# Do your women or you women cover?



## Pilgrim's Progeny

I am curious as to how many of our reformed women cover with actual garments during worship per 1 Corinthians 11.
I just recently required that my wife and daughters cover.


----------



## Herald

Their hair will do.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Can you give me a solid exegetical response Mr. Brown or do I need to shave my head?


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> Can you give me a solid exegetical response Mr. Brown or do I need to shave my head?



 I have some turtle wax in my shed if you decide to go bald.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Herald said:


> Pilgrim's Progeny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me a solid exegetical response Mr. Brown or do I need to shave my head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have some turtle wax in my shed if you decide to go bald.
Click to expand...

 I suppose that is a little much, but the shed is a little too far.


----------



## Pergamum

Nicely constructed quiz.


My wife doesn't cover unless the cultural context calls for it.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Pergamum said:


> Nicely constructed quiz.
> 
> 
> My wife doesn't cover unless the cultural context calls for it.


 Good answer.
So, is it possible that the cultural context could call upon your wife to preach and teach in place of you, her husband?
-----Added 11/26/2008 at 04:34:10 EST-----
Bye the way, if I can I plan to get some Ozark pictures for you next time I am routed down that way


----------



## larryjf

Pergamum said:


> Nicely constructed quiz.
> 
> 
> My wife doesn't cover unless the cultural context calls for it.



verse 9 tells us that it's because of the angels. Is there a reason you think that it's rather a matter of cultural context?

I've always found verse 3 interesting in this discussion:
_But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God._
So if we interpret the Scriptures by the Scriptures then a woman should cover her head, and her head is defined as her husband...therefore she should cover her husband.
Perhaps in covering her husband she is being commanded to focus on Christ during worship, while the man's head being Christ is to remain uncovered.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> I just recently _required_ that my wife and daughters cover.




Interesting way of phrasing that.


----------



## calgal

SolaScriptura said:


> Pilgrim's Progeny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just recently _required_ that my wife and daughters cover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting way of phrasing that.
Click to expand...


Did your wife have any say in the matter?


----------



## larryjf

If he views it as a commandment, should his wife be permitted to break it?

What if his wife didn't view it as a commandment...and further, what if she didn't view not committing adultery as a commandment...could he not require her to submit to his authority and keep the commands?


----------



## Galatians220

I've been wearing a head covering for about 10 years now, having balked at it for awhile but finally having become convinced that it's proper. I've taken a lot of ribbing for it in congregations where the women don't cover their heads, but I just take it in stride. I never preach to them or try to convince anyone that that's what she needs to do; I figure the Lord will take care of any urging in that direction that He would have done, by someone other than I. A pastoral sort.

(The poll assumes that only men will be replying... ) 

Margaret


----------



## the particular baptist

I am avoiding the matter telling myself I will address it whenever i do a study of the 1 Corinthians 11. 

The little reading i've done into the matter it seems the practice began to wane in the western world with the rise of feminism.

I wonder what Gill and Calvin have to say about it ? Excuse me while i go look it up 

in Christ,
flavio


----------



## calgal

larryjf said:


> If he views it as a commandment, should his wife be permitted to break it?
> 
> What if his wife didn't view it as a commandment...and further, what if she didn't view not committing adultery as a commandment...could he not require her to submit to his authority and keep the commands?



Asking if she has any say in the matter is not equivalent to adultery. Heck attending a church with a female pastorette is not equivalent to adultery. 

If he is convicted of this issue, he can discuss it with his wife, not command her like she is a child or a pet. My husband gives commands to our dogs. He will sometimes inform me of a decision he made but he gives me respect enough to hear my input (he has the last word).
-----Added 11/26/2008 at 08:08:47 EST-----


Galatians220 said:


> I've been wearing a head covering for about 10 years now, having balked at it for awhile but finally having become convinced that it's proper. I've taken a lot of ribbing for it in congregations where the women don't cover their heads, but I just take it in stride. I never preach to them or try to convince anyone that that's what she needs to do; I figure the Lord will take care of any urging in that direction that He would have done, by someone other than I. A pastoral sort.
> 
> (The poll assumes that only men will be replying... )
> 
> Margaret



That would explain the way it was written.


----------



## larryjf

calgal said:


> Asking if she has any say in the matter is not equivalent to adultery. Heck attending a church with a female pastorette is not equivalent to adultery.


It's not equivalent, not did i suggest that it was. I was simply trying to show that there's nothing wrong with a husband "requiring" his wife to follow biblical precepts. I used adultery because i figured there wouldn't be much debate about whether that command was only cultural, ceremonial, etc.




calgal said:


> If he is convicted of this issue, he can discuss it with his wife, not command her like she is a child or a pet. My husband gives commands to our dogs. He will sometimes inform me of a decision he made but he gives me respect enough to hear my input (he has the last word).


It seems like you assume that when a husband requires his wife to follow some biblical principle that there has been no discussion. I wonder why you assume that seeing that your husband seems to follow the proper manner of things in discussing them with you.


----------



## calgal

larryjf said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking if she has any say in the matter is not equivalent to adultery. Heck attending a church with a female pastorette is not equivalent to adultery.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not equivalent, not did i suggest that it was. I was simply trying to show that there's nothing wrong with a husband "requiring" his wife to follow biblical precepts. I used adultery because i figured there wouldn't be much debate about whether that command was only cultural, ceremonial, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he is convicted of this issue, he can discuss it with his wife, not command her like she is a child or a pet. My husband gives commands to our dogs. He will sometimes inform me of a decision he made but he gives me respect enough to hear my input (he has the last word).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems like you assume that when a husband requires his wife to follow some biblical principle that there has been no discussion. I wonder why you assume that seeing that your husband seems to follow the proper manner of things in discussing them with you.
Click to expand...


He does not use "I commanded my wife to <insert principle>" but the LD$ men I knew did say exactly that using their "priesthood" as an excuse.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Always interesting to me, as a sidebar discussion, how the head coverings threads always sound just like the Acapella threads. Some treat it as a quaint custom, while others who are convicted of it defend it with exegesis and argument.


----------



## Kim G

I took this extensive survey a few months ago:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/non-argumentative-sic-argumentative-head-covering-poll-36051/

For the record, I cover during worship and prayer meetings.


----------



## Wannabee

I'll admit that we don't do it for pragmatic reasons. The cultural argument held sway for so long that the concept is somewhat foreign to many of us. In my study of it I was persuaded that is definitely was not refering to hair. And the cultural arguement has been well refuted here, plus grows into endless problems as we expand the whole "cultural relevance" issue. On one side, v 2 does remind the Corinthians to keep the traditions he delivered. But if this is only culturally relevant then what about the conduct at and the institution of the Lord's Supper (vv 17-34), the gifts in ch 12 and so on? Dismissing commandments based on cultural relevancy is a slippery slope.
I know it sounds like I'm arguing for head coverings. In my study I've been moved more and more into that direction, though we've never been members of a church that does it. We have many changes going on in our church right now. I've introduced some thoughts on this, but don't think it would be wise to pursue it - and I honestly have too many irons in the fire right now to tackle this as well. May God give us clearer vision.

Continuing the "off-topic" converstion - As for concerns regarding how a husband instructs/leads his wife, regardless of our comfort levels, Scripture is clear. If a husband "requires" anything of his wife, she is to respond with the same level of gracious submission as the church is to respond to Christ (Eph 5:22-25). If she disagrees then she is to win him with her conduct, not words (1 Peter 3:1-6), "even if some do not obey the Word." Feminism has had it's way in our churches and permeates our thinking. On the other hand, living with a wife with understanding (1 Pet 3:7) and loving her as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25ff) is not ruling with an iron fist. It would be good to shed both abominations and embrace God's order in every aspect of life.


----------



## Marrow Man

My wife covers for worship and prayer meetings as well. However, she is the only one in our congregation who does.


----------



## kvanlaan

> My wife covers for worship and prayer meetings as well. However, she is the only one in our congregation who does.



This would be our situation as well if my wife were to begin covering. 

Also, as a side note, for those whose daughters cover, when did they start? I've always been curious as to what the trigger is age/maturity/profession-wise for covering in unmarried girls.


----------



## Marrow Man

Funny story: my wife began wearing a head covering after we attending a church for a time where all the women practiced it. After some study in the matter, she believed she should, and I supported her in it. She continued the practice after we left the church and I took the call up here in KY. She even bids on kerchief coverings on Ebay.

About a month ago, she traveled back to Atlanta (where the covering church is located) to visit her mom for the weekend. She returned to the church on the Lord's Day for worship (with covering of course), and none of the women were wearing a covering! She was the only one in worship with a head covering! She didn't ask, and I haven't thought to email the pastor (he is on the PB, btw) to ask about the change.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Gail, it is quite possible that when he said he required, that he did have a conversation and his word usage merely sounds harsher than the actual conversation that took place. This is the internet and we must be careful not to presume too much.

Kevin, we have been a bit inconsistent with our daughters merely because, at their tender age, they will fidget with their coverings during service. Our recent acquisitions have been hats and coverings that go on like a headband, but cover more.

I've been covering my hear for 11yrs now. For most of those 11yrs I have covered full time (both in service and throughout daily life). I still try to cover when leaving my home and cover throughout my day, once dressed.

I have been in two churches where everyone covered...one just for services and one all the time. Most churches I tend to be the only one or the only one of two. One church started out with just one, then myself, and by the time I left there were more than a handful that covered for services.


----------



## the particular baptist

It may seem like a silly question. What officially is a head covering. Can it be anything ?


----------



## LadyFlynt

I don't prefer hats, but I prefer them over nothing  Much more prefered is any peice of cloth that actually covers the entire back of the head. However, some think a doily will do. I make, buy, and keep a variety on hand. My reasoning is to show that it is the principle of the matter, not this application or that application. I live in an area where groups each have their "own prescribed" coverings. I cannot wear anything that resembles those particular coverings, this caused me to set aside all white hanging veils, lest I'm mistaken for this or that kind of anabaptist.


----------



## Prufrock

Anyone who answered "No" have reasons? So far it's been pretty one-sided on the board, though "no" has one more vote than "yes"...


----------



## LadyFlynt

Unless you toss in the "What, covering, that's ridiculous, as long as they have hair all is good." with the "no"...because that is basically what it is, except in exaggerated form.


----------



## Jon Lake

Herald said:


> Their hair will do.


Ditto.....I think this fits the requirements.


----------



## satz

Prufrock said:


> Anyone who answered "No" have reasons? So far it's been pretty one-sided on the board, though "no" has one more vote than "yes"...



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

I had argued in another thread that a christian living in the apostlic age, and especially a Corinthian from the church with the most spiritual gifts would have understood Paul to be regulating the headwear, or lack of headwear, of men and women when exercising the inspired gift of prayer or prophecy.

This interpretation also explains the fact that Paul is allowing women to pray and prophesy in church, which most reformed churches today would not.

The general rule on women in church is found in 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14. However, during the time of the NT both men and women had the gift of inspired prophesy and prayer, and inspired prophetesses were allowed to speak in the church service - after all it was truly the Holy Spirit speaking, not the woman. However, because this was an exception to normal church order, these prophetesses would have to cover their heads to show their submission to the normal order despite their inspired gift.

At least for now, that is now I understand the first half of 1 Corinthians 11.


----------



## Prufrock

(I also answered no by the way.)

I don't know if that's right or not. I was convinced years ago by Calvin's commentary on the subject, for good or for bad. I'm not so sure anymore, though. I still lean toward no, however.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Generally, those that cover do so for two or three reasons (the first being debated, but also the main reason for other faiths and included, historically, Christian women on top of the other two) :

1) modesty
2) prayer
3) because of the angels

I've noticed that most "no" people will only answer to the second and in particular will have no response to the third.


----------



## Romans922

PactumServa72 said:


> I am avoiding the matter telling myself I will address it whenever i do a study of the 1 Corinthians 11.
> 
> The little reading i've done into the matter it seems the practice began to wane in the western world with the rise of feminism.
> 
> I wonder what Gill and Calvin have to say about it ? Excuse me while i go look it up
> 
> in Christ,
> flavio




What did you find?


----------



## Honor

first I want to say I glad I read the thread first before voting because I read it to mean a garment like clothes... then I was like "heck yeah you should wear clothes to church"...LOL 
Anywho.... I don't.. there are 2 women that do at our church and that is cool. I don't because of a few reasons 1.) I asked my husband and he said don't
2.) I think hair suffices
3.) the ladies that do wear a covering distract me because I am looking at their hat or bandanna thing and I find myself not paying attention during the sermon (we now sit on the other side of the church) and I would hate to distract some one else.
4.) I think that if you are with your husband he is your covering.
5.)Wayne Grudem (sp?) and John Piper wrote a book about Biblical manhood and Biblical Womanhood and addressed this issue and convicted me not to.

That said I think if you are convicted that you should.... I think if you are the husband you have every right to require your wife to cover..BUT if she is uncomfortable or really resistant I think you should reconsider. Bobby and I have talked about a lot of things over the years... he is the head of our house... where he goes I follow, but he would never require me do do something I was uncomfortable with. But since we both strive for closeness in God and what makes Him happy it's never really been an issue. 
That's just me though

and BTW you ladies that do... please don't be offended with my post... I just and giving reasons for ME


----------



## Romans922

Question for those people who say it is hair which is the covering: Some argue that women are to have long hair (to fulfill this passage of 1 Cor. 11) and men are not to have long hair. How long was men's hair in times of Scripture being written? You know you see pictures/illustrations of men's hair then and it is usually pretty long (shoulderish length). What about those men who were of Nazarite vow who were not to cut their hair? Just something I just thought about.


----------



## Wannabee

I found this a few years ago. Pretty interesting.

What does church history teach?


----------



## Honor

I used to think that women should have long hair then my second son was born andhe was about 9 months old we had to take him to the ER with a hair tourniquet (sp?) on his Frank AND Beans.(yes it is what it sounds like) I cut my hair off to my ears and now I won't let it go past my shoulders... It scarred me and him for life.
So I guess I would have to say it's based on your convictions


----------



## LadyFlynt

Honor said:


> I used to think that women should have long hair then my second son was born andhe was about 9 months old we had to take him to the ER with a hair tourniquet (sp?) on his Frank AND Beans.(yes it is what it sounds like) I cut my hair off to my ears and now I won't let it go past my shoulders... It scarred me and him for life.
> So I guess I would have to say it's based on your convictions



Believe it or not, that can happen with shorter lengths of hair as well...doesn't take much to create one of those "tournequets". One of my children had one on their little toe.

btw, I'm not offended. You spoke how you thought.


----------



## Marrow Man

Romans922 said:


> Question for those people who say it is hair which is the covering: Some argue that women are to have long hair (to fulfill this passage of 1 Cor. 11) and men are not to have long hair. How long was men's hair in times of Scripture being written? You know you see pictures/illustrations of men's hair then and it is usually pretty long (shoulderish length). What about those men who were of Nazarite vow who were not to cut their hair? Just something I just thought about.



Men probably did not have long hair. 1 Corinthians 11 seems to point to this (even though it is being written to a different cultural context than Palestine, it is being written by a Jew and the reference to nature seems to indicate that this is not culturally limited). Also, I remember reading several years ago that archeological evidence from Palestine seems to suggest that men did not have long hair. There were carvings of some sort unearthed in the second half of the 1st century that featured men with short hair. Granted, this is a few decades after the time of Christ, but it does merit consideration. I apologize that I do not have a link to said source, however, and I cannot vouch for its complete reliability (nor my intellectual faculties, either). It seems, though, like it may have been in conjunction with criticisms about the film _The Passion of the Christ_.


----------



## Romans922

Marrow Man said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for those people who say it is hair which is the covering: Some argue that women are to have long hair (to fulfill this passage of 1 Cor. 11) and men are not to have long hair. How long was men's hair in times of Scripture being written? You know you see pictures/illustrations of men's hair then and it is usually pretty long (shoulderish length). What about those men who were of Nazarite vow who were not to cut their hair? Just something I just thought about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men probably did not have long hair. 1 Corinthians 11 seems to point to this (even though it is being written to a different cultural context than Palestine, it is being written by a Jew and the reference to nature seems to indicate that this is not culturally limited). Also, I remember reading several years ago that archeological evidence from Palestine seems to suggest that men did not have long hair. There were carvings of some sort unearthed in the second half of the 1st century that featured men with short hair. Granted, this is a few decades after the time of Christ, but it does merit consideration. I apologize that I do not have a link to said source, however, and I cannot vouch for its complete reliability (nor my intellectual faculties, either). It seems, though, like it may have been in conjunction with criticisms about the film _The Passion of the Christ_.
Click to expand...


Interesting, I wonder where the RC's got their idea of long hair for all these people. Of course I still wonder how they got the blue eye pictures of a certain notable figure. Maybe it was from the hippies.


----------



## Honor

from the reading you provided Wannabee.. it would seem that a woman should wear a whole head covering covering her face included... like a burka?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Romans922 said:


> Of course I still wonder how they got the blue eye pictures of a certain notable figure.



It's Joe, the Swede 
-----Added 11/26/2008 at 10:44:35 EST-----


Honor said:


> from the reading you provided Wannabee.. it would seem that a woman should wear a whole head covering covering her face included... like a burka?



There are women that try to cover all of their hairline and the tops of their ears. This "wholly" covers the head and still leaves their face open. I would suggest looking at history as well...it helps provide a balance rather than the ridiculous burka that gets brought up now and then (not saying you were trying to be ridiculous, but you would be amazed how often someone tries to toss it in as the proverbial monkey wrench).


----------



## Davidius

How can one force one's wife to go against her scriptural convictions by invoking Ephesians 5? We are also commanded to obey our elders, but our elders cannot force us to go against our biblical convictions.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Davidius said:


> How can one force one's wife to go against her scriptural convictions by invoking Ephesians 5? We are also commanded to obey our elders, but our elders cannot force us to go against our biblical convictions.


Is there any conviction that says wearing one would be a sin? She may disagree that it's required, but I've yet to meet someone that would call it sin even with disagreement.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Honor said:


> I used to think that women should have long hair then my second son was born andhe was about 9 months old we had to take him to the ER with a hair tourniquet (sp?) on his Frank AND Beans.(yes it is what it sounds like) I cut my hair off to my ears and now I won't let it go past my shoulders... It scarred me and him for life.
> So I guess I would have to say it's based on your convictions



LOL, that took forever for me to understand. I was thinking of the food.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

I was recently convicted this past summer, based on the 1 Corinthians 11 text, to cover my hair with an actual garment. I had never been to a church where I've seen women cover their hair, but found it quite the encouragement that when I began attending my new church here in Tucson, I found that one of the women wore a head covering also. 

These articles were helpful in my conviction: 
The Woman's Headcovering
http://www.monergism.com/Spinney, Robert - Should Christian Women Wear Head Coverings Today.pdf

RC Sproul had a lecture or two on the subject as well that helped to convince me of the pro-head covering with a garment position.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Interesting that this topic is hot, along with the one on raising hands. Both actions are "minority" positions, both could draw attention to the practitioner if they were obnoxious.

Our church has maybe four HC ladies. They do not "stand out" nor does it look like a confused gathering because some are, some aren't. I think this is because there is still a cultural holdover from the past. So, no one around here thinks twice, even though it is the minority position.

For what it's worth, I think the HCs are correct, just as I also think that raising hands _appropriately_ is correct.


----------



## Davidius

LadyFlynt said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one force one's wife to go against her scriptural convictions by invoking Ephesians 5? We are also commanded to obey our elders, but our elders cannot force us to go against our biblical convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any conviction that says wearing one would be a sin? She may disagree that it's required, but I've yet to meet someone that would call it sin even with disagreement.
Click to expand...


If we're discussing it as an element of worship and we believe in the RPW, and some woman is not convinced that it is required, then wouldn't it be a violation of the RPW for that woman to be forced to wear it?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Well, the RPW would require it (ducks! *ornery grin*).

Seriously though, if one believed that way, then would the RPW prevent her from wearing it as a garment of her husband's preference? On his part, he sees it as commanded, on her's it would be just another article of clothing.


Also, there is generally a reason behind the "reason"...does she feel she will stand out, look odd, be self conscious, etc? THOSE are typically the "real" reasons, not the RPW.


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nicely constructed quiz.
> 
> 
> My wife doesn't cover unless the cultural context calls for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Good answer.
> So, is it possible that the cultural context could call upon your wife to preach and teach in place of you, her husband?
> -----Added 11/26/2008 at 04:34:10 EST-----
> Bye the way, if I can I plan to get some Ozark pictures for you next time I am routed down that way
Click to expand...


Woohoo, Ozark pics - thanks brother!


Yes, culture does have its limitations doesn't it.


----------



## Honor

Boliver... sorry about that but I could not bring myself to type... well actually I don't know a "correct" term for the beans so... sorry about that...
LadyFlynt...I was referreing to the link that Wannabee posted... the first two guys I think (I would need to re read it to be sure) mentions covering the face and the eyes... so I was asking about that veil....


----------



## Wannabee

Davidius said:


> LadyFlynt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one force one's wife to go against her scriptural convictions by invoking Ephesians 5? We are also commanded to obey our elders, but our elders cannot force us to go against our biblical convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any conviction that says wearing one would be a sin? She may disagree that it's required, but I've yet to meet someone that would call it sin even with disagreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we're discussing it as an element of worship and we believe in the RPW, and some woman is not convinced that it is required, then wouldn't it be a violation of the RPW for that woman to be forced to wear it?
Click to expand...


A violation of the RPW for her to be forced? Perhaps I don't understand the RPW on this. Would adherence somehow forbid head coverings? If not, then the only reason a woman would not honor her husband in this is pride. Lack of submission on anything that isn't sin (or possible) is sin.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Honor said:


> Boliver... sorry about that but I could not bring myself to type... well actually I don't know a "correct" term for the beans so... sorry about that...
> LadyFlynt...I was referreing to the link that Wannabee posted... the first two guys I think (I would need to re read it to be sure) mentions covering the face and the eyes... so I was asking about that veil....



No need to apologize. I am probably the only one that did not get the anology.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Honor said:


> LadyFlynt...I was referreing to the link that Wannabee posted... the first two guys I think (I would need to re read it to be sure) mentions covering the face and the eyes... so I was asking about that veil....



No, they don't mention it. Veil does not mean the face and eyes are covered. A veil simply is placed on the head and "hangs" down. There are several ways of wearing one and nowhere is it implied that it must be worn in such a way.

This is where principle vs. application comes in. The principle is commanded. The application may vary as long as it continues the principle.


----------



## the particular baptist

Romans922 said:


> What did you find?



*F. Turretin writes* 



> 1. Since Paul appeals to the order of creation {I Corinthians 11:2-16}(vss. 3b, vss. 7ff.), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising therefrom.
> 
> 2. 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.
> 
> 3. There is good reason for believing that the apostle is thinking of conduct in the public assemblies of the Church of God and of worship exercises therein in verse 17, this is clearly the case, and verse 18 is confirmatory. But there is a distinct similarity between the terms of verse 17 and of verse 2. Verse 2 begins, "Now I praise you" and verse 17, "Now in this . . . I praise you not". The virtually identical expressions, the one positive and the other negative, would suggest, if not require, that both have in view the behaviour of the saints in their assemblies, that is, that in respect of denotation the same people are in view in the same identity as worshippers. If a radical difference, that between private and public, were contemplated, it would be difficult to maintain the appropriateness of the contrast between "I praise you" and "I praise you not".
> 
> 4. Beyond question it is in reference to praying and prophesying that the injuctions pertain, the absence of head covering for men and the presence for women. It might seem, therefore, that the passage has nothing to do with a head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church if they are not engaged in praying or prophesying, that is, in leading in prayer or exercising the gift of prophesying. And the implication would be that only when they performed these functions were they required to use head covering. The further implication would be that they would be at liberty to perform these functions provided they wore head gear. This view could easily be adopted if it were not so that Paul forbids such exercises on the part of women and does so in the same epistle, (I Cor. 14:33b-36): "As in all the Churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak" (vss. 33b-34a). It is impossible to think that Paul would, by implication, lend approval in chapter 11, to what he so expressly prohibits in chapter 14. Hence we shall have to conclude that he does not contemplate praying or prophesying on the part of women in the Church in chapter 11. The question arises: how can this be, and how can we interpret 11:5, 6, 13? It is possible to interpret the verses in chapter 11 in a way that is compatible with chapter 14:33b-36. It is as follows: —
> 
> a. In chapter 11 the decorum prescribed in 14:33b-36 is distinctly in view and Paul is showing its propriety. Praying and prophesying are functions that imply authority, the authority that belongs to the man as distinguished from the woman according to the ordinance of creation. The man in exercising this authority in praying and prophesying must not wear a head covering. Why not? The head covering is the sign of subjection, the opposite of the authority that belongs to him, exemplified in praying and prophesying, hence 11:4, 7. In a word, head covering in praying and prophesying would be a contradiction.
> 
> b. But precisely here enters the relevance of verses 5, 6, 13 as they pertain to women. If women are to pray and prophesy in the assemblies, they perform functions that imply authority and would require therefore, to remove the head covering. To do so with the head covering would involve the contradiction referred to already. But it is the impropriety of removing the head covering that is enforced in 11:5, 6 & 13. In other words, the apostle is pressing home the impropriety of the exercise of these functions — praying and prophesying — on the part of women by showing the impropriety of what it would involve, namely, the removal of the head covering. And so the rhetorical question of verse 13: "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?"
> 
> c. This interpretation removes all discrepancy between 11:5, 6, 13 and 14:33b-36 and it seems to me feasible, and consonant with the whole drift of 11:2-16.
> 
> 5. The foregoing implies that the head covering for women was understood to belong to the decorum of public worship.
> 
> 6. The above line of thought would derive confirmation from I Cor. 11:10. Admittedly the reference to the angels is not immediately perspicuous. But a reasonable interpretation is that the presence of the angels with the people of God and therefore their presence in the congregations of the saints. What is being pleaded is the offence given to the holy angels when the impropriety concerned mars the sancity of God's worship. But, in any case, the obligation asserted is apparent. It is that the woman ought to have upon her head the sign of the authority to which she is subject, in other words, the sign of her subjection. But this subjection pertains throughout and not simply when in the exercise of praying and prophesying according to the supposition that such is permitted. I submit, therefore, that the verse concerned (vs. 10) enunciates a requirement that is general within the scope of the subject with which Paul is dealing, namely, the decorum of worship in the assembly of the saints.
> 
> On these grounds my judgment is that presupposed in the Apostle's words is the accepted practice of head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church, that apparently this part of decorum was recognised, and that the main point of verses 5, 6, 10, 13 was the impropriety of any interruption of the practice if women were to pray or prophesy, for, in that event, it would be necessary to remove the covering in order to signify the authority that praying and prophesying entailed, an authority not possessed by women, a non-possession signified, in turn, by the use of the covering.
> 
> - F. Turretin


*
J. Calvin writes*



> “So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature…Further, we know that the world takes everything to its own advantage. So, if one has liberty in lesser things, why not do the same with this the same way as with that? And in making such comparisons they will make such a mess that there will be utter chaos. So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, ‘Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?’ And then after that one will plead [for] something else; ‘Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?’ Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard” (Sermon on 1 Cor 11:2-3 in Men, Women and Order in the Church, trans Seth Skolnitsky, Presbyterian Heritage Publications, pp.12-13).
> 
> “St Paul now continues with the subject which he had begun: namely, that women must have the decency not to come to the public assembly with their heads uncovered; and that men must also be decently attired so that there be no beastly confusion. To confirm it, however, he adds a further reason. ‘Does not nature itself teach that if a woman have no head-covering, it is a shame to her?’ he says. One would surely say that a woman was mad, if she came without hair. When he says ‘her hair is for a covering,’ he does not mean that as long as a woman has hair, that should be enough for her. He rather teaches that our Lord is giving a directive that he desires to have observed and maintained. If a woman has long hair, this is equivalent to saying to her, ‘Use your head-covering, use your hat, use your hood; do not expose yourself in that way! Why? Even if you have no head-covering, nor hood, yet you also have something to conceal yourself. You see that it would not be fitting to go bare-headed; that is something against nature.’ This is how this passage of St. Paul’s must be understood” (Sermon on 1 Cor 11:11-16, op. cit. pp. 52-53).
> 
> “4….Prophesying I take here to mean — declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers, (as afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14,) as praying means preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people — which is the part of the public teacher, for Paul is not arguing here as to every kind of prayer, but as to solemn prayer in public… 5. Every woman praying or prophesying… Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonour their head. For as the man honours his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection — involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church. (1 Timothy 2:12.). It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophecy even with a covering upon her head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he here argues as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in chapter xiv.” (Calvin, Commentary on 1 Cor. 11:4-5).
> 
> - J. Calvin


----------



## Notthemama1984

It seems that Calvin sees the verses as having two purposes: one for modesty and the other for subjection to husband. 

I think once we get the principles and purpose of the text worked out, then we can tackle the application. 

I leave this in the capable hands of others.


----------



## Honor

oh sorry this is what I was referring too... http://web.archive.org/web/20060117154832/http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/hc.htm
4.)b
5.)b
that was what I was puzzled about.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Honor said:


> oh sorry this is what I was referring too... Headcoverings in Scripture - What Does Church History Teach?
> 4.)b
> 5.)b
> that was what I was puzzled about.


There were those (few) that did take Scripture beyond what it stated. Like many of the Jews, there are also Christians that put fences around fences around fences. Another example of one's preference being inferred upon the application. Just as some believe it more practical to have solid colours and others believe it more practical to have patterns. Some prefer one colour above another.


----------



## Galatians220

(Home from work now...)

To chime in with answers to some questions that have already been *most capably* answered by others -   - hats are usual in our congregation, but in our denomination many ladies wear mantillas or kerchiefs. I have a few summer, winter and "year-round" hats. I feel as though, being small, I probably look like a toadstool in them, but "what - me worry?"  _(Attribution and deference here to Alfred E. Neuman...)_

As to the age to start wearing the head covering, our minister's wife has always put hats on their baby daughter for the entire year that she's been around. (In contrast to some of us, she always looks CUTE in her hats! ) It's seen as a sign of submission to either one's father or one's husband, and her mother considers it to be a sign of the submission to her father's authority that she'll later be conscious of. If the head of every (married) woman is her husband, and his head is Christ, and we show our acknowledgment of and respect for that order by covering our heads, then -- good reason to do it.

But: _not going to argue it;_ not my "pie" to step into! 

Cheers and *HAPPY THANKSGIVING* to everyone!

Margaret


----------



## Augusta

I cover, and my three girls cover. We wear hats or sometimes a head scarf. 

I don't buy the 'women don't prophesy anymore' argument at all. 1) it doesn't just say prophesy, it says pray *and *prophesy, women still pray corporately. 2) women were not to speak in the assembly then as well as now, so IF they were prophesying they weren't doing it in the assembly. 

Also a little known fact, headcovering is mentioned indirectly in the WCF in chapter 1 article 6 at the end where it says: 

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and 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*. 

The scripture proof a the end of this sentence is:
1 Cor. 11:13–14. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto
God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair,
it is a shame unto him?


----------



## Prudence and Passion

*What the wife says*



calgal said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim's Progeny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just recently _required_ that my wife and daughters cover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting way of phrasing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did your wife have any say in the matter?
Click to expand...


Wife of Pilgrim's Progeny here to sound off... I was very eager to cover! I have wanted to do so for a long time. Read all the details on my blog, the link is in my sig.

A little off topic...
I cannot let any of you think anything ill of my husband! He is the most compassionate man I know! He is the head of me, yes - and he does it well. He corrects me when needed, but most of the time he gently guides me through my misunderstandings! He has been so patient throughout the years! I praise God for his leadership in my life and in our family, even when I am officially required to do something or not to do something that displeases me.


----------



## lynnie

I added this to the other headcoverings thread so I hope you don't mind the repetition, or it is against any board policy to post the same thing on two threads. I want to add that I've been wearing one for 25 years and I can tell you that a small simple thing is enough for the angels. I have no way to prove that at all, it is an intuitive discernment or awareness, but you don't need the long droopy tablecloth look as far as the angels are concerned. Remember, it is for them, not people. 

Also, it seems most clear to me that Paul is speaking of wives, given the analogy to Eve and the verses about the husband. I do not think it must be applied to girls or even single women...although they are submitted to male authority in the church and many do choose to cover.

*********************
Hi-new here......

If you google the subject you'll find that almost every great (dead) Reformed theologian taught that at the very least, wives should wear a covering in the service.

In the Greek it becomes obvious. The word tradition/ordinance in verse 2 is the same Greek as verse 23 where Paul speaks of communion being handed down. Same Greek. A tradition is not a custom like the Mummers parade or turkey on Thanksgiving- limited to a city or nation-it was handed down for all Christians. The same exact wording is used by Paul for both headcoverings and communion- dare we not include them both? He praises the Thessalonians for keeping the traditions handed down to them. The real problem is that in English the word tradition means a cultural custom. For Paul, it was a command handed down. 

Regarding hair, again the Greek is clear. All along Paul uses the word katakalupsis (rough translation). But her long hair is given to her as a peribolian ( real rough). Paul is careful not to say the hair is the symbol of authority he is speaking about.

Sign to the angels.....well, have the angels changed? Some folks think the angels were just looking at Corinth. That is up to them but the point is it wasn't for the culture, it was for angels.

I joke that we have to switch to a church that teaches baptismal regeneration. If the outer symbol of an inward reality means the inward reality really and truly happened with the outer symbol, then all I'd have to do is slap this doiley thingey on my head and instantly I will be a perfectly submitted wife!! Hub would love that!


----------



## SolaScriptura

Prudence and Passion said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting way of phrasing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did your wife have any say in the matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wife of Pilgrim's Progeny here to sound off... I was very eager to cover! I have wanted to do so for a long time. Read all the details on my blog, the link is in my sig.
> 
> A little off topic...
> I cannot let any of you think anything ill of my husband! He is the most compassionate man I know! He is the head of me, yes - and he does it well. He corrects me when needed, but most of the time he gently guides me through my misunderstandings! He has been so patient throughout the years! I praise God for his leadership in my life and in our family, even when I am officially required to do something or not to do something that displeases me.
Click to expand...


One question... as your head did he require you to write this? 

Seriously, thanks for posting these appropriate and predictably supportive words regarding your head's decision to require you to wear a head covering.


----------



## Prudence and Passion

SolaScriptura said:


> Prudence and Passion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did your wife have any say in the matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wife of Pilgrim's Progeny here to sound off... I was very eager to cover! I have wanted to do so for a long time. Read all the details on my blog, the link is in my sig.
> 
> A little off topic...
> I cannot let any of you think anything ill of my husband! He is the most compassionate man I know! He is the head of me, yes - and he does it well. He corrects me when needed, but most of the time he gently guides me through my misunderstandings! He has been so patient throughout the years! I praise God for his leadership in my life and in our family, even when I am officially required to do something or not to do something that displeases me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One question... as your head did he require you to write this?
> 
> Seriously, thanks for posting these appropriate and predictably supportive words regarding your head's decision to require you to wear a head covering.
Click to expand...


You made me LOL. My husband told me to read the poll he started, that is all. He was not involved in my decision to reply.


----------



## staythecourse

Hey Bethany, Gotta sister?


----------



## Prudence and Passion

staythecourse said:


> Hey Bethany, Gotta sister?



Sorry, no sisters. And, my husband requires me to say that my daughters are a bit too young!


----------



## staythecourse

C'est la vie


----------



## Confessor

I never really studied the passage, so I just recently became convinced of the pro-head covering position ("recently" as in about five minutes ago ). I guess, if I "had" women (I hate to use that kind of terminology), I would promote that they wear head coverings.

What I find helps to be most persuasive with topics such as these (e.g. exclusive psalmody, etc.) is to give the positive "common sense" reasons to accept the arguments, either in conjunction with or prior to giving the arguments from Scripture. It's not that our own intuitions or common sense are superior to Scripture, and it's not even that common sense arguments actually carry any logical weight in themselves (the arguments are usually fallacious), but rather it's that we humans are much more willing to accept Scriptural mandates if we understand what's going on in pragmatic terms.

Of course, it's better to take God at His word and then find out the reasons, but as humans (myself definitely included), we are inclined to see our own "this is the way things should be" views as revelation from God -- e.g. "God wouldn't seriously mandate that women have to wear head coverings in church [personal, faulty judgment]; therefore, I'm going to see how to interpret this passage otherwise." Prior to my understanding that head coverings were symbolic of feminine submission, that was honestly my thought process!

Of course, being an eighteen-year-old college freshman at a secular university, I'm going to have a great time trying to persuade people of things like this. I think it'd be a great idea to become friends first.. 

Anyway, just my .


----------



## calgal

Prudence and Passion said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting way of phrasing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did your wife have any say in the matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wife of Pilgrim's Progeny here to sound off... I was very eager to cover! I have wanted to do so for a long time. Read all the details on my blog, the link is in my sig.
> 
> A little off topic...
> I cannot let any of you think anything ill of my husband! He is the most compassionate man I know! He is the head of me, yes - and he does it well. He corrects me when needed, but most of the time he gently guides me through my misunderstandings! He has been so patient throughout the years! I praise God for his leadership in my life and in our family, even when I am officially required to do something or not to do something that displeases me.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your explanation. The internet is legendary for miscommunication and I read that and said "huh?" I am glad to see Christian women not going the route of certain Jewish sects and shaving the heads of married women or the Burkas. I will not cover (personal conviction) but respect my sisters who do so.


----------



## AThornquist

Honor said:


> 5.)Wayne Grudem (sp?) and John Piper wrote a book about Biblical manhood and Biblical Womanhood and addressed this issue and convicted me not to.



Yes, I own this book and was likewise convinced by their assessment of the issue. It is on desiringgod.org as well, I believe. Thus, I likely won't require my future wife or daughter(s) to wear head coverings. But then again, I am a man of continual growth--perhaps I will be convinced otherwise in time. (And if I do change my mind, I will _require_ that she wear this hat on Super Bowl Sunday.)



Honor said:


> from the reading you provided Wannabee.. it would seem that a woman should wear a whole head covering covering her face included... like a burka?



And when the family goes to the beach, she can wear a burkini! Although, this gal is showing a little too much cheek. Scandalous, n'est-ce pas?
Oooo la la!


----------



## Notthemama1984

That is just not modest at all. LOL


----------



## Contra Marcion

kvanlaan said:


> My wife covers for worship and prayer meetings as well. However, she is the only one in our congregation who does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be our situation as well if my wife were to begin covering.
> 
> Also, as a side note, for those whose daughters cover, when did they start? I've always been curious as to what the trigger is age/maturity/profession-wise for covering in unmarried girls.
Click to expand...


My wife covers, and my daughter has covered since she has had hair. (It's fun getting a toddler to keep a head covering on!) 

We belong to a small OPC church where it's probably 80% no cover, 20% cover.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

kvanlaan said:


> My wife covers for worship and prayer meetings as well. However, she is the only one in our congregation who does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be our situation as well if my wife were to begin covering.
> 
> Also, as a side note, for those whose daughters cover, when did they start? I've always been curious as to what the trigger is age/maturity/profession-wise for covering in unmarried girls.
Click to expand...

 
Immediately, there has been no distinction in our home, when mom started covering the daughters started covering. Just as in modesty, mom wears skirts and dresses, so do the girls, mom quit wearing modern bathing suits so did the girls. For, how do the young women learn to be godly women if they do not model the older godly women as soon as they are capable.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 03:09:14 EST-----



Marrow Man said:


> Funny story: my wife began wearing a head covering after we attending a church for a time where all the women practiced it. After some study in the matter, she believed she should, and I supported her in it. She continued the practice after we left the church and I took the call up here in KY. She even bids on kerchief coverings on Ebay.
> 
> About a month ago, she traveled back to Atlanta (where the covering church is located) to visit her mom for the weekend. She returned to the church on the Lord's Day for worship (with covering of course), and none of the women were wearing a covering! She was the only one in worship with a head covering! She didn't ask, and I haven't thought to email the pastor (he is on the PB, btw) to ask about the change.


 
Funny, I find it sad.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 03:15:36 EST-----



PactumServa72 said:


> It may seem like a silly question. What officially is a head covering. Can it be anything ?


 
For us it is covering the entirety of the hair, or I should say that is my desire. We have not mastered it by any means. Yet, the primary objective is to hide that which I find to be the beautiful aspects of my wife and daughters during worship, and now leaning towards all times.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 03:40:41 EST-----



Davidius said:


> How can one force one's wife to go against her scriptural convictions by invoking Ephesians 5? We are also commanded to obey our elders, but our elders cannot force us to go against our biblical convictions.


 
Wow, that is a strong statement. 

Consider Peter:

*



1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 

1 Peter 3:1-6 (KJV)

Click to expand...

 


*

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 03:46:43 EST-----



Contra_Mundum said:


> Interesting that this topic is hot, along with the one on raising hands. Both actions are "minority" positions, both could draw attention to the practitioner if they were obnoxious.
> 
> Our church has maybe four HC ladies. They do not "stand out" nor does it look like a confused gathering because some are, some aren't. I think this is because *there is still a cultural holdover from the past*. So, no one around here thinks twice, even though it is the minority position.
> 
> For what it's worth, I think the HCs are correct, just as I also think that raising hands _appropriately_ is correct.


 
I think that this position that holds to cultural context is just plain ridiculous. We hardly ever pull this card except in regards to headcoverings and holy kisses. We are wimpy in this regard.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 04:27:27 EST-----

*My journey in headcovering *


Just recently I permitted my wife cover her head in worship. She had been asking to do this for some time. This goes for family worship and public worship. This was a big move for us in light of the context we live in. Head covering is seen as demeaning and as a twisting of what Saint Paul really said. Consider the nonsense of such men as Grady . This man has really missed the mark in terms of biblical exegesis. Read for yourself with your bible in hand and you will see what I mean. Now most in the realm of the visible church are not as far off as he, but fall into the same category as I will explain later. Grady is not a true exegete (one skilled in the practice of exegesis), he is a true eisegete (one skilled in the practice of eisegesis). Grady is an extreme, but most who oppose head coverings are not. These are the men who fall in that other category I said I would explain, similiar to Grady in regards to head covering, great exegetes in 99% of what they write and say, but eisegetes in regards to the head covering issue. Men whom I respect as great exegetes, yet fall short in this area of head covering. These are men I look to for the answers to the tough questions. Yet, when it comes to head covering they are blubbering eisegetes. All that to say that head covering is not an acceptable practice in the church, even among the solid theologians, much less the world.

So where do I get the idea of head covering? I get it from 1 Corinthians 11 to be exact. Here Paul states to the church at Corinth that a women is to cover her head in prayer and prophesying. He also says that a man is not to cover his head in prayer and prophesying. Enough said, right. Well, according to some, wrong. Some believe a covering for a women is her hair, not an actual garment to cover the head, as Paul says, a women's hair is her covering. The only problem there is that if a women's hair is her covering, the one that Paul says covers her head while she prays and prophesies, I must needs shave my head bald, right. That is the logical conclusion that follows. Also, consider the angels, they expect that a women have a symbol of authority upon her head. I have a hard time believing that this symbol of authority would be a natural occurrence. I mean, do we naturally submit to the authority of God. Do we just naturally fall in line with His commands? Are women everywhere submitting to the will of God here just because they do not cut there hair? I have a hard time believing this is the case. God' commands tend to call us to action. Where in the Scripture do we find a command given in which we say, cool, done, I got that down, I have been naturally endowed to obey that one? What I am saying is that if it is true that a women's hair is the covering that is being spoken of here, that means that a women can be unintelligibly obedient to this command just by having hair. I mean, here she is naturally obeying without any requirement, except that she does not shave her head. Yet, I must shave my head, that does not make sense to me. Just suffice it to say that I am thoroughly convinced that Paul meant an actual garment for all women at all times in all locales.

Moving on from there I must state my own objections to head coverings before I finally gave in. My main objection went like this. "Surely the apostle Paul was wrong, there must be a faithful hermeneutic out there that does away with this actual garment head covering thing that is so blatantly obvious in Paul." But, I could not find it. I was faced with the obvious, my wife and daughters must put a garment over their heads in prayer, prophesying and worship and my sons and I must remove our caps and hats during these occasions as well. The boys and I removing our caps and hats was not a problem, as this is still commonly practiced among the believing and unbelieving alike, watch your local pregame baseball coverage or attend any local church service and you will know what I mean, but covering the heads of my wife and daughters, that is crazy. People will think were are Amish or Mennonite. I am reformed and living in the wrong century. If I only lived even 100 years ago this would be much easier.

Anyway, the final stronghold was pride. Yes, filthy stinking pride. I knew long ago that garment head covering was right but failed to obey. I was holding out for that liberal, false hermeneutic that would present itself as true, reformed, and conservative. Only, it never showed up, thank God.

Furthermore, _(sarcasm begins)_my family has joined the spiritually immature, ultra conservative, traditionally challenged, not quite understanding what Saint Paul really said(sarcasm ends) 1% of those that believe that Saint Paul said what he really said. Lonely, not really, challenging, yes, would I want to go back and change my mind, no! Therefore, may my glory(my wife and daughters) be covered that there may be no distraction from the glory of my God and King.

lowly Paul
God bless

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 01:02:57 EST-----

Please know that the man behind the words is not as abrasive as this medium may make him appear. It is hard to be properly understood in this mode of communication as body language and voice inflection change everything.


----------



## sofarawaykisses

I personally have not heard of women required of wearing head covers in a worship service. This could be because for a majority of my life I grew up in a pentacostal church, until recently. Even at my church now, there isnt a women that wears a head cover. 
I can't figure out how to quote, but this is from Pilgrim's Progeny:
I was faced with the obvious, my wife and daughters must put a garment over their heads in prayer, prophesying and worship and my sons and I must remove our caps and hats during these occasions as well. The boys and I removing our caps and hats was not a problem, as this is still commonly practiced among the believing and unbelieving alike, watch your local pregame baseball coverage or attend any local church service and you will know what I mean, but covering the heads of my wife and daughters, that is crazy. People will think were are Amish or Mennonite. I am reformed and living in the wrong century. If I only lived even 100 years ago this would be much easier.

It is so true that it is a normal thing for men to take off their caps/ hats during a pledge of alligence to the American flag, during prayer, but moreso in a church setting. In rare occasion have I gone into a church and seen a man with a baseball cap on. (Their waiting till after church to get their gear on  ) My question or comment would be: Why is it that men have a conviction of right or wrong of wearing a hat into church, but women do not consider this a necessity? Is it just that over time, women have ignored or have a different interpration of 1 corinthians 11, or they choose to take what they want out of it? From the little knowledge that I have, I know that it is not a subject that is often preached.. or at least I have never heard of it.Now I know Im digging my own grave, since I am not sure where I stand on this matter. Just a few thoughts. I am also not married, so noone is requiring me to do anything.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Amber, I would say it's due to several reasons. (1) it's been forgotton and (2) heaven forbid someone teach outside a cultural comfort zone. Some of this is due to fashion dictates, some due to the rise of feminism and it's form of "equality", and much due to stubborness. JMO


----------



## CDM

For a very brief article that addresses the main points,
see John Murray's letter concerning the use of head coverings in the worship of God.


It is brief, so all here should be able to give it a read.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Amber, I echo LadyFlint. I would add that most men are intimidated by the feminist spirit, even in the Church, and interpret the text in a way that protects them from it's ire.


----------



## Jan Ziska

A question for those women who do cover their heads during worship:

Do you always cover, or only during church? Our congregation has a double handful of women who do wear hats, but they only wear them on Sundays, and even then most of them come off once the service is done.


----------



## SpokenFor

Jan Ziska said:


> A question for those women who do cover their heads during worship:
> 
> Do you always cover, or only during church? Our congregation has a double handful of women who do wear hats, but they only wear them on Sundays, and even then most of them come off once the service is done.



I was going to ask that same question. It seems to me, that the Corinthians passage does not specify that a woman cover 'during corporate worship' only. 

In 1 Thessalonians 5:17, Paul says we are to "pray without ceasing." So, if a woman is to cover her head during prayer, then shouldn't she have her head covered all the time? Even if the argument is that she should only have it covered during a "formal" prayer..well..one certainly never knows when one might run into a situation that a formal prayer may be needed, so should I keep a covering in my handbag?

Just to clarify... I don't cover, but I am looking into this issue. For some reason I keep running into articles/messageboard posts/blogs, etc. about it..so I think God might be trying to get my attention on this matter.

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 09:39:36 EST-----

And can I add another question to stir the worms?

For those who (or have a wife who) cover.. what is considered a "covering"? I came across a website recently that sold headbands (one inch wide at the most) and ponytail holders under the category of headcoverings! I know it is the principle, not about legalism, but still...should it be a doily, handkercheif, tiechel..?? I also have to say that some of the bandanas I've seen offered for sale look very "grunge" or like something I wore while working backstage at the theatre (not a look or lifestyle I want to go back to).


----------



## Augusta

Tas and Tina, I only cover in church. The reason why is that the passage is speaking about corporate worship which is unique in that we are before the throne of God when we gather corporately in worship. So before the throne God wants the women covered and the men uncovered. The passage though also says what is her natural covering by nature and that is her hair. I believe this frees us to be natural the rest of the time and sets us at liberty from a muslim type of legalism. 

The covering can be whatever covers your head. I use hats or scarves as do my daughters. It says that it is a "sign of power on her head" so being a sign I don't think that it is this hard and fast rule, I think you have some cultural leeway in what exactly it is to be. In our culture it is a hat or scarf. I do think it should at least cover the top of your head or it cannot properly be called a head covering.


----------



## Jan Ziska

SpokenFor said:


> I know it is the principle, not about legalism,



See I don't know. If it's about modesty, I fail to see how a little kerchief is more or less modest than no head covering at all.

I cannot see how the inner principles of religion can be shown by outward gestures, actions or dress in a manner consistent with the RPW.

Women can be immodest whilst covering their hair, and modest whilst uncovering it.


----------



## shackleton

I figured it was a cultural thing besides it seems to say that a woman has her hair as her covering, technically that is why men should not have long hair. Sorry Bob.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Respectfully, not to push any buttons, I figure that most(not all, and myself included at one time) do not want to cover or have their wives cover and will find justifications accordingly. 



I only ask, why did it take nearly two thousand years for the majority of the NT Church to figure out that headcovering is not biblical?


----------



## Jan Ziska

Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> I only ask, why did it take nearly two thousand years for the majority of the NT Church to figure out that headcovering is not biblical?



It's not that headcovering is not biblical, it's that it is a cultural anachronism.

People pretty much don't wear headcoverings these days. Used to be a man wouldn't go outdoors without a hat, up until the 1970's in the west. Doesn't necessarily mean people are more or less modest, just that modes of dress change.

Should our ministers have to wear robes, just because preachers have worn robes for most of the history of the church?


----------



## Theognome

Jan Ziska said:


> Pilgrim's Progeny said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only ask, why did it take nearly two thousand years for the majority of the NT Church to figure out that headcovering is not biblical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that headcovering is not biblical, it's that it is a cultural anachronism.
> 
> People pretty much don't wear headcoverings these days. Used to be a man wouldn't go outdoors without a hat, up until the 1970's in the west. Doesn't necessarily mean people are more or less modest, just that modes of dress change.
> 
> Should our ministers have to wear robes, just because preachers have worn robes for most of the history of the church?
Click to expand...


If that is the case, why didn't Paul use a purely cultural argument? He appealed to other things beyond culture in 1 Cor 11.

Theognome


----------



## Jan Ziska

My reading of it is that women should dress modestly because the gatherings are being witnessed by angels. 

In Paul's culture, that meant covering the hair. 

I mean, v 14 saying that nature itself teaches that it is a disgrace for men to have long hair is an obviously cultural statement. How is it obvious from the light of nature that it is disgraceful for men to have long hair?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Actually, even the cultures of Paul's day were divided on the issue of covering (between Greek, Roman, and Jewish). One cannot dogmatically state that it was the culture around them, and in fact, there have been arguments suggesting otherwise (for why else would Paul even need to say something if they were already doing it).


For years, I wore a headcovering at all times other than when I was on bedrest or asleep. I still typically wear my covering at all times, but may relax a bit when inside my home with only my husband and children.


----------



## jpechin

My wife and I have decided that she needs to wear a head covering, though we believe it is a sufficiently confusing enough passage that there is Christian liberty to be found therein.

Oh, and about half our congregation's women wear head coverings.


----------



## satz

SpokenFor said:


> Jan Ziska said:
> 
> 
> 
> A question for those women who do cover their heads during worship:
> 
> Do you always cover, or only during church? Our congregation has a double handful of women who do wear hats, but they only wear them on Sundays, and even then most of them come off once the service is done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to ask that same question. It seems to me, that the Corinthians passage does not specify that a woman cover 'during corporate worship' only.
> 
> In 1 Thessalonians 5:17, Paul says we are to "pray without ceasing." So, if a woman is to cover her head during prayer, then shouldn't she have her head covered all the time? Even if the argument is that she should only have it covered during a "formal" prayer..well..one certainly never knows when one might run into a situation that a formal prayer may be needed, so should I keep a covering in my handbag?
Click to expand...


Regarding the definition of “prayer and prophecy” – which is, according to Paul when a woman needs to cover:

If I take two sentences - 
1) The newspaper said tomorrow would be a rainy day.
2) I can’t spend so much money, I need to save for a rainy day.

The same word “rainy” is used in two sentences, but has a rather different meaning in each one. In fact, if I were not a native speaker of English and were to use a dictionary I might get rather confused trying to interpret the second sentence. To understand what a word means, it is necessary to look first at the direct context. 

So, to understand what “prayer and prophecy” means in 1 Cor 11, we ought to look at the direct context. As I have tried to explain in this thread 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f121/simple-explanation-headcovering-40515/

when you look at the context of 1 Corinthians as a book, it is not just any prayer, but a special kind of prayer, namely the special gift of inspired prayer and prophecy, which is under consideration and which requires the woman to cover when doing it.

The fact that Paul regulates (i.e. requires headcovering) for a woman praying and prophesying also helps us to understand that this is a different type of pray/prophecy than the general kind prohibited in 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2. While I know it is a popular view, it simply makes no sense for Paul to regulate women praying and prophesying if he simply intends to later forbid it in 1 Cor 14.

For that reason I do not believe there is any application of 1 Thess 5:17 to the headcovering issue, as it is simply a completely different kind of prayer which is under consideration. Similarly, at the moment I do not believe there is any modern need for headcovering as the prayer and prophecy Paul had under consideration in 1 Corinthians 11 no longer exists.


----------



## SueS

I've been straddling the fence on this subject for quite some time and still don't know what side I'm going to end up on.

However, this is a subject that is currently hitting quite close to home - the man who is in charge of our former church has been urging the women to "don the doily" for the past several weeks. It is what is done at his home church and he wants to institute the practice where he now is.

My personal opinion is that the decision to cover should be between a husband and his wife, not mandated from the pulpit. Churches which do this tend to be very legalistic and works oriented - for example, the Amish, Mennonites, sects such as Weslean Holiness, and various independent fellowships. The man in charge of my former church is from a very legalistic, extreme shepherding organization and is promoting a religion of works and man-centred moralism. At the same time that he is pushing the doily he is also telling the people that they need to decide if he is "really their pastor" - in other words, they are to pledge allegience to him and thus put themselves in a position of obeying his every decree or risk being accused of disobeying God. By wearing a doily the women will be placed in subjection to this man and his elders. I am told that 80% of the women there are very much against this.

My daughter is caught up in this with her husband putting pressure on her to obey what the "pastor" wants. She has been doing a lot of personal research and firmly believes that it is a cultural thing not applicable to today. She is also very much aware of the "pastor's" agenda.
She told me that the other day she put a lace furniture runner on her head and said that the result made her look like a Spanish dancer. She then donned a shawl which completely covered her hair and said that it made her look like a Muslim - not something she felt added to her witness as a Christian. 

Apart from the "pastor's" home group there are several other non-Amish sects in the area whose women cover. They also dress in as dowdy a manner as they possibly can with the idea that dowdiness equals holiness. They stand out in any crowd and not in a positive way. This is what goes on in this neck of the woods.

As I said before, I believe that covering is a thing to be decided upon between a husband and his wife in agreement. If it is a personal conviction it is a beautiful thing. But.....what I have described is has nothing to do with personal conviction, it is a work of the flesh and by the flesh is no man (or woman) saved.

Holiness comes from a work of the Holy Spirit within a person's heart, not through what a person puts on his or her body or upon her head.


----------



## Augusta

Sue, unfortunately you have a Pastor who is telling you to do the right thing but for the wrong reasons, possibly, if he is doing it for moralistic reasons instead of from faith, love and obedience towards God as supreme.

Legalism can only describe something that man is prescribing outside of what scripture says. Headcovering is scripturally mandated, therefore it cannot be called legalism to require it because scripture requires it. I believe it should be taught from the pulpit and expected of the church. 

Modern churches have instead been influenced by feminism over the last 100 yrs or so. Now, all of a sudden, people are twisting the clear meaning of scripture to match their current practice. This was not always so. Women have covered their heads in church for all recorded history that I know of up until the last 50-60rs. Do you attend a PCA church still as it says in your bio?

I pray that God will give you wisdom.


----------



## Jan Ziska

Augusta said:


> Women have covered their heads in church for all recorded history that I know of up until the last 50-60rs.



Yeah, but so did men (wear hats, that is). They did it, and stopped doing it, for cultural reasons.


----------



## Marrow Man

From the Missus:

My wife only covers during worship and prayer meetings. She has worn hats before, but she prefers tailored kerchiefs (not a bandanna) that covers most of her hair.


----------



## Augusta

Men did not wear hats in church. Just watch and old movie like "Life with Father" that takes place in a church. Here is a picture of a Baptist church service. It is not dated but it looks to be somewhere between the 1930's to the 1950's. Not one womans head is bare and not one mans head was covered and this is during a time when many many men wore hats regularly.
This is a Baptist church. 

The picture is from this website.

-----Added 12/27/2008 at 06:13:11 EST-----

I tried to upload the pic and it didn't take you can see it on the link above though. It goes right to the page it is on.


----------



## Jan Ziska

I know men did not wear hats in church. They did however, wear hats whenever they went outside. Hats were an important part of showing respect and dignity etc. Tipping hats, going to someone hat in hand etc etc.

I wear hats almost every day because I like a lot of old fashioned styles and things. But that is a cultural preference, not a religious one.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Apples and Oranges.


----------



## SueS

> Sue, unfortunately you have a Pastor who is telling you to do the right thing but for the wrong reasons, possibly, if he is doing it for moralistic reasons instead of from faith, love and obedience towards God as supreme.



Traci - this is not my pastor that I am describing, but the man in control of my former church.



> Legalism can only describe something that man is prescribing outside of what scripture says. Headcovering is scripturally mandated, therefore it cannot be called legalism to require it because scripture requires it. I believe it should be taught from the pulpit and expected of the church.




I believe that it can also be considered legalism when Scripture is twisted to serve a man's purpose - in this case, that of subjugating members of a congregation. There is a BIG difference between submission and subjection. I also have a problem with constructing a binding rule from one text of Scripture and I think my examples of Anabaptistic and other church organizations that cover and are works oriented need to be considered in the overall picture. Covering within a church that promotes a religion of works only puts a veneer of sanctification upon what is in reality another gospel and I haven't ever seen a healthy church that teaches covering although I'm sure they do exist. I'm having to stand by and watch my daughter and the other women of my former church being put under bondage to a man and his agenda - it's an ongoing tragedy and only the grace and mercy of God will deliver them out of it.

I am in a very conservative PCA church within a very conservative presbytery and even though I am a product of the '60's do not consider myself to be feministic in any way.




> I pray that God will give you wisdom.




Thanks! We all need that wisdom!


----------



## he beholds

Here is a con-article written by the Reformed Presbytery in North America (RPNA).


----------



## Jan Ziska

LadyFlynt said:


> Apples and Oranges.



Not really. Women stopped covering in church about the same time men stopped wearing hats in public, for the same reasons.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Women covered before men began wearing hats, an in places where men don't wear hats, throughout history. Apples and Oranges. One has nil to do with the other since it preceded the other by thousands of years.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Not really. Women stopped covering in church about the same time men stopped wearing hats in public, for the same reasons.



I agree to a degree. I think that as many churches became more worldly and coverings as per Scripture gave way to church services looking like the Royal Ascot, it took on a life of its own that was purely cultural. Thus it later died merely as a cultural practise for many. BUT that does not mean that covering is/was merely a cultural practise, it means that it was bastardized and overtaken by fashion by those who did not regard it as a biblical principle, but as a social norm.

So, apples and oranges it remains.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Like I said before, 



Pilgrim's Progeny said:


> Respectfully, not to push any buttons, I figure that most(not all, and myself included at one time) do not want to cover or have their wives cover and will find justifications accordingly.


 
it appears that it is not about exegesis but desire, headcovering is there. I am just glad that the majority of the reformed don't use the same hermeneutic for the rest of God's commands, IMHC, respectfully.


----------



## Jan Ziska

But that argument can be used for anything. A Papist may well say that anyone who does not want to submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome will find justifications accordingly.

I could well say that people who want to wear visible symbols of their piety will find justifications accordingly. (I do not think that, btw, but it is an example of the logical argument.)


----------



## Kevin

kvanlaan said:


> Not really. Women stopped covering in church about the same time men stopped wearing hats in public, for the same reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to a degree. I think that as many churches became more worldly and coverings as per Scripture gave way to church services looking like the Royal Ascot, it took on a life of its own that was purely cultural. Thus it later died merely as a cultural practise for many. BUT that does not mean that covering is/was merely a cultural practise, it means that it was bastardized and overtaken by fashion by those who did not regard it as a biblical principle, but as a social norm.
> 
> So, apples and oranges it remains.
Click to expand...


Yah, But you are Dutch. And in "your culture" hats have become the new headcoverings.

For the Dutch this is an issue. For those of us whose grandmothers stopped wearing hats ( in church & out of church) about 50 years ago this is not an issue.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Kevin said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Women stopped covering in church about the same time men stopped wearing hats in public, for the same reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree to a degree. I think that as many churches became more worldly and coverings as per Scripture gave way to church services looking like the Royal Ascot, it took on a life of its own that was purely cultural. Thus it later died merely as a cultural practise for many. BUT that does not mean that covering is/was merely a cultural practise, it means that it was bastardized and overtaken by fashion by those who did not regard it as a biblical principle, but as a social norm.
> 
> So, apples and oranges it remains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yah, But you are Dutch. And in "your culture" hats have become the new headcoverings.
> 
> For the Dutch this is an issue. For those of us whose grandmothers stopped wearing hats ( in church & out of church) about 50 years ago this is not an issue.
Click to expand...

:scratcheshead: that didn't make much sense as it very much has to do with those of us in the US. I'm not Dutch and I'm in agreement with him.


----------



## satz

I know they are not meant maliciously, (as Pilgrim’s Pogeny has graciously gone to some pains to point out) but I must confess I find it frustrating that those who cover find it necessary to constantly make little jibes regarding feminism, or whatnot at those who disagree with them, despite most probably having never met the other party.

What exactly is the basis for these continual ad hominem remarks?

I am not saying that there is no place for this sort of polemic (asserting that those holding to falsehoods have personal agendas for doing so), and it does have its place in contending for the truth.

However, in the context of the puritanboard which, for better or worse, is a internet _discussion_ forum I find myself questioning the value of these constant indirect attacks against the motives of the other side. It also seems to me (and I could be mistaken) that this is questioning of motives without basis is particularly prevalent in discussions on the issue of headcovering, while there are other “hot” topics (i.e. Christmas, EP etc etc) where this does not happen.

I will freely admit that as a christian I struggle with the fear of man. But again, in the context of a discussion forum, these remarks are truly neither here nor there. Something is not right just because it is old. The first side can say the other has succumbed to the spirit of the age. The second side could respond that the first blindly follows tradition. In the end we have made no progress by going down this line of discussion. Why not just stick to looking at the scriptural text?

-----Added 12/28/2008 at 09:38:13 EST-----

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

Another question… for those how cover, would they allow women to remove the covering during parts of the service where they are obviously not praying or prophesying, i.e. listening to the sermon?


----------



## kvanlaan

> Yah, But you are Dutch. And in "your culture" hats have become the new headcoverings.
> 
> For the Dutch this is an issue. For those of us whose grandmothers stopped wearing hats ( in church & out of church) about 50 years ago this is not an issue.



Listen, even I cannot fathom this. Why is it that there is such uniformity of coverings in the FRC/HNRC/NRC? I have no clue. To me, a veil would be fine (that is, hanging down like a headscarf along the back of the head) but somehow it has evolved into one particular mode of headcovering in these churches. If Rev Lewis jumps in on this thread, perhaps he could comment on the FRC point of view.

But that is, in many ways, irrelevant. It is not like one particular practise (which may or may not garner criticism from other believers) negates the biblical mandate. Furthermore, what I was referring to with the "Royal Ascot" comment was more the Southern US practises. It just seemed like somewhere in the late 50's - late 60's covering _because of the angels_ gave way to covering _because of popular fashion_. Then, when fashion changed, the biblical mandate was left behind. 

That's my point, my dear Maritime brother.

Is the move to hats an issue of cultural intrusion? Perhaps. Not sure. That's why I am very open to shawl/hat/veil/doilie coverings.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I don't see where anyone is calling another a feminist or a supporter of feminism. It's a plain and simple fact that feminism played a role in much of what we find lost to the culture at large today. I don't believe anyone here was around when that started. It's simply how one issue played into another. Instead of letting that determine what our practice is, we simply suggest going back to what the church has done all along in following this command. Simply because one doesn't cover does not make one a feminist and no one here is saying it does.


----------



## kvanlaan

> What exactly is the basis for these continual ad hominem remarks?



I don't think they are _ad hominem_ in any respect. Can any of us really say that feminism has not had dire and devestating effects on the church? It comes to bear in many respects. That is, headcovering is just one facet of the move away from traditional Christian practices due (in some respects) to feminism.

Chaperones during courting? _So_ old-fashioned. 

The question of whether or not women should vote? Simply offensive; doesn't even merit discussion in many arenas because it is such a conservative anachronism.

I can pull those examples out _ad nauseum_. It is a brutal reality that feminism has impacted our churches in many guises, whether it is palatable or not. 

Dismissing it as offensive is dodging the question.

-----Added 12/28/2008 at 02:16:32 EST-----

Here's a shot in from left field: I was talking to someone this past week who suggested that Corinthian women were more of a warrior caste that _did_ shave their heads as a regular thing, which negates a bunch of these arguments. That they, in some cases, lopped off their breasts as to be able to further draw a bowstring to their chest. 

I responded by saying that I had never heard that interpretation before, and did not hold to it (but to say it was an unorthodox opinion is diplomacy at its best!)


----------



## calgal

kvanlaan said:


> What exactly is the basis for these continual ad hominem remarks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they are _ad hominem_ in any respect. Can any of us really say that feminism has not had dire and devestating effects on the church? It comes to bear in many respects. That is, headcovering is just one facet of the move away from traditional Christian practices due (in some respects) to feminism.
> 
> Chaperones during courting? _So_ old-fashioned.
> 
> The question of whether or not women should vote? Simply offensive; doesn't even merit discussion in many arenas because it is such a conservative anachronism.
> 
> I can pull those examples out _ad nauseum_. It is a brutal reality that feminism has impacted our churches in many guises, whether it is palatable or not.
> 
> Dismissing it as offensive is dodging the question.
Click to expand...


Are these feminist? Other than women voting there is no clear connection to feminist thought or ideology. If you said the 1960's "free love" garbage, I could see that but not classical or "first wave" feminism. By the way first wave feminism was a group of Christian women advocating for voting rights & property rights for women. 

Gail


----------



## kvanlaan

They are feminist insofar as they seek to help women 'break free' from the chains imposed upon them by male-dominated, organized religion.



> By the way, first wave feminism was a group of Christian women advocating for voting rights & property rights for women.



I'd like to see a reference for that, if you please.

-----Added 12/28/2008 at 04:57:34 EST-----

The reason I ask about references is because of pages like this: 

Mary Wollstonecraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A forerunner of the feminist movement, she was a Unitarian and I doubt one could honestly find any Christian influence in this person's work, no matter how deep you dig. There may be aspects of it couched in religious language to give it credibility (seeing the day and age she wrote in), but to claim it to be Christian in nature is a bit far-fetched.

Then there's transcendentalist Margaret Fuller:

Margaret Fuller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only Christian influence there seems to be is the Women's Christian Temperance Union and Frances Willard, but all I have read gives the impression of being an "In His Steps" movement - the social gospel writ large.


----------



## calgal

kvanlaan said:


> They are feminist insofar as they seek to help women 'break free' from the chains imposed upon them by male-dominated, organized religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, first wave feminism was a group of Christian women advocating for voting rights & property rights for women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to see a reference for that, if you please.
> 
> -----Added 12/28/2008 at 04:57:34 EST-----
> 
> The reason I ask about references is because of pages like this:
> 
> Mary Wollstonecraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A forerunner of the feminist movement, she was a Unitarian and I doubt one could honestly find any Christian influence in this person's work, no matter how deep you dig. There may be aspects of it couched in religious language to give it credibility (seeing the day and age she wrote in), but to claim it to be Christian in nature is a bit far-fetched.
> 
> Then there's transcendentalist Margaret Fuller:
> 
> Margaret Fuller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The only Christian influence there seems to be is the Women's Christian Temperance Union and Frances Willard, but all I have read gives the impression of being an "In His Steps" movement - the social gospel writ large.
Click to expand...

Here are a few ladies you might appreciate:
Even a Puritan lady: Lydia Taft
Catherine Booth (Salvation Army)
Sojourner Truth:Sojourner Truth
Harriet Tubman


----------



## LadyFlynt

I wouldn't consider Lydia Taft a feminist or a leader in suffrage. It appears that a privilege was granted to her, rather than her going about demanding that she had a right.

Catherine Booth fought for her right to preach? Uhm, no thank you.

And simply because some of what is mentioned "might" be a good thing...it doesn't mean that there weren't other errors included. (Women were permitted to own property, btw)


----------



## kvanlaan

The only one on that list I can say might be OK (but is a statement from ignorance because I haven't read into her) would be Harriet Tubman. I've read a bio of Sojourner Truth that was revealing in a most unflattering way of the woman's goals and motivations (I think it was called "Ain't I A Woman"). This was a bio included as part of a Christian curriculum but was quite jarring in terms of the message that it delivered.


----------



## SpokenFor

Is there a "Support" thread for those who do chose to wear a head covering? I would like ask for support, but this thread is getting a bit convoluted and off-track. I'm having trouble figuring out the search feature (it just give me Google results, even though I ask for only PB results) or I would look up other threads myself.


----------



## Prufrock

SpokenFor said:


> Is there a "Support" thread for those who do chose to wear a head covering? I would like ask for support, but this thread is getting a bit convoluted and off-track. I'm having trouble figuring out the search feature (it just give me Google results, even though I ask for only PB results) or I would look up other threads myself.



When you click on the "search" link, use the "advanced search" option, instead of just typing it into the bar that appears. Hopefully that will resolve the problem.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> What exactly is the basis for these continual ad hominem remarks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they are _ad hominem_ in any respect. Can any of us really say that feminism has not had dire and devestating effects on the church? It comes to bear in many respects. That is, headcovering is just one facet of the move away from traditional Christian practices due (in some respects) to feminism.
> 
> Chaperones during courting? _So_ old-fashioned.
> 
> The question of whether or not women should vote? Simply offensive; doesn't even merit discussion in many arenas because it is such a conservative anachronism.
> 
> I can pull those examples out _ad nauseum_. It is a brutal reality that feminism has impacted our churches in many guises, whether it is palatable or not.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the response.

I guess my point was that whether or not headcoverings are required by God today ought to be determined by looking at the scripture. I do not deny that feminism has had a severely negative impact on our churches, and this may well cause us to re-examine certain of our practices in light of scripture. However, once we are back looking at the scripture, the constant raising of the point of feminism is, at least as I see it now, somewhat of a red herring. 

Likewise, the examples you give of voting and courting (and I know they are only examples) don’t shed any light on God’s view of headcoverings today. The fact that society (and the church with it) has moved away from the position of old does not, by itself, indicate that the old position is correct. Each issue, whether it be coverings, voting or courting must be examined individually in the light of scripture, not lumped together into what is “old” and what is “modern”.



> Dismissing it as offensive is dodging the question.



It would be dodging the question if that was the sole and only response by those who do not cover. I do not believe that has been the case.


----------



## LadyFlynt

The "feminism" and overtaking of fashion are only mentioned as to issues that impacted the loss of the headcovering. You are correct in that it is neither here nor there on whether headcovering is correct or not.


----------



## SueS

It seems to me that this headcovering thing is being blown all out of proportion. It is based on a text that has generated controversy without any real consensis as to its actual interpretation.

Tell me.....what is more important, a working understanding of the Doctrines of Grace and what God has done for us through His Son Jesus Christ or the wearing of a piece of cloth on one's head? For every Reformed congregation that gives what would be considered a balanced argument for headcovering, there are scads of other churches that view it as a part of a works based religion and never even touch on the subject of the Doctrines. There are untold numbers of people in such churches who couldn't begin to give an explaination of how Christ accomplished the redemption of His people but feel secure in the fact that their women cover.

I am a product of such a church - headcovering wasn't taught while I was there, that's something that has been coming on in the last few months - but, in my 28 years of attendence there I *NEVER* heard anything taught about the Doctrines of Grace (never even knew what they were!!!) and never had any security in my salvation - we were repeatedly told that "we could still lose this war". It was only through God's grace that He lead my dh and me to Reformed theology and away from that Arminian church that is now promoting headcoverings and a religion of works. 

We obey the Lord because of gratitude for what He has done for us and if headcovering is for today and not a cultural thing of its time, something I personally am not convinced of, then covering has to come from that heart of gratitude. This is *NOT* what I've seen but rather, that covering is done because it is something that church leadership has mandated. It becomes a badge of "holiness", a work of the flesh, and who knows what goes on in the heart of the wearer. 

We all agree that the wearing of a headcovering is not salvivic. As far as I am concerned the subject is so far down on my list of spiritual priorities that it is almost non-existant. I'm still playing catch-up with the subjects of the covenants, the Doctrines of Grace, eschatology, and why dispensationalism is wrong to worry about it. Maybe when I have all the important ducks in a row I'll tackle that.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

For the record, my wife does wear a head covering in public worship. Several other women in the congregation do also, not all. 

I’ve never preached on the subject; but certainly will if and when I come to 1 Corinthians 11 in my consecutive exposition of scripture.

I am concerned with some discounting parts of scripture as relevant only to the culture to which it was addressed, without showing from the context why this may be done. Thus, some end up with female lesbian ministers.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I'm sorry, Sue, that you've had such a negative experience. It's a discussion, not a "I'm chasing you down to make you wear one" on this board. You entered into the discussion/debate.

I can tell you this...though I believe, strongly, that it should be practiced...from experience, I'm a firm believer also that one should know WHY and have personalised it rather than just putting it on their head "because they were told to". On the flip side, Paul did tell us to. Also from my experience, I definitely (DEFINITELY) do NOT see headcovering as some badge of superiority or holiness. If anything, it rubs at some rough edges (both the wearers and apparently sometimes those around the wearer...the animosity at times is extreme).


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Our Scottish wedding was little different than a typical Free Church of Scotland worship service. Note the hats.


----------



## SueS

LadyFlynt said:


> I'm sorry, Sue, that you've had such a negative experience. It's a discussion, not a "I'm chasing you down to make you wear one" on this board. You entered into the discussion/debate.





Oh, I know that and I'm really not trying to be argumentative. It's just that it seems as if this discussion is floating around in the realm of theological theory without much thought of how it works out in real life. Even though I am not convinced that headcoverings is not a cultural thing I understand the rationale behind it and how it is supposed to work. However, abuse of headcoverings does exist and it's a serious thing because it places those being abused into a skewed understanding of biblical principles. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. My heart is breaking for those I see in this bondage.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

SueS said:


> It seems to me that this headcovering thing is being blown all out of proportion. It is based on a text that has generated controversy without any real consensis as to its actual interpretation.
> 
> Tell me.....what is more important, a working understanding of the Doctrines of Grace and what God has done for us through His Son Jesus Christ or the wearing of a piece of cloth on one's head? For every Reformed congregation that gives what would be considered a balanced argument for headcovering, there are scads of other churches that view it as a part of a works based religion and never even touch on the subject of the Doctrines. There are untold numbers of people in such churches who couldn't begin to give an explaination of how Christ accomplished the redemption of His people but feel secure in the fact that their women cover.
> 
> I am a product of such a church - headcovering wasn't taught while I was there, that's something that has been coming on in the last few months - but, in my 28 years of attendence there I *NEVER* heard anything taught about the Doctrines of Grace (never even knew what they were!!!) and never had any security in my salvation - we were repeatedly told that "we could still lose this war". It was only through God's grace that He lead my dh and me to Reformed theology and away from that Arminian church that is now promoting headcoverings and a religion of works.
> 
> We obey the Lord because of gratitude for what He has done for us and if headcovering is for today and not a cultural thing of its time, something I personally am not convinced of, then covering has to come from that heart of gratitude. This is *NOT* what I've seen but rather, that covering is done because it is something that church leadership has mandated. It becomes a badge of "holiness", a work of the flesh, and who knows what goes on in the heart of the wearer.
> 
> We all agree that the wearing of a headcovering is not salvivic. As far as I am concerned the subject is so far down on my list of spiritual priorities that it is almost non-existant. I'm still playing catch-up with the subjects of the covenants, the Doctrines of Grace, eschatology, and why dispensationalism is wrong to worry about it. Maybe when I have all the important ducks in a row I'll tackle that.


 
Sue, I am saddened by your experience as well. We never had such a experience. My wife and daughters wear headcoverings because, well, the passage in 1Cor 11 says so, that's all. We do not wrangle with cultures and traditions, we just do what the scriptures say. Yes, this does follow a long standing tradition, but we do not cover so much because of this, we cover because Scripture says so. We tend to look at the Scripture through the lens of, so it says so we do, that's all.


----------



## satz

Paul,

Could I ask in what sense your wife or daughters pray or prophesy during worship?


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Dear Mark, my wife, especially, prays and prophesies during worship. She is always praying and seeking to understand the inexhaustible doctrines of our God. My wife prays and prophesies at home, a time which she and our daughters cover. I would even go so far as to say, to my shame, that the greatest prayers uttered are uttered by my dear wife. She prays to the point of tears for the one's that God lays upon her heart. My heart is so often softened by the utterances of my dear wife. Also, I cannot even name the things that have come to pass that my wife has named during our times of family worship. God bless my women, for their glorious insight into the the ways of God in the workings of man. I have been humbled beyond explanation, God is pleased to bring me low through the insight(prayers and prophesying) of my wife and also my daughters.


----------



## LadyFlynt

SueS said:


> Oh, I know that and I'm really not trying to be argumentative. It's just that it seems as if this discussion is floating around in the realm of theological theory without much thought of how it works out in real life. Even though I am not convinced that headcoverings is not a cultural thing I understand the rationale behind it and how it is supposed to work. However, abuse of headcoverings does exist and it's a serious thing because it places those being abused into a skewed understanding of biblical principles. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. My heart is breaking for those I see in this bondage.



I do understand. And I have seen many biblical things abused...Matthew 18, Obeying Authorities, etc...it's a wonder we all haven't run hiding into holes to avoid all of this. However, I don't let one man's abuse dictate whether or not I carry out a command in Scripture, or I might simply run from Christianity altogether if I did. One man's abusive and wrongful ideas of it does not make it a practice to be null and void. It's like blaming alcohol for the drunkard and the gun for an accident...it's not the item or the practice...it's how it's used.


----------



## tcalbrecht

SueS said:


> Even though I am not convinced that headcoverings is not a cultural thing I understand the rationale behind it and how it is supposed to work. However, abuse of headcoverings does exist and it's a serious thing because it places those being abused into a skewed understanding of biblical principles. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. My heart is breaking for those I see in this bondage.



One thing I don’t quite understand, and perhaps this has been addressed somewhere, if the command in 1 Cor. 11 regarding headcoverings is meant (primarily?) for corporate worship, then how does the regulation not become an exclusive matter for the elders of the church rather than what appears to be individual decisions here and there?

Suppose a woman comes into the congregation and says she wants to exercise her right to prophesy and pray publically in the congregation ala 1 Cor. 11 when the Spirit moves (it’s her and her husband’s "biblical conviction"), would the elders be obligated to permit such a thing? How is this "practice" different from the practice of headcoverings wrt the authority of the elders to regulate congregation worship?

If this is truly a matter of theology and not culture, then it would seem that the elders, in order to avoid judgementalism in the congregation, would need to adopt an all or nothing policy for all women. If it is not cultural, it’s an odd thing to be leaving to individuals given the immediate context of 1 Cor. 11 and Paul’s overall purpose in writing to the Corinthians.


----------



## LadyFlynt

*nm...I think I may be reading posts wrong.


----------



## Igor

They used to in our Slavic Baptist (and other Evangelical) churces of the former USSR. Not any more, except for elderly ladies and... extremely legalistic, hyper-Arminian (may I call them that?) congregations, where you always fear of losing your salvations for doing this or that. Or, at best, just very traditional churches, but still a bit "too much" Arminian. (I have nothing against the Arminianism itself - in fact, 99 per cent of our churches hold the Arminian views - until it teaches that your salvation depends on your performance. This I publicly denounce as a heresy from the pulpit.) I cannot explain why, but somehow head coverings and legalism go together in Slavic churches.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

satz said:


> Could I ask in what sense your wife or daughters pray or prophesy during worship?



Women pray in public worship every time the minister leads the congregation in corporate prayer.


----------



## satz

Thanks, Pastor Ferrell.

Would women then be allowed to remove the covering during the sermon or bible reading?

(Since it is while praying or prophesying that Paul mandates the covering)


----------



## LadyFlynt

satz said:


> Thanks, Pastor Ferrell.
> 
> Would women then be allowed to remove the covering during the sermon or bible reading?
> 
> (Since it is while praying or prophesying that Paul mandates the covering)



As many prayers are offered during a typical service, the meditating done on the Word during service, the prophesying done during the singing...it would be a bit of a hassle to cover, uncover, cover, uncover (let alone the figuring out of when or if to uncover). Simply covering for worship is much simpler than the effort of constantly redonning a covering.


----------



## py3ak

Augusta said:


> Men did not wear hats in church. Just watch and old movie like "Life with Father" that takes place in a church. Here is a picture of a Baptist church service. It is not dated but it looks to be somewhere between the 1930's to the 1950's. Not one womans head is bare and not one mans head was covered and this is during a time when many many men wore hats regularly.
> This is a Baptist church.
> 
> The picture is from this website.
> 
> -----Added 12/27/2008 at 06:13:11 EST-----
> 
> I tried to upload the pic and it didn't take you can see it on the link above though. It goes right to the page it is on.



That was not always true, though. Calvin has an interesting defense of the minister continuing to wear his cap through the service. In some circles, as can be learned from Spurgeon, men took their hats off for prayer, and put them back on for the sermon.


----------

