# Non-Argumentative [sic Argumentative] Head Covering Poll



## Kim G (Aug 6, 2008)

This poll is more a question of practice than of interpretation of I Cor 11. I guess you could say that I'm just curious. 

Only answer the sections that apply to you. Feel free to elaborate on your answers, but let's please not turn this into a long-winded "debate" (i.e., argument). 

P.S. Brad made a good point below. I am talking about a PHYSICAL COVERING like a hat or veil--not hair or husband or whatever else you might consider a "head covering."


----------



## Bygracealone (Aug 6, 2008)

Where's the poll?


----------



## Kim G (Aug 6, 2008)

Sorry, it took me a little while to get it up.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 6, 2008)

My wife always wears the covering called for in scripture... her hair. But that wasn't an option on the poll.


----------



## Kim G (Aug 6, 2008)

Thanks, Brad. I added to my first post to clarify a bit! Now can you answer the poll in good conscience? 

Just to be clear, I didn't have "hair" as an option because I said the poll was a "question of practice" rather than a question "of interpretation." 



Kim G said:


> P.S. Brad made a good point below. I am talking about a PHYSICAL COVERING like a hat or veil--not hair or husband or whatever else you might consider a "head covering."


----------



## Bygracealone (Aug 6, 2008)

Brad said:


> My wife always wears the covering called for in scripture... her hair. But that wasn't an option on the poll.



Sorry Kim, I know you didn't want to turn this into a debate thread, but it's probably inevitable... 

If hair is the covering, then how does the man take off his hair for worship? He's not supposed to pray with his head covered, so how does he take his hair off during prayer? Is he to wear a wig that he can put on and take off?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 6, 2008)

You shave your head like me ...


----------



## KMK (Aug 6, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> You shave your head like me ...



Some of us are getting to the point where wew don't have to shave our heads any longer!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 6, 2008)

KMK said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > You shave your head like me ...
> ...



That is why I do cut it to the scalp. My hair only takes up about 1/2 of the top of my head. I am conceding defeat.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 6, 2008)

Bygracealone said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > My wife always wears the covering called for in scripture... her hair. But that wasn't an option on the poll.
> ...





> 1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
> 1Co 11:5 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.


The scripture, as it plainly points out later, is referring to long hair, which is why here it states that a woman without long hair is as one with her head shaven. A man needs not "take his hair off" if he doesn't have long hair in the first place, which is why having long hair is a shame to him.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Aug 6, 2008)

I believe the head covering mandate for women is still required. I do not agree with the culture argument nor the natural hair argument. However my wife does not cover in public worship. 

The covering mandate is still required; however, only during exceptional circumstances when those women who are moved by the Spirit, address the congregation with prayer or prophecy. Since my wife does not address the congregation and thus remains silent, she need not cover. Since the Apostolic era gifts have ceased, there would not be a circumstance where any women will be addressing the congregation and thus need to cover their head to show she is still honoring her submissive role.


----------



## Kim G (Aug 6, 2008)

ChristopherPaul said:


> The covering mandate is still required; however, only during exceptional circumstances when those women who are moved by the Spirit, address the congregation with prayer or prophecy. Since my wife does not address the congregation and thus remains silent, she need not cover.



I'm sorry. I'm disobeying the rules of my own thread. I've just never heard this argument before, especially in light of I Cor. 14, just a couple chapters later, which mandates submission and silence for women in places of authority (i.e., addressing the congregation with prayer or preaching, prophecying). I doubt Paul is saying: Women, cover your head if you preach. Oh yeah, and don't preach.

Does your wife open her mouth to sing in congregational worship? Some songs are admonishments to the congregation (unison "prophesying"), and others are prayers. Is the head covering only when a women is the only person doing the talking?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Aug 6, 2008)

Kim G said:


> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> > The covering mandate is still required; however, only during exceptional circumstances when those women who are moved by the Spirit, address the congregation with prayer or prophecy. Since my wife does not address the congregation and thus remains silent, she need not cover.
> ...



You are breaking your own rule 

I really don't have the time or energy to engage in a lengthy debate. I have stated my case in past threads.

To answer your question, my wife, just like the women of the Pauline churches and just like the children and the non-ordained laity, opens her mouth to sing in congregational worship. However, she does not address the congregation anytime after the call to worship and before the benediction. Only officers are to do such. I believe Paul meant what he said when he said women are to remain silent (he did not mean they cannot sing), but he also addressed the issue that some women were gifted with spiritual gifts and in those exceptional cases he required they cover when exercising those gifts to show that although they are not remaining silent, they are still showing they are not usurping God's order.


----------



## Kim G (Aug 6, 2008)

ChristopherPaul said:


> You are breaking your own rule
> 
> I really don't have the time or energy to engage in a lengthy debate. I have stated my case in past threads.



I didn't really want to debate it anyway. Thanks for clarifying what you meant since I hadn't heard it before.


----------



## Augusta (Aug 6, 2008)

Good poll Kim.  This was the practice in almost all the churches up until a few decades ago. Just watch an old movie where people go to church. Amazing what feminism has done, even to the men.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Aug 6, 2008)

Kim G said:


> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> > You are breaking your own rule
> ...



You are welcome. As I tell others who are investigating this issue, the safe thing to do is to cover and if you do, God bless you. Because, lets say I am wrong then I (and my wife) are sinning by my wife not covering, but if she covers it is never a sin for a women to cover her head in church (women often wear hats to church).


----------



## Davidius (Aug 6, 2008)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Kim G said:
> 
> 
> > ChristopherPaul said:
> ...



It's Pascal's Wager in action! I love it!


----------



## Kim G (Aug 6, 2008)

Davidius said:


> It's Pascal's Wager in action! I love it!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Aug 6, 2008)

Davidius said:


> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> > Kim G said:
> ...


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Aug 6, 2008)

ChristopherPaul said:


> (women often wear hats to church).


I love old pictures of all the crazy hats all ladies and girls used to wear to church. Stylish ribbons, birds, bows, and colors. I think it makes women attractive, like cute dresses.


----------



## Galatians220 (Aug 6, 2008)

Peter H said:


> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> > (women often wear hats to church).
> ...


 
Crazy hats?!  Guilty!!! (I have a couple with the above-mentioned *bows *on them - and I do wear them during congregational worship... But only one at a time...   )

Any fellow ex-mackerel-snappers out there remember "chapel caps?"

Yes: I am THAT OLD. 

The "head covering _thang_" is a matter of conviction, I think. It took me a couple of years to wade through the research on it and for the HS to convict me. I fault no one who doesn't wear the head covering if female and no man whose wife/daughters don't.

Kim, thanks for this poll and thread.

Margaret


----------



## Ivan (Aug 6, 2008)

Peter H said:


> ChristopherPaul said:
> 
> 
> > (women often wear hats to church).
> ...



Me too. I remember barely the days when this was the style.


----------



## Kim G (Aug 6, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> The "head covering _thang_" is a matter of conviction, I think. It took me a couple of years to wade through the research on it and for the HS to convict me. I fault no one who doesn't wear the head covering if female and no man whose wife/daughters don't.



I agree completely! Thanks for saying that.




      <------ Me and my hats


----------



## Augusta (Aug 6, 2008)

Hubby bought me a beautiful hat rack for all of my hats. I have three girls so we have a lot of hats.  

It wasn't just the "style" to wear hats to church then. It may have become that but it started out because of the scriptures. Men always remove their hats and would feel weird wearing one to church. Why? It wasn't just because it was the "style."


----------



## Ivan (Aug 6, 2008)

Augusta said:


> It wasn't just the "style" to wear hats to church then.



Yes, I understand what you're saying and I agree. I was speaking of the larger culture in our country. I doubt all of them understood the reason why they were wearing hats.


----------



## Augusta (Aug 6, 2008)

I agree totally Ivan that people forgot why they were wearing hats. It was never taught anymore because it was just taken for granted. It's tragic.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 6, 2008)

Augusta said:


> I agree totally Ivan that people forgot why they were wearing hats. It was never taught anymore because it was just taken for granted. It's tragic.



It is tragic. I have to admit I wasn't taught the reason. I don't come from a Christian home. Somehow I "caught" the meaning. Although I wasn't taught the things of the church (or Christianity), I was taught respect. I think that teaching of respect and my own reading of the Word taught me what it all meant.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 6, 2008)

My wife wears a headcovering for congregational worship, because that is the conviction of the church where we attend, and it is certainly not wrong to wear one. However, our conviction is that headcovering are required for praying or prophesying publicly, which women are prohibited from doing in the congregation (1 Corinthians 14), and so it is not necessary for women to wear one during congregational worship.


----------



## Galatians220 (Aug 6, 2008)

We covered our heads in the RCC because we "had to." I think by the time I came along, "respect" for God's word was no longer involved.

I remember being four years old and my grandmother taking me into church for a "visit" to light candles on a weekday afternoon. She'd take a bobby pin and affix a piece of Kleenex on my hair "because we have to cover our heads and this is all I've got." 

Nope: _no respect there._

 

Margaret


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 6, 2008)

Kim, I'm sure you've been looking through this issue, but I'll point you to a resource that I found helpful, even if the conclusion seemed a bit strange.

Dan Wallace weighs in on the passage. Interestingly, his view has changed over time.

Bible.org: What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today?


----------



## Augusta (Aug 6, 2008)

py3ak said:


> My wife wears a headcovering for congregational worship, because that is the conviction of the church where we attend, and it is certainly not wrong to wear one. However, our conviction is that headcovering are required for praying or prophesying publicly, which women are prohibited from doing in the congregation (1 Corinthians 14), and so it is not necessary for women to wear one during congregational worship.



This is the position my Pastor takes. It doesn't, however, answer the fact that the whole passage is not concerned only with women but equally with men. It is a whole doctrine of headship laid out in detail. It floors me how this passage is more detailed than some of our most important doctrines yet is so easily swept away by people.


----------



## Iconoclast (Aug 6, 2008)

Bygracealone said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > My wife always wears the covering called for in scripture... her hair. But that wasn't an option on the poll.
> ...



It is actually * Long Hair*, not just hair. Long Hair


----------



## Ivan (Aug 6, 2008)

Iconoclast said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> > Brad said:
> ...



And how long is long? Just asking. Never had long hair...of course, it depends on how long is long.


----------



## MW (Aug 6, 2008)

Iconoclast said:


> It is actually * Long Hair*, not just hair. Long Hair



Keeping with the curiosity theme of the thread, if long hair is the covering, why should the uncovered woman *also* be shorn?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 6, 2008)

Augusta, of course there is more to 1 Corinthians 11 than headcovering. But that is the part of the passage that was asked about here. If someone does a poll on the covenantal relationship of Christ to the Father I'll give my view on that aspect of this passage.


----------



## Iconoclast (Aug 6, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> > It is actually * Long Hair*, not just hair. Long Hair
> ...



JUst substitute the term long hair in verse 6/ for covering
then look ahead to these verses


> 14doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?
> 
> 15and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;


Sam Waldron preached a message on this and pulled out from the Ot that the idea is LOng hair in an orderly arrangemnent,Neatly done up.I have to hunt down that cassette. 
If a woman does not have long hair, she should have an external covering.
There is no point to highlighting the hair length otherwise,since overall the passage is dealing with authority before the angelic observers,vs 10 What do you think? Can the patient live?


----------



## Iconoclast (Aug 6, 2008)

Ivan said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> > Bygracealone said:
> ...



As one who has about as much hair as the blueridge baptist I would just think that if you could look at a distance and confuse someone as a member of the opposite sex,just beacuse of hair length, that might be a clue!
I do not have a slide rule or anything, but when the hippies wanted tom show rebellion in the sixties, long hair, earrings etc became the choice of the world. 
I know I have seen paintings depicting long haired men in History, but That does not mean it was pleasing to God. Verse 14 has to mean something


----------



## MW (Aug 6, 2008)

If we read "long hair" instead of "covering" it amounts to this -- "if the woman have not long hair, let her also have not long hair," because shorn simply means to have one's hair cut close.


----------



## KMK (Aug 6, 2008)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Kim G said:
> 
> 
> > ChristopherPaul said:
> ...





py3ak said:


> My wife wears a headcovering for congregational worship, because that is the conviction of the church where we attend, and it is certainly not wrong to wear one. However, our conviction is that headcovering are required for praying or prophesying publicly, which women are prohibited from doing in the congregation (1 Corinthians 14), and so it is not necessary for women to wear one during congregational worship.



Thank you for posting this view. I had never heard them before and I find them quite interesting.


----------



## kvanlaan (Aug 7, 2008)

> I love old pictures of all the crazy hats all ladies and girls used to wear to church. Stylish ribbons, birds, bows, and colors. I think it makes women attractive, like cute dresses.



I think that's part of where the problem came in. It became cultural and fashionable and its Biblical significance got muddled in the background.



> This is the position my Pastor takes. It doesn't, however, answer the fact that the whole passage is not concerned only with women but equally with men. It is a whole doctrine of headship laid out in detail. It floors me how this passage is more detailed than some of our most important doctrines yet is so easily swept away by people.



Agreed.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 7, 2008)

Augusta said:


> This is the position my Pastor takes. It doesn't, however, answer the fact that the whole passage is not concerned only with women but equally with men. It is a whole doctrine of headship laid out in detail. It floors me how this passage is more detailed than some of our most important doctrines yet is so easily swept away by people.



 

Unfortunately it is not the only clear passage that people ignore.


----------



## satz (Aug 7, 2008)

Augusta said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > My wife wears a headcovering for congregational worship, because that is the conviction of the church where we attend, and it is certainly not wrong to wear one. However, our conviction is that headcovering are required for praying or prophesying publicly, which women are prohibited from doing in the congregation (1 Corinthians 14), and so it is not necessary for women to wear one during congregational worship.
> ...



As someone who also holds to this view, I would respectfully submit that I do not see how this position ignores the rest of the passage. The doctrine of headship is laid out in detail in first corinthians 11, but the fact that man is head over the woman does not, of itself, mean that a woman must cover her head. 

Paul specfically sets forth the situation when the doctrine of headship has a practical application in the way we treat our physical heads in verses 4 and 5. With regards a woman covering her head, he specifically sets out when that is required - when she prays or prophesys.


----------



## TimV (Aug 7, 2008)

Which Old Testament law is a hat or scarf based on? Or is it part of the New Covenant?


----------



## PresReformed (Aug 7, 2008)

Pastor Brian Schwertley has a good article on head coverings. It can be found here Headcoverings in Public Worship


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 7, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> > It is actually * Long Hair*, not just hair. Long Hair
> ...


Pastor, I think it is obvious that short hair and shorn hair are different things. Isn't that argumentum ad absurdium? Not different from Paul stating that he wished the judaizers would go all the way and emasculate themselves.

The entire portion deals with length of hair, or it makes no sense.


----------



## Bygracealone (Aug 7, 2008)

Brad said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Iconoclast said:
> ...



On the contrary, it makes no sense if hair is the covering. I would say the _argumentum ad absudium_ is to argue for it being the hair. It's quite evident from the passage that Paul is referring to something which symbolizes authority that is to be placed _on the head_ during worship that isn't on the head to begin with. If all Paul meant to teach is that women should have long hair and that men shouldn't, he could've simply said so (which he does a few verses later as an illustration), but that's not what he's teaching here. What he's teaching here has to do with corporate worship. He's concerned about preserving God's glory in the worship service. 

Furthermore, I believe you've mistaken his illustration from nature (v. 14) with the actual teaching concerning worship. Otherwise, the illustration is not an illustration but the actual thing itself and it's clear that this isn't the case otherwise he wouldn't have used the example from nature as an illustration... The two would be one and the same thing and would be a rather confusing way to go about making the point, if that's what he meant. 

If I may, I'll include an excerpt from a paper I wrote on this passage:

As for the first part of 11:10, which says “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head”, some things need to be mentioned. First, it must be understood that the Greek does not include the word “symbol” or “sign”, but simply reads, “Therefore the woman ought to have authority on her head.” This word for authority is _evxousi,an_ in the Greek and is defined as follows:

_"evxousi,an_—In context[,] the verse is part of the discussion of veiling (cf. the plh.n of v. 11). The verb ovfei,lei implies obligation rather than compulsion and thus suggests a moral duty. It seems, then, that the veil is a sign of subordination and the angels are guardian angels or watchers over the natural order. _evxousi,an_ is thus used materially for the veil in a bold image suggesting male dominion.” 

Notice that the verse says that the authority is to be on her head. In order to better explain what this authority means, we shall turn, once again, to A.T. Robertson. Commenting on 11:10, he states:

"Ought (_ovfei,lei_). Moral obligation therefore (_dia. tou/to_), rests on woman in the matter of dress that does not (_ouvk ovfei,lei_ in verse 7) rest on the man. To have a sign of authority (_evxousi,an e;cein_). He means _semeion evxousi,as_ (symbol of authority) by _evxousi,an_, but it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil on the woman’s head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the uncovered head has over her." 

As previously mentioned, Paul goes on in 11:11-12 to remind the reader that there is ontological equality between men and women. Women should not allow themselves to fall into the trap of thinking that they are of a lesser value than men because of the economical order God has put in place. Again, Christ, too, was subject to the Father, but that role in no way makes Him inferior in essence to God the Father or the Holy Spirit. 

With that said, we now move on to consider Paul’s argument from nature. In 11:13-15, he says, 

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Paul begins this section with what is known to be a rhetorical question in which he anticipates everyone to answer “No!” After all that he has said up to this point, he expects that everyone will now understand, unconditionally, that it is not proper for a woman to go to worship with her head uncovered. Then he appeals to nature as one more proof to support his teaching. The word translated as “nature” in the Greek is _fu,sij_ and is “personified as a teacher; it reminds us of what is seemly.” 

"Yet the statement that “nature” here means only a common sense of decency must itself be challenged. Paul uses “nature” to mean something different. In Rom. 1:26 [,] he calls homosexuality “against nature.” Here “nature” cannot mean the common sense of decency because the point of the passage is that man’s common sense of “decency” has been so perverted as to approve the practice. In Romans [,] it clearly means the created state of affairs. Certainly this created state of affairs may influence local customs and standards, but the primary and most important factor is creation not custom. This understanding of “nature” fits the context of I Cor. 11:14, which is clearly concerned with the created order." 

Therefore, Paul argues that just as nature teaches that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him , nature also teaches that if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. In effect, Paul is saying that the natural created order teaches that the woman’s head is to be covered. This is seen by the fact that she has long hair that acts as a veil when outside of the worship service. According to Lenski, “Paul’s thought is this: if nature itself provides a covering for a woman, it is highly proper that she follow this hint of nature and cover her head during acts of public worship.” 

"Paul contends that in the same way that the hairstyle IN EVERYDAY LIFE identifies and distinguishes man and woman, the wearing of a head-covering, or not, as the case may be, is symbolic of their distinct position IN PUBLIC WORSHIP. If the distinction is apparent in the natural realm – and it is – then it should be reflected, in worship, by the woman who acknowledges her true position before God." 

Verse 15 also says, “For her hair is given to her for a covering.” Some have mistakenly understood this to mean that the woman’s hair is the head covering spoken of throughout the passage. This was addressed previously, but only in part. More must be considered at this point. Interestingly, the word for covering in this verse is not the same as the one used earlier in the previous verses. This word translated as “covering” is _peribolai,ou_ and is a word peculiar to 1 Corinthians. The word means, 

"To cast around. A covering, cloak, wrap, cape, outer garment or mantle (Heb. 1:12 quoted from Psalm 102:26; Ex. 22:27). By implication, a covering for the head, a headdress or perhaps a veil (1 Cor. 11:15)." 

Also, people have made reference to the preposition _avnti._ within the verse and have come up with a translation which says, “For her hair was given to her (_avnti._) instead of a covering” as though the covering were the hair. There are many problems with such a translation. First, if the hair is the covering then why doesn’t Paul just say so and be done with it? Second, if Paul is referring to the hair as the covering throughout the passage, then why does he use different words in reference to the coverings? Third, the preposition _avnti._ can also be translated “for” as the NAS and others have done implying equivalence of function. The translation would then read, “For her hair was given to her for a covering” which would agree with the lesson we learn from the natural order. Fourth, it would be ludicrous to say that the hair is the covering referred to in 11:4. For then the verse would read, “Every man who has hair on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.” If that were the case, then all Christian men should shave their heads before entering the worship service.  Fifth, if we apply the same principle to 11:6, then we get the same nonsensical result. Verse 6 would then read, “For if a woman does not have hair on her head, let her also have her hair cut off.” 

The covering referred to in this passage is one that is distinguished from the natural covering which is the hair. The covering is one that is put on while in the worship service and taken off outside the worship service. Otherwise, how could Paul make a distinction between what is practiced in Church and that which is seen in the natural order of things? Furthermore, it is absurd to think that men are not to have hair on their heads when in worship and that women are to put their hair on and take it off depending on whether or not they are in worship.


----------



## Bygracealone (Aug 7, 2008)

py3ak said:


> My wife wears a headcovering for congregational worship, because that is the conviction of the church where we attend, and it is certainly not wrong to wear one. However, our conviction is that headcovering are required for praying or prophesying publicly, which women are prohibited from doing in the congregation (1 Corinthians 14), and so it is not necessary for women to wear one during congregational worship.



Hi Ruben, I respect your conviction and applaud you for not being divisive over this matter in the congregation. Since the practice there is based on your church's position, I would guess that you've already heard what I'm going to say. But just in case you haven't, I think it's worth considering... 



> One final plausible solution to this issue of women praying and prophesying in worship can be reached by acknowledging the fact that women pray and prophesy as do all people who participate in the worship service. This can be seen particularly in congregations that sing the Psalms in worship. When we sing the Psalms in worship, we are singing to one another (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) and the Psalms are filled with prayers and prophecies. So, there is a sense in which men, women, and children pray and prophesy in the worship service as they sing the Psalms. John Gill wrote, “Not that a woman was allowed to pray publicly in the congregation, and much less to preach or explain the word, for these things were not permitted them: see (1 Corinthians 14:34,35) (1 Timothy 2:12) but it designs any woman that joins in public worship with the minister in prayer, and attends on the hearing of the word preached, or sings the praises of God with the congregation…” Corporate worship is just that—the people of God worshipping the Lord corporately. All believers in a worship service are participants in all of the elements of worship. Therefore, Paul is saying that women must have their heads covered when they are in the worship service.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 7, 2008)

Pastor Bradley,

May I then assume that you admonish all your female members to _always_ wear a covering, since we are exhorted in scripture to pray always? In bed, in the shower, etc. are places that I pray, so then women doing so ought also to be wearing a covering, right? Paul states that one of the reasons for the covering is for the sake of the angels, so even if no other human may see them, the angels always can, so they must always be covered. 

The entire passage is about hair. That's the covering that is always there.


----------



## Bygracealone (Aug 7, 2008)

Brad said:


> Pastor Bradley,
> 
> May I then assume that you admonish all your female members to _always_ wear a covering, since we are exhorted in scripture to pray always? In bed, in the shower, etc. are places that I pray, so then women doing so ought also to be wearing a covering, right? Paul states that one of the reasons for the covering is for the sake of the angels, so even if no other human may see them, the angels always can, so they must always be covered.
> 
> The entire passage is about hair. That's the covering that is always there.



Hi Brad, please feel free to call me Steve... 

I don't admonish our women in that way, since I'm persuaded Paul is giving instruction concerning the worship service. I think the reference to the angels is yet another proof that this is his intention for we're told the following in Hebrews 12 concerning worship:

Hebrews 12:18-29 18 For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest, 19 and the sound of a trumpet and the voice of words, so that those who heard it begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore. 20 (For they could not endure what was commanded: "And if so much as a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned or shot with an arrow." 21 And so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, "I am exceedingly afraid and trembling.") 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, *to an innumerable company of angels*, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. 25 See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, 26 whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, "Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven." 27 Now this, "Yet once more," indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29 For our God is a consuming fire.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 7, 2008)

Bygracealone said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > My wife wears a headcovering for congregational worship, because that is the conviction of the church where we attend, and it is certainly not wrong to wear one. However, our conviction is that headcovering are required for praying or prophesying publicly, which women are prohibited from doing in the congregation (1 Corinthians 14), and so it is not necessary for women to wear one during congregational worship.
> ...



Pastor Bradley, thanks for the additional information. I wonder, though, if interpreting prayer and prophesying as singing Psalms isn't going to be difficult to maintain in the light of other portions of the NT? For instance, when Philip's daughters prophesied (and it is singled out for mention that they did so), was this singing a Psalm in connection with the congregation? Then why is it not said that the whole congregation prophesied? That is just one point, though I'm sure you can probably think of others as well. Since Kim specified the thread to be non-argumentative, I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 7, 2008)

My wife wears a head-covering all the time: it's her lovely long flaxen head of hair.

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 7, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> If we read "long hair" instead of "covering" it amounts to this -- "if the woman have not long hair, let her also have not long hair," because shorn simply means to have one's hair cut close.



Or, if a woman does not have long adorned hair, let her cut it close, or shave it off altogether. What doesn't the way God created the world tell you that if a man has long (girlish) hair, it's a shame to him?

Adam


----------



## MW (Aug 7, 2008)

Brad said:


> Pastor, I think it is obvious that short hair and shorn hair are different things. Isn't that argumentum ad absurdium? Not different from Paul stating that he wished the judaizers would go all the way and emasculate themselves.
> 
> The entire portion deals with length of hair, or it makes no sense.



Rev. Bradley has answered this well. I just note that the entire section deals with spiritual subjection. The word "shorn" simply means hair that is cut close to the scalp. It refers to short hair. The apostle's statement is intended to show the "shame" of being artifically uncovered by likening it to the same shame that is cast on women who cut their hair short.


----------



## MW (Aug 7, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Pastor Bradley, thanks for the additional information. I wonder, though, if interpreting prayer and prophesying as singing Psalms isn't going to be difficult to maintain in the light of other portions of the NT? For instance, when Philip's daughters prophesied (and it is singled out for mention that they did so), was this singing a Psalm in connection with the congregation? Then why is it not said that the whole congregation prophesied? That is just one point, though I'm sure you can probably think of others as well. Since Kim specified the thread to be non-argumentative, I'll leave it at that.



I find it strange that the apostle would prescribe a covering only for the exercise of praying/prophesying, and go into detail as to the whys and wherefores, when in approximately five minutes time he intended to put an end to women speaking in the congregation (1 Cor. 14). This suggests to me that subjection and covering were applicable to the context of the assembly irrespective of whether the women were speaking, and that those women who were exercising spiritual gifts without a covering were exasperating the problem.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 7, 2008)

Mr. Winzer, the scenario you suggest might be a little odd: but is it any more odd than than the apostle saying, "Women must cover their heads in order to do this" and in approximately five minutes time go on to say, "Women must not do this at all"? Whereas it does not seem quite so strange for it to take five minutes to transition from the _manner_ of women prophesying to the _sphere_ of women prophesying, while both sorts of regulation uphold the vital point about headship that Paul began to make at the beginning of chapter 11.


----------



## MW (Aug 7, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Mr. Winzer, the scenario you suggest might be a little odd: but is it any more odd than than the apostle saying, "Women must cover their heads in order to do this" and in approximately five minutes time go on to say, "Women must not do this at all"? Whereas it does not seem quite so strange for it to take five minutes to transition from the _manner_ of women prophesying to the _sphere_ of women prophesying, while both sorts of regulation uphold the vital point about headship that Paul began to make at the beginning of chapter 11.



No, the five minutes transition is not strange because he was an orderly thinker and dealt with matters in context. But what seems strange is the fact that he would lay out these instructions for a particular action which he intended to forbid in the same letter. This at least weights the discussion towards a broader "assembly" context irrespective of exercising spiritual gifts. To my mind the "shame" element corroborates this broader context because it brings cultural acceptability to the fore, which would have been primarily concerned with the female's participation in an assembly of men.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 7, 2008)

But if he forbids that action _within a certain sphere_, I'm not sure I understand whence the strangeness arises. So, for instance, he can forbid them to eat their fill when they come to the Lord's table, but rather encourages them to do so at home. 

And would it not be a shame for women to be submissive only in the presence of men, with eyeservice, as it were?


----------



## MW (Aug 8, 2008)

py3ak said:


> But if he forbids that action _within a certain sphere_, I'm not sure I understand whence the strangeness arises. So, for instance, he can forbid them to eat their fill when they come to the Lord's table, but rather encourages them to do so at home.
> 
> And would it not be a shame for women to be submissive only in the presence of men, with eyeservice, as it were?



If he had told them to examine themselves for the Lord's supper and three chapters later indicated that there should be no more Lord's supper, it would certainly be strange. But the parallel would result if he had given instructions for women speaking to the congregation with the intention of prohibiting women from speaking.

I don't think it is a matter of eye-service, but a problem which arose specifically in relation to "the ordinances," 1 Cor. 11:2. It was a problem pertaining to the gathering of men and women in a public meeting.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 8, 2008)

> But the parallel would result if he had given instructions for women speaking to the congregation with the intention of prohibiting women from speaking.



Right, if you add, _to the congregation_ at the end. 

There are some who say, "What is regulated at one point will not be prohibited at another" and so throw out the prohibition. It seems to me that you are saying, "What is prohibited at one point will not be regulated at another" and therefore the terms "praying and prophesying" are made to be of broader extent here than in any other occurrence of the terms in Scripture. My view is that something is regulated in chapter 11, and then a further regulation is added in chapter 14, a regulation which tells us that in certain contexts, head covered or not, women ought to keep silence. Outside of those contexts, then, the regulations with regard to headcoverings apply.


----------



## MW (Aug 8, 2008)

py3ak said:


> My view is that something is regulated in chapter 11, and then a further regulation is added in chapter 14, a regulation which tells us that in certain contexts, head covered or not, women ought to keep silence. Outside of those contexts, then, the regulations with regard to headcoverings apply.



What role do the angels/messengers have in such settings, which would necessitate the woman having power (or the sign thereof) on her head?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 8, 2008)

Well, if Paul's joy in beholding the Colossians' order is not to be restricted to a liturgical pleasure, then whether you take angels of the ministering spirits or of the messengers of the churches I would imagine they can have a similar joy in an orderly and submissive ministry of women when not in congregational assembly.


----------



## MW (Aug 8, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Well, if Paul's joy in beholding the Colossians' order is not to be restricted to a liturgical pleasure, then whether you take angels of the ministering spirits or of the messengers of the churches I would imagine they can have a similar joy in an orderly and submissive ministry of women when not in congregational assembly.



The apostle assumes the presence of the church-angels, which would not necessarily be presupposed in an external setting.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 9, 2008)

So you are taking church-angels of the ministers?


----------



## MW (Aug 10, 2008)

py3ak said:


> So you are taking church-angels of the ministers?



I incline in that direction because of the emphasis on external decorum; but even if we take it to refer to heavenly messengers, such could only be of significance because those messengers in some way superintend the corporate gathering. Therefore I think we are closed up to a corporate setting for the apostle's instructions.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 10, 2008)

I can understand your argument, I think. Let me see if I got it right. The presence of "praying and prophesying", the emphasis on decorum, the mention of the angels, even the use of "shame" all lead us to think of a corporate gathering, indeed, one specific corporate gathering: the meeting of the congregation in their stated services.

Is that correct?

If so, I can appreciate that there is definitely some weight to the argument. And then, since we have to account for the prohibition of chapter 14, there are not a lot of options left open to us. I guess I would be helped over my difficulty if there were some reference in the NT or the in the Septuagint or even in classical Greek where "praying or prophesying" could be understood as "corporately singing Psalms and listening to a sermon". Do you have any references I could consider?


----------



## MW (Aug 10, 2008)

py3ak said:


> I can understand your argument, I think. Let me see if I got it right. The presence of "praying and prophesying", the emphasis on decorum, the mention of the angels, even the use of "shame" all lead us to think of a corporate gathering, indeed, one specific corporate gathering: the meeting of the congregation in their stated services.
> 
> Is that correct?



Yes.



py3ak said:


> If so, I can appreciate that there is definitely some weight to the argument. And then, since we have to account for the prohibition of chapter 14, there are not a lot of options left open to us. I guess I would be helped over my difficulty if there were some reference in the NT or the in the Septuagint or even in classical Greek where "praying or prophesying" could be understood as "corporately singing Psalms and listening to a sermon". Do you have any references I could consider?



I think it is based on analogy and argument from the greater to the lesser. If this was required under the extraordinary influence of the Spirit then much more under ordinary means of grace. Personally I prefer to simply adhere to the fact that a corporate gathering context is in mind and that praying/prophesying was simply one element of that context in which the decorum problems were being exasperated.

We forget in our unisex world that male-female interaction was stereotyped in traditional cultures, and that the New Testament church provided a liberty for women to commune with men in a way previously unknown. The apostle's instructions allow for the continuing communion while manifesting the natural order which God has instituted between men and women. The apostle's argument from creation means that the natural distinction was to be reflected in the entire gathering and cannot be confined to a personal exercise of spiritual gifts.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 10, 2008)

OK, I can see the argument from the greater to the lesser. But then if in 1 Corinthians 11 women were praying and prophesying in a way the apostle regulates, how are we to understand his prohibition in chapter 14, or when writing to Timothy?


----------



## MW (Aug 10, 2008)

py3ak said:


> OK, I can see the argument from the greater to the lesser. But then if in 1 Corinthians 11 women were praying and prophesying in a way the apostle regulates, how are we to understand his prohibition in chapter 14, or when writing to Timothy?



This is obviously where the analogy argument breaks down and why I think we are better off considering the praying/prophesying as simply one action among many. I don't think the apostle's prohibition of women speaking forbids them from participation in ordinary means of grace. It only prohibits them from exercising official roles, such as would have been manifested in praying and prophesying.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 11, 2008)

So praying and prophesying equate to taking on an official role. That is prohibited to them. But when the head is commanded to be covered in praying and prophesying it's a figure of speech for being in church. Am I grasping your argument?


----------



## MW (Aug 11, 2008)

py3ak said:


> So praying and prophesying equate to taking on an official role. That is prohibited to them. But when the head is commanded to be covered in praying and prophesying it's a figure of speech for being in church. Am I grasping your argument?



No, it's not a figure of speech. It was an actual exercise of charismata. But it's only one action among many in the gathering of the church. This particular action comes in for attention because the individual came to the fore as he/she spoke to the congregation, so that a covered man or uncovered woman would make themselves conspicuous. But the apostle's way of dealing with the matter indicates that the issue of covering pertained to the gathering as a whole and not simply to praying/prophesying. The argument from the order of creation is applicable to every action of the assembly and not only to the specific action he draws attention to.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 11, 2008)

So because a specific action is regulated, and the context makes it clear that it is in the context of the assembly, the regulation applies across the board.

But what I still don't quite get is that (albeit with a broader application in mind) Paul does regulate what he goes on to prohibit.


----------



## MW (Aug 11, 2008)

py3ak said:


> So because a specific action is regulated, and the context makes it clear that it is in the context of the assembly, the regulation applies across the board.
> 
> But what I still don't quite get is that (albeit with a broader application in mind) Paul does regulate what he goes on to prohibit.



No, it doesn't necessarily apply across the board; but his reference to the creation order in this case is applicable to every action in the assembly. The woman is of the man and for the man, and therefore she ought to have power (or a token of power) on her head; but she is of the man and for the man not only when she prophesies but when she sings psalms and listens to the exposition of the Word, so she ought to have power on her head when she engages in these actions also.

I think chap. 11 is best seen as limiting itself to the question of decorum in the gathering while the regulation of prophesying is left off to its appropriate place where it shall be discussed in chap. 14.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 11, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > So because a specific action is regulated, and the context makes it clear that it is in the context of the assembly, the regulation applies across the board.
> ...


I'm just a simple layman, but that sure sounds like some serious gymnastics. Again, why would Paul dictate rules applicable to a thing he would in a short space proscribe? Why are the angels mentioned limited to Church Angels? The text does not in any way require that. And since it does not, the statement that a woman's hair is her covering makes complete sense.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 11, 2008)

OK, I think I'm still following you. But what I don't understand is _why_ the Apostle regulates decorum making specific reference to the question of prophesying, when in bringing it up again shortly it is his intention to forbid it. As you pointed out when we began this conversation, that is a little strange. Just to take a simple example, when a recovering romanist requests guidance with regard to prayer for the saints, I don't normally explain how to do so decorously and then explain that it's wrong to do so --I start off with it being wrong and see no need to proceed any further!


----------



## MW (Aug 11, 2008)

py3ak said:


> OK, I think I'm still following you. But what I don't understand is _why_ the Apostle regulates decorum making specific reference to the question of prophesying, when in bringing it up again shortly it is his intention to forbid it. As you pointed out when we began this conversation, that is a little strange. Just to take a simple example, when a recovering romanist requests guidance with regard to prayer for the saints, I don't normally explain how to do so decorously and then explain that it's wrong to do so --I start off with it being wrong and see no need to proceed any further!



Just to clarify, I only regard it as strange on the supposition that he limits the regulation to the action of praying/prophesying. If his regulation applies to all actions in the assembly, as I believe it does, there is no difficulty. His regulation continues to apply to other actions even after he has prohibited the women from speaking in the church.


----------



## MW (Aug 11, 2008)

Brad said:


> I'm just a simple layman, but that sure sounds like some serious gymnastics. Again, why would Paul dictate rules applicable to a thing he would in a short space proscribe? Why are the angels mentioned limited to Church Angels? The text does not in any way require that. And since it does not, the statement that a woman's hair is her covering makes complete sense.



Sometimes we need gymnastics to extricate people from the tangles men sadly create for themselves. The non prima facie reading of this text has created the tangles.

The idea of long hair as a covering is just another tangle (tangled hair!). The apostle says that if the woman is not covered let her *also* be shorn. To be shorn is to have the hair cut close to the scalp, i.e., to have short hair. It would be redundant to say, if the woman does not have long hair let her also have short hair. The text clearly speaks of an artificial covering. The long hair is brought in later to make an illustration from nature to enforce the need for an artificial covering.


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 11, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just a simple layman, but that sure sounds like some serious gymnastics. Again, why would Paul dictate rules applicable to a thing he would in a short space proscribe? Why are the angels mentioned limited to Church Angels? The text does not in any way require that. And since it does not, the statement that a woman's hair is her covering makes complete sense.
> ...


Short hair that is not shorn is also _not long hair_. The reduncy would be Paul defining the rules for a practice he would later prohibit. I'm sorry, Pastor, but this sure appears to be eisogesis to defend a traditional practice that has no basis in scripture. The covering, as Paul clearly states in the same passage, is the hair.


----------



## MW (Aug 11, 2008)

Brad said:


> Short hair that is not shorn is also _not long hair_. The reduncy would be Paul defining the rules for a practice he would later prohibit. I'm sorry, Pastor, but this sure appears to be eisogesis to defend a traditional practice that has no basis in scripture. The covering, as Paul clearly states in the same passage, is the hair.



Perhaps it would be wise to consult a few standard commentaries before determining this interpretation to be eisegesis, especially considering that the commentaries have no interest in defending a traditional practice. For the record, whatever the covering refers to, Paul regulates women prophesying in chap. 11 and prohibits women speaking in chap. 14. This must be accounted for even if one holds the long hair to be a covering. Hence it is no argument against the natural sense of the words. As for the distinction between short hair and shorn, it is a distinction without a difference in the Greek.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 11, 2008)

IF this has been linked already, apologies.
Paul's Discourse on the Use of Head Coverings During Public Worship. An Exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16


----------



## Mushroom (Aug 11, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> > Short hair that is not shorn is also _not long hair_. The reduncy would be Paul defining the rules for a practice he would later prohibit. I'm sorry, Pastor, but this sure appears to be eisogesis to defend a traditional practice that has no basis in scripture. The covering, as Paul clearly states in the same passage, is the hair.
> ...


The simplest accounting for the two passages is that the first is addressing all situations of the Christian woman's life. She is not prohibited from praying or prophesying (expositing the scriptures) except in the setting of corporate worship. She will, as all Christians, pray continually, and exposit the scriptures to her children and other women. In those situations, she should be covered. Even when she is lying in her bed. And in all those situations the angels are witnesses. Thus she must always wear her covering, which Paul defines as her long hair.

One could say that short and shorn hair is a distinction without a difference in english as well, but those of us who speak it know different. Which makes more sense? Paul saying a woman must wear a doilly when she prays and prophesies in Church, which by the way she can't do; or that she must wear a covering whenever she prays or prophesies, which by the way she can't do in Church, but may elsewhere, and is her long hair?

Alright.... I'm done.


----------



## MW (Aug 12, 2008)

Brad said:


> One could say that short and shorn hair is a distinction without a difference in english as well, but those of us who speak it know different. Which makes more sense? Paul saying a woman must wear a doilly when she prays and prophesies in Church, which by the way she can't do; or that she must wear a covering whenever she prays or prophesies, which by the way she can't do in Church, but may elsewhere, and is her long hair?



Which makes more sense? I would suggest it is the prima facie reading of the text which requires an additional covering over and above the natural covering of the hair.


----------



## TimV (Aug 12, 2008)

Which OT law is a woman's head covering based on?


----------

