Headcoverings and the RPNA's position paper

Status
Not open for further replies.

BaptistCanuk

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Warning, I will request this thread to be closed if ppl continue to drag out others private information or make disparaging remarks.

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

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

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by BaptistCanuk]
 

CDM

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

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

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 :ditto: without contributing anything. At least...that's what "I've" been told.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by mangum]
 

BaptistCanuk

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

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

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 :ditto: without contributing anything. At least...that's what "I've" been told.

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

No, it's not cool. It is considered rude and a waste of bandwidth on most message boards. So now YOU'RE going to commit the logical fallacy of appealing to the majority?

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

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

You implied it. And you know it.

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

There is no need to withdraw it. If I was wrong (which I'm not), big deal. We're grown ups and I'm not going to allow you to bully me.

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

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

Get over yourself. While you're at it quit trying to bully me. You're not going to succeed.

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

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

Again, why would someone ditto something without contributing anything to the post except to waste bandwidth and violate message board protocol?

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by mangum]

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

BaptistCanuk

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
If you believe that it is a cultural point then please argue from that point.

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

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

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by BaptistCanuk]
 

LadyFlynt

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

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

BaptistCanuk

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

Well, then you guys should consider how you're coming across. I have been attacked for my beliefs from my first post. All I did was say what I believe. I never attacked anyone's beliefs. Why would you tell me to argue it when every time I do that, I get attacked? The position paper: incorrect. And I believe I said why.

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

How come around here, the only church that practises it is the Brethren church? I believe it is cultural because it was written to ONE church in ONE city in ONE book of the Bible. Does that really constitute binding doctrine to the whole church throughout the whole church age? I believe it is cultural because in that area of the world, if you DIDN'T cover your head you were considered a prostitute? At this time in history would someone consider you a prostitute if you didn't cover your head?

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

LadyFlynt

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

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

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

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

Pilgrim

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

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

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

BaptistCanuk

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

I am allowed to work there...when they give me the authorization. Even then, she still HAS to work because she is required to make a certain amount of money no matter how much I make. That's the law. Trust me, we're familiar with it. It takes time to become a citizen and I may/may not do that. As for her moving to Canada, there are plenty of reasons why she can't. Hence the fact I have to go there, which I'm not crazy about. I love my country.

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

No. That's different. The majority of people no longer practise many of the things in the Old Testament. Why don't they?

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

Why is it not cultural? I believe it is cultural because MANY things were cultural. Again, why don't we practise everything in the Old Testament? As for the other cultures, them practising it doesn't make them right. they could just be mistaken in that they may think it's binding when really, it was a cultural thing. Again, I can bring up the fallacy of appealing to the majority like it was done to me. As for communion, that is a command to practise until the Lord's return.

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

Ok. Then where did the teaching that it was referring to prostitutes come from? If it is wrong, then the people who started that teaching were false teachers. I have only said what I was taught.
 

LadyFlynt

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

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

My understanding is that it was the norm (at least during worship) until the 1950's.
Correct...though it was starting to dwindle before then.
 

LadyFlynt

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

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

BaptistCanuk

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

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

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

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

Archlute

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speak your thoughts.
 

Lauren Mary

Puritan Board Freshman
Dear Brian et al.

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

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

Blessings,
LM
 

LadyFlynt

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

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

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Are women who do not cover their heads in the public worship of God in sin?

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

What about private worship?

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

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

LadyFlynt

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Are women who do not cover their heads in the public worship of God in sin?

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

What about private worship?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

satz

Puritan Board Senior
Let me just make one tiny little comment.

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

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

[Edited on 8-28-2006 by satz]
 

LadyFlynt

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

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

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Are women who do not cover their heads in the public worship of God in sin?

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

What about private worship?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MW

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

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

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

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

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
But it says when prophesying and praying. Should a man never wear a hat?

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

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
It's based on headship order/creation order.

[Edited on 8-29-2006 by LadyFlynt]

But you previously said:

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

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

Lauren Mary

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


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