Headcoverings and the RPNA's position paper

[Lauren Mary]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings all,
Lauren Mary

 

[MW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings!

 

[LadyFlynt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, there are my reasons.

 

[Augusta]

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

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

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

 

[LadyFlynt]

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

 

[MW]

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

Traci,

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

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

 

[Augusta]

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

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

 

[Lauren Mary]

To Satz et al. regarding the question:

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


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

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

 

[satz]

Thanks Colleen and Lauren!

 

[BaptistCanuk]

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

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

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

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

 

[LadyFlynt]

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

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

Whoa! You are way off base!

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

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

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

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

 

[LadyFlynt]

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

I wouldn't be laughing too hard.

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

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by LadyFlynt]

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt

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

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

Whoa! You are way off base!

Ok.

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

Aren't we to submit to one another? Isn't her "spiritual" head, Christ?

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

But if he's not right in the first place or is not serving the Lord, she doesn't. Her spiritual head is Christ. So a wise husband makes his wife feel good by at least listening to her? Does this make her feel special? How do some of you interpret the "submit to one another" verse?

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

Hey, I agree. But if the woman does have an attitude problem, the man can't exactly force her to put something on her head. Jesus Himself, wouldn't. My responsibility as a man is to guide her in her relationship with the Lord but I cannot force her to put something on her head. She will be accountable before God for her decision, not me. I can only talk to her and pray for her. Any man who would TRY to force her to do so, would have an attitude problem himself.

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

Maybe so. And I'm sure there are some women who look at the women that don't cover their heads and think that they are somehow better or more holy. If they did THAT, they would have an attitude problem as well.

Now, I have a question. What if the woman was abused by her ex-husband and almost killed? That could make it a little bit hard to submit, no? People are so quick to force women to be their slaves without taking the time to understand the woman, as we are instructed to in the Bible. I want a wife...not a slave.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt

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

I wouldn't be laughing too hard.

Apparently you don't understand my sense of humour. That's fine.

I was laughing at the fact that if the RPW people on here weren't going to ask her about covering her face, then I was going to. As I see no place in Scripture that commands women to cover their faces when praying. I'm not against it whatsoever, it is just not commanded is it?

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

Again, according to RPWers, we follow Scriptural commands not other cultures. Muslim culture kneels on the floor in the middle of work to pray, but we don't follow them.

Again, I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. My point was that Scripture doesn't command us to do it and if the RPWers weren't going to ask her about it, I would. Basically, I was using this situation to make a point relating to a past debate. And I think I made it.

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by LadyFlynt]

 

[LadyFlynt]

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

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

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

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

 

[BaptistCanuk]

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

But some men are "boss" fanatics. They will attempt to "force" their wives to do whatever they say. If the woman feels it is not necessary to wear a head covering then he would be trying to make her go against her conscience and sin. When it comes to what she should put on her body, shouldn't she make the final decision?

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

That's good to hear. I believe in mutual submission, I believe the Bible teaches it. I believe the husband should love his wife, and that means guiding her but not "forcing" her to do anything. She's a grown woman, not a child.

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

That's fine. I would have done the same thing. Telling your wife she should probably not go to a certain place is one thing; telling her what to put on her body is another.

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

Well, when that husband who tried to kill her also cheated on her she is entitled to a divorce. But my point was, sometimes things are harder for some people than for others. It would take a lot of work and prayer for a woman with this experience to be a super submissive Christian woman. And we have to know and understand the person, not force things on them. For example, the gentleman who is giving his wife one month to submit. Some of us say, good luck.

 

[LadyFlynt]

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

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

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

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by LadyFlynt]

 

[BaptistCanuk]

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

Apparently, you haven't been listening to me. Because I said that the husband should guide his wife, pray for her, etc. But you know as well as I know that there are many men out there who equate "headship" with "slavemaster" and it is THAT that I am against. I am not equivocating anything, I am simply stating what I am against. Being the head (although I don't refer to it as "spiritual" head, a woman doesn't need a "spiritual" head) is about loving your wife, not being a slave master. If you agree with that, then what are we arguing about?

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

Is not your body your own as well? I never said a man can't ask his wife to wear a longer skirt, etc. but he has no right to force his wife to cover her head when she prays if she doesn't BELIEVE THAT. Obviously this is a tough issue as the church has differing views on it. She may just NOT BELIEVE THAT.

3) You NOW throw in the adultery. Sorry, you got the wrong person on the board for that one. I don't believe adultery is cause for divorce. Fornication yes...adultery no.

I did it NOW because I didn't think it was necessary in the beginning. One would think that a man trying to kill his wife would be sufficient cause but then, one could never assume that another would think that now can they?

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

 

[BaptistCanuk]

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

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

 

[Croghanite]

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

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

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

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by LadyFlynt]

 

[BaptistCanuk]

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

 

[BaptistCanuk]

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

 

[LadyFlynt]

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

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

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

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

 

[LadyFlynt]

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

 

[CDM]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[tcalbrecht]

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

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

What about private worship?

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

 

[BaptistCanuk]

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

I don't know...every church I've been to except one has women with no head covering.

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

Agreed.

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

I don't think so. I just disagree on the extent some of you go to.

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

Fair enough. When I take the tone that I received from your post, it will be considered to be ok then? You can let me know where you stand and why without appearing the way you did. I have let you know where I stand and why, and frankly, I get the impression that people don't like to know where I stand and why.

 

[CDM]

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

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

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

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by mangum]

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by mangum

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

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

So, BaptistCanuck, what is YOUR interpretation then?

My interpretation is that it is a cultural thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by mangum

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

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

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