The record-union., 1899-07-23
HATS. AND HIGHER CRITICISM.

Recently the Record Union referred
to the movement in the East to re-
quire women to remove their hats in
churches. The Literary Digest takes
ment is due to the fact that the spirit
of reform in general has a tendency to
increase it's hold upon it's adherents.
and hence where success marks a re-
reaching out for new fields to conquer.
Thus the success attendant upon the
anti-high-hat in the theater crusade.
has given birth to the movement
ums. It is added that regarding it
there is a remarkable consensus of
opinion in the masculine editorial mind
that women should no longer display
this article of feminine vanity-as they
term it-in sacred edifices.
The Brooklyn Eagle remarks that
If it is possible to bring about a hat
reform in the theater where there is
ought to be greater ease in achieving
reform Of the hat question in the
church. That ought to be true. But
it is not creditable to the church that
it should have awaited action in the
theater before moving in it's own be-
half, but it is fact nevertheless. When
Plymouth Church asked for lessening
of the hight of hats in the auditorium
of that body, there was general re-
sponse, we are told. There certainly
would have been a more creditable re-
suit had not the movement in the the
ater preceded it.
Hanson Place Methodist Church,
Brooklyn, was the second, church to
prefer the request to the women. There
the response was less generous but we
judge that it was because the request
was less urgent, the deacons being fear
ful to speak out, and contenting them
selves with posting notices on the lobby
doors. The Philadelphia Inquirer is
one journal that to this date has come
to the defense of the hat in church. It
declares that the theater and the
church cases are not to be compared.
In the one there is spectacle to be seen,
in the other none; and that no irrelig-
ious or sacreligious idea is mixed up
with retention of the hat upon the head
in church. In one respect it contends it
is the highest sort of reverence for the
woman to appear in the house Of Wor-
ship in the best she has,
This might be true if the display of
head gear was made as an act of hom-
age. But will any one seriously claim
as much for it? The Brooklyn Times
rather inclipes tor have present customs
remain. undisturbed because 1.-The high
ITCHY of the scriptures but content
themselves with pointing out errors of
translation and mistaken theories of
authorship. They assert that the pre-
sanction. But Rev. DR.. Forbes and
Rev. DR.. Kraeling reply very truth
fully that the mandate of st. Paul is
devoid of authority now. Has it oc-
Cured to the Times that the head
gear referred to by the apostle was of
very different order from that used by
women in these days? That, as one
clergyman puts it, If st. Paul could SEE
the hats of to-day he would long to
revoke his order?
But after all it is not an obligatory
text that is quoted in defense of the
women. It is mere admonition and
has reference to a wholly differ
ent affair from that the women of our
day deal with. From the way the
press and the pulpit are handling
the whole matter, it would seem as if
they were having a bit of fun at the
expense of women; that they are not
taking themselves very seriously in this
matter, and that few of them expect to
see the reform introduced. If that is
the spirit moving them. the women will
hold their ground and wear their hats
in church. For no reform was ever
effected where the promoters of it were
half hearted, or treated the subject
with i'll concealed mirthfulness.