# Head Covering



## Dieter Schneider (May 25, 2015)

Interested friends may wish to read M Watts on the subject. Any helpful comments would be appreciated (via email would be fine, too!)


----------



## Romans922 (May 25, 2015)

Looks good to me (generally speaking).


----------



## Andrew P.C. (May 25, 2015)

Dieter Schneider said:


> Interested friends may wish to read M Watts on the subject. Any helpful comments would be appreciated (via email would be fine, too!)



The only thing I can tell you is that this has been discussed many times. Nothing new in this treatment by Mr. Watts.

My question would be this: if it is sinful to NOT wear headcoverings (which is clearly stated in this treatment and among others on the board) then should those members be put under church discipline?


----------



## TylerRay (May 25, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> > Interested friends may wish to read M Watts on the subject. Any helpful comments would be appreciated (via email would be fine, too!)
> ...



As with all things, we have to operate in accord with the level of understanding in our various congregations and denominations. Ideally, this matter would be well understood, and it would be a serious issue if a woman stubbornly refused to cover her head, as in Paul's day (the Apostle uses very strong language when dealing with the issue). Today, most churches are not in a position to make a big deal out of this issue. The people have to be shepherded gently into these things over a long period of time before they can be held to a high standard regarding them.

That's my , anyway.


----------



## MW (May 25, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> My question would be this: if it is sinful to NOT wear headcoverings (which is clearly stated in this treatment and among others on the board) then should those members be put under church discipline?



There are some groups that do this; but the passage itself only speaks of "dishonour" and "shame," not "sin" per se.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 25, 2015)

1Co 11:16 "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." ? How does this verse play in?


----------



## Romans922 (May 25, 2015)

He states in the article, "Before finishing, the apostle anticipates that some will object to his teaching on this subject. He was not wrong about that. People are still objecting! However, they should understand one thing: they are op-posing God's Word; they are acting con-trary to general practice; and they are disturbing the peace of Christian churches - 'If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God' (1 Cor 11:16).It is undoubtedly the teaching of God's Word that, in public worship, men should have nothing on their heads and women should wear a hat, beret, or some other covering. Church reformation requires that we attend to this matter. 'If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them' (Jn 13:17)."


----------



## Miss Marple (May 26, 2015)

I interpret it as "If anyone has an argument (against whatever this section is teaching, which I find very inscrutable), then we have no such custom in the church," like, we aren't doing it (whatever it is) it is not worth wrangling over.

No doubt my exegesis will be called into question and I know there is sharp division on this passage but honestly I can't pick up any other meaning from that statement.


----------



## yeutter (May 26, 2015)

Brian Schwertley has dealt with this issue at length. Reformed Online - Home
This is a major issue here in Nepal. Some are falsely teaching that women should not wear head-covering when praying.


----------

