redefining the headcover

[Danfrey]

I am working with my 12 year old daughter on wearing a headcover. It has been an exciting experience. We are not exactly your run-of-the-mill Mennonites so we have our own style of dress. I guess you could call us liberal conservatives or conservative liberals. :) She is wearing bandanas right off the shelf from Walmart. In most churches we have been part of that covered this would be considered taboo, but she has her head covered when she prays and prophesies. Also, she is actually covering her hair with the bandana. I think if we could get to a place that we teach the biblical concept without all the extra baggage that goes along with it, people would be alot more receptive to it. It may not be a white mesh cap, but I can guarantee you when people see her in a jumper and cover, they know there is something different about her. Maybe a kid can be a kid and still not be conformed to the world. By the way, my favorite cover is the one with the puppy paw prints and chew bones.

Thoughts and opinions welcome

[MrJim]

The angel aspect of the covering is what I find most interesting.

1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

[theAmishGirl]

The angel aspect of the covering is what I find most interesting.

1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
I have thought about covering with only a bandana, but in my area, a lot of people wear them just because, so for me I don't feel like it is a seperation. I guess a lot depends on the area you live.

[vespasia]

I was wearing a full headcovering last year BUT where I live people kept mistaking me for being a member of the exclusive brethren ( in the Uk they have become increadibly insular so people were scared to talk with me although one or two of the EB woman did do for a while ) and if I went into a city people thought I was a Muslim.

So unless its for some very important time alone with God or I know it would cause real problems for another if I did not I no longer do so.

[Danfrey]

I have thought about covering with only a bandana, but in my area, a lot of people wear them just because, so for me I don't feel like it is a seperation. I guess a lot depends on the area you live.

I don't see the headcover as seperation issue. The scripture gives it as more of honor, authority type issue.

I respect those who wear a cover that is more traditional, but if we were to look to the cover that is more historically accurate, it would be a larger veil type. More like what Muslim women wear.

I am not a big fan of defining dress issues beyond modesty, unadornment, and sexual distinction. It seems that the rejection of many biblical standards of dress has come from the church trying to define standards to a level that the Bible doesn't.

[MrJim]

I'm seeing more and more of the veiling over the net/cap covering here in the South Central PA area. I know there is a Charity church in the area but I think there are some of the more modern conservatives that are switching to the veiling. I guess it sorta looks like a large white bandana.

[oliveplants]

Can I come in here? I'm not anabaptist, but really feel closer to that (this) group than any other....

I also wear the handkerchief from Walmart. I'd bought a snood online and wear it to church (til I lost it), but for day to day just the handkerchief. SOme people do just wear one, but I can't help what they do. :)

Menno, when you said a Charity church, do you mean Charity Gospel with Denny Kennaston? We have been very blessed by their tape ministry.

Sorry if I'm not supposed to be here, I'll hush. But it feels good...

[tulc]

Can I come in here? I'm not anabaptist, but really feel closer to that (this) group than any other....

I also wear the handkerchief from Walmart. I'd bought a snood online and wear it to church (til I lost it), but for day to day just the handkerchief. SOme people do just wear one, but I can't help what they do. :)

Menno, when you said a Charity church, do you mean Charity Gospel with Denny Kennaston? We have been very blessed by their tape ministry.

Sorry if I'm not supposed to be here, I'll hush. But it feels good...

First off:
:wave: WELCOME TO THE ANABAPTIST FORUM!!
as for the headcovering, in my opinion wear what you feel led to wear. :)
tulc(thinks you should hang out here, we can make some cookies!) ;)

[oliveplants]

First off:
:wave: WELCOME TO THE ANABAPTIST FORUM!!
as for the headcovering, in my opinion wear what you feel led to wear. :)
tulc(thinks you should hang out here, we can make some cookies!) ;)

Thank you. I've been doing better at cookies lately, but you should try my strawberry pie!

[theAmishGirl]

[quote=Danfrey]I don't see the headcover as seperation issue. The scripture gives it as more of honor, authority type issue. \quote]

I disagree in part- when Paul told the women at Corinth that they should wear a headcovering, he did so because Corinth was known as a city where anything is permittable, much like the US today. While YES, the original symbolism of the covering did involve headship, the intent of the instruction was to seperate the women of Corinth from those around them. In many societies of the time, a woman with her head uncovered was seen as having lose morals, so in order to uphold a good image with those groups, Paul instructed them to be modest and wear the covering, in essence seperating them from the hethenistic nature of other Corinthian women.

[MrJim]

Can I come in here? I'm not anabaptist, but really feel closer to that (this) group than any other....

I also wear the handkerchief from Walmart. I'd bought a snood online and wear it to church (til I lost it), but for day to day just the handkerchief. SOme people do just wear one, but I can't help what they do. :)

Menno, when you said a Charity church, do you mean Charity Gospel with Denny Kennaston? We have been very blessed by their tape ministry.

Sorry if I'm not supposed to be here, I'll hush. But it feels good...

http://www.charityministries.org/

This would be the "Charity" I'm referring to.

Yes you are welcome! Where are you fellowshipping now?

[oliveplants]

http://www.charityministries.org/

This would be the "Charity" I'm referring to.

Yes you are welcome! Where are you fellowshipping now?

Yep, that's the one!

We currently attend a small independant church. Solid Bible base, but not Anabaptist at all. I am the only one I know who even wears a dress...:sigh: (and let's not get into our deeper differances.)

[AmishBoy]

Yep, that's the one!

We currently attend a small independant church. Solid Bible base, but not Anabaptist at all. I am the only one I know who even wears a dress...:sigh: (and let's not get into our deeper differances.)

Really? Thats almost depressing.. ofcourse I got to a baptacostal church lol, (Baptist that actually get excited) there are very few that wears a dress.. Wish we could find an anabaptist church..

[ZiSunka]

I am working with my 12 year old daughter on wearing a headcover. It has been an exciting experience. We are not exactly your run-of-the-mill Mennonites so we have our own style of dress. I guess you could call us liberal conservatives or conservative liberals. :) She is wearing bandanas right off the shelf from Walmart. In most churches we have been part of that covered this would be considered taboo, but she has her head covered when she prays and prophesies. Also, she is actually covering her hair with the bandana. I think if we could get to a place that we teach the biblical concept without all the extra baggage that goes along with it, people would be alot more receptive to it. It may not be a white mesh cap, but I can guarantee you when people see her in a jumper and cover, they know there is something different about her. Maybe a kid can be a kid and still not be conformed to the world. By the way, my favorite cover is the one with the puppy paw prints and chew bones.

Thoughts and opinions welcome

I have struggled back and forth over the headcovering since I just joined the mennonite church 14 years ago.

It gets misused and abused so much that I had to put the whole idea on the shelf for a long while.

I have come to the conclusion that headcovering is an optional matter, not essential to salvation or sanctification, a disipline, not a commandment.

If a woman wants to cover for the right reasons, great! If she doesn't want to cover for the right reasons, great! Each woman should be fully convinced in her own heart that it is the right thing to do for her, her witness and her community and family.

:)

[theAmishGirl]

I have struggled back and forth over the headcovering since I just joined the mennonite church 14 years ago.

It gets misused and abused so much that I had to put the whole idea on the shelf for a long while.

I have come to the conclusion that headcovering is an optional matter, not essential to salvation or sanctification, a disipline, not a commandment.

If a woman wants to cover for the right reasons, great! If she doesn't want to cover for the right reasons, great! Each woman should be fully convinced in her own heart that it is the right thing to do for her, her witness and her community and family.

:)
What do you mean "abused"? What are some of the wrong reasons in your op.?

[ZiSunka]

What do you mean "abused"? What are some of the wrong reasons in your op.?

I've known men who verbally and physically harmed their wives for wearing or not wearing the headcovering.

I dated a mennonite man for a while, and he once flat out told me that if I didn't cover my head in the presence of any men, I was a harlot and was showing myself to be unsaved.

A friend of mine didn't cover her head (we went to a church where some women covered and some didn't) and her husband was constantly belittled for not forcing his wife to cover.

A pastor I knew said that if a woman doesn't cover her head, she was asking to be raped.

It gets really yucky in some anabaptist circles when the subject of covering comes up.

But I will say that if I were married and covering my head meant a lot to my husband and he was gracious and loving about it, I would cover.

I think the wrong reasons to cover are because a woman feels threatened if she doesn't. Another wrong reason is some anabaptists teach that God won't hear a woman's prayers if she doesn't cover. I think covering because of intimidation misses the point.

[theAmishGirl]

I've known men who verbally and physically harmed their wives for wearing or not wearing the headcovering.

I dated a mennonite man for a while, and he once flat out told me that if I didn't cover my head in the presence of any men, I was a harlot and was showing myself to be unsaved.

A friend of mine didn't cover her head (we went to a church where some women covered and some didn't) and her husband was constantly belittled for not forcing his wife to cover.

A pastor I knew said that if a woman doesn't cover her head, she was asking to be raped.

It gets really yucky in some anabaptist circles when the subject of covering comes up.

But I will say that if I were married and covering my head meant a lot to my husband and he was gracious and loving about it, I would cover.

I think the wrong reasons to cover are because a woman feels threatened if she doesn't. Another wrong reason is some anabaptists teach that God won't hear a woman's prayers if she doesn't cover. I think covering because of intimidation misses the point.
Ok- I understand what you mean now

[Danfrey]

I would agree that covering for the wrong reason is a waste of time. The right reason to cover is because scripture teaches it and history backs up the teaching.

I don't understand the idea of salvation issues and non-salvation issues when we are discussing biblical teachings. I understand the issue of standards that are not scriptural teachings...for instance

the cape dress...not defined in scripture
Jewelry.....forbidden in scripture
modesty......scriptural
cap style cover......not defined
cover........defined

How can rejecting a scriptural teaching not be a salvation issue?

[ZiSunka]

I would agree that covering for the wrong reason is a waste of time. The right reason to cover is because scripture teaches it and history backs up the teaching.

I don't understand the idea of salvation issues and non-salvation issues when we are discussing biblical teachings. I understand the issue of standards that are not scriptural teachings...for instance

the cape dress...not defined in scripture
Jewelry.....forbidden in scripture
modesty......scriptural
cap style cover......not defined
cover........defined

How can rejecting a scriptural teaching not be a salvation issue?

So you believe a woman has to cover her head to be saved?

[Danfrey]

So you believe a woman has to cover her head to be saved?
I am saying that the cover is a clear scriptural teaching. Each person will be held accountable to God for the commands he has given that we choose to reject.

My point is that we can not pick and choose which scriptural teachings are salvation issues and which are not unless the scripture teaches them that way. For instance, we are told not to judge or be judged on holy days, food, and Sabaths. We live in a society that likes to raise personal preference above scriptural teaching. Bring up the issue of wedding rings and see how quick the conversation starts spinning.

[ZiSunka]

I am saying that the cover is a clear scriptural teaching. Each person will be held accountable to God for the commands he has given that we choose to reject.

My point is that we can not pick and choose which scriptural teachings are salvation issues and which are not unless the scripture teaches them that way. For instance, we are told not to judge or be judged on holy days, food, and Sabaths. We live in a society that likes to raise personal preference above scriptural teaching. Bring up the issue of wedding rings and see how quick the conversation starts spinning.

Do you think that Christians must obey the Laws of Moses?

[Danfrey]

Do you think that Christians must obey the Laws of Moses?
The headcover is not part of the law. The headcover is a New Testament teaching. We are no longer under the law of Moses, but that does not relieve us from the responsibility to obey scripture. Jesus told us to go into all the world making disciples of men and teaching them to obey all the things he commanded them

[ZiSunka]

The headcover is not part of the law. The headcover is a New Testament teaching. We are no longer under the law of Moses, but that does not relieve us from the responsibility to obey scripture. Jesus told us to go into all the world making disciples of men and teaching them to obey all the things he commanded them

Jesus didn't command the headcovering, Paul did.

[theAmishGirl]

Do you think that Christians must obey the Laws of Moses?
I agree Danfrey in the part that we should not pick and choose commandments. Everyone makes a big deal about the ten commandments, but there are also a lot of commandments in Leviticus and many other books that people ignore. We shouldn't do that.

but the Bible states that salvation is through faith and while we are accountable for the deeds which we have done and/or not done on this earth, I do not, will not, and have never believed that it is a salvation issue when we disobey a commandment. If that is true, then everytime you have a hateful or spiteful thought, you lose your salvation!

[Danfrey]

I agree Danfrey in the part that we should not pick and choose commandments. Everyone makes a big deal about the ten commandments, but there are also a lot of commandments in Leviticus and many other books that people ignore. We shouldn't do that.

but the Bible states that salvation is through faith and while we are accountable for the deeds which we have done and/or not done on this earth, I do not, will not, and have never believed that it is a salvation issue when we disobey a commandment. If that is true, then everytime you have a hateful or spiteful thought, you lose your salvation!
If we continue in sin without repentance, how can we not lose our salvation?

[Danfrey]

Jesus didn't command the headcovering, Paul did.

So, are you saying that Paul's letters are not authoritive? If this is the case, I will drop this conversation because we no longer have common ground on which to discuss it.

[ZiSunka]

I agree Danfrey in the part that we should not pick and choose commandments. Everyone makes a big deal about the ten commandments, but there are also a lot of commandments in Leviticus and many other books that people ignore. We shouldn't do that.

Like the commandment to stone homosexuals and adulterers to death?


but the Bible states that salvation is through faith and while we are accountable for the deeds which we have done and/or not done on this earth, I do not, will not, and have never believed that it is a salvation issue when we disobey a commandment. If that is true, then everytime you have a hateful or spiteful thought, you lose your salvation!

Very good. When the love and kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:4-7

Whether we cover our heads or not, it doesn't affect or effect our salvation. He saved us because of what HE did, not because of what WE do.

[ZiSunka]

So, are you saying that Paul's letters are not authoritive? If this is the case, I will drop this conversation because we no longer have common ground on which to discuss it.

No, that's not what I am saying. You said we need to cover so we will obey the teachings of Jesus, but Jesus was silent on headcoverings. It was Paul who mentioned headcoverings, not Jesus.

[ZiSunka]

If we continue in sin without repentance, how can we not lose our salvation?

I guess if we earned our salvation, I would agree with this, but because salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and even that faith is a gift of God, lest we be boastful about how great we are that we have faith, then how can we lose our salvation. Is God an indiangiver?

[Danfrey]

No, that's not what I am saying. You said we need to cover so we will obey the teachings of Jesus, but Jesus was silent on headcoverings. It was Paul who mentioned headcoverings, not Jesus.
I would consider all the teachings of the New Testament to be the teachings of Christ, not just the Jesus of that walked in the flesh but the Jesus whom is God, who through the holy spirit gave men the New Testament so that we could learn to follow his teachings. If they were not, the New Testament would be of no use.

[ZiSunka]

I would consider all the teachings of the New Testament to be the teachings of Christ, not just the Jesus of that walked in the flesh but the Jesus whom is God, who through the holy spirit gave men the New Testament so that we could learn to follow his teachings. If they were not, the New Testament would be of no use.

Perhaps. But it was not Jesus who commanded headcoverings. I wanted you to be accurate about who said what.

[MrJim]

Apostolic writing is authoritative...even if it's not written in red ;)

[ZiSunka]

Apostolic writing is authoritative...even if it's not written in red ;)

Never said it wasn't. Go back and read what I wrote one more time. My comment wasn't that Paul has less authority, but that Dan misquoted, claiming Jesus said those words when it was really Paul.

[MrJim]

Never said it wasn't. Go back and read what I wrote one more time. My comment wasn't that Paul has less authority, but that Dan misquoted, claiming Jesus said those words when it was really Paul.

:doh:I missed a page

[Danfrey]

Actually, Daniel is very aware of who's words are written in 1 Cor 11, but as I said before. The whole New Testament are the words of Christ.

[ZiSunka]

Actually, Daniel is very aware of who's words are written in 1 Cor 11, but as I said before. The whole New Testament are the words of Christ.

:sigh:

[Danfrey]

:sigh:
Daniel = Danfrey

[ZiSunka]

Daniel = Danfrey

Yes, I know.

[AmishBoy]

lol sorry but I really have to have a laugh about the last like 8 posts. :sorry:

[ZiSunka]

They are pretty funny! :D

[Danfrey]

I have to keep these type of discussions online. I am surrounded by Mennonite USA folks and Protestants. If I spoke openly at my work place about what I believe it would make for a very difficult work enviornment.

[ZiSunka]

I have to keep these type of discussions online. I am surrounded by Mennonite USA folks and Protestants. If I spoke openly at my work place about what I believe it would make for a very difficult work enviornment.

Ah! The persecution complex! That is a sign of the quite conservative anabaptist sects.

I know a few Conservative preachers who preach constantly that if you don't feel persecuted, you aren't a Christian!

[ZiSunka]

So Danfrey, since the headcovering was defined in the NT, how much of a woman's head must be covered?

[Danfrey]

So Danfrey, since the headcovering was defined in the NT, how much of a woman's head must be covered?
Actually, the Bible doesn't define it. The early church writings address the style, but I hesitate to go beyond what is defined in scripture.

[MrJim]

As far as the covering I heard one teaching that said, since the covering and communion are dealt with in the same chapter/passage of scripture, and that communion is a symbol of a meal, that the covering is a symbol also. So a woman doesn't have to wear a helmet or veils to cover everything above the neck.

I'm like Dan on this one-I think that each should work through it for themselves as how they would apply it.

And no, mrs. menno doesn't believe the covering is applicable for today-it was only for "back then"--the usual cultural context arguement. Funny, the rest of chapter 11 is still good though.

Guess if ya follow the cultural context arguement the Quakers & Salvation Army folks that don't do any sacraments/ordinances are at least consistent.

[Danfrey]

Tertullian has a work on this titled "On the veiling of virgins" For my daughter, I lean toward something that is easy to wear, allows her to be a kid and covers much of her hair. Let me add that the only time I enforce the wearing of her cover is when we pray. I will wait for her to go get it before we pray if she doesn't have it on. She wears it most of the time but I teach her that it is only required for prayer and prophesy. Beyond that it is her choice.

[Antje]

Hello all,

I'm an Anabaptist, but this whole headcovering thing is quite foreign to me. I know some of my great-aunts and second cousins wear coverings, but I don't actually know any of them personally and have never been to a church where headcovering was practiced.

I guess my question goes out to the ladies who do wear a covering: What does it mean to you? Does it affect how you pray? How would you feel if you didn't wear it? And what does this have to do with husbands, anyway?

I just feel totally lost in this conversation, I have no idea how to connect. I guess I just always thought headcovering had gone the way of animal sacrifice in terms of what is required of us. If headcovering is meaningful to people and helpful in their walk with God, then I have no problem with it. I just don't feel the slightest conviction to cover my head at all because it's unfamiliar and
honestly seems like a weird thing to get hung up about.

[theAmishGirl]

Hello all,

I'm an Anabaptist, but this whole headcovering thing is quite foreign to me. I know some of my great-aunts and second cousins wear coverings, but I don't actually know any of them personally and have never been to a church where headcovering was practiced.

I guess my question goes out to the ladies who do wear a covering: What does it mean to you? Does it affect how you pray? How would you feel if you didn't wear it? And what does this have to do with husbands, anyway?

I just feel totally lost in this conversation, I have no idea how to connect. I guess I just always thought headcovering had gone the way of animal sacrifice in terms of what is required of us. If headcovering is meaningful to people and helpful in their walk with God, then I have no problem with it. I just don't feel the slightest conviction to cover my head at all because it's unfamiliar and
honestly seems like a weird thing to get hung up about.
I do cover most of the time and I do so both as a sign of submission to God and to my future husband and also as a form of seperation. While some may dispute that the covering is not a part of seperation, I feel differently. When Paul instructed the women of Corinth to wear coverings (1st Corinthians 11: 3-17) he did so because the women in the area of Corinth did not cover, and to many cultural groups outside the area, a women who was not covered was seen as immoral, so by having these Christian women cover, Paul was having them establish themselves as moral and upright citizens, thus being seperated from the sinful culture around them.

[Antje]

Your reply has made me think of another question to add:

What does wearing a piece of cloth on your head actually have to do with the notion of submission?

[theAmishGirl]

Your reply has made me think of another question to add:

What does wearing a piece of cloth on your head actually have to do with the notion of submission?
1 Corinthians 113 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Further verses explain more... (1 Corinthians 11 )

[ZiSunka]

Since the passage says that if a woman doesn't cover her head she should cut her hair, does that mean if a woman cuts her hair, she doesn't have to cover her head?

[theAmishGirl]

Since the passage says that if a woman doesn't cover her head she should cut her hair, does that mean if a woman cuts her hair, she doesn't have to cover her head?
:) I'm not quite sure that one is addressed?!! :) Theoretically, no I suppose not, so I guess we should all go and shave our heads and become neo-Nazi look alikes!! :)

[ZiSunka]

:) I'm not quite sure that one is addressed?!! :) Theoretically, no I suppose not, so I guess we should all go and shave our heads and become neo-Nazi look alikes!! :)

You don't have to choose between long hair and no hair. There are hair lengths in between. My hair doesn't even touch my shoulders.

[MrJim]

Some of the questions brought up have to also be addressed to men also, since they are to be uncovered during prayer. So if hair is the covering then men would have to take it off during prayer?

I don't follow "the hair is the covering" train of thought--in the end it makes the entire passage somewhat nonsensical.

[ZiSunka]

Some of the questions brought up have to also be addressed to men also, since they are to be uncovered during prayer. So if hair is the covering then men would have to take it off during prayer?

I don't follow "the hair is the covering" train of thought--in the end it makes the entire passage somewhat nonsensical.

I went to school with a girl from a very strict Wesleyan church and she wasn't even allowed to snip the split ends out of her hair because it made her "shorn," and that church believed a woman's hair is her headcovering.

I think no matter how you look at this issue, it has the potential to become legalistic. To cover or not to cover, to cut or not to cut, when those things come to the level of determining who is and isn't saved, who is and isn't rebelling against God, then that is where legalism begins.

If a single woman wants to cover, she should.

If a husband and wife agree that she should cover, she should.

If they haven't come to conviction about it, then covering is meaningless.

It's either an act of submission to God or it's legalism. The motive is the deciding factor, I think.

[MrJim]

I went to school with a girl from a very strict Wesleyan church and she wasn't even allowed to snip the split ends out of her hair because it made her "shorn," and that church believed a woman's hair is her headcovering.

I think no matter how you look at this issue, it has the potential to become legalistic. To cover or not to cover, to cut or not to cut, when those things come to the level of determining who is and isn't saved, who is and isn't rebelling against God, then that is where legalism begins.

If a single woman wants to cover, she should.

If a husband and wife agree that she should cover, she should.

If they haven't come to conviction about it, then covering is meaningless.

It's either an act of submission to God or it's legalism. The motive is the deciding factor, I think.

I suppose that can apply to anything in scripture? OT is full of that sort of thing.

But I would say it would be appropriate to approach the issue with the idea that we want to do the "all things" of scripture.

[ZiSunka]

I suppose that can apply to anything in scripture? OT is full of that sort of thing.

But I would say it would be appropriate to approach the issue with the idea that we want to do the "all things" of scripture.

Of course.

I guess my biggest resistence to the headcovering is that it is always men who insist that women who are not under their authority (wife, daughters, widowed mother) MUST do it.

It's my respectful opinion that men should only be involved in the decisions of women under their authority, and not the decisions of women outside their households.

Men can advocate the headcovering, but they ought not preach, demand or cajole women into submitting.

[MrJim]

...ok, but what about those angels? Any thoughts on that part of the passage?

[ZiSunka]

...ok, but what about those angels? Any thoughts on that part of the passage?

I have puzzled and puzzled over that one, read every commentary I can find on the passage and I still can't make sense of it.

Why would the angels care whether or not my head is covered?

Any ideas?

[MrJim]

It's as though the order of woman created for man is sybolized by the covering and it's some kind of lesson or testimony or sign for angels to identify with.

Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Since it's all a type of the Christ/Church Groom/Bride maybe this is some of the why? It adds to the mystery and makes me think that there is more to this than meets the eye.

[ZiSunka]

Amen.

Or the translators did a bad job conveying the real message.

[Danfrey]

I do cover most of the time and I do so both as a sign of submission to God and to my future husband and also as a form of seperation. While some may dispute that the covering is not a part of seperation, I feel differently. When Paul instructed the women of Corinth to wear coverings (1st Corinthians 11: 3-17) he did so because the women in the area of Corinth did not cover, and to many cultural groups outside the area, a women who was not covered was seen as immoral, so by having these Christian women cover, Paul was having them establish themselves as moral and upright citizens, thus being seperated from the sinful culture around them.

AmishGirl,
I have a couple of questions to challenge your thinking a bit. First, let me say that I believe that a cover is scriptural, my wife covered until her death and was burried with her cover, and I am teaching my daughter to cover.

Now the tough questions. Do you have a primary source of information about the women in the area of Corinth and cultural groups that didn't cover, or is this information that you have received from others. Your statements contain alot of information, but there is similar information used to argue against the cover. It is important that we can back up our statements with primary sources.

[Danfrey]

It's as though the order of woman created for man is sybolized by the covering and it's some kind of lesson or testimony or sign for angels to identify with.

Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Since it's all a type of the Christ/Church Groom/Bride maybe this is some of the why? It adds to the mystery and makes me think that there is more to this than meets the eye.
I kind of like my wife's approach to this one. I remember reading 1 Cor 11 looking for a good reason to give a young guy in church a hard time. When I read it, it was the first time I had read anything about the cover. I handed my wife the bible and she read it. When she finished reading it, she decided it was time for her to start covering. She didn't have the "benefit" of several generations of people who had rejected the cover to teach her why the Bible didn't mean what it said. In her simple way, she read it and just obeyed what it said.

Like her, I don't need to know why Paul gave this teaching. I just trust that the Holy Spirit knew what he was doing.

[Antje]

I did a bit of reading on this since the last time I posted, and I came across an interesting idea. One scholar suggested that this all has to do with hairstyles. When I first heard this, I kind of snorted and thought "great, here's another guy who has an elaborate reason to say the Bible doesn't mean what it says." But upon further reflection, I believe he may have a point.

The usual hairstyle for women of the day was to have her hair coiled up in braids on top of her head. We know this from images on coins, frescoes, mosaics, etc. If some women were going about with their hair all loose about them, I could see how people would find it offensive or think that the woman was "easy" or morally loose or just plain a prostitute. Maybe Paul was trying to get women to wear their hair in a modest and respectable manner and not come to church as if they just rolled out of bed, which would be highly disrespectful.

The reason I am finding this explanation convincing is that it really helps to make sense of the lines where Paul says that a woman's hair is her covering and her glory. The entire passage makes sense if this is the correct view, whereas the bandanna/prayer cap view is still kind of confusing when it comes to the part that says a woman's hair is her covering.

Maybe I should stop wearing my hair loose to church.

[MrJim]

I did a bit of reading on this since the last time I posted, and I came across an interesting idea. One scholar suggested that this all has to do with hairstyles. When I first heard this, I kind of snorted and thought "great, here's another guy who has an elaborate reason to say the Bible doesn't mean what it says." But upon further reflection, I believe he may have a point.

The usual hairstyle for women of the day was to have her hair coiled up in braids on top of her head. We know this from images on coins, frescoes, mosaics, etc. If some women were going about with their hair all loose about them, I could see how people would find it offensive or think that the woman was "easy" or morally loose or just plain a prostitute. Maybe Paul was trying to get women to wear their hair in a modest and respectable manner and not come to church as if they just rolled out of bed, which would be highly disrespectful.

The reason I am finding this explanation convincing is that it really helps to make sense of the lines where Paul says that a woman's hair is her covering and her glory. The entire passage makes sense if this is the correct view, whereas the bandanna/prayer cap view is still kind of confusing when it comes to the part that says a woman's hair is her covering.

Maybe I should stop wearing my hair loose to church.

Never heard that approach before...

[ZiSunka]

I did a bit of reading on this since the last time I posted, and I came across an interesting idea. One scholar suggested that this all has to do with hairstyles. When I first heard this, I kind of snorted and thought "great, here's another guy who has an elaborate reason to say the Bible doesn't mean what it says." But upon further reflection, I believe he may have a point.

The usual hairstyle for women of the day was to have her hair coiled up in braids on top of her head. We know this from images on coins, frescoes, mosaics, etc. If some women were going about with their hair all loose about them, I could see how people would find it offensive or think that the woman was "easy" or morally loose or just plain a prostitute. Maybe Paul was trying to get women to wear their hair in a modest and respectable manner and not come to church as if they just rolled out of bed, which would be highly disrespectful.

The reason I am finding this explanation convincing is that it really helps to make sense of the lines where Paul says that a woman's hair is her covering and her glory. The entire passage makes sense if this is the correct view, whereas the bandanna/prayer cap view is still kind of confusing when it comes to the part that says a woman's hair is her covering.

Maybe I should stop wearing my hair loose to church.

Braided hair was a sign that a woman was a devotee of Bacchus, Roman god of wine, entertainment, prostitution and sexual freedom (the sexual revolution didn't start in the 1960s I guess). Women who braided their hair in long braids, sometimes augmented with hair from other women (extensions weren't invented in the 1980s either I guess), and walked around the marketplace with their braids uncovered were advertizing the fact that they were Maenads, or priestesses of Bacchus, and expected discounts on merchandise they bought. Prostitutes (there seems to be little difference between a Maenad and a prostitute) would walk around uncovered so they could advertise that they would trade sex for goods.

Christian women shouldn't do those things, either ask for discounts based on who they are or trade sex for merchandise. So it's no wonder Paul would advise women to keep their hair covered, so that no one could ask them for sex or misunderstand who they belong to spiritually.

What does this mean for women today?

I'm still struggling to understand that.

[MrJim]

Braided hair was a sign that a woman was a devotee of Bacchus, Roman god of wine, entertainment, prostitution and sexual freedom (the sexual revolution didn't start in the 1960s I guess). Women who braided their hair in long braids, sometimes augmented with hair from other women (extensions weren't invented in the 1980s either I guess), and walked around the marketplace with their braids uncovered were advertizing the fact that they were Maenads, or priestesses of Bacchus, and expected discounts on merchandise they bought. Prostitutes (there seems to be little difference between a Maenad and a prostitute) would walk around uncovered so they could advertise that they would trade sex for goods.

Christian women shouldn't do those things, either ask for discounts based on who they are or trade sex for merchandise. So it's no wonder Paul would advise women to keep their hair covered, so that no one could ask them for sex or misunderstand who they belong to spiritually.

What does this mean for women today?

I'm still struggling to understand that.

Seems like a lot of ladies at church use a lot of coloring and streaks and whatnot for some reason. I would say that there really isn't a lot of fancy $$ hairdos but a lot of really bad dye jobs in my opinion. They aren't a part of some weird cult, unless it's the cult of modern vanity.

[ZiSunka]

Seems like a lot of ladies at church use a lot of coloring and streaks and whatnot for some reason. I would say that there really isn't a lot of fancy $$ hairdos but a lot of really bad dye jobs in my opinion. They aren't a part of some weird cult, unless it's the cult of modern vanity.

That's the most popular cult of all these days. You can go into the poorest neighborhoods of the poorest, most remote village and find women with dyed hair and men with dyed mustashes and beards.

And I think it's a serious cult that has infiltrated into our churches, so maybe that in itself is enough of a reason to cover--to keep vanity from being the focus of attention in our meeting houses.

[Jehane]

This has been a most fascinating discussion. I do not cover; dh thinks it is legalistic & unnecessary & it would be too ironic if I covered as a sign of submission when he says not too. However my younger dd (she is only 11) has something she really likes to cover her hair with - a cross between a bandana & a hair band & I have been thinking I might try that as a compromise as it is not obviously a covering. I have been getting more & more convicted that those who say they follow Christ need to be 'seen' to be different. As a start I grew my hair down to my waist but clothing is a bit of an issue as dealing with water, boats & wind constantly I feel very exposed & immodest in dresses or skirts. As a compromise I have been following a Sri Lankan friend's dress example & putting a long tunic (knee lenght or longer) over pants. This is obviously going to be a bit of a process but God is so gracious. I've always wondered about those angels too. Jehane

[ZiSunka]

it would be too ironic if I covered as a sign of submission when he says not too

:D

That would be hilarious.

I'll have to ask Joe what he thinks of headcovering since he's more or less the man in my life.

[Jehane]

:D

That would be hilarious.

I'll have to ask Joe what he thinks of headcovering since he's more or less the man in my life.

Who's Joe?
Jehane

[handmaiden97]

wow an intresting discussion to be sure.....I dont cover and dont really feel convicted to do so...but it is a question I have discussed with my spiritual parents quite a bit. They are conservative in dress and lifestyle like me they find themselves somewhere between the worship and embracing of the Holy spirit of the charimatic church, the fundamental view on the word of God like our baptist brothers and the conservative lifestyle and values of the menonite church. I feel just as comfertable in one sort of fellowship as in another.

I suppose I lean toward the view that a womans long hair is given to her as her covering and that a woman should not pray or prophesy without a spiritual covering (Beign submitted to the God appointed authority in your life) I think the outward covering many of my friends where is a symbol of that sort of inner covering.

however I am preparing to minister in a muslim region and there I will wear the covering out of respect for the cultrue around me.

[Danfrey]

As a compromise I have been following a Sri Lankan friend's dress example & putting a long tunic (knee lenght or longer) over pants.

Please pardon the partial quote, but I wanted to comment on this part of your statement. My daughter went to a horse riding camp this year and we had to decide what to do about the modesty issue. The camp would not allow her to wear jumpers when riding. We decided to go with long shirts and jeans. Most of my conservative friends would shudder at the thought of putting their daughters in jeans, but for us the important issue is modesty. The shirts fell mid-thigh so they were very modest. It is important that we understand were scripture stops and tradition begins. The women in dresses thing is more of a tradition than a scriptural teaching.

Many will claim that the dress is a gender distinction thing, but we have to remember that in time the scriptures were written, the men would have been wearing what we would now consider dresses. A woman can be both feminine and modest in pants (with some care of course)

PS. The bandana cover rounds out the ensemble quite nicely :)

:sorry: Ok, let the stoning begin :sorry:

[Jehane]

Wow! You wouldn't begin to believe how weird most of my friends think I am. Thanks for the affirmation.

[MadFingerPainter]

~quietly slips in~
hello. i know i'm not an anabaptist but i hope it's ok to fellowship and ask questions nonetheless.

i'm just curious...what exactly are the head coverings for? i have been taught that when a woman has long hair that in essence acts as her head covering but that's for my specific beliefs. but i still don't know the reason for them.

[MrJim]

~quietly slips in~
hello. i know i'm not an anabaptist but i hope it's ok to fellowship and ask questions nonetheless.

i'm just curious...what exactly are the head coverings for? i have been taught that when a woman has long hair that in essence acts as her head covering but that's for my specific beliefs. but i still don't know the reason for them.

Read back through the thread and you'll see there are differences of opinions as to application and reason.

[MadFingerPainter]

[quote=Danfrey]I don't see the headcover as seperation issue. The scripture gives it as more of honor, authority type issue. \quote]

I disagree in part- when Paul told the women at Corinth that they should wear a headcovering, he did so because Corinth was known as a city where anything is permittable, much like the US today. While YES, the original symbolism of the covering did involve headship, the intent of the instruction was to seperate the women of Corinth from those around them. In many societies of the time, a woman with her head uncovered was seen as having lose morals, so in order to uphold a good image with those groups, Paul instructed them to be modest and wear the covering, in essence seperating them from the hethenistic nature of other Corinthian women.

that's the basic understanding i got out of it too.

[Danfrey]

[quote=theAmishGirl]

that's the basic understanding i got out of it too.
Only the first two lines of that quote are mine.

[Jehane]

There is an interesting article in the Charity church site Menno gave on coverings which does address the issue of the angels. If I have understood correctly the arguement goes there was rebellion in heaven against God's authority & order. The mandate to cover shows That there are those who accept Godly order & authority of which the covering is only a symbol. There is a bit more to it than that but I suggest you read the article yourself. I thought it was interesting

[MadFingerPainter]

seems the quote thingy is messed up. ~laughs a little~
i was referring to Amishgirls part of the post.

[MadFingerPainter]

Jehane i have no clue what article you're talking about hon. :P
by the way...nice to see you. :)

[Jehane]

Hi, madfinger. Long time, no talkee. Sorry. I was refering back to something earlier in the thread & now I'm not even sure where I got the reference from - something about Charity churches, I think but I'm pretty sure it was from Menno, though not necessarily this thread. Someone will shoot me if I don't work out this whole computer thing shortly. Remind me to tell you what dds & I did with the little doovie-dackies if I didn't already. being computer literate you should find that a scream! Big Hug!

[MadFingerPainter]

i'd better go read that email that's sitting there then. anything that's a scream is right up my alley. ~grins~

[MrJim]

doovie-dackies...hmmm

I'll have to work at remembering the particular article being referenced...

[Jehane]

I found it on the Charity Churches site you gave; one of the printable articles quite a long way down - sorrow I really am computer illiterate & I don't think that's much help. What ARE these parfit thingies?