# Should women have their heads covered in worship?



## Jon 316

> 1 Corinthians 11
> 1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
> 
> Head Coverings
> 
> 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 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. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
> 13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her[a] for a covering. 16 *But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God*.



So... head coverings, yes or no?

If no, why not? 

Does verse 16 not imply that this was not a cultural practice but it was binding for all the churches of God?


----------



## Marrow Man

My wife (Scottish Lass) covers in worship and prayer meetings.


----------



## OPC'n

no


----------



## Hamalas

sjonee said:


> no



Not that I disagree, but could you unpack that a little bit?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Optional.


----------



## LawrenceU

This might get fun.

For what it's worth, I respect those women who cover and the husbands who deem it necessary for their wives to do so. But, I see it as pretty clear from the passage that he is talking about hair, not hats. I know that is seen as a liberal view from many in the Reformed camp. But, that is what I see.


----------



## OPC'n

Hamalas said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I disagree, but could you unpack that a little bit?
Click to expand...


That was for then not now. I'll unpack it when I get more time...if you want


----------



## Prufrock

Here are a few threads to get you started.

Wives only?
Simple explanation of head covering.
Head covering thread.
Should women wear headcoverings in worship?
Headcoverings and the RPNA's position paper


----------



## Jon 316

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Optional.





> That was for then not now.



So what part of 'we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God' indicate it was a) optional b) only for that 'time'? And what is to stop us taking that approach with various other N.T commands i.e baptism, Holiness, etc

16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.


----------



## LawrenceU

OT: Pruffie is bucking for Andrew's old job.


----------



## Jon 316

LawrenceU said:


> This might get fun.
> 
> For what it's worth, I respect those women who cover and the husbands who deem it necessary for their wives to do so. But, I see it as pretty clear from the passage that he is talking about hair, not hats. I know that is seen as a liberal view from many in the Reformed camp. But, that is what I see.



So, why would Paul go to all the bother of arguing for a head covering and the need for it if all along it is talking about hair? 

Another interesting note, for almost 2000 years of church history women have had a head covering in worship. It is only in recent years it has been abandoned...


----------



## Prufrock

LawrenceU said:


> OT: Pruffie is bucking for Andrew's old job.



Yep: only 23,000 more posts, plus an encyclopedic and photographic knowledge of every thread thus far produced (and perhaps even some which don't yet exist) and I'm there!


----------



## Theognome

Yes. I'll post an article I wrote on the subject when I get home from work.

Theognome


----------



## TaylorOtwell

Yes. Not only does Paul seem to view it as a display of submission, but also of modesty, since a woman's hair is her glory. Therefore, if she does not want to cover it, it should be cut off.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Men are to be uncovered, but I don't see anyone shaving to meet that standard, so how can it be about hair?


----------



## Jon 316

Scottish Lass said:


> Men are to be uncovered, but I don't see anyone shaving to meet that standard, so how can it be about hair?



go gal!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Scottish Lass said:


> Men are to be uncovered, but I don't see anyone shaving to meet that standard, so how can it be about hair?


----------



## LawrenceU

Jon 316 said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might get fun.
> 
> For what it's worth, I respect those women who cover and the husbands who deem it necessary for their wives to do so. But, I see it as pretty clear from the passage that he is talking about hair, not hats. I know that is seen as a liberal view from many in the Reformed camp. But, that is what I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would Paul go to all the bother of arguing for a head covering and the need for it if all along it is talking about hair?
> 
> Another interesting note, for almost 2000 years of church history women have had a head covering in worship. It is only in recent years it has been abandoned...
Click to expand...


Fair enough. I should have said, 'In our culture it would be hair rather than hats.' We do not denote authority in our culture with whether or not a woman covers her head in the presence of other men. (Well the Muslims do but that is a different story.) We do however view the way a woman wears her hair as being respectful of her feminine nature and her role in the family. Even this varies from place to place. There are hairstyles in Phoenix that would never fly in Mobile. If women wear them here they are seen as loose and rebellious.

Told you my views were different than a lot in the Reformed camp.


----------



## MrMerlin777




----------



## DonP

*Head Coverings for then and not now? Why? Who says?*



sjonee said:


> Hamalas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was for then not now. I'll unpack it when I get more time...if you want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some say this was cultural but the text says it was not cultural. It clearly says it is obvious from Creation. And he alludes to the angels, 1 Cor 11:9 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. NKJV nothing cultural here!
> 
> 2nd he relates it to the headship, which is not cultural and we still hold to
> 3rd if it was cultural then so are the rest of the things in the rest of the book. We can throw it all out, women not speaking in the church, marriage, etc. we have to keep it all in context.
> So where would you say the context changes back and forth from this applying to culture and others not?
> 
> He does appeal to nature, but not that alone. And nature would mean to me that women have always covered their heads in many cultures until the corrupt 20th century with its worldly lewdness and freedom, fleshly sensual culture that began to abandon it.
> 
> Let me just ask, with such a clear strong teaching on it, why would a woman not want her head covered? What would be wrong with it? Is a scarf to uncomfortable or limiting? I mean why would they not want to wear it occasionally if it is optional? Why do so many protest so vehemently against it and refuse to wear it, while other godly women as sited above, have no problem doing it? Hmmm.  Or is it that rebellious part of Eve's nature still in them not wanting to show they are in submission.
> 
> Then some say the long hair God gave her and she should not cut short, is her covering. But this speaks clearly of both. To remove one would be as bad as removing the other. Both are necessary. 1 Cor 11:6 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. NKJV
> Jer 10:2 Thus says the LORD: "Do not learn the way of the Gentiles; NKJV
> 
> So what is culture? It is the way, the way of the heathen, or Gentiles. We are, as Israel was, not to learn and adopt their ways when they go against God's. We don't do naked baptisms, or wear loin cloths only.
> 
> Interesting to note as the head coverings left, women started speaking and teaching and leading in professing Christian churches. Their excuse often, not enough men willing to take responsibility and do it. This is the same as saying, we have no ordained minister so lets just have the elders preach or lets have a non-ordained man preach or be our pastor or one with no seminary training. After all where does it say in scripture you have to have a 3-4 year post grad degree to be ordained to the ministry. Many of the puritan ministers would have been dead before they were allowed to begin preaching by these rules.
> 
> As for the no such custom remark about allowing men to have long hair, except he take a Nazarite vow. The meaning is clearly, should a man want to have long hair, we have no custom that would allow for this. Men dress as men, women dress as women, we keep the roles distinct and clear. Nothing has changed in the new covenant unless we are specifically told it has. Thus we are still presbyterians like the synagogue and examples in Acts. etc. unless is twas distinctly part of ceremonial law or civil which is done away with the nation except for the Gen Equity of them. They were examples for us whom the ends of the world have come.
> 
> We all need to Start thinking harder  and seeking less to get all we can out of this world as if it had good things God was depriving us from; rather than full of deceptions He is protecting us from; as He tried with the fruit Eve thought was so acceptable and safe. After all, it is such a small thing right? God won't keep me from being saved because of small sins? There is grace and forgiveness right?
> In His Service,
Click to expand...


----------



## he beholds

Jon 316 said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might get fun.
> 
> For what it's worth, I respect those women who cover and the husbands who deem it necessary for their wives to do so. But, I see it as pretty clear from the passage that he is talking about hair, not hats. I know that is seen as a liberal view from many in the Reformed camp. But, that is what I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would Paul go to all the bother of arguing for a head covering and the need for it if all along it is talking about hair?
> 
> Another interesting note, for almost 2000 years of church history women have had a head covering in worship. It is only in recent years it has been abandoned...
Click to expand...



The jury is still out for me on this one, but as I've been thinking about it, a few things have been brought to my attention.

1) It has not been done universally for 2000 years--Calvin, a man, wore a hat (his head was covered, and in that culture, it would have been disrespectful to not have his head covered).

2)The Scots also had the men wearing the head coverings, ie: hats.

3) Paul would not introduce a new law, and we do not see this as a law in the OT, though we may see some instances of a woman wearing a covering.

4) In the OT, high priests wore coverings. 

5) People say it was a creation ordinance, however, when Adam and Eve were naked, do they think she had her head covered? If so, why is this not mentioned? And what was it? Fig leaves?



But, the one thing that I get stuck on is I cannot see Paul binding women's consciences to a cultural norm. And if I was in Corinth and heard this letter, I most certainly would have felt obligated to wear a covering. 


Unless, in the Corinthian culture the only way to signify publicly that you were under your husband's authority was to have your head covered. Paul could want the women to acknowledge before the world that they are under the authority of their husbands. So, I think the principle would apply today and a woman would be required biblically to be visibly under her husband's authority, and use a means to display that, if there were such a visible custom. To clarify, I think if today the culture somehow agreed that a submissive woman would do X, a Christian woman would be prudent to also do X.


----------



## Jon 316

> Told you my views were different than a lot in the Reformed camp



Reformed and Liberal aside brother. Is your view a faithful interpretation of scripture? That is the important issue. Are you as careful in your exegesis here as you are in other places? Or does personal preference or social pressure have some input in your interpretation?


----------



## LadyFlynt

The simple answer is a resounding "Yes!"

Beware if you should request the long form though...my response is copy and paste ready


----------



## Augusta

Yes for me.


----------



## sastark

Scottish Lass said:


> Men are to be uncovered, but I don't see anyone shaving to meet that standard, so how can it be about hair?



Because Paul, quite explicitly, makes it about hair in verse 14. No where are men commanded to shave their heads, but it is obvious that if a man has long hair, like a woman, that is shameful. Therefore, it is proper for a woman to have long hair and a man to have shorter hair.


----------



## LawrenceU

Jon 316 said:


> Told you my views were different than a lot in the Reformed camp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed and Liberal aside brother. Is your view a faithful interpretation of scripture? That is the important issue. Are you as careful in your exegesis here as you are in other places? Or does personal preference or social pressure have some input in your interpretation?
Click to expand...


I believe that my exegesis is carefully done or I wouldn't hold it. I know that the Church is divided on this issue. But, there is good exegesis on both sides. It is legitimate exegesis to note that women covering their head in that day denoted that they were married. In America today that would be the equivalent of wearing a wedding ring. 

And, please don't assume that it is personal preference or cultural pressure leads me to the position that I hold. You don't know what my cultural pressures are


----------



## LadyFlynt

LawrenceU said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Told you my views were different than a lot in the Reformed camp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed and Liberal aside brother. Is your view a faithful interpretation of scripture? That is the important issue. Are you as careful in your exegesis here as you are in other places? Or does personal preference or social pressure have some input in your interpretation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that my exegesis is carefully done or I wouldn't hold it. I know that the Church is divided on this issue. But, there is good exegesis on both sides. It is legitimate exegesis to note that women covering their head in that day denoted that they were married. In America today that would be the equivalent of wearing a wedding ring.
> 
> And, please don't assume that it is personal preference or cultural pressure leads me to the position that I hold. You don't know what my cultural pressures are
Click to expand...



It's amazing how some people believe they know better than nearly 2000 years worth of history...

On not knowing what your cultural pressures are? Those of us that cover know all too well the cultural pressures.


----------



## Theognome

Scottish Lass said:


> Men are to be uncovered, but I don't see anyone shaving to meet that standard, so how can it be about hair?



Where is a beard described as a covering? This seems to be a non-sequitur to me.

Theognome


----------



## LawrenceU

2,000 years? I don't know that we can assume that the church has held to head covering consistently since Acts. I've seen this mentioned for years and have never seen historical evidence that held up. I'd like to. Really, I would.

I sure hope y'all don't think I'm badgering or coming off high handed because that is not my intention.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Theognome said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men are to be uncovered, but I don't see anyone shaving to meet that standard, so how can it be about hair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is a beard described as a covering? This seems to be a non-sequitur to me.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...

She's talking about shaving your head, not your beard.


----------



## LawrenceU

> On not knowing what your cultural pressures are? Those of us that cover know all too well the cultural pressures.



No doubt, and I respect your convictions. I do think we have to be careful in assuming that we know the mileu of everyone on this board.


----------



## Theognome

LadyFlynt said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Men are to be uncovered, but I don't see anyone shaving to meet that standard, so how can it be about hair?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is a beard described as a covering? This seems to be a non-sequitur to me.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's talking about shaving your head, not your beard.
Click to expand...


Paul described being shorn as a bad thing, actually.

Theognome


----------



## Scottish Lass

sastark said:


> Because Paul, quite explicitly, makes it about hair in verse 14. No where are men commanded to shave their heads, but it is obvious that if a man has long hair, like a woman, that is shameful. Therefore, it is proper for a woman to have long hair and a man to have shorter hair.



Then what is verse 7 referring to?


----------



## LadyFlynt

LawrenceU said:


> 2,000 years? I don't know that we can assume that the church has held to head covering consistently since Acts. I've seen this mentioned for years and have never seen historical evidence that held up. I'd like to. Really, I would.
> 
> I sure hope y'all don't think I'm badgering or coming off high handed because that is not my intention.



Then you haven't actually read on this issue? No historical theologians, no art courses, no cultural histories of various areas, etc?


----------



## Skyler

Jon 316 said:


> 1 Corinthians 11
> 1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
> 
> Head Coverings
> 
> 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 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. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
> 13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her[a] for a covering. 16 *But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... head coverings, yes or no?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> Does verse 16 not imply that this was not a cultural practice but it was binding for all the churches of God?
Click to expand...


"16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God."(NIV)

I've heard it translated as the NIV translates it, and also that the "we have no such custom" refers to being contentious. Both explanations are compatible with Paul devoting 13 verses to the topic.

I don't think--I could be wrong, but I have never seen 13 verses dedicated to supporting a particular viewpoint, only to dismiss it as cultural in the 14th.

Secondly, the "long hair" argument fails for a few reasons. To begin with, it would make nonsense of the passage. Let me transcribe verse 6, substituting long hair for covering:

"If a woman does not [have long hair], she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should [have long hair]."

In other words, if a woman has short hair, then shave it off completely. Now how is that conducive to regaining the desired long hair? It makes no sense.

In addition, verse 5 would read "And every woman who prays or prophesies with short hair dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved."

The "long hair" argument requires an extremely tenuous interpretation of the scriptures and is also inconsistent with the historical beliefs of the church until the modern era.

Regards,


----------



## LadyFlynt

Irenaeus (120-202 a.d)
Tertullian (150-225 a.d.)
Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)
Hippolytus (170-236 a.d.)
John Chrysostom (340-407 a.d.)
Jerome (345-429 a.d.)
Augustine (354-430 a.d.)
George Gillespie (1613-1648)
Matthew Henry
Henry Alford (1810-1871)
Frederick Godet (1812-1900)
Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898)
A. R. Fausset (1821-1910)
Thomas Charles Edwards (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians was published in 1885)
M. R. Vincent (His Word Studies in the New Testament was published in 1886)
A. T. Robertson
John Murray (1898-1975) Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary
Charles Caldwell Ryrie (The Role of Women in the Church was published in 1958)

Let's not forget

RC Sproul
John Calvin (yes, he supported a woman covering)
John Knox
J. Vernon McGee


----------



## Skyler

LawrenceU said:


> 2,000 years? I don't know that we can assume that the church has held to head covering consistently since Acts. I've seen this mentioned for years and have never seen historical evidence that held up. I'd like to. Really, I would.
> 
> I sure hope y'all don't think I'm badgering or coming off high handed because that is not my intention.



I have a list of quotations here. One moment:


> Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary ( 1871 )
> (Faussett was a clergyman in the Church of England, Jamieson and Brown were Presbyterians. )
> “Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature.”
> 
> 
> Adam Clarke (1762-1832)
> “If she will not wear a veil in the public assemblies, let her be shorn-let her carry a public badge of infamy: but if it be a shame-if to be shorn or shaven would appear, as it must, a badge of infamy, then let her be covered-let her by all means wear a veil.”
> 
> 
> John Wesley (1703 – 1791)
> (Church of England Minister – Founder of the Methodist Movement)
> “Therefore if a woman is not covered — If she will throw off the badge of subjection, let her appear with her hair cut like a man’s. But if it be shameful far a woman to appear thus in public, especially in a religious assembly, let her, for the same reason, keep on her veil.”
> 
> 
> John Gill (1697-1771)
> (English Baptist)
> “to be without a veil, or some sort of covering on her head, according to the custom of the country, is the same thing as if her head was shaved; and everyone knows how dishonourable and scandalous it is for a woman to have her head shaved; and if this is the same, then it is dishonourable and scandalous to her to be without covering in public worship.”
> 
> 
> Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
> “It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.”
> 
> 
> John Calvin (1509-1564)
> (reformer)
> “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.”
> 
> Augustine (354-430)
> “Of which sacred import the Apostle speaks when he says, that the man ought not to be veiled, the women ought.”
> “It is not becoming even in married women to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands the women to keep their heads covered.”
> 
> 
> Chrysostom (344–407)
> “And if it be given her for a covering,” say you, “wherefore need she add another coverage?” That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection.
> 
> 
> Hippolytus (A.D. 236)
> “And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering.”
> 
> Tertullian (A.D. 160-215)
> HAVING already undergone the trouble peculiar to my opinion, I will show in Latin also that it behooves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed the turning-point of their age: that this observance is exacted by truth, on which no one can impose prescription — no space of times, no influence of persons, no privilege of regions.
> …
> They who have received Him set truth before custom. They who have heard Him prophesying even to the present time, not of old, bid virgins be wholly covered.
> 
> 
> Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220)
> (The Instructor, Book 3, Chapter 11 - a Compendious View of the Christian Life, Going To Church.)
> For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.


----------



## LawrenceU

LadyFlynt said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2,000 years? I don't know that we can assume that the church has held to head covering consistently since Acts. I've seen this mentioned for years and have never seen historical evidence that held up. I'd like to. Really, I would.
> 
> I sure hope y'all don't think I'm badgering or coming off high handed because that is not my intention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you haven't actually read on this issue? No historical theologians, no art courses, no cultural histories of various areas, etc?
Click to expand...



Probably not as extensive as some. But, I have read on it. I do see that there have been periods of time throughout the history of the church when the 'hat' view (and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense at all) was held. But, I've never seen proof that it has ALWAYS been interpreted that way by Christians until the 20th century.


----------



## Mayflower

We are a members of an evangelical baptist church, but my wife (and another women) are the only ones whom have their heads covered in worship in the church and during family devotion, and iam thankfull that my wife is diong that. My daughter of 5 years is also covering her head during family devotion, i think that the scriptures are very clear and also when you studt church history, even my grandmother whom was a devoted roman catholic was wearing headcovering in the mass. 

What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today?
By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio)

The following ‘exegesis’ (if we can call it that) is really no more than an attempt to wrestle with the major hermeneutical-pragmatic double question of this passage, viz., what is the head covering and in what sense is this text applicable today?

There are several views in vogue on the text, but within evangelicalism three or four come readily to mind:

(1) This text has no applicability to us today. Paul is speaking about a ‘tradition’ that he has handed on. Hence, since this is not the tradition of the modern church, we hardly need to consider this text.

(2) The head covering is the hair. Hence, the applicability today is that women should wear (relatively) long hair.

(3) The head covering is a real head covering and the text is applicable today, in the same way as it was in Paul’s day. Within this view are two basic sub-views:

The head covering is to be worn by all women in the church service. 
The head covering is to be worn by women in the church service only when praying or prophesying publicly. 
(4) The head covering is a meaningful symbol in the ancient world that needs some sort of corresponding symbol today, but not necessarily a head covering. This also involves the same two sub-views as #3 above.

My own convictions are that that view 4 is correct. The sub-view within this that I adopt is the second one: women only need to wear some symbol when praying or prophesying publicly. Below is a brief interaction with the various views, including a critique of each.

No Applicability View
This view is easy to dismiss. It is based on a faulty assumption about the meaning of ‘traditions’ (paradovsei") in v 2, as well as ‘custom’ (sunhvqeian) in v 16. A better case could be made from v 16, but only if one ignores v 2.

The term in v 16, sunhvqeian, is the more malleable of the two. It generally has to do with a habit. The word is used but thrice in the NT (here, John 18:39, and 1 Cor 8:7). In John 18 especially the term seems to convey just a noble practice (that of releasing a prisoner during Passover). Although it might be possible to conclude that the custom in John 18 was rooted in Jewish oral tradition and hence, for the Jews, elevated to the status of a binding law (something akin to the scape goat), we have no evidence that this is the case. Morris says that the practice is “shrouded in mystery.” It, however, might be alluded to in Pesachim 8.6 (in the Mishnah), but this is problematic. Nevertheless, we simply do not have enough evidence to conclude that it was a binding custom. First Corinthians 8:7 is similar. New converts who were formerly accustomed to idols need to be handled with kid gloves when it comes to the issue of meat offered to idols. Their ‘custom’--which they, as Christians, are still somewhat observing--is not something that Paul endorses. He would certainly rather that they all be strong Christians and not have such a custom. Hence, the custom here is not binding either. It is one borne of personal preference or attitude. In sum, when someone looks just at 1 Cor 11:16, a good case could be made that the practice in the early church of women wearing a head covering may well have been no more than a community-wide habit. Once, however, v 2 is examined, it is evident that v 16 is saying much more.

In v 2 Paul praises the church because they maintain the traditions (paradovsei") that he has handed down (parevdwka) to them. In v 3 he launches into one of those traditions (transitional dev). That this is one of the traditions is seen in the repetition of the verb ejpainovw in v 2 and v 17. The same theme is in mind: how the church is following Paul’s instructions regarding corporate worship. (Apparently their obedience in the head-covering issue was greater because he does not explicitly ‘not praise’ them, while in v 17 he explicitly does ‘not praise’ them concerning the Lord’s Table.)

What is significant in v 2 is the richness of the terms paradivdwmi and paradovsi". The verb is used very frequently for passing on the truth to the next generation. Paul uses it 19 times. In positive contexts (i.e., other than those involving the ‘handing over’ of a criminal, etc.) the verb carries the force of doctrinal commitment every time. Cf. Rom 6:17 (“you became obedient from the heart to that pattern of teaching to which you were committed”); 1 Cor 11:23 (“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you”); 1 Cor 15:3 (on the death and resurrection of Christ). The other instances (negative) suggest a commitment of one to prison, death, etc. There is a certain applicability even here: the basic force of the verb is that one commits not just his mind, but his life to something. Christ gave himself up for us (Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25).

The noun paradovsi" is no less rich in its theological implications. It is used but five times in Paul, but when it has to do with the traditions that he embraces as a Christian, such are intended to be binding on all. In 2 Thess 2:15 Paul instructs the believers to stand firm and hold on to the traditions that he had passed down to them. In 2 Thess 3:6, believers are commanded to stay away from any believers who do not abide by Paul’s traditions. Thus, the verb paradivdwmi and its nominal cognate, paradovsi" cannot be treated lightly. They do not mean ‘tradition’ in the modern English sense of the word of a nice custom that one can dispense with if desired. 

How do we reconcile 1 Cor 11:2 with 1 Cor 11:16? Verse 2 governs v 16. That is to say, because the practice was a paradovsi", it was put on the level of orthopraxy. It was a doctrine that the early church followed. Since it was on this level, most of the churches followed it religiously. Hence, Paul could appeal to what other churches were doing (v 16) as an appeal to the reasonableness and pragmatic outworking of this ‘tradition.’ This would be like saying, “Christ died for you; therefore, you should observe the Lord’s Supper. Besides, other Christians are already doing this and none have a different practice.” The practice puts flesh to the doctrine.

In sum, the view that 1 Cor 11:2-16 has no relevance today is based squarely on the English text, but not the Greek. It assumes that such traditions are optional, while Paul used words to describe them that he had reserved for the tradition of the death and resurrection of Christ. Surely, such ‘traditions’ are not optional with Paul!1

Head Covering = Hair
One of the most popular views today is that the head covering was actually the woman’s hair. This view is more difficult to assess. The exegesis of the text that adopts this view keys in on verse 15:

hJ kovmh a*ntiV peribolaivou devdotai--‘her hair is given [to her] in the place of a veil’

Often the assumption is that vv 2-14 describe a woman veiling and unveiling herself. If so, then the point of v 15 is that her hair is that veil. Often Numbers 5:18 is brought into the picture. Hurley argues: 

The suspected adulteress of Numbers 5:18 was accused of repudiating her relation to her husband by giving herself to another. As a sign of this, her hair, which was done up on her head, was let loose. The Hebrew word which is used to describe both the letting loose of the hair and being unveiled (pr v) is translated in the Greek Old Testament by akatakalyptos, the word which Paul uses for ‘uncovered.’ Could it be that Paul was not asking the Corinthian women to put on veils, but was asking them to continue wearing their hair in the distinctive fashion of women?2

The statement from Hurley seems to imply that the LXX of Num 5:18 has ajkatavkalupto". If so, then Paul could possibly have been thinking of that text in 1 Cor 11. However, that term is not used in the Numbers text! Indeed, not much can be based on the the LXX’s use of this adjective, as it occurs in only one verse--and that in a textual variant (Lev 13:45 in codex Ac; B has ajkavlupto" and A* has ajkatavlupto"). To argue that Paul, in 1 Cor 11, means by ajkatavkalupto" ‘let loose’ is akin to the argument that ‘all Indians walk single-file. At least the one I saw did.’ Further, BAGD gives for the meaning of this word in 1 Cor 11 uncovered, without even entertaining the possibility that it means ‘let loose.’ This definition is based on the available Hellenistic and classical evidence.3 Thus, Hurley’s argument lacks sufficient basis.

On the other hand, two points are significant: (1) No word for veil occurs in vv 2-14. Thus, that the hair is regarded by Paul as a veil in v 15 is not necessarily an argument that the hair is the same as the head covering that he is describing in these verses. (2) Throughout this pericope, Paul points out the similarities of long hair with a head covering. But his doing so strongly suggests that the two are not to be identified. Precisely because they are similar they are not identical. Note the following verses.

11:5-- “but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.”

11:6-- “For if a woman will not cover herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should keep it covered.

11:7-- “For a man ought not to cover his head . . .”

11:10-- “For this reason a woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head”

11:13-- “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?”

11:15-- “but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory . . .”

Several points can be made here. (1) If ‘covering’ = ‘hair,’ then all men should shave their heads or go bald because the men are to have their heads uncovered. (2) If ‘covering’ = ‘long hair,’ then v 6 seems to suggest a tautology: “if a woman will not wear long hair, then she should cut off her hair.” But this in no way advances the argument. (3) The argument caves in by its own subtlety. To see ‘hair’ = ‘head covering’ means that one has to go through several exegetical hoops. In short, it hardly appears to be the plain meaning of the text. (4) Verses 10 and 15 would have to be saying the same thing if long hair is the same as a head covering. But this can hardly be the case. In v 10, a woman is required to wear a ‘symbol of authority.’ Such a symbol represents her submission, not her glory. Paul begins the verse by pointing back to v 9 (diaV tou'to in v 10, ‘for this reason,’ is inferential). Because ‘woman was created for the sake of man’ she ought to wear a symbol of authority on her head. But in v 15, a woman’s long hair is her glory. The Greek is even more emphatic: the dative aujth'/ is a dative of advantage. A literal translation would be: ‘it is a glory to her’ or ‘a glory accruing to her,’ or ‘to her advantage.’ Surely this is not the point of v 10!

To argue, then, that long hair is the woman’s head covering seems to miss the very point of the function of the head covering and of the long hair: one shows her submission while the other shows her glory. Both of these are contrasted with an uncovered head while praying or prophesying, or a shaved head at any time: such would speak of the woman’s humiliation and shame.

Real Head Covering, Applicable Today
The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically. Since it is never safe to abandon one’s conscience regarding the truth of Scripture, I held to this view up until recently. Quite frankly, I did not like it (it is very unpopular today). But I could not, in good conscience, disregard it. Essentially, this view assumes three things: (1) that a real head covering is in view;4 (2) that Paul’s argument has a greater foundation than mere convention; and (3) that the head covering itself is an essential part of his viewpoint. Note the following arguments in support of this.

Verse 2 (paradivdwmi, paradovsi") indicates that Paul’s instruction is part of the traditional package of doctrine that he was passing on to the Church (see discussion above, under ‘no applicability view’). But Paul here does not give any details of the instruction. That is picked up in the rest of the passage. 
Verses 3-9 base this instruction on a theological hierarchy and on creation. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the man, the man is the head of the woman. It is important to note that Paul is in no way arguing for the ontological inferiority of the woman to the man, for he roots his convictions in the Godhead. Christ is only functionally subordinate to the Father, not ontologically subordinate.5 The wife, too, is functionally subordinate to the husband, but in no way ontologically inferior (vv 11-12). 
Verse 10 bases the woman’s symbol of subordination on a fine point of angelology (one that escapes us today, though conjectures abound). 
Verses 13-15 roughly constitute an argument from nature. 
Verse 16 is an argument from the collective wisdom of the church universal, for Christians elsewhere have no other practice. 
Thus, the argument is a general theological conviction (as opposed to a mere sociological convention), though growing out of several key doctrines: (1) Nascent trinitarianism, (2) creation, (3) angelology, (4) general revelation, and (5) church practice. Thus, for Paul, disobedience to his instructions about the head covering smacked of a deficient angelology, defective anthropology and and ecclesiology, and a destructive trinitarianism, and ran aground on the rocks of general revelation. Further, to focus on v 16 as the sole basis (as the ‘no applicability’ view does) is to slide right through the heart of this pericope without observing anything.

The specific applications of this approach are generally two: (1) applicable whenever a woman is in the church service; (2) applicable whenever a woman prays or prophesies publicly. In brief, I take the second to be in view simply because it is explicit (vv 4-5). After the initial theological statement (vv 2-3), Paul introduces the topic at hand: men and women praying or prophesying in the assembly. That this same topic is in view is evident by its repetition in v 13 (‘if a woman prays’). It seems unwarranted to expand the application beyond what the initial topical statement (vv 4-5) suggests. That is to say, all of the arguments and all of the principles are geared toward and applicable to women praying and prophesying in the public setting. Incidentally, if this restriction is correct, this constitutes another argument against the ‘long hair’ view, for a woman cannot swap long hair for short and vice versa in a moment’s notice, as she could a head covering.

One thing remains: a critique of the real head covering as the normative symbol today.

The Meaningful Symbol View
This view adopts the exegesis of the real head-covering view with one exception. It does not regard a real head covering as essential to the view. This is the view that I currently adopt. In essence, it is based on an understanding of the role of head coverings in the ancient world vs. the modern world. In the ancient world head coverings were apparently in vogue in some parts of the Graeco-Roman empire. Some groups expected the men to wear head coverings; others expected women to wear them. Still others felt that such were optional for both men and women. It is not important to determine which group did what. The important thing to note is that the early church adopted a convention already in use in society and gave it a distinctively Christian hue. That Paul could say that no other churches had any other practice may well indicate how easily such a practice could be adopted. This finds parallels with baptism in Israel. The Pharisees did not ask John, “What are you doing?” Instead, they asked, “Why are you doing this?” They understood baptism (even though John’s baptism was apparently the first to be other-baptism rather than self-baptism); what they didn’t understand was John’s authority and what his baptism symbolized. In a similar way, the early church practice of requiring the women to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying6 would not have been viewed as an unusual request. In the cosmopolitan cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head coverings were everywhere. When a woman wore one in the church, she was showing her subordination to her husband, but was not out of place with society. One could easily imagine a woman walking down the street to the worship service with a head covering on without being noticed. 

Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering7 would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women--even biblically submissive wives--resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfill the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.

Two questions remain. First, how can we justify a different symbol of authority on a woman’s head if the head covering is now a symbol of humiliation? Second, what symbol should we use?

First, the justification comes from several angles. (1) It is in keeping with the spirit of 1 Cor 11 and explicitly with two of Paul’s arguments (nature, convention). If forced to make a choice, it is wiser to take a view that is in keeping with the spirit of the text rather than the letter. (2) The broader spirit of Christianity is clearly against symbols for symbols’ sake. The NT writers do not seem to push ritual and symbol, but reality and substance. (3) The reason, I suspect, that head covering was implemented in the early church was simply that it was an already established societal convention that could be ‘baptized,’ so to speak. That the symbol of head covering fit into Paul’s argument about the headship of God, Christ, and husband, is what seems to have suggested this particular symbol. But even if the symbol loses some of its symbolism, the point needs to remain the same. (That is, whatever symbol a woman is to wear should indicate her submission to her husband and/or [if not married] the male leadership of the church.8) (4) An analogy with the Lord’s Table might help. It is appropriate because there is much that is symbolic in the Eucharist and this celebration is also one of those traditions that Paul handed down (1 Cor 11:17ff.). The symbols of the wine and unleavened bread are taken directly from the Passover. In the first century the Passover involved the use of four mandatory cups of wine, lamb, bitter herbs, unleavened bread. The part of the meal that Jesus turned into the first Lord’s Supper was apparently the third cup of the Passover and the unleavened bread. The lack of leaven was an important symbol, for it represented Christ’s sinlessness. And, of course, real wine was used. Is it necessary for us today to use unleavened bread and real wine? Some churches make this a mandatory practice, others an optional one. Still others would be horrified if real wine were used. Few today have unleavened bread (saltine crackers do have some yeast in them). Should we pronounce an anathema on these folks because they have broken from the tradition--a tradition which has both historical and biblical antecedents? If the implementation of such an important tradition as the Lord’s Supper can be varied, then should not the much less important tradition of the specific role (and garb) of women be allowed some flexibility, too?

Second, if the actual symbol used is not the issue, but what it represents is, what symbol should we use today? There can be no universal answer, simply because the ‘meaningful symbol’ approach is a recognition that conventions change. If we were to canonize one symbol--especially one not mentioned in the Bible--then we would be in danger of elevating oral tradition to the level of Scripture and of externalizing and trivializing the gospel. Having said that, each church needs to wrestle with an appropriate symbol for the present time. Quite frankly, if you (and your church) think that what I’ve suggested in this paper has validity, then the leadership of the church should probably do some creative brain-storming. I would like very much to hear from you!

Still, some controls do exist. As much of the spirit and symbolism of 1 Cor 11 as can be conveyed ought to be. Some have suggested that a wedding ring would be an acceptable symbol. There are some good points to this. It is a symbol that is accepted in large segments of society. A woman would not feel self-conscious wearing a ring. It certainly shows her bond to her husband and therefore picks up the force of 1 Cor 11:9 (co-dependency!) well. However, there are problems with this symbol. The ring is insufficient for the following reasons: (1) using this as the symbol presupposes that only married women are in view; (2) it is not a symbol distinctive of women; married men would also wear such a ring; and (3) unlike a head covering, it is not a very visible symbol.

What other symbols are available? At the present time--and I emphasize the tentative nature of this position--I think the wearing of a modest dress is an appropriate symbol. It does not pick up every correspondence in the passage, but it does do justice to many. In particular--and this is most important--a woman who wears a provocative dress (too feminine) or who pushes the boundaries of propriety in the other direction (such as jeans, business suit9) is often not showing proper submission in her very attitude.10 The symbol thus corresponds to its theological reality very neatly.11 

I hope and pray that this paper is not too offensive to any who would read it. My concern at all times is first to be faithful to the Scriptures. And second, I wish at all times to be sensitive to real people with real needs. Some may object that this paper is not biblical enough; others may object that it is out of step with modern culture. If someone disagrees with my position, that is fine. But to convince me to change requires a refutation of the exegesis. I may well be wrong in my exegesis, but I will need to see it. As much as I sympathize with the feminist movement (and I sympathize with much in it), I cannot betray my conscience or my understanding of Scripture. I am open to other views on the text, but will not change simply because of ad hominem arguments. All believers need to be convinced of their views in light of Scripture; none should depart from what the Bible teaches simply because such views are not popular. The real danger, as I see it, is that many Christians simply ignore what this text says because any form of obedience to it is inconvenient.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 In addition to vv 2 and 16, there are several theological arguments within the passage that indicate the seriousness of the head covering for Paul. See discussion below.

2 J. B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 170-71.

3 LSJ also gives as the only meaning “uncovered.” 

4 We are assuming that a real head covering is taught, due to the considerations against the ‘long hair’ view mentioned earlier. At issue here, however, is the combination of real head covering and present-day applicability.

5 If I may, I would like to add a personal observation. Much of the feminist viewpoint in the evangelical church today is based on a simplistic view of the Trinity, rampant among evangelicals (largely because, I suspect, in the church’s reaction to the rise of the cults of the last century, part of its theological convictions were suppressed). Evangelicals strongly affirm the ontological equality of Son with Father. Yet it is difficult to find doctrinal statements—either in churches or in seminaries—in which the Son is said to be functionally subordinate to the Father. Yet John 14:28; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Cor 11:3; 15:28 all plainly teach the eternal subordination of the Son (John 14 and 1 Cor 11 speak of his present subordination; Phil 2 speaks of his subordination in eternity past; and 1 Cor 15 speaks of his subordination in eternity future). Since these same books strongly affirm the ontological equality of Son with Father, the subordination in view must be functional.

6 I am assuming that the restriction was for women when praying or prophesying, although some who hold this view would argue that the passage does not restrict it to this. See discussion earlier.

7 It must be kept in mind that a head covering is not the same as a hat. A hat’s function is to show off the beauty of the woman, much as beautiful hair does. A head covering, however, was intended to veil her glory.

8 We have not discussed at all whether single women or married women are in view in this text. That will have to be left for another occasion. Suffice it to say that gunhv should be taken as woman (as opposed to ‘wife’) unless there are sufficient contextual reasons to argue otherwise.

9 I do not mean that women may not wear jeans! I mean, rather, that in some parts of the country for a woman to wear jeans to the worship service is tantamount to disrespect to those in authority. In the northwest, however, jeans are almost the choice of the fashion-conscious, even when attending Sunday services. (My brother has his dress jeans and his casual jeans . . . ) In that region a different symbol may well be needed. If it is difficult to come up with a good symbol that women can accept, then they should be responsible and creative enough to come up with one. Certainly this issue is one that requires some fruitful dialogue between men and women. Whatever symbol is chosen, it ought not to be one that humiliates, but simply displays the proper submission.

10 Ironically, long hair today has a similar effect. Often women who wear extremely short hair today do so to be treated like a man. Thus, even though it is not the meaning of the passage, it is possible that some churches will elect long hair worn in a certain way to be their meaninful symbol. There are still problems with this, however. For example, the tension between vv 10 and 15 would thereby be erased. And the fact of long hair—or even various styles of long hair—do not always communicate a sense of submission. Further, women who wear shorter hair for a variety of reasons would thereby be ostracized and cut out of public ministry. But climate and age often dictate the length of a woman’s hair. Ironically, if long hair becomes the standard today, the younger, less mature women would be permitted to minister publicly more than the older, more mature women.

11 At the same time, some may object to this because the symbol related to ‘head’ is entirely lost. But what head represents in the passage is authority. It is unwise to insist on one symbol because of its correspondence to another symbol, when in the process the real point gets lost in the shuffle. Such an insistence seems to smack of Pharisaism


----------



## Skyler

LawrenceU said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2,000 years? I don't know that we can assume that the church has held to head covering consistently since Acts. I've seen this mentioned for years and have never seen historical evidence that held up. I'd like to. Really, I would.
> 
> I sure hope y'all don't think I'm badgering or coming off high handed because that is not my intention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you haven't actually read on this issue? No historical theologians, no art courses, no cultural histories of various areas, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not as extensive as some. But, I have read on it. I do see that there have been periods of time throughout the history of the church when the 'hat' view (and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense at all) was held. But, I've never seen proof that it has ALWAYS been interpreted that way by Christians until the 20th century.
Click to expand...


I'm rather inclined to suspect that there _have_ been congregations here and there which operated outside the norm of the Christian religion. We're referring to the rule, not the exception. There are always exceptions.

EDIT: Whoa, Mayflower. Is that a post or a research paper?


----------



## Mayflower

Head Coverings in Public Worship

By: Brian Schwertley

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


----------



## lynnie

"Some say this was cultural but the text says it was not cultural. It clearly says it is obvious from Creation. And he alludes to the angels, 1 Cor 11:9 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. NKJV nothing cultural here!"

Yup, nothing cultural.

It is either still a sign to the angels, or it is not, but it isn't about culture.

Check out the greek verb for communion in verse 23...same word used for headcoverings...they were BOTH handed down/delivered over/tradition. You can't separate the way Paul talks about both headcoverings and communion with the exact same verb.


----------



## Jon 316

Skyler said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 11
> 1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
> 
> Head Coverings
> 
> 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 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. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
> 13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her[a] for a covering. 16 *But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... head coverings, yes or no?
> 
> If no, why not?
> 
> Does verse 16 not imply that this was not a cultural practice but it was binding for all the churches of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God."(NIV)
> 
> I've heard it translated as the NIV translates it, and also that the "we have no such custom" refers to being contentious. Both explanations are compatible with Paul devoting 13 verses to the topic.
> 
> I don't think--I could be wrong, but I have never seen 13 verses dedicated to supporting a particular viewpoint, only to dismiss it as cultural in the 14th.
> 
> Secondly, the "long hair" argument fails for a few reasons. To begin with, it would make nonsense of the passage. Let me transcribe verse 6, substituting long hair for covering:
> 
> "If a woman does not [have long hair], she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should [have long hair]."
> 
> In other words, if a woman has short hair, then shave it off completely. Now how is that conducive to regaining the desired long hair? It makes no sense.
> 
> In addition, verse 5 would read "And every woman who prays or prophesies with short hair dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved."
> 
> The "long hair" argument requires an extremely tenuous interpretation of the scriptures and is also inconsistent with the historical beliefs of the church until the modern era.
> 
> Regards,
Click to expand...


Excellent!!


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I do not read excessively long posts. It is not good Forum manners to cut and paste such. This has been confirmed before by Admins. State your point and conclusions in a concise manner and provide a link for reference. Good grief! 

Stepping down off soap box.


----------



## Prufrock

offtopic

I think we just set a new PB record for "Longest Post."


----------



## larryjf

> But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.


The meaning here seems to be that the churches of God don't have the custom of being contentious.

The hair is brought to the passage as an example from nature to prove his point on the order of a church service.

Much in the same way Paul uses the order of creation to prove his point on women not teaching or being in authority over men in 1 Tim 2.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Gomarus said:


> I do not read excessively long posts. It is not good Forum manners to cut and paste such. This has been confirmed before by Admins. State your point and conclusions in a concise manner and provide a link for reference. Good grief!
> 
> Stepping down off soap box.



If only the answer, "yes, because it's a stated ordinance in Scripture" were as accepted as communion (same chapter, both under "keep these ordinances").


----------



## Craig

Though confusing at first, I do believe Paul is exhorting women to wear long hair as a sign of man's authority. If they are not fully covered (i.e. masculine hair style), they ought to go the whole way and shave their head as they've already denied the authority of man. Think how Paul wished the Judaizers would "go the whole way" and emasculate themselves...short/masculine hair is a violation of God's order of authority.

v13-14 *links* long hair with head covering...which is why it is *shameful* for a man to have long hair.

Paul follows this up by saying:
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; *for her hair is given to her for a covering.*

I say we should all be convinced God intends for women to convey man's authority...exegetically, I think it is by way of a fully covered head (i.e. "feminine" appearance). If your wife wears an additional head-covering, God bless you all for doing that in faith. I have nothing against it. But we may accept head-coverings by way of handkerchiefs (or whatever) and still have feminism infiltrating our churches as women could hide their rebellion under cloth.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Craig said:


> by way of handkerchiefs (or whatever)



That was unnecessary...as bad as the minister that asked if I made mine from a bedsheet




Craig said:


> and still have feminism infiltrating our churches as women could hide their rebellion under cloth.



Agreed...just because someone's heart isn't right, doesn't mean we forego the practice altogether. There are those that abuse communion also.


----------



## Jon 316

larryjf said:


> But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
> 
> 
> 
> The meaning here seems to be that the churches of God don't have the custom of being contentious.
> 
> The hair is brought to the passage as an example from nature to prove his point on the order of a church service.
> 
> Much in the same way Paul uses the order of creation to prove his point on women not teaching or being in authority over men in 1 Tim 2.
Click to expand...




> Though confusing at first, I do believe Paul is exhorting women to wear long hair as a sign of man's authority. If they are not fully covered (i.e. masculine hair style), they ought to go the whole way and shave their head as they've already denied the authority of man. Think how Paul wished the Judaizers would "go the whole way" and emasculate themselves...short/masculine hair is a violation of God's order of authority.
> 
> v13-14 *links* long hair with head covering...which is why it is *shameful* for a man to have long hair.
> 
> Paul follows this up by saying:
> 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
> 
> I say we should all be convinced God intends for women to convey man's authority...exegetically, I think it is by way of a fully covered head (i.e. "feminine" appearance).



I think Skyler has highlighted the falicy of both of these arguments already. 

Can those who are repeating them support them in the light of his critical analysis?


----------



## lynnie

Craig- real real rusty!! greek transliteration without looking-

she is supposed to wear a katakelupsis and her long hair is given as a parabolen. The hair is not the covering sign of authority. Two different words. Check it out!


----------



## LadyFlynt

Deleted mine.

All I have left to say is that it's there. Supported by many theologians. You just have to be willing to read.


----------



## TimV

> 1) It has not been done universally for 2000 years--Calvin, a man, wore a hat (his head was covered, and in that culture, it would have been disrespectful to not have his head covered).



Several good points from Jessi.

Today, if you walk into a synagogue a man has to wear a hat, and it's been that way for who knows how long. Customs vary, in time and place, and it's probably safe to go with custom all things being equal.

I also like the point of Paul not making a new law. 

I wonder if anyone on this board goes to a church which demands a woman wear a head covering.


----------



## OPC'n

Looks like a hot subject and I have not read any of the comments. Hopefully everyone knows how that doesn't apply to actual head coverings. That whole text is about Christ being the head of man and the man being the head of woman. It's about how He created order not hats.


----------



## brianeschen

I have seen a couple of these threads since I have been a member, and I still have not heard the answer to the question that HeBeholds asked. That is, why did priests in the OT where a covering in worship if it is a creation mandate that their heads should be uncovered? Could Paul have meant something else perhaps?

One other question that has puzzled me about this topic is how Paul permits a woman to prophesy and pray with head covered and then a couple of chapters later says that women should remain silent. Why go through all the trouble to talk about putting a hat on to pray and prophesy and then in one sentence silence them altogether?

Some people seem to think that this is an easy passage, but it is difficult. Not only that but it is the only place that talks about "head coverings."


----------



## LadyFlynt

sjonee said:


> Looks like a hot subject and I have not read any of the comments. Hopefully everyone knows how that doesn't apply to actual head coverings. That whole text is about Christ being the head of man and the man being the head of woman. It's about how He created order not hats.


So communion is only about our relationship with Christ, not that we are actually supposed to take communion...


----------



## Jon 316

brianeschen said:


> I have seen a couple of these threads since I have been a member, and I still have not heard the answer to the question that HeBeholds asked. That is, why did priests in the OT where a covering in worship if it is a creation mandate that their heads should be uncovered? Could Paul have meant something else perhaps?
> 
> One other question that has puzzled me about this topic is how Paul permits a woman to prophesy and pray with head covered and then a couple of chapters later says that women should remain silent. Why go through all the trouble to talk about putting a hat on to pray and prophesy and then in one sentence silence them altogether?
> 
> Some people seem to think that this is an easy passage, but it is difficult. Not only that but it is the only place that talks about "head coverings."



Its also the only epistle that talks about communion, does that mean we ignore the instructions? 

Its also the only epistle that has instructions about virgins and marriage, do we ignore that too?


----------



## LadyFlynt

brianeschen said:


> I have seen a couple of these threads since I have been a member, and I still have not heard the answer to the question that HeBeholds asked. That is, why did priests in the OT where a covering in worship if it is a creation mandate that their heads should be uncovered? Could Paul have meant something else perhaps?
> 
> One other question that has puzzled me about this topic is how Paul permits a woman to prophesy and pray with head covered and then a couple of chapters later says that women should remain silent. Why go through all the trouble to talk about putting a hat on to pray and prophesy and then in one sentence silence them altogether?
> 
> Some people seem to think that this is an easy passage, but it is difficult. Not only that but it is the only place that talks about "head coverings."



We're also not supposed to make images, yet there they were all throughout the temple. Obviously the temple had it's own commands to follow.

It's not the only place that mentions coverings or covering in Gd's presence.

And I am fully capable of praying and prophesying (giving testamony) without saying a word. I also do both, quietly and verbally, outside of worship (but that's another debate).


----------



## sastark

LadyFlynt said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a hot subject and I have not read any of the comments. Hopefully everyone knows how that doesn't apply to actual head coverings. That whole text is about Christ being the head of man and the man being the head of woman. It's about how He created order not hats.
> 
> 
> 
> So communion is only about our relationship with Christ, not that we are actually supposed to take communion...
Click to expand...


Hats are not a Sacrament instituted by our Lord...


----------



## LadyFlynt

sjonee said:


> Hopefully everyone knows how that doesn't apply to actual head coverings.



There are more than a few headcovering wives or husbands with headcovering wives on the board


----------



## Jon 316

sastark said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a hot subject and I have not read any of the comments. Hopefully everyone knows how that doesn't apply to actual head coverings. That whole text is about Christ being the head of man and the man being the head of woman. It's about how He created order not hats.
> 
> 
> 
> So communion is only about our relationship with Christ, not that we are actually supposed to take communion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hats are not a Sacrament instituted by our Lord...
Click to expand...


so, are we going down the 'historical Jesus route'? Ignoring every command and instruction which was not attributed to Jesus? Did the Spirit of Jesus not inspire Pauls words in this text?


----------



## LadyFlynt

sastark said:


> Hats are not a Sacrament instituted by our Lord...


Headcoverings and Communion are both ORDINANCES.

Or maybe we should tear out all the epistles?


----------



## brianeschen

LadyFlynt said:


> We're also not supposed to make images, yet there they were all throughout the temple. Obviously the temple had it's own commands to follow.
> 
> It's not the only place that mentions coverings or covering in Gd's presence.
> 
> And I am fully capable of praying and prophesying (giving testimony) without saying a word. I also do both, quietly and verbally, outside of worship (but that's another debate).


It was just different in the temple? I know it was different. Why this difference though in regards to something that Paul links back to creation (pre Tabernacle/Temple)? Would you say that Paul is changing the practice of OT worship here?

Are you also saying that God commanded His people to break the 2nd commandment in temple worship?

Thanks for your time,


----------



## LadyFlynt

brianeschen said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're also not supposed to make images, yet there they were all throughout the temple. Obviously the temple had it's own commands to follow.
> 
> It's not the only place that mentions coverings or covering in Gd's presence.
> 
> And I am fully capable of praying and prophesying (giving testimony) without saying a word. I also do both, quietly and verbally, outside of worship (but that's another debate).
> 
> 
> 
> It was just different in the temple? I know it was different. Why this difference though in regards to something that Paul links back to creation (pre Tabernacle/Temple)? Would you say that Paul is changing the practice of OT worship here?
> 
> Are you also saying that God commanded His people to break the 2nd commandment in temple worship?
> 
> Thanks for your time,
Click to expand...


I don't know about the reasons for the temple. I do know that it doesn't relate to why women should cover, nor does it negate it. For if it did, then Paul is wrong on many things and we should just remove his writings.


----------



## larryjf

Jon 316 said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
> 
> 
> 
> The meaning here seems to be that the churches of God don't have the custom of being contentious.
> 
> The hair is brought to the passage as an example from nature to prove his point on the order of a church service.
> 
> Much in the same way Paul uses the order of creation to prove his point on women not teaching or being in authority over men in 1 Tim 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though confusing at first, I do believe Paul is exhorting women to wear long hair as a sign of man's authority. If they are not fully covered (i.e. masculine hair style), they ought to go the whole way and shave their head as they've already denied the authority of man. Think how Paul wished the Judaizers would "go the whole way" and emasculate themselves...short/masculine hair is a violation of God's order of authority.
> 
> v13-14 *links* long hair with head covering...which is why it is *shameful* for a man to have long hair.
> 
> Paul follows this up by saying:
> 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
> 
> I say we should all be convinced God intends for women to convey man's authority...exegetically, I think it is by way of a fully covered head (i.e. "feminine" appearance).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Skyler has highlighted the falicy of both of these arguments already.
> 
> Can those who are repeating them support them in the light of his critical analysis?
Click to expand...


I thought Skyler agreed with my post...am i missing something?

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 06:50:49 EST-----



sastark said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a hot subject and I have not read any of the comments. Hopefully everyone knows how that doesn't apply to actual head coverings. That whole text is about Christ being the head of man and the man being the head of woman. It's about how He created order not hats.
> 
> 
> 
> So communion is only about our relationship with Christ, not that we are actually supposed to take communion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hats are not a Sacrament instituted by our Lord...
Click to expand...


There are 2 sacraments - baptism and the Lord's Supper. But certainly we shouldn't take that to mean that only baptism and the Lord's Supper should be practiced at church and nothing else...especially not neglecting the order that God has prescribed for the church service.


----------



## kvanlaan

I never thought about the Calvin-wearing-a-hat-thing。Can anyone explain this? (BTW, I very much lean to the side that "it's there in black and white, so do it!")


----------



## OPC'n

Scottish Lass said:


> Men are to be uncovered, but I don't see anyone shaving to meet that standard, so how can it be about hair?



First this has nothing to do with physical head coverings at all. But if one wants to go there, then I will have to state what *I used to believe in and no longer do*, but does address the hair versus hat thing. 

Paul talks about the fact that it is shameful for a woman's head to be uncovered when she prays and that it is the same as if she were shaved. Pretty much saying that if you don't have long hair (we will get to this) then you might as well shave your head! What does a shaved head have to do with "hats"? (wigs were around during this time with which they could cover their heads...just fun info!) Why would he tell someone to shave their heads if they are not going to wear their "hat"? If the women only wore a "hat" in church to pray, then the shaved-headed woman could keep her shaved head and just wear a hat to church and be ok. *But, did you know that only feminist and prostitutes back then shaved their heads?* Why would he tell them to look like one of them outside of church? I know he is just comparing how bad it is to not cover one's head, but it is certainly reasonable to be lead to this conclusion with our interpretation of wearing hats. Wouldn't it be better to say that Paul is saying to the women, "If you are going to wear your hair that short, you might as well look like you're a feminist or prostitute and shave your head!" Doesn't that flow better? Continuing the read we find that Paul starts talking about how even nature teaches them that men with long hair are shameful and that a woman's long hair is her glory AND her covering. I know, I know! All those Bible movies have men with long hair, but look at the Nazarine vow. Why the specific point for people who took the vow to not cut their hair if they always wore their hair long anyway? Maybe some people wore their hair long and some short like we do now?...maybe. BUT, why did Paul start talking about what we think he is saying (hats or some material covering) to changing the topic to hair as the covering? 
2)the point of this chapter is for women to stay under the authority of men. The roles of men and women were to be distinct both in action and physical presentation. Their robes might have varied from each other as do our present day pants. However, this wasn't good enough to distinguish between male and female. Clothing styles, however, would change with needs that came up in one's culture. They needed something that distinguished them more permanently...something natural that stayed with the person so that it could be obeyed at all times...like hair. 

3)The literal meaning for "covered, dishonored" is "having down from head". This to me, would mean hair that flowed past the neck. Now certainly the head coverings they wore could have come from their heads and went down passed their shoulders but so does hair. However, there is more evidence from the entire text that Paul is talking about hair being what covers the head. Not head coverings which he never states. I believe that Paul was telling the woman to have hair that would come past her neck and men to keep their hair short enough to stay off their neck.

Since coming into the reformed camp (OPC), this text makes much more sense when viewed in the light of actual submission for all....women to men, men to Christ, and Christ to God. This verse is about submission not wearing hats to church or how long one's hair is.


----------



## LadyFlynt

sjonee said:


> *But, did you know that only feminist and prostitutes back then shaved their heads?*


Corinth followed the Grecian model, not the Roman, from what I have been told. Cropping hair was not uncommon, even by women that were "suitable".


----------



## brianeschen

LadyFlynt said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're also not supposed to make images, yet there they were all throughout the temple. Obviously the temple had it's own commands to follow.
> 
> It's not the only place that mentions coverings or covering in Gd's presence.
> 
> And I am fully capable of praying and prophesying (giving testimony) without saying a word. I also do both, quietly and verbally, outside of worship (but that's another debate).
> 
> 
> 
> It was just different in the temple? I know it was different. Why this difference though in regards to something that Paul links back to creation (pre Tabernacle/Temple)? Would you say that Paul is changing the practice of OT worship here?
> 
> Are you also saying that God commanded His people to break the 2nd commandment in temple worship?
> 
> Thanks for your time,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about the reasons for the temple. I do know that it doesn't relate to why women should cover, nor does it negate it. For if it did, then Paul is wrong on many things and we should just remove his writings.
Click to expand...


But doesn't Paul argue that women should have their heads covered, and men uncovered? How is that not related? Both are included in 1 Corinthians 11. I am not claiming to have the answers, but it is difficult for me to see a physical covering given these problems. It seems more natural to read his point as being 1) Christ is the head of man, 2) man is the head of woman. Why cannot the man be the covering? I am still unsure on this.


----------



## LadyFlynt

So we should ignore the Greek then?


----------



## Craig

LadyFlynt said:


> That was unnecessary...as bad as the minister that asked if I made mine from a bedsheet



I wasn't intending to demean the use of extra head-coverings...I was distinguishing between what is the biblical notion of head-covering, and what people use today. Forgive me if handkerchief is not the proper description...I am a man, and I can only think "handkerchief", or "doiley" (sp)? Not to demean, but to describe the appearance...in fact, I chose the term handkerchief because I knew doiley couldn't be correct since those are placed on tables, and hence, would probably offend someone (do-rag sounds too gangsta, so I didn't go with that  ). When I said "or whatever" following handkerchief, it was meant to convey I don't know what to designate them...perhaps it came off as a flippant "whatever" (which was not my intention). 



LadyFlynt said:


> Agreed...just because someone's heart isn't right, doesn't mean we forego the practice altogether. There are those that abuse communion also.



I realize that, but I think I had already made a case for long hair being "headcovering" as Paul says himself. That, I believe, gets to the heart of the principle. If any wive's husband believes an additional covering should be worn, she ought to do so. My wife, for instance, knows that I would have her keep her hair at least shoulder length. I also know that if I'm convinced otherwise concerning extra headcoverings, my wife would obey me.


----------



## matthew11v25

I have watched this debate go down in the past…all I can say is…ya’ll better be ready stepping into the ring with LadyFlynt!!! Two pages of posting aint nothing yet!


----------



## Theognome

matthew11v25 said:


> I have watched this debate go down in the past…all I can say is…ya’ll better be ready stepping into the ring with LadyFlynt!!! Two pages of posting aint nothing yet!



No problem. Both myself and the most beautiful Knoxienne are in the same corner, and can throw down when it comes down. However, I did post my position in the writers forum, since an absurdly long post is just impolite in a thread.

Theognome


----------



## Gesetveemet

Of coarse not, the Lord gave us a whole chapter in His holy word the Bible and then said never mind it was only a tradition.


----------



## satz

> 1 Cor 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.



I know I have posted this many times before, but at the moment I still see this as the correct interpretation of the passage.

The key to the passage - which I think gets skipped over a lot in discussions - is recognising that Paul’s purpose in the first half of 1 Cor 11 is to address men and women’s behavior when _praying or prophesying_. 

I believe Paul is regulating the use of the supernatural gifts of the spirit given to women during the NT apostolic times. Women in those times would indeed get up and speak during assemblies, when under the inspired influence of the Holy Spirit. The headcoverings were meant to show submission to the normal order despite the presence of this extraordinary gift. 

I tried to explain why I think this is correct in an older post I made:

---------------- --------------------------------

There have been a few headcovering posts of late, so I cannot quite recall where I said it, but as I posted before, I believe "praying" and "prophesying", in the context of 1 Corinthians, refers to the spiritual gift of inspired prophecy. 

From what I currently believe, this gift operated in the apostolic era for various reasons, but particularly because the churches at that time did not yet have a complete New Testament. It would, for instance, be impossible for a uninspired Corinthian pastor to preach on anything from 2 Corinthians before Paul had written it. As a result, the Holy Spirit would move inspired prophets to speak during the assembly and to teach the congregation as necessary. 

When you look at Paul’s use of the word “prophecy” in 1 Corinthians, I think it is clear that in the context of 1 Corinthians, “prophecy” is the inspired gift of prophecy, not anything else. Look at 1 Cor 12:28, where Paul lists the gifts in order. Prophets are a class of teacher in between apostles and teachers. They did not have the power or office of an apostle like Paul or Peter, but unlike ordinary teachers, they were inspired. 




> :
> 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
> 
> 1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 14:1-5 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 14:22-25 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 14:29-32 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.



I think once that is established, then from the close connection of prayer and prophecy in 1 Cor 11:4-5, we can tell that prayer is another form of inspired revelation. As I said in another post, it would make no sense for Paul to choose to regulate one inspired activity, and one normal, corporate activity. Rather, it makes better sense that both are different forms of the same activity – inspired teaching of the church during the assembly.

Here is another verse that seems to hint at inspired prayer:



> :
> 1 Corinthians 14:14-17 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.



So that is how, at the moment, I believe 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 should be interpreted.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Craig said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was unnecessary...as bad as the minister that asked if I made mine from a bedsheet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't intending to demean the use of extra head-coverings...I was distinguishing between what is the biblical notion of head-covering, and what people use today. Forgive me if handkerchief is not the proper description...I am a man, and I can only think "handkerchief", or "doiley" (sp)? Not to demean, but to describe the appearance...in fact, I chose the term handkerchief because I knew doiley couldn't be correct since those are placed on tables, and hence, would probably offend someone (do-rag sounds too gangsta, so I didn't go with that  ). When I said "or whatever" following handkerchief, it was meant to convey I don't know what to designate them...perhaps it came off as a flippant "whatever" (which was not my intention).
Click to expand...


I'm sorry if I took you wrong. I've seen "handkerchief" and "doily" tossed around too much. Granted there are those that wear chaplets (I know, not a man's word...but the name of what you describe)...however, there are many of us that, though we are happy to see the "principle" kept, don't agree that they "cover". And because of that last part, many that disagree with covering toss those terms around because they themselves see the inconsistency (doily not equating covered). I fully cover my hair.



Craig said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed...just because someone's heart isn't right, doesn't mean we forego the practice altogether. There are those that abuse communion also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that, but I think I had already made a case for long hair being "headcovering" as Paul says himself. That, I believe, gets to the heart of the principle. If any wive's husband believes an additional covering should be worn, she ought to do so. My wife, for instance, knows that I would have her keep her hair at least shoulder length. I also know that if I'm convinced otherwise concerning extra headcoverings, my wife would obey me.
Click to expand...


Again, you aren't observing the Greek here nor the fact that Paul is appealing to nature to make his point in other areas.



matthew11v25 said:


> I have watched this debate go down in the past…all I can say is…ya’ll better be ready stepping into the ring with LadyFlynt!!! Two pages of posting aint nothing yet!



 I needed the laugh! Thanks! Guess I should have entered with  One of the few topics I feel like I can defend, because we've come across such opposition in the past from other Christians, yet the heathen seem to "get it"...really baffling to my mind sometimes.



Theognome said:


> matthew11v25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have watched this debate go down in the past…all I can say is…ya’ll better be ready stepping into the ring with LadyFlynt!!! Two pages of posting aint nothing yet!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem. Both myself and the most beautiful Knoxienne are in the same corner, and can throw down when it comes down. However, I did post my position in the writers forum, since an absurdly long post is just impolite in a thread.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


Glad I'm not alone


----------



## OPC'n

LadyFlynt said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But, did you know that only feminist and prostitutes back then shaved their heads?*
> 
> 
> 
> Corinth followed the Grecian model, not the Roman, from what I have been told. Cropping hair was not uncommon, even by women that were "suitable".
Click to expand...


Nope, from all my studies on this it has never been acceptable for women to shave their heads. It indeed was a sign of prostitution. This was true even in OT times. Even Calvin who is on your side states that it was forbidden for women to shave their heads.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 08:24:18 EST-----



Jon 316 said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might get fun.
> 
> For what it's worth, I respect those women who cover and the husbands who deem it necessary for their wives to do so. But, I see it as pretty clear from the passage that he is talking about hair, not hats. I know that is seen as a liberal view from many in the Reformed camp. But, that is what I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would Paul go to all the bother of arguing for a head covering and the need for it if all along it is talking about hair?
> 
> Another interesting note, for almost 2000 years of church history women have had a head covering in worship. It is only in recent years it has been abandoned...
Click to expand...


Because he isn't talking about either. He is talking about headship and neither hats nor long hair has anything to do with headship. Heaven forbid women who hold to the notion of needing a hat or covering or long hair ever find themselves in prison for their faith without any of those things. Will you never pray again?

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 08:26:39 EST-----



TaylorOtwell said:


> Yes. Not only does Paul seem to view it as a display of submission, but also of modesty, since a woman's hair is her glory. Therefore, if she does not want to cover it, it should be cut off.



Another good point! Why would Paul tell women not to wear braided hair if they were just going to cover it up anyway? This text has absolutely nothing to do with modesty.


----------



## Contra Marcion

My firm conviction is yes, because I just can't read Paul's words and see a "that was then, this is now" interpretation fitting the context. My wife and daughter cover. 

That being said, my denomination (OPC) does not require it, neither does the session of my church. Therefore, I'm OK with families who see it differently. Theirs is not my garden to tend. 

As for me and my house, however, our women will cover their heads.


----------



## Skyler

kvanlaan said:


> I never thought about the Calvin-wearing-a-hat-thing。Can anyone explain this? (BTW, I very much lean to the side that "it's there in black and white, so do it!")



Oh, didn't you know? He didn't actually wear a hat. That was just edited into all the pictures we have of him by a skilled art forger, well-payed by the liberals. 

On a serious note, I think most people holding to this position wouldn't say that men must always have their heads uncovered, or that women must always have theirs covered. 1st Corinthians 11, to my knowledge, specifies the covering for praying and prophesying; it does say that "For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head", and some take this to mean that it should be worn at all times as a symbol of their submission to God's ordained hierarchy. I'm still studying that.


----------



## calgal

I don't "do" Shaitels and I don't do headcoverings for the same reason. With all due respect to my sisters who do "cover" I am not convinced.


----------



## Skyler

sjonee said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But, did you know that only feminist and prostitutes back then shaved their heads?*
> 
> 
> 
> Corinth followed the Grecian model, not the Roman, from what I have been told. Cropping hair was not uncommon, even by women that were "suitable".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, from all my studies on this it has never been acceptable for women to shave their heads. It indeed was a sign of prostitution. This was true even in OT times. Even Calvin who is on your side states that it was forbidden for women to shave their heads.
Click to expand...


OK, so, like Paul said, shorn hair is a disgrace.



> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 08:24:18 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, why would Paul go to all the bother of arguing for a head covering and the need for it if all along it is talking about hair?
> 
> Another interesting note, for almost 2000 years of church history women have had a head covering in worship. It is only in recent years it has been abandoned...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he isn't talking about either. He is talking about headship and neither hats nor long hair has anything to do with headship. Heaven forbid women who hold to the notion of needing a hat or covering or long hair ever find themselves in prison for their faith without any of those things. Will you never pray again?
Click to expand...


He _is_ talking about headship, you're right. And, he explains that the head covering is a "sign of authority on her head". The head covering and headship are linked.



> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 08:26:39 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> TaylorOtwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Not only does Paul seem to view it as a display of submission, but also of modesty, since a woman's hair is her glory. Therefore, if she does not want to cover it, it should be cut off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good point! Why would Paul tell women not to wear braided hair if they were just going to cover it up anyway? This text has absolutely nothing to do with modesty.
Click to expand...


If you're referring to the passage in 1st Timothy 2, Paul was addressing an attitude of keeping up with the latest fashions. He described the typical Roman woman, warning the church not to be like them in seeking to make themselves beautiful outwardly.

Regards,


----------



## Contra Marcion

[/QUOTE]Because he isn't talking about either. He is talking about headship and neither hats nor long hair has anything to do with headship. Heaven forbid women who hold to the notion of needing a hat or covering or long hair ever find themselves in prison for their faith without any of those things. Will you never pray again?[/QUOTE]

It's hard to see how this is a valid argument. Would not those women in prison also be forsaking the gathering of the saints on the Lord's day? (Heb. 10:25) Does their incarceration invalidate that command as well? Surely you're not arguing that a command which cannot be performed in prison is not a valid one! The Scriptures are full of examples of folks doing the best they can (Daniel, Hezekiah, David, etc.) to obey the commands of God, but being unable to do so. All of these found favor in the eyes of the LORD. A woman who is convicted of head covering, but is a) outside the context of the gathered church - the immediate context of Paul's words, and b) physically unable to obey may indeed still pray. In fact, should - a lot!) 

Again, let me stress - if you come to a place exegetically where you don't see the requirement as binding today, go in peace. We'll still worship with you if we're ever in Wisconsin again.


----------



## OPC'n

Well, I shouldn't have said "That was for then not now" in one of my post. I was in the middle of communicating with another person when I wrote that. I shouldn't have tried doing two things at one time. It was a reflex comment which apparently still lingers in my subconscious. When I was a big John Macarthur fan it was my thinking that this text was cultural and so I can only blame "old stuff" coming out of my brain while I commented. I'm sorry for confusing people on where I stand on this. This whole chapter does still apply to all of us. A very good reformed preacher showed me how wrong my thinking was on this matter all the way from rejecting it as just culture to thinking that women had to have long hair. It is still relevant because it has always been relevant. The reason why is because this text is only dealing with headship. When you try to put actual head coverings or long hair into this text it falls apart in its true meaning. One becomes caught up in head coverings when the point is headship. Also, in the OT we see no such instructions on women having to wear head coverings, but we do see headship spoken of in the OT. Seems odd to me that Paul would start a new law and only address the Corinthian church concerning the new law. A better glance at this would lead a person to understand that the Corinthian women were most likely trying to usurp the men's authority and Paul was teaching them headship. In any case, if a woman wants to wear a head covering because of her conscious, I don't see it as a sin as long as she see the real reason for this text. And if a husband demands that his wife and daughters wear a covering, then the wife needs to submit to her husband because submitting is the actual point of this text. I can tell you I will *never* be convinced of this and will *never *wear one. I find it distracting. I would constantly be thinking about the little doily sitting on my head instead of worshipping God.


----------



## Skyler

sjonee said:


> ...It is still relevant because it has always been relevant. The reason why is because this text is only dealing with headship. When you try to put actual head coverings or long hair into this text it falls apart in its true meaning. One becomes caught up in head coverings when the point is headship.



I don't think so. The covering is a constant reminder of the headship. That's why Paul commanded it--as a sign of authority.



> Also, in the OT we see no such instructions on women having to wear head coverings, but we do see headship spoken of in the OT. Seems odd to me that Paul would start a new law and only address the Corinthian church concerning the new law. A better glance at this would lead a person to understand that the Corinthian women were most likely trying to usurp the men's authority and Paul was teaching them headship.



Regardless, the command is still there. Even if its goal is to emphasize headship--which I agree with--that doesn't mean that, since you understand the headship part, you can ditch the rest of the passage.



> In any case, if a woman wants to wear a head covering because of her conscious, I don't see it as a sin as long as she see the real reason for this text. And if a husband demands that his wife and daughters wear a covering, then the wife needs to submit to her husband because submitting is the actual point of this text. I can tell you I will *never* be convinced of this and will *never *wear one. I find it distracting. I would constantly be thinking about the little doily sitting on my head instead of worshipping God.



Really? I think you'd get over it in a day or two.


----------



## OPC'n

> It's hard to see how this is a valid argument. Would not those women in prison also be forsaking the gathering of the saints on the Lord's day? (Heb. 10:25) Does their incarceration invalidate that command as well? Surely you're not arguing that a command which cannot be performed in prison is not a valid one! The Scriptures are full of examples of folks doing the best they can (Daniel, Hezekiah, David, etc.) to obey the commands of God, but being unable to do so. All of these found favor in the eyes of the LORD. A woman who is convicted of head covering, but is a) outside the context of the gathered church - the immediate context of Paul's words, and b) physically unable to obey may indeed still pray. In fact, should - a lot!)
> 
> Again, let me stress - if you come to a place exegetically where you don't see the requirement as binding today, go in peace. We'll still worship with you if we're ever in Wisconsin again.



So women in prison gathering together isn't saints gathering? I agree they wouldn't be able to conduct a service in the way we do now, but they certainly do gather and quietly worship God. I've read many times of them doing this. I'm glad you will worship with us (we're OPC though if you don't mind that denomination) if you ever come our way you are quite welcomed and we won't mind if you wear your head coverings either. My pastor certainly would be able to help you out with any misunderstanding you might have on this matter if you are curious. 

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:05:31 EST-----



Skyler said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...It is still relevant because it has always been relevant. The reason why is because this text is only dealing with headship. When you try to put actual head coverings or long hair into this text it falls apart in its true meaning. One becomes caught up in head coverings when the point is headship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. The covering is a constant reminder of the headship. That's why Paul commanded it--as a sign of authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, in the OT we see no such instructions on women having to wear head coverings, but we do see headship spoken of in the OT. Seems odd to me that Paul would start a new law and only address the Corinthian church concerning the new law. A better glance at this would lead a person to understand that the Corinthian women were most likely trying to usurp the men's authority and Paul was teaching them headship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regardless, the command is still there. Even if its goal is to emphasize headship--which I agree with--that doesn't mean that, since you understand the headship part, you can ditch the rest of the passage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In any case, if a woman wants to wear a head covering because of her conscious, I don't see it as a sin as long as she see the real reason for this text. And if a husband demands that his wife and daughters wear a covering, then the wife needs to submit to her husband because submitting is the actual point of this text. I can tell you I will *never* be convinced of this and will *never *wear one. I find it distracting. I would constantly be thinking about the little doily sitting on my head instead of worshipping God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? I think you'd get over it in a day or two.
Click to expand...


NOT ME! Nope never going there!


----------



## Skyler

sjonee said:


> Because he isn't talking about either. He is talking about headship and neither hats nor long hair has anything to do with headship. Heaven forbid women who hold to the notion of needing a hat or covering or long hair ever find themselves in prison for their faith without any of those things. Will you never pray again?
> 
> It's hard to see how this is a valid argument. Would not those women in prison also be forsaking the gathering of the saints on the Lord's day? (Heb. 10:25) Does their incarceration invalidate that command as well? Surely you're not arguing that a command which cannot be performed in prison is not a valid one! The Scriptures are full of examples of folks doing the best they can (Daniel, Hezekiah, David, etc.) to obey the commands of God, but being unable to do so. All of these found favor in the eyes of the LORD. A woman who is convicted of head covering, but is a) outside the context of the gathered church - the immediate context of Paul's words, and b) physically unable to obey may indeed still pray. In fact, should - a lot!)
> 
> Again, let me stress - if you come to a place exegetically where you don't see the requirement as binding today, go in peace. We'll still worship with you if we're ever in Wisconsin again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women in prison gathering together isn't saints gathering? I agree they wouldn't be able to conduct a service in the way we do now, but they certainly do gather and quietly worship God. I've read many times of them doing this. I'm glad you will worship with us (we're OPC though if you don't mind that denomination) if you ever come our way you are quite welcomed and we won't mind if you wear your head coverings either. My pastor certainly would be able to help you out with any misunderstanding you might have on this matter if you are curious.
Click to expand...


What about women(or men) in solitary confinement?

Not all prisons are as nice as the comfy ones we have here in the US.


----------



## brianeschen

LadyFlynt said:


> So we should ignore the Greek then?


It's actually a bit more helpful in an argument to state what you mean. It is unhelpful to imply that someone wants to ignore the Greek. There are better ways to make an argument.

I don't know Greek, but if you would like to give a lesson, I would be glad to learn. I am limited to English.


----------



## OPC'n

Skyler said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he isn't talking about either. He is talking about headship and neither hats nor long hair has anything to do with headship. Heaven forbid women who hold to the notion of needing a hat or covering or long hair ever find themselves in prison for their faith without any of those things. Will you never pray again?
> 
> It's hard to see how this is a valid argument. Would not those women in prison also be forsaking the gathering of the saints on the Lord's day? (Heb. 10:25) Does their incarceration invalidate that command as well? Surely you're not arguing that a command which cannot be performed in prison is not a valid one! The Scriptures are full of examples of folks doing the best they can (Daniel, Hezekiah, David, etc.) to obey the commands of God, but being unable to do so. All of these found favor in the eyes of the LORD. A woman who is convicted of head covering, but is a) outside the context of the gathered church - the immediate context of Paul's words, and b) physically unable to obey may indeed still pray. In fact, should - a lot!)
> 
> Again, let me stress - if you come to a place exegetically where you don't see the requirement as binding today, go in peace. We'll still worship with you if we're ever in Wisconsin again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So women in prison gathering together isn't saints gathering? I agree they wouldn't be able to conduct a service in the way we do now, but they certainly do gather and quietly worship God. I've read many times of them doing this. I'm glad you will worship with us (we're OPC though if you don't mind that denomination) if you ever come our way you are quite welcomed and we won't mind if you wear your head coverings either. My pastor certainly would be able to help you out with any misunderstanding you might have on this matter if you are curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about women(or men) in solitary confinement?
> 
> Not all prisons are as nice as the comfy ones we have here in the US.
Click to expand...


I happen to know that. I do follow the persecuted church and their plight. It isn't a norm that people are put into solitary confinement. It does happen but not to the degree that most think it does.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:13:51 EST-----

I really don't understand why people want so much law laid upon themselves! We don't see this "law" in the OT or anywhere else in the NT. I think that's an important point to ponder. Making up laws for women to follow because it seems like it is way to help them be submissive is contrary to what we believe. I will leave it up to Christian liberty but I really hope that there are not churches who demand this "law" from its congregation because it falls outside of their rights to tell women what to do. Just like it falls outside of my pastor's right to tell me if I can go on a trip or buy a house etc. Ok, I'm done.


----------



## KMK

I do not pray with a hat on.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:17:15 EST-----

But then again, I don't shave my beard off either...


----------



## Skyler

sjonee said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> So women in prison gathering together isn't saints gathering? I agree they wouldn't be able to conduct a service in the way we do now, but they certainly do gather and quietly worship God. I've read many times of them doing this. I'm glad you will worship with us (we're OPC though if you don't mind that denomination) if you ever come our way you are quite welcomed and we won't mind if you wear your head coverings either. My pastor certainly would be able to help you out with any misunderstanding you might have on this matter if you are curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about women(or men) in solitary confinement?
> 
> Not all prisons are as nice as the comfy ones we have here in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I happen to know that. I do follow the persecuted church and their plight. It isn't a norm that people are put into solitary confinement. It does happen but not to the degree that most think it does.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean to imply you were ignorant. I've seen your signature and I appreciate your interest in those who suffer for the Gospel. 

However, your logic would seem to imply that those few who are placed in solitary confinement are out of luck, would it not? Even if it is rarer than, say, being forced to remove a covering, it still happens.



> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:13:51 EST-----
> 
> I really don't understand why people want so much law laid upon themselves! We don't see this "law" in the OT or anywhere else in the NT. I think that's an important point to ponder. Making up laws for women to follow because it seems like it is way to help them be submissive is contrary to what we believe. I will leave it up to Christian liberty but I really hope that there are not churches who demand this "law" from its congregation because it falls outside of their rights to tell women what to do. Just like it falls outside of my pastor's right to tell me if I can go on a trip or buy a house etc. Ok, I'm done.



How many times must a commandment appear before it's binding?

Regards,


----------



## Contra Marcion

sjonee said:


> Well, I shouldn't have said "That was for then not now" in one of my post. I was in the middle of communicating with another person when I wrote that. I shouldn't have tried doing two things at one time. It was a reflex comment which apparently still lingers in my subconscious. When I was a big John Macarthur fan it was my thinking that this text was cultural and so I can only blame "old stuff" coming out of my brain while I commented. I'm sorry for confusing people on where I stand on this. This whole chapter does still apply to all of us. A very good reformed preacher showed me how wrong my thinking was on this matter all the way from rejecting it as just culture to thinking that women had to have long hair. It is still relevant because it has always been relevant. The reason why is because this text is only dealing with headship. When you try to put actual head coverings or long hair into this text it falls apart in its true meaning. One becomes caught up in head coverings when the point is headship. Also, in the OT we see no such instructions on women having to wear head coverings, but we do see headship spoken of in the OT. Seems odd to me that Paul would start a new law and only address the Corinthian church concerning the new law. A better glance at this would lead a person to understand that the Corinthian women were most likely trying to usurp the men's authority and Paul was teaching them headship. In any case, if a woman wants to wear a head covering because of her conscious, I don't see it as a sin as long as she see the real reason for this text. And if a husband demands that his wife and daughters wear a covering, then the wife needs to submit to her husband because submitting is the actual point of this text. I can tell you I will *never* be convinced of this and will *never *wear one. I find it distracting. I would constantly be thinking about the little doily sitting on my head instead of worshipping God.



I would be a little cautious with using the word *never* - I once said I would *never* baptize infants! 

I'm curious, though - where, exactly is this "better glance"? Is there more in the text that I'm not seeing? Would a "better glance" have helped Calvin see it your way? It seems rather presumptuous to suggest that many of the greatest exegetes of Scripture the Lord has ever given the Church are lacking just a "better glance"! 
The idea of a Corinthian "usurpation" problem makes refusing to cover one's head explainable, but does not come from anywhere in the text. In fact, this is the same type of presumption that is used to justify women in the pastorate! The text does not say "because of this rotten Corinthian culture, cover your heads. If simply says, "cover your head". You've imported the cultural part to fit your view. 
And yes, women did cover in the OT (Num. 5:18, Gen. 24;64), though their participation in worship (the original context of the argument) was much more limited. In giving direction for New Testament worship, wherein there is greater freedom, Paul now gives instruction for women to cover their heads - not as a modesty issue, but as a sign of being under the "covering" of her husband. 
BTW, you sound as if this topic really touches a tender spot - please don't take my response as a personal attack. I disagree with you, yes, but I don't wish to unnecessarily upset a dear sister in Christ.


----------



## Galatians220

TimV said:


> I wonder if anyone on this board goes to a church which demands a woman wear a head covering.


 
I do.  

Well, "demands" is rather strong. I would say that the FCC "enthusiastically encourages" women to wear headcoverings. 

Long before I ever heard of the FCC, however, I was covering my head. I resisted it vociferously during the 10 years of research that I did on the subject. My arguments against it finally got clocked, at least in my own mind.

As with the always edifying TR (KJV/Old Geneva vs. CT) discussions, I don't try to convince people to see things my way. I myself was unconvinced until I convinced myself. Sometimes it takes a painstaking amount of *time.*

Blessings to all!

Margaret


----------



## Skyler

Galatians220 said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if anyone on this board goes to a church which demands a woman wear a head covering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> Well, "demands" is rather strong. I would say that the FCC "enthusiastically encourages" women to wear headcoverings.
> 
> Long before I ever heard of the FCC, however, I was covering my head. I resisted it vociferously during the 10 years of research that I did on the subject. My arguments against it finally got clocked, at least in my own mind.
> 
> As with the always edifying TR (KJV/Old Geneva vs. CT) discussions, I don't try to convince people to see things my way. I myself was unconvinced until I convinced myself. Sometimes it takes a painstaking amount of *time.*
> 
> Blessings to all!
> 
> Margaret
Click to expand...


My mom actually started covering her head before she even realized that there were other people who also did so. 

That was part of the reason we began attending the church we are at now, which *strongly encourages* the head covering.


----------



## OPC'n

Contra Marcion said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I shouldn't have said "That was for then not now" in one of my post. I was in the middle of communicating with another person when I wrote that. I shouldn't have tried doing two things at one time. It was a reflex comment which apparently still lingers in my subconscious. When I was a big John Macarthur fan it was my thinking that this text was cultural and so I can only blame "old stuff" coming out of my brain while I commented. I'm sorry for confusing people on where I stand on this. This whole chapter does still apply to all of us. A very good reformed preacher showed me how wrong my thinking was on this matter all the way from rejecting it as just culture to thinking that women had to have long hair. It is still relevant because it has always been relevant. The reason why is because this text is only dealing with headship. When you try to put actual head coverings or long hair into this text it falls apart in its true meaning. One becomes caught up in head coverings when the point is headship. Also, in the OT we see no such instructions on women having to wear head coverings, but we do see headship spoken of in the OT. Seems odd to me that Paul would start a new law and only address the Corinthian church concerning the new law. A better glance at this would lead a person to understand that the Corinthian women were most likely trying to usurp the men's authority and Paul was teaching them headship. In any case, if a woman wants to wear a head covering because of her conscious, I don't see it as a sin as long as she see the real reason for this text. And if a husband demands that his wife and daughters wear a covering, then the wife needs to submit to her husband because submitting is the actual point of this text. I can tell you I will *never* be convinced of this and will *never *wear one. I find it distracting. I would constantly be thinking about the little doily sitting on my head instead of worshipping God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be a little cautious with using the word *never* - I once said I would *never* baptize infants!
> 
> I'm curious, though - where, exactly is this "better glance"? Is there more in the text that I'm not seeing? Would a "better glance" have helped Calvin see it your way? It seems rather presumptuous to suggest that many of the greatest exegetes of Scripture the Lord has ever given the Church are lacking just a "better glance"!
> The idea of a Corinthian "usurpation" problem makes refusing to cover one's head explainable, but does not come from anywhere in the text. In fact, this is the same type of presumption that is used to justify women in the pastorate! The text does not say "because of this rotten Corinthian culture, cover your heads. If simply says, "cover your head". You've imported the cultural part to fit your view.
> And yes, women did cover in the OT (Num. 5:18, Gen. 24;64), though their participation in worship (the original context of the argument) was much more limited. In giving direction for New Testament worship, wherein there is greater freedom, Paul now gives instruction for women to cover their heads - not as a modesty issue, but as a sign of being under the "covering" of her husband.
> BTW, you sound as if this topic really touches a tender spot - please don't take my response as a personal attack. I disagree with you, yes, but I don't wish to unnecessarily upset a dear sister in Christ.
Click to expand...


Ok, I won't say never. If every reformed church goes this way, then I will wear my baseball cap...backwards. 

Seriously, Num 5:18 only states that they will unbind the woman's hair doesn't say anything about a head covering. And Gen 24:64 only states that Rebecca got off her camel.....not sure how that has anything to do with head coverings except that maybe one should wear one and a face mask too because camels stink so bad... And no I'm not mad because I don't have to wear one. I might not be happy if I did but since I don't.....


----------



## Skyler

sjonee said:


> Ok, I won't say never. If every reformed church goes this way, then I will wear my baseball cap...backwards.
> 
> Seriously, Num 5:18 only states that they will unbind the woman's hair doesn't say anything about a head covering. And Gen 24:64 only states that Rebecca got off her camel.....not sure how that has anything to do with head coverings except that maybe one should wear one and a face mask too because camels stink so bad... And no I'm not mad because I don't have to wear one. I might not be happy if I did but since I don't.....



I think Genesis 24:65 may have been the verse in question here...

"...So she took her veil and covered herself. "


----------



## OPC'n

Skyler said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I won't say never. If every reformed church goes this way, then I will wear my baseball cap...backwards.
> 
> Seriously, Num 5:18 only states that they will unbind the woman's hair doesn't say anything about a head covering. And Gen 24:64 only states that Rebecca got off her camel.....not sure how that has anything to do with head coverings except that maybe one should wear one and a face mask too because camels stink so bad... And no I'm not mad because I don't have to wear one. I might not be happy if I did but since I don't.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Genesis 24:65 may have been the verse in question here...
> 
> "...So she took her veil and covered herself. "
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with worship service. She is covering herself before meeting up with her future husband. Nothing in this verse shows that women have to wear head coverings in church. If it does, then we are going to have to be like the Muslims and wear them whenever we are in the presence of men.


----------



## he beholds

OK, another question. If it goes back to creation, why did some men in the OT (Samson) have long hair? (I know _why_ Samson did, but why was that possible?)
Are we sure that it was always shameful for men to have long hair? I don't think it is shameful for men to have long hair now. I might not prefer it, but I don't think it is shameful. 
And lots of old ladies have short hair--I don't think that's shameful. Though again, I might prefer long hair. 


I am truly stuck on this issue, so my questions aren't rhetorical. I'm not sure if you can read tone very well over the internet, but if you can, I hope you notice there is no 
bull dog present in my comments on this topic


----------



## Hamalas

> NOT ME! Nope never going there!



Famous last words. 



> Ok, I won't say never. If every reformed church goes this way, then I will wear my baseball cap...backwards.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I can tell you I will *never* be convinced of this and will *never*wear one.



I love it when people make this claim; I used to do stuff like that. Then the Holy Spirit got to work and my self-proclaimed sovereignty was pummelled to dust. I am much better for it. 

I give you ten years, tops.


----------



## OPC'n

he beholds said:


> OK, another question. If it goes back to creation, why did some men in the OT (Samson) have long hair? (I know _why_ Samson did, but why was that possible?)
> Are we sure that it was always shameful for men to have long hair? I don't think it is shameful for men to have long hair now. I might not prefer it, but I don't think it is shameful.
> And lots of old ladies have short hair--I don't think that's shameful. Though again, I might prefer long hair.
> 
> 
> I am truly stuck on this issue, so my questions aren't rhetorical. I'm not sure if you can read tone very well over the internet, but if you can, I hope you notice there is no
> bull dog present in my comments on this topic



Well, first no has proven that the requirement for women to wear head coverings goes back to creation. Adam and Eve didn't even wear clothes much less Eve wearing a head covering. It's the concept of submission that goes back to the garden.


----------



## Theognome

It's interesting that in America, the head covering didn't become an issue until feminism infiltrated the church in the late 19th century. It took a culture that found submission offensive to begin isogeting against its' use. 

Theognome


----------



## Contra Marcion

sjonee said:


> Contra Marcion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I shouldn't have said "That was for then not now" in one of my post. I was in the middle of communicating with another person when I wrote that. I shouldn't have tried doing two things at one time. It was a reflex comment which apparently still lingers in my subconscious. When I was a big John Macarthur fan it was my thinking that this text was cultural and so I can only blame "old stuff" coming out of my brain while I commented. I'm sorry for confusing people on where I stand on this. This whole chapter does still apply to all of us. A very good reformed preacher showed me how wrong my thinking was on this matter all the way from rejecting it as just culture to thinking that women had to have long hair. It is still relevant because it has always been relevant. The reason why is because this text is only dealing with headship. When you try to put actual head coverings or long hair into this text it falls apart in its true meaning. One becomes caught up in head coverings when the point is headship. Also, in the OT we see no such instructions on women having to wear head coverings, but we do see headship spoken of in the OT. Seems odd to me that Paul would start a new law and only address the Corinthian church concerning the new law. A better glance at this would lead a person to understand that the Corinthian women were most likely trying to usurp the men's authority and Paul was teaching them headship. In any case, if a woman wants to wear a head covering because of her conscious, I don't see it as a sin as long as she see the real reason for this text. And if a husband demands that his wife and daughters wear a covering, then the wife needs to submit to her husband because submitting is the actual point of this text. I can tell you I will *never* be convinced of this and will *never *wear one. I find it distracting. I would constantly be thinking about the little doily sitting on my head instead of worshipping God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be a little cautious with using the word *never* - I once said I would *never* baptize infants!
> 
> I'm curious, though - where, exactly is this "better glance"? Is there more in the text that I'm not seeing? Would a "better glance" have helped Calvin see it your way? It seems rather presumptuous to suggest that many of the greatest exegetes of Scripture the Lord has ever given the Church are lacking just a "better glance"!
> The idea of a Corinthian "usurpation" problem makes refusing to cover one's head explainable, but does not come from anywhere in the text. In fact, this is the same type of presumption that is used to justify women in the pastorate! The text does not say "because of this rotten Corinthian culture, cover your heads. If simply says, "cover your head". You've imported the cultural part to fit your view.
> And yes, women did cover in the OT (Num. 5:18, Gen. 24;64), though their participation in worship (the original context of the argument) was much more limited. In giving direction for New Testament worship, wherein there is greater freedom, Paul now gives instruction for women to cover their heads - not as a modesty issue, but as a sign of being under the "covering" of her husband.
> BTW, you sound as if this topic really touches a tender spot - please don't take my response as a personal attack. I disagree with you, yes, but I don't wish to unnecessarily upset a dear sister in Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I won't say never. If every reformed church goes this way, then I will wear my baseball cap...backwards.
> 
> Seriously, Num 5:18 only states that they will unbind the woman's hair doesn't say anything about a head covering. And Gen 24:64 only states that Rebecca got off her camel.....not sure how that has anything to do with head coverings except that maybe one should wear one and a face mask too because camels stink so bad... And no I'm not mad because I don't have to wear one. I might not be happy if I did but since I don't.....
Click to expand...


 I meant v. 65, not 64. (Reading too fast!). The point of Numbers 5:18 is that the act of unbinding the hair is an act of humbling - ordinarily, a woman's hair was "bound", that is up and covered in some manner. Having her hair "unbound" was a demonstration of her presumed "uncleanness" (cf. Lev. 13:45). 
Rebekah, also, covered her head with a veil in the presence of her "master". 
The point of bringing these up is not to make a solid case that head coverings were always worn throughout the history of God's people, but to make the case that Paul is not introducing a brand new idea in 1 Cor. 11. 

 a bit, while the reformed world has not uniformly embraced head coverings, the OPC has embraced the Directory for Public Worship - so baseball hats backwards are probably not consistent with DPW 2.7. (I know you were kidding - I'm just being difficult!)


----------



## OPC'n

kvanlaan said:


> I can tell you I will *never* be convinced of this and will *never*wear one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people make this claim; I used to do stuff like that. Then the Holy Spirit got to work and my self-proclaimed sovereignty was pummelled to dust. I am much better for it.
> 
> I give you ten years, tops.
Click to expand...


Well, I've never said never about any doctrine in the Bible except for this concept which isn't a doctrine. So I'll see you in ten years without a doily on my head. 

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:17 EST-----



Contra Marcion said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra Marcion said:
> 
> 
> 
> a bit, while the reformed world has not uniformly embraced head coverings, the OPC has embraced the Directory for Public Worship - so baseball hats backwards are probably not consistent with DPW 2.7. (I know you were kidding - I'm just being difficult!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think it was the face that led you to believe I was kidding. Well, I was kidding only because I don't believe the OPC would ever be led down this path. I could be wrong anything is possible when man leaves Biblical teachings and clings to his own rules. I could wear a baseball cap to church (no one has ever said that one isn't permissible) if they ever did go down that path. So in a way if it ever did happen I would be wearing my Packers green and gold right on top of my head and thus I wouldn't be kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Contra Marcion

sjonee said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you I will *never* be convinced of this and will *never*wear one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people make this claim; I used to do stuff like that. Then the Holy Spirit got to work and my self-proclaimed sovereignty was pummelled to dust. I am much better for it.
> 
> I give you ten years, tops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've never said never about any doctrine in the Bible except for this concept which isn't a doctrine. So I'll see you in ten years without a doily on my head.
> 
> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:17 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Contra Marcion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think it was the face that led you to believe I was kidding. Well, I was kidding only because I don't believe the OPC would ever be led down this path. I could be wrong anything is possible when man leaves Biblical teachings and clings to his own rules. I could wear a baseball cap to church (no one has ever said that one isn't permissible) if they ever did go down that path. So in a way if it ever did happen I would be wearing my Packers green and gold right on top of my head and thus I wouldn't be kidding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you really (again) suggesting that Calvin had "left Biblical teaching" and "clung to his own rules"? If Biblical teaching is all that's important, let me ask you again: Where, in the Biblical teaching, does one get the idea that Paul was addressing merely a cultural issue in Corinth? Does the text say that, or are you clinging to your own rule of hermeneutics?
> As far as the Packers hat goes - would you really defy the standards of your church just to be defiant? Have you read the DPW?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## OPC'n

Contra Marcion said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people make this claim; I used to do stuff like that. Then the Holy Spirit got to work and my self-proclaimed sovereignty was pummelled to dust. I am much better for it.
> 
> I give you ten years, tops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never said never about any doctrine in the Bible except for this concept which isn't a doctrine. So I'll see you in ten years without a doily on my head.
> 
> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:17 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Contra Marcion said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you really (again) suggesting that Calvin had "left Biblical teaching" and "clung to his own rules"? If Biblical teaching is all that important, let me ask you again: Where, in the Biblical teaching, does one get the idea that Paul was addressing merely a cultural issue in Corinth? Does the text say that, or are you cling to your own rule of hermeneutics?
> As far as the Packers hat goes - would you really defy the standards of your church just to de defiant? Have you read the DPW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I wouldn't defy any rules at my church and if they prohibit Packer hats then I wouldn't wear one. I'm not trying to be defiant. I just think this is a man made law which I'm not going to observe.
> 
> Yes, I think Calvin (and I love the guy and agree with most all of his teachings) was wrong in this area. Think about his culture. He was speaking in terms of when he lived. And I said I misspoke when I said it was a cultural text. I believe that it isn't because it is speaking of headship not head coverings.
> 
> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 10:14:39 EST-----
> 
> Also, no one has proven that Eve wore one...so head coverings are not a creational ordinance.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Theognome

sjonee said:


> I could be wrong anything is possible when man leaves Biblical teachings and clings to his own rules.



Presently, I don't see man leaving biblical teachings; rather, I see a woman leaving them. I have read your arguments against the head covering, but unfortunately, isogesis reigns. If you apply a principle to biblical interpretation, then the same principle should remain sound in other areas of scripture if it is based upon foundation laid down in God's word. 

Would you argue that there are not mansions in heaven prepared for the faithful? After all, it is only specifically mentioned only once in the NT, and no where else. Thus it must be invalid. Fortunately, the principle that leads well to this statement is throughout the scripture, just as the principle concerning the head covering is throughout.

Shall we discuss the Trinity? NOWHERE in the Bible is this plainly laid out, unlike the head covering, which as least has one explicit reference. Yet one who does not adhere to Trinitarianism is labeled a cultist. Having less explicit evidence in Scripture for this doctrine, shouldn't you declare the Jehovahs Witness your faithful brother in the Lord?

In the writers forum, I posted an article that gives some other examples regarding the cultural argument. If that position is held, you must, in order not to contradict the logic, deny that the Law of God has any relevance today. It was culturally produced, after all.

Simply put, exegete (if that's possible, and it isn't) that Paul isn't saying what he is. If you can demonstrate through scripture as opposed to convention that a woman's head covering isn't a requirement for corporate worship, then you are in good stead. If you cannot, then at least admit it's a commandment you refuse to obey instead of going everywhere but to sound biblical thinking to defend your position.

Theognome


----------



## Contra Marcion

sjonee said:


> Contra Marcion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never said never about any doctrine in the Bible except for this concept which isn't a doctrine. So I'll see you in ten years without a doily on my head.
> 
> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:17 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> No I wouldn't defy any rules at my church and if they prohibit Packer hats then I wouldn't wear one. I'm not trying to be defiant. I just think this is a man made law which I'm not going to observe.
> 
> Yes, I think Calvin (and I love the guy and agree with most all of his teachings) was wrong in this area. Think about his culture. He was speaking in terms of when he lived. And I said I misspoke when I said it was a cultural text. I believe that it isn't because it is speaking of headship not head coverings.
> 
> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 10:14:39 EST-----
> 
> Also, no one has proven that Eve wore one...so head coverings are not a creational ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Eve wear head coverings? Don't know. Seems unlikely (doilies weren't invented yet!) Then again, was she baptized? Did she partake of the Supper? Did she tithe? Also probably not. Paul's appeal to creation is NOT to prove that Eve wore one, therefore so should all women, but that Adam (as you rightly pointed out) was the head of his wife. This fact of creation is reflected (not precedented) in Paul's letter to Corinth. Eve is not the EXAMPLE for women to wear coverings, just the REASON for it. What you are doing above is arguing against a point no one is making. This is "straw-man" argumentation.
> 
> BTW - I apologize for bringing up your cultural argument twice - I had forgotten you took that one back already.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Craig

LadyFlynt said:


> Again, you aren't observing the Greek here nor the fact that Paul is appealing to nature to make his point in other areas.



I'm sorry, but telling me I'm "ignoring" the Greek says absolutely nothing...neither does mentioning that Paul appealed to nature since you haven't elaborated on how it follows that nature teaches women ought to wear additional clothing on their heads...I'm certain you and I both agree that man's authority is not a consequence of the Fall, but is the order of creation...Eve who was quintisentially submissive prior to the Fall, wore nothing but her hair...so is Paul appealing to a piece of cloth being apparent in nature, or the glorious locks God gave women? Even post Fall many men tend to bald whereas most women do not. 

I do not know Greek...but you've given me no reason to think the English does disservice to the original language. Paul, himself, says a woman's hair is her covering. Instead of simply saying I am ignoring the Greek, do share. What does the English not contain that the Greek does?

Being hard-core about Patriarchy as I am, I have a fondness for the belief that Paul is teaching women to wear an additional piece of clothing on their head...I really do. After reading the passage carefully, I have come to believe that when I wavered toward the headcovering camp in the past, I was from focusing on my own assumption that an article of clothing was being mentioned when Paul states later what the covering actually is: Hair. The context makes little sense otherwise...Paul's biting words encouraging women to shave their heads would be out of place if he's speaking of cloth covering a woman's head. These women were usurping the order of authority and were trying to take on masculine features. Having discarded longer hair for shorter, they threw away what glory they had by nature...and might as well shave it all off to show just how hideous and unnatural that was.


----------



## OPC'n

Theognome said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could be wrong anything is possible when man leaves Biblical teachings and clings to his own rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presently, I don't see man leaving biblical teachings; rather, I see a woman leaving them. I have read your arguments against the head covering, but unfortunately, isogesis reigns. If you apply a principle to biblical interpretation, then the same principle should remain sound in other areas of scripture if it is based upon foundation laid down in God's word.
> 
> Would you argue that there are not mansions in heaven prepared for the faithful? After all, it is only specifically mentioned only once in the NT, and no where else. Thus it must be invalid. Fortunately, the principle that leads well to this statement is throughout the scripture, just as the principle concerning the head covering is throughout.
> 
> Shall we discuss the Trinity? NOWHERE in the Bible is this plainly laid out, unlike the head covering, which as least has one explicit reference. Yet one who does not adhere to Trinitarianism is labeled a cultist. Having less explicit evidence in Scripture for this doctrine, shouldn't you declare the Jehovahs Witness your faithful brother in the Lord?
> 
> In the writers forum, I posted an article that gives some other examples regarding the cultural argument. If that position is held, you must, in order not to contradict the logic, deny that the Law of God has any relevance today. It was culturally produced, after all.
> 
> Simply put, exegete (if that's possible, and it isn't) that Paul isn't saying what he is. If you can demonstrate through scripture as opposed to convention that a woman's head covering isn't a requirement for corporate worship, then you are in good stead. If you cannot, then at least admit it's a commandment you refuse to obey instead of going everywhere but to sound biblical thinking to defend your position.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.

Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.


----------



## Hamalas

I don't think anyone here is arguing that Eve wore a head covering. Am I wrong?


----------



## calgal

Contra Marcion said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when people make this claim; I used to do stuff like that. Then the Holy Spirit got to work and my self-proclaimed sovereignty was pummelled to dust. I am much better for it.
> 
> I give you ten years, tops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never said never about any doctrine in the Bible except for this concept which isn't a doctrine. So I'll see you in ten years without a doily on my head.
> 
> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:17 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Contra Marcion said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you really (again) suggesting that Calvin had "left Biblical teaching" and "clung to his own rules"? If Biblical teaching is all that's important, let me ask you again: Where, in the Biblical teaching, does one get the idea that Paul was addressing merely a cultural issue in Corinth? Does the text say that, or are you clinging to your own rule of hermeneutics?
> As far as the Packers hat goes - would you really defy the standards of your church just to be defiant? Have you read the DPW?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would leave the church in a minute if and when they mandated headcovering. I find it interesting that certain hats are "acceptable" and others are not. So a Cubs hat (the only one I would ever wear to church and that would be for a picnic) is unacceptable but a Catholic like doily is ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## OPC'n

Contra Marcion said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra Marcion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Eve wear head coverings? Don't know. Seems unlikely (doilies weren't invented yet!) Then again, was she baptized? Did she partake of the Supper? Did she tithe? Also probably not. Paul's appeal to creation is NOT to prove that Eve wore one, therefore so should all women, but that Adam (as you rightly pointed out) was the head of his wife. This fact of creation is reflected (not precedented) in Paul's letter to Corinth. Eve is not the EXAMPLE for women to wear coverings, just the REASON for it. What you are doing above is arguing against a point no one is making. This is "straw-man" argumentation.
> 
> BTW - I apologize for bringing up your cultural argument twice - I had forgotten you took that one back already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither were clothes. No she wasn't baptized nor partook of the Lord's Supper, maybe she tithed. However, you all are claiming that it is a creational ordinance and yet cannot prove something in which you believe. No one said it was a creational ordinance? Well, I could be wrong in thinking that someone said that. But since now it isn't one and none of your verses show that women wore head coverings for worship, I think you're left without anything on which to stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Craig

LadyFlynt said:


> Again, you aren't observing the Greek here nor the fact that Paul is appealing to nature to make his point in other areas.



I'm sorry, but telling me I'm "ignoring" the Greek says absolutely nothing...neither does mentioning that Paul appealed to nature since you haven't elaborated on how it follows that nature teaches women ought to wear additional clothing on their heads...I'm certain you and I both agree that man's authority is not a consequence of the Fall, but is the order of creation...Eve who was quintisentially submissive prior to the Fall, wore nothing but her hair...so is Paul appealing to a piece of cloth being apparent in nature, or the glorious locks God gave women? Even post Fall many men tend to bald whereas most women do not. 

I do not know Greek...but you've given me no reason to think the English does disservice to the original language. Paul, himself, says a woman's hair is her covering. Instead of simply saying I am ignoring the Greek, do share. What does the English not contain that the Greek does?

Being hard-core about Patriarchy as I am, I have a fondness for the belief that Paul is teaching women to wear an additional piece of clothing on their head...I really do. After reading the passage carefully, I have come to believe that when I wavered toward the headcovering camp in the past, I was from focusing on my own assumption that an article of clothing was being mentioned when Paul states later what the covering actually is: Hair. The context makes little sense otherwise...Paul's biting words encouraging women to shave their heads would be out of place if he's speaking of cloth covering a woman's head. These women were usurping the order of authority and were trying to take on masculine features. Having discarded longer hair for shorter, they threw away what glory they had by nature...and might as well shave it all off to show just how hideous and unnatural that was.

I'm with the headcovering crowd on this principle: Women MUST have the sign of submission covering their heads...this has NOT changed. This is not a principle for Paul's time only...but NOW as well. If one camp were to err and insist on wearing additional coverings besides hair, and another insist that the principle is "out-dated"...I'm going to the side of wearing extra head coverings. The other direction seems to disregard the authority of God's Word.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

sjonee said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could be wrong anything is possible when man leaves Biblical teachings and clings to his own rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presently, I don't see man leaving biblical teachings; rather, I see a woman leaving them. I have read your arguments against the head covering, but unfortunately, isogesis reigns. If you apply a principle to biblical interpretation, then the same principle should remain sound in other areas of scripture if it is based upon foundation laid down in God's word.
> 
> Would you argue that there are not mansions in heaven prepared for the faithful? After all, it is only specifically mentioned only once in the NT, and no where else. Thus it must be invalid. Fortunately, the principle that leads well to this statement is throughout the scripture, just as the principle concerning the head covering is throughout.
> 
> Shall we discuss the Trinity? NOWHERE in the Bible is this plainly laid out, unlike the head covering, which as least has one explicit reference. Yet one who does not adhere to Trinitarianism is labeled a cultist. Having less explicit evidence in Scripture for this doctrine, shouldn't you declare the Jehovahs Witness your faithful brother in the Lord?
> 
> In the writers forum, I posted an article that gives some other examples regarding the cultural argument. If that position is held, you must, in order not to contradict the logic, deny that the Law of God has any relevance today. It was culturally produced, after all.
> 
> Simply put, exegete (if that's possible, and it isn't) that Paul isn't saying what he is. If you can demonstrate through scripture as opposed to convention that a woman's head covering isn't a requirement for corporate worship, then you are in good stead. If you cannot, then at least admit it's a commandment you refuse to obey instead of going everywhere but to sound biblical thinking to defend your position.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.
> 
> Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.
Click to expand...


If head coverings are not an implication of a creational ordinance then we have to argue for them only from a post-Fall context. The point is, Eve did not have such a sign on her head. Is this what you are saying?


----------



## OPC'n

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presently, I don't see man leaving biblical teachings; rather, I see a woman leaving them. I have read your arguments against the head covering, but unfortunately, isogesis reigns. If you apply a principle to biblical interpretation, then the same principle should remain sound in other areas of scripture if it is based upon foundation laid down in God's word.
> 
> Would you argue that there are not mansions in heaven prepared for the faithful? After all, it is only specifically mentioned only once in the NT, and no where else. Thus it must be invalid. Fortunately, the principle that leads well to this statement is throughout the scripture, just as the principle concerning the head covering is throughout.
> 
> Shall we discuss the Trinity? NOWHERE in the Bible is this plainly laid out, unlike the head covering, which as least has one explicit reference. Yet one who does not adhere to Trinitarianism is labeled a cultist. Having less explicit evidence in Scripture for this doctrine, shouldn't you declare the Jehovahs Witness your faithful brother in the Lord?
> 
> In the writers forum, I posted an article that gives some other examples regarding the cultural argument. If that position is held, you must, in order not to contradict the logic, deny that the Law of God has any relevance today. It was culturally produced, after all.
> 
> Simply put, exegete (if that's possible, and it isn't) that Paul isn't saying what he is. If you can demonstrate through scripture as opposed to convention that a woman's head covering isn't a requirement for corporate worship, then you are in good stead. If you cannot, then at least admit it's a commandment you refuse to obey instead of going everywhere but to sound biblical thinking to defend your position.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.
> 
> Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If head coverings are not an implication of a creational ordinance then we have to argue for them only from a post-Fall context. The point is, Eve did not have such a sign on her head. Is this what you are saying?
Click to expand...


thank you, Beth! That's exactly what I'm saying


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

sjonee said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.
> 
> Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If head coverings are not an implication of a creational ordinance then we have to argue for them only from a post-Fall context. The point is, Eve did not have such a sign on her head. Is this what you are saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thank you, Beth! That's exactly what I'm saying
Click to expand...


Ok, so creation teaches us that the glory of woman is her hair and not a physical covering (Eve). Paul is referring to creation and not referring Post-Fall events. So the sign was visible to angels then by virtue of her natural covering? Is this what you might mean?


----------



## Theognome

sjonee said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could be wrong anything is possible when man leaves Biblical teachings and clings to his own rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presently, I don't see man leaving biblical teachings; rather, I see a woman leaving them. I have read your arguments against the head covering, but unfortunately, isogesis reigns. If you apply a principle to biblical interpretation, then the same principle should remain sound in other areas of scripture if it is based upon foundation laid down in God's word.
> 
> Would you argue that there are not mansions in heaven prepared for the faithful? After all, it is only specifically mentioned only once in the NT, and no where else. Thus it must be invalid. Fortunately, the principle that leads well to this statement is throughout the scripture, just as the principle concerning the head covering is throughout.
> 
> Shall we discuss the Trinity? NOWHERE in the Bible is this plainly laid out, unlike the head covering, which as least has one explicit reference. Yet one who does not adhere to Trinitarianism is labeled a cultist. Having less explicit evidence in Scripture for this doctrine, shouldn't you declare the Jehovahs Witness your faithful brother in the Lord?
> 
> In the writers forum, I posted an article that gives some other examples regarding the cultural argument. If that position is held, you must, in order not to contradict the logic, deny that the Law of God has any relevance today. It was culturally produced, after all.
> 
> Simply put, exegete (if that's possible, and it isn't) that Paul isn't saying what he is. If you can demonstrate through scripture as opposed to convention that a woman's head covering isn't a requirement for corporate worship, then you are in good stead. If you cannot, then at least admit it's a commandment you refuse to obey instead of going everywhere but to sound biblical thinking to defend your position.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.
> 
> Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.
Click to expand...


I won't bother making an isogetical argument, which is what you're asking me to do. Paul, in his opening statement on this issue (Vs 2-3), states that it is specifically a headship ordinance, not a creational one. So, you yourself said that the text has everything to do with headship, yet you won't obey it without a _creational_ argument? How is this reasonable?

Theognome


----------



## OPC'n

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If head coverings are not an implication of a creational ordinance then we have to argue for them only from a post-Fall context. The point is, Eve did not have such a sign on her head. Is this what you are saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thank you, Beth! That's exactly what I'm saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so creation teaches us that the glory of woman is her hair and not a physical covering (Eve). Paul is referring to creation and not referring Post-Fall events. So the sign was visible to angels then by virtue of her natural covering? Is this what you might mean?
Click to expand...


I believe that the creational reference from Paul has to do with headship and has nothing to do with head coverings....hats or hair.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 10:47:08 EST-----

Paul uses hair as an example of headship. Man over woman....hair over head. It's just an example of how headship looks not a command for women to wear hats. Headship (submitting to headship I mean) is a woman's glory just like her hair is.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Theognome said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presently, I don't see man leaving biblical teachings; rather, I see a woman leaving them. I have read your arguments against the head covering, but unfortunately, isogesis reigns. If you apply a principle to biblical interpretation, then the same principle should remain sound in other areas of scripture if it is based upon foundation laid down in God's word.
> 
> Would you argue that there are not mansions in heaven prepared for the faithful? After all, it is only specifically mentioned only once in the NT, and no where else. Thus it must be invalid. Fortunately, the principle that leads well to this statement is throughout the scripture, just as the principle concerning the head covering is throughout.
> 
> Shall we discuss the Trinity? NOWHERE in the Bible is this plainly laid out, unlike the head covering, which as least has one explicit reference. Yet one who does not adhere to Trinitarianism is labeled a cultist. Having less explicit evidence in Scripture for this doctrine, shouldn't you declare the Jehovahs Witness your faithful brother in the Lord?
> 
> In the writers forum, I posted an article that gives some other examples regarding the cultural argument. If that position is held, you must, in order not to contradict the logic, deny that the Law of God has any relevance today. It was culturally produced, after all.
> 
> Simply put, exegete (if that's possible, and it isn't) that Paul isn't saying what he is. If you can demonstrate through scripture as opposed to convention that a woman's head covering isn't a requirement for corporate worship, then you are in good stead. If you cannot, then at least admit it's a commandment you refuse to obey instead of going everywhere but to sound biblical thinking to defend your position.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.
> 
> Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't bother making an isogetical argument, which is what you're asking me to do. Paul, in his opening statement on this issue (Vs 2-3), states that it is specifically a headship ordinance, not a creational one. So, you yourself said that the text has everything to do with headship, yet you won't obey it without a _creational_ argument? How is this reasonable?
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


I am puzzled by this. Isn't headship rooted in ontology? It must reflect the nature of things (God/man) and creation does that very thing.


----------



## lynnie

The only reason people are arguing is because they are speaking English. 

Please look at an interlinear greek. The verb for headcoverings being handed down, and communion being handed down, is THE SAME VERB.

Hair and the sign of authority are TWO DIFFERENT NOUNS both translated as "covering", but the one is NOT the other.

We've been down this path a couple dozen times. The minute people see the Greek, they conceed. The Greek is clear. This debate is rooted in English misunderstandings.


----------



## he beholds

Friends, anything to help me with these points? 
Thanks!



he beholds said:


> The jury is still out for me on this one, but as I've been thinking about it, a few things have been brought to my attention.
> 
> 1) It has not been done universally for 2000 years--Calvin, a man, wore a hat (his head was covered, and in that culture, it would have been disrespectful to not have his head covered).
> 
> 2)The Scots also had the men wearing the head coverings, ie: hats.
> 
> 3) Paul would not introduce a new law, and we do not see this as a law in the OT, though we may see some instances of a woman wearing a covering.
> 
> 4) In the OT, high priests wore coverings.
> 
> 5) People say it was a creation ordinance, however, when Adam and Eve were naked, do they think she had her head covered? If so, why is this not mentioned? And what was it? Fig leaves?
> 
> 
> 
> But, the one thing that I get stuck on is I cannot see Paul binding women's consciences to a cultural norm. And if I was in Corinth and heard this letter, I most certainly would have felt obligated to wear a covering.
> 
> 
> Unless, in the Corinthian culture the only way to signify publicly that you were under your husband's authority was to have your head covered. Paul could want the women to acknowledge before the world that they are under the authority of their husbands. So, I think the principle would apply today and a woman would be required biblically to be visibly under her husband's authority, and use a means to display that, if there were such a visible custom. To clarify, I think if today the culture somehow agreed that a submissive woman would do X, a Christian woman would be prudent to also do X.





he beholds said:


> OK, another question. If it goes back to creation, why did some men in the OT (Samson) have long hair? (I know _why_ Samson did, but why was that possible?)
> Are we sure that it was always shameful for men to have long hair? I don't think it is shameful for men to have long hair now. I might not prefer it, but I don't think it is shameful.
> And lots of old ladies have short hair--I don't think that's shameful. Though again, I might prefer long hair.
> 
> 
> I am truly stuck on this issue, so my questions aren't rhetorical. I'm not sure if you can read tone very well over the internet, but if you can, I hope you notice there is no
> bull dog present in my comments on this topic


----------



## OPC'n

lynnie said:


> The only reason people are arguing is because they are speaking English.
> 
> Please look at an interlinear greek. The verb for headcoverings being handed down, and communion being handed down, is THE SAME VERB.
> 
> Hair and the sign of authority are TWO DIFFERENT NOUNS both translated as "covering", but the one is NOT the other.
> 
> We've been down this path a couple dozen times. The minute people see the Greek, they conceed. The Greek is clear. This debate is rooted in English misunderstandings.



You cannot just take a Greek word and know what it means. Just like English there's more to this language than just picking out a word or two and trying to interpret it. The way it's said, accent etc changes things. You really have to study Greek in order to know what it's true meaning is. Maybe you do know Greek I don't know. However, it obviously isn't too clear if my pastor and my denomination which is reformed to the hilt disagrees with the notion that women are to wear head covering.


----------



## Theognome

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, again I misspoke and do not believe that this text is cultural because it has everything to do with headship and not coverings.
> 
> Go ahead and prove that it is a creational ordinance and I'll wear a doily. Eve didn't wear clothes so I'm pretty sure she didn't wear a doily. She was however under the headship of Adam which is a creational ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't bother making an isogetical argument, which is what you're asking me to do. Paul, in his opening statement on this issue (Vs 2-3), states that it is specifically a headship ordinance, not a creational one. So, you yourself said that the text has everything to do with headship, yet you won't obey it without a _creational_ argument? How is this reasonable?
> 
> Theognome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am puzzled by this. Isn't headship rooted in ontology? It must reflect the nature of things (God/man) and creation does that very thing.
Click to expand...


Although Paul does speak of creation, it is not the foundation of his argument. Bear in mind that his speaking of the created order in vs 8 is in reference to the image of God in man spoken of in vs 7 rather than an appeal to creation itself. He is showing an order of glory- how a man must not cover his head (no, this is not referring to hair) due to God's glory, while a woman must do so, being the glory of man. Using verse 8 to claim that Paul's stance is solely based on the created order is to take it out of context of the rest of passages in verses 2-16. Rather, he is showing how the glory of God is manifest in man and woman with creation as a reasoning for this, and with that understood, how we must them respect said glory in worship.

So I would not agree that it is rooted in ontology so much as it is in soteriology. Ontology is involved, yes, but it is our relationship with Christ through His saving work that Paul appeals to through the passage, with his other arguments pointing to that picture of salvation.

Theognome


----------



## Craig

lynnie said:


> The only reason people are arguing is because they are speaking English.
> 
> Please look at an interlinear greek. The verb for headcoverings being handed down, and communion being handed down, is THE SAME VERB.
> 
> Hair and the sign of authority are TWO DIFFERENT NOUNS both translated as "covering", but the one is NOT the other.
> 
> We've been down this path a couple dozen times. The minute people see the Greek, they conceed. The Greek is clear. This debate is rooted in English misunderstandings.



Lynnie, you haven't really unpacked anything. At most, you've pointed out that words are not identical...if I'm to follow your logic, then is there any *connection* to Paul discussing hair and coverings? In "proving" that Paul is teaching an additional headcovering, you seem to have disjointed the passage.


----------



## kvanlaan

Paging Dr Winzer, Dr Winzer to thread 44455 - stat！


----------



## OPC'n

Theognome said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't bother making an isogetical argument, which is what you're asking me to do. Paul, in his opening statement on this issue (Vs 2-3), states that it is specifically a headship ordinance, not a creational one. So, you yourself said that the text has everything to do with headship, yet you won't obey it without a _creational_ argument? How is this reasonable?
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am puzzled by this. Isn't headship rooted in ontology? It must reflect the nature of things (God/man) and creation does that very thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although Paul does speak of creation, it is not the foundation of his argument. Bear in mind that his speaking of the created order in vs 8 is in reference to the image of God in man spoken of in vs 7 rather than an appeal to creation itself. He is showing an order of glory- how a man must not cover his head (no, this is not referring to hair) due to God's glory, while a woman must do so, being the glory of man. Using verse 8 to claim that Paul's stance is solely based on the created order is to take it out of context of the rest of passages in verses 2-16. Rather, he is showing how the glory of God is manifest in man and woman with creation as a reasoning for this, and with that understood, how we must them respect said glory in worship.
> 
> So I would not agree that it is rooted in ontology so much as it is in soteriology. Ontology is involved, yes, but it is our relationship with Christ through His saving work that Paul appeals to through the passage, with his other arguments pointing to that picture of salvation.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


This is the trouble we run into when we concentrate on head coverings. Now you think that Paul's argument for creational ordinance isn't the foundation of his argument. You are missing what he is saying when you say this. It is the foundational truth of which he speaks because he is speaking of headship. Concentrating on head coverings makes one over look the true meaning of this text, which you have done in this instance.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 11:15:43 EST-----

Paul uses hair as an example of headship. Man over woman....hair over head. It's just an example of how headship looks not a command for women to wear hats. Headship (submitting to headship I mean) is a woman's glory just like her hair is.


----------



## Theognome

sjonee said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am puzzled by this. Isn't headship rooted in ontology? It must reflect the nature of things (God/man) and creation does that very thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although Paul does speak of creation, it is not the foundation of his argument. Bear in mind that his speaking of the created order in vs 8 is in reference to the image of God in man spoken of in vs 7 rather than an appeal to creation itself. He is showing an order of glory- how a man must not cover his head (no, this is not referring to hair) due to God's glory, while a woman must do so, being the glory of man. Using verse 8 to claim that Paul's stance is solely based on the created order is to take it out of context of the rest of passages in verses 2-16. Rather, he is showing how the glory of God is manifest in man and woman with creation as a reasoning for this, and with that understood, how we must them respect said glory in worship.
> 
> So I would not agree that it is rooted in ontology so much as it is in soteriology. Ontology is involved, yes, but it is our relationship with Christ through His saving work that Paul appeals to through the passage, with his other arguments pointing to that picture of salvation.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the trouble we run into when we concentrate on head coverings. Now you think that Paul's argument for creational ordinance isn't the foundation of his argument. You are missing what he is saying when you say this. It is the foundational truth of which he speaks because he is speaking of headship. Concentrating on head coverings makes one over look the true meaning of this text, which you have done in this instance.
Click to expand...


Christ is the foundational truth his argument is based on, and if you've missed that, then I can only pray for you- no amount of discussion can undue such rebellion, only the Holy Spirit of God can do this. (edit note- this is not a declaration against your faith, rather a rebuke against an error in life and doctrine)

Theognome


----------



## OPC'n

Theognome said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Paul does speak of creation, it is not the foundation of his argument. Bear in mind that his speaking of the created order in vs 8 is in reference to the image of God in man spoken of in vs 7 rather than an appeal to creation itself. He is showing an order of glory- how a man must not cover his head (no, this is not referring to hair) due to God's glory, while a woman must do so, being the glory of man. Using verse 8 to claim that Paul's stance is solely based on the created order is to take it out of context of the rest of passages in verses 2-16. Rather, he is showing how the glory of God is manifest in man and woman with creation as a reasoning for this, and with that understood, how we must them respect said glory in worship.
> 
> So I would not agree that it is rooted in ontology so much as it is in soteriology. Ontology is involved, yes, but it is our relationship with Christ through His saving work that Paul appeals to through the passage, with his other arguments pointing to that picture of salvation.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the trouble we run into when we concentrate on head coverings. Now you think that Paul's argument for creational ordinance isn't the foundation of his argument. You are missing what he is saying when you say this. It is the foundational truth of which he speaks because he is speaking of headship. Concentrating on head coverings makes one over look the true meaning of this text, which you have done in this instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ is the foundational truth his argument is based on, and if you've missed that, then I can only pray for you- no amount of discussion can undue such rebellion, only the Holy Spirit of God can do this.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


You're right that He is obviously... I didn't think that would be questioned in anyone's head...but that's a straw man statement, Theognome!


----------



## Theognome

sjonee said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the trouble we run into when we concentrate on head coverings. Now you think that Paul's argument for creational ordinance isn't the foundation of his argument. You are missing what he is saying when you say this. It is the foundational truth of which he speaks because he is speaking of headship. Concentrating on head coverings makes one over look the true meaning of this text, which you have done in this instance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ is the foundational truth his argument is based on, and if you've missed that, then I can only pray for you- no amount of discussion can undue such rebellion, only the Holy Spirit of God can do this.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right that He is obviously... I didn't think that would be questioned in anyone's head...but that's a straw man statement, Theognome!
Click to expand...


Praying.

Theognome


----------



## OPC'n

I'm not in rebellion just because I don't believe what you've established for your family to follow. But feel free to pray for me...I could use it in other areas I'm sure.


----------



## MW

he beholds said:


> 3) Paul would not introduce a new law, and we do not see this as a law in the OT, though we may see some instances of a woman wearing a covering.



Can we agree that there is certainly an application of the creation order to a new situation? Here we have men and women worshipping together -- there is no difference in Christ Jesus; and yet the order of creation makes a difference which requires external recognition in the assembly of the church. It is this external recognition which the apostle is calling for in 1 Cor. 11 and 14, in his remarks concerning men and women.


----------



## satz

Would anyone be willing to comment on what it means to "pray and prophesy"?

Do women do it in assemblies today? If you hold to headcoverings, why is it for the entire service and not just during prayer and prophecy?


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

armourbearer said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Paul would not introduce a new law, and we do not see this as a law in the OT, though we may see some instances of a woman wearing a covering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we agree that there is certainly an application of the creation order to a new situation? Here we have men and women worshipping together -- there is no difference in Christ Jesus; and yet the order of creation makes a difference which requires external recognition in the assembly of the church. It is this external recognition which the apostle is calling for in 1 Cor. 11 and 14, in his remarks concerning men and women.
Click to expand...


I am not sure it is an application to a new situation but rather a calling back to the order of things which hair as a covering signifies.

I am still hashing this out.


----------



## Hamalas




----------



## LadyFlynt

brianeschen said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we should ignore the Greek then?
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually a bit more helpful in an argument to state what you mean. It is unhelpful to imply that someone wants to ignore the Greek. There are better ways to make an argument.
> 
> I don't know Greek, but if you would like to give a lesson, I would be glad to learn. I am limited to English.
Click to expand...


It's been stated several times throughout this thread and even in the lengthy posts we were requested to remove.



TimV said:


> I wonder if anyone on this board goes to a church which demands a woman wear a head covering.



Yes, I have...both anabaptist (EPMC) and reformed (FPC & PRC)




There are two related issues in this passage: headship and headcovering. One is from creation, the other is based on that principle from creation. We both know and it is shown in Scripture that women covered their heads in the OT, if you must have that. If Paul was only referring to the principle of headship, he would never have gone into hair and veils. For those that want to complain about not knowing the Greek, there is always a Strong's Concordance as well as more than a few very well educated men that know both Greek and many other languages. Many church fathers, past and present, have been listed. Articles have been posted. My guess is that, like with many of the posts here, they have been ignored.

There are those that WON'T be convinced, because they don't WANT to be convinced.

(and can we please call it a headcovering, not the derogatory "doily" :gag: I do NOT wear anything that resembles a DOILY...that would be certain semi-con/lib mennonites or pentacostals)

It's almost midnight here, my husband is now home, and I'm calling it a day


----------



## OPC'n

LadyFlynt said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we should ignore the Greek then?
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually a bit more helpful in an argument to state what you mean. It is unhelpful to imply that someone wants to ignore the Greek. There are better ways to make an argument.
> 
> I don't know Greek, but if you would like to give a lesson, I would be glad to learn. I am limited to English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been stated several times throughout this thread and even in the lengthy posts we were requested to remove.
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if anyone on this board goes to a church which demands a woman wear a head covering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I have...both anabaptist (EPMC) and reformed (FPC & PRC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two related issues in this passage: headship and headcovering. One is from creation, the other is based on that principle from creation. We both know and it is shown in Scripture that women covered their heads in the OT, if you must have that. If Paul was only referring to the principle of headship, he would never have gone into hair and veils. For those that want to complain about not knowing the Greek, there is always a Strong's Concordance as well as more than a few very well educated men that know both Greek and many other languages. Many church fathers, past and present, have been listed. Articles have been posted. My guess is that, like with many of the posts here, they have been ignored.
> 
> It's almost midnight here, my husband is now home, and I'm calling it a day
Click to expand...


Paul wasn't above using examples to help readers understand an important concept. Here is the example explainedaul uses hair as an example of headship. Man over woman....hair over head. It's just an example of how headship looks not a command for women to wear hats. Headship (submitting to headship I mean) is a woman's glory just like her hair is. You cannot use a Strong's concordance to understand Greek. I've not ignored Calvin and those who agree with him. And would like some OT Scripture which shows that women were required to wear head coverings to church.


----------



## Wannabee

satz said:


> Would anyone be willing to comment on what it means to "pray and prophesy"?
> 
> Do women do it in assemblies today? If you hold to headcoverings, why is it for the entire service and not just during prayer and prophecy?



Great question, Mark (not, great question-mark). 

The argument for head coverings is difficult, and hot, as can be attested by the diverse and emotional debate here. It's been debated for a long time. And, there are godly people with perspectives from both side. But it is strange that some wear head coverings all the time, when the passage relegates it to a certain time. 

I'm not dogmatic on this one. We don't wear head coverings. But the more I consider it the more I lean toward this position. During prayer a woman comes to God in submission to His divine order (the root of "submission" is order, as in God's established order). Covering her head while praying acknowledges this. For those that consider prophecy as teaching, then this would point to any time the woman is teaching Scripture she also shows submission to God's order in creation by covering her head, showing that her authority is not her own, but handed to her from Christ, through her immediate head - her husband.

I didn't see this on the "hill to die on" poll. That's good.


----------



## OPC'n

Oh, Lion!!! You're killing me here!


----------



## LadyFlynt

sjonee said:


> Man over woman....hair over head.



I believe men have hair also...or are they not supposed to? My point is, you have just over simplified the passage into something that it doesn't say. A husband over his wife, yes. Hair over head? You just scratched out a good portion of that passage and missed it.



sjonee said:


> It's just an example of how headship looks not a command for women to wear hats. Headship (submitting to headship I mean) is a woman's glory just like her hair is. You cannot use a Strong's concordance to understand Greek. I've not ignored Calvin and those who agree with him. And would like some OT Scripture which shows that women were required to wear head coverings to church.


*I* don't *just* use Strong's  I was saying there is no excuse to NOT know that two different words are used. It's like the passage where Christ asked Peter if he loved him...three times. But there was a difference with the last time from the first two. You wouldn't know that just looking at the english as they used the same english word all three times, but there is two different words, with different meanings, in the Greek.

There are OT Scriptures, pointed out already I believe, that show that covering was common practice by women. And if in doubt, due a historical cultural study on the OT.


----------



## Wannabee

LadyFlynt said:


> ... but there *is* two different words, with different meanings, in the Greek.



There is?










Really, the hair thing, grammatically, historically and contextually, doesn't work. Headcovering does not equal hair. Hair length is an indication of gender distinction - but even then culture significantly influences what "long hair" means.


----------



## Contra Marcion

calgal said:


> Contra Marcion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've never said never about any doctrine in the Bible except for this concept which isn't a doctrine. So I'll see you in ten years without a doily on my head.
> 
> -----Added 2/26/2009 at 09:58:17 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> I would leave the church in a minute if and when they mandated headcovering. I find it interesting that certain hats are "acceptable" and others are not. So a Cubs hat (the only one I would ever wear to church and that would be for a picnic) is unacceptable but a Catholic like doily is ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gail,
> 
> I find it interesting that you associate doilies with Catholicism. Where do you get that?
> 
> And yes, there are hats that are acceptable (that is, fitting the intent of DPW 2.7), and those that are not. There are hats that are clearly and obviously a sign of rebellion in worship - and I think you really do know this. Most people would think it perfectly appropriate to wear certain articles of clothing in worship to the exclusion of others. I would not show up on the Lord's day in short and flip-flops, since everyone around me would see that as a sign of rebellion or flippancy. Find me a culture where Packers hats are considered "with reverence and in the beauty of holiness" (DPW OPC 2.7), and I'll gladly concede your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Athaleyah

sjonee said:


> And would like some OT Scripture which shows that women were required to wear head coverings to church.



You aren't going to find anything in the Old Testament requiring women to wear headcoverings to church. It would have been unthinkable for women not to wear headcoverings.

It would be the same as someone 1,000 years from now deciding that they didn't want to wear clothes to church and looking in the Bible and church documents for a command to wear clothes to church. Of course they won't find any direct commands to that effect because people have always worn clothes to church and there is no need to tell them to.

The situation in Corinth was different. Here women weren't wearing headcoverings. And Paul felt that it needed to be addressed. Traditionally women had worn headcoverings and now they were not wearing them and flaunting male headship. Paul mentions creation and headship as the reason for the coverings and says that women need to wear them. Before this issue came up in Corinth, I believe that it was not an issue within the church. So you don't find headcoverings mentioned until there was a problem with women not wearing them.


----------



## MW

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> I am not sure it is an application to a new situation but rather a calling back to the order of things which hair as a covering signifies.



Jewish men were covered as a token of submission to God, but they weren't confronted with the presence and activity of women in their assemblies. In Corinth Paul tells men, Jews included, to be uncovered, because of the presence and activity of women. It seems clear that this is a new situation calling for new application of the creation order.


----------



## Contra Marcion

lynnie said:


> The only reason people are arguing is because they are speaking English.
> 
> Please look at an interlinear greek. The verb for headcoverings being handed down, and communion being handed down, is THE SAME VERB.
> 
> Hair and the sign of authority are TWO DIFFERENT NOUNS both translated as "covering", but the one is NOT the other.
> 
> We've been down this path a couple dozen times. The minute people see the Greek, they conceed. The Greek is clear. This debate is rooted in English misunderstandings.



Oh please, please, please don't try and exegete from an interlinear. Do the hard work - take Greek. Learn Greek. Then, and ONLY then, exegete and make your case from the Greek. Your case doesn't hold up anyway. The fact that two different constructions are used here does not prove anything. You still have to explain what, to you, ἀκατακάλυπτος means in it's two forms in Paul's letter to Corinth.

-----Added 2/27/2009 at 12:19:57 EST-----



Wannabee said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... but there *is* two different words, with different meanings, in the Greek.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, the hair thing, grammatically, historically and contextually, doesn't work. Headcovering does not equal hair. Hair length is an indication of gender distinction - but even then culture significantly influences what "long hair" means.
Click to expand...


Yes, in fact, Calvin argues that the text demands the covering _of hair_ with _something else_ in his commentary on 1 Corinthians.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

armourbearer said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure it is an application to a new situation but rather a calling back to the order of things which hair as a covering signifies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish men were covered as a token of submission to God, but they weren't confronted with the presence and activity of women in their assemblies. In Corinth Paul tells men, Jews included, to be uncovered, because of the presence and activity of women. It seems clear that this is a new situation calling for new application of the creation order.
Click to expand...


Thanks, certainly something to ponder.


----------



## Beoga

I am only on page two so far, but I wanted to thank everyone who has contributed so far. It is not something I have given much thought to in the past as I haven't had to. Recently there have been several discussions among people who I attend church with, so since I don't know what to believe, it is nice to come online and read discussions/debates among people I respect and trust. I look forward to reading and catching up (though with the way this thread took off I don't know if I will ever be able to catch up).


----------



## Jon 316

Wow, this thread has really grown arms and legs. Thanks to all the participants...



> It is still relevant because it has always been relevant. The reason why is because this text is only dealing with headship. When you try to put actual head coverings or long hair into this text it falls apart in its true meaning. One becomes caught up in head coverings when the point is headship.



But thw whole point is that Paul directly links the headcovering with eadship. The argument becomes pointless otherwise. 

A side note... 

My wife would not share this interpretation of scripture. I value the baptist principle of freedom of conscience to interpret scripture. I would not consider it right to expect her to accept an interpretation that she does not agree with or take up a practice che soes not believe in. 

However, at the end of the day... to deny that Paul is expecting women to wear head coverings in the assembly is simply bad exegesis. From a biblical interpretation perspective I will always point that out.


----------



## calgal

Contra Marcion said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra Marcion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gail,
> 
> I find it interesting that you associate doilies with Catholicism. Where do you get that?
> 
> And yes, there are hats that are acceptable (that is, fitting the intent of DPW 2.7), and those that are not. There are hats that are clearly and obviously a sign of rebellion in worship - and I think you really do know this. Most people would think it perfectly appropriate to wear certain articles of clothing in worship to the exclusion of others. I would not show up on the Lord's day in short and flip-flops, since everyone around me would see that as a sign of rebellion or flippancy. Find me a culture where Packers hats are considered "with reverence and in the beauty of holiness" (DPW OPC 2.7), and I'll gladly concede your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catholics wear a veil or a kerchief to mass. Here is an example of one such item.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if I understand you correctly, a woman must wear the "correct hat" to be allowed into a church? How much hair do you require covered? Is the prohibition for married women or unmarried women?
> 
> No I don't know "what is proper to wear to church": I was NOT raised "in a christian home" but came to faith as an adult. I personally draw the line at swimwear (although you will freeze to death in shorts in most churches) and would not shun someone who came to church in shorts. If a church would shun someone due to their attire, that would be a church I could not in good conscience be a part of.
> 
> A related thought: Some people DO have nothing else to wear but jeans and a t-shirt. Would you give that person or family proper clothing or take them to a thrift store to buy the proper clothing? Or would you look down your nose at them (you being the church body) and snub them for "not being dressed properly."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## kvanlaan

> No I don't know "what is proper to wear to church": I was NOT raised "in a christian home" but came to faith as an adult. I personally draw the line at swimwear (although you will freeze to death in shorts in most churches) and would not shun someone who came to church in shorts. If a church would shun someone due to their attire, that would be a church I could not in good conscience be a part of.
> 
> A related thought: Some people DO have nothing else to wear but jeans and a t-shirt. Would you give that person or family proper clothing or take them to a thrift store to buy the proper clothing? Or would you look down your nose at them (you being the church body) and snub them for "not being dressed properly."



I think that is quite a stretch. We have attended a church several times that is quite formal in attire (and covers as a 'distinctive' - it's an FRC) and never had a problem; we were never 'shunneed' in any way. And if you could not afford it, I am sure that they would come out in droves to give you what you were in need of. But yes, if you are a member, and chose not to cover, you would likely get a visit from the elders at some point. What it should show you is not how 'intolerant' and short-sighted they are, but how strongly they adhere to it as a biblical ordinance, which to them is as plain as day.


----------



## LawrenceU

lynnie said:


> The only reason people are arguing is because they are speaking English.
> 
> Please look at an interlinear greek. The verb for headcoverings being handed down, and communion being handed down, is THE SAME VERB.
> 
> Hair and the sign of authority are TWO DIFFERENT NOUNS both translated as "covering", but the one is NOT the other.
> 
> We've been down this path a couple dozen times. The minute people see the Greek, they conceed. The Greek is clear. This debate is rooted in English misunderstandings.



This will probably be my last post in this thread. 

Some of us do know Greek. I was a Biblical Languages major with an emphasis in Greek. The 'clarity' to which you refer in 'the Greek' is not there. You can't just pull out an interlinear and a Strongs and begin to make exegeitcal arguments using original languages. And, sadly even many pastors do that.

This has been an enlightening experience to say the least. I neither posted nor lurked on the PB for a long time. Looking back I can see that during this time this topic had been run around so often that a deep trench is now circling it.


----------



## Knoxienne

I missed this exciting thread yesterday, but I've read it and am very encouraged by all the comments - and not just the "pro" comments. I realize these things take time and there are a lot of issues we need to get used to, and as the scriptures say, "let everyone be convinced in his own mind". 

I put my hair in a bun, cover it with a snood and wear a hat over that. I just wear the snood and the hat to church and take them off once we get in the car to go home. I don't like to put on a covering right before worship and then take it off right after, because I feel it would be distracting. That's just my preference. I do know women who put a veil on right before services and take it off right after. Everyone's different about it. 

I just prefer to have the snood and hat as part of my normal attire for services.


----------



## lynnie

It isn't "my" Greek, it is the Greek of others whose long papers and writings I studied back in the day. Won't post them here even if I can find them, too long.

And I hold to clarity with this subject- the doctrine of perspecuity applies here in my opinion. There have been numerous posts about a woman's hair being her covering. When you look at the Greek, Paul uses a word for the symbol of authority repeatedly, and then he says her hair is given as another word. There are two words. You don't need to be a Greek scholar to see that the long hair is not the commanded covering.

You also don't need to major in Greek to see that the exact same verb is used in reference to communion and headcoverings. The word translated "tradition" means something handed down or delivered over, and Paul uses the same verb both in reference to communion AND headcoverings. 

I find it a bit disgraceful actually at a forum like this to see anybody discouraging people from looking at interlinear Greeks and at references to Greek words. Some constructions are difficult and that is why commentaries are wonderful, and some of us are not qualified to comment on various difficult Greek passages obviously. But all kinds of errors have crept into Cristendom from English confusion ( ie the word "Hope" in english is wishful thinking, in Greek a sure thing) and where possible we should do our best to find out what the Greek says and means. 

I will also comment that a common problem with nice Christian men is withdraw from relational conflict and a desire to avoid conflict. We've known pastors who believe in headcoverings but their wives won't- never mind the female congregants-so they drop it just to keep peace. The fact that a group does not do it may just mean in some cases that the guys can't deal with a boatload of women who are gonna throw a fit if headcoverings are taught as a command.


----------



## he beholds

Theognome said:


> Christ is the foundational truth his argument is based on, and if you've missed that,* then I can only pray for you- no amount of discussion can undue such rebellion, only the Holy Spirit of God can do this.* (edit note- this is not a declaration against your faith, rather a rebuke against an error in life and doctrine)
> 
> Theognome





Theognome said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ is the foundational truth his argument is based on, and if you've missed that, then I can only pray for you- no amount of discussion can undue such rebellion, only the Holy Spirit of God can do this.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right that He is obviously... I didn't think that would be questioned in anyone's head...but that's a straw man statement, Theognome!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Praying.*
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


OUCH! Not helpful brother. 




armourbearer said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Paul would not introduce a new law, and we do not see this as a law in the OT, though we may see some instances of a woman wearing a covering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we agree that there is certainly an application of the creation order to a new situation? Here we have men and women worshipping together -- there is no difference in Christ Jesus; and yet the order of creation makes a difference which requires external recognition in the assembly of the church. It is this external recognition which the apostle is calling for in 1 Cor. 11 and 14, in his remarks concerning men and women.
Click to expand...



OH! So in the OT men and women did not worship together?!? I did not know that. I know that is probably something huge that I should have known! 
So was Paul introducing a new way to display headship (or teaching on a new way?), since in Christ we are recognized as equally able to worship God, yet there is still a sense that we are inferior in life (but not in spirit)? 

Maybe it was because there were gentiles present who would not have grown up wearing coverings? Kind of like if gentiles became Muslim, a lesson on covering would be required, whereas the ones who were always Muslim would already know--that's why it wasn't mentioned in other letters? 

I have no problem that it was just mentioned in one letter. I fully believe that Paul's writings are inspired. I am just having trouble reconciling all of these other objections that I have heard. 

One reasonable, in my opinion, response to this issue from a RP pastor is something like this, "We cannot know with absolute certainty if that was a cultural way to show submission or a universal one. Therefore, I think people can do as they see fit here." Or something like that. 

OK, from Calvin:


> 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 το πρέπον — decorum If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther.*


↑Decorum can change in cultures, right?



> For it is all one as if she were shaven. He now maintains from other considerations, *that it is unseemly for women to have their heads bare.* Nature itself, says he, abhors it. To see a woman shaven is a spectacle that is disgusting and monstrous. *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, therefore, without good reason that Paul, as a remedy for this vice, sets before them the opposite idea — that they be regarded as remarkable for unseemliness, rather than for what is an incentive to lust.*






> Doth not even nature itself He again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, *and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom — even among the Greeks — he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair. * Historical records bear, that in all countries in ancient times, that is, in the first ages, men wore long hair. Hence also the poets, in speaking of the ancients, are accustomed to apply to them the common epithet of unshorn It was not until a late period that barbers began to be employed at Rome — about the time of Africanus the elder. And at the time when Paul wrote these things, the practice of having the hair shorn had not yet come into use in the provinces of Gaul or in Germany. Nay more, it would have been reckoned an unseemly thing for men, no less than for women, to be shorn or shaven; *but as in Greece it was reckoned all unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long, so that those who did so were remarked as effeminate, he reckons as nature a custom that had come to be confirmed. *



More Here

help!


----------



## Knoxienne

lynnie said:


> It isn't "my" Greek, it is the Greek of others whose long papers and writings I studied back in the day. Won't post them here even if I can find them, too long.
> 
> And I hold to clarity with this subject- the doctrine of perspecuity applies here in my opinion. There have been numerous posts about a woman's hair being her covering. When you look at the Greek, Paul uses a word for the symbol of authority repeatedly, and then he says her hair is given as another word. There are two words. You don't need to be a Greek scholar to see that the long hair is not the commanded covering.
> 
> You also don't need to major in Greek to see that the exact same verb is used in reference to communion and headcoverings. The word translated "tradition" means something handed down or delivered over, and Paul uses the same verb both in reference to communion AND headcoverings.
> 
> I find it a bit disgraceful actually at a forum like this to see anybody discouraging people from looking at interlinear Greeks and at references to Greek words. Some constructions are difficult and that is why commentaries are wonderful, and some of us are not qualified to comment on various difficult Greek passages obviously. But all kinds of errors have crept into Cristendom from English confusion ( ie the word "Hope" in english is wishful thinking, in Greek a sure thing) and where possible we should do our best to find out what the Greek says and means.
> 
> I will also comment that a common problem with nice Christian men is withdraw from relational conflict and a desire to avoid conflict. We've known pastors who believe in headcoverings but their wives won't- never mind the female congregants-so they drop it just to keep peace. The fact that a group does not do it may just mean in some cases that the guys can't deal with a boatload of women who are gonna throw a fit if headcoverings are taught as a command.



Good comments. Yes, the Greek is very clear. I've heard it said that it's not that this passage is difficult to understand - people just don't _want_ to understand it. And the primary reason women don't cover is because the feminism which is in the world has made its way into the Church, especially over the last fifty years. And elders don't want to push it for fear of angering folks. Pastors can't even preach about modesty _below the head _nowadays for fear of making people mad! So they just preach about "spiritual" issues. Soteriological sermons are safety nets in many cases. 

Fifty years later, people and leaders in the Church are arguing about a whole lot of things (the headcovering is one of the mild subjects) which are now considered controversial. Yet the Bible doesn't change.


----------



## LadyFlynt

This is NOT a doily:
















And neither are these:

Tznius.com - Modest Clothing, Headscarf and Jewish Clothing

Tznius.com - Modest Clothing, Headscarf and Jewish Clothing

Or most of these (some qualify as headbands, the rest are cloth snoods):

One of a kind Headcoverings


----------



## satz

Jon 316 said:


> But the whole point is that Paul directly links the headcovering with headship. The argument becomes pointless otherwise.



As I have been trying to express on this thread, although probably not particularly clearly, this is not technically completely accurate. 

Paul does not link headship with headcovering per se, he links headship with headcovering _while praying or prophesying_.



> 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 Every man *praying or prophesying,* having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that *prayeth or prophesieth* with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.



It is not right to state that Paul draws from creation or headship (which he does) and just jump to women having to wear headcoverings in assemblies. Paul’s whole point of mentioning creation and the headship order was to support his point regarding the treatment of the (physical) head by the two sexes while praying or prophesying. 

What is important is to identify the prayer and prophesy Paul is considering. And while those words are capable of a wide definition, I believe that in the context of 1 Corinthians 11 (the book in the bible most focused on spiritual gifts) Paul is referring to the supernatural gifts of the spirit which operated in the apostolic era. Those gifts having gone away, there is no longer a need for women to cover today.


----------



## LadyFlynt

calgal said:


> A related thought: Some people DO have nothing else to wear but jeans and a t-shirt. Would you give that person or family proper clothing or take them to a thrift store to buy the proper clothing? Or would you look down your nose at them (you being the church body) and snub them for "not being dressed properly."



Who said anything about snubbing another person?

Btw, most churches that I know of that require the headcovering, also either have a basket with extras at the door of the sanctuary or the women carry extras and offer it to a guest that may not have known (if refused, they certainly don't snub them, but treat them with the same respect as everyone else, understanding that it's a different concept for many people).

Now on the other hand, I HAVE been snubbed, used as an example from the pulpit by a minister that disagreed, etc


----------



## OPC'n

Here's my doily if I ever have to wear



I'm partial to green and gold and something to block the bright lights.


----------



## Knoxienne

sjonee said:


> Here's my doily if I ever have to wear
> 
> 
> 
> I'm partial to green and gold and something to block the bright lights.



Very versatile! When you move to my new "town" it can be worn at the dog park, the townsquare festivities _and_ services!


----------



## OPC'n

Knoxienne said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very versatile! When you move to my new "town" it can be worn at the dog park, the townsquare festivities _and_ services!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, about that move....hmmm...I think I remember you stating that there would be human torches, and I's a been thinking I might be one if I's not up with the wearing of the thing-a-ding! I'll send you a card from the edge though!
Click to expand...


----------



## he beholds

Knoxienne said:


> Good comments. Yes, the Greek is very clear. I've heard it said that it's not that this passage is difficult to understand - people just don't _want_ to understand it. And the primary reason women don't cover is because the feminism which is in the world has made its way into the Church, especially over the last fifty years. And elders don't want to push it for fear of angering folks. Pastors can't even preach about modesty _below the head _nowadays for fear of making people mad! So they just preach about "spiritual" issues. Soteriological sermons are safety nets in many cases.
> 
> Fifty years later, people and leaders in the Church are arguing about a whole lot of things (the headcovering is one of the mild subjects) which are now considered controversial. Yet the Bible doesn't change.



Well, I am going to disagree with you and say that I DO want to understand it. 
I don't know why else I'd be here asking questions, asking questions of friends who once wore headcoverings and now don't, asking opinions of pastors, and listening to sermons on headcoverings. Richard Bacon has a very good "pro" one on sermon audio. (Our former librarian's F-I-L)

I really do want to understand. Not understanding something is not rebellion. Do you not know where your understanding comes from? I don't think it is out of your own faithfulness. 

Also, I'm thinking my elders and pastors are not preaching on it because they are not convicted, not because they want the safety net. My elders are not afraid to stir the pot, thankfully. 



LadyFlynt said:


> Now on the other hand, I HAVE been snubbed, used as an example from the pulpit by a minister that disagreed, etc


*↑↑↑↑↑* Seriously? How rotten!

I think, though, Calgal was talking about the tangent about not wearing baseball caps or shorts to church. I may be wrong, but I don't think she was talking about people snubbing her for not wearing a covering.

And the headcovering pictures you posted are great! I personally like wearing headcoverings--just I've never done it religiously. I think they are beautiful. I do wear bandannas and hats and scarves, etc. I just would like to be sure before I wear one to church (well, I've worn hats to church), so I can be consistent and have a ready answer and not change my mind a few weeks later and be wishy-washy.


----------



## Knoxienne

sjonee said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very versatile! When you move to my new "town" it can be worn at the dog park, the townsquare festivities _and_ services!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, about that move....hmmm...I think I remember you stating that there would be human torches, and I's a been thinking I might be one if I's not up with the wearing of the thing-a-ding! I'll send you a card from the edge though!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my town  and I say you have nothing to worry about!  We're talking a town with Biblical law, not Islamic shariah! Headcoverings are a church matter, not a civil one.
> 
> -----Added 2/27/2009 at 10:15:04 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good comments. Yes, the Greek is very clear. I've heard it said that it's not that this passage is difficult to understand - people just don't _want_ to understand it. And the primary reason women don't cover is because the feminism which is in the world has made its way into the Church, especially over the last fifty years. And elders don't want to push it for fear of angering folks. Pastors can't even preach about modesty _below the head _nowadays for fear of making people mad! So they just preach about "spiritual" issues. Soteriological sermons are safety nets in many cases.
> 
> Fifty years later, people and leaders in the Church are arguing about a whole lot of things (the headcovering is one of the mild subjects) which are now considered controversial. Yet the Bible doesn't change.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am going to disagree with you and say that I DO want to understand it.
> I don't know why else I'd be here asking questions, asking questions of friends who once wore headcoverings and now don't, asking opinions of pastors, and listening to sermons on headcoverings. Richard Bacon has a very good "pro" one on sermon audio. (Our former librarian's F-I-L)
> 
> I really do want to understand. Not understanding something is not rebellion. Do you not know where your understanding comes from? I don't think it is out of your own faithfulness.
> 
> Also, I'm thinking my elders and pastors are not preaching on it because they are not convicted, not because they want the safety net. My elders are not afraid to stir the pot, thankfully.
> 
> Good comments. (out of thank you's)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## the particular baptist

sjonee said:


> Here's my doily if I ever have to wear
> 
> 
> 
> I'm partial to green and gold and something to block the bright lights.



Green and yellow is hideous together 






Try this one !


----------



## LadyFlynt

he beholds said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good comments. Yes, the Greek is very clear. I've heard it said that it's not that this passage is difficult to understand - people just don't _want_ to understand it. And the primary reason women don't cover is because the feminism which is in the world has made its way into the Church, especially over the last fifty years. And elders don't want to push it for fear of angering folks. Pastors can't even preach about modesty _below the head _nowadays for fear of making people mad! So they just preach about "spiritual" issues. Soteriological sermons are safety nets in many cases.
> 
> Fifty years later, people and leaders in the Church are arguing about a whole lot of things (the headcovering is one of the mild subjects) which are now considered controversial. Yet the Bible doesn't change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am going to disagree with you and say that I DO want to understand it.
> I don't know why else I'd be here asking questions, asking questions of friends who once wore headcoverings and now don't, asking opinions of pastors, and listening to sermons on headcoverings. Richard Bacon has a very good "pro" one on sermon audio. (Our former librarian's F-I-L)
> 
> I really do want to understand. Not understanding something is not rebellion. Do you not know where your understanding comes from? I don't think it is out of your own faithfulness.
> 
> Also, I'm thinking my elders and pastors are not preaching on it because they are not convicted, not because they want the safety net. My elders are not afraid to stir the pot, thankfully.
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now on the other hand, I HAVE been snubbed, used as an example from the pulpit by a minister that disagreed, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *↑↑↑↑↑* Seriously? How rotten!
> 
> I think, though, Calgal was talking about the tangent about not wearing baseball caps or shorts to church. I may be wrong, but I don't think she was talking about people snubbing her for not wearing a covering.
> 
> And the headcovering pictures you posted are great! I personally like wearing headcoverings--just I've never done it religiously. I think they are beautiful. I do wear bandannas and hats and scarves, etc. I just would like to be sure before I wear one to church (well, I've worn hats to church), so I can be consistent and have a ready answer and not change my mind a few weeks later and be wishy-washy.
Click to expand...

I think she, like me, was meaning "many people" not "everyone" 



I have to say that the most SILLY pulpit commentator happened right here in Lancaster County. There was a particular conference, held at a reformed church, and a speech given to the women by an author that wrote a book directed to Christian women. She's in LANCASTER COUNTY, with about 3 or 4 of us wearing headcoverings in the audience, and she herself has shorn hair. And her she states 2 things that I finally had to walk out and listen from the foyer, because my face is very readable. She starts to talk on submission...then states 1) husbands should ask their wives permission before disciplining a child and 2) a wife can and should wear a sign of authority over her, whether it be a bracelet, wedding rings, earrings, anything they want EXCEPT a headcovering...headcoverings are not necessary and "that was for then"...but you should wear a sign, just not THAT.  Talk about contradicting oneself! I had just picked up her book. I still haven't read it, because of her speech and attitude. And ironically, she was speaking at the Conference on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.


----------



## OPC'n

PactumServa72 said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my doily if I ever have to wear
> 
> 
> 
> I'm partial to green and gold and something to block the bright lights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green and yellow is hideous together
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try this one !
Click to expand...


"G" for Great Grander playing and colors
"C" for Crappy playing and colors


----------



## Knoxienne

I have to say that the most SILLY pulpit commentator happened right here in Lancaster County. There was a particular conference, held at a reformed church, and a speech given to the women by an author that wrote a book directed to Christian women. She's in LANCASTER COUNTY, with about 3 or 4 of us wearing headcoverings in the audience, and she herself has shorn hair. And her she states 2 things that I finally had to walk out and listen from the foyer, because my face is very readable. She starts to talk on submission...then states 1) husbands should ask their wives permission before disciplining a child and 2) a wife can and should wear a sign of authority over her, whether it be a bracelet, wedding rings, earrings, anything they want EXCEPT a headcovering...headcoverings are not necessary and "that was for then"...but you should wear a sign, just not THAT.  Talk about contradicting oneself! I had just picked up her book. I still haven't read it, because of her speech and attitude. And ironically, she was speaking at the Conference on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.[/QUOTE]

  

Women's conferences. Another fun topic.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Knoxienne said:


> I have to say that the most SILLY pulpit commentator happened right here in Lancaster County. There was a particular conference, held at a reformed church, and a speech given to the women by an author that wrote a book directed to Christian women. She's in LANCASTER COUNTY, with about 3 or 4 of us wearing headcoverings in the audience, and she herself has shorn hair. And her she states 2 things that I finally had to walk out and listen from the foyer, because my face is very readable. She starts to talk on submission...then states 1) husbands should ask their wives permission before disciplining a child and 2) a wife can and should wear a sign of authority over her, whether it be a bracelet, wedding rings, earrings, anything they want EXCEPT a headcovering...headcoverings are not necessary and "that was for then"...but you should wear a sign, just not THAT.  Talk about contradicting oneself! I had just picked up her book. I still haven't read it, because of her speech and attitude. And ironically, she was speaking at the Conference on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.



  

Women's conferences. Another fun topic. [/QUOTE]

I am generally very concerned when I see women gather in large numbers not to mention organized.


----------



## OPC'n

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that the most SILLY pulpit commentator happened right here in Lancaster County. There was a particular conference, held at a reformed church, and a speech given to the women by an author that wrote a book directed to Christian women. She's in LANCASTER COUNTY, with about 3 or 4 of us wearing headcoverings in the audience, and she herself has shorn hair. And her she states 2 things that I finally had to walk out and listen from the foyer, because my face is very readable. She starts to talk on submission...then states 1) husbands should ask their wives permission before disciplining a child and 2) a wife can and should wear a sign of authority over her, whether it be a bracelet, wedding rings, earrings, anything they want EXCEPT a headcovering...headcoverings are not necessary and "that was for then"...but you should wear a sign, just not THAT.  Talk about contradicting oneself! I had just picked up her book. I still haven't read it, because of her speech and attitude. And ironically, she was speaking at the Conference on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Women's conferences. Another fun topic.
> 
> I am generally very concerned when I see women gather in large numbers not to mention organized.
Click to expand...


 Here, here, Sista! Especially when they hand out tissues *before *the speech begins and they hold hands during the speech! Ugh! Give me Sproul any day!


----------



## the particular baptist

sjonee said:


> "G" for Great Grander playing and colors
> "C" for Crappy playing and colors



I miss my hometown, It was _*fun*_ messing with the horde of migrants from Wisconsin.


----------



## he beholds

LadyFlynt said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good comments. Yes, the Greek is very clear. I've heard it said that it's not that this passage is difficult to understand - people just don't _want_ to understand it. And the primary reason women don't cover is because the feminism which is in the world has made its way into the Church, especially over the last fifty years. And elders don't want to push it for fear of angering folks. Pastors can't even preach about modesty _below the head _nowadays for fear of making people mad! So they just preach about "spiritual" issues. Soteriological sermons are safety nets in many cases.
> 
> Fifty years later, people and leaders in the Church are arguing about a whole lot of things (the headcovering is one of the mild subjects) which are now considered controversial. Yet the Bible doesn't change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am going to disagree with you and say that I DO want to understand it.
> I don't know why else I'd be here asking questions, asking questions of friends who once wore headcoverings and now don't, asking opinions of pastors, and listening to sermons on headcoverings. Richard Bacon has a very good "pro" one on sermon audio. (Our former librarian's F-I-L)
> 
> I really do want to understand. Not understanding something is not rebellion. Do you not know where your understanding comes from? I don't think it is out of your own faithfulness.
> 
> Also, I'm thinking my elders and pastors are not preaching on it because they are not convicted, not because they want the safety net. My elders are not afraid to stir the pot, thankfully.
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now on the other hand, I HAVE been snubbed, used as an example from the pulpit by a minister that disagreed, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *↑↑↑↑↑* Seriously? How rotten!
> 
> I think, though, Calgal was talking about the tangent about not wearing baseball caps or shorts to church. I may be wrong, but I don't think she was talking about people snubbing her for not wearing a covering.
> 
> And the headcovering pictures you posted are great! I personally like wearing headcoverings--just I've never done it religiously. I think they are beautiful. I do wear bandannas and hats and scarves, etc. I just would like to be sure before I wear one to church (well, I've worn hats to church), so I can be consistent and have a ready answer and not change my mind a few weeks later and be wishy-washy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think she, like me, was meaning "many people" not "everyone"
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that the most SILLY pulpit commentator happened right here in Lancaster County. There was a particular conference, held at a reformed church, and a speech given to the women by an author that wrote a book directed to Christian women. She's in LANCASTER COUNTY, with about 3 or 4 of us wearing headcoverings in the audience, and she herself has shorn hair. And her she states 2 things that I finally had to walk out and listen from the foyer, because my face is very readable. She starts to talk on submission...then states 1) husbands should ask their wives permission before disciplining a child and 2) a wife can and should wear a sign of authority over her, whether it be a bracelet, wedding rings, earrings, anything they want EXCEPT a headcovering...headcoverings are not necessary and "that was for then"...but you should wear a sign, just not THAT.  Talk about contradicting oneself! I had just picked up her book. I still haven't read it, because of her speech and attitude. And ironically, she was speaking at the Conference on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
Click to expand...

That is crazy. I don't appreciate messages that say "since we have liberty, DON'T do _that_!" And she wasn't even saying that we have liberty to not show a visible sign of submission. And if the wedding ring is submission, I want my husband to take his off...only I most certainly don't want him to do that! 
UGH.

I however, have learned from women's conferences. I appreciate the ability to hear from an older, wiser woman, where she can say things that aren't typical for mixed company, though Scriptural, so _would_ be permissible in mixed company by our pastors. Think Mark Driscoll and the heat he takes for talking about sex from the pulpit. (Granted,_ I_ would not want to be present for a Driscoll sermon--a little too specific and raunchy for me, from what I've read here on the PB.)


----------



## Knoxienne

"I appreciate the ability to hear from an older, wiser woman, where she can say things that aren't typical for mixed company, though Scriptural, so _would_ be permissible in mixed company by our pastors."

I absolutely agree. However, I like Titus II mentoring taking place in our homes - fellowshiping in our living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens and yards together. To me that's a lot more fruitful and creative than an auditorium full of women where some woman stands behind a podium and lectures. My


----------



## he beholds

Knoxienne said:


> "I appreciate the ability to hear from an older, wiser woman, where she can say things that aren't typical for mixed company, though Scriptural, so _would_ be permissible in mixed company by our pastors."
> 
> I absolutely agree. However, I like Titus II mentoring taking place in our homes - fellowshiping in our living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens and yards together. To me that's a lot more fruitful and creative than an auditorium full of women where some woman stands behind a podium and lectures. My



That is actually more of what I've experienced. We have a monthly Titus 2 meeting with the older ladies of our church where they share advice and encouragement with the younger wives and mothers. (For instance, this week it was about sex with husbands, next month gardening. Prior months, vaccines, birth control, etc.) 
Though, I have been to one conference at a church once, and it was still Reformed and helpful.


----------



## Knoxienne

he beholds said:


> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I appreciate the ability to hear from an older, wiser woman, where she can say things that aren't typical for mixed company, though Scriptural, so _would_ be permissible in mixed company by our pastors."
> 
> I absolutely agree. However, I like Titus II mentoring taking place in our homes - fellowshiping in our living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens and yards together. To me that's a lot more fruitful and creative than an auditorium full of women where some woman stands behind a podium and lectures. My
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is actually more of what I've experienced. We have a monthly Titus 2 meeting with the older ladies of our church where they share advice and encouragement with the younger wives and mothers. (For instance, this week it was about sex with husbands, next month gardening. Prior months, vaccines, birth control, etc.)
> Though, I have been to one conference at a church once, and it was still Reformed and helpful.
Click to expand...


That's wonderful! There are so many opportunities to use our many gifts with other sisters and benefit from theirs as well. There is so much need! I think these sort of ministries, hands-on instructions in homemaking, intimate biblical discussions and applications are a key to alleviating a lot of depression and isolation which exists with women in our society. A little goes a long way!


----------



## CDM

*The Use of Head Coverings in the Worship of God*

A letter written by John Murray which is very short, succinct, and dispels some of the arguments put forth thus far.

The Use of Head Coverings in the Worship of God

If you are going to read only 1 [short] article--read this.


----------



## Theognome

My apologies if I got overly rambunctious yesterday eve and became offensive if not belligerent. This was very improper behaviour, for which I'm embarrassed. Please forgive this sinner's audacity.

Theognome


----------



## OPC'n

Theognome said:


> My apologies if I got overly rambunctious yesterday eve and became offensive if not belligerent. This was very improper behaviour, for which I'm embarrassed. Please forgive this sinner's audacity.
> 
> Theognome



We all love you, Theognome, because you have a purty wife!


----------



## Knoxienne

sjonee said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies if I got overly rambunctious yesterday eve and became offensive if not belligerent. This was very improper behaviour, for which I'm embarrassed. Please forgive this sinner's audacity.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all love you, Theognome, because you have a purty wife!
Click to expand...


Thank you, Sarah. 

Any sister who would rather hear a Sproul lecture than sit in an auditorium listening to "Kleenex Queens" is a buddy of mine!


----------



## Augusta




----------



## LadyFlynt




----------



## he beholds

I know I defended the women's conferences, but it wasn't in comparison to Sproul


----------



## BG

Sarah You said: "Give me Sproul any day!".


Do you know where He stands on this issue?


----------



## calgal

he beholds said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am going to disagree with you and say that I DO want to understand it.
> I don't know why else I'd be here asking questions, asking questions of friends who once wore headcoverings and now don't, asking opinions of pastors, and listening to sermons on headcoverings. Richard Bacon has a very good "pro" one on sermon audio. (Our former librarian's F-I-L)
> 
> I really do want to understand. Not understanding something is not rebellion. Do you not know where your understanding comes from? I don't think it is out of your own faithfulness.
> 
> Also, I'm thinking my elders and pastors are not preaching on it because they are not convicted, not because they want the safety net. My elders are not afraid to stir the pot, thankfully.
> 
> 
> *↑↑↑↑↑* Seriously? How rotten!
> 
> I think, though, Calgal was talking about the tangent about not wearing baseball caps or shorts to church. I may be wrong, but I don't think she was talking about people snubbing her for not wearing a covering.
> 
> And the headcovering pictures you posted are great! I personally like wearing headcoverings--just I've never done it religiously. I think they are beautiful. I do wear bandannas and hats and scarves, etc. I just would like to be sure before I wear one to church (well, I've worn hats to church), so I can be consistent and have a ready answer and not change my mind a few weeks later and be wishy-washy.
> 
> 
> 
> I think she, like me, was meaning "many people" not "everyone"
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that the most SILLY pulpit commentator happened right here in Lancaster County. There was a particular conference, held at a reformed church, and a speech given to the women by an author that wrote a book directed to Christian women. She's in LANCASTER COUNTY, with about 3 or 4 of us wearing headcoverings in the audience, and she herself has shorn hair. And her she states 2 things that I finally had to walk out and listen from the foyer, because my face is very readable. She starts to talk on submission...then states 1) husbands should ask their wives permission before disciplining a child and 2) a wife can and should wear a sign of authority over her, whether it be a bracelet, wedding rings, earrings, anything they want EXCEPT a headcovering...headcoverings are not necessary and "that was for then"...but you should wear a sign, just not THAT.  Talk about contradicting oneself! I had just picked up her book. I still haven't read it, because of her speech and attitude. And ironically, she was speaking at the Conference on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is crazy. I don't appreciate messages that say "since we have liberty, DON'T do _that_!" And she wasn't even saying that we have liberty to not show a visible sign of submission. And if the wedding ring is submission, I want my husband to take his off...only I most certainly don't want him to do that!
> UGH.
> 
> I however, have learned from women's conferences. I appreciate the ability to hear from an older, wiser woman, where she can say things that aren't typical for mixed company, though Scriptural, so _would_ be permissible in mixed company by our pastors. Think Mark Driscoll and the heat he takes for talking about sex from the pulpit. (Granted,_ I_ would not want to be present for a Driscoll sermon--a little too specific and raunchy for me, from what I've read here on the PB.)
Click to expand...


Women's conferences or Sproul? Sproul of course! If he has Michael Horton or Robert Godfrey with him that is an extra awesome bonus. I loathe the Kleenex moments and "women's retreats" on so many levels. (they are generally shallow emotion fests and I am bored out of my mind after hour 1).  I told DH I will NOT attend the "women's retreats" with their cutesy themes, their fluffy speakers and the craft hours. I will however spend the time and treasure at the local yarn store and learn to knit.


----------



## BG

Gail you said:

"I will however spend the time and treasure at the local yarn store and learn to knit. "


A headcovering perhaps?


----------



## LadyFlynt

WDG said:


> Gail you said:
> 
> "I will however spend the time and treasure at the local yarn store and learn to knit. "
> 
> 
> A headcovering perhaps?


LOL...that would be more along the lines of crochet 

Calgal, I taught myself how to knit a couple of years ago through online videos. I'm hooked now. A nice bookstore, yarn goodies, a latte, and a friend sound wonderful right now.


----------



## Knoxienne

" I loathe the Kleenex moments and "women's retreats" on so many levels. (they are generally shallow emotion fests and I am bored out of my mind after hour 1).  I told DH I will NOT attend the "women's retreats" with their cutesy themes, their fluffy speakers and the craft hours. I will however spend the time and treasure at the local yarn store and learn to knit. "[/QUOTE]

Amen. The worst thing about the retreats (who cares if we hijack now - this thing's so long!) is the skits!  The last time I went on one of those was about 5 years ago, and they did this dumb skit they wanted all the women to participate it. I just couldn't do it in good conscience and it was from that moment on I decided my retreats were going to be limited to my computer, sermonaudio.com, my Chalcedon/Rushdoony Mp3's and a mug of Starbuck's French Roast.


----------



## calgal

LadyFlynt said:


> WDG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gail you said:
> 
> "I will however spend the time and treasure at the local yarn store and learn to knit. "
> 
> 
> A headcovering perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...that would be more along the lines of crochet
> 
> Calgal, I taught myself how to knit a couple of years ago through online videos. I'm hooked now. A nice bookstore, yarn goodies, a latte, and a friend sound wonderful right now.
Click to expand...


Latte and books....... I like the sound of that!   I wonder how the IRL classes are (I am going for a scarf and a couple dog sweaters when I can actually stitch a row properly)

-----Added 2/27/2009 at 08:08:31 EST-----



Knoxienne said:


> " I loathe the Kleenex moments and "women's retreats" on so many levels. (they are generally shallow emotion fests and I am bored out of my mind after hour 1).  I told DH I will NOT attend the "women's retreats" with their cutesy themes, their fluffy speakers and the craft hours. I will however spend the time and treasure at the local yarn store and learn to knit. "



Amen. The worst thing about the retreats (who cares if we hijack now - this thing's so long!) is the skits!  The last time I went on one of those was about 5 years ago, and they did this dumb skit they wanted all the women to participate it. I just couldn't do it in good conscience and it was from that moment on I decided my retreats were going to be limited to my computer, sermonaudio.com, my Chalcedon/Rushdoony Mp3's and a mug of Starbuck's French Roast.[/QUOTE]

Skits with participation. Ew.  And why is every blessed women's function so full of cutesy and cheese!


----------



## LadyFlynt

calgal said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WDG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gail you said:
> 
> "I will however spend the time and treasure at the local yarn store and learn to knit. "
> 
> 
> A headcovering perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...that would be more along the lines of crochet
> 
> Calgal, I taught myself how to knit a couple of years ago through online videos. I'm hooked now. A nice bookstore, yarn goodies, a latte, and a friend sound wonderful right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Latte and books....... I like the sound of that!   I wonder how the IRL classes are (I am going for a scarf and a couple dog sweaters when I can actually stitch a row properly)
> 
> -----Added 2/27/2009 at 08:08:31 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> " I loathe the Kleenex moments and "women's retreats" on so many levels. (they are generally shallow emotion fests and I am bored out of my mind after hour 1).  I told DH I will NOT attend the "women's retreats" with their cutesy themes, their fluffy speakers and the craft hours. I will however spend the time and treasure at the local yarn store and learn to knit. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen. The worst thing about the retreats (who cares if we hijack now - this thing's so long!) is the skits!  The last time I went on one of those was about 5 years ago, and they did this dumb skit they wanted all the women to participate it. I just couldn't do it in good conscience and it was from that moment on I decided my retreats were going to be limited to my computer, sermonaudio.com, my Chalcedon/Rushdoony Mp3's and a mug of Starbuck's French Roast.
Click to expand...


Skits with participation. Ew.  And why is every blessed women's function so full of cutesy and cheese![/QUOTE]

LOL!!! Cutesy and Cheese! I'll take Cheese and Wine instead  

Have you joined Ravelry.com?


----------



## SueS

TimV said:


> 1) .
> 
> I wonder if anyone on this board goes to a church which demands a woman wear a head covering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I came out of a church that has been taken over by a man from a very legalistic, extreme shepherding church which mandated their women wear doilies, avoid slacks with front zippers (they pertaineth to a man!), and other rather strange habits. The women seem to delight in wearing the longest doilies they can find, exhibiting and attitude similar to that of the pharisees Jesus reprimanded for parading around with long tassles and huge philactaries. The man now in charge of my former church is pushing doilies as well as training the people to follow and obey him as their "covering". He preaches a religion of works and man-centred moralism with "holiness" centring on externals and claims to be an "apostle". The men follow him without question and the women are very unhappy. My own dear daughter is trapped there and her dad and I are extremely worried about her and her husband.
> 
> I have a very jaundiced view of mandated headcoverings and have noticed that it seems to be the churches who do this, Amish, Mennonite, and various independent charismatic/pentacostal, are works oriented and legalistic.
> 
> But....OTOH....I fully support the decision to cover if it originates from the convictions of a woman and her husband.
> 
> As a side comment - there are at least two passages in the NT which say that a woman is not to be gussied up with braided hair and jewelry. Why isn't that command given the same weight as that of head coverings?
Click to expand...


----------



## LadyFlynt

(((hugs))) to you, Sue. Unfortunately man has a way of perverting ANYTHING. And I understand how something that could be good can become so distasteful due to such.



SueS said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) .
> 
> I wonder if anyone on this board goes to a church which demands a woman wear a head covering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I came out of a church that has been taken over by a man from a very legalistic, extreme shepherding church which mandated their women wear doilies, avoid slacks with front zippers (they pertaineth to a man!), and other rather strange habits. The women seem to delight in wearing the longest doilies they can find, exhibiting and attitude similar to that of the pharisees Jesus reprimanded for parading around with long tassles and huge philactaries. The man now in charge of my former church is pushing doilies as well as training the people to follow and obey him as their "covering". He preaches a religion of works and man-centred moralism with "holiness" centring on externals and claims to be an "apostle". The men follow him without question and the women are very unhappy. My own dear daughter is trapped there and her dad and I are extremely worried about her and her husband.
> 
> I have a very jaundiced view of mandated headcoverings and have noticed that it seems to be the churches who do this, Amish, Mennonite, and various independent charismatic/pentacostal, are works oriented and legalistic.
> 
> But....OTOH....I fully support the decision to cover if it originates from the convictions of a woman and her husband.
> 
> As a side comment - there are at least two passages in the NT which say that a woman is not to be gussied up with braided hair and jewelry. Why isn't that command given the same weight as that of head coverings?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Skyler

SueS said:


> I have a very jaundiced view of mandated headcoverings and have noticed that it seems to be the churches who do this, Amish, Mennonite, and various independent charismatic/pentacostal, are works oriented and legalistic.



Yes, and don't forget those legalistic Puritans, and Reformers, and early Christians, oh and...

...I think the historical evidence lends more support than the present-day majority would seem to indicate. 



> As a side comment - there are at least two passages in the NT which say that a woman is not to be gussied up with braided hair and jewelry. Why isn't that command given the same weight as that of head coverings?



I don't know. I didn't write it.


----------



## Wannabee

Ha, I actually addressed both of those passages this month, without mentioning a word about head coverings.


----------



## MW

satz said:


> Paul does not link headship with headcovering per se, he links headship with headcovering _while praying or prophesying_.



If he does this specifically, then a dilemma is created, in that he would be specifically authorising the woman to pray and prophesy when it is his intention to forbid her to speak at all. Given his eventual prohibition it is more natural to take his words as an example of a lack of decorum in public rather than the specific action to which he is confining his instructions.


----------



## LadyFlynt

armourbearer said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul does not link headship with headcovering per se, he links headship with headcovering _while praying or prophesying_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he does this specifically, then a dilemma is created, in that he would be specifically authorising the woman to pray and prophesy when it is his intention to forbid her to speak at all. Given his eventual prohibition it is more natural to take his words as an example of a lack of decorum in public rather than the specific action to which he is confining his instructions.
Click to expand...


Is it possible that the praying and prophesying (testamony) of the woman is a silent one? Who always prays out loud?


----------



## calgal

LadyFlynt said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...that would be more along the lines of crochet
> 
> Calgal, I taught myself how to knit a couple of years ago through online videos. I'm hooked now. A nice bookstore, yarn goodies, a latte, and a friend sound wonderful right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Latte and books....... I like the sound of that!   I wonder how the IRL classes are (I am going for a scarf and a couple dog sweaters when I can actually stitch a row properly)
> 
> -----Added 2/27/2009 at 08:08:31 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> " I loathe the Kleenex moments and "women's retreats" on so many levels. (they are generally shallow emotion fests and I am bored out of my mind after hour 1).  I told DH I will NOT attend the "women's retreats" with their cutesy themes, their fluffy speakers and the craft hours. I will however spend the time and treasure at the local yarn store and learn to knit. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen. The worst thing about the retreats (who cares if we hijack now - this thing's so long!) is the skits!  The last time I went on one of those was about 5 years ago, and they did this dumb skit they wanted all the women to participate it. I just couldn't do it in good conscience and it was from that moment on I decided my retreats were going to be limited to my computer, sermonaudio.com, my Chalcedon/Rushdoony Mp3's and a mug of Starbuck's French Roast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skits with participation. Ew.  And why is every blessed women's function so full of cutesy and cheese!
Click to expand...


LOL!!! Cutesy and Cheese! I'll take Cheese and Wine instead  

Have you joined Ravelry.com?[/QUOTE]

Ravelry.com? This is the first I have heard of that site. Cheese and Wine would probably make women's events a LOT more fun and "real:" In Vino Veritas might make things a lot less cutesy.


----------



## MW

LadyFlynt said:


> Is it possible that the praying and prophesying (testamony) of the woman is a silent one? Who always prays out loud?



Given the use of "praying" and "prophesying" in chapter 14, I think we are bound to take these actions as expressions of charismatic gifts in the assembly. These certainly bear an analogy to ordinary acts of worship, but in the context the apostle's description of what was happening in Corinth must have been made worse by the fact that these women were actually presuming to speak on behalf of God.


----------



## SueS

Skyler said:


> Yes, and don't forget those legalistic Puritans, and Reformers, and early Christians, oh and...





Sklyar, you obviously, and thankfully, have never been a part of the kind of "church" I'm talking about - there is absolutely no connection between such an organization and the Puritans, Reformers, and early Christians who preached and taught the Word of God, NOT man made rules (and I'm not referring to the Corinthians passage) and moralism. Such a place is soul-deadening!


----------



## LadyFlynt

For everyone on this thread: I want to apologise if I came off snippy, retorting, or demeaning in anyway. I'm back and forth all day and I know my flybys can come off too brunt. I'm sorry for not taking more care.


----------



## SueS

LadyFlynt said:


> For everyone on this thread: I want to apologise if I came off snippy, retorting, or demeaning in anyway. I'm back and forth all day and I know my flybys can come off too brunt. I'm sorry for not taking more care.





I don't think I've ever seen you post in such a way. You've been passionately defending something you believe in and there's nothing wrong with that!


----------



## Skyler

SueS said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and don't forget those legalistic Puritans, and Reformers, and early Christians, oh and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sklyar, you obviously, and thankfully, have never been a part of the kind of "church" I'm talking about - there is absolutely no connection between such an organization and the Puritans, Reformers, and early Christians who preached and taught the Word of God, NOT man made rules (and I'm not referring to the Corinthians passage) and moralism. Such a place is soul-deadening!
Click to expand...


I apologize. I made a misplaced attempt at humor, hence the confusion.

My point was, the Mennonite and Amish churches are by far not the only ones who have held to and taught the head covering. Most of church history, including the early Christians, the Reformers, the Puritans, et cetera, up to the modern era, held to this doctrine. Your argument that the head covering is mainly propounded by legalistic groups such as the Mennonites and Amish fails to take this historical data into account.

That was what I was trying to say. I apologize again for the confusion.


----------



## ww

so I made PB my Homepage and my wife stumbled on to this discussion and now we are vigorously and seriously considering what our position is on the topic. We have been married 3 1/2 years and it has never come up except once and I am an advocate of the Hair being the Covering position. But it is now an open topic and appreciate the healthy debate regarding it. 

-----Added 2/28/2009 at 12:09:14 EST-----

If any of the Ladies have photos of Headcoverings that they wear or links to where appropriate Headcoverings are purchased my wife and I would be interested in viewing them. We don't see many women in our circles who utlize them so any assistance here would be appreciated.


----------



## tellville

I haven't read much of this thread, so if anything I say is redundant I apologize!

1. I didn't know Daniel Wallace supports head coverings! Didn't expect that!

2. I find that in many churches today it is considered awkward for a woman (or a man!) to wear a hat. And not because it is associated with this passage - I think this passage isn't even on the radar for most people. It is just culturally awkward to wear hats in general inside, especially to formal places. I know up here in Canada many places do not allow you to wear hats because they cause to many problems (stealing, bullying by taking hat, etc.), are associated with gang colours, and are generally just considered to informal. I know this has no bearing on the debate but I just wanted to state an observation.


----------



## ww

Reformed SHEology: Headcovering

This is an interesting discussion of Headcoverings.


----------



## matt01

Jon 316 said:


> Should women have their heads covered in worship?
> 
> So... head coverings, yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if there is any question that has been asked more often on this board than this one?
Click to expand...


----------



## tellville

sans nom said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should women have their heads covered in worship?
> 
> So... head coverings, yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if there is any question that has been asked more often on this board than this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think "should infants be baptized" or some variation of that may be more asked. There is an entire forum devoted to mainly that question
Click to expand...


----------



## DonP

Quote :1) It has not been done universally for 2000 years--Calvin, a man, wore a hat (his head was covered, and in that culture, it would have been disrespectful to not have his head covered).

_My responses will interweave the quote I am responding to. My understanding is that Calvin always tipped his hat, or took it off as a sign he could take off the hat as he began worship, but due to the cold weather and for health he put it back on. Now maybe you would say he should have sacrificed more and kept it off all during the preaching and praying, but at least he made sure the sign was made publically_

2)The Scots also had the men wearing the head coverings, ie: hats.


_Again we are speaking of in public worship only. A hat any other time is fine as is uncovered hair for a woman. As it says, covered when she is praying or prophesying, thus in distinction from when she is not. This is not that complicated if one is truly open to the truth. The fact some did not always keep it has no bearing on waht scripture teaches. 
Again, no one answered my question, why would women be so opposed to this practice? why would it all of a sudden drop out of most cultures when it had obviously been there for more than 2000 years as, yes the Jews and other middle easterners wore coverings as they do to this day, as did most cultures up to the recent decades; we only started stopping in the 1960s in the US_

3) Paul would not introduce a new law, and we do not see this as a law in the OT, though we may see some instances of a woman wearing a covering.

_Wy don't you see it in the OT? Who do you think Paul was talking about when he said doesn't even nature teach you. This was the normal practice of most all_

4) In the OT, high priests wore coverings. 

_yes and te few who took a nazarite vow didn't cut their hair either so what? These are not the norm_

5) People say it was a creation ordinance, however, when Adam and Eve were naked, do they think she had her head covered? If so, why is this not mentioned? And what was it? Fig leaves?

_Come on is this really exegeting and interpreting scripture, or just surmisigs and self desires? Creation ordinance means the reason Paul gave was because of the order established in creation, woman made form and for man; not because they were naked in. And 1. that was before the fall. 2. After the fall God covered them, and she evenually wore a head covering in prayer though not when picking forbidden fruit and other naked activities. The covering was for public worship, Paul is teaching how to behave in church. Not anywhere else. So why would you raise the issue of eve in the garden?? And if not her, certainly he jewish women as revelation unfolded with more clarity in time_

But, the one thing that I get stuck on is I cannot see Paul binding women's consciences to a cultural norm. And if I was in Corinth and heard this letter, I most certainly would have felt obligated to wear a covering. 

_Ok now this is just sad. Binding conscience?? Really? Does God bind our conscience when he says we can't lie or can't murder? Binding someone's conscience would only be when a human tells them they must follow rules God has not instructed. But here we are being told what God does command. Else Paul would be binding consciences and guilty of what he accused the Pharisees and judaizers of adding to God's law. So he is not doing that, he is giving us God's will or throw out the whole bible.
So when God gives a command in his word, it is supposed to bind our conscience to it. 
And it didn't matter what the corinthian culture was. Theirs was to have temple prostitutes, and worship and unknown god. 
Christ is a counter culture. He commnads us to go against culture where they go against His law._

Unless, in the Corinthian culture the only way to signify publicly that you were under your husband's authority was to have your head covered. Paul could want the women to acknowledge before the world that they are under the authority of their husbands. So, I think the principle would apply today and a woman would be required biblically to be visibly under her husband's authority, and use a means to display that, if there were such a visible custom. To clarify, I think if today the culture somehow agreed that a submissive woman would do X, a Christian woman would be prudent to also do X.[/QUOTE]

_Concluding: God did know the future, so He knew about rings and if He wanted the ring on her finger and not his, or both or whatever He would have said that. He said cover the head and wear long hair. Is this like such a hard thing to do? What if we have some doubt about it, isn't God worth just doing it anyway to be sure? 
Why rebel? Why seek to have your liberty of conscience uninfringed as if the love and enjoyment of all we can in this world was the more important thing for us? Why not be willing to give up such small liberties for the Lord? And if a man cannot control his wife in such a small thing and she will not submit to this, how will they ever in the larger things, the stronger temptations and lusts of the world?_
In his Service


----------



## OPC'n

WDG said:


> Sarah You said: "Give me Sproul any day!".
> 
> 
> Do you know where He stands on this issue?



Yes, I just happen to have a podcast of his denying the accusation that he adheres to this thought. Many people were spreading the rumor that he made his female family members cover and he denied it. I don't know the date on that podcast, but there you have it.


----------



## Knoxienne

sjonee said:


> WDG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah You said: "Give me Sproul any day!".
> 
> 
> Do you know where He stands on this issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I just happen to have a podcast of his denying the accusation that he adheres to this thought. Many people were spreading the rumor that he made his female family members cover and he denied it. I don't know the date on that podcast, but there you have it.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I think you're right. The only place I've seen Sproul give his view of the headcovering is in his book of questions and answers. And that was written a long time ago.


----------



## LadyFlynt

sans nom said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should women have their heads covered in worship?
> 
> So... head coverings, yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if there is any question that has been asked more often on this board than this one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holidays...
> 
> -----Added 2/28/2009 at 09:48:45 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Knoxienne said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WDG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah You said: "Give me Sproul any day!".
> 
> 
> Do you know where He stands on this issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I just happen to have a podcast of his denying the accusation that he adheres to this thought. Many people were spreading the rumor that he made his female family members cover and he denied it. I don't know the date on that podcast, but there you have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think you're right. The only place I've seen Sproul give his view of the headcovering is in his book of questions and answers. And that was written a long time ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also in TableTalk, which I was given permission to copy and use as it was an old issue. I posted it here, but had to remove it due to length. I will pm both of you ladies a link where you may read it  and it was pro headcovering.
> 
> -----Added 2/28/2009 at 10:01:39 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed SHEology: Headcovering
> 
> This is an interesting discussion of Headcoverings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good link, thank you!
Click to expand...


----------



## Scottish Lass

whitway said:


> If any of the Ladies have photos of Headcoverings that they wear or links to where appropriate Headcoverings are purchased my wife and I would be interested in viewing them. We don't see many women in our circles who utlize them so any assistance here would be appreciated.



I think this link will work--this is where I currently buy mine. There is at least one similar seller on Ebay as well. I generally wear the Bethany style.

Etsy :: HappyHomestead :: Plain or fancy headcoverings, headbands, and more!


----------



## kvanlaan

I just had a look at that link - hilarious！The intro at the top of each page:



> ~ALL MONEY FROM SALES WILL BE USED TO PAY FOR MY HUSBAND'S VASECTOMY REVERSAL SURGERY. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN GIVING TO THIS FUND WITHOUT PURCHASING SOMETHING, JUST CONTACT ME. THANK YOU AND WE'D APPRECIATE YOUR PRAYERS THAT GOD WOULD PROVIDE THE FUNDS NECESSARY.~
> 
> "Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate." - Psalms 127:3


----------



## satz

armourbearer said:


> Given the use of "praying" and "prophesying" in chapter 14, I think we are bound to take these actions as expressions of charismatic gifts in the assembly. These certainly bear an analogy to ordinary acts of worship, but in the context the apostle's description of what was happening in Corinth must have been made worse by the fact that these women were actually presuming to speak on behalf of God.



I don’t understand why you say “presuming to speak on behalf of God”. I believe the bible presents that during NT times there were indeed genuine female prophetesses who did indeed speak on behalf of God via inspiration (Acts 2:16-18, Acts 21:9, Luke 2:36-38). I don’t see a reason to assume that Paul was not addressing a legitimate use of the spiritual gift.



armourbearer said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul does not link headship with headcovering per se, he links headship with headcovering _while praying or prophesying_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he does this specifically, then a dilemma is created, in that he would be specifically authorising the woman to pray and prophesy when it is his intention to forbid her to speak at all. Given his eventual prohibition it is more natural to take his words as an example of a lack of decorum in public rather than the specific action to which he is confining his instructions.
Click to expand...


I would respectfully submit that this reading does cause far greater strain to the text than the one I suggest. I think it can be established that Paul’s purpose in 1 Cor 11 it to address the issue of headcoverings, not the propriety of prophesying (v 6, 10). As such, why would Paul confuse his audience by giving the example of headcovering while performing a prohibited activity? It would serve only to confuse because readers would not know which activity was wrong – being uncovered or prophesying.


I do not believe any dilemma or contradiction is created by the reading I have suggested (i.e. Paul is regulating the use of inspired prophecy by women) because I do not believe Paul does “forbid her to speak at all”. Paul’s words in 1 Cor 14:34 should be understood as forbidding not all speech, but a specific kind of speech that would allow exceptions.

1) Even the “strictest” reformed churches I know allow women to sing during the assembly in accordance with Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16, so that already shows in practice they do not understand “keep silence in the churches” as an absolute command with no exceptions. 

2) Paul already used the phase “keep silence in the church” in 1 Cor 14:28 with respect to a man with the gift of tongues but no interpreter. Was Paul forbidding that man to even open his mouth when there was no interpreter? Or was Paul forbidding a particular kind of speech – the use of his gift of tongues?. If the man did not use is gift of tongues surely he would have been free to speak (as was appropriate for his office).

So by the bible’s own definition, the phase “keep silence” in 1 Cor 14 is not meant to be understood in an absolute way.

3) If what is under consideration here is inspired prophecy, - and yourself have said that in the context of 1 Corinthians “prayer and prophecy” must be some form of charismatic gift- how can it be an appropriate reply to an inspired prophetess to tell her to “ask her husband at home”? You might tell her that now is not the time to exercise her gift, but it makes no sense to tell her to ask her husband. Again, inspired prophecy is not the kind of speech Paul is seeking to forbid.

4) Paul’s command in 1 Cor 14:34 says “as also saith the Law”. So the NT regulation is similar to that in the OT. And the OT law itself allowed for female prophetesses to teach and have authority in Israel, be it Miriam, Deborah, Huldah or Anna.


I do see enough evidence that 1 Cor 14:34 is not meant to be absolute, such that I think 1 Cor 11 can be seen as Paul making an exception for inspired prophetesses. He just required them to wear a covering as a sign of their submission to the normal order.


----------



## SueS

Skyler said:


> Your argument that the head covering is mainly propounded by legalistic groups such as the Mennonites and Amish fails to take this historical data into account.
> 
> .





I wasn't looking at any historical data, I was simply commenting on what I have personally seen and experienced. It's a frightening thing how many church bodies have allowed the discipleship/shepherding movement to take hold with their many man-made legalistic rules and regulations in direct contrast to what Paul was teaching in Galatians - they are adding to the Gospel of Christ, thus making it of none effect. Of course, I'm NOT putting headcoverings into that category but used in the context of controlling and abusive churches they become a symbol of subjection rather than submission - those women who do not go with the "program" are deemed to be less spiritually mature and in general, all women in such "church" situations are considered to be of far less value than the men. Christ came to give us freedom, not to bring us under law and bondage!

Again, let me make it perfectly clear that I believe that the wearing of a headcovering is a decision to be made as a matter of conscience, NOT a pulpit mandated "donning of the doily". 

I don't know if I will ever come to the conviction of wearing a headcovering but I DO know that I will NEVER, EVER, do it because of a man-centred mandate from a pulpit!!!


----------



## fredtgreco

*MODERATOR'S (REALLY PASTOR'S) NOTE:*

All further posting in this thread will be charitable, assuming the best of the other who holds an opposing viewpoint, and generally conducted as if in person. Failure to do so will cause the entire post to be deleted, regardless if there was otherwise helpful material in it. Repeated failure will have this thread closed.

Both sides should realize that if I were a visitor (or worse yet, an unbeliever) viewing this *public* thread, I would like reject the arguments of both sides based on the language and disrespectful attitudes shown on *both* sides.

Please brethren, remember Psalm 133 (even sing it to yourself today!)


----------



## BG

sjonee said:


> WDG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah You said: "Give me Sproul any day!".
> 
> 
> Do you know where He stands on this issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I just happen to have a podcast of his denying the accusation that he adheres to this thought. Many people were spreading the rumor that he made his female family members cover and he denied it. I don't know the date on that podcast, but there you have it.
Click to expand...


Please put a link to the podcast on this thread. Thanks in advance.


----------



## a mere housewife

Tim asked about people who attend a church that requires headcovering: I grew up in a church where headcovering is required for worship and we still attend there and wear a hat. I don't agree with the requirement for membership and I believe/have witnessed that in many situations such requirements exist in an unhealthy atmosphere where the church is willing to overstep Scriptural bounds in its authority over the consciences of its members; but we love our church and we have a really great pastor and it is a small thing for us to _comply_ with this (though it's an entirely different matter to ask/enforce compliance of others). A couple years ago we researched this for various reasons. I came to the conclusion that the 'praying and prophesying' in question are public acts, where a woman is in the place as Rev Winzer noted of speaking for God to an assembly, or for an assembly to God. Yet the very clearest thing about this kind of activity is that it is not to take place in an assembly with men present -- this is not referring to a normal aspect of congregational worship but to a special place where a woman speaks with more authority: so the point being made about the authority in the structure is even more clear. 

If I were (though I don't have the adrenaline to do such -- I almost failed speech class) to address a ladies' meeting for instance at a baby shower, or to teach children etc., in a public setting, I would wear a hat to demonstrate that even though I am praying/teaching in a position of authority, I am doing so in the proper realm and not trying to escape from but trying to operate under the authority structure of men in the church. Considering how this verse has been taken in vastly different ways by people in the reformed tradition (and yes many representations of reformers have them with their heads covered: this is puzzling to me) I explain my views when asked -in other words am not going to defend this-but am uncomfortable pushing them further; my conscience is satisfied with this, and I am in subjection to my husband in believing it. I am grateful for Colleen and others who might hold a different position but who can say the same.


----------



## ww

fredtgreco said:


> *MODERATOR'S (REALLY PASTOR'S) NOTE:*
> 
> All further posting in this thread will be charitable, assuming the best of the other who holds an opposing viewpoint, and generally conducted as if in person. Failure to do so will cause the entire post to be deleted, regardless if there was otherwise helpful material in it. Repeated failure will have this thread closed.
> 
> Both sides should realize that if I were a visitor (or worse yet, an unbeliever) viewing this *public* thread, I would like reject the arguments of both sides based on the language and disrespectful attitudes shown on *both* sides.
> 
> Please brethren, remember Psalm 133 (even sing it to yourself today!)



Good Counsel Fred! My Wife was such a visitor to this discussion. However she is a Reformed believer and was able to get clarification of the different positions from me while reading it.


----------



## Jon 316

fredtgreco said:


> *MODERATOR'S (REALLY PASTOR'S) NOTE:*
> 
> All further posting in this thread will be charitable, assuming the best of the other who holds an opposing viewpoint, and generally conducted as if in person. Failure to do so will cause the entire post to be deleted, regardless if there was otherwise helpful material in it. Repeated failure will have this thread closed.
> 
> Both sides should realize that if I were a visitor (or worse yet, an unbeliever) viewing this *public* thread, I would like reject the arguments of both sides based on the language and disrespectful attitudes shown on *both* sides.
> 
> Please brethren, remember Psalm 133 (even sing it to yourself today!)



With all due respect would it not be fairer to delete the posts of the offending parties and penalise them individualy?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Actually, Heidi, I think you hit on some very good points.


----------



## BG

Sproul Page 347 _*Now That's a Good Question*_

"If you go to my Presbyterian church this Sunday, you'll see two women wearing hats. One is a woman from Holland who is dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and *the other one is my wife because we are persuaded that that biblical mandate is still in effect*"



Page 348

*" I'm persuaded that the principle of covering the head is still in effect..."*


I have also heard this on tape also.


----------



## he beholds

PeaceMaker said:


> Quote :1) It has not been done universally for 2000 years--Calvin, a man, wore a hat (his head was covered, and in that culture, it would have been disrespectful to not have his head covered).
> 
> _My responses will interweave the quote I am responding to. My understanding is that Calvin always tipped his hat, or took it off as a sign he could take off the hat as he began worship, but due to the cold weather and for health he put it back on. Now maybe you would say he should have sacrificed more and kept it off all during the preaching and praying, but at least he made sure the sign was made publically_
> 
> 2)The Scots also had the men wearing the head coverings, ie: hats.
> 
> 
> _Again we are speaking of in public worship only. A hat any other time is fine as is uncovered hair for a woman. As it says, covered when she is praying or prophesying, thus in distinction from when she is not. This is not that complicated if one is truly open to the truth. The fact some did not always keep it has no bearing on waht scripture teaches.
> Again, no one answered my question, why would women be so opposed to this practice? why would it all of a sudden drop out of most cultures when it had obviously been there for more than 2000 years as, yes the Jews and other middle easterners wore coverings as they do to this day, as did most cultures up to the recent decades; we only started stopping in the 1960s in the US_
> 
> 3) Paul would not introduce a new law, and we do not see this as a law in the OT, though we may see some instances of a woman wearing a covering.
> 
> _Wy don't you see it in the OT? Who do you think Paul was talking about when he said doesn't even nature teach you. This was the normal practice of most all_
> 
> 4) In the OT, high priests wore coverings.
> 
> _yes and te few who took a nazarite vow didn't cut their hair either so what? These are not the norm_
> 
> 5) People say it was a creation ordinance, however, when Adam and Eve were naked, do they think she had her head covered? If so, why is this not mentioned? And what was it? Fig leaves?
> 
> _*Come on is this really exegeting and interpreting scripture, or just surmisigs and self desires?* Creation ordinance means the reason Paul gave was because of the order established in creation, woman made form and for man; not because they were naked in. And 1. that was before the fall. 2. *After the fall God covered them, and she evenually wore a head covering in prayer though not when picking forbidden fruit and other naked activities. *The covering was for public worship, Paul is teaching how to behave in church. Not anywhere else. So why would you raise the issue of eve in the garden?? And if not her, certainly he jewish women as revelation unfolded with more clarity in time_
> 
> THIS is not me surmising things for my own desires, but trying to understand them. Can people stop accusing me of that? I apologize for bothering you with my questions.
> So Eve wore a headcovering after the fall? I didn't know that and I don't remember reading that.
> 
> But, the one thing that I get stuck on is I cannot see Paul binding women's consciences to a cultural norm. And if I was in Corinth and heard this letter, I most certainly would have felt obligated to wear a covering.
> 
> _*Ok now this is just sad. Binding conscience?? Really?* Does God bind our conscience when he says we can't lie or can't murder? *Binding someone's conscience would only be when a human tells them they must follow rules God has not instructed. *But here we are being told what God does command. Else Paul would be binding consciences and guilty of what he accused the Pharisees and judaizers of adding to God's law. So he is not doing that, he is giving us God's will or throw out the whole bible.
> So when God gives a command in his word, it is supposed to bind our conscience to it.
> And it didn't matter what the corinthian culture was. Theirs was to have temple prostitutes, and worship and unknown god.
> Christ is a counter culture. He commnads us to go against culture where they go against His law._
> 
> Was that necessary?
> This was a pro-headcovering question. Please re-read it. I was saying that I know that Paul would not bind our consciences.
> 
> Unless, in the Corinthian culture the only way to signify publicly that you were under your husband's authority was to have your head covered. Paul could want the women to acknowledge before the world that they are under the authority of their husbands. So, I think the principle would apply today and a woman would be required biblically to be visibly under her husband's authority, and use a means to display that, if there were such a visible custom. To clarify, I think if today the culture somehow agreed that a submissive woman would do X, a Christian woman would be prudent to also do X.



_Concluding: God did know the future, so He knew about rings and if He wanted the ring on her finger and not his, or both or whatever He would have said that. He said cover the head and wear long hair. Is this like such a hard thing to do? What if we have some doubt about it, isn't God worth just doing it anyway to be sure? 
Why rebel? Why seek to have your liberty of conscience uninfringed as if the love and enjoyment of all we can in this world was the more important thing for us? Why not be willing to give up such small liberties for the Lord? And if a man cannot control his wife in such a small thing and she will not submit to this, how will they ever in the larger things, the stronger temptations and lusts of the world?_
In his Service[/QUOTE]
 You do not know me. I am not in rebellion. My husband doesn't need to control me, I'm not a wild animal. I respect and try to do anything my husband asks. However, just because we have not been convicted of wearing a headcovering, like most in the Church today, our marriage is not doomed and I am submissive. I think the way to deal with doubt and questions is to seek answers, rather than "do it to be sure." I'd rather do something in faith, than in law. For I do think if I don't believe that something is commanded or right, obeying it will not be credited to me as righteousness.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Jessi, you are right. Paul is not binding conscience to anything except that which Gd has ordained (as stated at the beginning at the start of the chapter before he heads into headcoverings and communion). Also to be noted is that the chapter doesn't just bring up these two issues (communion and headship), but deals with how they are to be handled.

On Eve, it is a creation principle. Meaning headship is. However, after the fall God clothed them. It is logical, from historical and cultural studies, to believe that Eve also wore a covering on her head. Mayhap, not ALL the time. Mayhap, not in the way that she would just fall through the floor of embarrassment if she didn't have it on for some reason. But it's logical to believe that she did have one 


I will say that I believe Jessi is coming at this with a good heart. She wants to UNDERSTAND it, not just slap one on because someone else said she should. In truth, there are too many churches out there that say people (men and women) should do this, that, and the other, because THEY (the minister) says so and claims it's in the Scriptures and takes any questioning of it as rebellion rather than trying to help another UNDERSTAND. I felt the same way about it. I felt the same way about Reformed Theology. I felt the same way about birth control and holidays. Prove it to me, let me study it, let me understand it. Also we must presume that she IS discussing these things with her husband. And if her husband told her not to? No accusations should be made against her character.


----------



## Curt

fredtgreco said:


> *MODERATOR'S (REALLY PASTOR'S) NOTE:*
> 
> All further posting in this thread will be charitable, assuming the best of the other who holds an opposing viewpoint, and generally conducted as if in person.



I appreciate Fred's gentle admonition. I haven't posted on this thread, but I have followed it and enjoyed most of the argumentation. There is no better place to find polemics than among Reformed brethren. Sometimes passions get out of hand. 

If we remember that, but still make the points that are important to us, this will continue to be the best theological discussion board on the web.

Thank you Al Gore!


----------



## a mere housewife

> _Concluding: God did know the future, so He knew about rings and if He wanted the ring on her finger and not his, or both or whatever He would have said that. He said cover the head and wear long hair. Is this like such a hard thing to do? What if we have some doubt about it, isn't God worth just doing it anyway to be sure?
> Why rebel? Why seek to have your liberty of conscience uninfringed as if the love and enjoyment of all we can in this world was the more important thing for us? Why not be willing to give up such small liberties for the Lord? And if a man cannot control his wife in such a small thing and she will not submit to this, how will they ever in the larger things, the stronger temptations and lusts of the world?_
> In his Service



Just wanted to add re: this argument that it imports one's own doubts into the consciences of others who may have a clear conscience in their position given their understanding of Scripture. I have seen such arguments used to urge that we not drink alcohol, that women not wear slacks, makeup, etc. -- at some point Paul does say that liberty is worth fighting for (stand fast therefore) and exhorts us not to judge one another's consciences by our own. I think the attitude described is admirable and we are certainly instructed not to sin against our conscience; but we are also instructed to have our conscience subject to the word of God and to say that others who must do the exact same things I do or they don't have that attitude/subjection does seem uncharitable to that person esp given the differing views on this subject in the reformed tradition.

I had a question (not rhetorical, sincerely wondering) I was wondering if what is said about contention has to do with contention being more against the spirit of what is being taught about the church than a woman who _is_ in subjection to her husband and her elders etc, but has a different conviction on the use of the symbol?


----------



## moral necessity

I always thought a head covering was to cover the entire head, not just the top portion of it. How does one justify that? A cover is supposed to make something become not visible. Even with a hat or typical "head covering" on, I can still see the head......so, how is that a true covering? Just wondering.


----------



## Jon 316

Joshua said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> *MODERATOR'S (REALLY PASTOR'S) NOTE:*
> 
> All further posting in this thread will be charitable, assuming the best of the other who holds an opposing viewpoint, and generally conducted as if in person. Failure to do so will cause the entire post to be deleted, regardless if there was otherwise helpful material in it. Repeated failure will have this thread closed.
> 
> Both sides should realize that if I were a visitor (or worse yet, an unbeliever) viewing this *public* thread, I would like reject the arguments of both sides based on the language and disrespectful attitudes shown on *both* sides.
> 
> Please brethren, remember Psalm 133 (even sing it to yourself today!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect would it not be fairer to delete the posts of the offending parties and penalise them individualy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's _precisely_ what he said. He would delete the whole _post_ (of the offender), not the whole _thread_.
Click to expand...


I was refering to this statement



> Repeated failure will have this thread closed.


----------



## fredtgreco

Jon 316 said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect would it not be fairer to delete the posts of the offending parties and penalise them individualy?
> 
> 
> 
> That's _precisely_ what he said. He would delete the whole _post_ (of the offender), not the whole _thread_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was refering to this statement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeated failure will have this thread closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I meant what I said, and I know what I am doing. I have been moderating/administrating this board for more than 6 years. What I said was intentional.


----------



## Theognome

fredtgreco said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's _precisely_ what he said. He would delete the whole _post_ (of the offender), not the whole _thread_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was refering to this statement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeated failure will have this thread closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I meant what I said, and I know what I am doing. I have been moderating/administrating this board for more than 6 years. What I said was intentional.
Click to expand...


You see, Fred is the head of covering this thread.

*insert rimshot here*

Theognome


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Interesting thread! Thanks to everyone who has shared their view on this topic. 

I will quickly jump and in and assert my minority view. I agree with Craig and Sarah that the issue is more about headship than a physical covering. I will also insert the dreaded word "culture" here because in Greece at the time all women wore head coverings, and often veils, as a sign of submission to their husbands. I think Paul's point is that women are to submit in the church just as they submit in the Greek culture. In other words, Paul is saying not to use their liberty as a "cloak for vice" as he says in Romans: women may not be under the oppressive Greek culture in the church, but they should still submit to their husbands and church leadership as God-ordained authority. So rather than being a general command to all women at all times to wear a covering, Paul is simply exhorting the Corinthian women to submit to the headship of their church and husbands. 

And yes, I know I disagree with Calvin and Sproul (and others) on this. But as Sproul himself said, Calvin was only right 80% of the time...


----------



## Wannabee

Heh, I wonder what percent of the time Sproul is right. If he's right 90% of the time, perhaps his comment on Calvin was in the 10%. 

Cultural distinctions in directive Scripture are difficult. If you start with headcoverings, where does it end? Doggonit Mason, I thought we agreed on everything except eschatology and baptism.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Wannabee said:


> Heh, I wonder what percent of the time Sproul is right. If he's right 90% of the time, perhaps his comment on Calvin was in the 10%.
> 
> Cultural distinctions in directive Scripture are difficult. If you start with headcoverings, where does it end? Doggonit Mason, I thought we agreed on everything except eschatology and baptism.



Wait, I think we do agree...your wife doesn't cover, does she?


----------



## Wannabee

No, actually she doesn't. We almost agree. I lean toward covering during prayer and teaching. But I have not quite landed, and our church doesn't. But I am wary of the cultural understanding of Paul's command here.


----------



## Skyler

ColdSilverMoon said:


> I will quickly jump and in and assert my minority view. I agree with Craig and Sarah that the issue is more about headship than a physical covering. I will also insert the dreaded word "culture" here because in Greece at the time all women wore head coverings, and often veils, as a sign of submission to their husbands. I think Paul's point is that women are to submit in the church just as they submit in the Greek culture. In other words, Paul is saying not to use their liberty as a "cloak for vice" as he says in Romans: women may not be under the oppressive Greek culture in the church, but they should still submit to their husbands and church leadership as God-ordained authority. So rather than being a general command to all women at all times to wear a covering, Paul is simply exhorting the Corinthian women to submit to the headship of their church and husbands.



I don't think the cultural argument is quite sound. For one thing, it has relatively recent origins; any doctrine which falls into that category is immediately suspect. It is akin to saying that the church never really understood what Paul said until these modern times.

Secondly, I don't think there is any justification for this position scripturally. I'm not as familiar with the Bible as many(most?) on this board, but I don't think I've ever seen a passage with a command as explicit as "she should cover her head" that wasn't intended to be taken seriously.

Regards,


----------



## LadyFlynt

Wannabee said:


> Cultural distinctions in directive Scripture are difficult. If you start with headcoverings, where does it end?



hmm...bread and wine vs cheezits and coke


----------



## SueS

LadyFlynt said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cultural distinctions in directive Scripture are difficult. If you start with headcoverings, where does it end?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmm...bread and wine vs cheezits and coke
Click to expand...





You may have said this in jest, but the man in charge of my former church told us about the time when the Southern church he was attending celebrated communion with grape Nehi and moon pies. He had no problem with it....said it was cultural!


----------



## calgal

SueS said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cultural distinctions in directive Scripture are difficult. If you start with headcoverings, where does it end?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmm...bread and wine vs cheezits and coke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may have said this in jest, but the man in charge of my former church told us about the time when the Southern church he was attending celebrated communion with grape Nehi and moon pies. He had no problem with it....said it was cultural!
Click to expand...


That is NASTY!  Question: is it appropriate to serve communion using grape juice? Not talking padeocommunion but adults served bread and grape juice. That is common (wine is controversial when there are recovering alcoholics in the congregation).


----------



## SpokenFor

OK..I finally gave up reading every post when I hit the top of this page! I do not wish to enter a formal argument, and will simply say that I have recently been convinced that headcovering is very much for today. 

God had put a lot of "pro" arguments blogs/websites/PB threads in front of me for quite a while before I finally submitted. What it boiled down to -for me- was pride. My hair was indeed my "glory" and I didn't want to cover that and let Christ's glory shine through. Eventually, though, the Holy Spirit so convicted me that I actually bought a (horrid) scarf at Target on my way to church one Sunday and sneaked it up over my head during prayer times. It felt wonderful. It was so freeing to finally be obedient in that area. 

I now cover pretty much all the time. I do not wear a "doily" or "hanky" and would never wear a baseball cap that proclaims the glory of some worldly sports team. Much like the top photo that Lady Flynt posted a few pages back, I wear pretty scarves. I am less shy about it, although I do get some eye rolls and snarky comments. I find it easier to wear the covering all day than to put it on and take if off.

I have posted my reasons for wearing one both in the Tea Parlor on the Headcovering Support thread and on Facebooks "Headcovering Christians" group page. 

Whitway: if your wife is wanting to see the blessing that comes with wearing a headcovering... I get mine at thrift stores ($1-$2) and ebay. I wear both square and long rectangular ones for a variety in tying. Currently I have silk/rayon ones and recently ordered some pretty cotton square ones for summer. I also like the ones on Headcoverings


----------



## OPC'n

WDG said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WDG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah You said: "Give me Sproul any day!".
> 
> 
> Do you know where He stands on this issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I just happen to have a podcast of his denying the accusation that he adheres to this thought. Many people were spreading the rumor that he made his female family members cover and he denied it. I don't know the date on that podcast, but there you have it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please put a link to the podcast on this thread. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...


I have over 700 of his podcast and really don't want to go find it. If I do happen to find it I will tell you the name of it, but of course couldn't link you to it since it's on my computer. I have found some things he has said in that book, "Now That's a Good Question" is different from what he now says. For example, in that book he says one thing about people having pictures of Christ and then says another thing in one of his podcast. I don't know how old that book is or the podcast, but clearly is changes his mind on different issues. You certainly do not have to believe me since I cannot find that podcast...could but I would have to listen to many many of them. On that podcast he stated he wanted to clear up two rumors: on was the head covering and the other was something on golf. Here is what he says on the matter in his Reformation Study Bible:

*the head* The significance of this metaphor has long been debated by scholars it may indicate leadership and authority, or source in origin. The evidence from Greek literature is ambiguous, and the present context does not resolve the problem. The two ideas should probably not be regarded as excluding each other. In two other contexts where Paul speaks of Christ as head (Eph 4:15; Col. 2:19) the notion of "source" maybe present. (cf. v8). Elsewhere Paul uses the metaphor with explicit reference to authority or submission. (Eph 1:22; 5:23, 24; Col 1:18; 2:10). Here the stress probably falls on authority rather than source (cf. v10). 

*his head covered* What little evidence that exist seems to indicate that, with few exceptions, men in the first century left their heads uncovered while worshipping. The Jewish custom of men covering their heads at prayer probably does not go back to the NT period. 

*dishonors his head *Probably a reference to Christ as the head (v7). Neither the Bible nor other documents explain why such a practice would dishonor Christ (cf. v10 note). 

*her head uncovered* Given the contrast with the previous verse, this comment suggests that women in the first century normally worshipped with a head covering. Some scholars think that Paul refers to a particular hair style (in Num 5:18, loosening a woman's hair is part of the test for an unfaithful wife). See note on v15.

*the same as if her head were shaven* In verse six, shaving a woman's head is compared to having the hair cut short, presumably like a man's. It appears then that Paul is opposing a practice that tended to obliterate the distinction between the sexes. Possibly the controversy reflects the idea of some Corinthians that they had achieved perfection and were no longer subject to the normal rules. (Introduction: Date and Occasion).

*woman is the glory of man* See "The Image of God" at Gen 1:27.

*woman for man* See "Body and Soul, Male and Female" at Gen 2:7.

*because of the angels* Many interpretations of this phrase have been suggested, but they are all speculative. Paul's argument is closely tied to a specific historical situation, and we should be cautious about applying all its details universally (vv. 4, 16 notes).

*11:11, 12* These verses appear to be a qualification of the previous comments. With specific reference to our relationship "in the Lord," men and women are mutually dependent, since we are one in Him (Gal 3:28). 

*nature* Interpreters differ about the meaning of this term. Some believe it refers to the created order. Others argue the apostle is here appealing to the common practices of his day.

*for a covering* Paul may mean that since the woman's long hair serves as a covering, it is equally appropriate for her to wear a veil. Some argue that the hair is "in place of" a covering. This would support the view that Paul refers not to veils but a particular hair style (v. 5 note).

*we have no such practice* Paul does not use exactly this kind of argument elsewhere in any of his letters. Such a conclusion to a difficult passage may give some support to the view that the apostle *was not* prescribing permanent forms of worship, but dealing with questions of cultural appropriateness. To be sure, such questions have theological implications (v5 note).
__________________


----------



## SpokenFor

calgal said:


> You may have said this in jest, but the man in charge of my former church told us about the time when the Southern church he was attending celebrated communion with grape Nehi and moon pies. He had no problem with it....said it was cultural!



Church I used to attend used Bugles one Sunday. This was a charismatic church that like to blow rams horns and wave flags during service.

That being said, however, when I was on a missions trip once, the small group of us were having a great time fellowship, praying and worshipping God together and we wanted to share the Lord's Supper together. The only things we could find were potato chips and apple juice. I think God blessed it.


----------



## Jon 316

I was wondering if those who are for and those who are against could some up their arguments in bullet points?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Wannabee said:


> No, actually she doesn't. We almost agree. I lean toward covering during prayer and teaching. But I have not quite landed, and our church doesn't. But I am wary of the cultural understanding of Paul's command here.



Right, I agree that we have to be very careful when discussing specific cultural considerations of the Bible - it would be very wrong to brush off inconvenient mandates as mere cultural items. 

However, cultural allusions are found throughout the Bible, especially the New Testament. Paul and Peter both exhort women not to wear gold and braid their hair - is a woman who ever wears gold jewelry or braids their hair sinful? I don't think so, because the warning is against pre-occupation with external appearance rather than honor God first with the heart. Likewise, no one today asks us to carry their things a mile the way they did in Roman-occupied Judea.

So I agree Pastor Johnson, extreme care must be taken when considering culture in the Bible. But it is still a valid concept in determining the overall meaning of the passage.


----------



## OPC'n

I would like to add that even if Sproul has once again changed his mind on this matter and thinks that women should cover their head, it would not change my mind. I still will not cover and I am very glad that my pastor (btw, he said wearing base ball caps to the OPC church is allowed) and the OPC has seen rightly and have not required this of their congregation. The OPC if very reformed and I put stalk in what they have to say on this matter. I just pray that people with this law do not ever try to influence my pastor's thinking on this. I feel very strongly on this matter and see covering one's head as a side-tracking thought. It takes away from the true meaning of this text.


----------



## LadyFlynt

* the bible says it
* in the Greek
* and every other language
* it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
* it's part of the order of worship
* it's a symbol of headship (my *husband* being over me and Christ over him)
* it's a sign unto the angels
* even the angels covered before the face of Gd
* only man has ever been shown facing Gd without
* modesty issue that extends past this passage and would be way off topic


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

LadyFlynt said:


> * the bible says it
> * in the Greek
> * and every other language
> * it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
> * it's part of the order of worship
> * it's a symbol of headship (my *husband* being over me and Christ over him)
> * it's a sign unto the angels
> * even the angels covered before the face of Gd
> * only man has ever been shown facing Gd without
> * modesty issue that extends past this passage and would be way off topic



Just out of curiosity, do you think it's sinful for any woman not to cover her hair in worship?


----------



## Wannabee

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Right, I agree that we have to be very careful when discussing specific cultural considerations of the Bible - it would be very wrong to brush off inconvenient mandates as mere cultural items.
> 
> However, cultural allusions are found throughout the Bible, especially the New Testament. Paul and Peter both exhort women not to wear gold and braid their hair - is a woman who ever wears gold jewelry or braids their hair sinful? I don't think so, because the warning is against pre-occupation with external appearance rather than honor God first with the heart. Likewise, no one today asks us to carry their things a mile the way they did in Roman-occupied Judea.
> 
> So I agree, extreme care must be taken when considering culture in the Bible. But it is still a valid concept in determining the overall meaning of the passage.



Thanks Mason. Yes, we must strive to understand the culture. But looking at Peter and Paul will reveal that their comments in regard to the outward appearance transcend culture and time. Peter's contrast in 1 Peter 3:3 is between focusing on outward appearance and inner reality. The language lends itself to "not merely focusing on your appearance, but focus rather on the heart." So, culture really has no significance in that passage. Paul's admonition in 1 Timothy 2 is similar, focusing on good works and modest with that which draws attention to one's self. The attention a woman should bring to herself should be based on her godliness, which grows more beautiful with time, rather than turn heads with immodest or costly attire. I don't think the descriptions are specific enough to be merely cultural.

I have been coming to this conclusion slowly. In 1 Cor 11:13-16 I am being more persuaded. Paul appears to nature (God's created order), and the "churches of God." There is debate on this, but it holds a strong influence on why I am being persuaded. And, as has been jovially alluded to, conduct in the Lord's Supper follows. Where do cultural distinctions end in context?

heh, after a bazillion posts, a new discussion develops. Funny.

I actually had a discussion on this with members of our church not too long ago. I can argue either side quite persuasively, I think.  Now I need to convince myself, one way or the other. Not fully persuaded, but it's getting more slippery by the day.  

Blessings,


----------



## nicnap




----------



## Skyler

ColdSilverMoon said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> * the bible says it
> * in the Greek
> * and every other language
> * it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
> * it's part of the order of worship
> * it's a symbol of headship (my *husband* being over me and Christ over him)
> * it's a sign unto the angels
> * even the angels covered before the face of Gd
> * only man has ever been shown facing Gd without
> * modesty issue that extends past this passage and would be way off topic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, do you think it's sinful for any woman not to cover her hair in worship?
Click to expand...


I know you asked LadyFlynt, but if you don't mind I'd like to add my two cents. 

I think that if Paul, under the inspiration of God, commanded it, and someone refuses to do it, then yes, it would be sin, wouldn't it?


----------



## Wannabee

Hey, I don't think I ever posted on page seven of a thread before.


----------



## Scottish Lass

LadyFlynt said:


> * the bible says it
> * in the Greek
> * and every other language
> * it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
> * it's part of the order of worship
> * it's a symbol of headship (my *husband* being over me and Christ over him)
> * it's a sign unto the angels
> * even the angels covered before the face of Gd
> * only man has ever been shown facing Gd without


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Wannabee said:


> Thanks Mason. Yes, we must strive to understand the culture. But looking at Peter and Paul will reveal that their comments in regard to the outward appearance transcend culture and time. Peter's contrast in 1 Peter 3:3 is between focusing on outward appearance and inner reality. The language lends itself to "not merely focusing on your appearance, but focus rather on the heart." So, culture really has no significance in that passage. Paul's admonition in 1 Timothy 2 is similar, focusing on good works and modest with that which draws attention to one's self. The attention a woman should bring to herself should be based on her godliness, which grows more beautiful with time, rather than turn heads with immodest or costly attire. I don't think the descriptions are specific enough to be merely cultural.
> 
> 
> 
> Blessings,



So, are you saying it is wrong for women today to wear gold jewelry and braid their hair? Or does the major point of being godly over externally enticing transcend time?

Not trying to make a point, just trying to understand what you're saying...


----------



## LadyFlynt

ColdSilverMoon said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> * the bible says it
> * in the Greek
> * and every other language
> * it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
> * it's part of the order of worship
> * it's a symbol of headship (my *husband* being over me and Christ over him)
> * it's a sign unto the angels
> * even the angels covered before the face of Gd
> * only man has ever been shown facing Gd without
> * modesty issue that extends past this passage and would be way off topic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, do you think it's sinful for any woman not to cover her hair in worship?
Click to expand...


If I believe that Gd said I should do something and I don't, then yes, I believe I would be sinning. Neither am I going to stand and shake my finger at ladies and tell them that they are "rebelliously sinning" though either.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

LadyFlynt said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> * the bible says it
> * in the Greek
> * and every other language
> * it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
> * it's part of the order of worship
> * it's a symbol of headship (my *husband* being over me and Christ over him)
> * it's a sign unto the angels
> * even the angels covered before the face of Gd
> * only man has ever been shown facing Gd without
> * modesty issue that extends past this passage and would be way off topic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, do you think it's sinful for any woman not to cover her hair in worship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I believe that Gd said I should do something and I don't, then yes, I believe I would be sinning. Neither am I going to stand and shake my finger at ladies and tell them that they are "rebelliously sinning" though either.
Click to expand...


Ok, so is it a matter of Christian liberty (as Paul describes at the end of 1 Corinthians 10) or is it an absolute sin for every woman who does not wear a head cover during worship?


----------



## Wannabee

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. It's late, and I'm on my last leg of sermon prep (okay, not that late, but it feels late  ). 
The point isn't whether they wore jewelry or did their hair. It was a matter of the heart. Jewelry is fine. And no man wants a woman with ratty hair (well, I guess it's in style now...). Nice clothes are a blessing. But the point of both of those passages is that a woman should endear herself to God first and foremost, through faithfulness. This is the greatest beauty any woman can aspire to, and is the greatest blessing to her church and, if married, her husband. A white-washed tomb is an abomination. And that's exactly what a woman who dolls herself up to gain attention is. And, honestly, the more fully a woman pursues God the less she's distracted with the baubles of the world. Hope that makes more sense.


----------



## LadyFlynt

ColdSilverMoon said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, do you think it's sinful for any woman not to cover her hair in worship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I believe that Gd said I should do something and I don't, then yes, I believe I would be sinning. Neither am I going to stand and shake my finger at ladies and tell them that they are "rebelliously sinning" though either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so is it a matter of Christian liberty (as Paul describes at the end of 1 Corinthians 10) or is it an absolute sin for every woman who does not wear a head cover during worship?
Click to expand...


I believe the kind of covering is a matter of liberty; I do not believe that BEING covered is a matter of Christian liberty. I believe it is a command as much as I believe baptism, communion, loving my neighbour, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my Gd are commands.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Wannabee said:


> I'm sorry I wasn't clear. It's late, and I'm on my last leg of sermon prep (okay, not that late, but it feels late  ).
> The point isn't whether they wore jewelry or did their hair. It was a matter of the heart. Jewelry is fine. And no man wants a woman with ratty hair (well, I guess it's in style now...). Nice clothes are a blessing. But the point of both of those passages is that a woman should endear herself to God first and foremost, through faithfulness. This is the greatest beauty any woman can aspire to, and is the greatest blessing to her church and, if married, her husband. A white-washed tomb is an abomination. And that's exactly what a woman who dolls herself up to gain attention is. And, honestly, the more fully a woman pursues God the less she's distracted with the baubles of the world. Hope that makes more sense.



Absolutely, and I couldn't agree more! Thanks, Pastor Johnson!


----------



## Wannabee

Thank you Mason.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

LadyFlynt said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I believe that Gd said I should do something and I don't, then yes, I believe I would be sinning. Neither am I going to stand and shake my finger at ladies and tell them that they are "rebelliously sinning" though either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so is it a matter of Christian liberty (as Paul describes at the end of 1 Corinthians 10) or is it an absolute sin for every woman who does not wear a head cover during worship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the kind of covering is a matter of liberty; I do not believe that BEING covered is a matter of Christian liberty. I believe it is a command as much as I believe baptism, communion, loving my neighbour, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my Gd are commands.
Click to expand...


Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?


----------



## LadyFlynt

ColdSilverMoon said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so is it a matter of Christian liberty (as Paul describes at the end of 1 Corinthians 10) or is it an absolute sin for every woman who does not wear a head cover during worship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the kind of covering is a matter of liberty; I do not believe that BEING covered is a matter of Christian liberty. I believe it is a command as much as I believe baptism, communion, loving my neighbour, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my Gd are commands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?
Click to expand...


I do not believe the is forbidding braids or jewelry. It is referring to the RELYING on of such things to either think highly of oneself or believe one to be in a better position than others. There was, I believe, a similar issue going on, between the wealthy and needy, during communion and thus the establishment for how communion should be done (?) So the answer is no. Nor do I think it's a sin to wear cosmetics.

Pastor Johnson stated it very well.


----------



## Skyler

ColdSilverMoon said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so is it a matter of Christian liberty (as Paul describes at the end of 1 Corinthians 10) or is it an absolute sin for every woman who does not wear a head cover during worship?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the kind of covering is a matter of liberty; I do not believe that BEING covered is a matter of Christian liberty. I believe it is a command as much as I believe baptism, communion, loving my neighbour, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my Gd are commands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?
Click to expand...


Why is she braiding hair or wearing jewelry?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Skyler said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the kind of covering is a matter of liberty; I do not believe that BEING covered is a matter of Christian liberty. I believe it is a command as much as I believe baptism, communion, loving my neighbour, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my Gd are commands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is she braiding hair or wearing jewelry?
Click to expand...


Perhaps to control her hair under her covering  (not all ladies are able to withstand the torture of buns and hair pins and do not the little girls wear them?) and perhaps her husband bought her jewelry just as the patriarchs gave their betrothed.


----------



## lynnie

You get to the point, if you believe in wearing headcoverings, and it may take years to get to this point.....

that you have to be honest and answer that you think it is sin to not wear one.

I mean, if you think it was handed down just like communion was (Paul uses the same verb for both in a two part passage here), then to not wear a head covering is exactly like refusing to partake of the symbol of Christ's body and blood.

I wasted YEARS not wanting to be legalistic and condeming or critical or judgemental or divisive, and when the subject came up I went along the usual route of saying what really matters is the heart ( yeah, that's true, but it was a way to avoid conflict for me).

Well, we hold to outward symbols of baptism and communion (and James 5 anointing with oil for healing in some churches) and this is a fourth symbol. It isn't either/or, its both, symbol and heart. You don't say it is enough to be regenerated and you don't need to be baptized. You don't say it is enough to feast on Jesus in private devotions and skip communion with the gathering. Most folks don't think it is enough to "rest" in the Lord in their heart and work on the Sabbath. And I no longer say it is enough to be submitted without the covering.

Once you are honest about what you really believe -that it is sin to not wear it- its funny, you end up just feeling so sorry for women and what they are missing out on. You feel so much love, and the richess of joy in obeying the Word in this area (usually counter to peer pressure) is heart warming. You actually shut up  and pray unless they bring it up. 

I've been married almost 30 years and I don't know if I ever met a kinder caring husband. I love him so much. I honestly think that the headcovering in some way, in the great mystery of spiritual sowing and reaping, is part of the oneness I have, and part of the feeling of being deeply protected and cared for by a sacrificial Christlike man. 



edit- regarding pearls- back then the only ones available were the real thing and they could cost a years wages. Not like today's cultured pearls and plastic. They were a horrific extravagance.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

LadyFlynt said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the kind of covering is a matter of liberty; I do not believe that BEING covered is a matter of Christian liberty. I believe it is a command as much as I believe baptism, communion, loving my neighbour, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my Gd are commands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not believe the is forbidding braids or jewelry. It is referring to the RELYING on of such things to either think highly of oneself or believe one to be in a better position than others. There was, I believe, a similar issue going on, between the wealthy and needy, during communion and thus the establishment for how communion should be done (?) So the answer is no. Nor do I think it's a sin to wear cosmetics.
> 
> Pastor Johnson stated it very well.
Click to expand...


Yep, I agree with you, and with Pastor Johnson. But I'm not sure I understand your reasoning then on 1 Corinthians 11. After all, you said:



> * the bible says it
> * in the Greek
> * and every other language
> * it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century



Doesn't the same also apply to 1 Peter and 1 Timothy? In fact, almost the exact same thing (verbatim) was repeated by two different Apostles to two different audiences. I'm just trying to figure out why that's not binding while head covering is based on your reasoning....


----------



## LadyFlynt

Lynnie, I don't think you were implying otherwise...but I am being honest. However, I answered as I did, because many times, people will toss their conclusion of how they think you will respond based on the simple yes or no. We used to give a simply yes at one time. That was taken so personally that we received harassment based on presumptions of what that "yes" meant. Yes, I believe it's a sin not to...no, I'm not going to look down my nose at anyone as though I have one over on them (heaven forbid as I will always have much to learn myself).

-----Added 2/28/2009 at 08:27:11 EST-----



ColdSilverMoon said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe the is forbidding braids or jewelry. It is referring to the RELYING on of such things to either think highly of oneself or believe one to be in a better position than others. There was, I believe, a similar issue going on, between the wealthy and needy, during communion and thus the establishment for how communion should be done (?) So the answer is no. Nor do I think it's a sin to wear cosmetics.
> 
> Pastor Johnson stated it very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I agree with you, and with Pastor Johnson. But I'm not sure I understand your reasoning then on 1 Corinthians 11. After all, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * the bible says it
> * in the Greek
> * and every other language
> * it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't the same also apply to 1 Peter and 1 Timothy? In fact, almost the exact same thing (verbatim) was repeated by two different Apostles to two different audiences. I'm just trying to figure out why that's not binding while head covering is based on your reasoning....
Click to expand...


Yes, it does. But those verses do not forbid the wearing of.


----------



## Skyler

LadyFlynt said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is she braiding hair or wearing jewelry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps to control her hair under her covering  (not all ladies are able to withstand the torture of buns and hair pins and do not the little girls wear them?) and perhaps her husband bought her jewelry just as the patriarchs gave their betrothed.
Click to expand...


Well, yes. The impression I intended to convey was "What are her motives for braiding hair/wearing jewelry?".


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

LadyFlynt said:


> Yes, it does. But those verses do not forbid the wearing of.



Ok, I'm still a bit confused. 1 Timothy 2:9-10 says:



> in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, *not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing*, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.



And 1 Peter 3:3-4



> *Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel*— rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.



So, I don't mean to be obtuse, but both of those seem to pretty directly and clearly say not to wear gold and braided hair and fine clothes. I agree that they make a larger point, but 1 Corinthians 11 does as well (submission to headship of Christ and husbands). So why are headcoverings literally binding while the admonition to not wear gold, braided hair, etc is not literally binding?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Skyler said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is she braiding hair or wearing jewelry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps to control her hair under her covering  (not all ladies are able to withstand the torture of buns and hair pins and do not the little girls wear them?) and perhaps her husband bought her jewelry just as the patriarchs gave their betrothed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes. The impression I intended to convey was "What are her motives for braiding hair/wearing jewelry?".
Click to expand...


Bingo...the motive was what the passages were referring to. There is nothing wrong with wearing them, there is nothing wrong with "looking pretty" particularly for one's husband. It was the extreme reliance that some women placed in it and how they viewed themselves compared to others because of it. You also must understand what "broidering" meant at that time. Upper classes of women had slaves that would spend HOURS doing their hair into elaborate updo's with ribbons of gold and silver and strands of pearls "broidered" (embroidered or braided into) throughout. This is pretty much in line with gluttony in that it takes something not forbidden and gorges oneself upon it.

-----Added 2/28/2009 at 08:39:59 EST-----

Mason, key words: moderation and merely 

It is literally binding...I should be moderate...not relying on my appearance, but rather on the hidden person of the heart. The same people that are against jewelry quote the verse in the OT that Gd hates their jewelry, yet the same passage states that He also hated their garments...should they go naked? In the case of 1 Corinthians 11, it is speaking of BOTH a principle and an ordinance/command. That we are COMMANDED to wear a covering as a symbol of the principle. In the jewelry case, it is saying that one shouldn't rely on it, that moderation/propriety should be kept in play...but does not forbid it. Same with alcohol...it's not forbidden, in fact it's recommended (for the stomach) and commanded (for communion). But we are not to be gluttonous and drunkards.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

LadyFlynt said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps to control her hair under her covering  (not all ladies are able to withstand the torture of buns and hair pins and do not the little girls wear them?) and perhaps her husband bought her jewelry just as the patriarchs gave their betrothed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes. The impression I intended to convey was "What are her motives for braiding hair/wearing jewelry?".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo...the motive was what the passages were referring to. There is nothing wrong with wearing them, there is nothing wrong with "looking pretty" particularly for one's husband. It was the extreme reliance that some women placed in it and how they viewed themselves compared to others because of it. You also must understand what "broidering" meant at that time. Upper classes of women had slaves that would spend HOURS doing their hair into elaborate updo's with ribbons of gold and silver and strands of pearls "broidered" (embroidered or braided into) throughout. This is pretty much in line with gluttony in that it takes something not forbidden and gorges oneself upon it.
> 
> -----Added 2/28/2009 at 08:39:59 EST-----
> 
> Mason, key words: moderation and merely
Click to expand...


Hmm, I'm not sure I buy that, especially for the 1 Timothy verse. I guess what I'm failing to see is how the cultural examples of gold and fine clothes are different from the cultural example of a head covering in 1 Corinthians. Paul says for women to submit to the church and their husbands, and uses the cultural norm of head covering and long hair to illustrate his point. Likewise, he urges women to be modest and dress appropriately, and uses braided hair and gold jewelry as cultural examples to make his point (as does Peter). How do you make the distinction?

EDIT: I see where you added to your previous post. I still have the same question, namely how is 1 Corinthians read as a command and a principle and 1 Peter/1 Timothy not read as a command and a principle?


----------



## LadyFlynt

ColdSilverMoon said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes. The impression I intended to convey was "What are her motives for braiding hair/wearing jewelry?".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo...the motive was what the passages were referring to. There is nothing wrong with wearing them, there is nothing wrong with "looking pretty" particularly for one's husband. It was the extreme reliance that some women placed in it and how they viewed themselves compared to others because of it. You also must understand what "broidering" meant at that time. Upper classes of women had slaves that would spend HOURS doing their hair into elaborate updo's with ribbons of gold and silver and strands of pearls "broidered" (embroidered or braided into) throughout. This is pretty much in line with gluttony in that it takes something not forbidden and gorges oneself upon it.
> 
> -----Added 2/28/2009 at 08:39:59 EST-----
> 
> Mason, key words: moderation and merely
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure I buy that, especially for the 1 Timothy verse. I guess what I'm failing to see is how the cultural examples of gold and fine clothes are different from the cultural example of a head covering in 1 Corinthians. Paul says for women to submit to the church and their husbands, and uses the cultural norm of head covering and long hair to illustrate his point. Likewise, he urges women to be modest and dress appropriately, and uses braided hair and gold jewelry as cultural examples to make his point (as does Peter). How do you make the distinction?
> 
> EDIT: I see where you added to your previous post. I still have the same question, namely how is 1 Corinthians read as a command and a principle and 1 Peter/1 Timothy not read as a command and a principle?
Click to expand...


I don't relate the two. They both have principles.

I relate the 1 Peter/1 Timothy to the same verses that tell us to be sober minded, not given to much wine or drunk. They both appeal to moderation, not forbidding altogether.

The other is about order of worship.


----------



## Wannabee

Dear Mason,

Does Paul say that it's a cultural norm in 1 Cor 11? He doesn't in 1 Pet or 1 Tim. The Cor passage focuses on God's order and submission. Both Paul and Peter are focused on the heart of a woman being devoted to God above all else, in contrast with external adornment. 1 Peter the word "merely" carries the ball here, making it clear that clothing and jewelry are fine, but should never be the focus. It's sort of like when Paul tells Timothy that exercise profits a little. He's not denigrating exercise, he's highlighting godliness.
In the 1 Timothy passage there were apparently cultural influences. But they don't carry the passage. His focus is that women "adorn" themselves in moderation and modesty, not focusing on the things that are the treasures of the world. It's not a sin to wear jewelry or nice clothing, or braid one's hair. It is a sin to adorn yourself with these as your focus and identity. The woman is to identify herself with Christ, in godliness. That should be her overwhelming focus. It's a matter of contrast. The rest will take care of itself.
It's interesting that this is still being hashed out. It is apparent that reciprocal understanding is somewhat elusive. I thought this was cleared up a few posts ago.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

LadyFlynt said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo...the motive was what the passages were referring to. There is nothing wrong with wearing them, there is nothing wrong with "looking pretty" particularly for one's husband. It was the extreme reliance that some women placed in it and how they viewed themselves compared to others because of it. You also must understand what "broidering" meant at that time. Upper classes of women had slaves that would spend HOURS doing their hair into elaborate updo's with ribbons of gold and silver and strands of pearls "broidered" (embroidered or braided into) throughout. This is pretty much in line with gluttony in that it takes something not forbidden and gorges oneself upon it.
> 
> -----Added 2/28/2009 at 08:39:59 EST-----
> 
> Mason, key words: moderation and merely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure I buy that, especially for the 1 Timothy verse. I guess what I'm failing to see is how the cultural examples of gold and fine clothes are different from the cultural example of a head covering in 1 Corinthians. Paul says for women to submit to the church and their husbands, and uses the cultural norm of head covering and long hair to illustrate his point. Likewise, he urges women to be modest and dress appropriately, and uses braided hair and gold jewelry as cultural examples to make his point (as does Peter). How do you make the distinction?
> 
> EDIT: I see where you added to your previous post. I still have the same question, namely how is 1 Corinthians read as a command and a principle and 1 Peter/1 Timothy not read as a command and a principle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't relate the two. They both have principles.
> 
> I relate the 1 Peter/1 Timothy to the same verses that tell us to be sober minded, not given to much wine or drunk. They both appeal to moderation, not forbidding altogether.
> 
> The other is about order of worship.
Click to expand...


Well, I appreciate your comments, but I think we may have to agree to disagree. 

I just can't see the consistency in the way you (and others) apply these verses, particularly because I don't think Paul is indicating an "order of worship." Rather, I think he's using an example from Corinthian culture to make the point of headship and authority within the church (which is how he introduces the section). But, I respect your view and appreciate your passion for it.

-----Added 2/28/2009 at 09:14:42 EST-----



Wannabee said:


> Dear Mason,
> 
> Does Paul say that it's a cultural norm in 1 Cor 11? He doesn't in 1 Pet or 1 Tim. The Cor passage focuses on God's order and submission. Both Paul and Peter are focused on the heart of a woman being devoted to God above all else, in contrast with external adornment. 1 Peter the word "merely" carries the ball here, making it clear that clothing and jewelry are fine, but should never be the focus. It's sort of like when Paul tells Timothy that exercise profits a little. He's not denigrating exercise, he's highlighting godliness.
> In the 1 Timothy passage there were apparently cultural influences. But they don't carry the passage. His focus is that women "adorn" themselves in moderation and modesty, not focusing on the things that are the treasures of the world. It's not a sin to wear jewelry or nice clothing, or braid one's hair. It is a sin to adorn yourself with these as your focus and identity. The woman is to identify herself with Christ, in godliness. That should be her overwhelming focus. It's a matter of contrast. The rest will take care of itself.
> It's interesting that this is still being hashed out. It is apparent that reciprocal understanding is somewhat elusive. I thought this was cleared up a few posts ago.



I see your point, and agree entirely about all the passages you mention on exercise, etc. The point is putting God above all else. But Paul's overarching point in 1 Corinthians 11 is submission to appropriate authority, as you said. I guess I'm still having a hard time drawing the distinction the *command* of 1 Corinthians and the *examples* of the other passages.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Yep. Think we've  ?


----------



## DonP

Deleted by moderator. 

See here.


----------



## Kevin

Deleted. Unnecessary because previous post deleted.

See here.


----------



## historyb

> *Should women have their heads covered in worship?*



I'll jump in and say no


----------



## he beholds

Deleted.

Unnecessary because in response to a deleted post.

See here.


----------



## calgal

Deleted.

Unnecessary because in response to a deleted post.

See here.


----------



## rescuedbyLove

Wannabee said:


> Hey, I don't think I ever posted on page seven of a thread before.



Yeah, this is neat!
....And interesting.


----------



## DonP

Deleted.

See here.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Has anyone referenced James Hurley's view? Namely, that the so-called "head covering" is referring to a woman's long hair "put up" or "done up" (in contrast to her hair being "unloosed" and "let down." I provides evidence that women in the first century wore their hair up in braids or a bun when in public. They didn't "let their hair down" unless in the privacy of their home or when mourning, argues Hurley. A possible indirect support for Hurley's view is the fact that Paul has to warn women against adorning their hairdo with gaudy jewelry so that they won't be a distraction in public worship. If the real custom entailed a shawl or piece of clothing that covered the hairdo, then why does Paul bother to exhort them to avoid ostentatiously adorning their hairdo since the shawl would presumably cover such adornment making his exhortation unnecessary. 

Your servant,


----------



## DonP

*hair vs covering*

yes earlier in the thread this was addressed. There is definitely a reference to long hair and also to a head covering that can not possibly be the same thing. An example of how it can't be simply by replacing the word in the text makes this abundantly clear. 

As for the jewels in the hair, it obviously is a separate issue about adornment and modesty etc. having nothing to do with covering in public worship while praying or participating in the preaching. 

Remember many women did usually cover their hair all day, but Paul says it is for sure to be done by all while praying or prophesying in church. 

Should a women choose to cover her head all day then obviously she would not be the one out showing off the jewels in her hair or her fancy hairdo. That would be addressed to women who were not covered in other places. 

Many of the liberal Greeks and other Gentiles did not cover their heads all day and they were worldly and wore jewels and hairdos to show off. 
These would be the ones addressed. 
Just as the wealthy were warned not to bring massive amounts of food in front of their brothers at the Lord's Supper. 
Paul was attempting to teach something new. How all people of differing races and background should live and get along together in the Lord. 

Before it had been only Jews and so all followed the Jewish customs. But now new rules had to be established for a conduct in the Lords house and also for a minimal guideline for living in the world addressing the weaknesses of all cultures. 
That which is not spoken to specifically we have some liberty to determine for ourselves, just following the guidelines, dress modestly, think on things pure and lovely, putting others ahead of yourself etc. We have to be clear in our conscience before God. 

Whereas some were specific no braided hair, no busy bodying, to work and not be lazy and provide for your family, etc. 
We have no liberty of conscience in what is clearly commanded, only in what is just in principle. 
So can we watch TV? We should ask ourselves, is it perfectly pure and lovely and are we thinking on and violating a principle. Must it be perfectly pure or would have to go out of the world to not see some evil. But I have to walk down the street I do not have to watch TV. etc. Well I will watch only shows with no violence and sin in them. Then am I tempted to violate my conscience and watch something unedifying as I sit there or do I have control. etc. 

Well these are things to discuss on this board and with our church members, to sharpen as iron sharpens iron. But we are not bound and should not set up rules in our churches or these or make it a test of faith. 

But if a church would say, we know it is no requirement of God that our ministers abstain from alcohol, but we all agree to give up this freedom willingly to serve more effectively and avoid offense they are free to bind themselves with this vow for God's glory. But to tell others they should or must would be wrong. 

I also think it would be wrong to divide denominations over such a desire also. The abstainers could do this as individuals in a drinking denomination. 
There is no need to keep separate over this issue. It is not a Confessional issue and if we hold to the Confession then it is our test of fellowship and only a violation of it should divide. 

In His Service,


----------



## historyb

Deleted.

See here.


----------



## DonP

Deleted.

See here.


----------



## historyb

Deleted.

See here.


----------



## OPC'n

Deleted.

Unnecessary because in response to a deleted post.

See here.


----------



## DonP

Deleted.


See here.


----------



## DonP

Deleted.

Unnecessary because in response to a deleted post.

See here.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

PeaceMaker said:


> Point is, since *God has clearly commanded it*, it can't be cultural, as shown here is it based in headship and order, we have no other new modern cultural way to show it.



Regardless of your view on this issue, the fact that this thread is now approaching 300 posts on a Reformed board indicates it may not be as clear cut as you think...


----------



## Wannabee

Wow, the night crew's been busy.

This is a worship thread. Are we worshipful this fine Sunday morning?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

PeaceMaker said:


> As for the jewels in the hair, it obviously is a separate issue about adornment and modesty etc. having nothing to do with covering in public worship while praying or participating in the preaching.
> 
> Remember many women did usually cover their hair all day, but Paul says it is for sure to be done by all while praying or prophesying in church.
> 
> Should a women choose to cover her head all day then obviously she would not be the one out showing off the jewels in her hair or her fancy hairdo. That would be addressed to women who were not covered in other places. Many of the liberal Greeks and other Gentiles did not cover their heads all day and they were worldly and wore jewels and hairdos to show off. These would be the ones addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you restrict the admonition to women who adorn their hairdos ostentatiously to Greek or other Gentile women. Apparently, you believe "many women did usually cover their head all day." Do you have any kind of archaeological proof (i.e., statues, artwork, etc.) that would support that argument? I'm not sure we can assume that most women wore a head covering in public and in public worship in ancient times simply because women in the middle East wear a physical covering today.
> 
> BG
Click to expand...


----------



## CNJ

One lady in our church covers her head. The last time I wore a hat was on Easter and she forgot her covering that day. Maybe I will wear a hat on Easter, just depends. 

I have heard of a church where the ladies keep their fancy hats at church to wear on Sunday. For me this calls attention to myself which I would rather not do. It smacks of Judiasm. The Orthodox Jewish women I saw in Miami Beach wear wigs or fancy hats to cover their heads. None of this seems modest to me. I remember in the 60s when women wearing pants suits to church was an issue. 

You know, though, I don't just pray at church. Would I need to then cover my head every time I pray? The attitude I believe is to show submission to my husband. My pastor, when I asked him about head covering, feels I show submission to my husband. 

The issue is not one of contention in our church. I say let's contend for the faith and sharing our faith with others.


----------



## lynnie

Deleted.

Unnecessary because in response to a deleted post.

See here.


----------



## OPC'n

Deleted.

Unnecessary because in response to a deleted post.

See here.


----------



## calgal

Deleted.

Unnecessary because in response to a deleted post.

See here.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Closing thread for the Lord's day given the heat even after Pastor Greco's warning. The moderators will review this and decide if it will be reopened later.


----------

