Should women have their heads covered in worship?

[OPC'n]

I would like to add that even if Sproul has once again changed his mind on this matter and thinks that women should cover their head, it would not change my mind. I still will not cover and I am very glad that my pastor (btw, he said wearing base ball caps to the OPC church is allowed) and the OPC has seen rightly and have not required this of their congregation. The OPC if very reformed and I put stalk in what they have to say on this matter. I just pray that people with this law do not ever try to influence my pastor's thinking on this. I feel very strongly on this matter and see covering one's head as a side-tracking thought. It takes away from the true meaning of this text.

 

[LadyFlynt]

* the bible says it
* in the Greek
* and every other language
* it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
* it's part of the order of worship
* it's a symbol of headship (my husband being over me and Christ over him)
* it's a sign unto the angels
* even the angels covered before the face of Gd
* only man has ever been shown facing Gd without
* modesty issue that extends past this passage and would be way off topic

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

* the bible says it
* in the Greek
* and every other language
* it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
* it's part of the order of worship
* it's a symbol of headship (my husband being over me and Christ over him)
* it's a sign unto the angels
* even the angels covered before the face of Gd
* only man has ever been shown facing Gd without
* modesty issue that extends past this passage and would be way off topic

Just out of curiosity, do you think it's sinful for any woman not to cover her hair in worship?

 

[Wannabee]

Right, I agree that we have to be very careful when discussing specific cultural considerations of the Bible - it would be very wrong to brush off inconvenient mandates as mere cultural items.

However, cultural allusions are found throughout the Bible, especially the New Testament. Paul and Peter both exhort women not to wear gold and braid their hair - is a woman who ever wears gold jewelry or braids their hair sinful? I don't think so, because the warning is against pre-occupation with external appearance rather than honor God first with the heart. Likewise, no one today asks us to carry their things a mile the way they did in Roman-occupied Judea.

So I agree, extreme care must be taken when considering culture in the Bible. But it is still a valid concept in determining the overall meaning of the passage.

Thanks Mason. Yes, we must strive to understand the culture. But looking at Peter and Paul will reveal that their comments in regard to the outward appearance transcend culture and time. Peter's contrast in 1 Peter 3:3 is between focusing on outward appearance and inner reality. The language lends itself to "not merely focusing on your appearance, but focus rather on the heart." So, culture really has no significance in that passage. Paul's admonition in 1 Timothy 2 is similar, focusing on good works and modest with that which draws attention to one's self. The attention a woman should bring to herself should be based on her godliness, which grows more beautiful with time, rather than turn heads with immodest or costly attire. I don't think the descriptions are specific enough to be merely cultural.

I have been coming to this conclusion slowly. In 1 Cor 11:13-16 I am being more persuaded. Paul appears to nature (God's created order), and the "churches of God." There is debate on this, but it holds a strong influence on why I am being persuaded. And, as has been jovially alluded to, conduct in the Lord's Supper follows. Where do cultural distinctions end in context?

heh, after a bazillion posts, a new discussion develops. Funny.

I actually had a discussion on this with members of our church not too long ago. I can argue either side quite persuasively, I think. Now I need to convince myself, one way or the other. Not fully persuaded, but it's getting more slippery by the day.

Blessings,

 

[nicnap]

 

[Skyler]

* the bible says it
* in the Greek
* and every other language
* it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
* it's part of the order of worship
* it's a symbol of headship (my husband being over me and Christ over him)
* it's a sign unto the angels
* even the angels covered before the face of Gd
* only man has ever been shown facing Gd without
* modesty issue that extends past this passage and would be way off topic

Just out of curiosity, do you think it's sinful for any woman not to cover her hair in worship?

I know you asked LadyFlynt, but if you don't mind I'd like to add my two cents.

I think that if Paul, under the inspiration of God, commanded it, and someone refuses to do it, then yes, it would be sin, wouldn't it?

 

[Wannabee]

Hey, I don't think I ever posted on page seven of a thread before.

 

[Scottish Lass]

* the bible says it
* in the Greek
* and every other language
* it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
* it's part of the order of worship
* it's a symbol of headship (my husband being over me and Christ over him)
* it's a sign unto the angels
* even the angels covered before the face of Gd
* only man has ever been shown facing Gd without

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Thanks Mason. Yes, we must strive to understand the culture. But looking at Peter and Paul will reveal that their comments in regard to the outward appearance transcend culture and time. Peter's contrast in 1 Peter 3:3 is between focusing on outward appearance and inner reality. The language lends itself to "not merely focusing on your appearance, but focus rather on the heart." So, culture really has no significance in that passage. Paul's admonition in 1 Timothy 2 is similar, focusing on good works and modest with that which draws attention to one's self. The attention a woman should bring to herself should be based on her godliness, which grows more beautiful with time, rather than turn heads with immodest or costly attire. I don't think the descriptions are specific enough to be merely cultural.



Blessings,

So, are you saying it is wrong for women today to wear gold jewelry and braid their hair? Or does the major point of being godly over externally enticing transcend time?

Not trying to make a point, just trying to understand what you're saying...

 

[LadyFlynt]

* the bible says it
* in the Greek
* and every other language
* it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
* it's part of the order of worship
* it's a symbol of headship (my husband being over me and Christ over him)
* it's a sign unto the angels
* even the angels covered before the face of Gd
* only man has ever been shown facing Gd without
* modesty issue that extends past this passage and would be way off topic

Just out of curiosity, do you think it's sinful for any woman not to cover her hair in worship?

If I believe that Gd said I should do something and I don't, then yes, I believe I would be sinning. Neither am I going to stand and shake my finger at ladies and tell them that they are "rebelliously sinning" though either.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

* the bible says it
* in the Greek
* and every other language
* it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century
* it's part of the order of worship
* it's a symbol of headship (my husband being over me and Christ over him)
* it's a sign unto the angels
* even the angels covered before the face of Gd
* only man has ever been shown facing Gd without
* modesty issue that extends past this passage and would be way off topic

Just out of curiosity, do you think it's sinful for any woman not to cover her hair in worship?

If I believe that Gd said I should do something and I don't, then yes, I believe I would be sinning. Neither am I going to stand and shake my finger at ladies and tell them that they are "rebelliously sinning" though either.

Ok, so is it a matter of Christian liberty (as Paul describes at the end of 1 Corinthians 10) or is it an absolute sin for every woman who does not wear a head cover during worship?

 

[Wannabee]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. It's late, and I'm on my last leg of sermon prep (okay, not that late, but it feels late ).
The point isn't whether they wore jewelry or did their hair. It was a matter of the heart. Jewelry is fine. And no man wants a woman with ratty hair (well, I guess it's in style now...). Nice clothes are a blessing. But the point of both of those passages is that a woman should endear herself to God first and foremost, through faithfulness. This is the greatest beauty any woman can aspire to, and is the greatest blessing to her church and, if married, her husband. A white-washed tomb is an abomination. And that's exactly what a woman who dolls herself up to gain attention is. And, honestly, the more fully a woman pursues God the less she's distracted with the baubles of the world. Hope that makes more sense.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Just out of curiosity, do you think it's sinful for any woman not to cover her hair in worship?

If I believe that Gd said I should do something and I don't, then yes, I believe I would be sinning. Neither am I going to stand and shake my finger at ladies and tell them that they are "rebelliously sinning" though either.

Ok, so is it a matter of Christian liberty (as Paul describes at the end of 1 Corinthians 10) or is it an absolute sin for every woman who does not wear a head cover during worship?

I believe the kind of covering is a matter of liberty; I do not believe that BEING covered is a matter of Christian liberty. I believe it is a command as much as I believe baptism, communion, loving my neighbour, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my Gd are commands.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. It's late, and I'm on my last leg of sermon prep (okay, not that late, but it feels late ).
The point isn't whether they wore jewelry or did their hair. It was a matter of the heart. Jewelry is fine. And no man wants a woman with ratty hair (well, I guess it's in style now...). Nice clothes are a blessing. But the point of both of those passages is that a woman should endear herself to God first and foremost, through faithfulness. This is the greatest beauty any woman can aspire to, and is the greatest blessing to her church and, if married, her husband. A white-washed tomb is an abomination. And that's exactly what a woman who dolls herself up to gain attention is. And, honestly, the more fully a woman pursues God the less she's distracted with the baubles of the world. Hope that makes more sense.

Absolutely, and I couldn't agree more! Thanks, Pastor Johnson!

 

[Wannabee]

Thank you Mason.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

If I believe that Gd said I should do something and I don't, then yes, I believe I would be sinning. Neither am I going to stand and shake my finger at ladies and tell them that they are "rebelliously sinning" though either.

Ok, so is it a matter of Christian liberty (as Paul describes at the end of 1 Corinthians 10) or is it an absolute sin for every woman who does not wear a head cover during worship?

I believe the kind of covering is a matter of liberty; I do not believe that BEING covered is a matter of Christian liberty. I believe it is a command as much as I believe baptism, communion, loving my neighbour, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my Gd are commands.

Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Ok, so is it a matter of Christian liberty (as Paul describes at the end of 1 Corinthians 10) or is it an absolute sin for every woman who does not wear a head cover during worship?

I believe the kind of covering is a matter of liberty; I do not believe that BEING covered is a matter of Christian liberty. I believe it is a command as much as I believe baptism, communion, loving my neighbour, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my Gd are commands.

Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?

I do not believe the is forbidding braids or jewelry. It is referring to the RELYING on of such things to either think highly of oneself or believe one to be in a better position than others. There was, I believe, a similar issue going on, between the wealthy and needy, during communion and thus the establishment for how communion should be done (?) So the answer is no. Nor do I think it's a sin to wear cosmetics.

Pastor Johnson stated it very well.

 

[Skyler]

Ok, so is it a matter of Christian liberty (as Paul describes at the end of 1 Corinthians 10) or is it an absolute sin for every woman who does not wear a head cover during worship?

I believe the kind of covering is a matter of liberty; I do not believe that BEING covered is a matter of Christian liberty. I believe it is a command as much as I believe baptism, communion, loving my neighbour, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my Gd are commands.

Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?

Why is she braiding hair or wearing jewelry?

 

[LadyFlynt]

I believe the kind of covering is a matter of liberty; I do not believe that BEING covered is a matter of Christian liberty. I believe it is a command as much as I believe baptism, communion, loving my neighbour, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my Gd are commands.

Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?

Why is she braiding hair or wearing jewelry?

Perhaps to control her hair under her covering (not all ladies are able to withstand the torture of buns and hair pins and do not the little girls wear them?) and perhaps her husband bought her jewelry just as the patriarchs gave their betrothed.

 

[lynnie]

You get to the point, if you believe in wearing headcoverings, and it may take years to get to this point.....

that you have to be honest and answer that you think it is sin to not wear one.

I mean, if you think it was handed down just like communion was (Paul uses the same verb for both in a two part passage here), then to not wear a head covering is exactly like refusing to partake of the symbol of Christ's body and blood.

I wasted YEARS not wanting to be legalistic and condeming or critical or judgemental or divisive, and when the subject came up I went along the usual route of saying what really matters is the heart ( yeah, that's true, but it was a way to avoid conflict for me).

Well, we hold to outward symbols of baptism and communion (and James 5 anointing with oil for healing in some churches) and this is a fourth symbol. It isn't either/or, its both, symbol and heart. You don't say it is enough to be regenerated and you don't need to be baptized. You don't say it is enough to feast on Jesus in private devotions and skip communion with the gathering. Most folks don't think it is enough to "rest" in the Lord in their heart and work on the Sabbath. And I no longer say it is enough to be submitted without the covering.

Once you are honest about what you really believe -that it is sin to not wear it- its funny, you end up just feeling so sorry for women and what they are missing out on. You feel so much love, and the richess of joy in obeying the Word in this area (usually counter to peer pressure) is heart warming. You actually shut up and pray unless they bring it up.

I've been married almost 30 years and I don't know if I ever met a kinder caring husband. I love him so much. I honestly think that the headcovering in some way, in the great mystery of spiritual sowing and reaping, is part of the oneness I have, and part of the feeling of being deeply protected and cared for by a sacrificial Christlike man.



edit- regarding pearls- back then the only ones available were the real thing and they could cost a years wages. Not like today's cultured pearls and plastic. They were a horrific extravagance.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I believe the kind of covering is a matter of liberty; I do not believe that BEING covered is a matter of Christian liberty. I believe it is a command as much as I believe baptism, communion, loving my neighbour, doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with my Gd are commands.

Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?

I do not believe the is forbidding braids or jewelry. It is referring to the RELYING on of such things to either think highly of oneself or believe one to be in a better position than others. There was, I believe, a similar issue going on, between the wealthy and needy, during communion and thus the establishment for how communion should be done (?) So the answer is no. Nor do I think it's a sin to wear cosmetics.

Pastor Johnson stated it very well.

Yep, I agree with you, and with Pastor Johnson. But I'm not sure I understand your reasoning then on 1 Corinthians 11. After all, you said:

* the bible says it
* in the Greek
* and every other language
* it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century

Doesn't the same also apply to 1 Peter and 1 Timothy? In fact, almost the exact same thing (verbatim) was repeated by two different Apostles to two different audiences. I'm just trying to figure out why that's not binding while head covering is based on your reasoning....

 

[LadyFlynt]

Lynnie, I don't think you were implying otherwise...but I am being honest. However, I answered as I did, because many times, people will toss their conclusion of how they think you will respond based on the simple yes or no. We used to give a simply yes at one time. That was taken so personally that we received harassment based on presumptions of what that "yes" meant. Yes, I believe it's a sin not to...no, I'm not going to look down my nose at anyone as though I have one over on them (heaven forbid as I will always have much to learn myself).

-----Added 2/28/2009 at 08:27:11 EST-----

Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?

I do not believe the is forbidding braids or jewelry. It is referring to the RELYING on of such things to either think highly of oneself or believe one to be in a better position than others. There was, I believe, a similar issue going on, between the wealthy and needy, during communion and thus the establishment for how communion should be done (?) So the answer is no. Nor do I think it's a sin to wear cosmetics.

Pastor Johnson stated it very well.

Yep, I agree with you, and with Pastor Johnson. But I'm not sure I understand your reasoning then on 1 Corinthians 11. After all, you said:

* the bible says it
* in the Greek
* and every other language
* it has been interpreted the same throughout history and cultures until the recent bygone century

Doesn't the same also apply to 1 Peter and 1 Timothy? In fact, almost the exact same thing (verbatim) was repeated by two different Apostles to two different audiences. I'm just trying to figure out why that's not binding while head covering is based on your reasoning....

Yes, it does. But those verses do not forbid the wearing of.

 

[Skyler]

Ok, thanks! So along with the discussion Pastor Johnson and I were having, do you also believe that a woman who braids her hair, wears gold jewelry, or wears pearls is sinning?

Why is she braiding hair or wearing jewelry?

Perhaps to control her hair under her covering (not all ladies are able to withstand the torture of buns and hair pins and do not the little girls wear them?) and perhaps her husband bought her jewelry just as the patriarchs gave their betrothed.

Well, yes. The impression I intended to convey was "What are her motives for braiding hair/wearing jewelry?".

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Yes, it does. But those verses do not forbid the wearing of.

Ok, I'm still a bit confused. 1 Timothy 2:9-10 says:

in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

And 1 Peter 3:3-4

Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.

So, I don't mean to be obtuse, but both of those seem to pretty directly and clearly say not to wear gold and braided hair and fine clothes. I agree that they make a larger point, but 1 Corinthians 11 does as well (submission to headship of Christ and husbands). So why are headcoverings literally binding while the admonition to not wear gold, braided hair, etc is not literally binding?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Why is she braiding hair or wearing jewelry?

Perhaps to control her hair under her covering (not all ladies are able to withstand the torture of buns and hair pins and do not the little girls wear them?) and perhaps her husband bought her jewelry just as the patriarchs gave their betrothed.

Well, yes. The impression I intended to convey was "What are her motives for braiding hair/wearing jewelry?".

Bingo...the motive was what the passages were referring to. There is nothing wrong with wearing them, there is nothing wrong with "looking pretty" particularly for one's husband. It was the extreme reliance that some women placed in it and how they viewed themselves compared to others because of it. You also must understand what "broidering" meant at that time. Upper classes of women had slaves that would spend HOURS doing their hair into elaborate updo's with ribbons of gold and silver and strands of pearls "broidered" (embroidered or braided into) throughout. This is pretty much in line with gluttony in that it takes something not forbidden and gorges oneself upon it.

-----Added 2/28/2009 at 08:39:59 EST-----

Mason, key words: moderation and merely

It is literally binding...I should be moderate...not relying on my appearance, but rather on the hidden person of the heart. The same people that are against jewelry quote the verse in the OT that Gd hates their jewelry, yet the same passage states that He also hated their garments...should they go naked? In the case of 1 Corinthians 11, it is speaking of BOTH a principle and an ordinance/command. That we are COMMANDED to wear a covering as a symbol of the principle. In the jewelry case, it is saying that one shouldn't rely on it, that moderation/propriety should be kept in play...but does not forbid it. Same with alcohol...it's not forbidden, in fact it's recommended (for the stomach) and commanded (for communion). But we are not to be gluttonous and drunkards.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Perhaps to control her hair under her covering (not all ladies are able to withstand the torture of buns and hair pins and do not the little girls wear them?) and perhaps her husband bought her jewelry just as the patriarchs gave their betrothed.

Well, yes. The impression I intended to convey was "What are her motives for braiding hair/wearing jewelry?".

Bingo...the motive was what the passages were referring to. There is nothing wrong with wearing them, there is nothing wrong with "looking pretty" particularly for one's husband. It was the extreme reliance that some women placed in it and how they viewed themselves compared to others because of it. You also must understand what "broidering" meant at that time. Upper classes of women had slaves that would spend HOURS doing their hair into elaborate updo's with ribbons of gold and silver and strands of pearls "broidered" (embroidered or braided into) throughout. This is pretty much in line with gluttony in that it takes something not forbidden and gorges oneself upon it.

-----Added 2/28/2009 at 08:39:59 EST-----

Mason, key words: moderation and merely

Hmm, I'm not sure I buy that, especially for the 1 Timothy verse. I guess what I'm failing to see is how the cultural examples of gold and fine clothes are different from the cultural example of a head covering in 1 Corinthians. Paul says for women to submit to the church and their husbands, and uses the cultural norm of head covering and long hair to illustrate his point. Likewise, he urges women to be modest and dress appropriately, and uses braided hair and gold jewelry as cultural examples to make his point (as does Peter). How do you make the distinction?

EDIT: I see where you added to your previous post. I still have the same question, namely how is 1 Corinthians read as a command and a principle and 1 Peter/1 Timothy not read as a command and a principle?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Well, yes. The impression I intended to convey was "What are her motives for braiding hair/wearing jewelry?".

Bingo...the motive was what the passages were referring to. There is nothing wrong with wearing them, there is nothing wrong with "looking pretty" particularly for one's husband. It was the extreme reliance that some women placed in it and how they viewed themselves compared to others because of it. You also must understand what "broidering" meant at that time. Upper classes of women had slaves that would spend HOURS doing their hair into elaborate updo's with ribbons of gold and silver and strands of pearls "broidered" (embroidered or braided into) throughout. This is pretty much in line with gluttony in that it takes something not forbidden and gorges oneself upon it.

-----Added 2/28/2009 at 08:39:59 EST-----

Mason, key words: moderation and merely

Hmm, I'm not sure I buy that, especially for the 1 Timothy verse. I guess what I'm failing to see is how the cultural examples of gold and fine clothes are different from the cultural example of a head covering in 1 Corinthians. Paul says for women to submit to the church and their husbands, and uses the cultural norm of head covering and long hair to illustrate his point. Likewise, he urges women to be modest and dress appropriately, and uses braided hair and gold jewelry as cultural examples to make his point (as does Peter). How do you make the distinction?

EDIT: I see where you added to your previous post. I still have the same question, namely how is 1 Corinthians read as a command and a principle and 1 Peter/1 Timothy not read as a command and a principle?

I don't relate the two. They both have principles.

I relate the 1 Peter/1 Timothy to the same verses that tell us to be sober minded, not given to much wine or drunk. They both appeal to moderation, not forbidding altogether.

The other is about order of worship.

 

[Wannabee]

Dear Mason,

Does Paul say that it's a cultural norm in 1 Cor 11? He doesn't in 1 Pet or 1 Tim. The Cor passage focuses on God's order and submission. Both Paul and Peter are focused on the heart of a woman being devoted to God above all else, in contrast with external adornment. 1 Peter the word "merely" carries the ball here, making it clear that clothing and jewelry are fine, but should never be the focus. It's sort of like when Paul tells Timothy that exercise profits a little. He's not denigrating exercise, he's highlighting godliness.
In the 1 Timothy passage there were apparently cultural influences. But they don't carry the passage. His focus is that women "adorn" themselves in moderation and modesty, not focusing on the things that are the treasures of the world. It's not a sin to wear jewelry or nice clothing, or braid one's hair. It is a sin to adorn yourself with these as your focus and identity. The woman is to identify herself with Christ, in godliness. That should be her overwhelming focus. It's a matter of contrast. The rest will take care of itself.
It's interesting that this is still being hashed out. It is apparent that reciprocal understanding is somewhat elusive. I thought this was cleared up a few posts ago.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Bingo...the motive was what the passages were referring to. There is nothing wrong with wearing them, there is nothing wrong with "looking pretty" particularly for one's husband. It was the extreme reliance that some women placed in it and how they viewed themselves compared to others because of it. You also must understand what "broidering" meant at that time. Upper classes of women had slaves that would spend HOURS doing their hair into elaborate updo's with ribbons of gold and silver and strands of pearls "broidered" (embroidered or braided into) throughout. This is pretty much in line with gluttony in that it takes something not forbidden and gorges oneself upon it.

-----Added 2/28/2009 at 08:39:59 EST-----

Mason, key words: moderation and merely

Hmm, I'm not sure I buy that, especially for the 1 Timothy verse. I guess what I'm failing to see is how the cultural examples of gold and fine clothes are different from the cultural example of a head covering in 1 Corinthians. Paul says for women to submit to the church and their husbands, and uses the cultural norm of head covering and long hair to illustrate his point. Likewise, he urges women to be modest and dress appropriately, and uses braided hair and gold jewelry as cultural examples to make his point (as does Peter). How do you make the distinction?

EDIT: I see where you added to your previous post. I still have the same question, namely how is 1 Corinthians read as a command and a principle and 1 Peter/1 Timothy not read as a command and a principle?

I don't relate the two. They both have principles.

I relate the 1 Peter/1 Timothy to the same verses that tell us to be sober minded, not given to much wine or drunk. They both appeal to moderation, not forbidding altogether.

The other is about order of worship.

Well, I appreciate your comments, but I think we may have to agree to disagree.

I just can't see the consistency in the way you (and others) apply these verses, particularly because I don't think Paul is indicating an "order of worship." Rather, I think he's using an example from Corinthian culture to make the point of headship and authority within the church (which is how he introduces the section). But, I respect your view and appreciate your passion for it.

-----Added 2/28/2009 at 09:14:42 EST-----

Dear Mason,

Does Paul say that it's a cultural norm in 1 Cor 11? He doesn't in 1 Pet or 1 Tim. The Cor passage focuses on God's order and submission. Both Paul and Peter are focused on the heart of a woman being devoted to God above all else, in contrast with external adornment. 1 Peter the word "merely" carries the ball here, making it clear that clothing and jewelry are fine, but should never be the focus. It's sort of like when Paul tells Timothy that exercise profits a little. He's not denigrating exercise, he's highlighting godliness.
In the 1 Timothy passage there were apparently cultural influences. But they don't carry the passage. His focus is that women "adorn" themselves in moderation and modesty, not focusing on the things that are the treasures of the world. It's not a sin to wear jewelry or nice clothing, or braid one's hair. It is a sin to adorn yourself with these as your focus and identity. The woman is to identify herself with Christ, in godliness. That should be her overwhelming focus. It's a matter of contrast. The rest will take care of itself.
It's interesting that this is still being hashed out. It is apparent that reciprocal understanding is somewhat elusive. I thought this was cleared up a few posts ago.

I see your point, and agree entirely about all the passages you mention on exercise, etc. The point is putting God above all else. But Paul's overarching point in 1 Corinthians 11 is submission to appropriate authority, as you said. I guess I'm still having a hard time drawing the distinction the *command* of 1 Corinthians and the *examples* of the other passages.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Yep. Think we've ?