Good evening. When I told you this morning to go home and get a good nap and to bring your clear minds and thinking caps with you tonight, you thought I was referring to the message. I was actually referring to the announcements. You would turn your Bibles to First Corinthians chapter eleven, uh We'll continue where we left off this morning. For those of you who were not here this morning, I will give you a very quick review in an attempt to bring you up to speed. We noted that in the Old Testament there was a good deal of symbolism, and that the use of symbolism did not cease when Christianity came on the scene. That there is symbolism in Christianity, and we referred specifically to baptism and to the Lord's Supper. And we noted also that First Corinthians uh eleven, the early portion of that chapter, would give us two other symbols, that the uncovered head of the man and the covered head of the woman were both symbols in relation to the headship order that God, uh, established at creation. We noted in looking at this epistle that this epistle, while written to the saints at Corinth, was not written exclusively to the saints at Corinth. If you go back to chapter one and the opening verses, you will see that it is also addressed to all those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus. And therefore, the principles and the teachings set forth in this epistle is certainly not limited to the church at Corinth. We noted that the epistle deals primarily with the topic of disorder within the assembly, that while Corinth was a gifted assembly, it was an assembly in which there was a great, uh, deal of disorder of different varieties. And we noted, as we went through the various chapters, the problems of this assembly. And as we began to approach chapter eleven, we noted that the problem Paul is addressing is the abuse of Christian liberty. That while we may have liberty as Christians, we are not to abuse it. And then we came to this chapter. We noted, um, that it was Paul's teachings that he was speaking of, not preference, but principle. Preferences, uh, we may look at and decide to change, but we cannot change biblical principles. And Paul addressed the headship order in verse three of chapter eleven, outlining for us the order established by God. And we noted that this order was to be symbolically demonstrated in the assembly by the two symbols we mentioned, the uncovered head of the man and the covered head of the woman. We noted that if a man was to cover his head, his physical head, he would bring shame upon his spiritual head, the Lord Jesus. For the man is the glory of God. You will notice that in verse seven. and as such, he is not to cover his head. But the woman, who is the glory of man, also verse seven, covers her head, because not to do so would be n- not covering the glory of man. And as we gather, since the head, the physical head, is a symbol of the spiritual order that God arranged, if a sister was to be uncovered, it would be not only that her glory, her hair is showing, but symbolically it is saying that the glory of man is showing. And when we come into the Lord's presence, it is only the glory of God that is to be showing. And so Paul lays down how this is to be symbolically demonstrated and practiced in the assembly. He notes that this order was established in creation, and that the woman is from the man, verse eight. Nor was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man, verse nine. And then we spoke about the angels, that the angels are looking to the assembly to see this order in practice. I might add, which I did not say this morning, where else would the angels see this order? They would never see it in the world, would they? They would never see it in the unsaved, rebellious world. It's interesting to realize that it was headship order that was rebelled against by Lucifer, the angel that fell. And now I believe here would be referring to the elect angels who are looking to the church to see this submission to God's headship order practice, are looking for these symbols. Now, as we pick up at verse eleven, Paul is very aware of the abuse of liberty in this assembly, and being led of the Holy Spirit, he presents a balanced view. What I mean by that is, knowing the tendency of men to take something and to take it to an extreme beyond which Paul exte- uh, intended it to be, he gives a balance. He has told us that the man is the glory of God because he was created first and created from nothing. The woman is the glory of the man because she was created second and created from the man. But see, that leads possibly to abuse because men may say, well, see, we were created first, you're created second, you're inferior, we're superior, and so on down the line. Paul goes on to remind them here in, in verses eleven and twelve. He says, men, don't get too carried away, because ever since creation, every other man has come from the woman. And I think that's a balanced letter of the Holy Spirit to indicate to us that while this headship order was arranged and established at creation based on the order of creation, he is now informing us that we are dependent one upon another, and that ever since the initial creation, all other men have come through the woman. So he presents a balance there, lest they abuse this as well. Now we come to verses thirteen, and let's read that. We didn't read it this morning. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it's a dishonor to him? If a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. Having established that this headship order was part of the creation order and should be symbolically demonstrated in the church by the uncovered head of the man. And I keep saying that because I want to stress the point that this passage, as I said this morning, does not primarily deal with head covering, but headship. But when it does deal with head covering, it is not addressed to the women only. It is addressed to the men as well, with regard to the uncovered head of the man, as well as, of course, the covered head of the woman. So he establishes the practice, he establishes creation, he establishes the fact that the angels are observing the church, and now he turns to nature. This is not uncommon in scripture. If you just went to the book of James, for example, James was one of the writers who often turned to nature for illustrations and lessons. Paul is simply saying that nature makes a clear distinction between men and women. Nature makes a clear distinction, and he says to that, we can judge, he says, we can see this. Nature teaches us that if a man has long hair, it's a dishonor. If a woman has long hair, it's a glory to her. Now, there are many who would take this portion, and we'll deal with this problem a little later, and of course, want to infer that the woman's long hair is there for her covering. For now, I would say, I would suggest to you that that is not the case, and I'll deal with that as we look into some of the other problems when we finish the passage. But the point here is with Paul, I believe he's just saying nature itself shows you there's a distinction between the man and the woman. And now what is asked of the men and of the women is to show this distinction by the uncovered head and the covered head in the assembly. I want you to know that at the end of this ver- chapter or portion, verse sixteen, Paul says we are not to be contentious. In other words, there is no other practice or custom. What would that be? What he's saying is, I believe, there's no use arguing, there's no use being contentious. They had the churches of God, and he says we, and I believe that's the apostles. We, the apostles, nor the churches of God, have no such custom. What such custom? Men covering their heads and women uncovering their heads. He says, that's not the custom of the churches of God. And this verse is very vital for various reasons. One thing it shows us is that it was a common practice amongst all the churches of God. This was not something just being asked of Corinth. This was a universal practice amongst the churches of God. Also, you will note that Paul does not say to Corinth, listen, you do what you want to do. You handle it any way you see fit. And, uh, you're autonomous, and you can do what you feel like. No, that's not the way Paul addresses it. He had given them teaching, and he says, this is the way the churches of God do it. And so when we come to that verse, we see the universal practice of the church of God, and it takes us, of course, beyond Corinth. Now, having gone over that section very quickly, I am well aware that there are difficulties, and I would like to address some of those difficulties. There are problems. There are problems with all of the ordinances in the New Testament, but not like the problems we have with the, uh, uncovered head of the man and the covered head of the woman. There are those who have problems with baptism. There are those who might have problems with the Lord's Supper. But, of course, there are greater problems, in a sense, with this portion. And what I mean by problems are, there's no problems with the portion. There's no problems with scripture. The problems are difficulties that arise for various reasons. One of those reasons is the lack of proper instruction. My heart and my feelings go out toward sisters who gather in fellowships where they never receive any instruction on this portion. And I do not look down my nose at them or consider them less of a Christian because they do not practice this ordinance, because they have probably not received proper instruction. There's also, of course, the problem of a rebellious attitude. The problem of I really see what it says, but I quite frankly do not want to practice this ordinance. And then lastly, there's the problem of those who, quite frankly, for one reason or another, just want to distort the scriptures. Now, when we come to this portion, probably one of the greatest comments that's made, I say greatest, meaning in frequency, that's often made about this passage is it's cultural. This deals simply with a cultural practice of Paul's day, and certainly it is not the culture in which we are living today, and thus we don't really need to practice it. Let me suggest five or six reasons why I believe it is not cultural. First, the epistle is written to all who call upon the name of the Lord. That would indicate to me that it goes beyond culture. The portion speaks about the practice of all the churches of God, which would take you from Jerusalem all the way over through Asia Minor and down into Greece, which would probably cover at least one or two cultural changes. Most likely, but we cannot say it emphatically, that in the Jewish synagogues, the men may have had their heads covered. There are historians who feel that it was kind of in a changing period right there where it may have been optional. But there is the possibility that this was not the cultural practice of those who lived in Jerusalem. It may have been that the men actually did have their head covered. And so this was different from that. So it would imply, if we say it's cultural, that the culture of all the churches of God was the same. Second, if it was purely cultural, what else can we say in scripture was cultural and simply brush aside? Could we say the Lord's Supper was simply cultural? After all, it came out of a, a Jewish background, and we're not of a Jewish background, most of us. So we could set that aside as cultural. And we could go through scripture and simply say, that's cultural, and set that aside. There are cultural things in the Bible, but they're not tied to unchanging principles. For example, it says, greet one another with a holy kiss. As I came in tonight, no one rushed up to me and gave me a kiss, and that was fine by me. But there were those who shook my hand. But you will notice that in the Bible, associated with the holy kiss, there is no doctrine. There is no principle, is there? Here, there is the principle of headship and the doctrine and truth of headship tied with this practice. Not so with the holy kiss. And so what we would be saying, if this is cultural, is the Holy Spirit led the Apostle Paul to tie a changing culture with an unchanging principle. Where else will we find that in scripture, where we would take a changing culture and use it to teach an unchanging principle. Thirdly, are we saying that the angels are no longer interested in seeing this order demonstrated in the assembly? Are we saying that as the cultural cha- as the cultures changed, the angels decided no longer to be interested in seeing this order demonstrated in the church? I don't think that's the case. As I mentioned this morning, the angels are not omniscient. They don't know our minds and our hearts. They observe, they look to see the order symbolically demonstrated in the church. It also does not explain why it is extremely disrespectful for a man to wear a hat in the assembly. I've been tempted from time to time to step to the pulpit wearing a hat to see what the reaction might be, but quite frankly, I just couldn't do it. It's strange, isn't it, that we want to take half of this teaching, and we want to say we can set that half aside because there's been a cultural change, but the other half, the uncovered head of the man, we we can't set that aside. It's very obvious to us, it's disrespectful. So I think we're kind of picking and choosing to suggest that the cultural changes eliminate the covered head of the woman, but not the uncovered head of the man. Lastly, suppose our society today changed its practice. Suppose it became very much in fashion for men to wear hats to church, as the world would say. Would we be satisfied, based on a cultural change, to adopt that practice within the assembly? I doubt it. And so I would like to suggest that the thought that it's cultural is simply a recent opinion, because there are probably a number of you here who can remember back, probably forty, fifty years ago in Christendom, when it was practiced almost everywhere. What has happened in those forty and fifty years? Has there been new enlightenment in the Word of God? I would suggest that what has happened is there has been great pressure from the world with regard to the role of women in many areas of life, including her role in the assembly. So I would suggest for those reasons, this is not just cultural, and we cannot excuse it based on a change in culture. That brings us to perhaps a more difficult, complex problem, and the real reason I ask you to bring your thinking caps with you. Because many have looked at this scripture and said, well, it says if she prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, she dishonors her head. Therefore, utilizing logic, we can say, if her head is covered, then she can pray and prophesy in the public gatherings of the assembly. In other words, if she's uncovered, it's wrong, but if she's covered, it is right for her to pray publicly and prophesy publicly in the assembly. We could call that reverse logic. If she prays uncovered, it's wrong. Therefore, if she's covered, it must be right. Let me illustrate for you that when you reverse logic like that, you can get into trouble. The law says it's wrong for you to go through a stop sign. It's obviously wrong for you to speed through a stop sign. Using reverse logic, if speeding through a stop sign is wrong, I could say, oh, well then going through a stop sign slowly is right. I wouldn't use that logic when you drive your car. You see, we just can't take a complex statement and begin reversing certain elements of it and coming to conclusion. Let me show from Paul's teaching that this is a common approach that Paul takes. Go back to First Corinthians chapter eight. First Corinthians chapter eight. Remember in this chapter, Paul said it's fine if you purchase the meat in the marketplace that was offered to idols. But I want you to look at verse ten of chapter eight. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscious of him, conscious of him who is weak, be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? In other words, if an individual who has a conscience about eating meat that was offered to idols sees you eating meat in this temple, he's going to feel, well, maybe it's okay, and he'll eat, and his conscience will bother him. Look at verse ten. I want to reverse the logic. If anyone sees you, it's bad, but if no one sees you, it's okay. Is that what Paul's saying? He says, if anyone sees you, that's bad. So we could simply say, well, if they don't see me, it's not bad. Well, go over to chapter ten and verse twenty. Let's read verse nineteen for connection. What am I saying then, that an idol is anything? Or what is offered to idols is anything? But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons. What appears to be permissible if I reverse the logic in chapter eight— if no one sees me, I can participate in the temple, the idol temple, if no one sees me. Paul very clearly states in this chapter to, that to participate in the actual idol worship is not in line with a Christian profession and is fellowshipping with demons. In other words, what appears to be permissible in chapter eight is very clearly prohibited in chapter ten. Now we could apply that, and Paul takes that same approach when he comes to chapter eleven. You see, in chapter eight he's dealing with a principle, chapter eleven he's dealing with a practice. In chapter, I mean chapter ten. Chapter eleven he's dealing with a principle, the principle of headship. And he says, if a woman would pray and prophesy having her head uncovered, she dishonors her head. We cannot simply reverse the logic and say, if she's covered, she can do that. Because First Corinthians fourteen, when it comes to the practice and the use of gift within the assembly, states for us clearly, let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in the church. What would appear to be permissible if we reverse the logic is very clearly prohibited in chapter fourteen. So we do, we want to be very careful that we just don't take a statement of scripture and infer that if she's covered, she can then participate publicly in the assembly. I want to state that again for you, because I know it's not easy. In chapter eight, if we reverse the logic, we could say, as long as no one sees me, I can participate in the, uh, in the, the, uh, temple of the idol, and in their program, and in their, uh, services, as long as no one sees me. That's reversing the logic of eight ten. But Paul, coming over to chapter ten nineteen through twenty two, clearly teaches that that would be wrong. So the reversing of the logic is wrong. When we come to chapter eleven, that says that a woman prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, dishonors her head, we could reverse the logic again and say, if she's covered, she can then participate. We would also be wrong because when we come to chapter fourteen it is clearly prohibited. And so we want to be very careful when we take scripture and begin to twist it. It's important, I think, that we see in chapter eleven Paul is dealing with a principle, that of headship, and in chapter fourteen with the practice of that principle, and that's why we get the instruction in chapter fourteen that the women are to be silent. That brings us to two other questions. When and where then should the sisters be covered? There are those who would suggest that the activities described in these early verses must be outside of assembly activities. They cannot refer to assembly activities. And you will look at verse 18 of this eleventh chapter. For first of all, when you come together as a church, and they would suggest that Paul, beginning at verse seventeen and eighteen, now begins to speak about corporate gatherings, and thus the preceding verses had nothing to do with corporate gatherings, because he does not speak about coming together until verse seventeen and eighteen. They would suggest also that it must be outside the assembly because the sisters are praying and prophesying in public, which is prohibited in the assembly, therefore these could not be assembly gatherings. I would suggest that what Paul has in view is the collective gathering of the saints. I would suggest that the statement in verses seventeen and eighteen, speaking about when you come together, they do not, in and of themselves, imply that the preceding verses could not be speaking about collective gatherings. The subject there becomes the Lord's Supper. We come together collectively for the Lord's Supper. But Paul actually uses a play on words there. He says, when you come together, I see there are divisions. You see what he's saying? You're coming together, but you're not really together. And I would suggest that the subject matter there calls for his words, when you come together. But the use of those words does not mean that the preceding verses do not refer to assembly gatherings. Secondly, verse sixteen talks about the practice of the churches of God. He's dealing about the practices of the church. He does not say this is not the practice of individuals. He's dealing with corporate practices in verse sixteen, And I would suggest that the opening verses of this chapter deal with spiritual gatherings of the Lord's people in the assembly. Could it be, as some suggest, just in the privacy of their home? Well, I would ask there, why would that be an issue? Who would know if the sister was covered or uncovered? So I really think that we have here the assembly gathering for spiritual purposes. Now that brings us to where? If it's the assembly gathering together for spiritual purposes, and I might say that those who infer that these verses cannot speak about the assembly coming together because the women are speaking publicly, they're assuming that Paul agrees with the women speaking publicly here. The fact that Paul says a woman who prays and prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head does not mean that he is condoning their praying and prophesying in public in the assembly. And I think he addresses that in the fourteenth chapter. But as they come together, where are they to be covered? I would suggest that when a group of saints come together for a specified spiritual purpose, that the angels would expect to see this symbolic demonstration of the headship order. Therefore, it would not solely be confined to this building. In other words, we could say the angels would have, or wouldn't the angels have interest when three hundred of the Lord's saints from various assemblies gather on the hill for specific spiritual purposes? Would they not expect to see the order demonstrated? Just because we take the assembly and we divide it up into small groups in different homes for spiritual purposes, would not the angels expect to see this order demonstrated? If a couple would invite you for dinner, and after dinner your conversation turned to spiritual things, that is not a gathering that has been specifically called by the assembly for spiritual purposes. But if after dinner the table is cleared, the living room is rearranged, and those from the assembly come to a pre-announced, pre-arranged, and condoned Bible study, would not the angels expect to see this order demonstrated in the church? And so I would suggest that when the assembly comes together for spiritual activity, and I believe that's expressed in the words praying and prophesying, because praying is to God, prophesying is from God, and it almost encompasses all spiritual activity, either to God or from God. And when the assembly is involved in spiritual activity, the angels would be observing to see this order symbolically demonstrated amongst the Lord's people. So I would suggest it's when the assembly comes together and where, wherever the assembly comes together for spiritual activity. That brings us to the question of long hair. Could the long hair of the woman be the covering that is spoken of in the early portion of this chapter? I would suggest, for several reasons, that is not what is in view. First of all, there is implied a definite action. If you're praying or prophesying or involved in spiritual activity, you cover. If the man is involved, he uncovers, and it is not the normal practice of men and women to remove their hair, or to put their hair on, or take it off. And there is such an action implied in the early verses of this chapter, and I believe that implied action would tell us it is not hair that is in view. Also, you will note in verse fifteen that the long hair is a glory to the woman. The long hair would not cover her glory, therefore, because it is her glory. Her long hair could not cover her glory because it is her glory, and all glory is to be covered except the glory of God, which is symbolically demonstrated by the uncovered head of the man. And so, for those two reasons alone, the, the portion does not support the, the idea that her long hair is her covering. Also, the original Greek language uses a completely different word in verse fifteen, to her for a covering, than it does for all of the words in the preceding verses. The thought in verse fifteen there, the word is that her long hair is given to her for a mantle, a cloak, a vesture, a protection. And I believe the long hair of the woman is a protection, in that it distinguishes her from the male, and that in itself is a protection, because normally in society there is protection given to the woman. And so her long hair then is a protection for her, but it is not the covering spoken of the early portion of the text. I might say this, sisters, and I say this to you in love. If you find it difficult to cover your hair, that's natural because it's your glory. Do not be surprised if you find it somehow objectionable to cover your hair, because it is your glory. And that's the whole point that you illustrate when you cover it. A willing submissiveness, a willingness to cover your glory. Unless you think that would be unique, that's exactly what the Lord Jesus Christ did when he came from glory. He veiled his glory. The Lord Jesus did not come here in all the brightness of his glory, did he? He came here in humility, with his glory veiled in a human body. Oh, occasionally we see glimpse of that glory, don't we? But oh, how thankful we should be that he came with that glory veiled, because it would have meant judgment for us. And so, sisters, when you find it a little difficult to cover that, it is just substantiating exactly what scripture is teaching, that your hair is your glory. And it does take an act of the will to cover it. But it's an act that should be done in obedience to the word of God. And that brings me to another point. You know, both to the men and to the women in the assembly, particularly, of course, to the women, it's a wonderful opportunity to outwardly demonstrate your willingness to submit to God's order of headship. To do it from the heart. To do it with an understanding, yes, this is my glory, but I'm willing to cover it, to illustrate my submission to the order that God has established. There needs to be a spirit in which it is done. The Lord speaking to the Pharisees in Matthew fifteen, quoting from Isaiah, says, you know, they say things to me with m- their lips, but their hearts are far from me. The Lord would greatly be pleased if when we uncover our head or we cover our head, we do so knowingly and willingly and with a real desire to please the Lord. We come to another problem, and that's the problem of size. And I'm glad I'm amongst friends. We cannot legislate, can we? We cannot describe the material, but I'm so thankful for scripture that I can go back to the authority of scripture, because what is taught here is that the woman's glory, her hair, should be covered. I need not describe a size. I need not describe material. I simply say that the symbol is one in which the head and hair of the woman is to be covered. I then leave that to the sisters to be led of the Lord with regard to that symbolism. What if an individual refuses to wear a covering? First of all, I would suggest we should never force this upon an individual who is simply visiting with us, who has had no instruction, has no understanding, perhaps, of why we even practice this ordinance. Also, it suggests that we cannot force either a man or a woman to comply with this, any more than we would force them to be baptized, any more than we would force them to break bread. It's something that God wants to see practiced from the heart. And so we cannot legislate, in a sense, and force an individual to do and carry out this ordinance. I would suggest this does not leave the oversight in a helpless situation, because I believe it would be very proper for one to be properly taught, who refuses to cover their head, or in the case of a man, have an uncovered head, to restrict their activities within the assembly. If an individual, a man, let's say, refused to be baptized or refused to break bread, I trust we most likely would restrict him with regard to his use of the platform. Would it be any different then for an individual who refused to uncover his head or to cover her head and restrict their activities within the assembly? And so, while we do not force an individual, we cannot make them, but we can restrict them with their activities in the assembly. In summary, then, let me close this way. The physical demonstration of God's headship order by the uncovered head of the man and the covered head of the woman is an ordinance to be practiced in the church today. By uncovering his physical head, the man displays the glory of his spiritual head, Christ. By covering her head, the woman covers not only her glory, but her spiritual head and glory of the man, thus allowing the uncovered head of the man to symbolically show forth the glory of God. The practice of this ordinance does not permit women to violate other functional prohibitions. In other words, if a woman does have her head covered, it does not allow her to violate First Corinthians fourteen thirty four and thirty five, which requires her to be silent. This ordinance is to be practiced when the church comes together for spiritual purposes. This is not limited to a specific building. The woman's head is to be covered. Anything less than a complete covering of the head does not fulfill the intended symbolic purpose of the covering. The woman's long hair is not the covering prescribed in this passage. And let me close with a plea. The Lord asks so little of us. This is what baffles me sometimes. I was in an assembly where individuals came in from a church where they were not instructed in this ordinance or this practice. And after it was explained to them, almost to a person, the sisters said, I'm not sure I really understand it yet, but in the spirit of unity, I will practice it. As one who is in oversight, I could only appreciate the spirit. There was a willingness, despite perhaps a misunderstanding, to practice it for the sake of unity. And yet today, so often, there are those, for the sake of what the Lord asked us simply to do, would refuse and cause disunity in the assembly. The Lord really doesn't ask much of us, but he does want us to practice it from the heart, to consciously understand that when we come together, the angels are looking to us to see this order that God established in creation, disrupted by the fall, but now practiced in the church. The sisters covering their glory and the glory of the man. The men uncovering their heads and symbolically uncovering the glory of God. Such a little thing, isn't it? How sad it is that it would cause such difficulty. And I would suggest that when it does, it's because simply there's a wrong spirit. If we really look at our hearts, we'll find that if we really want to obey the word of God, we would comply with his teaching. I had written a little paper once, to be or not to be. It simply set forth the situation. If a sister was to be uncovered, she might, she might be wrong. If she's covered, she can't be wrong. Knowing those two options, on one case, you might very well be wrong, and I believe scripture teaches you would be wrong, and in the other case, knowing you can't be wrong, and if you really want to please the Lord, what would we choose? A very simple ordinance to show our willingness and submission to the Lord's will for our lives and for the assembly. Let's close in prayer. Gracious God and Father, we come before thee. As we look into this passage, we first of all thank thee that the Lord Jesus was willing to submit himself to your redemptive plan. And what an example we have of submission, so that there might be order, and that that order would accomplish our redemption. And Lord, we confess to thee the tendencies of the natural heart to rebel against your word. And we just ask that you would give us hearts that truly, honestly desire to please you in all things. And Lord, we pray specifically for our sisters. There is so much pressure upon them today from society, and even amongst Christian circles. We pray that you would give them the grace necessary to obey this symbolic ordinance you have given us in your word. And that also those of us who are men would, in real respect for our Lord, practice this ordinance as well. We commit your word to thee, Lord. Again, we recognize it is deeply presented, and we pray that by thy Holy Spirit it would be taken, applied to our hearts. Teach us, mold us, change us. Have us to be willing in all areas of life to obey your word. So we commit ourselves to thee, thanking thee for our time together, as we pray in the precious name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.