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.
