Headcovering

[Iosias]

This (http://www.entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Headcoverings%20in%20Public%20Worship2.htm) is an excellent article on this important issue. :thumbsup:

[Baruch41]

i dont think this is an important issue.

[Iosias]

Obedience to the revealed will of God is always an important issue IMO :)

[desmalia]

Obedience to the revealed will of God is always an important issue IMO :)Agreed. 100%.

However, I really don't think the article represents that very well. It's got some good info in places, but doesn't address the issue effectively. It comes off as legalistic and defensive, even addressing so-called issues that are really not central to the "debate", which is really a waste, IMHO. Personally, I'm very anti-women's lib, and in total agreement with women's submission, but still found the article to be emotionally charged and inaccurate in places.

Thanks for sharing the article though. Very interesting.

(Sorry, I'd share more from other authors than MacArthur, but biblebb.com is the best online source I've found so far!)
This summary keeps it simple while still exploring context effectively and without political agenda.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/54-16.htm (http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/54-16.htm)
So, let me give you a little cultural thing. In Corinth, women as a custom covered their heads. That was how a woman identified her humility, that's how she hid herself as if to say I am not available, I belong to one man. And that was her modesty, that was her femininity. This is how she carried herself and how she clothed herself to demonstrate her womanliness, her femininity.

In the Corinthian society, men were uncovered. Their heads were bare, their faces were open and that was the mark of maleness. Somehow in the Corinthian church these things were getting inverted. And women were praying and speaking the Word of God with their heads uncovered, actually sort of identifying with the prostitutes and the woman's liberation movement. And men, maybe from some Jewish background or something, were covering their heads and praying and people were looking at them and saying, "They're feministic." So he says in verse 4, look, every man who prays or prophesies having his head covered dishonors his head. What are you doing? Don't do that. Why? You say, "You mean it's a sin to put something on your head when you pray?" No...not unless your culture perceives that as something that's feminine. And the point there was for a man to cover himself was to be acting like a woman. Men didn't do that. Verse 5, "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head and she might as well be like one who is totally shaved, she might as well destroy all of her femininity, look like a prostitute or some liberated person." Verse 7, "A man not to have his head covered..." See, in their society that said something.

So what Paul is saying is this, now listen carefully. Look at your society and mark out the symbols. What are the symbols of femininity in our society? What are the symbols of masculinity? And identify with those. If they don't violate Scripture, if they don't violate God's design for morality, then adhere to those symbols because that says something to your society. Listen, even this society today still knows when a woman looks like a woman. There are symbols in our society for femininity. And you know as well as I do that you can look at a woman who obviously has adapted the symbols of femininity and looks like a woman, and you can look at another woman who looks like she is rebelling against everything that womanhood absolutely means. Can't you tell that difference? Of course you can because even our society has symbols. Every society does.

Our society has symbols of maleness. You can look at a man and by the way he appears and carries himself and dresses, you can say now that guy's a man. And you can look at another guy and you get the impression that this guy is really very feminine. Because he's denying the symbols of maleness and he's communicating an inverted perverted message. So that's all he's saying to the Corinthians. Look, when you behave yourself as Christians, do so in a way that adheres to the perception of your culture so they'll understand. And further on down in verse 10 he says even nature...pardon me, verse 14, even nature has provided an analogy for the symbol of head coverings by giving faster growing hair to women as a special covering from God.

[Iosias]

However, I really don't think the article represents that very well. It's got some good info in places, but doesn't address the issue effectively.

Dear sister, it is strange that we can read the same thing but come to such radically different conclusions eh? :)

In brief my understanding is this:

A. There are three glories:
1. The glory of God
2. The glory of man
3. The glory of woman

B. The glory of God should be the only glory in public worship and so the glory of man and the glory of woman must be covered.

C. This means:

1 Corinthians 11:7a "a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God"

1 Corinthians 11:7b "but the woman is the glory of the man" and therefore ought be covered. What does this? Well to the woman "her hair is given her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:15).

1 Corinthians 11:15a "if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her" and this needs to be covered with a veil.

I trust this is clear :thumbsup:


I concur with Professor John Murray when he said that "Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (Vss. 3b,vss 7ff ), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising therefrom."

[desmalia]

Yes, I would agree that is what the article is saying. However it is not a fully accurate discussion on the Bible passage, and sadly, ventures into the area of legalism.

[Iosias]

Yes, I would agree that is what the article is saying. However it is not a fully accurate discussion on the Bible passage, and sadly, ventures into the area of legalism.

Perhaps you could venture an alternative understanding and show why my argument is wrong? :)

[EllaBella]

Hi All :wave:

Do you mind if I ask if any of the other women here wear a headcovering in Chruch?

I've heard a couple of sermons on the subject and find it a little confusing really.

Thank you in advance :)

May God Bless,
Ella

[NewGuy101]

Maybe we should focusing on extratcing the timeless principles of scripture and not the tradition of the time ey?

[cubanito]

Yes indeed, the timeless principles of marrying one's sister and slaughtering the Moabites (but hey, leave Ruth alone, OK?).

;>

JR

[NewGuy101]

Yes indeed, the timeless principles of marrying one's sister and slaughtering the Moabites (but hey, leave Ruth alone, OK?).

;>

JR
Let's not misrepresent each other ey? ;)

[cubanito]

You're right. Consider it an uncalled for nuggie from a brother.

Frankly I didn't understand your point at all, so I couldn't have misrepresented you because I have NO IDEA what u were trying to convey.

My post was generally offensive to everybody who believes in Biblical Inerrancy, such as myself. Shows you what Hippos are prone to do. Hippos are foul, careless, disgusting creatures of few social skills. Nevertheless, they are among God's creations, and methinks, bemuze Him greatly.

Me, I'm for headcoverings, and my wife and daughters know to put something on their head as a symbol of being under authority at Church. However, my Church does not practice headcovering, which is fine by me. It is not something I obsess over.

JR

[desmalia]

Richard, I would like to apologize for jumping into this thread. I have done research on this topic in the past, but it's been quite a while, so I don't have all the details with me and I have a terrible memory! I also do not consider this subject to be of primary importance, so have not prioritized my time to allow me to focus on doing all the research over again. So I should have just kept my nose out of it to begin with. I will however jump back in here with a proper detailed discussion should I find time and interest in persuing it again in the future.

Me, I'm for headcoverings, and my wife and daughters know to put something on their head as a symbol of being under authority at Church. However, my Church does not practice headcovering, which is fine by me. It is not something I obsess over.

JRThis is very interesting to me, JR. I'm curious, what brought your wife and daughters to choose headcoverings? Is this how your wife was raised? Is it in her cultural background? Is this something you have requested of them?

That is where I could see it being very important - when it's culturally relevant (and of course if a husband requests it). Actually, considering the number of Mennonite churches I've attended in the past 12 or so years, you'd think I would have seen headcoverings quite often, and maybe even been encouraged to do the same. But so far, I can't remember a single instance.

[cubanito]

What brought my wife and daughters to put something on their heads was me telling them to.

In my usual tactless form, I don't CARE what they think on this matter. They are to do as they are told.

Actually, they have little opinion one way or the other on this matter, but they DO believe they ought obey me whenever it is not immoral, illegal or just plain mean of me.

Now, all I ask of them about this is 3 things:

1- It need be SOMETHING, a pair of glasses, a hairclip, ANYTHING at all is sufficient for me. If you tell me I'm compromizing because it was meant as a full covering, well, maybe your right.

2- They need to know WHY it's there: as a symbol that in the Church they are barred from leadership position. I've no quarrel w women deacons, though my own denomination does not allow that either, but a female elder, pastor or adult sunday school leader is not acceptable. And yes, it is irritating to the Angels who kept their place to see man, that puny, disgusting and far less intelligent being whom God chose to eventually judge even them not keeping their place.

3- That they understand this is not some decision based on my Latin machismo, male insecurity or anything like that. It is based on my best understanding of the Scriptures. Could I be wrong in my interpretation of those Scriptures? Sure, but since this is what I DO believe, why exactly would I go against my conscience and irritate the angels of God? Ever see "Dogma?" Not a good idea to irritate the angels...

JR, and no, I'm not some swaggering control freak idiot repeating Oh-BEY like some mantratic excuse for abuse.

[desmalia]

Thank you for sharing that JR. If my husband felt as you do, I would happily do the same for him. For him, that I dress modestly is his standard, and honestly I would do that regardless of whether he required it of me or not.

[cubanito]

EXACTLY RIGHT, Desmalia!

With your kind of attitude, the whole headcovering issue is minor and rather silly! Which is why I go to a Church where women DON'T cover their heads, and I don't bother at all about it.

My problem is with those women who downright rebel againt rules just to rebel, even when it is a minor little thing that would please their husbands. So my wife puts her glasses up on her head when whe formally meet for worship as a sign of respect to me. And you leave your hair free because the person under whose authority you are dosen't care. Everybody wins, order, peace and decorum is preserved. God is honored either way.

Now, if we ever here decide to have a serious discussion on this MINOR issue, fine, let's have at it. But it will be an intramural debate among brothers (and sisters).

JR

JR

[NewGuy101]

You're right. Consider it an uncalled for nuggie from a brother.

Frankly I didn't understand your point at all, so I couldn't have misrepresented you because I have NO IDEA what u were trying to convey.

My post was generally offensive to everybody who believes in Biblical Inerrancy, such as myself. Shows you what Hippos are prone to do. Hippos are foul, careless, disgusting creatures of few social skills. Nevertheless, they are among God's creations, and methinks, bemuze Him greatly.

Me, I'm for headcoverings, and my wife and daughters know to put something on their head as a symbol of being under authority at Church. However, my Church does not practice headcovering, which is fine by me. It is not something I obsess over.

JR
Well I should have clarified since it seems by your church tradition you have been taught something else. I believe that the verse in question address cultural issues. What is the timeless principle that the bible stress for head covering? Respect...not wearing the headcovering which no longer applies in our contemporary tradition.

[KorahRose]

I wear a head covering because my father has asked me to do so. Only one of my sisters does not. She is married and her husband does not think it necessary. She did, however, wear one without argument when she was under my father's roof.

My father's reasoning is that the Bible says it, he will not argue it. He also says that it is a sign that we are set apart, and that we are in submission. We try, in every area of our lives, to be truly biblically feminine in every way. This is a way my father believes is necessary.

[Floatingaxe]

It is strictly legalism to impose ancient Jewish Christian cultural clothing traditions on the 21st century Church.

[Iosias]

It is strictly legalism to impose ancient Jewish Christian cultural clothing traditions on the 21st century Church.

The headcovering for women in public worship is clearly taught by St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. I would suggest you read this (http://entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Headcoverings%20in%20Public%20Worship2.htm).

[Albion]

If it were important, I'm sure a few of the many Christian churches/denominations would practice it. Each has better theologians than we here are.

The only ones that I can think of where this practice has any sway at all would be the Eastern Orthodox where it is optional and in the ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholic split-offs still using the Latin Mass, etc.

Anyone know of more?

[Floatingaxe]

The headcovering for women in public worship is clearly taught by St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. I would suggest you read this (http://entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Headcoverings%20in%20Public%20Worship2.htm).


I suggest you come out of the first century and join the twenty-first century. Paul never declared a for-all-time edict.

[KorahRose]

I suggest you come out of the first century and join the twenty-first century. Paul never declared a for-all-time edict.
As far as I can see, not many of the things we're told to do in the Bible say, "for all times.". I can't even think of many where context shows that they're for all time. It's just a given...

I don't completely disagree with you. I don't believe it's necessary for women to wear head coverings (unless, like in my situation, it's a very important thing to the head of the household). Yet, I don't think your logic works well into the debate.

[desmalia]

If it were important, I'm sure a few of the many Christian churches/denominations would practice it. Each has better theologians than we here are.

The only ones that I can think of where this practice has any sway at all would be the Eastern Orthodox where it is optional and in the ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholic split-offs still using the Latin Mass, etc.

Anyone know of more?I think some IFB's do as well. Not many though. And some traditional Mennonites.

As far as I can see, not many of the things we're told to do in the Bible say, "for all times.". I can't even think of many where context shows that they're for all time. It's just a given...

I don't completely disagree with you. I don't believe it's necessary for women to wear head coverings (unless, like in my situation, it's a very important thing to the head of the household). Yet, I don't think your logic works well into the debate.I'm inclined to agree with you on this, Korah.

It is strictly legalism to impose ancient Jewish Christian cultural clothing traditions on the 21st century Church. But what is legalism? Let's not forget we're not talking about unsaved Pharisees practicing works to puff themselves up or even to earn their salvation. Whether we agree with this tradition or not, it is not comparable to legalism that is condemned in Scripture. And worse, I believe it would be harmful to cast judgment on those who practice it. They are following a tradition for the purpose of honouring God. Paul encourages us to be sensitive to one another in this area. In addition, there are some compelling arguments to suggest that this could indeed be something to be practiced even today. I think we must be very careful with the argument that "it only applied to the church then".

[Iosias]

If it were important, I'm sure a few of the many Christian churches/denominations would practice it. Each has better theologians than we here are.

Truth is not decided by majority vote.
A Letter with Augustine's sentiments on Headcoverings for Women. (http://www.covenanter.org/Attire/augustinecoveringsandpaint.htm)
John Chrysostom's XXVIth Homily on 1 Corinthians.—On the Veiling of Women. (http://www.covenanter.org/Attire/Headcoverings/chrysostom.htm)
John Calvin's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. (http://www.covenanter.org/JCalvin/commentaryonheadcoverings.htm)
David Dickson's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. (http://www.covenanter.org/DDickson/dicksononheadcoverings.htm)


Anyone know of more?

Brethren, Presbyterians and a number of Baptists.

[Iosias]

Paul never declared a for-all-time edict.

Well the fact that not one of his arguments in favour of women covering their hair is cultural but concerns Gods' glory, creation, angels and nature all of which are timeless.

[Floatingaxe]

As far as I can see, not many of the things we're told to do in the Bible say, "for all times.". I can't even think of many where context shows that they're for all time. It's just a given...

I don't completely disagree with you. I don't believe it's necessary for women to wear head coverings (unless, like in my situation, it's a very important thing to the head of the household). Yet, I don't think your logic works well into the debate.

It's not MY logic. It's Paul's logical prescription for that particular church at that particular time in history, for a particular difficulty in behaviour.

We don't cover our heads anywhere in society for any reason apart from weather. It is a cultural behaviour that the middle eastern people adhere to. Paul was addressing the fact that the newly Christian women were coming into the churches with bare heads and bald heads, bearing the outward look of their pagan pasts. Baldness was found in those who were priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite. Paul wanted them to cover up their remnant look and be modest and uniform, dressing as other women of the day. Nothing wrong with that.

Today, we would stick out like a sore thumb coming into the Lord's house veiled. How welcoming would that be to visitors? It isn't the uniform dress of women today, and to adhere to an ancient custom of dress as some sort of religious and pious behaviour is legalism and serves to hold the unchurched at arm's length, rather than endear us to them.

[desmalia]

It's not MY logic. It's Paul's logical prescription for that particular church at that particular time in history, for a particular difficulty in behaviour.

We don't cover our heads anywhere in society for any reason apart from weather. It is a cultural behaviour that the middle eastern people adhere to. Paul was addressing the fact that the newly Christian women were coming into the churches with bare heads and bald heads, bearing the outward look of their pagan pasts. Baldness was found in those who were priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite. Paul wanted them to cover up their remnant look and be modest and uniform, dressing as other women of the day. Nothing wrong with that.

Today, we would stick out like a sore thumb coming into the Lord's house veiled. How welcoming would that be to visitors? It isn't the uniform dress of women today, and to adhere to an ancient custom of dress as some sort of religious and pious behaviour is legalism and serves to hold the unchurched at arm's length, rather than endear us to them.



So... are you suggesting that Paul commanded the women of that day to set themselves apart from the pagans, but women today are supposed to try and blend in with them so we can be seeker sensitive?

[Iosias]

Paul was addressing the fact that the newly Christian women were coming into the churches with bare heads and bald heads, bearing the outward look of their pagan pasts.

Could you provide some exegetical evidence for that assertion?

Baldness was found in those who were priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite. Paul wanted them to cover up their remnant look and be modest and uniform, dressing as other women of the day.

Could you provide some historical evidence for that assertion?

[Floatingaxe]

So... are you suggesting that Paul commanded the women of that day to set themselves apart from the pagans, but women today are supposed to try and blend in with them so we can be seeker sensitive?

No, des. We do blend in already, with our customs of dress in many ways. We, as believers are called to modesty, however.

In Paul's day, a bald woman or a woman without a headcovering was viewed as immodest. That is our only standard. They also were called to be modest in their way and blend in with society's mode of dress.

We are not called to revert to first century Palestine
fashion. Paul was not discussing such a thing. He was teaching the men and women about decorum in the church meeting.

[desmalia]

No, des. We do blend in already, with our customs of dress in many ways. We, as believers are called to modesty, however.

In Paul's day, a bald woman or a woman without a headcovering was viewed as immodest. That is our only standard. They also were called to be modest in their way and blend in with society's mode of dress.

We are not called to revert to first century Palestine
fashion. Paul was not discussing such a thing. He was teaching the men and women about decorum in the church meeting.
I don't disagree with you on that. I am just not sure the arguments you presented really defend the point too well. And what do you say to those women here who do wear head coverings? Should they stop doing this?

[Albion]

Truth is not decided by majority vote.

And even less so by a minority vote.

[Brethren, Presbyterians and a number of Baptists.

Brethren, I suppose...but Presbyterians and Baptists? No. Only if we're talking about some of the very small branches of each.

[Floatingaxe]

I don't disagree with you on that. I am just not sure the arguments you presented really defend the point too well. And what do you say to those women here who do wear head coverings? Should they stop doing this?

I say nothing to those women--they don't need someone to criticize them. I pray for them that they find their freedom in Christ. He doesn't call them to do it. Religion does. It doesn't mean that they love the Saviour any less. It is their act of reverence.

However, some are doing it out of submission to a male's interpretation of Paul's epistles. I trust that as people become more filled with the knowledge of God and with the Holy Spirit, He will speak to them about it. In the meantime, let us worship Jesus Christ with abandon! Hopefully the covering will fall off!

The only thing I want on my head is the hand of Jesus blessing me.

[desmalia]

I say nothing to those women--they don't need someone to criticize them. I pray for them that they find their freedom in Christ. He doesn't call them to do it. Religion does. It doesn't mean that they love the Saviour any less. It is their act of reverence.

However, some are doing it out of submission to a male's interpretation of Paul's epistles. I trust that as people become more filled with the knowledge of God and with the Holy Spirit, He will speak to them about it. In the meantime, let us worship Jesus Christ with abandon! Hopefully the covering will fall off!

The only thing I want on my head is the hand of Jesus blessing me.
And if one day your husband came to you after studying the subject deeply, and told you that he strongly believed it is dishonouring to God for women to go to church without a head covering, what would you do? If he asked you to wear it, would you?

[Floatingaxe]

And if one day your husband came to you after studying the subject deeply, and told you that he strongly believed it is dishonouring to God for women to go to church without a head covering, what would you do? If he asked you to wear it, would you?

No, because he would be asking amiss.

No one in our church or any churches like ours believes that there is any command to wear headcoverings. We know that it is not for this culture and that Paul didn't mean it to be a forever edict.

[desmalia]

No, because he would be asking amiss.

No one in our church or any churches like ours believes that there is any command to wear headcoverings. So you believe it would be a sin for you to wear a headcovering?

We know that it is not for this culture and that Paul didn't mean it to be a forever edict.
How do we know this?

[KorahRose]

It's not MY logic. It's Paul's logical prescription for that particular church at that particular time in history, for a particular difficulty in behaviour.

We don't cover our heads anywhere in society for any reason apart from weather. It is a cultural behaviour that the middle eastern people adhere to. Paul was addressing the fact that the newly Christian women were coming into the churches with bare heads and bald heads, bearing the outward look of their pagan pasts. Baldness was found in those who were priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite. Paul wanted them to cover up their remnant look and be modest and uniform, dressing as other women of the day. Nothing wrong with that.

Today, we would stick out like a sore thumb coming into the Lord's house veiled. How welcoming would that be to visitors? It isn't the uniform dress of women today, and to adhere to an ancient custom of dress as some sort of religious and pious behaviour is legalism and serves to hold the unchurched at arm's length, rather than endear us to them.


It can become legalism. But it certainly is not in and of itself legalistic. I do not believe it should be bound upon everyone. My father, and therefore my family, has made the decision that our heads will be covered. But my father would never tell someone else that their family must. If someone asks, he explains our conviction on this subject.

And as far as the blending in... what about the modesty part you mention? Could we then call modesty "cultural"? Perhaps in their society it was wrong to be immodest. In our society today, it really isn't. I could walk around in a mini skirt and a skin tight, too low shirt and barely get noticed. So to change with culture, is it OK if I do that?? Obviously not. But going along with your argument, modesty could be a matter of what culture you live in.

We can't just pick and choose what is cultural and what isn't.

[Floatingaxe]

So you believe it would be a sin for you to wear a headcovering?
Of course it is not a sin, unless a woman does it to appear pious..which is vanity and pharisaical.


ow do we know this?

It is contextually meant for the Christians who were having trouble with certain behaviours in the churches. We should know this.

This is petty stuff, and we are warned against arguing about it. That is the bigger command.

[Floatingaxe]

It can become legalism. But it certainly is not in and of itself legalistic. I do not believe it should be bound upon everyone. My father, and therefore my family, has made the decision that our heads will be covered. But my father would never tell someone else that their family must. If someone asks, he explains our conviction on this subject.

And as far as the blending in... what about the modesty part you mention? Could we then call modesty "cultural"? Perhaps in their society it was wrong to be immodest. In our society today, it really isn't. I could walk around in a mini skirt and a skin tight, too low shirt and barely get noticed. So to change with culture, is it OK if I do that?? Obviously not. But going along with your argument, modesty could be a matter of what culture you live in.

We can't just pick and choose what is cultural and what isn't.


Fashion is cultural. Modesty runs through culture, and is a command to us from God--no matter what culture we come from.

[desmalia]

Of course it is not a sin, unless a woman does it to appear pious..which is vanity and pharisaical.
What about not submitting to our husbands?

It is contextually meant for the Christians who were having trouble with certain behaviours in the churches. We should know this.

This is petty stuff, and we are warned against arguing about it. That is the bigger command.

Well I quite agree this is not an issue to divide over. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss it. Are we arguing? I didn't think so...

[Iosias]

And even less so by a minority vote.

Scripture alone determines truth. May I suggest the following series:

http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/05/31/is-headcovering-biblical-1/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/is-headcovering-biblical-2/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/06/09/is-headcovering-biblical-3-positive-historical-testimony/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/06/11/is-headcovering-biblical-4-positive-historical-testimony/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/07/24/is-headcovering-biblical-5-westminster-assembly/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/11/30/is-headcovering-biblical-6-puritan-comments/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/is-headcovering-biblical-7-scotland/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2007/08/18/head-covering-8-remarks-and-quotations/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2007/08/21/headcovering-9-concluding-remarks/

Brethren, I suppose...but Presbyterians and Baptists? No. Only if we're talking about some of the very small branches of each.

Large numbers in Scotland, Ireland and a number of denominations in the States and Australia including the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), certain congregations in the Free Church of Scotland, Gospel Standard Baptists, a number of independent Baptist congregations, Protestant Reformed Churches...I could go on. :)

[Floatingaxe]

What about not submitting to our husbands?

No woman is required to submit to anyone who commands her to do something that God doesn't command her to do. God comes first. Just say, "No."

[KorahRose]

No woman is required to submit to anyone who commands her to do something that God doesn't command her to do. God comes first. Just say, "No."
Actually, women are to submit to their husbands unless doing so makes them disobey God. On issues that could go either way, we are to yield to our fathers/husbands.

[KorahRose]

Fashion is cultural. Modesty runs through culture, and is a command to us from God--no matter what culture we come from.
But see, the head covering was something Christian women were to have- just like they're to have modesty. If we go around saying something is cultural, we can pick and choose what is and what isn't. Modesty could just as easily be cultural. It was something commanded to them at that time... it very well could have changed now.

[Tea]

Actually, women are to submit to their husbands unless doing so makes them disobey God. On issues that could go either way, we are to yield to our fathers/husbands.

Bless you Korah Rose, yours is indeed a beautiful heart. You are correct in the above, The head of man is Christ, and the head of woman is man. We, as daughters and wives, do indeed, come under the headship of our fathers, husbands, as long as the request does not violate God word.
My husband does not require that I cover, but should he, then I will do so. Personally I shouldn't care what other people think of me, as He wants us to be a percular people, not of this world.
God bless you.
T

[Tea]

I just wanted to add in regards to modest dressing, it is indeed a percular custom.
When I go shopping with my four youngest daughters, 12 - 17, and they are all modestly dressed, ie: longer shirts, no cleavage or bellies showing, we do indeed turn heads. Usually the older crowd with smiles of approval, the younger with disbelief. Other people have commented to us and complemented us on the standard of dress that we have.
So if this was normal and excepted, people wouldn't comment.
Just our experience.
T

[Floatingaxe]

But see, the head covering was something Christian women were to have- just like they're to have modesty. If we go around saying something is cultural, we can pick and choose what is and what isn't. Modesty could just as easily be cultural. It was something commanded to them at that time... it very well could have changed now.


We are told to be modest in our appearance. That is something that is not culturally based. It is a command.

[faithHope]

Bless you Korah Rose, yours is indeed a beautiful heart. You are correct in the above, The head of man is Christ, and the head of woman is man. We, as daughters and wives, do indeed, come under the headship of our fathers, husbands, as long as the request does not violate God word.
My husband does not require that I cover, but should he, then I will do so. Personally I shouldn't care what other people think of me, as He wants us to be a percular people, not of this world.
God bless you.
T

Thank you both of you. As a daughter who obeys her dad its hard sometimes when you look around you and see all the other girls and how they act. I feel so blessed and lucky to have my dad care enough about me to want to have me in his charge and correct me when he sees me making mistakes.

[NewGuy101]

Scripture alone determines truth. May I suggest the following series:

http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/05/31/is-headcovering-biblical-1/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/is-headcovering-biblical-2/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/06/09/is-headcovering-biblical-3-positive-historical-testimony/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/06/11/is-headcovering-biblical-4-positive-historical-testimony/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/07/24/is-headcovering-biblical-5-westminster-assembly/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/11/30/is-headcovering-biblical-6-puritan-comments/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/is-headcovering-biblical-7-scotland/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2007/08/18/head-covering-8-remarks-and-quotations/
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2007/08/21/headcovering-9-concluding-remarks/



Large numbers in Scotland, Ireland and a number of denominations in the States and Australia including the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), certain congregations in the Free Church of Scotland, Gospel Standard Baptists, a number of independent Baptist congregations, Protestant Reformed Churches...I could go on. :)
Yes but scripture is written in a cultural context. Does God want us to press old traditions or his timeless principles? ;)

[Iosias]

Yes but scripture is written in a cultural context.

Who is denying that. Headcovering is founded upon what? Nature, God's glory, creation and the relations of the Trinity all of which are timeless.

http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...ng-biblical-1/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/05/31/is-headcovering-biblical-1/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...ng-biblical-2/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/is-headcovering-biblical-2/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...cal-testimony/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/06/09/is-headcovering-biblical-3-positive-historical-testimony/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...cal-testimony/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/06/11/is-headcovering-biblical-4-positive-historical-testimony/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...ster-assembly/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/07/24/is-headcovering-biblical-5-westminster-assembly/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...itan-comments/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/11/30/is-headcovering-biblical-6-puritan-comments/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...al-7-scotland/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/is-headcovering-biblical-7-scotland/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...nd-quotations/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2007/08/18/head-covering-8-remarks-and-quotations/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...uding-remarks/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2007/08/21/headcovering-9-concluding-remarks/)

[NewGuy101]

Who is denying that. Headcovering is founded upon what? Nature, God's glory, creation and the relations of the Trinity all of which are timeless.

http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...ng-biblical-1/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/05/31/is-headcovering-biblical-1/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...ng-biblical-2/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/is-headcovering-biblical-2/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...cal-testimony/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/06/09/is-headcovering-biblical-3-positive-historical-testimony/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...cal-testimony/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/06/11/is-headcovering-biblical-4-positive-historical-testimony/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...ster-assembly/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/07/24/is-headcovering-biblical-5-westminster-assembly/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...itan-comments/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2006/11/30/is-headcovering-biblical-6-puritan-comments/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...al-7-scotland/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/is-headcovering-biblical-7-scotland/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...nd-quotations/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2007/08/18/head-covering-8-remarks-and-quotations/)
http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com...uding-remarks/ (http://puritanismtoday.wordpress.com/2007/08/21/headcovering-9-concluding-remarks/)
I think this is like the 5th time you have changed your name. But I think I remember you as AV1611 or something like that. You were the first person I talked to in SEMPER. I respect you, and although I think you are wrong in a lot of issues I see that your heart is in the right place. But please insted of just posting a bunch of links that many wont read please present your argument. I dont even know where to start since the links your presented several members are presenting counter arguments.

[Floatingaxe]

It makes it difficult to remain outward-focused as Christians, bringing people to Christ, and into the Church, when there is this foreign throwback to first century Palestine enforced on half of the congregation. A new believer or seeker today would run, not walk out of the church and away from the message. It is too weird, to be truthful.

Women are free, and are to be out there bringing in the lost to find Christ--worshiping before their God just as they are!

Hey, I worship God naked in the shower!

When we come together to worship God and celebrate Jesus as a corporate body, we worship like David did! There is no head covering in the world that can remain in place on the head of a woman who worships the way God loves it!

Get real, people! We, like nature, are to worship and praise our Father with clean hearts and lifted heads! There should be no religiosity in our standing before Him. Imposing ancient modes of dress upon women today is simply piosity run amok. You aren't going to be filling your churches with new believers if you are trapped in tradition.

Break free.

[Albion]

Large numbers in Scotland, Ireland and a number of denominations in the States and Australia including the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), certain congregations in the Free Church of Scotland, Gospel Standard Baptists, a number of independent Baptist congregations, Protestant Reformed Churches...I could go on. :)

OK, so a very small number of Christians from some of the smallest of the Reformed and Baptist churches.

[NewGuy101]

OK, so a very small number of Christians from some of the smallest of the Reformed and Baptist churches.
Indeed, all the major conservative Reformed Denominations here in the USA dont hold to that teaching and is largely viewed as legalism.

[Iosias]

please present your argument.

Lets spend some time with the text shall we?

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

What does this teach us?


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. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

What does this teach us?

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

What does this teach us?

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

What does this teach us?

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

What does this teach us?

[Iosias]

OK, so a very small number of Christians from some of the smallest of the Reformed and Baptist churches.

It is also the historic position of the Reformed and Presbyterian congregations so those larger congregations where women are not covered are the ones who have changed and stopped doing something that was biblical.

[Floatingaxe]

i dont think this is an important issue.


You are sooooooooo right.

[Criada]

Our church believes that women should not pray or prophesy without a headcovering. This does not extend to worship, or to private prayer.
Personally, I have no conviction one way or the other on this, but since I am under the authority of the church leadership, I respect their teaching.


ETA: Sorry - didn't notice where I was - hope it's OK to post here. If not, please delete this

[submisive2him]

I have been reading some of your posts on here I am not a head covering lady because my husband does not think that it neccasary but we have been studing on it and I am not at all against it one of the things that I have seen mentioned in the posts is that it is religion that makes a lady wear a headcovering. I find this very false I believe that it is one own conviction to wear the covering and it depends on if the one that the lady whould be submitting to would want her to in reverence to him. There was a post that said that she would tell her husband no boy do feel sorry for you because not submitting to your husband is a nasty thing to do. Fashion and welcoming to the 21st century is not a good thing look around us it is nothing but half naked rebelious wives and i dont know i think i would much rather wear the covering than to mistaken for apart of this world.

[KorahRose]

I have been reading some of your posts on here I am not a head covering lady because my husband does not think that it neccasary but we have been studing on it and I am not at all against it one of the things that I have seen mentioned in the posts is that it is religion that makes a lady wear a headcovering. I find this very false I believe that it is one own conviction to wear the covering and it depends on if the one that the lady whould be submitting to would want her to in reverence to him. There was a post that said that she would tell her husband no boy do feel sorry for you because not submitting to your husband is a nasty thing to do. Fashion and welcoming to the 21st century is not a good thing look around us it is nothing but half naked rebelious wives and i dont know i think i would much rather wear the covering than to mistaken for apart of this world.
Amen.

I'd also like to mention that I am not part of any of the above denominations... I am a member of a conservative Church of Christ, and many- but not all- women in my congregation cover their heads.

[submisive2him]

i daid earlier that I do not wear a head covering but there are a few families in our church that do wear coverings and I think that it is a wonderful thing

[desmalia]

No woman is required to submit to anyone who commands her to do something that God doesn't command her to do. God comes first. Just say, "No."
See I can't help but think that this is why you are so adamantly against this practice. Perhaps it's not the headcovering that is the issue for you, but what it represents: Submission to someone who is imperfect.

Submission is an attitude, not just following certain commands. I agree with you that the headcovering issue is minor. That is why it would be such a simple thing to submit to if my husband required it of me. In fact it would be a very easy opportunity to show him (and the world around us) my submission to him.

Do I resist submission at times in my marriage? Sure. I struggle with issues and can be quite willful at times. But that is my downfall, and not at all what God wants for me or for our marriage. It is simply sinful nature at war with godly nature. But we must continue striving to be the wives that God has called us to be.

[KorahRose]

We are told to be modest in our appearance. That is something that is not culturally based. It is a command.
I know this... I was making a comparison between the two. But obviously I'm not getting my point across very well. Oh well.

[submisive2him]

See I can't help but think that this is why you are so adamantly against this practice. Perhaps it's not the headcovering that is the issue for you, but what it represents: Submission to someone who is imperfect.

Submission is an attitude, not just following certain commands. I agree with you that the headcovering issue is minor. That is why it would be such a simple thing to submit to if my husband required it of me. In fact it would be a very easy opportunity to show him (and the world around us) my submission to him.

Do I resist submission at times in my marriage? Sure. I struggle with issues and can be quite willful at times. But that is my downfall, and not at all what God wants for me or for our marriage. It is simply sinful nature at war with godly nature. But we must continue striving to be the wives that God has called us to be.
amen to that I struggle sometimes with submission I agree very much with the headcovering being so minor the times that I believe that when WOMEN do not submit to there husbands that is why many end up with horable marriages has anyone hear read Created To Be His Help Meet by Debbie Pearl??? If you havent get it as soon as possible because it is the best book on being a help meet in my opinion

[desmalia]

amen to that I struggle sometimes with submission I agree very much with the headcovering being so minor the times that I believe that when WOMEN do not submit to there husbands that is why many end up with horable marriages has anyone hear read Created To Be His Help Meet by Debbie Pearl??? If you havent get it as soon as possible because it is the best book on being a help meet in my opinion
I haven't read that one, but I'm going to look into finding a copy. Sounds very interesting. I also recommend "The Excellent Wife" by Martha Peace.

[cubanito]

Desmalia, as usual you hit the nail w your sledgehammer.

While I am very busy these days, so not as active, I am back at what is AGAIn christianforums.com

It is good to read your posts again.

JR

[desmalia]

Desmalia, as usual you hit the nail w your sledgehammer.

While I am very busy these days, so not as active, I am back at what is AGAIn christianforums.com

It is good to read your posts again.

JR

JR!!
It is wonderful to see you posting here again, brother! Welcome back. :D
And thank you for the compliment. :blush:

[Floatingaxe]

I am just grateful to God that my husband views me as his equal and we work side by side as Adam and Eve did. He would never ask me to cover my head in this 21st centuray North American culture! We believe the same things. To cover as the first century Palestinians and Christians did, would run counter to our cultural practices and counteract the outward focus of the church today.

Reaching others and bringing them into the body of Christ and into the churches here need to be a welcoming, non-threatening, non-legalistic environment. To the unchurched, one glimpse at anything that smacks of legalism or religiosity, and they are out the door, and I don't blame them. I'd leave with them. :sigh:

[desmalia]

I am just grateful to God that my husband views me as his equal and we work side by side as Adam and Eve did. He would never ask me to cover my head in this 21st centuray North American culture! We believe the same things. To cover as the first century Palestinians and Christians did, would run counter to our cultural practices and counteract the outward focus of the church today.
Do you really believe that leadership and submission roles mean inequality as human beings?

Consider the relationship of the Father and the Son. The Son submits to the Father in all things. Does that make Him less? Of course not. It is a perfect relationship that, when mirrored in our marriages is a beautiful reflection of God's love.


Reaching others and bringing them into the body of Christ and into the churches here need to be a welcoming, non-threatening, non-legalistic environment. To the unchurched, one glimpse at anything that smacks of legalism or religiosity, and they are out the door, and I don't blame them. I'd leave with them. :sigh:
It is the sharing of the Gospel that compels people to come to Christ, not conforming with the world. Indeed we should be striving to avoid legalism, and I would suggest that is not simply so we can be more seeker-sensitive, but so that our spiritual growth is not hindered. But in this discussion, legalism isn't the major issue at hand. Also consider that the unsaved often accuse the Christian walk of being filled with legalism, regardless of whether that is true or not. Many will accuse us of legalism because we do not accept or welcome things like gay marriage, or promiscuous behaviour. If they are offended, they are offended by Christ. And we know we can expect that at times. We are not called to water down or ignore parts of the Gospel in order to make church more appealing.

My husband doesn't require me to wear headcoverings either. But I really believe it's our responsibility as women to focus on how we can be godly wives, not how our husbands measure up.

[Criada]

My husband has never asked me to cover my head, and would be perfectly happy if I did not. However, since the apostolic teaching - both now and biblically, requires this, I am happy to submit to their authority.
And- people are saved in our church meetings - no-one that I know of has ever turned away because of this issue.

[Floatingaxe]

My husband has never asked me to cover my head, and would be perfectly happy if I did not. However, since the apostolic teaching - both now and biblically, requires this, I am happy to submit to their authority.
And- people are saved in our church meetings - no-one that I know of has ever turned away because of this issue.


Yes, not that you know of.

[Criada]

You may be right.
But - I don't think God would let that affect someone's salvation.. He's bigger than that!
I'm not saying we are right and you are wrong - because I have no conviction one way or the other, really. But - scripture seems pretty clear, so i'm going along with that until God tells me otherwise.

[Floatingaxe]

You may be right.
But - I don't think God would let that affect someone's salvation.. He's bigger than that!
I'm not saying we are right and you are wrong - because I have no conviction one way or the other, really. But - scripture seems pretty clear, so i'm going along with that until God tells me otherwise.


Fair enough.

[tamtam92]

Reaching others and bringing them into the body of Christ and into the churches here need to be a welcoming, non-threatening, non-legalistic environment. To the unchurched, one glimpse at anything that smacks of legalism or religiosity, and they are out the door, and I don't blame them. I'd leave with them.

Indeed, what a threat to unchristian people, to wear a headcovering!

If the church was looking and doing exactly like the world, of course unchurched people wouldn't "fear" to come to church. But is it possible that the light is the same as the darkness?

Well, as light is different from darkness, it seems natural that christians are different from heathens.

Now about the head-covering issue. I guess if it was a tradition for women of that time to wear headcoverings, Paul wouldn't have had to tell them to do so. Moreover, the symbol represented by the covering has no reason to have changed since then.

I do wear a headcovering at church. I do so because the Bible tells me to do so.

I think it can be labelled a "secondary issue", that is i perfectly understand that some christian people aren't enlightened about it, but still i believe that no issue is too small to be obeyed. "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much" Luke 16:10.

Anyway, in the case i'm wrong... it can be no sin to wear a headcovering when it's not commanded, whereas the contrary isn't true.


Curiously, such a small piece of obedience is a stumbling block to many. There are people who i know left my church because we are too strict about this subject (and about wearing skirts and no make up and no jewelry... and even i think we're not that strict... anyway...). Yet to many people this isn't a problem. I think it would rather be a problem for "old" christians, raised in christian families and softened up by easy life.

[Floatingaxe]

Anyway, in the case i'm wrong... it can be no sin to wear a headcovering when it's not commanded, whereas the contrary isn't true.




It is neither a sin to cover, nor is it a sin to not cover. what is a sin is to bring legalism to bear upon the people of God.

[cubanito]

The major differences between that tiny, politically insignificant movement known as Christianity, and all the many other philosophies, mystery religions and hundreds if not thousands of other movements in the Roman Empire?

Aside from Judaism, which was a tolerated ethnic religion, it was the ONLY philosophy/religion which claimed to be EXCLUSIVE Truth.

Christians were not persecuted by the Romans for worshiping Christ, but for worshiping Christ ONLY.

Also, Christians did not go wink at all the debauchery aroud them, they condemned it.

And Christianity spread like wildfire.

Now that we have decided to be "seeker friendly" and not offend anyone despite the clear teaching of Scripture, Churches are dwindling.

Now, for >1900 years in all Christian Churches every woman covered her head, as a plain reading of Paul states.

Yet suddenly, with hardly a thought, 1900 years of both tradition and a simple reading of Scripture was cast aside in less than a decade.

And for what reason? The recovery of a great doctrine? The well-reasoned re-interpretation of Scripture? A closer walk with God?

No.

For fashion and the accomodation of womne's lib.

Tell you what, I do not consider the wearing of a covering by women of great importance in itself, but it IS an important symptom.

I am a physician. I am often amused by the great concern shown to lower a moderate fever by lay people, nurses and even most other MDs. Any temperature less than 105 is not generally harmful to humans (exceptions occur). The elevated temperature is not of great concern.

BUT it is usually a sysmptom of great concern.

So with women's headcovering. In and of itself wether a woman covers her head is, in most cases, of little import...BUT... the amazing speed and thoroughness with which women headcoverings disapeared is a very important symptom. A symptom of accomodation to the world, of rebellion from the God-ordained authority, and of fashion over simple obedience.

I think we would have more honest people in churches were they to see that, like those early Christians, we are DIFFERENT than the world. Not different just to be different, but different in simple obedience to Scripture.

In attracting people by accomodation, the Church will lose out to Starbucks everytime.

JR

[VCViking]

The woman's hair is a natural covering.


1 Corinthians 11:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=11&verse=15&version=9&context=verse)
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

[desmalia]

The major differences between that tiny, politically insignificant movement known as Christianity, and all the many other philosophies, mystery religions and hundreds if not thousands of other movements in the Roman Empire?

Aside from Judaism, which was a tolerated ethnic religion, it was the ONLY philosophy/religion which claimed to be EXCLUSIVE Truth.

Christians were not persecuted by the Romans for worshiping Christ, but for worshiping Christ ONLY.

Also, Christians did not go wink at all the debauchery aroud them, they condemned it.

And Christianity spread like wildfire.

Now that we have decided to be "seeker friendly" and not offend anyone despite the clear teaching of Scripture, Churches are dwindling.

Now, for >1900 years in all Christian Churches every woman covered her head, as a plain reading of Paul states.

Yet suddenly, with hardly a thought, 1900 years of both tradition and a simple reading of Scripture was cast aside in less than a decade.

And for what reason? The recovery of a great doctrine? The well-reasoned re-interpretation of Scripture? A closer walk with God?

No.

For fashion and the accomodation of womne's lib.

Tell you what, I do not consider the wearing of a covering by women of great importance in itself, but it IS an important symptom.

I am a physician. I am often amused by the great concern shown to lower a moderate fever by lay people, nurses and even most other MDs. Any temperature less than 105 is not generally harmful to humans (exceptions occur). The elevated temperature is not of great concern.

BUT it is usually a sysmptom of great concern.

So with women's headcovering. In and of itself wether a woman covers her head is, in most cases, of little import...BUT... the amazing speed and thoroughness with which women headcoverings disapeared is a very important symptom. A symptom of accomodation to the world, of rebellion from the God-ordained authority, and of fashion over simple obedience.

I think we would have more honest people in churches were they to see that, like those early Christians, we are DIFFERENT than the world. Not different just to be different, but different in simple obedience to Scripture.

In attracting people by accomodation, the Church will lose out to Starbucks everytime.

JR
Excellent commentary, JR.
This is something that has weighed heavy on my heart for some time now. We are so engrained into our culture that sometimes we even claim our "right" to it, above simple obedience to Scripture. Following Christ is not about living a comfortable, happy life and it certainly is not about claiming our rights to certain things. It is about willingness to give everything up for Christ's sake.
Western culture is so foreign to the culture of Biblical times (and even more so to the concepts of humility, sacrifice, and submission), that I think it really can hinder us in many ways.
It has become a personal goal of mine to re-examine what I've been taught as a child about Scripture, because so much of it is clearly tainted by current day, worldly thought. I want to see the world through the eyes of Scripture, not Scripture through the eyes of my culture. A life-long journey, no doubt.

[MrJim]

The woman's hair is a natural covering.


1 Corinthians 11:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=11&verse=15&version=9&context=verse)
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

...but if hair is the covering, how do men take it off to pray ;)?

(used to be mennonite~heard all the arguments :D )

[contriteheart]

As to whether or not people need to feel comfortable in our services in order for us to reach the lost, I would respond with an example from the book of Acts:

Acts 5:12a-14
and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico. But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number,


As for the issue of headcovering itself, I simply can't see the cultural-only, it-doesn't-apply-today argument. Paul appeals to the order of creation as the reason for doing this. That's not a cultural issue, but something that goes back to God's original purpose and design in creating man and woman differently. Though we are all one in Christ, it does not cancel God's initial design for male and female.

Headcovering is an outward recognition of the fact that we are not the same, and that there is a created order which God instituted between men and women that we must respect.

I must admit, I haven't been bold enough to be the only woman in our congregation to cover my head. Nor does my husband want me to. So, as of now, I don't cover - except often when I pray privately. But honestly, I would like to cover in public.

[cCensor]

I have not read all the post, but as much as I read I could not find the right answer.
What Paul was talking about was the balled women in the pews.
In that time in history we have prostitutes coming from the Greek temples to join the Christian, but the problems is prostitutes were balled as prostitutes did to ID themselves.

So Paul comes in and is speaking to this issue of women who are balled and should have a head covering. (Put a hat on to your hair grows back )
In the end he points out that nature will show you that women should have long hair as women do. You don't see women with hair on their chest like men, but it grows mainly on her head.

I know some good loving Christian who believe that women should wear a hat of some kind in church. This comes from not looking at the history of what was going on at the time or plucking verses out of the letter of Paul.

Paul had a problems with the church in Corinth and the whole letter is full of problems. People drunk at the Lords table, balled women at the service and some kind of unknown tongue.
Most of Paul's writing of this letter he was HOT and that is the way you should read it.

Sure some will disagree, but I still love you

Love Censor

[Floatingaxe]

Thank you, it was mentioned already that the bald women were those coming out of the shrines into the Church.

You are absolutely right in that regard.

[dsrohe]

3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28592b)] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:3-16


b. 1 Corinthians 11:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011;&version=31;#en-NIV-28592) Or 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering (of hair) on her head dishonors her head—she is just like one of the "shorn women." 6 If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair
Shouldn't this argument be about if a women doesn't have long hair she should wear a head covering, but if she does have long hair, her hair serves as a head covering? Also, men shouldn't have long hair? From the commentary above, and I'm assuming the translators know what they're talking about, this passage is about bald women in church wearing head coverings--not about women with long hair wearing head coverings. So basically, from this passage I would conclude that if a woman is bald, she should grow out her hair again until she isn't bald, and men shouldn't have long hair.

[tamtam92]

If Paul wanted women to grow their hear, why doesn't he say so plainly ? Like "If a woman is bald, she should grow hair like nature tells us".
If Paul wanted women only to have long hair, why is it that it is only since 20th century that women don't cover their head in the church? Don't you think people in Paul's time would've known better?
Plus, do you really think that prostitutes turned christian wouldn't have grow their hair without being told?

Moreover, the letter to the Corinthians isn't addressed only to Corinthians: Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

So the letter is for every christian, but not this single passage. Why doesn't Paul begin by saying "Concerning ex-prostitutes having bald hair, i command that..." ? For instance, in chapter 5, where the problem is general with a single worse case, he states the problem very clearly :
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife.

Moreover, if it was only about hair: why do so many christian women have short hair? Why don't they (they at least) cover their heads?

It looks to me there's a great debate here, because people simply want to keep their way of life. But without being "conservative" or "traditionnalist" per principle, i consider this:
historically, in France, starting from churches where all women were covering their heads... principles are disappearing in (more or less) order:
- women don't cover their head
- women wear pants during the week
- women wear pants at church
- music takes more time than preaching
- men cover their head / women preach
The order isn't fixed... i think there's been women preaching with the head covered, but i'm not so sure.
Anyway, i think the general direction is rather going further and further from bible teaching. This is so sad.

What i don't understand is -- why do the women see quitting the veil as a "new freedom"?

I'm very puzzled by this matter. Why is such a little piece of cloth such a problem?

[dsrohe]

If Paul wanted women to grow their hear, why doesn't he say so plainly ? Like "If a woman is bald, she should grow hair like nature tells us".
If Paul wanted women only to have long hair, why is it that it is only since 20th century that women don't cover their head in the church? Don't you think people in Paul's time would've known better?
Plus, do you really think that prostitutes turned christian wouldn't have grow their hair without being told?

Moreover, the letter to the Corinthians isn't addressed only to Corinthians:

So the letter is for every christian, but not this single passage. Why doesn't Paul begin by saying "Concerning ex-prostitutes having bald hair, i command that..." ? For instance, in chapter 5, where the problem is general with a single worse case, he states the problem very clearly :


Moreover, if it was only about hair: why do so many christian women have short hair? Why don't they (they at least) cover their heads?

It looks to me there's a great debate here, because people simply want to keep their way of life. But without being "conservative" or "traditionnalist" per principle, i consider this:
historically, in France, starting from churches where all women were covering their heads... principles are disappearing in (more or less) order:
- women don't cover their head
- women wear pants during the week
- women wear pants at church
- music takes more time than preaching
- men cover their head / women preach
The order isn't fixed... i think there's been women preaching with the head covered, but i'm not so sure.
Anyway, i think the general direction is rather going further and further from bible teaching. This is so sad.

What i don't understand is -- why do the women see quitting the veil as a "new freedom"?

I'm very puzzled by this matter. Why is such a little piece of cloth such a problem?

Yeah, I was just throwing an idea out there. I figured that the commentary on there might be useful. In actuality, I have not and will never pick a side to this debate because of a few reasons:

1. I don't think it's a matter of salvation (I don't think whether or not a woman wore a head covering is going to be a factor in salvation).
2. I'm not a woman.
3. I agree with many points on both sides of the debate.

Reading and participating in debates is something I always like doing, however, so for that reason, I join in!

[tamtam92]

It is not necessarily a matter of salvation. However, there are cases where women don't cover their heads out of rebellion. This is very annoying when some are fuelling the complaints.

Anyway, i'd rather not get cross with someone for that subject. I'm worried when some simply want to justify their not obeying the word. Some don't cover because they've always been taught like that, and i think it's entirely different.

[oliveplants]

Very interesting reading here.

(I cover because the Bible tells me so.)

This is an old thread or I'd be giving reps to several of the posts... You guys are great.

[thelovebug]

Headcoverings show respect.

[cubanito]

I have not read all the post, but as much as I read I could not find the right answer.
What Paul was talking about was the balled women in the pews.
In that time in history we have prostitutes coming from the Greek temples to join the Christian, but the problems is prostitutes were balled as prostitutes did to ID themselves.

So Paul comes in and is speaking to this issue of women who are balled and should have a head covering. (Put a hat on to your hair grows back )
In the end he points out that nature will show you that women should have long hair as women do. You don't see women with hair on their chest like men, but it grows mainly on her head.

I know some good loving Christian who believe that women should wear a hat of some kind in church. This comes from not looking at the history of what was going on at the time or plucking verses out of the letter of Paul.

Paul had a problems with the church in Corinth and the whole letter is full of problems. People drunk at the Lords table, balled women at the service and some kind of unknown tongue.
Most of Paul's writing of this letter he was HOT and that is the way you should read it.

Sure some will disagree, but I still love you

Love Censor

The verses say the opposite of what you claim they do. It says if a woman does not cover her head, let her be as those who shave it off completely. If a woman does not want to publicly acknowledge that in Church she is not to have authority over men, that is, if she wishes to assert her supposed right to be an elder, then she ought be considered as rebellious as a prostitute.

Now, you can claim this whole thing is only cultural, and does not apply today, but do not change the plain meaning of the text. Three types of women are here referenced: those with balled heads (publicly proclaiming they are temple prostitutes), women with hair who cover it in Church as an external sign of recognition they are not to exert authority there, and women with uncovered hair. The latter group, Paul says, should be treated as the first: disobedient to God.

Frankly, I find it very suspicious that for 2,000 years the head covering was the uniform, and then, just as "women's lib" and their anti-Christian message of rebellion becomes accepted, the coverings vanish with hardly a discussion. The Church ought not copy the World, and in head coverings, it clearly did.

JR

[david01]

This is long, but is the best discourse I have yet found on the issue of headcoverings. I highly commend it to your consideration:

http://www.entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Headcoverings%20in%20Public%20Worship2.htm

[KorahRose]

It's interesting to see this thread bumped up. When I orginally wrote in it, I was wearing a head covering. Since then, I have been married. My husband would rather me not wear one. But while under my father's roof, I wore one out of respect for his wishes.

[desmalia]

It's interesting to see this thread bumped up. When I orginally wrote in it, I was wearing a head covering. Since then, I have been married. My husband would rather me not wear one. But while under my father's roof, I wore one out of respect for his wishes.
That is very interesting. Can I ask why your husband would rather you not wear one?

Oh, and congrats on your marriage!

[KorahRose]

That is very interesting. Can I ask why your husband would rather you not wear one?

Oh, and congrats on your marriage!

He never felt convicted of it. And while he's not against me wearing one, it would only draw attention at the church we attend now. So he doesn't think it's wise.

[desmalia]

Ah, OK. And how do you feel about that? Would you prefer to wear one?

[KorahRose]

Ah, OK. And how do you feel about that? Would you prefer to wear one?

I actually agree with my husband's view on it, although if I felt convicted to wear one, I'm sure we would both agree that I should- even if it made me stand out in the crowd.

To be honest, I probably need to study the topic more. I personally don't care either way. When my father decided we should wear one, I did. It wasn't a matter of me believing it. My father was the leader of my home, and he felt convicted. If I'd caused an uproar in the family just not to wear one- well, that would have been very selfish (especially since I don't yet feel convicted one way or the other).

Sorry if that's rambling, I just got to typing. lol

[desmalia]

I actually agree with my husband's view on it, although if I felt convicted to wear one, I'm sure we would both agree that I should- even if it made me stand out in the crowd.

To be honest, I probably need to study the topic more. I personally don't care either way. When my father decided we should wear one, I did. It wasn't a matter of me believing it. My father was the leader of my home, and he felt convicted. If I'd caused an uproar in the family just not to wear one- well, that would have been very selfish (especially since I don't yet feel convicted one way or the other).

Sorry if that's rambling, I just got to typing. lol

:thumbsup: That's pretty much how I see it as well.

[LovebirdsFlying]

I hope I'm not digging too deeply into archaeology here. I've just discovered this very interesting thread.

I have long hair, and I wear skirts the majority of the time. I'll wear shorts (but not to church) if it's very hot, and I'll wear slacks (but not to church) if it's very cold. I do not traditionally cover my head, but sometimes I am convicted to do so during private prayer. If He tells me to do it, I'll do it. And for the record, if Mike asked me to wear a headcovering in obedience to Scripture--and he wouldn't--I'd gladly do so.

I've seen many applications of the headcovering doctrine. A neighbor from several years ago simply wore what resembled a small doily on top of her head, and when my daughter asked about it, she explained her reasoning. "I wear it to show that I am a Christian woman in submission to God and my husband." She wore it not only to church but whenever she appeared outside her own home. Yet it really didn't make her stand out in any way. It covered only the crown of her head, and was quite pretty.

Then there are those who wear an attractive hat or bonnet to church, and figure that answers the command. A full nun's habit, or a hijab similar to that worn by Moslems, is the route taken by others. Some rely on the hair to be a covering, whether it is cut or not, as long as she is not bald. Different interpretations.

Some even take it farther than I do. Not only long hair--which means DON'T EVEN TRIM THE ENDS--but also no makeup and no jewelry. Not only refrain from slacks and shorts, but skirts must cover the knee, sleeves must cover the elbow, and necklines must cover the collarbones. Then there are those who take it farther still: the clothing must cover all those areas AND be of a solid, dark color, AND a bonnet or veil must be worn that covers all of the hair. This is at all times, not merely in church. (No--they don't believe in going to beaches or public swimming pools, where even the most "modest" bathing suits don't cover up more than they have to.)

Most people would say I dress very modestly. But those of some past churches I've attended would be appalled when they see me sleeveless, or in shorts, or wearing makeup and jewelry. Yeah, I've got long hair, but I do keep the broken ends trimmed off. The legalism makes no sense to me. The Bible says "modest," but where does it spell out exactly what body parts must be covered, and where does it say clothing must be a dark solid color or else it isn't modest? And where, when it says long hair, does it say never to groom that hair by trimming off broken ends? In the churches that teach that, the men are forbidden to wear hair past their collars. So, if a woman has waist length hair that has been trimmed, but a man keeps his hair consistently at shoulder length, her hair is "short," his is "long," and both are disobeying the commandment.

A case can be made against makeup and jewelry, but I don't interpret those verses the same way. They're not saying DON'T wear it, they're saying that's not where your true beauty comes from. If we took those verses literally, we can read it to mean don't wear clothes at all, and never wear your hair in a braid. (Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; I Peter 3:3 in the KJV).

Legalism can always go too far. :)

[Izdaari]

Maybe we should focusing on extratcing the timeless principles of scripture and not the tradition of the time ey?
Just so. :thumbsup:

And IMHO, what Paul is talking about in I Corinthians 11 are not timeless principles, but culturally relative things that were appropriate in 1st century Corinth, but not necessarily so today.

It is strictly legalism to impose ancient Jewish Christian cultural clothing traditions on the 21st century Church.
That would be my take on it.

[Izdaari]

I say nothing to those women--they don't need someone to criticize them. I pray for them that they find their freedom in Christ. He doesn't call them to do it. Religion does. It doesn't mean that they love the Saviour any less. It is their act of reverence.

However, some are doing it out of submission to a male's interpretation of Paul's epistles. I trust that as people become more filled with the knowledge of God and with the Holy Spirit, He will speak to them about it. In the meantime, let us worship Jesus Christ with abandon! Hopefully the covering will fall off!

The only thing I want on my head is the hand of Jesus blessing me.
:amen:

And if one day your husband came to you after studying the subject deeply, and told you that he strongly believed it is dishonouring to God for women to go to church without a head covering, what would you do? If he asked you to wear it, would you?
I'm not married, but I wouldn't marry anyone who felt that way.

[Izdaari]

It makes it difficult to remain outward-focused as Christians, bringing people to Christ, and into the Church, when there is this foreign throwback to first century Palestine enforced on half of the congregation. A new believer or seeker today would run, not walk out of the church and away from the message. It is too weird, to be truthful.

Women are free, and are to be out there bringing in the lost to find Christ--worshiping before their God just as they are!

Hey, I worship God naked in the shower!

When we come together to worship God and celebrate Jesus as a corporate body, we worship like David did! There is no head covering in the world that can remain in place on the head of a woman who worships the way God loves it!

Get real, people! We, like nature, are to worship and praise our Father with clean hearts and lifted heads! There should be no religiosity in our standing before Him. Imposing ancient modes of dress upon women today is simply piosity run amok. You aren't going to be filling your churches with new believers if you are trapped in tradition.

Break free.
:amen:

I would totally rep this, if the rep button showed for it. :clap:

As it is, I'd just like to say this is one of the best posts I've ever read! :thumbsup:

[Izdaari]

I hope I'm not digging too deeply into archaeology here. I've just discovered this very interesting thread.

I have long hair, and I wear skirts the majority of the time. I'll wear shorts (but not to church) if it's very hot, and I'll wear slacks (but not to church) if it's very cold. I do not traditionally cover my head, but sometimes I am convicted to do so during private prayer. If He tells me to do it, I'll do it. And for the record, if Mike asked me to wear a headcovering in obedience to Scripture--and he wouldn't--I'd gladly do so.

I've seen many applications of the headcovering doctrine. A neighbor from several years ago simply wore what resembled a small doily on top of her head, and when my daughter asked about it, she explained her reasoning. "I wear it to show that I am a Christian woman in submission to God and my husband." She wore it not only to church but whenever she appeared outside her own home. Yet it really didn't make her stand out in any way. It covered only the crown of her head, and was quite pretty.

Then there are those who wear an attractive hat or bonnet to church, and figure that answers the command. A full nun's habit, or a hijab similar to that worn by Moslems, is the route taken by others. Some rely on the hair to be a covering, whether it is cut or not, as long as she is not bald. Different interpretations.

Some even take it farther than I do. Not only long hair--which means DON'T EVEN TRIM THE ENDS--but also no makeup and no jewelry. Not only refrain from slacks and shorts, but skirts must cover the knee, sleeves must cover the elbow, and necklines must cover the collarbones. Then there are those who take it farther still: the clothing must cover all those areas AND be of a solid, dark color, AND a bonnet or veil must be worn that covers all of the hair. This is at all times, not merely in church. (No--they don't believe in going to beaches or public swimming pools, where even the most "modest" bathing suits don't cover up more than they have to.)

Most people would say I dress very modestly. But those of some past churches I've attended would be appalled when they see me sleeveless, or in shorts, or wearing makeup and jewelry. Yeah, I've got long hair, but I do keep the broken ends trimmed off. The legalism makes no sense to me. The Bible says "modest," but where does it spell out exactly what body parts must be covered, and where does it say clothing must be a dark solid color or else it isn't modest? And where, when it says long hair, does it say never to groom that hair by trimming off broken ends? In the churches that teach that, the men are forbidden to wear hair past their collars. So, if a woman has waist length hair that has been trimmed, but a man keeps his hair consistently at shoulder length, her hair is "short," his is "long," and both are disobeying the commandment.

A case can be made against makeup and jewelry, but I don't interpret those verses the same way. They're not saying DON'T wear it, they're saying that's not where your true beauty comes from. If we took those verses literally, we can read it to mean don't wear clothes at all, and never wear your hair in a braid. (Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; I Peter 3:3 in the KJV).

Legalism can always go too far. :)
All of this is culturally relative, but I'll not criticize anyone for what they wear to show that they love God. It's the best of all possible motives. For me, I don't see any of that as showing how much I love God.

For me, well, my church is Assemblies of God, conservative evangelical and Pentecostal, but there's nothing special we wear. We dress modestly (but some of you might not think so), cleanly and neatly, but there's no special rules. The only head covering I wear to church is my hair, which isn't that long. It was a sunny, very warm day last Sunday, and I wore shorts, a tank top and sandals to church (looking much like my avatar), and that was pretty much the same as the other young women there (ok, I'm not that young, but I think I am). That might not have been appropriate for the earlier services, which tend to be an older, more traditional demographic, but I go to an evening service that's youth-oriented and "come as you are" casual.

[NorrinRadd]

I've not read this whole thread, so if I'm retracing old tracks... too bad!

Thing 1: This article (http://www.williamwelty.com/docs_rethinking_the_veil.htm) by William Welty might be interesting or even useful. Note that he uses the ISV (http://isv.org/index.htm) translation, which renders some parts, including v. 10 and vv. 14-16, in a rather non-standard way.

Thing 2: While I do find some appeal to the "man as protector, provider, and 'prince'" idea, Scripture persuades me that men and women are to be equals. That being the case, I wouldn't want to be involved with some needy little flower who expected me to follow the "leadership is male" ideals.

Thing 3: If I were *already* involved with such a one... I suppose I'd use my authority to command her to stop being so submissive!

[NorrinRadd]

Izzy, I've not been to my local AG in quite a while, but if it's anything like it was back then, if you walked in like that, half the congregation would have been laying hands on you, and the other half would have "fallen out" -- and not "in the Spirit."

[Izdaari]

Izzy, I've not been to my local AG in quite a while, but if it's anything like it was back then, if you walked in like that, half the congregation would have been laying hands on you, and the other half would have "fallen out" -- and not "in the Spirit."
I guess that just shows that congregations vary a lot within a denomination! ^_^

And I wouldn't dress quite so casually at the morning services. They're an older, more traditional demographic, and I wouldn't want to draw any attention for how I dress... so I would still dress casually, but less so. Even at those, the pastor is still likely to be wearing jeans.

[Izdaari]

I've not read this whole thread, so if I'm retracing old tracks... too bad!

Thing 1: This article (http://www.williamwelty.com/docs_rethinking_the_veil.htm) by William Welty might be interesting or even useful. Note that he uses the ISV (http://isv.org/index.htm) translation, which renders some parts, including v. 10 and vv. 14-16, in a rather non-standard way.
Very interesting article! Thanks! :thumbsup:

Thing 2: While I do find some appeal to the "man as protector, provider, and 'prince'" idea, Scripture persuades me that men and women are to be equals. That being the case, I wouldn't want to be involved with some needy little flower who expected me to follow the "leadership is male" ideals.

Thing 3: If I were *already* involved with such a one... I suppose I'd use my authority to command her to stop being so submissive!:amen:

[desmalia]

Jesus submits to the Father. Does that make Him in any way less than equal to the Father? Personally, I do not believe so. The Father, Son, and Spirit are all equal, but with different roles.

I think much of the problem with this sort of issue is the Biblical understanding of the word submission itself and why it is commanded in the first place. We live in a world where we are taught from an early age to fight for our rights and stand up for ourselves. But the Christian family is called to unconditional submission, service, sacrifice, etc. as bondservants (slaves) to Christ. Our will and our "rights" are no longer the focus. Our carnal human will naturally fights against that though.

[DarkNLovely]

My granparents and great grandparents would probably be classified as Fundamentalist/Pentecostal/Charismatic what-have and we ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS cover when we pray! I also like to cover in daily life from time to time! When I started to cover at my Church, more and more women started to do it. It's wonderful. It gives you a greater sense of The Presence!

[DarkNLovely]

I bought this one some months ago, only mine is white. The Amish headcoverings are black if unmarried and white if married! I found that interesting.

http://static.zoovy.com/img/haloworks/-/A/almon_flat.gif

Currently, I am following the tradition of my grandmothers and am wearing the covering in daily public life. I do not know if I always will, but for now I am pleased. My grandma never leaves the house without hers and my great- grandma even wore her scarf in the house. When I wear one, It looks something like this.

http://i8.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/9d/b5/0fcf_1.JPG

I thinks to not stand out so, I may switch to hats too!

[DarkNLovely]

What's the deal! I just posted pics of the type I wear and it said something about moderated approval. It's about COVERING so I hope they don't think they are dirty pics! Lol!

http://i8.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/9d/b5/0fcf_1.JPG

It worked! This is actually from a Jewish site called Kol-Bo Boutique! This is the syle I wear in daily life.

[DarkNLovely]

The verses say the opposite of what you claim they do. It says if a woman does not cover her head, let her be as those who shave it off completely. If a woman does not want to publicly acknowledge that in Church she is not to have authority over men, that is, if she wishes to assert her supposed right to be an elder, then she ought be considered as rebellious as a prostitute.

Now, you can claim this whole thing is only cultural, and does not apply today, but do not change the plain meaning of the text. Three types of women are here referenced: those with balled heads (publicly proclaiming they are temple prostitutes), women with hair who cover it in Church as an external sign of recognition they are not to exert authority there, and women with uncovered hair. The latter group, Paul says, should be treated as the first: disobedient to God.

Frankly, I find it very suspicious that for 2,000 years the head covering was the uniform, and then, just as "women's lib" and their anti-Christian message of rebellion becomes accepted, the coverings vanish with hardly a discussion. The Church ought not copy the World, and in head coverings, it clearly did.

JR

:bow::bow::bow::bow::bow:

Speaking of which, my favorite covering from ages past is the French Hood.

[Criada]

The moderated post thing is a bug, not a comment on your post!
Sorry... we are approving them as fast as we notice them... if it happens again PM me, or any staff member who is on line and we will sort it!

I find a hat is less conspicuous... that said, it gives less opportunity for witnessing as people are less inclined to ask why!

[DarkNLovely]

The moderated post thing is a bug, not a comment on your post!
Sorry... we are approving them as fast as we notice them... if it happens again PM me, or any staff member who is on line and we will sort it!

I find a hat is less conspicuous... that said, it gives less opportunity for witnessing as people are less inclined to ask why!

Cool bean Criada! I just remebered another mod already told me that! :blush:

Do you think a covering shoudn't be inconspicuiss?<<I can't spell that!^_^

[Criada]

Cool bean Criada! I just remebered another mod already told me that! :blush:

Do you think a covering shoudn't be inconspicuiss?<<I can't spell that!^_^

I don't think it matters... it is for God not man.
But it is something God can use as a conversation starter... and if it gives us a chance to witness, that has to be a good thing. :)

[DarkNLovely]

I don't think it matters... it is for God not man.
But it is something God can use as a conversation starter... and if it gives us a chance to witness, that has to be a good thing. :)

I never really thought of it like that. Witnessing SCARES me period but adding this and it gets saryier! I think it's fine that some women choose not to cover, but I just don't understand when they are AGAINST it and this is intimidating. Maybe it's diffferent when you aren't raised that way.

[LovebirdsFlying]

Question for those who believe (as I do) in long hair for women:

It has also been asserted that a grown woman should never wear her hair down except in private with her family. Appearing in public with hair down would be immodesty. From what principle does this come?

Thanks. :)

[Criada]

I never really thought of it like that. Witnessing SCARES me period but adding this and it gets saryier! I think it's fine that some women choose not to cover, but I just don't understand when they are AGAINST it and this is intimidating. Maybe it's diffferent when you aren't raised that way.

Well, I wasn't raised that way ^_^. In fact, my mother thinks that I'm mad... tho that's not entirely due to headcoverings.
Witnessing can be scary if you make a big thing of it and put yourself under pressure.... but if you just think of it as talking about someone you love.... it's not so daunting!
And, as Francis of Assisi said "Witness at all times. If necessary use words"
Your life is a witness, sis.... and people will see that and ask questions :)

[desmalia]

Question for those who believe (as I do) in long hair for women:

It has also been asserted that a grown woman should never wear her hair down except in private with her family. Appearing in public with hair down would be immodesty. From what principle does this come?

Thanks. :)
I think primarily from culture and the fact that men tend to love long hair on women. So it may be considered a way of keeping them from the temptation to lust after her.

I'm not that strict about women having to have long hair because it is a cultural issue. The key that is biblical is that we women should look and act like women and men should look and act like men. In our culture men generally have short hair. In Jesus day, the grew it long. Neither is wrong. It depends on the context.

I also believe that women should be submissive to their husbands. So while I've had short hair (long before I met hubby), I won't have it again because he doesn't like it. LOL and my hair is a nightmare to take care of, so it is a challenge!

[Criada]

Question for those who believe (as I do) in long hair for women:

It has also been asserted that a grown woman should never wear her hair down except in private with her family. Appearing in public with hair down would be immodesty. From what principle does this come?

Thanks. :)

Tradition? Never heard that one, tbh...

[LovebirdsFlying]

@DarkNLovely:
This is what the neighbor I mentioned in my previous post wore. If I remember correctly, the family was Mennonite, and I found this at a Mennonite site. :)
http://www.headcoverings.com/_borders/Coveri36.jpg

[LovebirdsFlying]

(Mods: Is there a way to reduce the size of ^^that image, so it's not quite as imposing?)

[Floatingaxe]

Cute doily.

[DarkNLovely]

Well, I wasn't raised that way ^_^. In fact, my mother thinks that I'm mad... tho that's not entirely due to headcoverings.
Witnessing can be scary if you make a big thing of it and put yourself under pressure.... but if you just think of it as talking about someone you love.... it's not so daunting!
And, as Francis of Assisi said "Witness at all times. If necessary use words"
Your life is a witness, sis.... and people will see that and ask questions :)

Thanks Criada! :hug:

I love that Francis of Assisi quote. Growing up, I always felt lots of pressure to witness and when I thought I was, I really hurt people as I thought it was the get-into-their-face-and-into-their-business type deal. So It's always been an issue for me. But what you said makes so much sense here and I will definatly be reflecing on it!:thumbsup:

[DarkNLovely]

@DarkNLovely:
This is what the neighbor I mentioned in my previous post wore. If I remember correctly, the family was Mennonite, and I found this at a Mennonite site. :)
http://www.headcoverings.com/_borders/Coveri36.jpg

Oh, aren't they just ADORABLE?!?!? My mama has some of these and they now sell them at dollar stores! Just precious! Did you get the see the French Hood? It's lovely! I'll see if I can find a pic. Hey! I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it's been addressed, but at what age do you think a woman should start to wear one? I wear since I can remember, but for some it's actually like a rite of passage.

edit: French Hoods!

http://www.lynnmcmasters.com/hatsfullsize/greenfrenchhoodfS.jpeg


http://www.ellajkidd.co.uk/images/tudorFrenchhood2.jpg

http://www.bsu.edu/web/cbdeforest/doll%20dress/doll8.jpg
This is the back of one a doll. The majority drape in the back but some are just the thick headband part.

http://www.fynehats.com/images/c283.jpg

Loves'em!

[Criada]

My fourteen year old began to wear one in church meetings about a year ago... no-one told her to do so, but she decided it was right.
My 9 year old sometimes wants to wear one of my headscarves, but I think that is more 'dressing up' than conviction!

[LovebirdsFlying]

I hadn't thought about age, since I've not been fully convicted of it yet and wasn't raised that way. It's only a personal issue with me, not a matter of doctrine until I've made further study on it. I go to a Southern Baptist church where other women don't cover, and the issue has not been addressed.

As a guess, though, since it seems to be a rite of passage, I might be inclined to say the onset of menstruation. When a girl physically becomes a woman, let her spiritually be one also, though not yet legally.

And those French hoods are adorable. :)

[synger]

This is a perennial discussion on the forum. It's a fascinating subject, and one that I am quite interested in. WHile I do not cover, I have prayerfully considered it on a number of occasions.

If you are interested in reading more threads about this subject, these are the ones that have been tagged with the topic (http://christianforums.com/tags.php?tag=head+covering). Note that some of them are fairly old threads. But they come from all over the Christian spectrum.

[synger]

Originally Posted by desmalia http://img.christianforums.com/style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=41866016#post41866016) And if one day your husband came to you after studying the subject deeply, and told you that he strongly believed it is dishonouring to God for women to go to church without a head covering, what would you do? If he asked you to wear it, would you?




I'm not married, but I wouldn't marry anyone who felt that way.

I think I'd have to talk it over with him a lot, and I would hope that he had included me in the "studying the subject deeply" thing. Since to me it is adiaphora (things that are neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture), I would probably go along with his wishes. It wouldn't hurt anything, and it's not contrary to Scripture.

I guess I see it as somewhat similar to anoth