Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
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.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.
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