Headcoverings Revisited

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht
I wouldn't judge another person's heart in this regard. There are enough legitimate questions on the subject and extent of 1 Cor. 11 to make the head covering issue less than black & white.

I have the same questions you do. I do not think the covering is a merely cultural command, nor do I think that hair suffices as the covering. My question, like yours, is whether the reference to "praying and prophesying" should be interpreted "in the public assembly." (That said, as the covering is a sign of submission, it certainly could only be praiseworthy to wear it in public worship or even all the time. And the coverings in LadyFlynt's links are beautiful. )

I find it hard to get around the idea, however, that if a woman is doing something that would seem to be a display of authority (such as teaching other women), she should wear a covering as a sign of submission, in order to demonstrate that she is still under authority.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Evie...it would make perfect sense to so a sign of being under authority while teaching other women...for what are we supposed to be teaching them? Titus 2:3-5 "The aged women likewise, THAT THEY BE IN BEHAVIOR THAT BECOMETH HOLINESS, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, OBEDIENR TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS, THAT THE WORD OF GOD BE NOT BLASPHEMED." We would be teaching them submission to God's order of things and the all, including the blessings, that come with it.

It IS of dispute amoung ppl as to whether it is to be for assembly only or for all activities. I do not take a definate stand on this. I can only quote both sides of the issue...those that say "well it says in the assembly" and those that say "when praying or prophesying which is inclusive of the assembly (or especially) and since we should always have a *prayful attitude* then we should always wear it". (Please note that I was quoting other's stands on the issue)

My personal belief from what I have read and logic brings conclusion to is that we should wear it when praying or prophesying and especially in the assembly...however, I don't go so far as to say that it has to be worn at all times (I think this would be overstretching) other than mayhaps for practicality's sake (ie I always carry one with me, many times I just wear it regardless so I don't have to fiddle with it should I have need of it). Also, it could be considered (not relied upon as) a testamony (prophesy/witness) in and of itself. Granted, I don't wear it just so "the world can see the *I am a Christian" (therefore I am not relying or taking pride in it...in fact it's quite humbling). But, can I say that it hasn't ever had an impact on ppl around me? No, because I have seen it's impact in many ways over the years. Some don't even notice it (sometimes depending on which one I am wearing) others pick up on it right off regardless of the type of covering. But this would lead into my own circumstantial testamony...so would only have an experiential meaning to this conversation, not a textual one.

(Evie, thanks, I enjoy looking at what others have to offer as well )

 

[Augusta]

Ok here is the low down on prophesy as it is used in this passage from what I have gleaned in my study of this issue. There is more than one way that this word is used. It is used in several OT scriptures to mean praise and worship or speaking the Word of the Lord. When we quote scripture we are prophesying. When we sing an inspired psalm we are prophesying. Here are a few example OT verses: 1 Chron 25:1-3, 1 Samuel 19:20-24, and Ezekiel 37 the whole speak the Word of the Lord to the bones which is a foreshadowing of how the Gospel spoken to hearing ears will raise us from the dead or quicken us to life and is the "power of God unto salvation" Rom. 1:16.

So when it is speaking about corporate worship in 1 Cor. 11 which almost nobody disgrees that that it what is being discussed, we can reasonably assume that when they use the word prophesy here that it is talking about worship and psalm singing and scripture quoting etc. Not necessarily new revelatory prophecy. Especially now since most of us as reformed christians believe that has now ceased. It has to be discussing either singing, preaching the gospel, or praying etc. Especially since we find out later in Corinthians that women are not to speak in the assemblies. Would Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit contradict himself?

We also know that there were most likely inspired psalms of David sung and possibly some new inspired songs in the age of the apostles possibly being sung. So it is no stretch at all if they are singing spiritually inspired songs of David that you could say they were all prophesying.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
I think you mean most MODERN DAY Scholars...many of whom they or their wives personally don't care to wear a covering as they are uncomfortable with if and afraid of the fallout from others (ie possible "legalistic" comments).

That is why I have quote both old as well as new...those who aren't holding a personal prejudice, but willing to read the text as it is.

I wouldn't judge another person's heart in this regard. There are enough legitimate questions on the subject and extent of 1 Cor. 11 to make the head covering issue less than black & white.

Just wondering, are there any reformed denominations that require head covering for women in the public assemblies? If so, do they also require a woman's hair to be of a certain length?

I apologise, I wasn't trying to judge their hearts. Unfortunately, that is the state of the church in many areas...not just the headcovering issue.

Another unfortunate, is that the churches (even the ones holding to the covering) refuse to take an open stand on it. However, the armenianist churches are not afraid of openingly insisting upon it.

I can say that the Sprouls and, I believe, even Piper holds to it.

 

[Augusta]

I do not believe we are commanded anywhere to always where a head covering. I do find myself putting both hands on my head to cover it when I pray. It is laid out as a sign of subjection to God's natural order and to cover any other glory other than the Lord's in and assembly of the "visible Church". This lines up with being in His presence when two or more are gathered. And it would be in His presence that this order and the covering of "glory" should be required. So personal praying probably is not being thought of here. I just find myself doing it (covering my head with my hands) because I feel that I am going before the Lord in prayer thus I want to cover my "glory." So I see what you mean about it being kind of unclear about our personal praying or singing of spiritual song around the house etc.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I do the same thing on the rare occasion that I can't find one fast enough. A towel, my hands, ANYTHING. I feel naked without it while praying. There have been a couple of times where I thought that I had put my covering in my purse and on the way to church while fixing my hair I find it's not there. I will NOT enter the sanctuary without it. I sat in the foyer on those two occasions.

 

[Augusta]

I dug out this hat pattern and I am going to try to make a couple of hats to match some things that I don't have a good hat for. I have been sewing alot of dresses since there are none anywhere except thrift stores anymore.

I might as well make a matching hat while I am at it right?:bigsmile:

[Edited on 3-15-2005 by Augusta]

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Evie...it would make perfect sense to so a sign of being under authority while teaching other women...for what are we supposed to be teaching them? Titus 2:3-5 "The aged women likewise, THAT THEY BE IN BEHAVIOR THAT BECOMETH HOLINESS, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, OBEDIENR TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS, THAT THE WORD OF GOD BE NOT BLASPHEMED." We would be teaching them submission to God's order of things and the all, including the blessings, that come with it.

I definitely agree on this. I am only unsure about the context of 1 Cor 11... Thank you for faithfully providing information, Colleen!

I do think one thing is certain: While headcoverings may or may not be mandated for all women in the assembly, it is no sin to wear one, and the act of submission that it signifies is certainly commendable in all contexts.

 

[Augusta]

Hi Evie, sorry for missing your post here. It has been seen that way before, saying we have no practice of being contentious. This to me just does not seem to flow with the whole theme of this entire chapter much less the portion specifically on head covering. Also when it is translated "no such" it is translated "no such custom" not "no such practice" in the main versions. I think ESV is the only one that says "no such practice". Being contentious is not a custom or a practice so it kind of sounds silly. Where as an act of covering or not covering is a custom type thing or a "practice". I have to hurry off. Let me know what you think.

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo

Originally posted by Augusta
I am to blame too because I knew what I was reading at the time but the poor translation of that last sentence "we have no such custom" in two of the main tranlations KJV and NKJV has lead many to just say "oh its not that important if we are contentious about it". HELLO!! Paul just got through 14 verses about how it is against not only God's ordained order of headship but, against His ordained creation and a shame if men cover and women don't and then at the end you think he just blows that off!! Even my husband after hearing this was literally ticked off as well. It is just really sad that preachers today don't have the guts to look out over all the uncovered short haired women in their church and exegete this passage. If you are gonna say that it is saying that long hair is her covering then you better get up there and say Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit commands that you have a long hair covering so you better start growing that hair and keeping it down over your head during church. They don't even do that. They I suppose allow their parish to be contentious then. He says if you are contentious we have no OTHER practice nor do the churches of God, which makes much more sense and is the literal translation after all of the strong language he just used to explain something as important as headship and what is and is not shameful in worship.

If, however, it is translated "no such practice," could Paul be saying "We have no such practice [of being contentious]"? It certainly would be counterintuitive not only to say, "If you are inclined to be contentious, it doesn't matter" but to go so far as to say, "But if you have a problem with it, it doesn't even exist... just pretend we don't do it at all!" No matter which translation you are using, this doesn't seem to be a reasonable interpretation.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by Augusta
Hi Evie, sorry for missing your post here. It has been seen that way before, saying we have no practice of being contentious. This to me just does not seem to flow with the whole theme of this entire chapter much less the portion specifically on head covering. Also when it is translated "no such" it is translated "no such custom" not "no such practice" in the main versions. I think ESV is the only one that says "no such practice". Being contentious is not a custom or a practice so it kind of sounds silly. Where as an act of covering or not covering is a custom type thing or a "practice". I have to hurry off. Let me know what you think.

Oh, I prefer the "no other practice" translation, as well, since that makes much more sense... but I just think no matter which translation, you can't interpret it to dismiss the entire previous passage. I do think contentiousness could be a practice, of sorts... But it is a little weird in that translation.

 

[Augusta]

Evie, I have to ask if you are named for the christian singer from years back named Evie? I loved her songs when I was about 8 yrs old and me and my sisters still know the words to nearly all of her songs. Is your last name scandinavian? Here is a website about her.

Evie

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by Augusta]

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by Augusta
Evie, I have to ask if you are named for the christian singer from years back named Evie? I loved her songs when I was about 8 yrs old and me and my sisters still know the words to nearly all of her songs. Is your last name scandinavian? Here is a website about her.

Evie

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by Augusta]

Yes, I am! My grandmother's name was Evelyn, and my parents, who were fans of the singer Evie, named me Evelyn but picked Evie as a nickname. My last name is German.

My mom told me, "She has such a sweet voice, and it seemed like a sweet name for a little girl." I can't believe you asked!!!

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by Ex Nihilo]

 

[LadyFlynt]

Reformed Books on Headcovering (will add to this list as they are found, so they will not show as new posts):

The Headcovering in Worship by David J. Lipsy
http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookId=2716

 

[bond-servant]

ooooh, thanks. I'll check out the link!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by bond-servant
ooooh, thanks. I'll check out the link!

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[LadyFlynt]

I can't take credit...Mayflower found it.