# Head Covering



## Semper Fidelis

> 1 Cor 11:3-10
> 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.


I've known a few women that believe that this means women ought to wear a shawl or hat or some other type of head covering during worship. I was reading through this the other day and re-read it a few times. It seems that the natural reading of the verses would indicate that the "head covering" Paul is referring to is having a full head of hair and that he's not talking about hats or any other accutrement.

Thoughts?


----------



## Mayflower

Dear SemperFideles,

I want to ask you read the next artical by Brian Schwertley : Head Coverings in Public Worship. It also deals with the issue of long hear of women.

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

My wife wears headcovering, and i can not understand stand that those who hold to sola scriptura and regulative principel do say that 1 Cor. 11:2 is absed on a cultural manner of that the wearing is not to be apply today. But again let first read the artical of Brian Schwertley.

There is also a more indept book 351 pages (i think the author is reformed) about Headcovering. See :

Covered or Uncovered? How 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 applies to worship and leadership in the church - Gary Sanseri 

http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookid=1361&quantity=1

I have not read that book yet, but soon i will order it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> Dear SemperFideles,
> 
> I want to ask you read the next artical by Brian Schwertley : Head Coverings in Public Worship. It also deals with the issue of long hear of women.
> 
> http://entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Headcoverings in Public Worship2.htm
> 
> My wife wears headcovering, and i can not understand stand that those who hold to sola scriptura and regulative principel do say that 1 Cor. 11:2 is absed on a cultural manner of that the wearing is not to be apply today. But again let first read the artical of Brian Schwertley.
> 
> There is also a more indept book 351 pages (i think the author is reformed) about Headcovering. See :
> 
> Covered or Uncovered? How 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 applies to worship and leadership in the church - Gary Sanseri
> 
> http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookid=1361&quantity=1
> 
> I have not read that book yet, but soon i will order it.


I feel like a dork. I've just re-read the Scripture and it does seem to say that a woman ought to have her head covered while praying. I'll check out the link.


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Cor 11:3-10
> 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
> 
> 
> 
> I've known a few women that believe that this means women ought to wear a shawl or hat or some other type of head covering during worship. I was reading through this the other day and re-read it a few times. It seems that the natural reading of the verses would indicate that the "head covering" Paul is referring to is having a full head of hair and that he's not talking about hats or any other accutrement.
> 
> Thoughts?
Click to expand...


I believe others will point you to some threads where the entire topic of headcovering has been discussed at great length. I would just point out, respectfully, that I do not think the explanation that the "covering" is nothing more than a full head of hair is at all a tenable interpretation of this passage. 

If the covering meant only hair, why would Paul need to be exhorting women to be covered while "praying and prophesying"? Presumably women would already generally have a full head of hair, and wouldn't need exhorting for that . . . and if for some strange reason a woman did not have a full head of hair, presumably she would not be able to put on a head of hair just for times of praying and prophesying.

And the statement "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn" would surely mean little if hair itself were the covering, for if the woman already did not have the covering of hair, what is there to be shorn? Perhaps you think being "not covered" here is referring only to having short hair as opposed to a shaved head, and that Paul is saying if a woman does not have long hair she might as well shave her head completely? This would be quite a stretch, and contradictory to other parts of the passage. And it would be strange for him to be focusing the command on specific occassions (praying and prophesying), if the command were really about the proper length of hair, which presumably could not change based on the occassion.

And if a full head of hair is the covering, what does it mean when Paul commands men NOT to pray or prophesy with a covering?

Finally, do you remove your hat during times of prayer (outdoors at a picnic, for example)? If so, what is that but an application of this passage as it applies to men, recognising that the covering is a head garment. Women covering their heads with cloth coverings during prayer/worship is simply the corresponding application of the feminine side of this passage.

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jie-Huli,

I'm not arguing the point anymore. I concede it. I don't think that the covering being hair could be a plausible explanation. I read over the verse twice too quickly and then realized I was misreading them.

I read the Bible while on an Elliptical trainer and I miss some things sometimes. Hopefully after reading it through a number of times throughout my life I'll misread less and less.


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Jie-Huli,
> 
> I'm not arguing the point anymore. I concede it. I don't think that the covering being hair could be a plausible explanation. I read over the verse twice too quickly and then realized I was misreading them.
> 
> I read the Bible while on an Elliptical trainer and I miss some things sometimes. Hopefully after reading it through a number of times throughout my life I'll misread less and less.



 Apologies, I did not see your later post before I myself posted. Well, I will leave my statements there for what they are worth anyway, perhaps others across the world had that question as well.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli


----------



## NaphtaliPress

FYI For what it's worth. _Paul's Discourse on Head Coverings in Public Worship: A Exposition of 1 Cor. 11:2-16._ By Richard Bacon.
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Bacon's article cemented my feelings about HC in favor.

Then I met my future wife, who already followed the practice. Obviously we were meant for each other...


----------



## heartoflesh

When are the head coverings to be worn? During the entire church service, or only when the woman prays or prophesies?


----------



## BJClark

I'm curious, I've never really done a study on the topic, but what does it mean to be 'covered'? 

As Christ is the cover of the husband, it would seem to be a spiritual covering more so than an actual physical covering. 

Isn't a covering something that protects or shelters? A husband is to protect the wife, a pastor or father is supposed to protect single women/daughters. Correct?

So is it possible, its more if a woman doesn't have a spiritual leader in her life?

Maybe consider this, when we get married, we are to leave our parents home and cleave to our spouse, the husband is no longer under the authority of his parents, and no longer answers to them, but is under Christ. The wife, leaves the parents home, and her fathers protection and becomes the husbands responsibility to care for and protect her. Or in other words it's his responsiblity to cover her, and to be her spiritual head.

For single adult women living on their own, they are no longer under the protection and care of their father, and as they aren't married they aren't under the protection and care of a husband. So therefore they don't have that covering or protection that a husband or father would provide.

If we look at some of the roles of a father in a daughters life, he is to protect her from men who would take advantage of her, he is to make sure she is provided for, they even found husbands for their daughters, to take on that role as the spiritual head of the daughter. 

Looking at today's society we don't see this as much, as most fathers don't take an as much of an active role in their daughters lives when they date, they don't hold boys accountable for how they treat their daughters. They don't cover their daughters the way they used to. Sure they joke around and make comments when their daughters are little that when they start dating they will be sitting on the front porch with a shotgun, but the reality is, they really don't do that. And if a boy mistreats their daughter they don't hold them accountable for it, so that the boy can learn to become a man who will one day protect (cover) the woman he eventually marries.

Boys on the other hand, don't need that same protection (cover) from their fathers as they date, because they will be the *cover* of their wives. They were to become the provider, not the one needing to be provided for.

Maybe today's society is much like that of the days of Corthin, that women were moving out of their parents homes and living on their own, thinking they don't need the 'protection' or 'cover' of a man in their lives. Having the mindset of many women today, thinking they don't 'need a man in their lives' 
so maybe Paul was saying, don't let women with that attitude speak out in your congregations. If we look around at many churches who allow women pastors we see they have more liberal views on many other aspects of the bible as well.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts on a possible meaning.

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by BJClark]


----------



## non dignus

...during the entire church service, if she were in 1st Century Corinth.

*" For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. 1 Cor 11:6*

It is not a shame here and now.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> ...during the entire church service, if she were in 1st Century Corinth.
> 
> " For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: _but if it is a shame _to a woman to *be shorn or shaven*, let her be veiled. 1 Cor 11:6
> 
> It is not a shame here and now.



I've seen quite a few women, even the wives of pastors, that would almost qualify as being "shorn". How short is too short?


----------



## non dignus

Too short is when she looks like a man. And a man ought not look like a woman.


----------



## Saiph

> And if a full head of hair is the covering, what does it mean when Paul commands men NOT to pray or prophesy with a covering?



Hair for a WOMAN is a covering, not for a man. Quite a few men are genetically bald. Do you really think the passage is talking about a shawl or hat ? ? That would be kind of silly don't you think ? Since it is the very same thing Adam and Eve tried to do . . provide for themselves a covering.

Paul is simply saying in a nutshell that Christian woman should not shave their heads like the temple prostitutes, because of the stigma it had in that day. Today I think the principle would be mini skirts or other lewd dress.

On a side note, I find it really interesting that Paul appeals to natural law and not scripture to prove the point about hair. Does that mean natural law bears the same weight as scripture ? Or does it reveal that this was a principle Paul was trying to explain concerning propriety, and not a scriptural law ?



[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## satz

A sincere question;

For those who hold to the hearcovering position, do you think it has any application outside of official church worship assemblies?


----------



## non dignus

I used to run in Pentecostal circles. (Yes, we were running in theological circles) I affirmed coverings for women (something very pentecostal- affirming things for other people). Even today it is difficult for me to pray with my ballcap on. 

What I know now is that the overall flavor, if you will, of the Christian religion does not consist in 'pillars of Islam' type commandments. Face it - this is a mysterious passage; let each one be convinced in his own mind. 

While my conscience is pricked when I'm praying with my hat on, (unless it is very cold) my wife is perfectly comfortable being uncovered. I don't have a firm mandate to ask her to cover up. 

We all have different ideas on what should be worn as a covering. Because of this we generate our own standards on what is appropriate since there are no particulars in scripture on what is regulation' and what is not regulation head gear. This tells me the whole idea, if rigidly prescribed, is foreign to our liberty in Christ. 

And if it is not rigidly prescribed then perhaps it is in vain.


----------



## pastorway

The Wife's Role at Church: Covered
by Pastor Phillip M. Way


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

John Murray on Head Coverings


----------



## piningforChrist

There is a book entitled, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, edited by Wayne Grudem and John Piper

Chapter 5 is entitled, "Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity" by Thomas R. Schreiner

He exegetes 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. I highly recommend everyone interested to read it:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter5.html


----------



## BJClark

headcoverings

Women

Here are two articles I found on the subject, the second has some other interesting thoughts as well.

Such as 

"when female rule becomes common, Isaiah 3:12 indicates it must be seen as the judgment of God."

Makes me wonder if liberals REALLY want Hilary as president.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

I will not condemn anyone who does wear a literal covering. I do not believe it is a law/liberty issue. For one thing the law did not bind any woman to wear such a covering. I will advocate that we are indeed free from the ceremonial and judicial laws (and the curse of the moral law). I disagree with some of those who promote literal coverings and those who are against literal coverings based on their reasoning and conclusions. I respect those who cover despite what they desire to do over those who immediately dismiss the passage knowing they do not wish to cover. THAT is what I would argue against - people taking a stance due to preference over obedience; that is a crime of reading a passage to fit one's biased intentions.
With that, my view, and thus the reason my wise does not cover is as follows: 

During apostolic times (before the canonized word of God), women, like men would be empowered to speak up in church to utter an inspired prayer or prophecy. Paul already made it clear that women were not to rule over men in the church, but to remain silent in regards to ruling and teaching (1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35). When such a situation came up, they were to cover their heads with a covering during such to proclaim as a sign that they are still acting in holy submission while speaking since they are not remaining silent, but they are still acknowledging that they are not ruling or teaching over men while the church is assembled. To do such and not wear a sign would or could lead to confusion in regards to Paul's instruction that women are to refrain from addressing the congregation during the assembly. Since the sign gifts have ceased with the Apostles and the establishment of the finalized and complete canon of scripture, such situations do not come up anymore, thus head coverings are no longer used.

Some commentators, such as O. Palmer Robertson and James B. Jordan support such a view. In 1993 (before the Federal Vision controversy) James Jordan wrote an article that explains it in more detail: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh054.htm.

Honestly, in my opinion I believe that the passage in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is a very difficult passage, more so than the likes of Hebrews 6 and Romans 9, John 6, etc. However, I agree with such as Chrysostom and Calvin that Paul was addressing specific issues in the Corinthian church addressing the more severe to the least (which would be the head covering issue) and then concluding with the greatest offense with the treatment of the sacrament. Which the lack of attention and detail explains why it appears to be a difficult passage to understand.


----------



## heartoflesh

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> John Murray on Head Coverings



I'm not sure I understand Murray's argument. Is he saying women shouldn't pray in church?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> John Murray on Head Coverings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand Murray's argument. Is he saying women shouldn't pray in church?
Click to expand...


To clarify, by praying Murray means "leading in prayer or exercising the gift of prophesying" which is forbidden for women in public worship (1 Cor. 14.34-35).


----------



## non dignus

> Paul appears to be giving a specific and local application to a universal principle.



Trevor,


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> The Wife's Role at Church: Covered
> by Pastor Phillip M. Way



Pastor Way,

I take it your wife wears a shawl to cover her hair in Church. Does it cause some discomfort in the other women who don't cover their heads? How do you manage the difference of opinions? Although a seemingly minor issue, nevertheless it would connote a right way and a wrong way in the very big issue of submission. 

PS I confess I didn't listen to the audio. Could I access written text?


----------



## pastorway

I do not have a written text of this sermon. In order to listen for FREE all you have to do is subscribe to sermon audios weekly email report.

In the sermon I make a case for properly and Biblically defining the term "covered." 

I agree that women should be covered. My wife does not wear a head covering at church. 

You will have to listen to the sermon to put the two together!

Phillip


----------



## non dignus

Thank you sir.


----------



## Jie-Huli

I remember posting quite a lot on this subject in another thread earlier in the year, and I will not be able to post much more on this right now. But since it seems there are some new participants here who seem to believe headcovering is not a requirement in modern times, I would just like to put forward one question for consideration:

Aberrant interpretations aside, I believe it is clear to most that the command in 1 Corinthians is that women should cover their heads during worship. The argument many put forward is that this command was only an application of a larger scriptural principle (male headship) in a particular cultural setting, and that the specific command of headcovering is not a requirement for Christians in later times in different cultural settings.

My question is this: how can you arrive at this conclusion "Sola Scriptura"? The plain face meaning of the passage is a command for women to cover their heads while "praying and prophesying", and while it is obviously related to male headship, there is no evidence in the passage itself that this physical symbol of headship, headcovering, was not an enduring command. There is nothing within the Scriptures themselves which would prove this was only a temporary command addressed to the people in that culture. So the only way you can arrive at that conclusion is to decide, based upon your own human reasoning and view of the worth of the practise, that Paul would not have meant such a command for a physical symbol to be binding in later ages.

Now, how is this consistent with "Sola Scriptura"? How can we decide which parts of Scripture were only aimed at the culture of that time, if the Bible itself does not tell us this?


----------



## Steve Owen

> How can we decide which parts of Scripture were only aimed at the culture of that time, if the Bible itself does not tell us this?



John 13:13-15. * "You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am, If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done for you."*

Here is what appears to be a clear instruction from our Lord Himself to ash one another's feet. I am aware of certain sects that have carried out this practice in the past, but I don't think any mainstream churches do so today.
Why not? And if not, why do we insist upon head coverings for women?

Dr Peter Masters ('Not like any Other Book', _Wakeman Press_, 2004. ISBN 1-870855-43-4 )recommends four tests for deciding whether a thing either commanded or recorded as an example of conduct was intended to be temporary or permanent in the life of believers and the Church.

*1. All Scripture is binding today unless Scripture itself cancels, limits or modifies what it prescribes.

2. All Scripture is binding today unless the passage records immoral or irreligious behaviour.

3. All Scripture is binding today unless that which is required appears obscurely in one text only, and is not even hinted at elsewhere* (eg. 1Cor 15:29- Martin ).

*4. All Scripture is binding today unless it can be proved that the thing prescribed may be fully obeyed in different ways in different ages and customs.*

With reference to No.4, Masters suggests asking two questions:-

*A. Was the act a social custom in Bible times?

B. Can the underlying principle or purpose be equally well expressed in some other way? (In other words, is the act carried out in Bible times the only way to express the principle?)*

If the answer to both questions is 'yes' (says Masters), then the physical, outward act is cultural, and it is not necessary to carry out that act today, although the principle must be obeyed and expressed in the appropriate way for our time and culture.

Martin

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Dr Peter Masters ('Not like any Other Book', _Wakeman Press_, 2004. ISBN 1-870855-43-4 )recommends four tests for deciding whether a thing either commanded or recorded as an example of conduct was intended to be temporary or permanent in the life of believers and the Church.
> 
> *1. All Scripture is binding today unless Scripture itself cancels, limits or modifies what it prescribes.
> 
> 2. All Scripture is binding today unless the passage records immoral or irreligious behaviour.
> 
> 3. All Scripture is binding today unless that which is required appears obscurely in one text only, and is not even hinted at elsewhere* (eg. 1Cor 15:29- Martin ).
> 
> *4. All Scripture is binding today unless it can be proved that the thing prescribed may be fully obeyed in different ways in different ages and customs.*
> 
> With reference to No.4, Masters suggests asking two questions:-
> 
> *A. Was the act a social custom in Bible times?
> 
> B. Can the underlying principle or purpose be equally well expressed in some other way? (In other words, is the act carried out in Bible times the only way to express the principle?)*
> 
> If the answer to both questions is 'yes' (says Masters), then the physical, outward act is cultural, and it is not necessary to carry out that act today, although the principle must be obeyed and expressed in the appropriate way for our time and culture.
> 
> Martin
> 
> [Edited on 12-2-2005 by Martin Marprelate]



Greetings, Martin. I do have this book by Dr. Masters. In fact, I have read most of his books, and have quite recently, on two completely unrelated threads (alcohol consumption and guidance from God), argued very much in favour of his writings. I am in agreement with him most of the time, and have much affection for him.

However, I do question his third and fourth principles given above. The first and second principles he gives are certainly correct . . . both logically necessary and supported by the direct teaching of Scripture. The third principle, while I understand the sentiment, requires great care . . . for although the headcovering issue is covered in only one passage, quite a lot of attention is devoted to it and it is written with clarity.

And as for his fourth principle, all I can say is that I do not see any Scriptural justification for this proposition. It seems a rather humanly pragmatic statement. If a command is given in Scripture, what right do we have, based on our own judgment outside of Scripture, to decide that the purposes behind it can be applied just as well in another fashion in our own culture, and that we do not need to follow the command as written? Where has Scripture itself given us this license? I believe this method of interpretation can open the door to many dangers. And so I must, with respect and kindness, disagree with Dr. Masters here.


----------



## Steve Owen

Hi J-H,
You wrote:-


> If a command is given in Scripture, what right do we have, based on our own judgment outside of Scripture, to decide that the purposes behind it can be applied just as well in another fashion in our own culture, and that we do not need to follow the command as written?



I can sympathize with your sentiments here, but may I refer you to John 13:13-15 which I quoted before? Does your church practise foot-washing? If not, how do you justify not obeying what appears to be a clear command from the Lord?

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I can sympatize with your sentiments here, but may I refer you to John 13:13-15 which I quoted before? Does your church practise foot-washing? If not, how do you justify not obeying what appears to be a clear command from the Lord?
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin



I am afraid I do not have the time to respond fully to this at the moment. But I will say I do believe the passages in question are different. In 1 Corinthians, Paul's statements regarding headcovering were clearly addressed to all the churches of God, and laid down that headcovering was required of women during times of worship. It quite directly lays down a practise for Christian churches.

Whereas in John 13, the setting had nothing to do with corporate worship, and the Lord was speaking specifically to His disciples, and it is not apparent to me that he has given a command of practise for the Christian churches.

I know this question deserves a more thorough answer than that, but this is all I can say for now.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli


----------



## pastorway

> In 1 Corinthians, Paul's statements regarding headcovering were clearly addressed to all the churches of God, and laid down that headcovering was required of women during times of worship. It quite directly lays down a practise for Christian churches.



It lays down a principle that is to be applied culturally wherever we are. Think about it this way, how would you apply these verses in a culture that said that a woman who covered her head was hiding her glory and dishonoring her husband. Would you instruct women in that culture to cover their heads? I should hope not. Or what about a culture in which if a man takes off his hat he is being effeminate and showing others that his wife is dominant? 

We preach obedience to apply the principle - men should lead in their homes and their families and women should be submissive, covered under proper authority, whatever the outward manifestation of this may be!

To apply the cultural standard of Paul's day based on the Biblical principle he was teaching is to confuse what Paul was instructing the church at Corinth. The cultural standard is no longer applicable, but the principle is eternal!

Phillip

[Edited on 12-2-05 by pastorway]


----------



## non dignus

If a command is universal, and supported by natural law etc. then wouldn't we find it somewhere in the OT?

Foot washing is an excellant example of a particular act for a general concept.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> Finally, do you remove your hat during times of prayer (outdoors at a picnic, for example)? If so, what is that but an application of this passage as it applies to men, recognising that the covering is a head garment. Women covering their heads with cloth coverings during prayer/worship is simply the corresponding application of the feminine side of this passage.



I find Calvin's comments on men wearing hats in church quite humorous. I didn´t think of it, but every time anyone sees a picture of Calvin he is wearing that ski hat.

Check out what he says:



> Prophesying I take here to mean "” declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers, (as afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14,) as praying means preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people "” which is the part of the public teacher, 624 for Paul is not arguing here as to every kind of prayer, but as to solemn prayer in public. Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. *For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit*. Paul means nothing more than this "” that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and *this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold*. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is Ï„Î¿ Ï€Ïá½³Ï€Î¿Î½ "” decorum If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> 
> In 1 Corinthians, Paul's statements regarding headcovering were clearly addressed to all the churches of God, and laid down that headcovering was required of women during times of worship. It quite directly lays down a practise for Christian churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It lays down a principle that is to be applied culturally wherever we are. Think about it this way, how would you apply these verses in a culture that said that a woman who covered her head was hiding her glory and dishonoring her husband. Would you instruct women in that culture to cover their heads? I should hope not. Or what about a culture in which if a man takes off his hat he is being effeminate and showing others that his wife is dominant?
> 
> We preach obedience to apply the principle - men should lead in their homes and their families and women should be submissive, covered under proper authority, whatever the outward manifestation of this may be!
> 
> To apply the cultural standard of Paul's day based on the Biblical principle he was teaching is to confuse what Paul was instructing the church at Corinth. The cultural standard is no longer applicable, but the principle is eternal!
> 
> Phillip
> 
> [Edited on 12-2-05 by pastorway]
Click to expand...

With all due respect to Pastor Way,
I think this post highlights some of the _problems_ with using a "cultural hermeneutic". In Culture X, modesty (as *we* understand it, is non-existent, an alien concept. Women do the "Janet Jackson Superbowl thing" and that practice equals modesty. "Overdressing" indicates homosexuality. So, do we allow that this is basically just a cultural thing? One could cite "degree" (an arbitrary concept) as part of his argument, but the basic problem remains.

One cannot argue "culture" without proving the cultural point he is trying to make _in that particular context._ In other words, every "cultural argument" regarding a Scripture practice must be made independent of every other culture argument, and should rest principally upon the text of Scripture itself, although it may be buttressed by evidence from alongside Scripture.

Scripture and the Christian Faith is transformative. This is not to say that every culture ends up looking exactly the same by virtue of the Bible's influence, but it does mean that cultural habits that violate Scripture norms are to be smashed, like so many idols. So, before we condone practices that are markedly different from what we are told was the biblical norm, simply because we can't see an advantage in challenging it, we need to decide the question independently of our current attitudes.

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Jumping in. Please see this thread. It answers the "cultural only" issue (please look throughout history and various cultures...the headcovering has literally stood the test of time). It also addresses other issues. Much of the offerings are of prominent church leaders, both past and present.

http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9794#pid195390

On a personal note...I have never had anyone be offended by my covering that wasn't already offended by my being a Christian before I started covering. Most actually find it interesting, disagree, or open themselves up to a discussion on it. Some have come to cover themselves.

I know many ppl that practice the holy kiss and footwashing. I avoid the kiss unless it's on the cheek...I know of too much illness passed around due to this practice. On the footwashing note, I would not be against the practice, however it is not part of the churches we attend. I do not criticize those that don't cover, but I do encourage and inform. I have a variety of lovely coverings (that completely cover, not the "doily" as one of you pointed out either to be snide or because that is the only kind you have seen...I'll hope it was the latter). A covering doesn't have to be an ugly, stiff, or prescribed thing. You will find on the link plenty of links to places that offer a variety of similar to what I have. If you go to my blog and backtrack a couple of pages you will find a recent picture of me in a covering.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> I find Calvin's comments on men wearing hats in church quite humorous.



I find his most famous comment on women (not) covering to be humourous (and sadly true looking at society around us) as well.

"When women stop covering their heads, they shall start revealing their breasts" John Calvin


----------



## wsw201

I see you found it!!


----------



## LadyFlynt

yep! and I've missed being here.


----------



## py3ak

Colleen,

Do you know where that Calvin quote comes from? I thought it was great, and would like to see the whole discussion.


----------



## LadyFlynt

(It was from his sermons...here's the exact quote I was able to find...this is posted in the other thread as well as his commentary on the passage itself) 

John Calvin (1509-1564)

The great theologian of the Reformation preached three sermons from 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 from which the following excerpts are taken.

"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature"¦.So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."

"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability "” that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not"¦" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)


----------



## LadyFlynt

BTW, the other thread also addresses the OT precedent as well. Women having their head covered (or rather removing their covering for a test of fidelity) is mentioned in Leviticus.


----------



## LadyFlynt

No problem for me...I've already been in a church that practiced it (men kissed men and women kissed women)...just make certain it lands on the cheek (I'm freakish about passing colds and such). I also used to be greeted every Sunday morning by a frenchman at an old church of mine by a kiss on the cheek as well. I was one of the few ladies that didn't misunderstand this old man's intent and fully accepted it just as if he was shaking my hand on the way by.

[Edited on 12-9-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## LadyFlynt

It says to give a holy kiss...it doesn't say where or how. The face is the typical place. I don't read in scripture where it states on the lips. LOL!

(goes to pull out the bowl and towel...figures it can't be worse than clipping hubby's ugly toenails)

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> "......men kissed men and women kissed women)...just make certain it lands on the cheek (I'm freakish about passing colds and such)..."
> 
> 
> What about Sola Scriptura?
> 
> 
> You have added to Scripture by putting these extra-Biblical commands upon the practice!
> 
> 
> 
> We are also told to wash the feet of the saints......
> 
> 
> My toes are getting awful dirty, too!



These sorts of arguments have never been the least bit persuasive to me.

Each of these issues is distinct, and should each be examined on their own, sola scriptura. The contexts of the "footwashing" passage and the "headcovering" passage, for example, are completely different, and to lump them together without examining the differences in the contexts and what is actually said in each passage does nothing to advance our understanding of any of these things, as fun as comparing them may be for you rhetorically.

I have yet to see anyone put forward a logical, persuasive argument, truly based on the principle of sola scriptura, as to why the command of headcovering in worship is not binding today.

If you believe that the sola scriptura principle would require footwashing with the same force that it requires headcovering (I am not granting that is true, but this seems to be what you are implying), then why would you not be arguing that both should be practised rather than making sport of them?


----------



## Romans922

Does anyone here interpret the scripture references by Paul on headcoverings as a woman's hair?

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Romans922]


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Does anyone here interpret the scripture references by Paul on headcoverings as a woman's hair?
> 
> [Edited on 12-10-2005 by Romans922]



If you look back to the beginning of this thread, that was the question which was first addressed.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Also, again...I not only appeal to scripture...I also appeal to history. Headcovering has proven to not be a cultural thing.

My basic point in the last few posts though were that he was throwing those arguements at the wrong person. The context may have been different, I'm not totally certain. I believe there is a thread where we have argued the footwashing before. However the headcovering is the issue that I have most studied along this line (as I obviously cover and have had to defend my position).

[Edited on 12-10-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Stay away from things strangled...and blood.



As a matter of fact I do stay away from eating blood (and strangled animals as well, though that issue does not often come up) . . . as do almost all Christians I know in Asia, where eating pig blood is actually very common. We are clearly commanded not to eat blood in both the Old and New Testaments. 



> The eternal principles of Scripture vary cross-culturally sometimes...especially so in outward external practices.
> 
> "From the outset it should be noted that Paul does not wish to set in concrete a rule about specific practices for all places and regarding head coverings. (When he does state a universal and permanent rule for practice he often refers to a direct command from God, as in 1 Cor. 14:37, or to the teaching or practice "in every church" or "in all the churches," as in 1 Cor. 4:17: 7:17; 14:33).



We find the following statements in the 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 passage on headcovering:

"Now I praise you brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the *ordinances*, as I delivered them to you." v.2

"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." v.9-10

"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, *neither do the churches of God*." v.16

Paul certainly has said that headcovering was the practise of all the churches in v.16, so it is quite cheeky of the author you quoted to ignore this verse. All of the verses above work against the idea that the headcovering command was meant as just a local application of a general principle of modesty. When Paul gives the reason for headcovering in v. 9-10 he ties it to the creation and the mother and father of all mankind, Adam and Eve. He did not say "For this cause, women ought to dress modestly, which in your particular culture means you ought to wear headcoverings". He said "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." 

There is absolutely nothing in the context which gives any support to the notion that the specific command was only a local cultural application and was not meant to binding in later times. Just the opposite. That is what I meant when I said it was impossible to arrive at that position sola scriptura.

The argument you quoted I have heard and seen many times before, and I suppose it seems logical enough to many who have a prediliction against covering in the first place . . . but it certainly does not do justice to the Cortinthians 11 passage. It seems little else but an extrabiblical rationalisation of a modernistic preference to do away with headcoverings; it cannot actually offer a verse-by-verse interpretation and explanation of this passage to support the view, because many of Paul's statements in the passage are at complete variance with it.

To really convince me that the headcovering command is not binding, you would have to show me evidence _from the Bible_ that the headcovering practice was only meant as a non-binding local cultural example of a larger principle. Which _verse of Scripture_ do you offer in support of this view?

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli


[Edited on 12-10-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## non dignus

*To really convince me that the headcovering command is not binding, you would have to show me evidence from the Bible that the headcovering practice was only meant as a non-binding local cultural example of a larger principle. Which verse of Scripture do you offer in support of this view?*

"If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances, 
21. Handle not, nor taste, nor touch 
22. (all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men? "
Col 2


----------



## non dignus

Dear Jie-Huli,

I appreciate your knowledge of the scriptures and your zeal. You make a very good argument here. I believe the head-covering issue is a local custom for a universal principle _based on sola-scriptura_. I'm sure you know Sola Scripture does not negate tradition but rather 'trumps' it. There is much historical tradition contrary to this Corinthian tradition.

Commands in scripture once ordained by God but now nullified, when practiced today, would qualify as commandments of men. Similarly the Colossian admonition I cite from Paul would apply to a custom once normal but now out of fashion. The churches of which Paul speaks were in their infancy and ought not be imitated in matters of conscience.

I don't mean to be flippant here but we do not ordinarily worship God while hanging upside down. The reason we don't is that the principle of hanging upside down is absent from scripture. I say this because an argument from silence applies here. Paul was speaking to a church(es) in real time. There seems to be something left out here that is already known to the listeners. This is a good assumption because the passage doesn't give enough information to completely understand the issue. Because it isn't thoroughly explained it's reasonable to assume Paul is specifying to the Corinthians only. Had head-coverings been discussed in even one other passage, and had there been sufficient cross-cultural information given, the practice might be warranted.

Paul also discusses vicarious baptism for the dead. Here too, there is much left out of the passage which assumes the listeners understand what Paul is addressing. This is why we don't baptize for the dead because the scripture just doesn't communicate it to us as law. However, the ban on eating blood is addressed in Genesis and Acts and is a good example of a precept being mentioned in different contexts.

Another argument from Sola Scriptura: This ordinance is dischordant with the whole tenor of the new covenant. It is certainly 'the odd man out' with little in common with other NT practices. Rather, it has more in common with the laws of legalistic religions such as Islam and Hinduism. It is no wonder that head-covering is found more often in legalistic Christian sects. Traditions in various churches speak volumes on what the Holy Spirit is or is not doing. When I see glossolalia, spoken of highly by Paul, in Arminian and other works-oriented Churches I can be confident it is not from the proper spirit.

Common sense tells us that if our cultural standards here and now diametrically oppose the Corinthian head-covering standard, we would be needlessly imposing a stumbling block to the gospel if the alien standard were enforced. This again is contrary to Paul's attitude of being all things to all men. 

Scripture alone is ABLE to unambiguously illuminate our path. If the path is murky then it's safe to remain comfortably agnostic.


----------



## Steve Owen

David wrote:-


> Another argument from Sola Scriptura: This ordinance is discordant with the whole tenor of the new covenant. It is certainly 'the odd man out' with little in common with other NT practices. Rather, it has more in common with the laws of legalistic religions such as Islam and Hinduism.




Martin


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Commands in scripture once ordained by God but now nullified, when practiced today, would qualify as commandments of men. Similarly the Colossian admonition I cite from Paul would apply to a custom once normal but now out of fashion. The churches of which Paul speaks were in their infancy and ought not be imitated in matters of conscience.
> 
> I don't mean to be flippant here but we do not ordinarily worship God while hanging upside down. The reason we don't is that the principle of hanging upside down is absent from scripture. I say this because an argument from silence applies here. Paul was speaking to a church(es) in real time. There seems to be something left out here that is already known to the listeners. This is a good assumption because the passage doesn't give enough information to completely understand the issue. Because it isn't thoroughly explained it's reasonable to assume Paul is specifying to the Corinthians only. Had head-coverings been discussed in even one other passage, and had there been sufficient cross-cultural information given, the practice might be warranted.
> 
> Paul also discusses vicarious baptism for the dead. Here too, there is much left out of the passage which assumes the listeners understand what Paul is addressing. This is why we don't baptize for the dead because the scripture just doesn't communicate it to us as law. However, the ban on eating blood is addressed in Genesis and Acts and is a good example of a precept being mentioned in different contexts.
> 
> Another argument from Sola Scriptura: This ordinance is dischordant with the whole tenor of the new covenant. It is certainly 'the odd man out' with little in common with other NT practices. Rather, it has more in common with the laws of legalistic religions such as Islam and Hinduism. It is no wonder that head-covering is found more often in legalistic Christian sects. Traditions in various churches speak volumes on what the Holy Spirit is or is not doing. When I see glossolalia, spoken of highly by Paul, in Arminian and other works-oriented Churches I can be confident it is not from the proper spirit.
> 
> Common sense tells us that if our cultural standards here and now diametrically oppose the Corinthian head-covering standard, we would be needlessly imposing a stumbling block to the gospel if the alien standard were enforced. This again is contrary to Paul's attitude of being all things to all men.
> 
> Scripture alone is ABLE to unambiguously illuminate our path. If the path is murky then it's safe to remain comfortably agnostic.



Non-dignus,

I am fully willing to believe that you (and others here) are arguing against headcovering, not because of a personal distaste for the practise, but because you really believe it to be a distraction from the spiritual focus of the Gospel age and an unnecessary and possibly divisive burden to God's people. I believe your motives are sincere and good.

And yet I just cannot agree that this is the proper way to approach the issue. For me, it really boils down to this:

1) Paul's own statements in the 1 Corinthians 11 headcovering passage clearly and directly refute the idea that this is a local custom (as he ties the practise itself to creation and the nature of man and woman, and says that all the churches of God have no other custom). Again, not only do his statements not hint at the command being merely to a specific church, they say just the opposite. And no amount of reasoning can negate the plain words of Scripture. Given that Paul clearly was writing as if it was a universal command, it seems especially haughty for us to believe we have more light than Paul had, that we can understand that it was only a local command even though Paul clearly believed it was a universal command when he was writing it.

2) I do not believe that a Scriptural command is any less binding just because it is mentioned in one place only. While I am certainly not saying that headcovering is a central tenet of the Christian faith, there is no justification at all for the idea that a command must be mentioned in more than one place to be binding. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness. The headcovering passage is very different from the obscure reference to "baptism for the dead" that has been mentioned. The headcovering passage is 15 verses long altogether, and certainly enough information is given for the command to be clear. 

3) There is fundamentally no difference between the cultural argument against headcovering and the cultural argument against forbidding women from preaching. The same exact points that are made against headcovering are also made by "feminists" against the prohibition of women preaching . . . they say that the prohibition was because in that local culture it would have brought reproach on the Christians if the women took positions of leadership, and that it would not be binding once the culture changed such that the public at large would accept such things. And they say as well that such a prohibition is at odds with the rest of the "tenor of the new covenant", which establishes the equality of all those who are in Christ, both male and female. Now how is this the slightest bit different from the cultural argument against headcovering? How can one accept the cultural argument against headcovering, and still have a leg to stand on in arguing against women preaching? It is true that the prohibition of women preaching is mentioned in more than one place (2 places I believe, as far as the direct prohibition goes), but is this really a strong basis for distinction? After all, the idea that a command must be repeated in more than one place to prove it was not just a local cultural command is a rather arbitrary one, so people can say that even if the command appears in two passages, both the passages were written about the same time in the same culture so both of them were merely local cultural commands.

I do not mean to be contentious, but when it comes to headcovering, I see a clear command of New Testament Scripture which has nowhere been abrogated, and I do not believe the "cultural argument" against continuing the practise deals at all with the reality of what Paul is actually saying in the passage. I feel like those who argue against it make a nice coherent and pragmatic argument, but it just does not fit at all what is actually written in the Scriptures. Really, sometimes when I read this cultural argument I think people must be looking at a different version of 1 Corinthians than what I have in front of me, because I cannot imagine how they can fit the argument with what is written there.

While this may seem like a small and unimportant issue to some, I would say (1) it was important enough for the Holy Spirit to inspire half a chapter in the Bible about it, and (2) besides the immediate issue of headcovering, I believe the allowances which are made for a Biblical command changing in different cultural contexts opens the door to a great many more serious problems (the issue of women preaching being just one of them). While I trust that no one here goes down those paths, I think it is a lot harder for you to fight against them consistently once you have accepted this method of interpretation in regard to headcovering.

[Edited on 12-11-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> *To really convince me that the headcovering command is not binding, you would have to show me evidence from the Bible that the headcovering practice was only meant as a non-binding local cultural example of a larger principle. Which verse of Scripture do you offer in support of this view?*
> 
> "If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances,
> 21. Handle not, nor taste, nor touch
> 22. (all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men? "
> Col 2



I cannot see how this verse could be applicable to headcovering, as headcovering is a precept given directly in the New Testament Scriptures by Paul the apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That clearly does not fall within the "precepts and doctrines of men", which is surely referring to extrabiblical religious rules. Why would Paul write so strongly and absolutely about the issue of headcoverings in 1 Corinthians if that were one of the "precepts and doctrines of men" to which he did not want Christians to be subjected?

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> *To really convince me that the headcovering command is not binding, you would have to show me evidence from the Bible that the headcovering practice was only meant as a non-binding local cultural example of a larger principle. Which verse of Scripture do you offer in support of this view?*
> 
> "If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances,
> 21. Handle not, nor taste, nor touch
> 22. (all which things are to perish with the using), after the precepts and doctrines of men? "
> Col 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot see how this verse could be applicable to headcovering, as headcovering is a precept given directly in the New Testament Scriptures by Paul the apostle under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That clearly does not fall within the "precepts and doctrines of men", which is surely referring to extrabiblical religious rules. Why would Paul write so strongly and absolutely about the issue of headcoverings in 1 Corinthians if that were one of the "precepts and doctrines of men" to which he did not want Christians to be subjected?
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Jie-Huli
Click to expand...


That is a good question, and all retorts should be made with the utmost caution.

In Acts 15:20 the gentiles are commanded to abstain from strangled animals. Is that still in force today? I don't believe so. I believe those four prohibitions were in consideration of born again Jews in order to cement fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. Granted three of the four are probably binding. (however it's possible sins were not being spoken of here but rather Levitical technicalities)

If someone were to command that I not eat strangled flesh, that would be a 'precept and doctrine of men' that had originally been put forth under inspiration.

Paul wrote forcefully on this because it was a real issue in the churches _ at that time_. And it's also interesting that he packs so much in so few verses leaving us with a multitude of unanswered questions. For instance, what is "....power on her head because of the angels..." ?

To answer that, the best theological minds can only quess.

Dave


----------



## bond-servant

> 1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
> 1Co 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven.
> 1Co 11:6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
> 1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
> 1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
> 1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
> 1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
> 1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
> 1Co 11:12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
> 1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
> 1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
> 1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
> ESV



To take this and apply it to our culture,
Questions arise for me that I don't remember being addressed in either of the threads: 

V4-5, Does this mean that men and women still prophesy? Personally? Corporately? Wouldn't we have to believe this to translate this to our day?

v13: The context here is that the woman should not pray or prophecy corporately uncovered. Culturally then, women were to be covered all the time. If we are to say that we are not to take these Scriptures as culturally only, and apply them to our day, then women cannot pray to God without being covered.So, she would have to be covered 24/7 to NOT adversely effect her prayer life. Wouldn't this be a hinderance to prayer life and minute-minute communion with God? Bedtime prayers? 
If we do take this corporately, that women should not pray or prophecy without a head covering, this implies women are then ALLOWED to pray and prophecy in the church. Didn't Paul tell women to be quiet in church and ask thier husbands at home?

v14: Men and long hair: what about the Nazerite vow where they let thier hair grow long until the vow was performed. Scripture suggests that Paul may have done this. Samson of course too...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> "So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature"¦.So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."
> 
> "Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability "” that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not"¦" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)



I don't say this lightly - but the above is not a scriptuiral argument for head coverings, though it may be a very good argument for chastity. However, head covereings do not belong to that category. They belong in conjunction with pagan temple worship and temple prostitutes (of which I have heard nothing in this or any other thread just yet) verses how Christian worship is to be conducted.

Murray makes this mistake as well and incorrectly says, " This is within the scope of the particular agrument of verses 14, 15 and does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5, 6, 13. " This is simply not the case, since, as would have behooved him, to take into consideration why coverings at all were needeful in light of temple prostitution, and how that carried over into Christian worship. 

Some thoughts to ponder - 1) What did temple prostitutes look like, and what was their role, and 2) how would this have affected their conversion and interaction int he social climate of the Jewish Christian synagogue?

Don't argue about practice under you undergird the theology behind it.


----------



## Steve Owen

There is a new book out on the subject of dress codes for women in NT times.
*Roman Wives, Roman Widows, the appearance of new women and the Pauline communities* by Bruce W. Winter (_Eerdmans_. ISBN 0 802 849 717 ).

I haven't read it, but there is an extract in current issue of the English mag, _Evangelicals Now_, which looks very helpful. You might try going to their website, 
www.e-n.org.uk 

Martin

[Edited on 12-11-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## non dignus

Jie-Huli, you make very persuasive arguments.

Women were not permitted by Paul to speak in church back then. How does that principle work out today? Since we hold many things in common with our forebears we work it out by not permitting women to speak in church.

Paul appeals to creation for his reasons for headcoverings, yes. However, he doesn't appeal to an example of Eve or Sarah wearing a covering. I do recall reading Sarah calling Abraham 'lord'. Perhaps THAT was the sign then of the universal principle of submission in that context.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Jumping in. Please see this thread. It answers the "cultural only" issue (please look throughout history and various cultures...the headcovering has literally stood the test of time). It also addresses other issues. Much of the offerings are of prominent church leaders, both past and present.
> 
> http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=9794#pid195390
> 
> On a personal note...I have never had anyone be offended by my covering that wasn't already offended by my being a Christian before I started covering. Most actually find it interesting, disagree, or open themselves up to a discussion on it. Some have come to cover themselves.
> 
> I know many ppl that practice the holy kiss and footwashing. I avoid the kiss unless it's on the cheek...I know of too much illness passed around due to this practice. On the footwashing note, I would not be against the practice, however it is not part of the churches we attend. I do not criticize those that don't cover, but I do encourage and inform. I have a variety of lovely coverings (that completely cover, not the "doily" as one of you pointed out either to be snide or because that is the only kind you have seen...I'll hope it was the latter). A covering doesn't have to be an ugly, stiff, or prescribed thing. You will find on the link plenty of links to places that offer a variety of similar to what I have. If you go to my blog and backtrack a couple of pages you will find a recent picture of me in a covering.



Thank you for the link on the historical stuff. I am thinking, perhaps ignorantly so, that history will bear out that *everybody wore head gear all the time. ?!*


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> I don't say this lightly - but the above is not a scriptuiral argument for head coverings, though it may be a very good argument for chastity. However, head covereings do not belong to that category. They belong in conjunction with pagan temple worship and temple prostitutes (of which I have heard nothing in this or any other thread just yet) verses how Christian worship is to be conducted.
> 
> Murray makes this mistake as well and incorrectly says, " This is within the scope of the particular agrument of verses 14, 15 and does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5, 6, 13. " This is simply not the case, since, as would have behooved him, to take into consideration why coverings at all were needeful in light of temple prostitution, and how that carried over into Christian worship.
> 
> Some thoughts to ponder - 1) What did temple prostitutes look like, and what was their role, and 2) how would this have affected their conversion and interaction int he social climate of the Jewish Christian synagogue?
> 
> Don't argue about practice under you undergird the theology behind it.



I do not follow exactly what you are getting at . . . perhaps referring to an argument that the command was given at that time because women would have resembled pagan temple prostitutes if they removed their coverings?

But given that this is not the express basis of Paul's argument as he writes it in 1 Corinthians, how do we conclude that this was the real reason? How is it that extrabiblical historical trivia is allowed to guide so decisively our interpretation of a passage of Scripture which does not even mention the said trivia?

And if the headcovering passage was really about commanding women not to take liberties which would make them look like temple prostitutes, then why, pray tell, does Paul also devote attention in the passage to commanding men _not_ to pray or prophesy with their heads covered? What do men and their being uncovered have to do with temple prostitutes?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Great questions. Finding the answer to them before coming to a conclusion on head coverings would be very prudent! (Just a note: I don't think the historical context is trivial for any passage. It would be very important to any passage to ascertain the historical data. Be assured, the Corinthians knew exactly what Paul was talking about.)


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> (Just a note: I don't think the historical context is trivial for any passage. It would be very important to any passage to ascertain the historical data. Be assured, the Corinthians knew exactly what Paul was talking about.)



I do not disagree that understanding the historical background behind passages of Scipture is important. (The word "trivia" was perhaps not the best word I could have used in my post above . . . substitute the words "data" or "information" and they would do just as well). But I believe that the limits of historical information should be clearly delineated. Such information can supplement or enrich our understanding and appreciation of certain passages, but I do not think that it should be used in such a speculative way to _define_ the meaning of a passage if the passage does not even bring up that historical issue. 

In the present headcovering example, I believe we should trust that the Lord in His providence provided all the information needful for us to understand the injunction within the Scriptures themselves. It seems a strange notion to me that a believer would need to have access to extrabiblical historical anecdotes concerning pagan temple prostitutes in order to make heads or tails of 1 Corinthians 11. Is the Bible sufficient or is it not? If someone was in a remote village with the Bible alone, would he/she be able to come to the correct understanding of this passage in your view? 

And how could we be certain our speculation as to the reason for the command is accurate? If the passage itself hinted at the historical reasons suggested, that would be one thing . . . but if the passage itself does not hint at these things, is our conclusion on how to apply the passage to be based on nothing more certain than our own hypotheses built on whatever level of historical learning we have attained?

The reliability of the historical sources on which we are relying, as well as contradictory evidence from different sources, call this method of interpretation into question even more.

Perhaps you see why I fear that the very principle of _sola scriptura_ is imperiled by this view.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Thank you for the link on the historical stuff. I am thinking, perhaps ignorantly so, that history will bear out that *everybody wore head gear all the time. ?!*



From my posts in the other thread (I would really appreciate if ppl new to the topicwould read the entire thread...may seem tedious, but much of this as far as info I can provide and my own views are already posted there at great length):

The text states specifically prayer...not just assembly. So, yes, personal prayers and devotions are included. In fact, I carry one with me if it isn't already on my head...I used to wear all the time and I am getting back to it, but don't hold legalistically to EVERY WAKING MOMENT--though the thought there is 1) we should always maintain a prayerful attitude (but that then defeats men wearing hats for protective reasons) and if you are a mennonite there is a superstition that you are physically protected from ill by wearing your covering (obviously we don't go with superstitions). My reason for wearing it out and about is in case I need it, I don't have to fumble with it...and dh requested such.

and:

Look to the women in historical context as well...they covered always for prayer. Many times they covered when going out in public (to the market, etc...sometimes for protection and I believe also it was simpler to just keep the covering on as a part of their attire). Many women did cover with something at home but not neccessarily 24/7 etc...it wasn't something that they panicked over should they be seen without one. That's kind of where I am with the issue. (btw, men always removed their hats and such for prayer, unless you were a cardinal or pope with the titled headwear--which I find ridiculous).


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> I find Calvin's comments on men wearing hats in church quite humorous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find his most famous comment on women (not) covering to be humourous (and sadly true looking at society around us) as well.
> 
> "When women stop covering their heads, they shall start revealing their breasts" John Calvin
Click to expand...


Do you agree with Calvin that men can certainly wear hats while worshipping in church?


----------



## LadyFlynt

No...haven't read his comments on that. I presumed from his stand on women covering that he would support men not. Well, shoot! Someone just go throw at him   LOL!


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> "When women stop covering their heads, they shall start revealing their breasts" John Calvin
> 
> 
> WOW!!!
> 
> 
> 
> That's one slippery slope!!
> 
> 
> 
> The funniest quote I've seen all week.



Well, it is downhill from the head . . .


----------



## LadyFlynt

Look around you at society...I'd say a prediction that came true.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> "When women stop covering their heads, they shall start revealing their breasts" John Calvin
> 
> 
> WOW!!!
> 
> 
> 
> *That's one slippery slope!!*
> 
> 
> 
> The funniest quote I've seen all week.





> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Look around you at society...I'd say a prediction that came true.




I have not seen any bare-breasted women in church recently. Have you?

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## LadyFlynt

I've seen close to it...in fact I've seeing half a girl's rear end (literally!) is becoming a common site in church. Was afraid I was going to be exposed to such again this past Sunday when two girls sat down a few chairs ahead of me...the waistlines are that low and the midrifts exposed (and after 6-9in of snow...I'd be freezing!).

[Edited on 12-12-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Look around you at society...I'd say a prediction that came true.



Yes, definitely.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Cor 11:3-10
> 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
> 
> 
> 
> I've known a few women that believe that this means women ought to wear a shawl or hat or some other type of head covering during worship. I was reading through this the other day and re-read it a few times. It seems that the natural reading of the verses would indicate that the "head covering" Paul is referring to is having a full head of hair and that he's not talking about hats or any other accutrement.
> 
> Thoughts?
Click to expand...




in my opinion, which is worth zero....the use of coverings draws undue attention to the piety of a believer much like someone who talks about their fastings. 



r.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Great questions. Finding the answer to them before coming to a conclusion on head coverings would be very prudent! (Just a note: I don't think the historical context is trivial for any passage. It would be very important to any passage to ascertain the historical data. Be assured, the Corinthians knew exactly what Paul was talking about.)



 Matt.

As I recall....apparently there was quite a bit of celebrity promotion going on in Corinth - especially with the feminist agenda. (We aren't the first...) This is the background Paul refers to in his points about modesty and feminine attire. (Remember, the goddess Diana being a huntress/Xena warrior-type?)

Robin 

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by Robin]


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> I have not seen any bare-breasted women in church recently. Have you?
> 
> [Edited on 12-12-2005 by tcalbrecht]



Ummm.. close!  One of the many reasons we left our old place of worship....

Anyway, no one has addressed these questions in this thread or the other head covering thread...



> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> 
> 
> 
> 1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
> 1Co 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven.
> 1Co 11:6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
> 1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
> 1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
> 1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
> 1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
> 1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
> 1Co 11:12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
> 1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
> 1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
> 1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
> ESV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To take this and apply it to our culture,
> Questions arise for me that I don't remember being addressed in either of the threads:
> 
> V4-5, Does this mean that men and women still prophesy? Personally? Corporately? Wouldn't we have to believe this to translate this to our day?
> 
> v13: The context here is that the woman should not pray or prophecy corporately uncovered. Culturally then, women were to be covered all the time. If we are to say that we are not to take these Scriptures as culturally only, and apply them to our day, then women cannot pray to God without being covered.So, she would have to be covered 24/7 to NOT adversely effect her prayer life. Wouldn't this be a hinderance to prayer life and minute-minute communion with God? Bedtime prayers?
> If we do take this corporately, that women should not pray or prophecy without a head covering, this implies women are then ALLOWED to pray and prophecy in the church. Didn't Paul tell women to be quiet in church and ask thier husbands at home?
> 
> v14: Men and long hair: what about the Nazerite vow where they let thier hair grow long until the vow was performed. Scripture suggests that Paul may have done this. Samson of course too...
Click to expand...


Anyone?


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> Anyway, no one has addressed these questions in this thread or the other head covering thread...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> V4-5, Does this mean that men and women still prophesy? Personally? Corporately? Wouldn't we have to believe this to translate this to our day?
Click to expand...


Here is an answer from John Gill:

"This is to be understood of praying and prophesying in public, and not in private; and not to be restrained to the person that is the mouth of the congregation to God in prayer, or who preaches to the people in the name of God; but to be applied to every individual person that attends public worship, that joins in prayer with the minister, and hears the word preached by him, which is meant by prophesying; for not foretelling future events is here meant, but explaining the word of God, the prophecies of the Old Testament, or any part of Scripture, unless singing of psalms should rather be designed, since that is sometimes expressed by prophesying: so in 1Sa_10:5 "thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place, with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp before them, and they shall prophesy". The Targum renders it thus, ×•×× ×•×Ÿ ×ž×©×‘×—×™×Ÿ, "and they shall sing praise"; upon which Kimchi observes, that it is as if it was said, their prophecy shall be ×©×™×¨×•×ª, "songs" and praises to God, spoken by the Holy Ghost. So in 1Sa_19:23 it is said of Saul, that he "went on and prophesied". The Targum is, he went on, ×•×ž×©×‘×—, "and praised". And again, "he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied". Targum, ×•×©×‘×—, "and praised", or sung praise. Once more, in 1Ch_25:1 it is said of Asaph, and others, that they "should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals"; which Kimchi explains of Asaph's singing vocally, and of his sons playing upon musical instruments. "


----------



## non dignus

Anyway, no one has addressed these questions in this thread or the other head covering thread...



> _Originally posted by bond-servant_
> 
> 
> 
> 1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
> 
> ESV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> v14: Men and long hair: what about the Nazerite vow where they let thier hair grow long until the vow was performed. Scripture suggests that Paul may have done this. Samson of course too...
Click to expand...


Anyone? [/quote]

You raise a thorny issue for those affirming a universal context for this. I don't think Samson was disgraced.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I've never seen scripture suggesting that Paul was a Nazarite.

I answer the 24/7 arguement in the other thread.

What does it mean to "prophesy"...Hubby did a word study on it and came up with "to give testamony or witness". So yes, women do still prophesy.


----------



## non dignus

Pastors are NT prophets.

Elders are NT kings.

Deacons are NT priests.

??


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Pastors are NT prophets.
> 
> Elders are NT kings.
> 
> Deacons are NT priests.
> 
> ??



What? Where did this come from and what's your point?


----------



## gwine

> I've never seen scripture suggesting that Paul was a Nazarite.



Not from birth, but he may have taken the vow when he came to Jerusalem.



> Act 21:17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly.
> Act 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
> Act 21:19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
> Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,
> Act 21:21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
> Act 21:22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
> Act 21:23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
> Act 21:24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.



And from Gill . . .


> Act 21:24 - Them take, and purify, thyself with them,.... That is, join thyself to them, make one of their number, and attend to the rules prescribed to a Nazarite, who is to be holy to the Lord; and in case of any ceremonial uncleanness, is to be cleansed, or purified in the manner directed, Num_6:5.
> 
> And be at charges with them; join with them in the expense, for the offerings to be made at the end of the vows, or when the days of separation are fulfilled, Num_6:13.
> 
> That they may shave their heads; according to the law in Num_6:18. This was done in ×œ×©×›×ª ×”× ×–×™×¨×™×, the chamber of the Nazarites (r); for there the Nazarites boiled their peace offerings, and shaved their hair, and put it under the pot, in the fire that was under it: Maimonides says (s),
> 
> "if he shaved in the city it was excusable; but whether he shaved in the city or in the sanctuary, under the pot his hair must be cast; and he did not shave until the door of the court was opened, as it is said, "at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation", Num_6:18 not that he shaved over against the door, for that would be a contempt of the sanctuary.''
> 
> Moreover, it may be observed, that a person who had not made a vow, or fulfilled a Nazariteship himself, which was the apostle's case, yet he might join in bearing the expenses of others, at the time of their shaving and cleansing: for so run the Jewish canons (t);
> 
> "he that says, upon me be the shaving of a Nazarite, he is bound to bring the offerings of shaving for purification, and he may offer them by the hand of what Nazarite he pleases; he that says, upon me be half the offerings of a Nazarite, or if he says, upon me be half the shaving of a Nazarite, he brings half the offerings by what Nazarite he will, and that Nazarite perfects his offerings out of that which is his.''


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Pastors are NT prophets.
> 
> Elders are NT kings.
> 
> Deacons are NT priests.
> 
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? Where did this come from and what's your point?
Click to expand...


Sorry. That was a little abstract.

My point was that yes, women still prophesy in a teaching and witnessing role. I suppose it is "post-canon prophecy".


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> What does it mean to "prophesy"...Hubby did a word study on it and came up with "to give testamony or witness". So yes, women do still prophesy.



Do they still do so while in assembly?

In other words, are there still cases today where a woman is able to speak up in church through prophecy or prayer?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Purifying himself with them does not indicate that he took the same oath. Seems to be reading too much into the text. Also, I've never seen historical reference to Paul being a Nazarite either. Either way, I don't see where it would contradict what he says on the hair or covering.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Again...I ask that you read the other thread and take it up with the writings there first.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> What does it mean to "prophesy"...Hubby did a word study on it and came up with "to give testamony or witness". So yes, women do still prophesy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they still do so while in assembly?
> 
> In other words, are there still cases today where a woman is able to speak up in church through prophecy or prayer?
Click to expand...


In churches I have attended there have been times that the pastor has opened the floor to testamony. Women included. One pastor required that the woman's husband or father stand with her...in the case of a woman not having someone to stand with her an elder of the church would. In my view, her head being covered would be enough. This is different than a woman having a role in the service...ie teaching, reading, etc.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> What does it mean to "prophesy"...Hubby did a word study on it and came up with "to give testamony or witness". So yes, women do still prophesy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they still do so while in assembly?
> 
> In other words, are there still cases today where a woman is able to speak up in church through prophecy or prayer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In churches I have attended there have been times that the pastor has opened the floor to testamony. Women included. One pastor required that the woman's husband or father stand with her...in the case of a woman not having someone to stand with her an elder of the church would. In my view, her head being covered would be enough. This is different than a woman having a role in the service...ie teaching, reading, etc.
Click to expand...


Whether or not churches should allow such "œtestimonies" aside, in such an event I would agree with you. Paul made it clear that women were not to speak in regards to ruling or teaching during the assembly, yet he also addressed that women were empowered by the Spirit during the Apostolic times with spiritual utterances of prayer or prophecy. In order to not despise such utterances (1 Thessalonians 5:20), women were certainly permitted to speak in such events; however, to avoid confusion and maintain the order, Paul required them to wear a covering signifying there submission even though they are speaking up during the assembly.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Purifying himself with them does not indicate that he took the same oath. Seems to be reading too much into the text. Also, I've never seen historical reference to Paul being a Nazarite either. Either way, I don't see where it would contradict what he says on the hair or covering.





> Again...I ask that you read the other thread and take it up with the writings there first.



My apologies, but I really had and have no intention of entering the debate. All I was trying to point out, and I'm sure you've read this many time, is that if you read Acts 21:23 _ff_ it seems obvious that the four men were under a Nazarite vow and it also seems obvious that Paul lived in observance to the law. I don't think I am reading too much into the text because I did say that Paul *may* have joined with them in taking the vow. Gill seems to thinks so, as he also does in Acts 18.

But I digress, and I will learn to stay out of these discussions.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Okay, just going to be honest here.

I think this thread has gotton way off track. I think there are those that are intentionally doing so (gerry thanks for responding, I don't think you were one of those...you were just answering a question). Personally, the subject is burnt toast and unfortunately I don't have the power to shut this one down. For those that are new to the subject...really...read what's already been written in the other thread...I'm fine if you disagree...I appreciate Matt's honesty on the subject...but the strawmen are going the same direction the submission thread went...to the stars and moon next.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Agreed - stick a fork in it - its done for now....


----------

