# Headcoverings and the RPNA's position paper



## CDM

*Headcoverings and the RPNA\'s position paper*

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

This topic has been coming up often in my circles of interest. I see the strength of the arguments on both sides of the debate (viewed as cultural practice to the Corinthians OR to be practiced by all churches for all times as part of proper worship).

The RPNA has an "Official Presbyterial Paper" found here. 

Has anyone read a rebuttal to it? For those here that cover or have a wife that covers, what do you think of this 22 page paper? 

Many that take the "cultural" position refer to the washing of the feet and holy kiss practices for support of their view that head coverings are cultural. Even this position paper mentions them here

Words in italics are from the paper regarding foot washing and a holy kiss:

_"¦Although the Lord authorized his disciples to wash the feet of others, as an appropriate act in their cultural context, we do not believe that in our society we are presently under an obligation to practice that specific cultural custom. *We recognize there is a moral principle (of selfless service) that stands behind that cultural practice which we must continue to exemplify in our lives as Christ´s ministers and disciples.* The Lord here illustrates the moral duty incumbent upon all who rule in His Church to be the greatest servants of all in caring for others. The actual practice of foot washing had cultural significance to those living in the ancient world, but it has no real significance to those living in the Western world of the twenty-first century. *Perhaps our closest cultural equivalent to foot washing presently is offering refreshments and hospitality to guests who visit in our homes.* 

But we also acknowledge that we are not universally bound to the alterable, cultural custom of foot washing, but rather to the unalterable, moral principle of service. So likewise, we acknowledge that men and women are not universally bound to the alterable, cultural custom of uncovering and covering their heads, *but rather to the unalterable, moral principle of lawful male headship under Christ and respectful female submission in the Lord within the assemblies of the Church.*_ 

But there is something that continually comes to my mind when hearing this particular line of argumentation. In the 2 cases of foot washing and holy kissing, the paper acknowledges a cultural "œreplacement" (so to speak) sign or practice that signifies the moral principal being taught. _"œ"¦our closest cultural equivalent to foot washing presently is offering refreshments and hospitality to guests who visit in our homes."_ Agreed. This is a cultural custom, in modern times, which is the same in principle to foot washing during Apostolic times. 
Likewise, a holy kiss today _"œ"¦would likely be a holy handshake or perhaps a holy embrace"¦Again, we do not understand that we are bound by this specific cultural custom, although we would understand that the moral principle (of Christian love) that lies behind that practice does in fact continue as an obligation. So likewise, we acknowledge that men and women are not universally bound to the alterable, cultural custom of uncovering and covering their heads, *but rather to the unalterable, moral principle of lawful authority and submission within the Church.*_ Like the foot washing example, I agree.

But here is my question: What visible, tangible practice or custom is done today to signify the moral principle of lawful male headship under Christ and respectful female submission in the Lord within the assemblies of the Church? What has "œreplaced" the head covering?

We know what has "œreplaced" the foot washing and holy kiss custom as mentioned above. (note: I don´t mean "œreplaced" to be taken negatively). But what has replaced the head covering custom? 

How would one, Christian or otherwise, observe the biblical practice of a visible sign of authority over the woman? If it is not a covering (because of our culture) then what is it? Or, what should it be? It seems to me that when the Apostle calls for a visible sign of authority or power upon the (woman´s) head, he is mandating that it ought to be immediately apparent to the observer of the rightful order of things.

My questions can be compacted into one: What modern day, culturally specific custom is expressing this absolute moral principle of submission and authority in the Church?

[Edited on 6-7-2006 by mangum]


----------



## Augusta

I read their position paper and I am completely unmoved. They interact very little with the text itself. They appeal almost exclusively to what others have done in the past. 

They attribute the fact that in the culture during the time of the 1st and 2nd reformations the submission/honor symbol was flipped for proof that reformation Christians must have thought that 1 Cor. 11 was cultural. And because they were the purest form of the church they must have been correct.

The fact that the submission/honor symbolism of the time was flipped is against them having clear eyes on the matter. Especially when Paul is saying in the text that it is the complete opposite. Who are you going to believe, Paul or the prevailing culture? 

Especially when it was not the culture of the time, when Paul said it. It was contrary to the culture of that time. It was contrary to what the Jews had been doing. 

When looked at through covenantal eyes it is completely obvious that the principal is subjection to your covenant head and Magnum to answer your question there is nothing in our culture today that is the sign of subjection of the woman to her husband. There is definitley no "power on her head" in worship.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> I read their position paper and I am completely unmoved. They interact very little with the text itself. They appeal almost exclusively to what others have done in the past.
> 
> They attribute the fact that in the culture during the time of the 1st and 2nd reformations the submission/honor symbol was flipped for proof that reformation Christians must have thought that 1 Cor. 11 was cultural. And because they were the purest form of the church they must have been correct.
> 
> The fact that the submission/honor symbolism of the time was flipped is against them having clear eyes on the matter. Especially when Paul is saying in the text that it is the complete opposite. Who are you going to believe, Paul or the prevailing culture?
> 
> Especially when it was not the culture of the time, when Paul said it. It was contrary to the culture of that time. It was contrary to what the Jews had been doing.
> 
> When looked at through covenantal eyes it is completely obvious that the principal is subjection to your covenant head and Magnum to answer your question there is nothing in our culture today that is the sign of subjection of the woman to her husband. There is definitley no "power on her head" in worship.



I agree completely.

I hope my post made it clear that if you want to argue for our modern cultural customs being different for the ancient foot washing and holy kiss customs (and that is why we don't practice them), then you'll have to show me what custom we practice today that substitutes for head coverings (biblical submission and authority).

BTW, it's Mangum not Magnum.

I get it all the time.


----------



## satz

Chris,

Sorry if this is off topic;

The issue of headcoverings is one i have been thinking though of late as well.

I tend to be sympathetic to the idea that headcoverings were required for women in apostalic times when they publically exercised the inspired gifts of pray and prophesy that they were given at that time.

I definitely agree that understanding praying and prophesying is the key to understanding this passage. Many articles, i think, go off track by immediately starting to examine the principles of headship and submission, but regardless of the principles, it is the context of pray and prophesy that triggers the need for this particular physical sign of the principle.

Hence, the argument would go, women in the first generation church were allowed to speak/teach publically in the church because some of them were given inspired gifts of prophesy by the Holy Spirit. It was because this was contrary to normal practice in the church that inspired women had to wear a covering to show their submission to God's order despite their public activities in the church.

That the pray and prophesying in 11:3-4 is inspired can be seen, i think, from the overall context of the chapter within the 'spiritual gifts' section of 1 Corinthians, as well as more obviously from the fact that Paul allowed women to prophesy with a covering, in what seems to be a contradiction with 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2. Whilst it might be possible to consider women to be praying as part of corporate prayer, i do not see how that would be possible for prophesy.

I know Calvin has answered this before by claiming Paul left off the condemnation of women speaking until chapter 14, but with respect, i find his argument somewhat weak. There is no reason at all for Paul to spend half a chapter giving rules for a practice that was forbidden in the first place.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

My pastor in the last several weeks preached two sermons on this.
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/OOW/2006/05142006.htm
An older more comprehensive article is here:
Paul's Discourse on the Use of Head Coverings During Public Worship.
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm


----------



## SRoper

The position paper did clear up a misunderstanding I had about historical practice. In the past I used the argument that the headcovering principle was universal in the church until the last 150 years. Clearly that argument should be abandoned.

Also I no longer think the argument that men still follow this principle is correct. It's likely that men remove their hats to show their subordination to the flag rather than their headship.

Furthermore, I'm increasingly convinced that the WCF is actually against the universal application of headcoverings. I still think the text of scripture is on the side of headcoverings for today, so I may have to take exception to the WCF on this point.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> Furthermore, I'm increasingly convinced that the WCF is actually against the universal application of headcoverings. I still think the text of scripture is on the side of headcoverings for today, so I may have to take exception to the WCF on this point.



What leads you to believe this? Is there a specific section of the WCF you have in mind?


----------



## CDM

...Come on, I know someone here has something to say about this...

.......
...
.


----------



## polemic_turtle

Has anyone read or thought about the writing of Tertullian(~200AD) on this issue? He, like most church fathers, had some strange forays outside of the canon, but still provides some interesting historical background to this discussion. His writing is called "On the Veiling of Virgins".


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by polemic_turtle_
> Has anyone read or thought about the writing of Tertullian(~200AD) on this issue? He, like most church fathers, had some strange forays outside of the canon, but still provides some interesting historical background to this discussion. His writing is called "On the Veiling of Virgins".



Here is an article by Greg Price on Church History, including a few quotes by Tertullian.

This blog here mentions the same.

Theopedia has a few useful links found here.


----------



## SRoper

I was refering to WCF 1:6 which was mentioned in the paper.

"[T]here are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."

1 Cor. 11:13,14 is used as a proof text, suggesting that headcovering is a circumstance of worship.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> I was refering to WCF 1:6 which was mentioned in the paper.
> 
> "[T]here are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."
> 
> 1 Cor. 11:13,14 is used as a proof text, suggesting that headcovering is a circumstance of worship.



Interesting...


----------



## NaphtaliPress

That proof text is adduced as a place where the light of nature is mentioned in scripture to justify that we can even appeal to it. This says nothing about what the divines indivudally or as an assembly thought about headcoverings. And besides, Paul's appeal to the light of nature is secondary ('even nature teaches' etc.).


----------



## NaphtaliPress

BTW. FPCR's 1996ish headcovering video has been converted to DVD (hopefully the first of a process to convert all our videos over). It is available at the link below. We have discontinued the VHS version. The DVD is $7.50 plus postage (if you don't order anything else that is $11 with postage).
http://www.fpcr.org/catalog/catalog-online.htm#Videos
and page down to the item, in red type.
A distillation of the presentation in article form remains at the link below.
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm
and Dr. Bacon's recent two sermons on this subject are here:
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/OOW/2006/05142006.htm


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> ...Come on, I know someone here has something to say about this...
> 
> .......
> ...
> .



If we do, there are two or three women on the board who will yell at us. Shhhhhhhhhhhhh.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Not really funny nor would it be consistent if the women follow the rest of Paul's teachings on women in the church.


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> BTW. FPCR's 1996ish headcovering video has been converted to DVD (hopefully the first of a process to convert all our videos over). It is available at the link below. We have discontinued the VHS version. The DVD is $7.50 plus postage (if you don't order anything else that is $11 with postage).
> http://www.fpcr.org/catalog/catalog-online.htm#Videos
> and page down to the item, in red type.
> A distillation of the presentation in article form remains at the link below.
> http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm
> and Dr. Bacon's recent two sermons on this subject are here:
> http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/OOW/2006/05142006.htm



Interesting...

What exactly does the video contain? Is there anything specific that you wanted to show in visual format?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

If I recall there are some powerpoint "points". The video was first (and audio) and then the article was condensed from the presentation, less I think some of the Q&A etc.


----------



## kevin.carroll

Ah, lighten up Chris. This isn't the church.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

No, I don't think I need to lighten up at all. Some are simply too careless of others with whom they differ In my humble opinion.

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## Lauren Mary

There is a well researched article on the appropriateness of head coverings for women during church services at 

http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html 

I would be interested to see any well researched expansions or refutations to this article's position. It's not popular, but...

Blessings,
LM


----------



## BaptistCanuk

I just have a couple of questions. 

Wouldn't women wearing things on their heads be a distraction? What do you do if your wife doesn't believe in that and thus, won't wear one? I mean, if she is convinced that it is not necessary then how would you go about getting her to do it? I think it would be wrong to force her.

As for today's equivalent, I think a handshake would be the equivalent of foot washing back then, as hands can get dirtier than feet at times and you just HOPE that the person you are shaking hands with...has washed their hands. Anyone agree?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Hi Brian,
See this thread as so9me of your questions may be answered there:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20293


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Thanks Scott. Checking it now.

Oops. I don't have the password.

[Edited on 8-27-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## Scott Bushey

sending it u2u


----------



## satz

I would be interested in how many reformed people take the view that headcoverings should be worn outside of public worship as well as within. Anyone have any idea?


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> I read their position paper and I am completely unmoved. They interact very little with the text itself. They appeal almost exclusively to what others have done in the past.
> 
> They attribute the fact that in the culture during the time of the 1st and 2nd reformations the submission/honor symbol was flipped for proof that reformation Christians must have thought that 1 Cor. 11 was cultural. And because they were the purest form of the church they must have been correct.
> 
> The fact that the submission/honor symbolism of the time was flipped is against them having clear eyes on the matter. Especially when Paul is saying in the text that it is the complete opposite. Who are you going to believe, Paul or the prevailing culture?
> 
> Especially when it was not the culture of the time, when Paul said it. It was contrary to the culture of that time. It was contrary to what the Jews had been doing.
> 
> When looked at through covenantal eyes it is completely obvious that the principal is subjection to your covenant head and Magnum to answer your question there is nothing in our culture today that is the sign of subjection of the woman to her husband. There is definitley no "power on her head" in worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree completely.
> 
> I hope my post made it clear that if you want to argue for our modern cultural customs being different for the ancient foot washing and holy kiss customs (and that is why we don't practice them), then you'll have to show me what custom we practice today that substitutes for head coverings (biblical submission and authority).
> 
> BTW, it's Mangum not Magnum.
> 
> I get it all the time.
Click to expand...


I'm with the two of you.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by mangum_
> ...Come on, I know someone here has something to say about this...
> 
> .......
> ...
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we do, there are two or three women on the board who will yell at us. Shhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Click to expand...


We don't yell...just  once in awhile...or sigh and roll our eyes at you...

If you'd prefer though, I could drag hubby on here and he could yell at you...

Just a thought...


----------



## LadyFlynt

There is no equivalent to today...the practice is still called for today...that is my stand.

I do not see where it can be compared to footwashing. It is however, in the same passage as communion and under the same heading, "1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."



Now as to the paper...same as Tracey said...it does not change my position, it is inadequate in it's statements, etc.


As to husbands dealing with a wife who won't wear a covering when he requests that she do so...well, it just goes to show that there IS a submission issue. That needs to be dealt with...generally on other levels first (ie., don't just cram one on her head...but study with her and work through the other issues you are having).


----------



## Augusta

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> There is no equivalent to today...the practice is still called for today...that is my stand.
> 
> I do not see where it can be compared to footwashing. It is however, in the same passage as communion and under the same heading, "1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
> 
> 
> 
> Now as to the paper...same as Tracey said...it does not change my position, it is inadequate in it's statements, etc.
> 
> 
> As to husbands dealing with a wife who won't wear a covering when he requests that she do so...well, it just goes to show that there IS a submission issue. That needs to be dealt with...generally on other levels first (ie., don't just cram one on her head...but study with her and work through the other issues you are having).



Precisely, the fact that you have to worry about a wife who will not submit to your authority as her covenant head lays bare the reason and warrant for a public display before God of said authority.

Just look and feminism today. We now have a feminized culture, feminized judiciary, feminized government, and feminized religion. This is not the way it should be. The roles are all out of whack and we scratch our heads at this teaching and whether it is relevant to today!?


----------



## Lauren Mary

Ok, so I went to the RPNA position paper regarding head coverings at http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/headcovr/headcovr.htm and I found it problematic. It was originally referenced in the message way above posted on 6-7-2006 at 08:35 AM. 

I hope the following does not offend, but with all due respect, I find the RPNA statement -- "We conclude that it is incontestable as demonstrated by their own practice that the General Assembly understood and interpreted 1 Corinthians 11:4, 7 with the presupposition that Paul was speaking from a cultural perspective" -- an easily contestable conclusion.

The RPNA uses the "culture" argument by not referring directly to Sola Scriptura but primarily by deferring to the interpretations of various other churches in former times and to their scholars and divines. 

I fear the points in the RPNA position paper are ill substantiated. What happened to Sola Scriptura? Is it possible the churches, scholars and divines referenced in the RPNA argument were allowing a fashionably "popular" stance in order to avoid unpopular instruction that would invite resistance? Hang popularity. Let us be sure we rightly understand and practice what the Word alone instructs, and then as need be, reform our practices. There are three (3) reasons why I find problematic the particular RPNA position that the head covering teaching of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is "cultural." 

1.) The book of 1 Corinthians 1:2 addresses it's salutation and hence its content of instruction to Corinth but also to the all-inclusive and timeless audience of "them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:"
2.)The city and church of Corinth at the time of Paul's writing was populated by many cultures with countermanding customs of dress and head covering, hence Paul clarifies in 11:16 "if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." With this statement it is understood that Paul is clarifying that the custom under consideration here is only that of "the churches of God." Paul is in effect declaring what is to be a distinguishing custom for "them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord," (1:2).
3.) The statement "Because of the angels," (11:10) adds a whole other dynamic of importance of the head covering instruction and further challenges the "cultural" argument insofar as we are given to understand angels as eternal beings, spiritual/not worldly, not subject to customs or times, whose watchfulness at mans worship gatherings is here declared to concern itself with men and women demonstrating faithful regard for God's created order of being. That being Christ the head of man, man the head of woman, woman demonstrating respect of God's order and male leadership in the church.

There it is. While we might prefer to not abide by the head covering in church instructions, we should much more and most certainly prefer to honor the scriptural instructions delivered to "them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." 

Blessings all,
Lauren Mary


----------



## MW

I do not concur with RPNA's rulings on the matter; but just to be clear, their conclusion relates to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. An historical statement can only be substantiated by reference to historical evidence, such as that provided by "churches in former times and to their scholars and divines."

The historical weakness of the RPNA statement is seen in the fact that the General Assembly never ruled on the matter. All of their evidence is circumstantial. They are trying to reconstruct what the General Assmebly would have said if faced with the issue. Which is what they are bound to do since they have, in unPresbyterian fashion, hailed the General Assembly of 1638-49 to be their superior court.

As it stands, they have not proven their case even from an historical perspective. The divines they quote undoubtedly regarded the practice as positive, not moral; but they also indicate that the Church of Scotland herself regarded the positive implications of Paul's teaching to be normative in some way; else men would not have removed their hats at certain times of the service.

Concerning the Scriptural argument, one needs to be careful to distinguish between Paul's positive instruction and the moral basis of his instruction. He grounds his teaching in the created order. The created distinction between male and female is the moral element that remains binding at all times and places. The covering is a cultural requirement on the basis of the natural distinction and order of male and female.

The problem with the RPNA paper is that it concludes, on the basis that the covering is positive, that it is not binding. There is of course no warrant for such a conclusion. The same body believes in drinking from a common cup for communion; yet there can be no doubt that this, as with the communion table, is a positive element. Yet because the positive circumstance has the authoritative voice of Scripture to commend it, it presents itself to us as the most appropriate manner of fulfilling the moral norm; and so it provides, if not a regulation, at least an illustrious example worthy to be imitated.

It is on this basis that I would recommend head coverings to Christian ladies, older and younger, in the context of public worship. It positively teaches the Christian congregation's commitment to the created order, which must be considered a desideratum in our day of gender confusion. 

Blessings!


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by satz_
> I would be interested in how many reformed people take the view that headcoverings should be worn outside of public worship as well as within. Anyone have any idea?



You asked a question...it deserves an answer.

I do wear one MOST of the time. HOWEVER, my reasons are more than one...let me explain.

1) We (my husband and myself) hold to covering for the assembly of worship and fellowship. Also for family devotions and bible study or other times of prayer.

2) It is convenient to keep one with me should I need it (though some say it is praying or prophesying IN the assembly...we may differ in that even the angels cover themselves in the presence of God...and that is why I hold to anytime I pray...this does not mean that I believe God doesn't hear my prayers should I not be covered). Instead of fiddling with my covering, it is simpler to just wear it.

3) I don't freak if I'm caught without one, especially around the house.

4) The area I live in. I live in an area where there are MANY women that cover their heads in a variety of ways for religious reasons (anabaptists make up the majority...muslim and orthodox jews are others). To even have a foot in the door with these ppl, the covering is a BIG issue. It is the one thing they will throw in your face if you try to speak on religion with them. I believe strongly in the command given in 1 Cor 11. I see no reason to NOT wear it in public. For being a protestant, hubby has gained alot of respect. We've thrown them for a loop...here is a conservative protestant (we are supposed to be worse than a liberal mennonite...liberal mennonites have women pastors, etc) that is challenging them on their own ground and holding to standards. It opens the door for him to challenge them on more spiritual grounds (ie., get their focus off the outward....we hold a standard, but that is not our focus). No, this man is the spiritual head of his home, his wife is submissive (I attempt to be  ), his daughters and wife are modest and covered, we keep the Sabbath, etc. Pretty good for a protestant, eh? He's been able to take their eyes off of worrying about lace on a dress and get them focused on bigger issues....they respect him enough to listen (he's even had a few open up to him...one on a level that he could never talk with his own church and family on).

5) For some of these ppl it is a modesty issue...and I respect that.

Okay, there are my reasons.


----------



## Augusta

Rev. Winzer thank you for your comments. I have wondered about my daughters who are 11, 10, and 8, if they should also be covered in Church. My husband and I have not had them take that step though I have thought about it many times. 

I hadn't taken the step because I always understood it as a wife showing submission and her place in order of headship in the congregation. Since my girls are not married I was unsure whether it would be commanded of them also. 

Is it your opinion that they also should be covered? I do feel a conviction periodically that I should have them start but I have no biblical warrant that I am aware of. I have thought of taking the step just to start them down the path for when they are married. I am currently the only person in my congregation who covers so we will really stick out if we have four hats in a row. We already stick out for keeping quiet during anything but a psalm. That is not our intent, we honestly do not want to draw attention to ourselves, it is only out of conscience that we can do no other thing.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Traci, our 8yr old covers for church, family devotions, etc. The 5 and 3yr olds only cover for family devotions (they initiated it) for right now (I have a hard enough time just keeping barrettes in their hair!).


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Is it your opinion that they also should be covered? I do feel a conviction periodically that I should have them start but I have no biblical warrant that I am aware of. I have thought of taking the step just to start them down the path for when they are married. I am currently the only person in my congregation who covers so we will really stick out if we have four hats in a row. We already stick out for keeping quiet during anything but a psalm. That is not our intent, we honestly do not want to draw attention to ourselves, it is only out of conscience that we can do no other thing.



Traci,

I think the fact that the apostle bases his argument on the created order shows that he is not limiting his instruction to married men and women. So I regard modern translations which render "wife" as over-interpretative and incorrect. My belief is that the teaching applies to males and females of all ages, even though it is likely that the public praying and prophesying was only being performed by mature men and women.

I would also recommend that girls wear coverings from a young age for the sake of instilling good habits into them. You have my admiration for seeking to do something which pleases God when there is no other example of it in your congregation. I know how difficult that can be. Blessings!


----------



## Augusta

Thank you Rev. Winzer and Colleen. I know what you mean about just trying to keep barretts in their hair. I have two plain hats one black and one neutral that I alternate. I will have to find something neutral that they can wear with anything. And just brace myself for having a very conspicuous pew in Church. 

Colleen, I think it's wonderful that you can be a witness of true Protestant Christian piety in your area.


----------



## Lauren Mary

To Satz et al. regarding the question: 

"I would be interested in how many reformed people take the view that headcoverings should be worn outside of public worship as well as within. Anyone have any idea?"


So far, I only apply the word "should" to headcoverings for women in public worship. However, even outside of public worship I am increasingly desirous to don the headcovering whenever I pray. This means I am now taking a headcovering with me in the car more often, and also keep a covering by my desk when at work. 

As recalled in an earlier post, "even the angels cover themselves in the presence of God" (Ex. (Is 6:1-7), where the LORD is seated between two seraphim who cover their face and feet with their wings). When these verses come to mind at prayer time I will also cover my face with my with my hands. And having done this a half-dozen times now, I have experienced an enhanced awareness of the presence of God, somewhat like the enhanced sense of spiritual closeness provided by fasting. There is something about this obedience, this submission, this humility before the Lord in public or private prayer that brings a blessing in and of itself.


----------



## satz

Thanks Colleen and Lauren!


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Is there anywhere in the Bible that says the man is the "spiritual" head of his wife? We may just have different definitions of terms, etc. so I'm curious to find out. What does "spiritual" head mean? Are women spiritual "invalids"? Will wearing a head covering whilst not truly submitting in her heart MEAN anything? 

And let's be honest...do we really want women to "submit" because it makes us feel like the boss? Because if that's the case then I will follow the Scripture that says husbands and wives, submit to one another.

Lauren, in all seriousness does the Bible command you to cover your face when you pray? There are many RPW people on here who should be asking you about that but if they won't, I will. 

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Is there anywhere in the Bible that says the man is the "spiritual" head of his wife? We may just have different definitions of terms, etc. so I'm curious to find out. What does "spiritual" head mean? Are women spiritual "invalids"? Will wearing a head covering whilst not truly submitting in her heart MEAN anything?
> 
> And let's be honest...do we really want women to "submit" because it makes us feel like the boss? Because if that's the case then I will follow the Scripture that says husbands and wives, submit to one another.



Whoa! You are way off base!

Women are not spiritual invalids...but neither are they permitted to be in the role of pastor or head over her husband. This defaults the husband as spiritual head. He is responsible for the teaching of his family, for sheparding his family. Just as he is responsible for other decisions made in the family.

This in no way states that the wife does not have an opinion or cannot counsel her husband. A wise husband at least listens to his wife. A wise wife lets her husband make the final decision and take responsibility for that decision.

No, wearing something on one's head does not do a thing when heart is rebellious. This does not mean that you forego the practice. Consider it a test. If a husband requests his wife to wear a covering and she bucks at the idea to the point of downright refusal...don't you think that there are other problems present also? She needs an attitude check. There are those that wear it and are rebellious. You can use that as a tool to reach them. My husband used to work with an amishman that was going through marital problems. He would throw the covering at my husband (not literally), then he found out I wore one, he couldn't use that. So now my husband has an "in". He tells him, yes, he believes in covering...but what good does that do when you have to worry about p*rnography and adultery in your group? BANG! He just got the guy to take his focus off of the outward and back into the heart issue. The covering meant nothing when the marriage itself was dissenigrating. Attitude check. 

Alot of women will tell you that once they start opening up to the idea of covering...it does perform an attitude check in them.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Lauren, in all seriousness does the Bible command you to cover your face when you pray? There are many RPW people on here who should be asking you about that but if they won't, I will.



I wouldn't be laughing too hard.

There are some cultures that it is common to cover the face with hands while praying. In fact, I have done it. It is similar to bowing the head, you are hiding your face. I'm hidden my face in my arms before...other times my hands (and this was common at altar calls in a BAPTIST church...you know, when you go up to the steps to pray). My three year old used to refuse to fold her hands for supper prayer, she always covered her face with her hands. I saw nothing wrong with this and have allowed it. Why not?

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Is there anywhere in the Bible that says the man is the "spiritual" head of his wife? We may just have different definitions of terms, etc. so I'm curious to find out. What does "spiritual" head mean? Are women spiritual "invalids"? Will wearing a head covering whilst not truly submitting in her heart MEAN anything?
> 
> And let's be honest...do we really want women to "submit" because it makes us feel like the boss? Because if that's the case then I will follow the Scripture that says husbands and wives, submit to one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa! You are way off base!
> 
> *Ok.*
> 
> Women are not spiritual invalids...but neither are they permitted to be in the role of pastor or head over her husband. This defaults the husband as spiritual head. He is responsible for the teaching of his family, for sheparding his family. Just as he is responsible for other decisions made in the family.
> 
> *Aren't we to submit to one another? Isn't her "spiritual" head, Christ?*
> 
> This in no way states that the wife does not have an opinion or cannot counsel her husband. A wise husband at least listens to his wife. A wise wife lets her husband make the final decision and take responsibility for that decision.
> 
> *But if he's not right in the first place or is not serving the Lord, she doesn't. Her spiritual head is Christ. So a wise husband makes his wife feel good by at least listening to her? Does this make her feel special? How do some of you interpret the "submit to one another" verse?*
> 
> No, wearing something on one's head does not do a thing when heart is rebellious. This does not mean that you forego the practice. Consider it a test. If a husband requests his wife to wear a covering and she bucks at the idea to the point of downright refusal...don't you think that there are other problems present also? She needs an attitude check. There are those that wear it and are rebellious. You can use that as a tool to reach them. My husband used to work with an amishman that was going through marital problems. He would throw the covering at my husband (not literally), then he found out I wore one, he couldn't use that. So now my husband has an "in". He tells him, yes, he believes in covering...but what good does that do when you have to worry about p*rnography and adultery in your group? BANG! He just got the guy to take his focus off of the outward and back into the heart issue. The covering meant nothing when the marriage itself was dissenigrating. Attitude check.
> 
> *Hey, I agree. But if the woman does have an attitude problem, the man can't exactly force her to put something on her head. Jesus Himself, wouldn't. My responsibility as a man is to guide her in her relationship with the Lord but I cannot force her to put something on her head. She will be accountable before God for her decision, not me. I can only talk to her and pray for her. Any man who would TRY to force her to do so, would have an attitude problem himself. *
> 
> Alot of women will tell you that once they start opening up to the idea of covering...it does perform an attitude check in them.
> 
> *Maybe so. And I'm sure there are some women who look at the women that don't cover their heads and think that they are somehow better or more holy. If they did THAT, they would have an attitude problem as well.*
> 
> *Now, I have a question. What if the woman was abused by her ex-husband and almost killed? That could make it a little bit hard to submit, no? People are so quick to force women to be their slaves without taking the time to understand the woman, as we are instructed to in the Bible. I want a wife...not a slave.*
Click to expand...


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Lauren, in all seriousness does the Bible command you to cover your face when you pray? There are many RPW people on here who should be asking you about that but if they won't, I will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be laughing too hard.
> 
> *Apparently you don't understand my sense of humour. That's fine.*
> 
> *I was laughing at the fact that if the RPW people on here weren't going to ask her about covering her face, then I was going to. As I see no place in Scripture that commands women to cover their faces when praying. I'm not against it whatsoever, it is just not commanded is it?*
> 
> There are some cultures that it is common to cover the face with hands while praying. In fact, I have done it. It is similar to bowing the head, you are hiding your face. I'm hidden my face in my arms before...other times my hands (and this was common at altar calls in a BAPTIST church...you know, when you go up to the steps to pray). My three year old used to refuse to fold her hands for supper prayer, she always covered her face with her hands. I saw nothing wrong with this and have allowed it. Why not?
> 
> *Again, according to RPWers, we follow Scriptural commands not other cultures. Muslim culture kneels on the floor in the middle of work to pray, but we don't follow them.*
> 
> *Again, I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. My point was that Scripture doesn't command us to do it and if the RPWers weren't going to ask her about it, I would. Basically, I was using this situation to make a point relating to a past debate. And I think I made it. *
> 
> [Edited on 8-28-2006 by LadyFlynt]
Click to expand...


----------



## LadyFlynt

No one is saying to FORCE it on her...apparently you haven't read the entire thread or you would have seen that. I just said that to reject her husband's request showed an issue. He was not asking her to sin.

I do not believe women are slaves...my husband can inform you that I am anything but a doormat. I believe the gentlemen here will inform you from their experience with me the same thing. I believe in submission. I also believe a husband should love his wife. If the husband is an unbeliever, God can still use him.

I met a wonderful lady recently...her husband is an unbeliever. Knowing her religious views he has been able to guide her in certain areas. She is blind and went somewhere for coffee not knowing that it was a seedy place till after she was there. Her husband later told her that he didn't think that was the kind of place for her, especially as a Christian woman. (She of course had picked up on it by then, but still her husband was being her spiritual head in that sense)

As for abuse...I do not believe a woman should sit and take it. I do believe that she can seek safety for herself and help for her husband. As for disagreements...as long as he is not asking her to sin (God before man) then she should follow the passage of trying to bring her husband to the Lord by her behaviour.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> No one is saying to FORCE it on her...apparently you haven't read the entire thread or you would have seen that. I just said that to reject her husband's request showed an issue. He was not asking her to sin.
> 
> *But some men are "boss" fanatics. They will attempt to "force" their wives to do whatever they say. If the woman feels it is not necessary to wear a head covering then he would be trying to make her go against her conscience and sin. When it comes to what she should put on her body, shouldn't she make the final decision?*
> 
> I do not believe women are slaves...my husband can inform you that I am anything but a doormat. I believe the gentlemen here will inform you from their experience with me the same thing. I believe in submission. I also believe a husband should love his wife. If the husband is an unbeliever, God can still use him.
> 
> *That's good to hear. I believe in mutual submission, I believe the Bible teaches it. I believe the husband should love his wife, and that means guiding her but not "forcing" her to do anything. She's a grown woman, not a child.*
> 
> I met a wonderful lady recently...her husband is an unbeliever. Knowing her religious views he has been able to guide her in certain areas. She is blind and went somewhere for coffee not knowing that it was a seedy place till after she was there. Her husband later told her that he didn't think that was the kind of place for her, especially as a Christian woman. (She of course had picked up on it by then, but still her husband was being her spiritual head in that sense)
> 
> *That's fine. I would have done the same thing. Telling your wife she should probably not go to a certain place is one thing; telling her what to put on her body is another.*
> 
> As for abuse...I do not believe a woman should sit and take it. I do believe that she can seek safety for herself and help for her husband. As for disagreements...as long as he is not asking her to sin (God before man) then she should follow the passage of trying to bring her husband to the Lord by her behaviour.
> 
> *Well, when that husband who tried to kill her also cheated on her she is entitled to a divorce. But my point was, sometimes things are harder for some people than for others. It would take a lot of work and prayer for a woman with this experience to be a super submissive Christian woman. And we have to know and understand the person, not force things on them. For example, the gentleman who is giving his wife one month to submit. Some of us say, good luck.*


----------



## LadyFlynt

1) Putting on a headcovering (whether you believe in it or not) is not a sin. Therefore, even if she is not for it, he is NOT asking her to sin. However, AGAIN, you did not pay attention to what I said earlier in this thread. That the husband should pray and study with his wife and work on the other areas of her trust and submission with her in a loving manner...opening her heart to new areas of submission. You are too busy equating submission with slavery. That is a feminist idea. Not true and in that case you are picking and choosing scripture. One verse says submit to one another. Another says that the wife is to submit to the husband and the husband is to love his wife. This shows a breakdown of types of submitting to eachother.

2) I don't see how my husband telling me where to go and not to go and telling me that he would like me to cover or wear a longer skirt is any different from eachother. Am I not his wife and is not my body his as well?

3) You NOW throw in the adultery. Sorry, you got the wrong person on the board for that one. I don't believe adultery is cause for divorce. Fornication yes...adultery no. (let alone the abuse and adultery are a whole different issue from covering...and no, it should not keep her from covering...she is to do it because it is commanded of God).

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 1) Putting on a headcovering (whether you believe in it or not) is not a sin. Therefore, even if she is not for it, he is NOT asking her to sin. However, AGAIN, you did not pay attention to what I said earlier in this thread. That the husband should pray and study with his wife and work on the other areas of her trust and submission with her in a loving manner...opening her heart to new areas of submission. You are too busy equating submission with slavery. That is a feminist idea. Not true and in that case you are picking and choosing scripture. One verse says submit to one another. Another says that the wife is to submit to the husband and the husband is to love his wife. This shows a breakdown of types of submitting to eachother.
> 
> *Apparently, you haven't been listening to me. Because I said that the husband should guide his wife, pray for her, etc. But you know as well as I know that there are many men out there who equate "headship" with "slavemaster" and it is THAT that I am against. I am not equivocating anything, I am simply stating what I am against. Being the head (although I don't refer to it as "spiritual" head, a woman doesn't need a "spiritual" head) is about loving your wife, not being a slave master. If you agree with that, then what are we arguing about?*
> 
> 2) I don't see how my husband telling me where to go and not to go and telling me that he would like me to cover or wear a longer skirt is any different from eachother. Am I not his wife and is not my body his as well?
> 
> *Is not your body your own as well? I never said a man can't ask his wife to wear a longer skirt, etc. but he has no right to force his wife to cover her head when she prays if she doesn't BELIEVE THAT. Obviously this is a tough issue as the church has differing views on it. She may just NOT BELIEVE THAT.*
> 
> 3) You NOW throw in the adultery. Sorry, you got the wrong person on the board for that one. I don't believe adultery is cause for divorce. Fornication yes...adultery no.
> 
> *I did it NOW because I didn't think it was necessary in the beginning. One would think that a man trying to kill his wife would be sufficient cause but then, one could never assume that another would think that now can they? *



[Edited on 8-28-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## BaptistCanuk

"...it should not keep her from covering...she is to do it because it is commanded of God)."

That's "your" interpretation. How come the majority of the church doesn't interpret it that way?


----------



## Croghanite

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 1) Putting on a headcovering (whether you believe in it or not) is not a sin. Therefore, even if she is not for it, he is NOT asking her to sin. However, AGAIN, you did not pay attention to what I said earlier in this thread. That the husband should pray and study with his wife and work on the other areas of her trust and submission with her in a loving manner...opening her heart to new areas of submission. You are too busy equating submission with slavery. That is a feminist idea. Not true and in that case you are picking and choosing scripture. One verse says submit to one another. Another says that the wife is to submit to the husband and the husband is to love his wife. This shows a breakdown of types of submitting to eachother.
> 
> 2) I don't see how my husband telling me where to go and not to go and telling me that he would like me to cover or wear a longer skirt is any different from eachother. Am I not his wife and is not my body his as well?
> 
> 3) You NOW throw in the adultery. Sorry, you got the wrong person on the board for that one. I don't believe adultery is cause for divorce. Fornication yes...adultery no. (let alone the abuse and adultery are a whole different issue from covering...and no, it should not keep her from covering...she is to do it because it is commanded of God).
> 
> [Edited on 8-28-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## BaptistCanuk

{cut- Do not discuss things from private forums in the public forums!-- Puritan Sailor}

It's interesting that everyone is worrying about how others should act when I have been saying that we have to focus on ourselves. Husbands love their wives as Christ loves the Church, pray for them, talk to them, and leave them alone.

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by Puritan Sailor]

Well, I was about to be a man and edit this myself. But thank you for doing it for me as I am unable to do it myself. By the way, what he said shouldn't have been in ANY forum. U2U me and I'll tell you why, unless you already know why.

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## BaptistCanuk

By the way Joe, I think it is poor taste to quote her post, say "ditto" and conveniently leave out my responses to her. Poor taste, but expected.


----------



## LadyFlynt

The majority of the church DID interpret it that way for most of church history. Enter feminism, exit alls signs of God given traditional women's roles.

Your right...arguement ended. Because this thread is not about abuse or adultery or slavemasters. It's about headcovering. And if she is not willing, suggestions have already been made. If she is willing, but he is not loving...I've already pointed out that that doesn't negate the command.

I think the real issue here is that you don't agree with the command...can find no scriptural or historical evidence against and thus are reaching.

I am not putting down your opinions, as I have been accused of on another board by you, but I am letting you know that this is where I stand and why.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Warning, I will request this thread to be closed if ppl continue to drag out others private information or make disparaging remarks.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> "...it should not keep her from covering...she is to do it because it is commanded of God)."
> 
> That's "your" interpretation. How come the majority of the church doesn't interpret it that way?



So, BaptistCanuck, what is YOUR interpretation then? Ever heard of the logical fallacy of appealing to the majority? Besides that, what is "the majority of the church"? Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Charismatics, Mormons, Presbyterians? If this is the "majority" then the majority would be apostate now wouldn't they? 

Remember the thread's subject? Please, start another thread if you'd like to discuss those separate things you've been writing about with LadyFlynt.

I am not concerned with hypotheticals and 'what-if' questions. Please engage the original subject I made with this post.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Are women who do not cover their heads in the public worship of God in sin?

Are men who do not exhort their women (wives/daughters) to cover their heads in the public worship of God in sin?

What about private worship?

What about any public appearance? (This I put in since someone referred to the "covenant" relationship of husband/wife as the basis for headcovering. Since this covenant is always in place I would assume the headcovering must always be in place.)


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> The majority of the church DID interpret it that way for most of church history. Enter feminism, exit alls signs of God given traditional women's roles.
> 
> *I don't know...every church I've been to except one has women with no head covering.*
> 
> Your right...arguement ended. Because this thread is not about abuse or adultery or slavemasters. It's about headcovering. And if she is not willing, suggestions have already been made. If she is willing, but he is not loving...I've already pointed out that that doesn't negate the command.
> 
> *Agreed.*
> 
> I think the real issue here is that you don't agree with the command...can find no scriptural or historical evidence against and thus are reaching.
> 
> *I don't think so. I just disagree on the extent some of you go to.*
> 
> I am not putting down your opinions, as I have been accused of on another board by you, but I am letting you know that this is where I stand and why.
> 
> *Fair enough. When I take the tone that I received from your post, it will be considered to be ok then? You can let me know where you stand and why without appearing the way you did. I have let you know where I stand and why, and frankly, I get the impression that people don't like to know where I stand and why.*


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> By the way Joe, I think it is poor taste to quote her post, say "ditto" and conveniently leave out my responses to her. Poor taste, but expected.



Brian, why would Joe "Ditto" your response to her [LadyFlynt] if he doesn't agree with you!!! "Ditto" means he agrees with her. Do you understand? So naturally, he would not "Ditto" your response.

And saying things like, "conveniently leave out " you are accusing Joe of deceitfulness and worse. Please, with respect, think about what you write before you post, you are crossing the line.

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by mangum]


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> "...it should not keep her from covering...she is to do it because it is commanded of God)."
> 
> That's "your" interpretation. How come the majority of the church doesn't interpret it that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, BaptistCanuck, what is YOUR interpretation then?
> 
> *My interpretation is that it is a cultural thing.*
> 
> Ever heard of the logical fallacy of appealing to the majority? Besides that, what is "the majority of the church"? Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Charismatics, Mormons, Presbyterians? If this is the "majority" then the majority would be apostate now wouldn't they?
> 
> *Yes I've heard of that logical fallacy. I didn't commit it though, because I am talking about the majority of the Protestant church. Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy of ad hominism? You implied that I believe some of those groups are Christians in the first place, and then that I agreed with them. I can say more but I don't want this thread to be closed. Which they always seem to do when I start to share my opinion and others just don't like it.*
> 
> Remember the thread's subject? Please, start another thread if you'd like to discuss those separate things you've been writing about with LadyFlynt.
> 
> *Really I don't even want to discuss it anymore. I'm frankly sick and tired of people starting fights with me because I shared my opinion and then trying to blame me. That's not going to happen here. Carry on.*
> 
> I am not concerned with hypotheticals and 'what-if' questions. Please engage the original subject I made with this post.
> 
> *Well, what-ifs and hypotheticals are useful when discussing things. And next time when you want to quote someone and contribute nothing but a  to it, could you please include my responses to what they said. Thanks. *
Click to expand...


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> By the way Joe, I think it is poor taste to quote her post, say "ditto" and conveniently leave out my responses to her. Poor taste, but expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian, why would Joe "Ditto" your response to her [LadyFlynt] if he doesn't agree with you!!! "Ditto" means he agrees with her. Do you understand? So naturally, he would not "Ditto" your response.
Click to expand...


I understand that. But it gives the impression that I'm an idiot just because he doesn't agree with me. Besides, it's not cool to post nothing but a  without contributing anything. At least...that's what "I've" been told.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Warning, I will request this thread to be closed if ppl continue to drag out others private information or make disparaging remarks.



Understood. I have a bad feeling that people think "I" am the only one making disparaging remarks.

p.s. if someone is posting "private" information on here is it no longer "private" information? We post our names on here and as far as I'm concerned, that is private. But I did it because it's the rules.

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## LadyFlynt

I u2u'd you.

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by mangum_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> By the way Joe, I think it is poor taste to quote her post, say "ditto" and conveniently leave out my responses to her. Poor taste, but expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian, why would Joe "Ditto" your response to her [LadyFlynt] if he doesn't agree with you!!! "Ditto" means he agrees with her. Do you understand? So naturally, he would not "Ditto" your response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that. But it gives the impression that I'm an idiot just because he doesn't agree with me. Besides, it's not cool to post nothing but a  without contributing anything. At least...that's what "I've" been told.
Click to expand...


Ok. You don't think it's "cool" to do that. Fine. Just so you know, each and every poster here, including the owner, Dr. McMahon, has done this very thing. As for me, I'll remain uncool.



> "Yes I've heard of that logical fallacy. I didn't commit it though, because I am talking about the majority of the Protestant church. Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy of ad hominism? You implied that I believe some of those groups are Christians in the first place, and then that I agreed with them. I can say more but I don't want this thread to be closed. Which they always seem to do when I start to share my opinion and others just don't like it."



Ask any logician, philospher or Freshmen college student if I engaged in an ad hominem argument. I did not. What I did say was, *WHAT* is "the majority of the church?"

In no way did I attack your person. Please withdrawal your accusation.



> Really I don't even want to discuss it anymore. I'm frankly sick and tired of people starting fights with me because I shared my opinion and then trying to blame me. That's not going to happen here. Carry on.



I really hope this isn't another accusation pointed at me. And it seems to me, you haven't discussed the subject of this post. Things that may be related to it, but not the subject.



> Well, what-ifs and hypotheticals are useful when discussing things. And next time when you want to quote someone and contribute nothing but a  to it, could you please include my responses to what they said. Thanks.



When did I do this? And again, why would someone "ditto" your response if the DO NOT agree with it? 

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by mangum]


----------



## LadyFlynt

If you believe that it is a cultural point then please argue from that point.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> If you believe that it is a cultural point then please argue from that point.



 (i.e., I agree)


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by mangum_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> By the way Joe, I think it is poor taste to quote her post, say "ditto" and conveniently leave out my responses to her. Poor taste, but expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian, why would Joe "Ditto" your response to her [LadyFlynt] if he doesn't agree with you!!! "Ditto" means he agrees with her. Do you understand? So naturally, he would not "Ditto" your response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that. But it gives the impression that I'm an idiot just because he doesn't agree with me. Besides, it's not cool to post nothing but a  without contributing anything. At least...that's what "I've" been told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. You don't think it's "cool" to do that. Fine. Just so you know, each and every poster here, including the owner, Dr. McMahon, has done this very thing. As for me, I'll remain uncool.
> 
> *No, it's not cool. It is considered rude and a waste of bandwidth on most message boards. So now YOU'RE going to commit the logical fallacy of appealing to the majority?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Yes I've heard of that logical fallacy. I didn't commit it though, because I am talking about the majority of the Protestant church. Have you ever heard of the logical fallacy of ad hominism? You implied that I believe some of those groups are Christians in the first place, and then that I agreed with them. I can say more but I don't want this thread to be closed. Which they always seem to do when I start to share my opinion and others just don't like it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask any logician, philospher or Freshmen college student if I engaged in an ad hominem argument. I did not. What I did say was, *WHAT* is "the majority of the church?"
> 
> *You implied it. And you know it.*
> 
> In no way did I attack your person. Please withdrawal your accusation.
> 
> *There is no need to withdraw it. If I was wrong (which I'm not), big deal. We're grown ups and I'm not going to allow you to bully me.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really I don't even want to discuss it anymore. I'm frankly sick and tired of people starting fights with me because I shared my opinion and then trying to blame me. That's not going to happen here. Carry on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really hope this isn't another accusation pointed at me. And it seems to me, you haven't discussed the subject of this post. Things that may be related to it, but not the subject.
> 
> *Get over yourself. While you're at it quit trying to bully me. You're not going to succeed.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what-ifs and hypotheticals are useful when discussing things. And next time when you want to quote someone and contribute nothing but a  to it, could you please include my responses to what they said. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I do this? And again, why would someone "ditto" your response if the DO NOT agree with it?
> 
> *Again, why would someone ditto something without contributing anything to the post except to waste bandwidth and violate message board protocol?*
> 
> [Edited on 8-28-2006 by mangum]
Click to expand...


Now...if you're going to continually try to bully me, I will wish you good luck. You'll be wasting your time. Last but not least, didn't I say I was done with this? Yet, you're still trying to get me to play your game.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> If you believe that it is a cultural point then please argue from that point.



And open myself up to MORE attacks? I don't think so. I've already argued that other things were cultural things and look what happened. 

p.s. why is everyone out to get me? Please answer. thank you.

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Brian...no one is targeting you. You've have come off wrong by taking everything to an extreme. There is no place for extremes. You've also made alot of not so nice comments and accusations. Yet I have done nothing but counter your statements. Why is that offensive to you? Your statements have been used in this discussion...I just don't agree with you. I could turn around and say that you are attacking me and my beliefs...but I'm not. It's not the point. The point is "is the position paper correct or not and why or why not?" 

Basically, we are arguing the headcovering all over again. But you have not come up with a reason on why you believe it's cultural. And yes, I could argue against that point. I can look throughout history and point to it's continued practice until the last 150yrs where it dwindled off and still it is not completely out of practice. In fact, it is being practiced more again than it has in the past 60 years.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Brian...no one is targeting you. You've have come off wrong by taking everything to an extreme. There is no place for extremes. You've also made alot of not so nice comments and accusations. Yet I have done nothing but counter your statements. Why is that offensive to you? Your statements have been used in this discussion...I just don't agree with you. I could turn around and say that you are attacking me and my beliefs...but I'm not. It's not the point. The point is "is the position paper correct or not and why or why not?"
> 
> *Well, then you guys should consider how you're coming across. I have been attacked for my beliefs from my first post. All I did was say what I believe. I never attacked anyone's beliefs. Why would you tell me to argue it when every time I do that, I get attacked? The position paper: incorrect. And I believe I said why.*
> 
> Basically, we are arguing the headcovering all over again. But you have not come up with a reason on why you believe it's cultural. And yes, I could argue against that point. I can look throughout history and point to it's continued practice until the last 150yrs where it dwindled off and still it is not completely out of practice. In fact, it is being practiced more again than it has in the past 60 years.
> 
> *How come around here, the only church that practises it is the Brethren church? I believe it is cultural because it was written to ONE church in ONE city in ONE book of the Bible. Does that really constitute binding doctrine to the whole church throughout the whole church age? I believe it is cultural because in that area of the world, if you DIDN'T cover your head you were considered a prostitute? At this time in history would someone consider you a prostitute if you didn't cover your head?*



By the way, I am feeling that others are against me because they are making blanket statements of judgment when they don't know everyone's circumstances. My fiancee HAS to work (due to your country's immigration laws) and even after I move there she STILL HAS to work, no matter how much money I may make. So please don't judge my manliness because my wife will HAVE to work. And one of her jobs is as a youth pastor in a Lutheran church. I see nothing wrong with that. But that's another topic...


----------



## LadyFlynt

I honestly don't understand the point about the immigration laws. I believe you are permitted to work here. You can even become a citizen or she can move to Canada and become a citizen there. There honestly isn't anything mentioned that I don't see a solution to (again, admitting to not understanding what your problem is). Also, you two are not married, you two have no children. And her working still has no bearing on the headcovering. It sounds like you are throwing alot of personal issues into this (and possibly the debate we were having on another forum).

Just because the majority of ppl no longer practice it, does not make the command null. Feminism has entered the churches and the churches have done away with many things. If the majority of the churches starts marrying homosexuals then does that mean that God's calling it an abomination was just a temporal cultural thing?

Tell me, Brian, why is it cultural? Simply because our culture has demeaned the practice? What about every culture before us? THEY practiced it...yet they were not Corinth. Is communion cultural? It's in the same passage, in the same book, to the same church, in the same culture as the headcovering is mentioned.

On being uncovered symbolizing prostitution...that is not true. In fact, prostitutes DID cover themselves...to the point that even their faces were covered. At that time is was common for married women of means to prostitute themselves...but they remained covered so as not to reveal their identity. Look at Tamar...ever wonder how she got pregnant and yet her FIL never knew that SHE was the "prostitute"? She remained covered...he never saw her face.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Brian...no one is targeting you. You've have come off wrong by taking everything to an extreme. There is no place for extremes. You've also made alot of not so nice comments and accusations. Yet I have done nothing but counter your statements. Why is that offensive to you? Your statements have been used in this discussion...I just don't agree with you. I could turn around and say that you are attacking me and my beliefs...but I'm not. It's not the point. The point is "is the position paper correct or not and why or why not?"
> 
> Basically, we are arguing the headcovering all over again. But you have not come up with a reason on why you believe it's cultural. And yes, I could argue against that point. I can look throughout history and point to it's continued practice until the last 150yrs where it dwindled off and still it is not completely out of practice. In fact, it is being practiced more again than it has in the past 60 years.



My understanding is that it was the norm (at least during worship) until the 1950's.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I honestly don't understand the point about the immigration laws. I believe you are permitted to work here. You can even become a citizen or she can move to Canada and become a citizen there. There honestly isn't anything mentioned that I don't see a solution to (again, admitting to not understanding what your problem is). Also, you two are not married, you two have no children. And her working still has no bearing on the headcovering. It sounds like you are throwing alot of personal issues into this (and possibly the debate we were having on another forum).
> 
> *I am allowed to work there...when they give me the authorization. Even then, she still HAS to work because she is required to make a certain amount of money no matter how much I make. That's the law. Trust me, we're familiar with it. It takes time to become a citizen and I may/may not do that. As for her moving to Canada, there are plenty of reasons why she can't. Hence the fact I have to go there, which I'm not crazy about. I love my country.*
> 
> Just because the majority of ppl no longer practice it, does not make the command null. Feminism has entered the churches and the churches have done away with many things. If the majority of the churches starts marrying homosexuals then does that mean that God's calling it an abomination was just a temporal cultural thing?
> 
> *No. That's different. The majority of people no longer practise many of the things in the Old Testament. Why don't they? *
> 
> Tell me, Brian, why is it cultural? Simply because our culture has demeaned the practice? What about every culture before us? THEY practiced it...yet they were not Corinth. Is communion cultural? It's in the same passage, in the same book, to the same church, in the same culture as the headcovering is mentioned.
> 
> *Why is it not cultural? I believe it is cultural because MANY things were cultural. Again, why don't we practise everything in the Old Testament? As for the other cultures, them practising it doesn't make them right. they could just be mistaken in that they may think it's binding when really, it was a cultural thing. Again, I can bring up the fallacy of appealing to the majority like it was done to me. As for communion, that is a command to practise until the Lord's return.*
> 
> On being uncovered symbolizing prostitution...that is not true. In fact, prostitutes DID cover themselves...to the point that even their faces were covered. At that time is was common for married women of means to prostitute themselves...but they remained covered so as not to reveal their identity. Look at Tamar...ever wonder how she got pregnant and yet her FIL never knew that SHE was the "prostitute"? She remained covered...he never saw her face.
> 
> *Ok. Then where did the teaching that it was referring to prostitutes come from? If it is wrong, then the people who started that teaching were false teachers. I have only said what I was taught.*


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Brian...no one is targeting you. You've have come off wrong by taking everything to an extreme. There is no place for extremes. You've also made alot of not so nice comments and accusations. Yet I have done nothing but counter your statements. Why is that offensive to you? Your statements have been used in this discussion...I just don't agree with you. I could turn around and say that you are attacking me and my beliefs...but I'm not. It's not the point. The point is "is the position paper correct or not and why or why not?"
> 
> Basically, we are arguing the headcovering all over again. But you have not come up with a reason on why you believe it's cultural. And yes, I could argue against that point. I can look throughout history and point to it's continued practice until the last 150yrs where it dwindled off and still it is not completely out of practice. In fact, it is being practiced more again than it has in the past 60 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that it was the norm (at least during worship) until the 1950's.
Click to expand...

Correct...though it was starting to dwindle before then.


----------



## LadyFlynt

The only circles I have ever heard of the "prostitute" teaching was in baptist circles...just as they have claims that they can trace themselves right back to John the Baptist. (btw, I was raised baptist...so it's not a slam)

The headcovering is a New Testament teaching (though it was practiced in the old testament as well)...where is the Old Testament coming in at?


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> The only circles I have ever heard of the "prostitute" teaching was in baptist circles...just as they have claims that they can trace themselves right back to John the Baptist. (btw, I was raised baptist...so it's not a slam)
> 
> The headcovering is a New Testament teaching (though it was practiced in the old testament as well)...where is the Old Testament coming in at?



 Don't worry, I wouldn't have taken that as a slam. I hear that from my fiancee all the time. 

As for the Old Testament, I don't know. You were the one who brought in Deuteronomy. :bigsmile:


----------



## BaptistCanuk

p.s I've heard the "prostitute" teaching in Church of God and my baptist church.


----------



## Archlute

I will have to admit before posting this material that I have not read all of the links that have been given (which is always a great headache for me), so that if what I am about to say is discussed or "refuted" in any of them you will have to forgive me (and then you will have to start thinking on your own, making arguments for yourselves, and not constantly making ponderous appeals to outside authorities!).

That being said, I have not noticed in this thread very much interaction with the text itself at all. The reason that I point this out is that I believe that it is probable that much of the modern debate on this issue begins from a false premise, namely, that the head covering is something to be put on a woman apart from her hair. The argument always begins with the assumption that the headcovering is a material object, outside of the woman's own body, that is required to be placed upon her head as a covering. That this may be found in writers such as Tertullian should not unduly sway the discussion, as good Protestants should spend more time in the Apostles than in the Fathers. Tertullian may have something worth saying, and then again, he may be as off base as Marcion on any given point; age should not equal veneration from he Protestant perspective.

My reason for questioning this assumption is that I believe it may be a false reading of the Scriptures. I spent a great deal of time agonizing over this issue a few years ago, and many hours reading various points of view, commentaries, and the passage itself, all to no avail. Yet, one day as I was studying the passage for the umpteenth time something stuck out to me. Regardless of how we think that the greek of the first several verses should be translated (as 'kata kephales' does not necessarily require the translation that an outside object be place upon the head), my eyes were opened to what seemed to me to be the controlling verses in the whole issue. 

In I Corinthians 11:14 Paul emphasizes that by the law of God as found in nature (I won't here get into some of the ridiculous contrary interpretations of 'phusis'/nature) teaches that it is shameful for a male to have long hair. He then goes on to discuss the woman's hair in v.15.

Paul writes that "if a woman wears/has grown long hair (gune de hean komai) that this is unto her a glory". Now comes the clarifying, and I would say controlling interpretive statement, "Because (taking the 'hoti' clause as an explication of the previous statement) that long hair (understanding 'he kome' as using the resumptive article, which explicitly links this term with the previous cognate verb - and one should note that the lexicons uniformly agree that this use of 'he kome' is speaking of long hair) has, for her sake ('anti'), been given as an outer covering ('periboliaou')."

So my point is that, according to this understanding of Paul, it is not an outside covering of cloth, but rather the glory of a woman's distinctive long hair, that is to be her headcovering. I have not found any discussions regarding vv.14-15 in the debates over all of this, and yet they seem to be the clearest verses in explaining the whole meaning of what a headcovering actually consists.

Speak your thoughts.


----------



## Lauren Mary

Dear Brian et al.

In response to your question Brian: "Lauren, in all seriousness does the Bible command you to cover your face when you pray? There are many RPW people on here who should be asking you about that but if they won't, I will." 
-------------------------

Thank you for asking. I hope the reason none of the RPW people asked me about it is because they could see I never said anything about it being a command, but that I was only sharing how this personal gesture in prayer was experienced as a blessing for me. My apologies for any misunderstandings.

Blessings,
LM


----------



## LadyFlynt

On the hair as covering...you will see that the passage is comparative..."does not nature ALSO...?"

The term for covering here refers to an actual covering of material, a veil....not the hair.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> Are women who do not cover their heads in the public worship of God in sin?
> 
> Are men who do not exhort their women (wives/daughters) to cover their heads in the public worship of God in sin?
> 
> What about private worship?
> 
> What about any public appearance? (This I put in since someone referred to the "covenant" relationship of husband/wife as the basis for headcovering. Since this covenant is always in place I would assume the headcovering must always be in place.)



Anyone want to interact with this post? It's better than arguing over nothing.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> Are women who do not cover their heads in the public worship of God in sin?
> 
> Are men who do not exhort their women (wives/daughters) to cover their heads in the public worship of God in sin?
> 
> What about private worship?
> 
> What about any public appearance? (This I put in since someone referred to the "covenant" relationship of husband/wife as the basis for headcovering. Since this covenant is always in place I would assume the headcovering must always be in place.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to interact with this post? It's better than arguing over nothing.
Click to expand...


Okay...(she says as she goes to lay her head on the chopping block)

Yes, I believe they are. However, I don't hold myself up as a holier than thou on the issue...I have my own issues that I could be called on the carpet for.

Yes again...they are the spiritual heads of their families. However, I do understand the situation of a man whose wife refuses in this area...in that case, he may need to work on her slowly...as long as he is proactive I don't see him as being in sin.

Possibly. There is debate on the issue that this passage is refering to the assembly.

No...I see practicality in it, but I do not think it is sin if she is seen in public without it.


----------



## satz

Let me just make one tiny little comment.

I've seen quite a lot of 'moralism' on the subject of whether the covering ought to be worn _outside_ the assembly. Many people who say the passage is talking about behavior within the assembly or that they are not sure exactly, then seem to make the stretch that because it was commanded in the assembly it must be commanded everywhere else as well. Or that because the position of covering outside the assembly is more 'conservative', christians ought to follow it. Or that because culturally women used to cover in public in the past than women today ought to cover as well. But I think that is going further than what the bible does (unless off course you believe the 1 Cor 11 is not talking about formal assemblies). 

Just to clarify, (since this thread has already generated so much heat) I am not saying anything against those who choose to cover in public because of their own personal convictions. But it does seem that there are some who want to force their opinion on how things ought to be done on others even though the passage does not go that far (again, not referring to anyone here).

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by satz]


----------



## LadyFlynt

Just to clarify...I did point out my reasons for wearing it in public...none of them being scriptural, I admit that. I also am not pushing for that.

Of course you may be refering to particular groups that DO insist upon that...


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> Are women who do not cover their heads in the public worship of God in sin?
> 
> Are men who do not exhort their women (wives/daughters) to cover their heads in the public worship of God in sin?
> 
> What about private worship?
> 
> What about any public appearance? (This I put in since someone referred to the "covenant" relationship of husband/wife as the basis for headcovering. Since this covenant is always in place I would assume the headcovering must always be in place.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to interact with this post? It's better than arguing over nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay...(she says as she goes to lay her head on the chopping block)
> 
> Yes, I believe they are. However, I don't hold myself up as a holier than thou on the issue...I have my own issues that I could be called on the carpet for.
> 
> Yes again...they are the spiritual heads of their families. However, I do understand the situation of a man whose wife refuses in this area...in that case, he may need to work on her slowly...as long as he is proactive I don't see him as being in sin.
> 
> Possibly. There is debate on the issue that this passage is refering to the assembly.
> 
> No...I see practicality in it, but I do not think it is sin if she is seen in public without it.
Click to expand...


Colleen,
But if it's based upon a covenant principle, i.e. your submission to your federal head, wouldn't it be inconsistant to be without a covering even in public?

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## LadyFlynt

But it says when prophesying and praying. Should a man never wear a hat?


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> But if it's based upon a covenant principle, i.e. your submission to your federal head, wouldn't it be inconsistant to be without a covering even in public?



Good point, Scott. The covenant principle applies to the relationship itself. The apostle teaches that the action is merely to reflect the relationship within the context of public worship.

I suppose those who argue the apostle's instructions are moral will be obliged to call it a sin for a woman not to cover her head in public worship. Yet the most the apostle says is that she "dishonoureth [kataischunei] her head." Any sinfulness in the action is therefore relative, not absolute. It is a reflection upon what is socially acceptable. Later, however, when the apostle takes up the second part of the issue, the praying and prophesying of the women, he uses strong moral language -- that it is not permitted [ou epitetraptai, c.f. 1 Tim. 2:12] unto women to speak, but they are to be under obedience [hupotassesthai], according to the law.

I think it is wisest to see the apostle's instruction much like we see other positive examples in Scripture. It is not immutable, otherwise we would have to go to great pains to learn exactly what the women covered their heads with so as to imitate them in every detail. Yet his instructions continue to provide an ideal manner of reflecting gender relationship and order.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> But it says when prophesying and praying. Should a man never wear a hat?



Colleen,
Help me understand: So then it's not based upon the "covenant" relationship of husband and wife?


----------



## LadyFlynt

It's based on headship order/creation order.

[Edited on 8-29-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> It's based on headship order/creation order.
> 
> [Edited on 8-29-2006 by LadyFlynt]



But you previously said:



> But it says when prophesying and praying.....



One would think that if it is directly related to the marriage covenant/headship issue than whenever your head is uncovered it would be usurping that covenant ordinance.


----------



## Lauren Mary

Regarding the question: Is it her long hair or a cloth covering in addition to her long hair that is to serve as a womans headcovering?


Ponder this. 
If the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:5 meant that being "uncovered" was tantamount to being "shaven," then verse 6 would also mean, "if a woman will not refrain from cutting off her hair, then let her cut off her hair also." So it doesn't make sense for Paul to be saying a womans long hair is her covering. Paul must have meant something other than her hair.


----------



## LadyFlynt

No, one is the reason and the other is it's place of practice.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by Lauren Mary_
> Dear Brian et al.
> 
> In response to your question Brian: "Lauren, in all seriousness does the Bible command you to cover your face when you pray? There are many RPW people on here who should be asking you about that but if they won't, I will."
> -------------------------
> 
> Thank you for asking. I hope the reason none of the RPW people asked me about it is because they could see I never said anything about it being a command, but that I was only sharing how this personal gesture in prayer was experienced as a blessing for me. My apologies for any misunderstandings.
> 
> Blessings,
> LM



Hey Lauren, don't worry. There is nothing to apologize for. I knew you weren't saying it was a command that everyone should follow. That was basically my point though. I figured RPWers would say that you shouldn't do that because there is no command in Scripture to do it. That's all I was doing. God bless you.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> On the hair as covering...you will see that the passage is comparative..."does not nature ALSO...?"
> 
> The term for covering here refers to an actual covering of material, a veil....not the hair.



I read the whole passage tonight and I was kind of confused. Because Paul goes on to say "Judge among yourselves" and "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." Any of you more skilled in hermeneutics than I, what is Paul saying?


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Just to clarify...I did point out my reasons for wearing it in public...none of them being scriptural, I admit that. I also am not pushing for that.
> 
> Of course you may be refering to particular groups that DO insist upon that...



Yup, i tried to make it clear in my post i wasn't referrring to what anyone had posted in this thread.

Just making some general observations.


----------



## Lauren Mary

There is a responsible sounding explanation about what Paul meant by, "Judge among yourselves" and "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God" - at -

http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html 
For conveniences sake, here is the particular excerpt of interest. 

Point #16: "But if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. He thus brings the matter to a conclusion. In addition to the theological and moral reasons for the headcovering, there is also the fact that if the Corinthians were to allow their women to remove the headcovering, this new practice or custom (ÏƒÏ…Î½á½µÎ¸ÎµÎ¹Î±Î½) would go against the established custom of Paul and his fellow-workers, the custom which was observed in all the other churches, and which he has delivered to them as one of the Ï€Î±ÏÎ±Î´á½¹ÏƒÎµÎ¹Ï‚ "traditional practices" of the faith (verse 2). A similar appeal to the church-wide Ï€Î±ÏÎ±Î´á½¹ÏƒÎµÎ¹Ï‚ may be seen in 14:33, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent," and the argument there is also ended with a brusque, "if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized." (14:38). Those who continue to challenge the Ï€Î±ÏÎ±Î´á½¹ÏƒÎµÎ¹Ï‚ regarding women after these explanations have been made are to be regarded as obstinate trouble-makers, who deserve no further answer.

Some have strangely interpreted this verse to mean, "But if anyone strongly disagrees with what I have said, rather than make a habit of argument over such unimportant matters let us just say it is a matter of indifference," etc. But this interpretation fails to take the whole passage seriously as the Word of God. And besides that (which should be enough), it makes no sense either rhetorically or semantically. Paul has devoted some time to this subject because it is important to him, not a matter of indifference; and it makes little sense to speak of a custom of being contentious (Ï†Î¹Î»á½¹Î½ÎµÎ¹ÎºÎ¿Ï‚, lit. "loving strife"), because contentiousness is an attitude or temper, not a custom. There is a good parallel to Paul's usage of the word Ï†Î¹Î»á½¹Î½ÎµÎ¹ÎºÎ¿Ï‚ in Josephus' work Against Apion. Josephus concludes a series of arguments with the sentence, "I suppose that what I have already said may be sufficient to such as are not very contentious (Ï†Î¹Î»á½¹Î½ÎµÎ¹ÎºÎ¿Ï‚)," (14) and then he continues with even stronger arguments for those who are very contentious. In the same way, Paul reserves the clinching argument for the end. It is an argument from authority. The headcovering practice is a matter of apostolic authority and tradition, and not open to debate. His concluding rebuke of the contentious people in Corinth is meant to cut off debate and settle the issue, not to leave it open. It is quite wrong to say of this last argument of Paul's that "in the end he admits" that he was merely "rationalizing the customs in which he believes," (15) as if Paul himself put little store by custom. Rather, Paul considers this to be his strongest point. At the end he harks back to the words with which he opened the subject ("maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you" in verse 2), and the whole section is thus framed between explicit invocations of tradition."


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Thanks for the link Lauren, and also for posting the most relevant part. That is interesting and I will keep it in mind. I do believe though, that even if it is necessary for women to cover their heads, the husband shouldn't force them. That same passage in Scripture says a woman "ought" to cover her head and I understand that as meaning "they should", but I don't see it to be saying "women, you must...". 

Thanks again Lauren.


----------



## Archlute

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> On the hair as covering...you will see that the passage is comparative..."does not nature ALSO...?"
> 
> The term for covering here refers to an actual covering of material, a veil....not the hair.



LadyFlynt,

As for the negative particle which you rendered as "also" - it need not be translated comparatively, as you will see if reading from the English translations of the Geneva, RSV, ESV, or NIV. That is only one of several emphases available for that conjunction. 

Yet, even if Paul is using nature as a comparative point, by which to reinforce his argument, you must still prove (not merely assert) that the issue over all is cloth coverings as opposed to hair length in distinguishing the sexes and their roles.

You asserted that 'paribalaiou' "refers to an actual covering of material, a veil, not the hair", but the lexicons and the scriptural use of this term do not support that assertion.

The recognized biblical and classical Greek lexicons support metaphorical or "non-cloth" uses. They specifically include long hair (and several press that point on this particular passage), as well as youth or manhood as an "encasement of the flesh" as found in the writings of Euripedes. That is certainly a metaphorically descriptive use, not requiring that it be seen as a literal veil of cloth.

As well, the Septuagint uses this term to speak of being "wrapped in zeal" (Isa. 59:17), "covered in strength" (Jer. 15:12), or the metaphorical use of "the deep as a garment" (Ps. 104:6).

There is no way that it can be proven that Paul was speaking exclusively of an external veil outside of the woman's hair at this point. In fact, context and lexical/Septuagintal use of that term rather support my position.

If that is the case, then false arguments are being used to bind the consciences of others, and we are sinning against the Church by imposing a view based upon false interpretation, and must withdraw our position.

Does anyone here have any greater proof that Paul is speaking of cloth headcoverings and not hair length? If not, how would that then change your understanding of this passage and it's requirements for the Church?


----------



## Lauren Mary

Hi Adam, Did you see the earlier post that pondered, "If the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:5 meant that being "uncovered" was tantamount to being "shaven," then verse 6 would also mean, "if a woman will not refrain from cutting off her hair, then let her cut off her hair also." So it doesn't make sense for Paul to be saying a womans long hair is her covering. Paul must have meant something other than her hair."


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by Archlute_
> Does anyone here have any greater proof that Paul is speaking of cloth headcoverings and not hair length? If not, how would that then change your understanding of this passage and it's requirements for the Church?



Adam,
Perhaps you might be interested in the thoughts of a former Westminster professor, John Murray. Full article available here: http://members.aol.com/rsiworship/head.html



> I am convinced that a head covering is definitely in view forbidden for the man (vss. 4, & 7) and enjoined for the woman (vss. 5, 6, 15). In the case of the woman the covering is not simply her long hair. This supposition would make nonsense of verse 6. For the thought there is, that if she does not have a covering she might as well be shorn or shaven, a supposition without any force whatever if the hair covering is deemed sufficient. In this connection it is not proper to interpret verse 15b as meaning that the hair was given the woman to take the place of the head covering in view of verses 5, 6. The Greek of verse 15 is surely the Greek of equivalence as used quite often in the New Testament, and so the Greek can be rendered: "the hair is given to her for a covering." This is within the scope of the particular agrument of verses 14, 15 and does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5, 6, 13. Verses 14 and 15 adduce a consideration from the order of nature in support of that which is enjoined earlier in the passage but is not itself tantamount to it. In other words, the long hair is an indication from "nature" of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering required (vss. 5, 6, 13) is in line with what "nature" teaches.


----------



## Kevin

Lauren Mary, I don't know any Greek to cite but I will say that in English that is a very common expression.

I.E. Guy walks into work after getting his hair cut and one of his co-workers say, "If you were going to cut it that short, why not get your head shaved?"

I have heard this actual exchange several times. I know that does not prove that this is what St Paul meant, however I do think that it is not impossible that that is how he meant it.


----------



## BaptistCanuk

You make a good point Kevin. It doesn't prove that that is what Paul was doing but it shows that it is "possible" that that is what Paul was doing.

Ok...something that was said begged the question. How long is "long" hair? What is the maximum length of hair a man can have? And for women: how much of their hair do they have to cover? I've seen ladies with a doily type of thing on their heads where their hair is still visible. I've seen women with hats. I've seen women with nothing much bigger than one of those little tiny caps with the airplane propeller on it (if anyone knows what I mean). So how much hair must be covered? And how short can a woman cut her hair before it's too short, let alone shaved? *deep breath*

edited for word mistake

[Edited on 8-30-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------



## Kevin

I don't want to define long hair on a man--but I know it when I see it


----------



## BaptistCanuk

LOL that's because of our culture. :bigsmile:

I don't know, in my mind, "long" has to be quantified. Otherwise it is too easy for people to make judgements of others based on their own preferences.


----------



## Kevin

BTW, I am interested in knowing from the Ladies on the thread how many of you began to cover because your husband asked you to?

Or, was this something you became convicted of first.

Or, did you grow up in a "covering" church?

Thanks I am finding this very interesting & helpful


----------



## BaptistCanuk

Looks like your fighting the double post battle too Kevin.


----------



## Kevin

oops! How do I edit that double post?


----------



## BaptistCanuk

I think you can just go to edit, and scroll down to the bottom. One of the options will be to delete. I don't know if you can only do that when your post is the last one or not though. Give it a try.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Long hair on a woman...as long as her hair will grow (I've known one woman who's hair literally doesn't grow longer than two inches out of her head).

On men, I believe past the shoulders is too long...personal opinion, so don't ask for scripture on that one, I base my opinion on it from a look through history.

Kevin, my husband and I studied it together. He was convinced before me and requested I start covering. I did. I later, through furthur study and the Lord changing my heart, became convinced. When I started covering, the Lord had already been working on me with the submission issue.


----------



## Augusta

I felt a conviction to cover my head simply by reading the passage. I wasn't even reformed then. I was attending a Foursquare Church that was begun by a charismatic woman preacher. 

I asked a older woman whom I respected in my church her opinion and she of course shot it all down because in modern evangelical churches this is not even thought about much less practiced. 

My husband and I later listened to an exegesis of this passage and were convinced of it's command immediately. It is one of the lengthiest treatments, explained from many angles, on any command or teaching in scripture In my humble opinion.


----------



## CDM

*cough* *cough*



> But here is my question: What visible, tangible practice or custom is done today to signify the moral principle of lawful male headship under Christ and respectful female submission in the Lord within the assemblies of the Church? What has "œreplaced" the head covering?
> 
> We know what has "œreplaced" the foot washing and holy kiss custom as mentioned above. (note: I don´t mean "œreplaced" to be taken negatively). But what has replaced the head covering custom?
> 
> How would one, Christian or otherwise, observe the biblical practice of a visible sign of authority over the woman? If it is not a covering (because of our culture) then what is it? Or, what should it be? It seems to me that when the Apostle calls for a visible sign of authority or power upon the (woman´s) head, he is mandating that it ought to be immediately apparent to the observer of the rightful order of things.
> 
> My questions can be compacted into one: What modern day, culturally specific custom is expressing this absolute moral principle of submission and authority in the Church?


----------



## Lauren Mary

To Kevin and Brian et al.

Hi Kevin et al.
So guys say that line to each other after short hair cuts? Cute. It never would have occured to me. I suppose there is a chance Paul meant it that way since he did use a little sarcasm in other of his letters, but by context I still think it means the long hair is one thing and the headcovering is another.

Hi Brian et al.
For myself, I'd say long hair for a woman is that which reaches to the top edge of her shoulders or longer. And if the headcovering is only meant to be a symbol, then there may be a wide variety of acceptable coverings. 

However, if the headcovering is meant to conceal this often attractive and lovely attribute of woman (her hair) so that it is not a distraction to man or angels, then something fully covering the hair and more humble in appearance would be appropriate. 

My practice is something half way between the two. I cover all my hair, but the scarf is nice looking. Not really attention getting, but a conventional nice looking silk scarf over my head and tied at the back of the neck. Or I sometimes wear another scarf that is mostly netting with small embroidered flowers. This scarf fully covers my hair and wraps around my neck once. With the net scarf my hair is only slightly visible, but still fully covered. I own only these two. One dark and one light. Any more would seem like vanity to me. But that's just me.

Again, Kevin et al.
I began wearing a headcovering just this year. My unbelieving ex-husband left 18 years ago and I remained single, so this decision was just between me and the Lord. About 20% of women in my church wear a simple scarf headcovering as directed by their husbands or fathers. The pastor's wife and daughter do not. Once I decided to wear a headcovering, then several of the head-UN-covered women let me know they didn't like it or didn't agree with it. My response was a simple, "oh." I don't argue with them about this, but if someone wants my reasons I am very happy to show them the verses and teachings that convinced me.

For the young headcovered women in my church, it seems that their dads direct them to wear the headcovering starting between 12-14 years old.

Blessings all.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> *cough* *cough*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know what has "œreplaced" the foot washing and holy kiss custom as mentioned above. (note: I don´t mean "œreplaced" to be taken negatively). But what has replaced the head covering custom?
Click to expand...


The premise that one "custom" has replaced another "custom" -- whether in the case of foot washing or holy kiss -- is not established. 

You have to work that issue before we can talk about an appropriate "custom" to replace the "custom" of a head covering.

BTW, I'm not at all convinced that 1 Cor. 11:1-16 is directed mainly or solely at the conduct of women in the public assembly of God's people. The end of chapter 10 is discussing sexual immorality, temptation, idolatry and the obtaining things sacrificed to idols in the public square, "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake;" 

In chapter 11 around verse 18 there seems to be a shift to the assembly. "For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe..."

Note the phrase "First of all." That seems a bit misplaced if the previous discussion about head covering was for the assembly as well.

I find nothing compelling in that section to limit its requirements (whatever they may be) to public corporate worship.

Then there is the matter of "praying or prophesying". If this is the public assembly, and we also have instruction from Paul, "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak", I have a difficult time seeing this passage as regulating what Paul is specifically forbidding in chapter 14. It seems like the IRS coming after someone for not paying taxes on the proceeds from a drug deal.


----------



## satz

> Then there is the matter of "praying or prophesying". If this is the public assembly, and we also have instruction from Paul, "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak", I have a difficult time seeing this passage as regulating what Paul is specifically forbidding in chapter 14. It seems like the IRS coming after someone for not paying taxes on the proceeds from a drug deal.



Although it is, to my knowledge, a rare view, I am sympathetic to the idea that the 'praying or prophesying' in view here refers to inspired praying and prophecy that were part of the spiritual gifts that were active at that time in church history. This I think flows most naturally from Paul's use of the word 'prophesying' which would seem to indicate direct revelation from God, whereas we can see other places in the NT when Paul is very capable of using the word 'preaching' to indicate the teaching of revelation that has already been revealed. It also avoids the inconsistency that Tom noted above that seems to have Paul regulating a practice he would later forbid. The prohibition on women speaking in 1 Cor 14 is, from what I can see not an absolute prohibition, since Paul allowed them to sing in church. I think it is not an unreasonable assumption that there is an exception from the normal rule regarding the speaking of women from 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2 when the woman is speaking prophecy by the inspiration of God. For instance in Luke 2 Anna a prophetess as teaching men about the Lord, and there are a few passages in scripture that were initially spoken by women (Exodus 15:21, Judges 5, Luke 1:46-55, Proverbs 31) yet are surely binding on all Christians today regardless of gender. 

I am aware that many respected teachers like Calvin have taken the view that Paul merely mentioned the practice in Chapter 11 and condemned it in Chapter 14, but (for the moment) I think that the interpretation above flows more naturally from the passage. The inconsistency between 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 14 is, I think, easily solved by seeing the word 'prophecy' and realizing that the speaking going on in 1 Cor 11 is different from that being condemned in 1 Cor 14.


----------



## Augusta

My understanding is that in Corporate worship which includes all of the sacraments, prayer, worship, etc. occurs before the throne of God in unity as a body. Thus they all participate in the prayer worship etc. wether all speak or don't speak. Thus a woman can never speak but be in unity before the throne participating in all of these things. 

We know both men and women spiritually are equal, but Paul is saying here there should be a distinction of the headship order maintained and the the women should have "power on her head."

1 Cor. 11:10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> On men, I believe past the shoulders is too long...personal opinion, so don't ask for scripture on that one, I base my opinion on it from a look through history.



I had to smile when I read this, since I thought the same thing. Barbers came into vogue in the Roman era. It is generally acknowledged that in many nations the men did not usually cut their hair, but grew it as long as the women's.

From a biblical perspective, I think Paul's "nature" statement is referring to the manner in which men and women are naturally distinguished. Thus, as their clothes are different (or should be), so should their hair length be.

But from a cultural viewpoint, I agree that past the shoulders is too long -- in Western societies at least. It is a general biblical rule that the nobles set the standard as to what is "culturally" acceptable. Hence the prophetic woes pronounced upon princes. Of course, we find ourselves in a position not unlike Tyre, where our merchants are princes, and our traffickers are the honourable of the earth. In which case, nobility has been spoiled by making the accumulation of wealth the mark of a man's worth.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> My understanding is that in Corporate worship which includes all of the sacraments, prayer, worship, etc. occurs before the throne of God in unity as a body. Thus they all participate in the prayer worship etc. wether all speak or don't speak. Thus a woman can never speak but be in unity before the throne participating in all of these things.



Does either word pray or prophesy ever refer to mere non-aural passive participation in the action of another?

Such a notion seems to defy passages like, "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. "

It seems to me that whatever is being referenced here is real activity on the part of the persons. Since we know that there were for a time in the very early church prophetesses (Acts 2:17,18; 21:9), why should we not think that Paul's words are being directed at that special (minority) class of women.



> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> We know both men and women spiritually are equal, but Paul is saying here there should be a distinction of the headship order maintained and the the women should have "power on her head."
> 
> 1 Cor. 11:10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.



Yes, but that does not explain the directive of Paul to women who "pray or prophesy". 

And it does not explain why this is generalized to men and women, not husbands and wives. 

As a man I am not the head over all women. Neither is my wife subject to all men, even in the congregation. But Paul speak of men and women in a broader sense that husbands/wives. 

Perhaps what is in view is a prophet/prophetess relationship. That in the general flow of things the prophetesses (women) in Corinth were to be subject to the prophets (men), and a covering was a sign of that submission. "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." (1 Cor. 14:32)


----------



## Croghanite

[/quote]

Perhaps what is in view is a prophet/prophetess relationship. That in the general flow of things the prophetesses (women) in Corinth were to be subject to the prophets (men), and a covering was a sign of that submission. "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." (1 Cor. 14:32) [/quote]

I have never heard of this interpretation before. Very interesting.


----------



## MW

The apostle's comments only make sense in the context of a public assembly, meeting together for the purpose of worship. Jewish men worshipped separately from women. Men covered as an expression of reverence. Amongst the Greeks, where men and women worshipped together, the men uncovered the head, because covering was a sign of subjection. The apostle says that is the custom to be observed in the Christian assembly where Jews and Gentiles meet together. It could not have applied outside of a public assembly meeting together for worship.


----------



## Augusta

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> My understanding is that in Corporate worship which includes all of the sacraments, prayer, worship, etc. occurs before the throne of God in unity as a body. Thus they all participate in the prayer worship etc. wether all speak or don't speak. Thus a woman can never speak but be in unity before the throne participating in all of these things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does either word pray or prophesy ever refer to mere non-aural passive participation in the action of another?
> 
> 
> It seems to me that whatever is being referenced here is real activity on the part of the persons. Since we know that there were for a time in the very early church prophetesses (Acts 2:17,18; 21:9), why should we not think that Paul's words are being directed at that special (minority) class of women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In those days there were women who prophesied and that of course no longer happens now. Paul is not differentiating between men and women based on what they are doing ie praying and prophesying. He is commanding both to do a specific thing while praying and prophesying. They are all participating as one body. There are not hats of and on for specific this or that. It is a constant state of covered and not covered.
> 
> Now my understanding is that when we are before God "In Christ" in the spirit we are not their bodily obviously. We are there spiritually and we are one invisible body before the throne "via" "Christ." We worship in spirit. So this is what I am understanding the praying and prophesying to be. It's corporate here not specific.
> 
> Paul is stating the headship order as it should be before God. And he is saying men should NOT cover their heads and women SHOULD. It is a dual command. Not one command for one or the other. I think this explains the angel aspect also because they are present when we worship in the spirit. Paul's appeal is never to anything other than the created order of headship for this command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> We know both men and women spiritually are equal, but Paul is saying here there should be a distinction of the headship order maintained and the the women should have "power on her head."
> 
> 1 Cor. 11:10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but that does not explain the directive of Paul to women who "pray or prophesy".
> 
> And it does not explain why this is generalized to men and women, not husbands and wives.
> 
> As a man I am not the head over all women. Neither is my wife subject to all men, even in the congregation. But Paul speak of men and women in a broader sense that husbands/wives.
> 
> Perhaps what is in view is a prophet/prophetess relationship. That in the general flow of things the prophetesses (women) in Corinth were to be subject to the prophets (men), and a covering was a sign of that submission. "And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." (1 Cor. 14:32)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that it is not in the sense of husbands or wives necessarily either because he take pains to say that in the Lord we are all from God.
> 
> 1 Cor. 11:11 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.
> 
> What then is the problem? Paul is saying that there is an order of headship and it must be shown via symbol. The women must have power on their head and the men shouldn't.
> 
> I hope I am making some sense. I am not especially gifted at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Kevin

Thanks Tom, very helpfull points.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by mangum_
> *cough* *cough*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know what has "œreplaced" the foot washing and holy kiss custom as mentioned above. (note: I don´t mean "œreplaced" to be taken negatively). But what has replaced the head covering custom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The premise that one "custom" has replaced another "custom" -- whether in the case of foot washing or holy kiss -- is not established.
> 
> You have to work that issue before we can talk about an appropriate "custom" to replace the "custom" of a head covering.
> 
> BTW, I'm not at all convinced that 1 Cor. 11:1-16 is directed mainly or solely at the conduct of women in the public assembly of God's people. The end of chapter 10 is discussing sexual immorality, temptation, idolatry and the obtaining things sacrificed to idols in the public square, "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake;"
> 
> In chapter 11 around verse 18 there seems to be a shift to the assembly. "For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe..."
> 
> Note the phrase "First of all." That seems a bit misplaced if the previous discussion about head covering was for the assembly as well.
> 
> I find nothing compelling in that section to limit its requirements (whatever they may be) to public corporate worship.
> 
> Then there is the matter of "praying or prophesying". If this is the public assembly, and we also have instruction from Paul, "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak", I have a difficult time seeing this passage as regulating what Paul is specifically forbidding in chapter 14. It seems like the IRS coming after someone for not paying taxes on the proceeds from a drug deal.
Click to expand...


Did you read the RPNA position paper? This is NOT my position. 

My original post, and the title of this thread, is _Headcoverings and the RPNA's position paper_. It is their [RPNA] "cultural" claim that states they disagree with headcoverings because it only concerns the culture at the time of the Corinthian church. They referenced footwashing, and holy kissing as examples. I took their conclusions to its natural end. 

My point is, for all who say it is cultural (assuming their argument matches the RPNA's) what has *replaced* the symbol of authority on her [womans] head?

ORIGINAL post (pay close attention to the bolded lines):



> _Originally posted by mangum_
> 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
> 
> This topic has been coming up often in my circles of interest. I see the strength of the arguments on both sides of the debate (viewed as cultural practice to the Corinthians OR to be practiced by all churches for all times as part of proper worship).
> 
> The RPNA has an "Official Presbyterial Paper" found here.
> 
> Has anyone read a rebuttal to it? For those here that cover or have a wife that covers, what do you think of this 22 page paper?
> 
> Many that take the "cultural" position refer to the washing of the feet and holy kiss practices for support of their view that head coverings are cultural. Even this position paper mentions them here
> 
> Words in italics are from the paper regarding foot washing and a holy kiss:
> 
> _"¦Although the Lord authorized his disciples to wash the feet of others, as an appropriate act in their cultural context, we do not believe that in our society we are presently under an obligation to practice that specific cultural custom. *We recognize there is a moral principle (of selfless service) that stands behind that cultural practice which we must continue to exemplify in our lives as Christ´s ministers and disciples.* The Lord here illustrates the moral duty incumbent upon all who rule in His Church to be the greatest servants of all in caring for others. The actual practice of foot washing had cultural significance to those living in the ancient world, but it has no real significance to those living in the Western world of the twenty-first century. *Perhaps our closest cultural equivalent to foot washing presently is offering refreshments and hospitality to guests who visit in our homes.*
> 
> But we also acknowledge that we are not universally bound to the alterable, cultural custom of foot washing, but rather to the unalterable, moral principle of service. So likewise, we acknowledge that men and women are not universally bound to the alterable, cultural custom of uncovering and covering their heads, *but rather to the unalterable, moral principle of lawful male headship under Christ and respectful female submission in the Lord within the assemblies of the Church.*_
> 
> But there is something that continually comes to my mind when hearing this particular line of argumentation. In the 2 cases of foot washing and holy kissing, the paper acknowledges a cultural "œreplacement" (so to speak) sign or practice that signifies the moral principal being taught. _"œ"¦our closest cultural equivalent to foot washing presently is offering refreshments and hospitality to guests who visit in our homes."_ Agreed. This is a cultural custom, in modern times, which is the same in principle to foot washing during Apostolic times.
> Likewise, a holy kiss today _"œ"¦would likely be a holy handshake or perhaps a holy embrace"¦Again, we do not understand that we are bound by this specific cultural custom, although we would understand that the moral principle (of Christian love) that lies behind that practice does in fact continue as an obligation. So likewise, we acknowledge that men and women are not universally bound to the alterable, cultural custom of uncovering and covering their heads, *but rather to the unalterable, moral principle of lawful authority and submission within the Church.*_ Like the foot washing example, I agree.
> 
> But here is my question: What visible, tangible practice or custom is done today to signify the moral principle of lawful male headship under Christ and respectful female submission in the Lord within the assemblies of the Church? What has "œreplaced" the head covering?
> 
> We know what has "œreplaced" the foot washing and holy kiss custom as mentioned above. (note: I don´t mean "œreplaced" to be taken negatively). But what has replaced the head covering custom?
> 
> How would one, Christian or otherwise, observe the biblical practice of a visible sign of authority over the woman? If it is not a covering (because of our culture) then what is it? Or, what should it be? It seems to me that when the Apostle calls for a visible sign of authority or power upon the (woman´s) head, he is mandating that it ought to be immediately apparent to the observer of the rightful order of things.
> 
> My questions can be compacted into one: What modern day, culturally specific custom is expressing this absolute moral principle of submission and authority in the Church?
> 
> [Edited on 6-7-2006 by mangum]


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> Did you read the RPNA position paper? This is NOT my position.



I didn't say it was. I was merely arguing against the premise (which is what your question was built upon) that one "custom" needs to exist to replace another "custom", whether foot washing or head covering.

When you ask, "My point is, for all who say it is cultural (assuming their argument matches the RPNA's) what has *replaced* the symbol of authority on her [womans] head?", I simply question where has it been established that one custom/tradition needs to replace another.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> The apostle's comments only make sense in the context of a public assembly, meeting together for the purpose of worship. Jewish men worshipped separately from women. Men covered as an expression of reverence. Amongst the Greeks, where men and women worshipped together, the men uncovered the head, because covering was a sign of subjection. The apostle says that is the custom to be observed in the Christian assembly where Jews and Gentiles meet together. It could not have applied outside of a public assembly meeting together for worship.



Later in the chapter Paul says, "For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it." He uses this "come together" language in later verses, clearly meaning the public assembly (11:18,20,33,34; 14:23). But that language is not found immediately in the context of vv. 2-16. As I said the preceeding chapter is not dealing with assembly issues. 

Then there is the non-localized nature of v. 13, "Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" It does not say "in the assembly". 

It's also interesting to note that the word "pray" in rest of the letter has some relationship to the extraordinary tongues phenomenon (14:13-15). 

Even so your understanding of gentile vs. Jewish customs does not explain why it is specifically directed at participants in certain activities. "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 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."

If doesn't say "every man worshipping" or "every woman worshipping". Now perhaps the phrase "praying or prophesying" is meant to designate the entirety of corporate worship, but that would need to be established by exegesis. 

We also have Paul's interesting statement in 1 Timothy 2:

"Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,"

Note the contrast between men praying (active?) and women adorning themselves with emblems of their inherited righteousness (passive?). 

Based on these constructions it seems that we could reasonably infer that rather than being a general directive to all men and all women, 1 Cor. 11 is speaking of a unique set of individuals with a divine calling, and in the case of the extraordinary gifts, one limited by time. Women who found themself in this unique service needed a symbol of the authority over them to pray and prophesy in a public fashion (neither activity being strictly limited to what we call corporate worship assemblies, 1 Thess. 5:17).

These are my thoughts. They are not cast in stone in my mind.


----------



## LadyFlynt

What has replace it? I think I answered that toward the beginning....

Nothing.

And it should still be practiced.


----------



## satz

> Based on these constructions it seems that we could reasonably infer that rather than being a general directive to all men and all women, 1 Cor. 11 is speaking of a unique set of individuals with a divine calling, and in the case of the extraordinary gifts, one limited by time. Women who found themself in this unique service needed a symbol of the authority over them to pray and prophesy in a public fashion (neither activity being strictly limited to what we call corporate worship assemblies, 1 Thess. 5:17).



This is the view I am leaning towards at this time. Did you see my post above?


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by satz_
> 
> This is the view I am leaning towards at this time. Did you see my post above?



I did. Thanks.


----------



## MW

I will preface my remarks by saying that this is not a burning issue for me. At most I consider the covering of women a matter of decorum; it is not an "element" of worship. 1 Cor. 11 provides a positive example of how best to express gender relations to the glory of God in corporate worship.



> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> Later in the chapter Paul says, "For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it." He uses this "come together" language in later verses, clearly meaning the public assembly (11:18,20,33,34; 14:23). But that language is not found immediately in the context of vv. 2-16. As I said the preceeding chapter is not dealing with assembly issues.



The reference to the ill nature of the Corinthians "coming together" need not indicate he is addressing their coming together for the first time. He has expressed his praise of the Corinthians in v. 2, and now he expresses his criticism of them. If anything, that indicates the preceding section of vv. 2-16 is referring to something in their coming together which was praiseworthy, i.e., that they kept the ordinances. The "but" introducing v. 3, indicates something they needed to be reminded of.

The whole section is marked out by these two significant statements: "keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you," v. 2, and "neither the churches of God," v. 16. These are indicators of a public worship setting.

Then there is the shared vocabulary between this section and 1 Cor. 14, which leads a number of commentators to conclude that the apostle divides the problem up, dealing with the order of the sexes here, and the praying/prophesying there. 1 Cor. 14 is definitely speaking of a public assembly setting.

Moreover, there is the reference to "angels," which only makes sense within the context of a gathered assembly, the disorder of which would have been scandalous to the heavenly hosts. Charles Hodge (in loc.): "it was specially proper in the worshipping assemblies, for there they were in the presence not merely of men but of angels."





> Then there is the non-localized nature of v. 13, "Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" It does not say "in the assembly".



The Greek "en humin autois" would indicate corporality -- "among you yourselves."



> It's also interesting to note that the word "pray" in rest of the letter has some relationship to the extraordinary tongues phenomenon (14:13-15).



True, and 1 Cor. 14 indicates that this phenomenon was taking place in the assembly, which is what made it so unseemly.



> Even so your understanding of gentile vs. Jewish customs does not explain why it is specifically directed at participants in certain activities. "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 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."
> 
> If doesn't say "every man worshipping" or "every woman worshipping". Now perhaps the phrase "praying or prophesying" is meant to designate the entirety of corporate worship, but that would need to be established by exegesis.



From 1 Cor. 14 we learn that the specific activities of praying (in tongues) and prophesying were out of control in the assembly. That is the disorder the apostle sought to rectify. He locates the problem in chapter 11, deals with one part of the problem here, and moves on to the other part of it there. 1 Cor. 14:33, "as in all churches of the saints," picks up where the apostle left off in 11:16.



> Based on these constructions it seems that we could reasonably infer that rather than being a general directive to all men and all women, 1 Cor. 11 is speaking of a unique set of individuals with a divine calling, and in the case of the extraordinary gifts, one limited by time. Women who found themself in this unique service needed a symbol of the authority over them to pray and prophesy in a public fashion (neither activity being strictly limited to what we call corporate worship assemblies, 1 Thess. 5:17).



Extraordinary occurrences are not governed by ordinary rules. I don't think the apostle would have appealed to the ordinary course of nature in order to establish the proper order of the sexes if he was redressing an "extraordinary" phenomenon.


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> I will preface my remarks by saying that this is not a burning issue for me. At most I consider the covering of women a matter of decorum; it is not an "element" of worship. 1 Cor. 11 provides a positive example of how best to express gender relations to the glory of God in corporate worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> Later in the chapter Paul says, "For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it." He uses this "come together" language in later verses, clearly meaning the public assembly (11:18,20,33,34; 14:23). But that language is not found immediately in the context of vv. 2-16. As I said the preceeding chapter is not dealing with assembly issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reference to the ill nature of the Corinthians "coming together" need not indicate he is addressing their coming together for the first time. He has expressed his praise of the Corinthians in v. 2, and now he expresses his criticism of them. If anything, that indicates the preceding section of vv. 2-16 is referring to something in their coming together which was praiseworthy, i.e., that they kept the ordinances. The "but" introducing v. 3, indicates something they needed to be reminded of.
> 
> The whole section is marked out by these two significant statements: "keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you," v. 2, and "neither the churches of God," v. 16. These are indicators of a public worship setting.
> 
> Then there is the shared vocabulary between this section and 1 Cor. 14, which leads a number of commentators to conclude that the apostle divides the problem up, dealing with the order of the sexes here, and the praying/prophesying there. 1 Cor. 14 is definitely speaking of a public assembly setting.
> 
> Moreover, there is the reference to "angels," which only makes sense within the context of a gathered assembly, the disorder of which would have been scandalous to the heavenly hosts. Charles Hodge (in loc.): "it was specially proper in the worshipping assemblies, for there they were in the presence not merely of men but of angels."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is the non-localized nature of v. 13, "Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" It does not say "in the assembly".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Greek "en humin autois" would indicate corporality -- "among you yourselves."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also interesting to note that the word "pray" in rest of the letter has some relationship to the extraordinary tongues phenomenon (14:13-15).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, and 1 Cor. 14 indicates that this phenomenon was taking place in the assembly, which is what made it so unseemly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even so your understanding of gentile vs. Jewish customs does not explain why it is specifically directed at participants in certain activities. "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 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."
> 
> If doesn't say "every man worshipping" or "every woman worshipping". Now perhaps the phrase "praying or prophesying" is meant to designate the entirety of corporate worship, but that would need to be established by exegesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From 1 Cor. 14 we learn that the specific activities of praying (in tongues) and prophesying were out of control in the assembly. That is the disorder the apostle sought to rectify. He locates the problem in chapter 11, deals with one part of the problem here, and moves on to the other part of it there. 1 Cor. 14:33, "as in all churches of the saints," picks up where the apostle left off in 11:16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on these constructions it seems that we could reasonably infer that rather than being a general directive to all men and all women, 1 Cor. 11 is speaking of a unique set of individuals with a divine calling, and in the case of the extraordinary gifts, one limited by time. Women who found themself in this unique service needed a symbol of the authority over them to pray and prophesy in a public fashion (neither activity being strictly limited to what we call corporate worship assemblies, 1 Thess. 5:17).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Extraordinary occurrences are not governed by ordinary rules. I don't think the apostle would have appealed to the ordinary course of nature in order to establish the proper order of the sexes if he was redressing an "extraordinary" phenomenon.
Click to expand...




A very fine post, Rev. Winzer.


----------



## Lauren Mary

Thank you Rev. Winzer.
And thank you all. Excellent thinking, expounding, and reasoning through the word of God together.


----------

