kindly asks that you put one of the coasters under the cup to avoid damaging the surface of the table. Even though you never use coasters at your own home, would you be upset by this? Probably not, right? The person in authority of the home made a straightforward and simple request... and gave you a reason for it. The same can be said of head covering. When we think about it in this way, we can clearly see that the anger and hostility associated with Christian head covering is due to a spiritual problem within our own hearts concerning the authority of Christ. On the surface, there is no reason why putting a piece of fabric on your head for a few hours once or twice a week should be a big deal, or as it pertains to us men, why requests to remove that same piece of fabric would cause an uproar. It’s only a big deal because of our pride.
This teaching is far from being the most important in the Bible, that’s a given. There are certainly weightier matters that we could consider, such as being filled with the Holy Spirit, loving Jesus supremely, and being free from besetting sins. Nonetheless, if we are people who claim that all Scripture is God-breathed, then we must pay special attention to everything written in it, especially that which pertains to life in the New Covenant.
The key is that it’s not only a matter of what is being said whenever we read the Bible but also who is saying it. In that case, even minor commands from a great God should be taken seriously. Although this is not a doctrine essential to salvation, we should still seek for revelation and clarity on the matter. I believe that since Jesus said that our love for Him is proved by our obedience to Him, the litmus test of just how much we love Him is our initial attitude toward the smaller and more neglected commandments. This topic of head covering is no exception.
The crux of the matter is that through the practice of head covering, we as unified members of the body of Christ in our locality, are making a huge and powerful statement. What we’re basically saying is this:
“We submit ourselves to God’s arrangement, and we accept the position that God has placed us in. As Christ accepts God as His head, we men accept Christ as our head. Likewise, as Christ accepts God as His head, and men accept Christ as their head, we as women accept the men as our head. By covering the glory of man (woman) and hiding the glory of woman (long hair), we are leaving the glory of God on full display. We are proclaiming that all glory belongs to Him. We pray that what is proclaimed symbolically, will be a proper reflection of the state of our hearts. We are one, the body of Christ. United in spirit until we are united in faith. We are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. We have received all that He is, and we freely choose to give Him all that we are. To Him be the glory and dominion, now and forever.”
(Inspired by my wife’s sweet spirit)
“Must I wear it?” some ask with dread,
“This covering of cloth upon my head?”
As if the command were stern to obey-
But I ask the question a different way:
If by this simple act I honor the Lord,
And model obedience to His precious Word;
If the Church may thus learn,
as the Scripture hath said,
Her own sweet submission to her glorious Head;
If thus may the brothers be challenged to lead;
If in this small sign the daughters may read;
A woman’s true beauty; if angles discern,
And pause from their praises to wonder and learn;
Then I ask not “Must I?” but “May I?”
Montreal Gazette, “Hatless Women in Church Approved”, Montreal, Canada, October 26, 1935
The New York Times, New York, New York, August 28, 1900, 3.
Indianapolis Journal, Marion County, Indianapolis, September 1902, 7.
The Chicago Daily Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, August 14, 1902, 6.
The Chicago Daily Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, September 25, 1905, 1
The Chester Courant, Chester, Wales, September 6, 1905, 5.
Star-Phoenix, Saskatoon, Saskatechewan, Saturday, Nov 7, 1942,
The Morning Call, Paterson New Jersey, Wednesday, August 05, 1931, 22
Omaha Daily Dee, Omaha, Nebraska, Monday, August 31, 1903, 7
The Decatur Daily Review, Decatur, Illinois, Friday, September 01, 1933, 34
The Windsor Star, Saturday, October 28, 1967
Calgary Herald, Calgary, Alberta, August 7, 1965, 25
The Boston Globe, Boston, Massachusetts, August 23, 1921, 6
Evangelical Visitor, Abilene, Kansas, March 1901, 11
The Presbyterian of the South, Atlanta, Georgia, June 12 1912, 18
Shiner Gazette, Shiner, Texas, January 5, 1933, 7