veiling is submission to men?

[Lotheriel]

Before I start, please please forgive me of any ignorance I may show, I do not mean to, but I am fairly new to Christianity and am quizzical :)

I have heard from a few people that orthodox women sometimes veil their heads before praying in church. I thought that this was a sign of submission to the Lord but I have found a few websites that say that church officials teach that it is a sign of submission to the Lord and to men, women should submit to men because men were made in the image of God and women were made for men.

What is all this? Is this untrue, what does the orthodox church teach about the veil? I know there are many interpretations of the passage in 1 Corinthians, but I always assumed it was for submission to the Lord and the Lord only.

Could someone throw some light on this for me please? And again I apologize for any ignorance I may have shown :(

Thank you x

[Mary of Bethany]

I don't have anything "official" to give you, but I've always heard it to be in submission to God, and "on account of the Angels". Here's one woman's thoughts on that:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/headcoverings.aspx


Mary

[Lotheriel]

yeh I thought that too lol.

Here is one of the websites I have come across:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/womans_role_in_the_church

I don't know, because I always thought that women were seen as equal to men in the eyes of the Lord, I mean wasnt Christ born to a woman?
I don't know whether they were refering to men as a whole or submission to the husband, but the way they word it on this particular website reminds me of the whole 'the womans place is in the home etc' argument. :(

I would like to wear my headcovering in church as submission to the Lord, not because I come second in place to a man.

Thank you for the reply x

[Mary of Bethany]

In Orthodoxy you would never be told that a woman is "subordinate in rank to man", as that *non-Orthodox* site states.

If you cover for prayer and worship in Orthodoxy, you are not sending/receiving that message. I wouldn't worry about what non-Orthodox have to say about it, but instead seek out Orthodox understanding about it.

Mary

P.S. This came across a little harsh, which I did not mean it to. But if you are wondering about the Orthodox understanding of covering, then definitely look to Orthodox sources. :)

[Lotheriel]

In Orthodoxy you would never be told that a woman is "subordinate in rank to man", as that *non-Orthodox* site states.

If you cover for prayer and worship in Orthodoxy, you are not sending/receiving that message. I wouldn't worry about what non-Orthodox have to say about it, but instead seek out Orthodox understanding about it.

Mary
This is exactly what draws me to orthodoxy! :D
Thanks for your help x

[Mary of Bethany]

I added a PS to my above post. :)

[paleodoxy]

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 (I Cor.11:3).

This is restricted to marriage. It is not saying that all women are in submission to all men. However, women are supposed to be subject to their husbands.

This doesn't mean that they are unequal. There is a mystery of equality and hierarchy in marriages, just as the same mystery exists in the Trinity (cf. the begottenness of the Son from the Father, and the procession of the Spirit from the Father [hierarchy, yet consubstantiality and co-eternality]).

The man and the woman are ontologically equal (equally image bearers); but the man was created first, and the woman came from the man, which is one of the reasons Paul gives for why woman cannot administer the sacraments as priests and bishops in liturgical contexts (cf. I Tim.2:12-13).

As far as external head coverings go, it is my understanding from Paul's message in I Cor. 11 that ultimately, a woman's covering is her longer hair. External head coverings are permitted but not required. And, if there seems to be any contention in the churches over the issue, then "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (vs. 16).

[Mary of Bethany]

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 (I Cor.11:3).

This is restricted to marriage. It is not saying that all women are in submission to all men. However, women are supposed to be subject to their husbands.

This doesn't mean that they are unequal. There is a mystery of equality and hierarchy in marriages, just as the same mystery exists in the Trinity (cf. the begottenness of the Son from the Father, and the procession of the Spirit from the Father [hierarchy, yet consubstantiality and co-eternality]).

The man and the woman are ontologically equal (equally image bearers); but the man was created first, and the woman came from the man, which is one of the reasons Paul gives for why woman cannot administer the sacraments as priests and bishops in liturgical contexts (cf. I Tim.2:12-13).

As far as external head coverings go, it is my understanding from Paul's message in I Cor. 11 that ultimately, a woman's covering is her longer hair. External head coverings are permitted but not required. And, if there seems to be any contention in the churches over the issue, then "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (vs. 16).

I agree. :thumbsup:

I don't know if you looked at the link Lotheriel gave, but the author takes the idea of submission farther than this. And he doesn't really get into the idea of covering either, but rather focuses on submission, and women being quiet in church, and keeping to home, pretty much.

Mary

[paleodoxy]

Ok. No, I didn't take a look at the link. During my Protestant days, I had a lot of exposure to misconceptions about certain passages - such as the one to Timothy regarding women needing to be "keepers at home". My family never took those more extreme views, although it was easy to slip into that sub-conscious mode of thinking if you weren't careful - since my siblings and I were homeschooled, and mother had always been a housewife and homemaker.

Both sides tend to look down on eachother, unfortunately, and I think it's mostly related to the all-too-human tendency to interpret reality in terms of our own personal and narrow experiences - when in reality there is more than one legitimate way of getting the same thing done.

[Philothei]

Putting the "head-covering" into its rightful perspective it is not done as a submision to a man, any man, but rather an expression of faith and honor to our Creator. Both men and women do honor, while worshiping God, during our divine services. As it is mentioned in the Bible and in our Church tradition it is a custom which is very much in practice. Again it has nothing to do with submision to men as it is not a secular practice but rather religious in nature. We know of many women of the ancient world who were doctors etc. putting it in its right social and religious context it is a premise that does not hold any water. Insisting on judging pious Christian women in the eyes of today's society which tries to level all kind of respectuffness and honor to one's creator is and does not reflect any intelligence to say at least....


Read historical and religious sources rather than today's feminist theology.


God bless,
Philothei

[buzuxi02]

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 (I Cor.11:3).

This is restricted to marriage. It is not saying that all women are in submission to all men. However, women are supposed to be subject to their husbands.

This doesn't mean that they are unequal. There is a mystery of equality and hierarchy in marriages, just as the same mystery exists in the Trinity (cf. the begottenness of the Son from the Father, and the procession of the Spirit from the Father [hierarchy, yet consubstantiality and co-eternality]).

The man and the woman are ontologically equal (equally image bearers); but the man was created first, and the woman came from the man, which is one of the reasons Paul gives for why woman cannot administer the sacraments as priests and bishops in liturgical contexts (cf. I Tim.2:12-13).

As far as external head coverings go, it is my understanding from Paul's message in I Cor. 11 that ultimately, a woman's covering is her longer hair. External head coverings are permitted but not required. And, if there seems to be any contention in the churches over the issue, then "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (vs. 16).
I have to agree with Paleodoxy.

In the ancient greek world the woman's neckline was considered an erotic area. By keeping her hair long and down it would cover it up (Today its like asking a woman to button up not to show off cleavage).

In 1 Co 11.3-5 , the "man" spoken about is not generic for males but specifically "husband", this is best seen in the parallel verses of Eph 5.22-33. Leaving her hair short or uncovered in church dishonors her husband not the male race.
Symbolically it shows the husband being the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the angels (1 Cor 11.10). Most likely the symbolism of this verse was rather new to give a christian spin to a greek tradition. This is why the only place the head covering remains intact in modern christianity is the bridal veil.

With that said, this was a custom within the greco-roman world which was the exact opposite of the jewish world. In judaism men cover their head during worship but the women uncovered.

Basically Pauls advice is to examine the symbolism and intent of the tradition, to determine its usefulness.

In one of the canons, dont remember which, Veils and other head carvings are intended to hide any fancy hair-designs and "bleach blonde " look , to keep modesty so the men wont get distracted.

[Thekla]

Ok. No, I didn't take a look at the link. During my Protestant days, I had a lot of exposure to misconceptions about certain passages - such as the one to Timothy regarding women needing to be "keepers at home". My family never took those more extreme views, although it was easy to slip into that sub-conscious mode of thinking if you weren't careful - since my siblings and I were homeschooled, and mother had always been a housewife and homemaker.

Both sides tend to look down on eachother, unfortunately, and I think it's mostly related to the all-too-human tendency to interpret reality in terms of our own personal and narrow experiences - when in reality there is more than one legitimate way of getting the same thing done.
wow - a homeschooler (former) - :thumbsup:

[paleodoxy]

Great! :thumbsup:

I think I saw you mention somewhere that you are homeschooling your children. We plan to do the same with ours, at least until such time as the OCs in our area can band together to form a church school in our area with significant parental involvement.

We're not personally opposed to alternatives to homeschooling so long as the education is from an Orthodox and Christian perspective, and the children are held strictly accountable to their parents and to the rest of the community (other families, clergy, etc.)!

[Thekla]

Great! :thumbsup:

I think I saw you mention somewhere that you are homeschooling your children. We plan to do the same with mine, at least until such time as the OCs in our area can band together to form a church school in our area with significant parental involvement.

We're not personally opposed to alternatives to homeschooling so long as the education is from an Orthodox and Christian perspective, and the children are held strictly accountable to their parents and to the clergy for their behavior!
would that we have such a school in our area
:thumbsup: as an option ...

Glad to see you survived
^_^

[paleodoxy]

Yeah...I was afraid I might turn out to be a social retard there for a while... you know? Unable to cope with reality...'n stuff ;)

[paleodoxy]

I have to agree with Paleodoxy.

In the ancient greek world the woman's neckline was considered an erotic area. By keeping her hair long and down it would cover it up (Today its like asking a woman to button up not to show off cleavage).

In 1 Co 11.3-5 , the "man" spoken about is not generic for males but specifically "husband", this is best seen in the parallel verses of Eph 5.22-33. Leaving her hair short or uncovered in church dishonors her husband not the male race.
Symbolically it shows the husband being the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the angels (1 Cor 11.10). Most likely the symbolism of this verse was rather new to give a christian spin to a greek tradition. This is why the only place the head covering remains intact in modern christianity is the bridal veil.

With that said, this was a custom within the greco-roman world which was the exact opposite of the jewish world. In judaism men cover their head during worship but the women uncovered.

Basically Pauls advice is to examine the symbolism and intent of the tradition, to determine its usefulness.

In one of the canons, dont remember which, Veils and other head carvings are intended to hide any fancy hair-designs and "bleach blonde " look , to keep modesty so the men wont get distracted.

This was an excellent post - and well said. I just felt the need to communicate something here; so that people know...modesty is very much a cultural issue, and the length of my wife's hair isn't intended by us to be a modesty statement. The neck is hardly an erotic body part these days. I just don't want anyone thinking (given the great historical lesson that buzuxio has provided) that I have a modesty issue with women who don't grow their hair out quite as long, or expose more of their neck.

For us, it's merely symbolic of submission to Christ and to the husband. And on the external head covering thing: not a biggie. I don't require it of my wife (and she doesn't prefer it), but we have the utmost respect for those who choose to use them. As long as they're not used to divide the church, head coverings are great!

:thumbsup:

[rusmeister]

One thing you'll probably find if you travel outside the US (esp non-Western countries) is that individual practice is not encouraged; ie, coverings for women are a lot more universal. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. I can say that Moscow is an exception from the rest of the country of Russia, though - given that it is a big cosmopolitan 'multiconfessional' city, a good number of women take the western ("I do it how I want to do it")approach and don't cover.

I would prefer to see people complying with a practice to not cover (or even for men to be obligated to cover) than to have everyone say, "I'll do it MY way!"

I feel that that that kind of individualism is something that doesn't really mix with Orthodoxy - at best, it's the Church tolerating us.

[Philothei]

I would prefer to see people complying with a practice to not cover (or even for men to be obligated to cover) than to have everyone say, "I'll do it MY way!"

I feel that that that kind of individualism is something that doesn't really mix with Orthodoxy - at best, it's the Church tolerating us.



Rumeister here I am lost.... what is the difference? and to start of we are not "required" to cover our heads... I think it is a custom and it is not mandatory. Why the church is tolerant? of what? Forgive me.

God bless,
Philothei

[rusmeister]

My point is, does the individual come to the Church and ask, "What should I do?" or do they come and say, "I want to do..., I think we should..."

[Lotheriel]

Thanks for all the replies on this thread, I didn't know I would get this much help! :D
Its kind of hard, there are a lot of things that I struggle with, I can't always see the logic in what I read in the Bible and people seem to have different viewpoints on what the Bible is saying. Does anyone else have this problem?

[Shubunkin]

During the Catechism class, if anything, Orthodoxy uplifts women. They do have a special place. They are regarded as significant and important in the family. In Church they are certainly honored beyond what women are in other denominations. I found some necessary respect in Orthodoxy, unlike any other church. This is not to say women are more important, but they have a special place in the family and congregation.

[rusmeister]

During the Catechism class, if anything, Orthodoxy uplifts women. They do have a special place. They are regarded as significant and important in the family. In Church they are certainly honored beyond what women are in other denominations. I found some necessary respect in Orthodoxy, unlike any other church. This is not to say women are more important, but they have a special place in the family and congregation.
Absolutely. Orthodoxy returns the respect accorded women before the spread of feminism. It makes chivalry possible again!

[rusmeister]

Thanks for all the replies on this thread, I didn't know I would get this much help! :D
Its kind of hard, there are a lot of things that I struggle with, I can't always see the logic in what I read in the Bible and people seem to have different viewpoints on what the Bible is saying. Does anyone else have this problem?
This problem is normal if you're reading Scripture and not checking in with the Orthodox teaching on it.

Good questions to ask your priest:
Is a given practice doctrine or just pious tradition? What does the Church teach on thus and so?