# Is Hair Considered a Covering in Worship? Comparing 1 Corinthians 11:6 and 11:14, 15



## Herald

1 Corinthians 11:6 "For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head."

1 Corinthians 11:14, 15 "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering."

Verse 6 seems to indicate that an additional covering, other than hair, is being commanded by Paul. Verse 15 seems to indicate that hair itself is a sufficient covering. Reconciling these two passages has been difficult for me. Is Paul saying in verse 15 that nature provides a natural covering for women, i.e. long hair, but an additional token is still needed in worship (verse 6)? 

I would like to hear some opinions.


----------



## Scott Bushey

"Is Headcovering Biblical?" - David Silversides


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Also, http://www.thebluebanner.com/pdf/bluebanner7-5.pdf


----------



## a mere housewife

Rev. Brown, Matthew Henry's view is that hair is an adequate covering for worship but that in this passage, there is not only a cultural but a redemptive historical element: the outpouring of the Spirit in prophetic utterance on sons and daughters, and the custom of that culture with regard to prophetic utterance in women. Paul is saying that the cultural expressions of authority are not to be disregarded by the church. He points back to God's own covering of the woman and the created order. The ongoing application from Henry's view would be that the church is not a place where the customary societal expressions of God's established order are to be disregarded. Though in Christ there is neither male or female as relates to individual worth -- there is still decency and order. Contentiousness against authority is no custom of the church's. I am personally satisfied with this view of the passage: it does more to answer all the questions the passage has raised for me. But I would not want to convince others against conscience.


----------



## Mushroom

Length of hair is the matter. Long hair is a shame for a man, a glory and covering for a woman. If she doesn't want long hair, let her be shaved (which I find few women willing to do). Same passage - covering necessary, hair is a covering. Disputations over slight differences in word usage notwithstanding, my view is that hair IS the covering addressed in this passage. If someone would approach the subject without a predisposition to doilies, I might listen, but none has as yet. I have no preference either way, my only aim is to understand what God is saying here. Seems pretty plain to me. Mental gymnastics always raise red flags for me. But then, I'm not the arbiter of anything, so you are free to take my position with a grain of salt.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Her hair is ‘a’ covering but being as this particular covering is also her ‘glory’ ought it not to be covered with something else when worshipping God that His glory alone be on view?  I’m still uncertain!


----------



## kvanlaan

Isn't it quite simple in the Greek? The peribolean is the hair as a covering, but he brings forward the katakylupto, another type of covering, as something that the men should not wear, but the woman should. So how can the one be the other when the Greek is that specific? Should men then have their heads shaven in order to preach?


----------



## Edward

Herald said:


> Is Hair Considered a Covering in Worship?



I think you should also consider I Cor. 11:4 in your analysis. For if hair is a covering for women, it would be for men as well. So if hair meets the requirement for women, a man should shave his head.


----------



## a mere housewife

Jo, just a thought -- this is one reason I think it an adequate covering. God doesn't cover to demean. What is weaker is to be honored, what is more contemptible receives greater honor, etc. When God covers, He does so with glory.


----------



## Mushroom

_*Long hair *_is the covering. That is what the passage discusses. It is shameful for a man to have long hair; for a woman it is her glory. If she wants to wear her hair like a man, then let her be _shaved._ Perhaps a bit of hyperbole on Paul's part to point out the impropriety of a woman having short hair? Because, as I stated earlier, I've known very few women who would want to wear a buzz cut. Out of all the tribes of men, the vast majority have practiced that women wear their hair long, or at least longer than the men. Could that be because, as Paul stated, nature itself teaches us something about the matter? I believe so, and find that to be the least strained reading of the passage.


----------



## Herald

I appreciate all of the comments plus the links to some very fine articles. Thank you.


----------



## MW

This is one of those interpretations that tell you more about the interpreter than the Scripture.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> This is one of those interpretations that tell you more about the interpreter than the Scripture.



Matthew, I am not sure if you are referring to a specific person's interpretation in this thread. In the OP I did not actually offer an interpretation. I asked a question because I am researching the issue and struggling with it.


----------



## MW

Bill, no particular person was intended; I was just pointing out that there is nothing in the Scripture itself which warrants this interpretation, and that the choice to adopt it must be from something in the interpreter.


----------



## lynnie

_Isn't it quite simple in the Greek? The peribolean is the hair as a covering, but he brings forward the katakylupto, another type of covering, as something that the men should not wear, but the woman should. So how can the one be the other when the Greek is that specific?_

yup. It is obvious in Greek that the thing she is commanded to wear -_katakalyptō_- as a sign of authority is not the_ peribolaiou_ given as a covering. If Paul wanted to say the hair was the katakalypto, he would have used the same word.

This is what convinced me.


----------



## Mushroom

So if these Greek words are so very clear, why is it that none of the trained linguists involved in the translation of any of the English versions were aware of this distinction?


----------



## kvanlaan

Lynnie, exactly - why make it more difficult than it is?



> Long hair is the covering. That is what the passage discusses. It is shameful for a man to have long hair; for a woman it is her glory. If she wants to wear her hair like a man, then let her be shaved. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole on Paul's part to point out the impropriety of a woman having short hair? Because, as I stated earlier, I've known very few women who would want to wear a buzz cut. Out of all the tribes of men, the vast majority have practiced that women wear their hair long, or at least longer than the men. Could that be because, as Paul stated, nature itself teaches us something about the matter? I believe so, and find that to be the least strained reading of the passage.



Brad, it just doesn't stand up in the Greek; the above is actually a strained reading of the passage. The least strained is the historical one. I love you brother, but I just can't wrap my head around how this could be correct in light of the original passage. It doesn't add up when the Greek is so specific. 

Maybe the trained linguists were bad people, I don't know.


----------



## Mushroom

armourbearer said:


> Bill, no particular person was intended; I was just pointing out that there is nothing in the Scripture itself which warrants this interpretation, and that the choice to adopt it must be from something in the interpreter.


Which interpretation are you addressing, Pastor?

If mine, then I can say with all honesty that I don't approach the subject with any predisposition. Mindy and I have studied the matter, and my wife would be willing to adopt wearing a headcovering if I asked her to, but neither of us is convinced of the arguments for it. I find too much desire to fit in with a particular theological bent and not enough exegetical evidence in all the cases made for headcoverings, and fitting in is not my forté. My Church doesn't teach it, and I am not convinced by scripture of it, so I hope if my interpretation tells you anything about me, it would not be anything derogatory.


----------



## Cymro

I was handed an article yesterday which covers all that is being discussed and supports Kelvin
in his position on the the two coverings. If you substitute "hair" for the verb to "to cover", or the
noun "covering" in verses 3-17,13 then the debate becomes ludicrous. The article is, "The wearing of head-
Covering by women during public Church Worship Services". By Rev Bartel Elshout and the HRC of Chilliwack, British Columbia.


----------



## Mushroom

I dunno, Jeff - I just read the entire passage replacing the "covered"-"uncovered" words with long or short hair, and it seems to make perfect sense to me. Maybe you should try that.


----------



## a mere housewife

I feel certain that Rev. Winzer wouldn't think derogatory thoughts -- and surely none of us think derogatory thoughts over an issue where others are seeking to obey Scripture. Our consciences must each answer to God.

If it were a very obvious passage in any direction, I don't think there could be so much disagreement, from people with so much else in common, over it.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

As one I admire greatly once put it, (and I paraphrase here), "it was the undisputed consensus of the Christian church for 1800 years that women ought to wear a head covering in church. It wasn't until the 1800's and women's liberation movements that the question was even raised".


----------



## kvanlaan

Heidi, that's just the thing - it is indeed obvious and clear and the beautiful thing is that in the reformed tradition, I don't get an opinion. It must come down to _sola scriptura_ - my feelings on the matter are immaterial. I have kicked against the goads on this issue for years because I didn't want to do it, and it would be weird, etc. but I have a few dear friends who have very simply (not flippantly, just simply) told me to put the Greek in as below and there is just no way around it.

Verse 6: For if the woman be not covered (with a katakylupto) let her also be shorn, but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven let her be covered (with a katakylupto).
Verse 7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head (with a katakylupto) forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God...
Verse 15: But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her for her hair is given to her as a cover (peribolaion).

I may not cover my head with a covering. My wife should cover hers, but above and beyond her hair (as it is a different term altogether). And yes, using hair as a covering dictates that pastors must shave their heads in order to preach.

If there is any way around that, please let me know. Feelings and opinions aside, God's word speaks quite clearly. And that clarity is reflected in almost two millenia of head covering in the church.


----------



## Logan

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> As one I admire greatly once put it, (and I paraphrase here), "it was the undisputed consensus of the Christian church for 1800 years that women ought to wear a head covering in church. It wasn't until the 1800's and women's liberation movements that the question was even raised".



It would be very difficult to prove it was "undisputed" and the burden of proof would be on that person to prove it. As I said in the other thread, a custom does not necessarily mean doctrine, nor does approval mean requirement. It seems that head coverings were also used quite universally _outside_ of church as part of the culture as well, but surely that was not the doctrine of the church.

Calvin, Gouge, and Poole all seem to treat this as cultural and not a universal requirement, and quotations were given in the previous thread; these are not unknown persons and I'm sure there are others, though I'm equally sure they would still have approved of its practice. But once again, approval of a practice is not the same as believing it is required. The claim that this idea didn't arrive until women's liberation seems to me to be misleading at best.

Edit: Add Hodge to the list (though he was 1800s of course). I've appreciated him as a careful commentator and he likewise holds that this was a cultural issue but that the general principle of submission with dress and conduct is universal.


----------



## Mushroom

Kevin, you left out verse 13:

1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 

Which is immediately followed by:

1Co 11:14-16 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (16) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Why would he in one verse speak of the impropriety of of a woman's uncovered head in prayer, and in the next change subjects entirely and address length of hair - naming her long hair as her covering. We use different terms for long hair - long mane, flowing tresses, etc., so the use of a different Greek word has less force to me than the flow of the text. As I said above, if you replace all the 'covering' references with either long or short hair the text works in the clearest way I've found. This is not a matter over which to divide at all, but I do want to determine accurately what the Lord is telling us. I find the historical argument unconvincing (as Logan points out above), and the lingual distinctions to be a stretch. In light of that and what makes most sense to me, as well as the teaching of the Church in which the Lord has placed me as a member, I will continue to consider long hair to be the covering referenced.


----------



## MW

Brad, the idea that long hair is the covering finds no support in the text whatsoever. The flow of argument does not work with your proposed substitution. Praying or prophesying is an activity which comes immediately from Christ, the invisible head of the church. To engage in it one must have no visible covering for such covering is a sign of being under visible headship. For women to engage in such an activity they would be required to remove their covering. If the hair were their covering it would be a natural covering and could not be removed, which effectively destroys the argument of the apostle. The apostle's later reference to long hair is an illustration from nature that the woman should be covered, thus prohibiting her praying and prophesying in the united assembly of men and women.


----------



## lynnie

Head coverings in Scripture

Here is a long list of quotes from both before and after the Reformation that women are to wear headcoverings. We are in good company.

Regarding the cultural arguement, Paul is clear that we do this because of the angels, not because of the people around us in the culture. You can argue what angels they are- good or fallen or both- but at the end of the day the reason goes back to angels, not culture. 

I became aware of spiritual "presences" regularly when I started wearing a head covering. Actually it was a sense of strong and protecting angelic forces as opposed to something dark or evil and unclean, so I personally think that reference is to good angels, but I can't prove it. But the point is, it is a sign to the angels, not the culture. Have the angels changed? I don't think so.


----------



## MW

lynnie said:


> You can argue what angels they are- good or fallen or both- but at the end of the day the reason goes back to angels, not culture.



I think the view that these angels (messengers) are human fits better within the general consideration laid down in verse 3.


----------



## Joy by grace

For those who (as I do) believe in an additional (cloth) covering, may I tack on an additional question for my own clarification? 
When should I be covered?
I homeschool...I spend my days instructing my children in matters both simply educational and spiritual in nature.
Matters of discipline and moments of correction are given with scripture and prayer. 
As a mum of a full house I may try to have a 'prayer time' but it may or may not happen on any given day...But, I can count on peace and quiet to pray while doing the mundane things of home keeping...like dishes.  I regularly redeem that time for prayer. 
So, prayer, singing, and instructing from scripture are peppered throughout my day. Aside from keeping a veil in my pocket and putting it on and off at intervals, I have thus far chosen to cover full time. This is a new matter to me though. (This passage pricked at me from the time I was about 10 years old, but only about 18 months ago did my husband and I decide to take the scripture at face value and simply follow something we may not fully understand.) We have not found anyone to discuss this passage's practical outworking with, I would value other opinions and thoughts.
Thanks! 

To the OP; if you would prefer I post this separately, I will gladly do so.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

*Is Hair Considered a Covering in Worship? Comparing 1 Corinthians 11:6 and 11...*

Does this passage place any more prescription on us than, say, 14:1 (or 14:5!) (I'm just making the point that there are valid reasons for understanding a prescriptive passage in light of the issues of the church at the time.)

It just seems that under the new covenant, the imposition of outward signs is something we're freed from. Something seems strange about acknowledging that circumcision is nothing but that the wearing of coverings (or the length of our hair) is a matter of obedience. But I do appreciate the desire of husbands and wives who prescribe to coverings to be obedient to Scripture, and I do realize that it can't be lightly dismissed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mushroom

armourbearer said:


> Brad, the idea that long hair is the covering finds no support in the text whatsoever. The flow of argument does not work with your proposed substitution. Praying or prophesying is an activity which comes immediately from Christ, the invisible head of the church. To engage in it one must have no visible covering for such covering is a sign of being under visible headship. For women to engage in such an activity they would be required to remove their covering. If the hair were their covering it would be a natural covering and could not be removed, which effectively destroys the argument of the apostle. The apostle's later reference to long hair is an illustration from nature that the woman should be covered, thus prohibiting her praying and prophesying in the united assembly of men and women.


Pastor, I do not find this assertion in the text. What I do find is that men should not be covered, and women should be so, when praying and prophesying. Does your interpretation mean that women in Church should remove said covering while engaged in silent prayer? I have every confidence that you have thought your position through very carefully, but then I have the same confidence in Calvin, and yet you come to different conclusions in the matter. If differing with your interpretation has told you anything about me, I hope it is similar to what it has told you about Calvin, because then I will rejoice in the fine company I'm keeping.

I have great respect for your views, sir, but there are a few points where we will differ. I find this similar to the argument for public prayer in King James English. That is preposterous, regardless of the convoluted arguments in its favor. When the KJV was translated, the churchmen of that day did not pray in language of the Angles, Saxons, or Normans, which would be the equivalent. This looks to be another example of a building a rationale to support a familiar and cherished practice rather than objectively determining if the practice is warranted by scripture. I know you are intransigent in that matter, and I'm sure you are in this one, but your intransigence is not proof of your accuracy. 


I won't presume to teach you, nor would I pretend to have the capacity to engage with you on weightier matters, but in these, as with the one I am unconvinced in the other. If that marks me in some derogatory manner as inferred by your earlier veiled ad hominem, I suppose I will just have to bear that mark whatever its character, having been given no certain knowledge of what it might be. All it tells me about you is that even very great wisdom has its limitations, which does not diminish my love for you whatsoever.


Blessings


----------



## Mushroom

lynnie said:


> I became aware of spiritual "presences" regularly when I started wearing a head covering.


Oh, my...


----------



## Hemustincrease

Jeri Tanner said:


> Does this passage place any more prescription on us than, say, 14:1 (or 14:5!) (I'm just making the point that there are valid reasons for understanding a prescriptive passage in light of the issues of the church at the time.)
> 
> It just seems that under the new covenant, the imposition of outward signs is something we're freed from. Something seems strange about acknowledging that circumcision is nothing but that the wearing of coverings (or the length of our hair) is a matter of obedience. But I do appreciate the desire of husbands and wives who prescribe to coverings to be obedient to Scripture, and I do realize that it can't be lightly dismissed.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




I think this is a point worth considering. I don’t see how the passage can be talking only about long hair, however I have often wondered at why it is my conscience is utterly silent on this matter. (This is all going to sound very subjective, and I’m not presuming to trust my conscience above the Word.......just being open about my own feelings.) I did start to wear a head covering for church a while back, but found myself forgetting to put the thing on. I suppose I just didn’t get into the habit (pardon the pun ) of it! However, on the days when I forgot to wear it, I didn’t sense any kind of ‘wrongness’ (bad word choice.....I’m tired) in being there in the worship of God without it on. Ultimately I just gave up altogether. Yet my conscience doesn’t hold back in other areas of life/worship! I hear it loud and clear.


----------



## MW

Mushroom said:


> What I do find is that men should not be covered, and women should be so, when praying and prophesying.



Where do you get the "should" from? It is a matter of fact that "shame" would be involved if the men were covered or the woman uncovered -- "shame" being relative to societal structure. The argument is that the woman should not be praying or prophesying in the assembly where men are present, which is required by 11:3 and stated absolutely in chap. 14. Were they to pray or prophesy they would have to remove their covering, and this would be a shame for them and all one as if they were shaven.

Your view assumes the legitimacy and authority of women to pray and prophesy in a mixed assembly with men, and overturns the fundamental point made by the apostle in verse 3. Anything which contradicts that leading statement is obviously a false interpretation of the main point of the passage.


----------



## MW

Joy by grace said:


> When should I be covered?



When gathered for worship in the mixed assembly of men and women.


----------



## lynnie

_It just seems that under the new covenant, the imposition of outward signs is something we're freed from_

Jeri, if you look at 1 Cor 11 in the Greek, Paul uses the same Greek word in speaking of both head coverings and communion. Both are "delivered down, handed over, tradition". Tradition means something handed down, delivered over from the past. If Paul speaks this way of the outward symbol of the communion elements, why is it so hard to also accept that we have this symbol? ( we also have the symbol of water in baptism).


Rev Winzer...._these angels (messengers) are human_...just curious given past threads...do you believe in intelligent spirit beings that are not human called angels? I was under the impression you don't believe in evil fallen angels or demons, so in that context I wonder if you believe in what we commonly refer to as angels at all, or if you just don't think this section refers to them. Thanks.


----------



## lynnie

Joy....John Bunyan is as far to the right as you can get on the "inferiority" of women. And even he sees the covering command as for the corporate worship.

What Did John Bunyan Believe About Head Covering? | The Head Covering Movement


----------



## MW

lynnie said:


> Rev Winzer...._these angels (messengers) are human_...just curious given past threads...do you believe in intelligent spirit beings that are not human called angels? I was under the impression you don't believe in evil fallen angels or demons, so in that context I wonder if you believe in what we commonly refer to as angels at all, or if you just don't think this section refers to them. Thanks.



Sorry if I have said anything to give that impression. I affirm all that the Larger Catechism affirms in its answer on the creation and providence of God with respect to angels. I deny what is contrary to the Catechism, that they have any intermediary or independent influence in human affairs. They are a part of the providential order. Christ is exalted above them. They are no object of our worship.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I hadn't read Calvin on this until tonight. His comments on tradition are helpful. On 11:2, he says that there were "certain traditions of the apostles that were not committed to writing, but [were not] parts of doctrine, or related to things necessary for salvation...they were connected with order and government. For we know that every Church has liberty to frame for itself a government that is suitable and profitable for it, because the Lord has not prescribed anything definite." He says he'll go on to show how Paul infers from verse 3 that women ought to cover their heads, but I haven't read that far yet, am looking forward to understanding his thought. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Free Christian

I have been wondering if in the time when these parts of scripture were written, the women wore a specific head covering for when they were in mixed worship?
One they would have worn just for that and not one they may have worn at other times also?


----------



## lynnie

Thanks Rev Winzer.

Jeri....I have often wondered, in light of the same Greek usage:

_2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them- paredōka-παρέδωκα- on to you._

and this _23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on paredōka- παρέδωκα- to you _

...if this came directly from the Lord. In verse 23 referring to communion he says that what he is delivering over he got from the Lord. In verse 2 he does not say where what he is delivering over came from. The apostles? The Lord? 

I don't think we can say for sure, but I find it personally impossible to separate them into one command binding on us and one not binding on us. 

In 2 Thess 2:15, _Paul says So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us._ This is an apostolic command to hold not just to written things "delivered over" but also to oral things that had been taught. Does it matter if it came from Paul by way of the holy spirit, or from the Lord directly? I don't think do. But it did come from more than Paul and his own opinion. He is clear in other places that he is speaking personally ("I, not the Lord","in my opinion", etc.). But here he does not make that distinction.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Lynnie, I agree with what you're saying about Paul's use of _paredōka_... I'm not convinced about how his instruction on covering and hair relates to it, though. Wouldn't it be great to hear a discussion of this from a panel of the best Greek scholars. I'd love to hear what we do NOT necessarily have to infer from the Greek in this text, as well as what we do. I remain firmly on the side of finding it highly unlikely that Paul imposes this practice on all Christian women for all times and cultures, and believe instead that it illustrates the principle of modesty and submission (and the creation order). I don't want to sound intractable, but one has to come down eventually on one side or the other, doesn't one. It's a crazily controversial topic, isn't it? It's an important one, too, because of all its ramifications. I think women are needing real help with it; we're vulnerable because of our desire to be godly and submissive, and the head covering movement is apparently growing and influential. Panel of Greek scholars, help! (I read this interesting article today by Daniel B. Wallace, for what it's worth: https://bible.org/article/what-head-covering-1-cor-112-16-and-does-it-apply-us-today.) May the Lord give help to us as we seek to know his will from his word.


----------



## lynnie

Jeri, I read your link, and I am sorry, but I get so tired of these long essays that skip right over the fact that Paul said it was sign to the angels, and make it a sign to people around you. He does refer to Paul's angelology in passing, but moves right on to lengthy opinions about signs to the culture. 

You either think the angels are human messengers like Rev Winzer does, or you think the invisible spirit being angels see things differently than they did in Corinth, and today the angels look at other signs of submission (whatever they are), or somehow you deal with the reference to angels. But please, these people that keep writing as if headcoverings were a sign to the people in the pew fail at basic reading comprehension. If somebody can't face the fact that it is talking about doing this because of the angels, they miss the point. 

Also, I think his comment at the end on why hats don't qualify is poorly reasoned, and I think hats are a nice traditional way to obey this scripture. This: 

_Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women--even biblically submissive wives--resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! _

...is rediculous. The stores are full of nice hats- Sears, Kohls, Target, Wal Mart. Princess Kate (or is she a Duchess?) is a knockout in her hats. So was Di. Any woman can buy a hat. Humiliating??? Maybe this guy has a difficult wife, I don't know. But wearing something on your head is not quite the horrible thing he makes it out to be. 

Anyway, thanks for the comment and the link. But you need to ask yourself why Paul commanded this because of the angels. Are they the invisible spirit ones? Do they see it any differently than they did in Corinth? Is it reasonable to view them as simply humans...is that what Paul meant? Decide whatever you want, but at least get angels into the equation.


----------



## py3ak

I've known people I had no reason to consider unsubmissive to have difficulty wearing hats. It's unfortunate that the option of browbeating them didn't occur to me, I suppose.


----------



## Free Christian

The commentaries on this passage which I have read 1 Corinthians 11 v 10 say the angels were actual angels, one or two seemed not sure and offered up a couple of possibilities. Some stated that the Jews believed angels were present in their worship assemblies.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

*Is Hair Considered a Covering in Worship? Comparing 1 Corinthians 11:6 and 11...*

Linnie, I don't have a problem with the angels being either heavenly beings or humans. I just don't know, and I think the honest difference of opinion among able men reflects that this is a difficult passage. I was thinking this morning about the passage in 1 Peter 3: "Do not let your adorning be external-the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious." This thought, in my view, is the very antithesis of interpreting Paul in 1 Corinthians to be saying that an external sign of this modesty and gentleness is any part of what God requires. I could be wrong. I don't believe that a right reading of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 yields the interpretation you have. Again, I could be wrong. I see this issue as something along the lines of holding to the dispensational view; there are the promises of land to Israel and there is the temple in Ezekiel, but biblical theology sheds light on our systematic theology (if that makes any sense). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lynnie

Jeri, I see commands with outward symbols to be obeyed, and of course the heart should match the symbol. What matters, being sprinkled with water in baptism or being united with Christ? Both. What matters, taking communion or truly eating and drinking of the Lord? Both. What matters, laying hands on a man who is being ordained, or that the man walk in the godly authority from God that is being granted to him? Both. I don't see the two as being separated. Both are commanded. That is how I see headcoverings. 

New testament commands are a whole different thing form OT ceremonial commands that were fulfilled in Christ. Baptism, communion, the laying on of hands, and head coverings are all NT commands.


----------



## a mere housewife

Lynnie, this passage is regulating a charismatic gift. We don’t derive an order of service from the regulations about tongues. In this case hair is cited as standing for an abiding principle that the Corinthian woman were struggling with (and I believe they were struggling with it in their own cultural context: as have a few reformed commentators) – they had received the same prophetic outpouring as the sons, and needed to be reminded that this did not overturn the order of Creation. By creation, women have a head and have a covering, and should behave accordingly – even when engaged in exercising a charismatic gift. (I think the regulation on women not speaking in the assemblies is the focus of a later passage: the focus on this one seems to be that even a direct, supernatural gift -- wherever exercised – does not nullify the created order). I am unconvinced that we are supposed to derive doctrines of angels or of headcoverings or of hair length from the passage. 

I think that Jeri’s point about the vulnerability of submissive women to bad (manipulative) argumentation is worth noting – it isn’t a good argument to imply that there is some kind of character issue where a woman will not see the passage or experience the experience in whichever particular way a proponent is arguing (there are clearly a number of distinct and even opposed interpretations for both sides of the practice). I don’t think it’s kind to imply (if I read you right) that the writer of the article has a troublesome wife, if she doesn’t like standing out via what amounts in our culture to a fashion statement (citing royalty only confirms this – it’s quite a parade when they put on their hats: most people don’t see respect for order, but simple – or more complicated – display), in a place where other women are not making that statement. I didn’t read the article, so if he implied that women who are convicted of this practice are simply displaying, that is something I would very strongly disagree with. I do know first hand that even women convicted of the practice struggle with going against ‘custom’.

I don’t like to argue over what isn’t even a confessional matter, and so probably won’t be engaging further in this thread. I've stated my own understanding because it makes sense to me of a puzzling part of Scripture: God is capable of convincing my or another person's conscience, and I believe it is more important that our consciences are tender towards Him than that others should confirm our views: I think God cares a great deal about tenderness of conscience. I confess to failing in it all the time, but I am blessed to have that example in women on both sides of this discussion. I hope you are well: it's genuinely always a blessing to even think of you.


----------



## MW

I understand the reticence to focus attention on a point like this. Nor would I say it is confessional in the proper sense. But (1) there is a Christian and confessional stance towards "nature," and 1 Cor. 11 is adduced in support of it, WCF 1.6, particularly in relation to worship. (2) Concession to anti-natural cultural relevancy can be a slippery slope. (3) Sound biblical interpretation should always be a concern for an evangelically committed Christian.

The concern with "signs" is well warranted. Romanism sought to turn basic natural and cultural norms into sacramental signs. This "sign," however (allowing a broader usage for the word), is not ceremonial, but cultural, in the same way that customary reverential gesture is required by Scripture in approaching God. E.g., bowing the head and closing the eyes in prayer is something "nature" teaches us in our culture, even though another culture may have different gestures. The point in relation to coverings is that "something" is required, and claiming cultural redundancy only serves to assist the anti-natural unisex culture of our day.


----------



## Claudiu

Just an observation, but some of the folks that say that the hair is a covering and no other is needed are the same one's whose women have rather short hair, and men long hair. I think it's inconsistent.


----------



## Free Christian

Claudiu said:


> Just an observation, but some of the folks that say that the hair is a covering and no other is needed are the same one's whose women have rather short hair, and men long hair. I think it's inconsistent.


Now that's what I call a can of worms! I notice that many, men, from our early churches days wore long hair.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Well, it's been a rousing discussion and at the end of the day, it's certainly true that everyone must go by their own present convictions on the matter. I appreciate the desire to honor the Lord and his gospel of everyone who has commented, including Herald, who asked the question that quickly got sidetracked! I'm sure it's not the last time this will be discussed. I am presently convinced but hope I'm willing to change my mind if otherwise convinced by Scripture. Thanks for all the thoughtful comments; each one helped me in my thinking on this issue. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mushroom

Claudiu said:


> Just an observation, but some of the folks that say that the hair is a covering and no other is needed are the same one's whose women have rather short hair, and men long hair. I think it's inconsistent.


An entirely unsupported assertion in my experience, but perhaps we run in different circles. My hair is buzz-cut, and my beloved bride has beautiful flowing tresses... per the plain instruction of scripture. Not the convoluted nonsense that supports a preferred extra-biblical practice.


----------



## Claudiu

Free Christian said:


> Claudiu said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just an observation, but some of the folks that say that the hair is a covering and no other is needed are the same one's whose women have rather short hair, and men long hair. I think it's inconsistent.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's what I call a can of worms! I notice that many, men, from our early churches days wore long hair.
Click to expand...


I mention that observation because as I'm trying to work out the biblical position I'm looking for consistency. Also, I'm not just referring to this topic. Culture does seem to play a role on how we interpret and enforce certain doctrines and practices. Some things are relative, or up to conscience, and others not. The Reformed sometimes are at risk of pulling out the conscience card and just brushing a doctrinal matter aside. I'm trying to stay away from that side or the overly dogmatic side on things that are genuinely up for conscience.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

I do not really want to get too much into this conversation, but I did think of something that is interesting. Since Deacon is an office of the local session or consistory, what would you say about our brothers and sisters in the RPCNA, who hold to a deaconess position? Since it is an office, wouldn't deaconesses be able to pray amongst the assembly of men? If not, then what would you say concerning the office of deacon(ness)?


----------



## lynnie

Heidi, I am not trying to be unkind. But IF- IF- a person believes Paul is writing this to us today, not merely to Corinth in his day- and I realize that many if not most people do not believe it is for today-

The IF you do believe it holds today, to whine about how humiliating it is to make a woman do it is simply ghastly. This is like whining about how horrible it is to say you can't have sex before marriage or be gay or get drunk run up the credit cards for a trip to Orlando. Obeying God IS hard, very hard. Americans are a culture of whining victims, and IF you DO believe it is for today, then you do it. And if you feel all humiliated and wierd and self conscious, well then, beg God for grace. Pray and fast and seek God until you can do it. It took me a while to get past the self conscious feelings. So what?

People all over the world are getting stoned to death and beheaded for their Christian faith. Going to jail, losing jobs, being disowned by families. And somebody who thinks the bible teaches headcoverings are for today does not have to do it because they might feel ....humiliated???? Are you kidding me?

That author is obviously struggling with what he used to believe and trying to be Mr. Nice Guy now about it all and twist the subject so no woman feels self conscious. I think it is wrong. I can't count the number of people who have told us to our face they believe in headcoverings but won't do it/admit it because other people will get upset, or they will look legalistic or catholic or might bother the church elders, or headcoverings look stupid. 

If you don't believe it is for today, that is one thing. Your conscience is clear. But if you DO think it is a clear command binding on us today, then don't whine about how hard it is to wear a hat. ( not talking to you, I am, speaking of the link). Ask God to give you some strength and pray for people losing their life over their faith. To think it is commanded for us, but then say it is just too cruel to ask women to obey it, is disgraceful.


----------



## Logan

lynnie said:


> IF- IF- a person believes Paul is writing this to us today, not merely to Corinth in his day- and I realize that many if not most people do not believe it is for today-



I don't know that anyone is saying this isn't for today, but the question is what does the passage teach? A specific physical practice, or a general principle?

In Revelation, the letters to the seven churches were for specific churches, yet who here would say they are irrelevant? They are generally applicable.
Is 1Co 7 irrelevant? No, but it had special application for Paul's day. This is a far cry from tearing pages out of the Bible. No one here (that I know of) believes Paul is writing "merely to Corinth in his day" with respect to head coverings.


----------



## a mere housewife

Lynnie, if the author was presenting a personal conviction he has come to that a doctrine of headcovering isn't the point of this passage, then secondary reasons (he has a difficult wife) shouldn't be sought. It is a valid point that a sense of modesty is involved in a reluctance to be singular for no good reason, and it would be unwise to overcome that without a conviction. Speculation about the character of another man's wife will not appeal except to people who find any stick good enough to beat the opposition -- or themselves -- with. I have no wish to participate in discussion where that dynamic is involved, on either side. 

Rev. Winzer, your view is the only one I have heard that consistently allows that women could ever take the covering off. Yet a number of objections occur to that reading, which I don't feel able or desirous to state in this setting. (Free speech about many matters isn't worth much to me, and is only possible in environments of charity and peace.)


----------



## Jeri Tanner

*Is Hair Considered a Covering in Worship? Comparing 1 Corinthians 11:6 and 11...*

Just want to say in defense of the author of the article I linked to (who is a well-respected seminary professor of Greek); the author makes no mention of his wife's preferences one way or the other. He seems to have come to a different understanding of Paul's meaning in chapter 11 from his studies of the text, not from anyone's discomfort. (Edit: In re-reading the article, I don't really agree with his conclusion anyway; it would be better not to bring how women feel into the conversation, and probably would have been better not to have posted the link.) But I don't believe he bases his change in thinking on his preferences or feelings. Nobody should. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lynnie

Heidi- that was an out of place crack, you are correct. So let me state it more carefully-

If a man thinks that asking women to do something that they feel is humiliating is wrong, even if ( I understand we don't agree on the if) it is what the New testament commands us, I really think he has had some bad experiences with women. OK? My opinion only. I can not speculate on who the women are. I am commenting on a public link with his conclusions, and think that those conclusions probably reflect some women in his past days when he taught a straightforward belief in headcoverings. If the women had told him how glad they were that God used him to open their eyes and how grateful they are that he taught them this, I doubt we'd see him trying to finagle a new symbol that women are happier with. 

I went through this with girls at church a while back and our pool and beach trips. It is SOOOOOOO humiliating and mean for me to insist on one piece bathing suits when EVERYBODY wears two piece and you look like a freak in a one piece. Uh huh. 

The question is not how women feel, it is what the bible says. Every egalitarian site out there is rife with accusations of men humiliating women by denying them the right to be elders and pastors. 

I think we need to teach people that humiliation is part of the package. I mean, young earth creationism? You think believeing in that doesn't bring ridicule? Gay marriage is wrong? 

It is fine to not believe in headcoverings if that is your studious conclusion. It is not fine to believe in them but worry about humiliating women by saying so.


----------



## Tim

I find it so sad that some women find headcoverings to be humiliating*. Where does this thought come from?

I, for one, find it most attractive (in the most appropriate, Biblical way) to see younger women and older women wearing a headcovering during times of worship. It is a sign of submission, to be sure, but it is a sign that points to a wonderfully beautiful femininity worthy of admiration.

*I mean humiliating in a bad way. This is different, I think, than the approach Lynnie has taken above.


----------



## Free Christian

a mere housewife said:


> your view is the only one I have heard that consistently allows that women could ever take the covering off.


That appears to be the case to me, that they can put it on or take it off. In 1 Corinthians 11 v 6 it clearly shows me a women can be either covered or uncovered, that if she decides to be uncovered then to be shorn. So if she is not covered, but told to be shorn if she chooses not to be covered, then she is to me choosing to remove the cover. Which she can also put back on. It says if the women be not covered then let her also be shorn. If she is not covered and that not being covered is her hair then why is she asked to be shorn if it was already so? The covering can only be something other than her hair!


----------



## kodos

Heidi's charismatic gift argument is what I have recently heard from Rev. Sawtelle as he interprets this section of Scripture. Providentially, I JUST listened to it on my ride in and I want to do some of my own homework first, but it sounded pretty compelling in context of the epistle, especially considering that Paul seems particularly concerned with _praying and prophesying_ (1 Cor 11:5). He then goes on to discuss this in light of cessationist theology. Again, I haven't done all of my homework on this yet, but it was a pretty good sermon, I thought.

Head Coverings: A Cessationist Argument | SermonAudio.com



a mere housewife said:


> Lynnie, this passage is regulating a charismatic gift. We don’t derive an order of service from the regulations about tongues. In this case hair is cited as standing for an abiding principle that the Corinthian woman were struggling with (and I believe they were struggling with it in their own cultural context: as have a few reformed commentators) – they had received the same prophetic outpouring as the sons, and needed to be reminded that this did not overturn the order of Creation. By creation, women have a head and have a covering, and should behave accordingly – even when engaged in exercising a charismatic gift. (I think the regulation on women not speaking in the assemblies is the focus of a later passage: the focus on this one seems to be that even a direct, supernatural gift -- wherever exercised – does not nullify the created order). I am unconvinced that we are supposed to derive doctrines of angels or of headcoverings or of hair length from the passage.
> 
> I think that Jeri’s point about the vulnerability of submissive women to bad (manipulative) argumentation is worth noting – it isn’t a good argument to imply that there is some kind of character issue where a woman will not see the passage or experience the experience in whichever particular way a proponent is arguing (there are clearly a number of distinct and even opposed interpretations for both sides of the practice). I don’t think it’s kind to imply (if I read you right) that the writer of the article has a troublesome wife, if she doesn’t like standing out via what amounts in our culture to a fashion statement (citing royalty only confirms this – it’s quite a parade when they put on their hats: most people don’t see respect for order, but simple – or more complicated – display), in a place where other women are not making that statement. I didn’t read the article, so if he implied that women who are convicted of this practice are simply displaying, that is something I would very strongly disagree with. I do know first hand that even women convicted of the practice struggle with going against ‘custom’.
> 
> I don’t like to argue over what isn’t even a confessional matter, and so probably won’t be engaging further in this thread. I've stated my own understanding because it makes sense to me of a puzzling part of Scripture: God is capable of convincing my or another person's conscience, and I believe it is more important that our consciences are tender towards Him than that others should confirm our views: I think God cares a great deal about tenderness of conscience. I confess to failing in it all the time, but I am blessed to have that example in women on both sides of this discussion. I hope you are well: it's genuinely always a blessing to even think of you.


----------



## MW

The issue of women praying and prophesying in the united assembly was clearly a matter of concern, as was the participation of the Lord's supper without respect to others. Both are exceptions to the praise given for observing apostolic ordinances, 11:2. In addressing these concerns, however, the apostle reasons from fundamental principles which have broad application. In the first concern he goes back to creation; in the second he reiterates the original institution. What he teaches is not confined to the specific concerns he addresses but has broad reaching application to the church gathering.

In the case of women praying and prophesying it should be noted that the expectation for her to uncover her head to engage in the action is an argument against the action. It would be a shame for her to do so. The basic premise of this argument is that she should not have her head uncovered in the united assembly. It especially applies to the activity of praying and prophesying, but that is only because it applies in general to her presence in the assembly.


----------



## Angela A

I have read all these posts and I am still unsure of it being something other than the hair. From what I have read in the scripture it was for the angels? 1 Co 11:10. 
I have heard it said this was for then not today 
Or the Corinth church had problems with women in the church. But that always confused me. If this? The head covering is for today also wouldn't that also mean no fancy jewelry. 1 Tim 2.9
I don't really wear make up or jewelry with exception to a cross necklace my husband bought me which has with God nothing is impossible inscribed on it (because to me the fact my husband got it for me was a testimony amd confirmation in itself so I never take it off) . 
Also if i started going to church with a veil on my head my husband would say i was in a cult. 
If it is for the Angels should i do it in secret at home when when praying?


----------



## Angela A

I also meant to add if they were having problems with the Corinth women how much more problems are we having today with un properly dressed women today who gossip in the church during prayer? 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Mushroom

I am not a minister of the gospel, sister, but my reading, and that of the Church officers set over me, is that what Paul said by the Holy Spirit is true - that a woman's hair is given to her as a covering. Some here will disagree, and would want to bind your conscience and lay on you burdens difficult to bear. My recommendation is that you consult with the Church officers the Lord has placed over you, and ignore the assertions of strangers on the internet.


----------



## Angela A

Thank you. Currently the church I go to does not practice this. And to my understanding if this is to be as to the husband form of submitting it would be more of embarrassing to him for me to be wearing a veil as he is not yet saved. But if it honors God and angels I would do it in my personal prayer time. 
As for humiliation well I have no problem with that. I humiliated myself enough whilst drunk and high seems more honorable to do so for my savior [emoji1]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Scottish Lass

I'm not sure I understand why it matters if one's church teaches/practices this, if one is personally convicted. I've never been a member of a church where it's practiced by more than a a few. In addition, the fact that I (and Gracie) cover has never caused the discord that everyone seems to think it will.


----------



## Mushroom

It matters what the leaders the Lord sets over us teach us. Maybe more important than what we hear internet forums.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Scottish Lass

Mushroom said:


> It matters what the leaders the Lord sets over us teach us. Maybe more important than what we hear internet forums.
> 
> Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


Not sure what you're implying there. Most don't teach on it all, in the first place.


----------



## greenbaggins

I have vacillated to and fro on this issue a few times, but I keep coming back to the "long hair is the covering" position. The difference in Greek words is not convincing for the other position, since stylistic variation is common in Koine Greek. Matthew's argument is the strongest for a separate covering, and it is certainly a well-respected opinion. I would point out, however, that long hair can be removed: it's called a haircut. I am not sure why the temperature on this issue has gotten so high. Is there a need for that? I agree that how people feel about the issue is completely irrelevant. I deeply respect ladies who believe that the passage teaches them to wear a head-covering other than their hair. I have no problem if people interpret the text that way. But as the text is not particularly clear, charity should rule on this issue.


----------



## Ryan J. Ross

greenbaggins said:


> but I keep coming back to the "long hair is the covering" position. The difference in Greek words is not convincing for the other position.



Rev. Keister, would you help me understand your reading of the following verses? I don't know the Greek.

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.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Is it your understanding that "head uncovered" means short hair and that "shorn or shaven" signifies even less than short or no hair? I have had difficulty understanding the long hair argument in view of this section, so any assistance would be greatly appreciated. If the above is your interpretation, then would v. 7 suggest "head covered" to mean "long hair"?


----------



## Mushroom

Scottish Lass said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters what the leaders the Lord sets over us teach us. Maybe more important than what we hear internet forums.
> 
> Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you're implying there. Most don't teach on it all, in the first place.
Click to expand...

Anna, my implication is that while you may not have heard a Pastor or Elder teach on this matter, others of us have, and it would likely behoove us to trust the men the Lord sets over us rather than what we're told on an internet forum until we can cite obvious error. We have as a case in point a new member here, a relatively recent convert, with an unbelieving husband. It has been implied in this thread, albeit in a veiled manner, _by a minister of the gospel_, that there is something deficient or nefarious in those who come to the conclusion that the covering referred to is hair, which is just getting weird. 

If her Church doesn't practice secondary headcoverings, then to assume they 'don't teach on it' violates the ninth commandment. It is scripture - it is to be taught in the Churches. Charitable judgment would instead assume they DO teach on it, and that they teach the covering to be hair. Attempting to overthrow the authority of her Church officers by binding her conscience and laying a burden upon her that is of questionable biblical accuracy would be wrong, and even more so that by it she would suffer greater difficulty with her husband. You may disagree with their teaching. I don't. But neither of us should usurp what the Lord has set over her. I don't care if some women in some Churches want to wear doilies. I don't try to stop them. But I also think they ought not go about trying to convince other women to put on doilies. She should consult the shepherds the Lord has given her on such matters.


----------



## greenbaggins

Ryan, at the moment, I would be hesitant to comment on your excellent question, only because I have not studied the passage in great depth yet. I know this sounds like a dodge, but I really don't feel comfortable commenting on it until I have done my exegetical work in-depth.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Mushroom said:


> I don't care if some women in some Churches want to wear doilies. I don't try to stop them. But I also think they ought not go about trying to convince other women to put on doilies.


I've done no such thing.


----------



## Mushroom

Scottish Lass said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if some women in some Churches want to wear doilies. I don't try to stop them. But I also think they ought not go about trying to convince other women to put on doilies.
> 
> 
> 
> I've done no such thing.
Click to expand...

Anna, dear sister, I did not mean to imply that you had. My purpose was to point out that we can find all kinds of arguments one way or another on any subject on the internet, but that the Lord sets over us shepherds who have a responsibility and are accountable to the Lord in the care for our souls. You are a Pastor's wife. Might I humbly submit that your position is quite different from that of Angela's, and that the charity advised by Rev. Keister above is particularly called for in this instance?


----------



## MW

I agree with the call to charity. But charity is not indifference to others. It seeks what is good for them. And if this particular text is clear to any, then charity would dictate hoping the best by seeking to convey that meaning so that the confusion of others might be cleared up.


----------



## Mushroom

To declare a matter lawful and _necessary_ it seems we should have incontrovertible evidence.

So, Matthew, let me ask this - would it be acceptable in your view for a woman to have a shaved head as long as she wore a separate covering? Why or why not?


----------



## Scottish Lass

Mushroom said:


> Charitable judgment would instead assume they DO teach on it, and that they teach the covering to be hair.


I would suggest that since we both used the term "most churches" (not even "most Reformed churches"), that the teaching is far more likely "That was then; this is now," since those same churches aren't instructing all women (or even just wives) to have long hair, disciplining those that don't, etc.?


----------



## MW

Mushroom said:


> To declare a matter lawful and _necessary_ it seems we should have incontrovertible evidence.
> 
> So, Matthew, let me ask this - would it be acceptable in your view for a woman to have a shaved head as long as she wore a separate covering? Why or why not?



I don't understand the intent of your statement or your question. The evidence for this cultural sign is in the text. Nothing in the text suggests the hair is the covering. Everything in the text works against it. The suggestion of cutting hair as taking off the covering would have the woman cutting her hair and being unable to attend the assembly again until her hair grows back. Every imposition on the text just lays a heavier imposition on the woman, It is better to stick to what the Word teaches and relieve her of such burdens.


----------



## lynnie

Hey Brad-

I have spoken to numerous men and women over the years who have told me/us to our face that they believe this command is for today and that women should wear headcoverings. But they don't, because the pastor does not believe it, or they think the elders wont like it or people in the church might think they are legalistic. When I/we say: "are you telling me you think God commands you to do this but you are not because of your church", they say yes.

What on earth kind of mentality is this? You think scripture commands something but you can't do it because of your church?

It does not matter who is right about headcoverings in this situation, but that a person here disobeys what they are convinced is a New Testament command because of his pastor/church. Huh? Are you kidding me?

If a church does not allow that freedom of conscience, run as fast as you can and never look back.


----------



## psycheives

Tim said:


> I find it so sad that some women find headcoverings to be humiliating*. Where does this thought come from?
> 
> I, for one, find it most attractive (in the most appropriate, Biblical way) to see younger women and older women wearing a headcovering during times of worship. It is a sign of submission, to be sure, but it is a sign that points to a wonderfully beautiful femininity worthy of admiration.



As a girl who wears a headcovering, I agree that it is wonderful to wear this in obedience to my Lord. The two pressures come from 1) I look stupid and legalistic to others and 2) it hides my glory - my hair and I look less attractive. Which is fine by me. But I can totally see the struggle many women must feel who enjoy dressing up and looking their best on Sunday. Only to cover their hair and extinguish this great aspect of their beauty. But I agree with you - a women obeying the Lord is the most beautiful thing of all.


----------



## One Little Nail

psycheives said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it so sad that some women find headcoverings to be humiliating*. Where does this thought come from?
> 
> I, for one, find it most attractive (in the most appropriate, Biblical way) to see younger women and older women wearing a headcovering during times of worship. It is a sign of submission, to be sure, but it is a sign that points to a wonderfully beautiful femininity worthy of admiration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a girl who wears a headcovering, I agree that it is wonderful to wear this in obedience to my Lord. The two pressures come from 1) I look stupid and legalistic to others and 2) it hides my glory - my hair and I look less attractive. Which is fine by me. But I can totally see the struggle many women must feel who enjoy dressing up and looking their best on Sunday. Only to cover their hair and extinguish this great aspect of their beauty. But I agree with you - a women obeying the Lord is the most beautiful thing of all.
Click to expand...


You've got very beautiful eyes Psyche , I think the head covering would highlight that. I wish I could get my wife to wear a head covering.


----------



## psycheives

Thanks, Robert  What is the reason she gives for not wearing one?


----------



## Mindaboo

I have respect for women who both wear and don't wear headcoverings. My church has women who do cover and women who don't. I do not, because I'm not convinced that I need to. I've studied it, read commentaries, spoken with numerous pastor's I've sat under, and discussed this with my husband. I am confident that if I am in error in this matter the Lord through His Word and Spirit will convict me of this matter. This thread has not done that. I am not one to go with the flow. If I was the ONLY woman in my church to wear a covering, I wouldn't care what others thought. If my husband asked me to wear a covering even if I didn't agree with his stand, I would. This is not an issue that determines salvation. The Lord knows my heart, and if I'm in sin, eventually He's going to deal with me on that.


----------



## One Little Nail

psycheives said:


> Thanks, Robert  What is the reason she gives for not wearing one?



Ive mentioned it a couple of times, My wife would feel embarrassed & self conscience.


----------



## Rob Marsh

I've enjoyed following this thread. My wife and daughters do wear the covering to church, and one observation I've noticed when visiting other churches is that you will have people come up to you, out of the blue, and they will comment quietly that they agree Scripturally with the practice and love to see it in the church again, but alas, it's just not something practiced anyone, so no one does it anymore (save for a few women of mature years who continue the practice of wearing a hat to church.)


----------



## SherlockLogic

In light of the view favoring a separate covering, at what point should daughters begin to cover their heads?


----------



## Scottish Lass

SherlockLogic said:


> In light of the view favoring a separate covering, at what point should daughters begin to cover their heads?


There's variation on this in h/c community, but we've covered our daughter from the first Sunday she was physically able to attend corporate worship.


----------



## psycheives

One Little Nail said:


> psycheives said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Robert  What is the reason she gives for not wearing one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive mentioned it a couple of times, My wife would feel embarrassed & self conscience.
Click to expand...


She should take comfort in knowing that it is actually not easy to spot, depending on the type of covering. I knew this woman in my church who wore a covering that completely hid her hair and the material hung down her back maybe a foot. I did NOT know it was her headcovering! I thought it was just her style. And I wore my short covering (completely covering my hair and tucking it into the covering) and she did NOT know it was a covering! She later told me that she had thought it was just my style as well! So we talked to one another every week and went on like this for months, then finally one day she asked me and we found out that we both were wearing coverings and didn't even know it! Oh, and she should know there are many types of coverings and I'm sure she could find one she felt comfortable with.

But most of all, if she's convicted that there is even a possibility that it is a sin issue, doing God's will should be her main reason. Cover her glory, so God's glory shines during the service.

And to Mindy - I absolutely love and respect your strength and desire to do what is right!    Might I please though, encourage you to take one more look at the arguments? When reading the arguments against head coverings, I wrote down their 5 or so objections. Then I read the best arguments against those 5 objections. I saw the best arguments defeated the 5 objections completely, leaving no doubt that I was to wear a covering. And the main reason is based on creation, because of headship, because of angels, and because God's glory is to be shown and not man's in the service. Paul does not appeal to culture which changes, but appeals to creation, which does not change with time.


----------



## One Little Nail

I was going to contribute to the thread but held off, on pondering what Paul meant when he was saying that a woman if 
she would pray & prophesy without her headcovering or with her head uncovered, she should be shorn or "for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

Is not the male shorn or shaven of head & doesn't he not have long hair as a natural covering, so then to be as one shaven is to be basically a man or for the woman, as Paul say, if she were taking the role & function of the male.

also what threw me off was when Paul finishes off the teaching with "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." which seems to invalidate all he said up to this point, but I realised he must 
be referring to women praying & prophesying in Church.


----------

