PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Women AND head Coverings



poochie
Jan 17th 2009, 11:52 PM
Was discussing/debating with a Fundamentalist on this issue recently. It seems there are differing interpretations of 1 Cor 11, and to some women must have a head covering in the church as in a piece of clothing, a hat or something of the sort. I have visited churches that believed in this practice, and although I disagree, I respect their right to practice what they believe. However what I take issue with is when some judge one's spirituality based upon their refusal to wear a head covering as in they wont allow such a woman to join a church or to serve in leadership ministry.

It seems to me that verse 15 says that the woman's hair is her head covering.

Since this board is predominately Evangelical and Charismatic, perhaps some can give me their 2 cents on this debate. Or perhaps there are some that believe that women MUST have a head covering (piece of clothing or a hat) in the church. What do you say?

FaithfulSheep
Jan 17th 2009, 11:54 PM
It seems to me that verse 15 says that the woman's hair is her head covering.

I agree .

poochie
Jan 17th 2009, 11:57 PM
I agree .

Thanks. But perhaps there are some that disagree. I do not think many Fundamentalist post in this board as they post in some other places some of which I have visited. But perhaps there may be 1 or 2 Fundamentalist posting here. I dont label myself a Fundamentalist, but a Conservative Evangelical.

shepherdsword
Jan 17th 2009, 11:58 PM
I agree as well and here's why:


But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her [why?] for her hair is given [not a veil, by God at creation] to her for a covering.”

[The words “for a covering” can also be translated “instead of a covering.” the Greek word there is “anti.” Anti - like in antichrist. “Against” or “instead of” Christ.So whether the word is “for” or “instead of” in this text, the outcome is the same: the woman’s hair is her covering given only to her for her glory instead of a covering. The angels recognized her from the point of God’s creation: They wouldn’t recognize a man made veil…the longer hair being one of the things that distinguished her from her male counterpart. The angels saw both the male and female being different yet being one, something we learn in the body of Christ. God’s purpose was to create a man and a woman and to give them (plural) distinguishing physical attributes and a different function in replenishing the earth. They enjoyed a difference in function and not in degrees of authority.
If the women’s hair is her glory, why would God want it covered?
The word here in verse 15 for “covering” is different than the word for covering in the previous verses. After Paul says that the women’s hair is her glory he then says her hair is her covering (peribolaion).
The word for covering here is peribolaion. Peri means “around” and ballo means “to throw.” Something thrown around one, i.e. a mantle, veil (Strong's concordance”
So for a woman to have hair, it would have to be long for her to throw it around her head. The other word for covering is katakalupto, and it is used as a verb in verses 6 and 7; while peribolaion is used as a noun in verse 15 (it was used one other time in Hebrews 1:12.)
Her hair is the covering (verb) that goes around her head (noun).
How often people will turn when they see a woman with long thick hair, it is to her glory. Like the mane on a male lion is admired for his majestic look.]


16 “But if anyone seems to be contentious we have no such custom, nor do the churches (communities) of God.”

[So who is this “anyone” who “seems to be contentious”? It is the group that is trying to establish a principle outside of God creation and nature? Of course!]

In all of Paul’s letters he had at various times established his teachings to the assemblies. Paul never made a point that a woman should wear a veil for a head covering. Such a belief is out of context and never had roots in the traditions of the early body of Christ.
If we understand the importance which some groups have placed on head covering, just going to their assembly where head covering is practiced, we will find abundant expressions making head covering apostolically fundamental… Something not found in scripture.
As Christianity began to sweep throughout the Gentile world, the Jewish believers attempted in many instances to bring the Gentiles into the importance of their Jewish traditions, which lead to many of the Gentiles being told that they should be circumcised, honor certain days, keep the women silent, women to wear head coverings, etc.. The Jewish believers were accustomed to these traditions and felt they were important, but the Gentiles had freedoms compelling them to follow the traditions of the apostles and not the Jewish traditions laid out in the Old Covenant. Much of this effort in getting the Gentiles to follow Jewish customs is with us to this day. I have heard many Jewish Christians tell me we need to go back to our Jewish roots if we are to understand the Gospels…. Hence we have messianic Congregations converting gentiles to the feast, circumcision, Jewish rituals, etc..
The humorous part of this is that later on after the first century the Jews developed a tradition that men should have a head covering. So today you will find Gentile men attending messianic congregations with a head covering. Does this make sense?
The woman’s hair is for her glory and is provided to her from God. Her authority is in her hair as the counterpart to the man with his short hair. If there is division between husband and wife, there is no authority or dominion in their marriage. Let us get back to “let them have dominion.”

“Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, (Why men?) that your (us husbands) prayers may not be hindered.” 1 Peter 3:7, NKJV
Likewise, with "unveiled face [men and women could behold] as in a mirror the glory of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18, NASB,
Paul urges Christians to hold fast "to the head [kephale], from (source) whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God" (2:19). Christ's Lordship is not organizational as God's CEO, but organic and dynamic as a vine that gives life to the branches (John 15:1-13). The life Christ gives to "the whole body" was derived from His willingness to "lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13, NASB

poochie
Jan 18th 2009, 12:05 AM
Good post. The person I was speaking with today urged me to go to a certain website and buy a sermon audio on the topic as the church preaches that women need to have a literal head covering. I want to do so, but I dont want to pay $5.00 for a audio download.



I agree as well and here's why:


But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her [why?] for her hair is given [not a veil, by God at creation] to her for a covering.”

[The words “for a covering” can also be translated “instead of a covering.” the Greek word there is “anti.” Anti - like in antichrist. “Against” or “instead of” Christ.So whether the word is “for” or “instead of” in this text, the outcome is the same: the woman’s hair is her covering given only to her for her glory instead of a covering. The angels recognized her from the point of God’s creation: They wouldn’t recognize a man made veil…the longer hair being one of the things that distinguished her from her male counterpart. The angels saw both the male and female being different yet being one, something we learn in the body of Christ. God’s purpose was to create a man and a woman and to give them (plural) distinguishing physical attributes and a different function in replenishing the earth. They enjoyed a difference in function and not in degrees of authority.
If the women’s hair is her glory, why would God want it covered?
The word here in verse 15 for “covering” is different than the word for covering in the previous verses. After Paul says that the women’s hair is her glory he then says her hair is her covering (peribolaion).
The word for covering here is peribolaion. Peri means “around” and ballo means “to throw.” Something thrown around one, i.e. a mantle, veil (Strong's concordance”
So for a woman to have hair, it would have to be long for her to throw it around her head. The other word for covering is katakalupto, and it is used as a verb in verses 6 and 7; while peribolaion is used as a noun in verse 15 (it was used one other time in Hebrews 1:12.)
Her hair is the covering (verb) that goes around her head (noun).
How often people will turn when they see a woman with long thick hair, it is to her glory. Like the mane on a male lion is admired for his majestic look.]


16 “But if anyone seems to be contentious we have no such custom, nor do the churches (communities) of God.”

[So who is this “anyone” who “seems to be contentious”? It is the group that is trying to establish a principle outside of God creation and nature? Of course!]

In all of Paul’s letters he had at various times established his teachings to the assemblies. Paul never made a point that a woman should wear a veil for a head covering. Such a belief is out of context and never had roots in the traditions of the early body of Christ.
If we understand the importance which some groups have placed on head covering, just going to their assembly where head covering is practiced, we will find abundant expressions making head covering apostolically fundamental… Something not found in scripture.
As Christianity began to sweep throughout the Gentile world, the Jewish believers attempted in many instances to bring the Gentiles into the importance of their Jewish traditions, which lead to many of the Gentiles being told that they should be circumcised, honor certain days, keep the women silent, women to wear head coverings, etc.. The Jewish believers were accustomed to these traditions and felt they were important, but the Gentiles had freedoms compelling them to follow the traditions of the apostles and not the Jewish traditions laid out in the Old Covenant. Much of this effort in getting the Gentiles to follow Jewish customs is with us to this day. I have heard many Jewish Christians tell me we need to go back to our Jewish roots if we are to understand the Gospels…. Hence we have messianic Congregations converting gentiles to the feast, circumcision, Jewish rituals, etc..
The humorous part of this is that later on after the first century the Jews developed a tradition that men should have a head covering. So today you will find Gentile men attending messianic congregations with a head covering. Does this make sense?
The woman’s hair is for her glory and is provided to her from God. Her authority is in her hair as the counterpart to the man with his short hair. If there is division between husband and wife, there is no authority or dominion in their marriage. Let us get back to “let them have dominion.”

“Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, (Why men?) that your (us husbands) prayers may not be hindered.” 1 Peter 3:7, NKJV
Likewise, with "unveiled face [men and women could behold] as in a mirror the glory of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18, NASB,
Paul urges Christians to hold fast "to the head [kephale], from (source) whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God" (2:19). Christ's Lordship is not organizational as God's CEO, but organic and dynamic as a vine that gives life to the branches (John 15:1-13). The life Christ gives to "the whole body" was derived from His willingness to "lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13, NASB

BroRog
Jan 18th 2009, 12:57 AM
The issue of a head covering, during Paul's time, centered around holiness and respect for God. And the issue arose in the Christian church due to a clash of two opposing cultural practices.

First cultural practice: married woman cover the hair.

During Paul's time, wearing a head covering was a cultural practice in which the wife was giving respect to her husband. Out of respect for the husband, the wife covered her hair in public. Keeping the hat on was a sign of respect for the husband.

Second cultural practice: men uncovered the head while praying in public.

During that same time another cultural practice involved the uncovering of the head. A man normally covered his head in public except to pray, at which time he uncovered his head. When a man prayed in public, he would take his hat off during the prayer, and put his hat back on after the prayer. Taking the hat off was a sign of respect for God.

Christian practice: cover or uncover?

When Christians began to meet for public prayer and the sharing of the scriptures, Paul taught that women were allowed to pray right along with the men. But this presented the church with a dilemma. Now that women were praying in public they had a choice to make. Should a woman remove her hat and thus honor God, while causing dishonor to her husband? Or should the woman keep her hat on and thus honor her husband while bringing dishonor to God?

Paul, we need a ruling.

Paul ruled that a wife (not all women, because the issue was only viable for married women) was to keep her hat on when she prayed rather than removing it.

His reasoning went something like this. Everyone has a head. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the church, and the man is the head of his family. Now, if a wife were to remove her hat in order to honor God, but doing so dishonored her husband, she would be dishonoring her head, i.e. her husband. And since bringing dishonor on a husband is tantamount to dishonoring God who gave the man the responsibility to run the family, she dishonors both her husband AND God by removing her hat.

But then, if she keeps her hat on, she brings honor to her husband, which also brings honor to God, and becomes a public display of her commitment to holiness and goodness. If she keeps her hat on, she will be respected by her community and thus bring glory to herself, her husband and her God.

So he ruled that a wife should keep her hat on while praying in church.

Now, today we do not have these same cultural practices and we do not associate the removal of hats as a form of respect for God. For us, the issues are not the same and our attire says more about our sense of style than our relationship with our husbands or with God.

So Paul's ruling about a woman wearing a hat is not at all relevant to our time. Wearing a hat, or not wearing a hat in church means nothing at all. It's all the same today. Fundamentalists who insist that women wear hats in church have misunderstood the scriptures and the situation behind them. First, Paul wasn't talking about all women, just married women. And secondly, Paul was making a ruling between two cultural practices, both of which are not practiced today anymore.

TrustingFollower
Jan 18th 2009, 01:40 AM
Great post BroRog very good explination there, but it also brings a question to my mind. I don't know if you have the answer or not, just throwing this out there.

If a man was to remove his hat while he prayed why is it that Jews and even the Pope, Cardinals and high leaders of the RCC always wear a yamika. It would seem to me that they continue to wear them today out of tradition from way back to the start of the Christian Church. So if men had to uncover their heads to honor God it would seem that the priests would be bringing dishonor by wearing the yamika.

RickH
Jan 18th 2009, 01:48 AM
It seems to me that verse 15 says that the woman's hair is her head covering.

If verse 15 is talking about the same covering as verse 5, then what does verse 6 mean?
I think Paul is mentioning two different types of covering. Whether or not it is cultural or a Biblical commandment is up to us to interpret as individuals.

1 Corinthians 11:6 (NKJV)
6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

If the woman's hair is her covering referred to in verse 5 then verse 6 makes no sense at all.

Just 2 cents ;)

matthew7and1
Jan 18th 2009, 01:51 AM
The issue of a head covering, during Paul's time, centered around holiness and respect for God. And the issue arose in the Christian church due to a clash of two opposing cultural practices.

First cultural practice: married woman cover the hair.

During Paul's time, wearing a head covering was a cultural practice in which the wife was giving respect to her husband. Out of respect for the husband, the wife covered her hair in public. Keeping the hat on was a sign of respect for the husband.

Second cultural practice: men uncovered the head while praying in public.

During that same time another cultural practice involved the uncovering of the head. A man normally covered his head in public except to pray, at which time he uncovered his head. When a man prayed in public, he would take his hat off during the prayer, and put his hat back on after the prayer. Taking the hat off was a sign of respect for God.

Christian practice: cover or uncover?

When Christians began to meet for public prayer and the sharing of the scriptures, Paul taught that women were allowed to pray right along with the men. But this presented the church with a dilemma. Now that women were praying in public they had a choice to make. Should a woman remove her hat and thus honor God, while causing dishonor to her husband? Or should the woman keep her hat on and thus honor her husband while bringing dishonor to God?

Paul, we need a ruling.

Paul ruled that a wife (not all women, because the issue was only viable for married women) was to keep her hat on when she prayed rather than removing it.

His reasoning went something like this. Everyone has a head. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the church, and the man is the head of his family. Now, if a wife were to remove her hat in order to honor God, but doing so dishonored her husband, she would be dishonoring her head, i.e. her husband. And since bringing dishonor on a husband is tantamount to dishonoring God who gave the man the responsibility to run the family, she dishonors both her husband AND God by removing her hat.

But then, if she keeps her hat on, she brings honor to her husband, which also brings honor to God, and becomes a public display of her commitment to holiness and goodness. If she keeps her hat on, she will be respected by her community and thus bring glory to herself, her husband and her God.

So he ruled that a wife should keep her hat on while praying in church.

Now, today we do not have these same cultural practices and we do not associate the removal of hats as a form of respect for God. For us, the issues are not the same and our attire says more about our sense of style than our relationship with our husbands or with God.

So Paul's ruling about a woman wearing a hat is not at all relevant to our time. Wearing a hat, or not wearing a hat in church means nothing at all. It's all the same today. Fundamentalists who insist that women wear hats in church have misunderstood the scriptures and the situation behind them. First, Paul wasn't talking about all women, just married women. And secondly, Paul was making a ruling between two cultural practices, both of which are not practiced today anymore.

This is an excellent and well put together response. I learned so much from it!! Thank you!
As a woman, I do cover my head when I fast. But I never knew the history this deeply.....

poochie
Jan 18th 2009, 02:22 AM
Fundamentalist have misunderstood the Bible here. But this practice is only in Fundamentalism has far as I am aware and no EVANGELICAL/Charismatic church or fellowship enforces or teaches such things.



The issue of a head covering, during Paul's time, centered around holiness and respect for God. And the issue arose in the Christian church due to a clash of two opposing cultural practices.

First cultural practice: married woman cover the hair.

During Paul's time, wearing a head covering was a cultural practice in which the wife was giving respect to her husband. Out of respect for the husband, the wife covered her hair in public. Keeping the hat on was a sign of respect for the husband.

Second cultural practice: men uncovered the head while praying in public.

During that same time another cultural practice involved the uncovering of the head. A man normally covered his head in public except to pray, at which time he uncovered his head. When a man prayed in public, he would take his hat off during the prayer, and put his hat back on after the prayer. Taking the hat off was a sign of respect for God.

Christian practice: cover or uncover?

When Christians began to meet for public prayer and the sharing of the scriptures, Paul taught that women were allowed to pray right along with the men. But this presented the church with a dilemma. Now that women were praying in public they had a choice to make. Should a woman remove her hat and thus honor God, while causing dishonor to her husband? Or should the woman keep her hat on and thus honor her husband while bringing dishonor to God?

Paul, we need a ruling.

Paul ruled that a wife (not all women, because the issue was only viable for married women) was to keep her hat on when she prayed rather than removing it.

His reasoning went something like this. Everyone has a head. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the church, and the man is the head of his family. Now, if a wife were to remove her hat in order to honor God, but doing so dishonored her husband, she would be dishonoring her head, i.e. her husband. And since bringing dishonor on a husband is tantamount to dishonoring God who gave the man the responsibility to run the family, she dishonors both her husband AND God by removing her hat.

But then, if she keeps her hat on, she brings honor to her husband, which also brings honor to God, and becomes a public display of her commitment to holiness and goodness. If she keeps her hat on, she will be respected by her community and thus bring glory to herself, her husband and her God.

So he ruled that a wife should keep her hat on while praying in church.

Now, today we do not have these same cultural practices and we do not associate the removal of hats as a form of respect for God. For us, the issues are not the same and our attire says more about our sense of style than our relationship with our husbands or with God.

So Paul's ruling about a woman wearing a hat is not at all relevant to our time. Wearing a hat, or not wearing a hat in church means nothing at all. It's all the same today. Fundamentalists who insist that women wear hats in church have misunderstood the scriptures and the situation behind them. First, Paul wasn't talking about all women, just married women. And secondly, Paul was making a ruling between two cultural practices, both of which are not practiced today anymore.

TrustingFollower
Jan 18th 2009, 02:59 AM
Fundamentalist have misunderstood the Bible here. But this practice is only in Fundamentalism has far as I am aware and no EVANGELICAL/Charismatic church or fellowship enforces or teaches such things.
I don't see BroRog saying that this is the teaching today. The last paragraph he says this is not relevant today. I do see this as a very good explanation to the custom of the day when Paul wrote the letters.

amazzin
Jan 18th 2009, 03:04 AM
Was discussing/debating with a Fundamentalist on this issue recently. It seems there are differing interpretations of 1 Cor 11, and to some women must have a head covering in the church as in a piece of clothing, a hat or something of the sort. I have visited churches that believed in this practice, and although I disagree, I respect their right to practice what they believe. However what I take issue with is when some judge one's spirituality based upon their refusal to wear a head covering as in they wont allow such a woman to join a church or to serve in leadership ministry.

It seems to me that verse 15 says that the woman's hair is her head covering.

Since this board is predominately Evangelical and Charismatic, perhaps some can give me their 2 cents on this debate. Or perhaps there are some that believe that women MUST have a head covering (piece of clothing or a hat) in the church. What do you say?

Poochie
In order to understand that passage one must read the chapter before and the chapter after. In it you will see that the issue was not to wear or not to wear a head covering. The issue was that the women in that church were competing as to who has the best hair and the best clips to hold up the hair. Some had clips in gold and some in silver and they all tried to out do themselves rather than offering worship to God. Their focus wasn't gathering to worship but rather it had become a club of sorts

So, Paul tells them to cover so that those sitting behind them in a church gathering don't get distracted.

Butch5
Jan 18th 2009, 04:41 AM
Was discussing/debating with a Fundamentalist on this issue recently. It seems there are differing interpretations of 1 Cor 11, and to some women must have a head covering in the church as in a piece of clothing, a hat or something of the sort. I have visited churches that believed in this practice, and although I disagree, I respect their right to practice what they believe. However what I take issue with is when some judge one's spirituality based upon their refusal to wear a head covering as in they wont allow such a woman to join a church or to serve in leadership ministry.

It seems to me that verse 15 says that the woman's hair is her head covering.

Since this board is predominately Evangelical and Charismatic, perhaps some can give me their 2 cents on this debate. Or perhaps there are some that believe that women MUST have a head covering (piece of clothing or a hat) in the church. What do you say?

Why do you object to a head covering?

Butch5
Jan 18th 2009, 04:57 AM
Fundamentalist have misunderstood the Bible here. But this practice is only in Fundamentalism has far as I am aware and no EVANGELICAL/Charismatic church or fellowship enforces or teaches such things.

BroRog,

Why do you say this is not for all women, when the Greek word for woman and wife are the same? How can you tell the difference

Also, why do you say this is not relevant for today, Christian women have always worn head coverings up until this latest generation.

The issue is not a cultural issue, it is a leadership or headship issue. Paul's appeal is based not on culture by headship, look at the reason he give for his statement,

1 Corinthians 11:7-12 ( KJV ) 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Paul appeals to the creation for his reasoning that a woman should have her head covered, this has nothing to due with culture.

TrustingFollower
Jan 18th 2009, 05:22 AM
Paul appeals to the creation for his reasoning that a woman should have her head covered, this has nothing to due with culture.
To say that a woman has to wear a head covering is the same as me saying you have to only wear a robe, It is legalistic. Neither Jesus nor Paul wore pants so you should not wear pants. Come on and let's be real here. God gave women hair as a covering and to say they have to put a hat on too is absurd. Women are covered under the law of grace the same way you and I are and are fully redeemed by the saving Grace of Christ as we are. I don't recall Jesus telling Mary to cover her head while she was at his feet worshiping him.

BroRog
Jan 18th 2009, 06:52 AM
BroRog,

Why do you say this is not for all women, when the Greek word for woman and wife are the same? How can you tell the difference?

Hi Butch. Good question.

Yes, the Greek word for woman and wife are the same word. The author expects the reader to discern which is meant based on the subject.

Typically, when Jesus or the Apostles appeal to the first couple, Adam and Eve, the issue is marriage.


Also, why do you say this is not relevant for today, Christian women have always worn head coverings up until this latest generation.

Let me put it this way, when I see a woman walking down the street wearing a hat, I don't immediately think to myself, "she wears the hat to respect her husband." And since hats don't give that signal anymore, then the principle of 1Cor. 11 doesn't apply anymore. How could it?


The issue is not a cultural issue, it is a leadership or headship issue. Paul's appeal is based not on culture by headship, look at the reason he give for his statement,

1 Corinthians 11:7-12 ( KJV ) 7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Paul appeals to the creation for his reasoning that a woman should have her head covered, this has nothing to due with culture.

Yes, headship is the issue. However, wearing a hat, in today's society, no longer signals anything about the husband/wife relationship as far as I know. I'm confident that if Paul were living today, he would continue to teach us about headship. But I doubt he would need to say anything about hats today since wearing a hat, for the majority of women today, has no substantial meaning at all except to keep warm or look presentable.

BroRog
Jan 18th 2009, 07:05 AM
The following comes from a paper I wrote, which explains why I think a woman's appearance was a cultural issue and not a moral issue.


Before I delve into the text where the issue of head coverings is addressed, I need to show why I think that a woman’s appearance is a cultural question and not a moral question. For that answer, I turn to 1 Peter 3:1-4.

1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,
2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.


Here Peter draws a contrast between a woman’s outward appearance and her inward beauty – her external adornment and her imperishable qualities. I believe Peter means to place the emphasis on what he calls “the hidden person of the heart.” Whatever a woman wears, she ought to adorn herself with certain imperishable qualities. Peter isn’t saying, “Don’t adorn yourself with pretty hair, gold jewelry, and pretty dresses.” He said, “Your adornment must not be merely external . . .”, raising the importance of the quiet spirit, chaste and respectful behavior over the insignificant aspects of her physical appearance. Thus, appearance isn’t a moral question worked out in terms of obedience to a direct command. Adornment is a cultural issue worked out within the framework of the Gospel.


I believe in being modest and so I and my wife tend to be conservative in our dress. But I think Peter's point is to challenge us to improve our inner beauty, but not necessarily at the expense of our outer appearance.

BroRog
Jan 18th 2009, 07:13 AM
Great post BroRog very good explination there, but it also brings a question to my mind. I don't know if you have the answer or not, just throwing this out there.

If a man was to remove his hat while he prayed why is it that Jews and even the Pope, Cardinals and high leaders of the RCC always wear a yamika. It would seem to me that they continue to wear them today out of tradition from way back to the start of the Christian Church. So if men had to uncover their heads to honor God it would seem that the priests would be bringing dishonor by wearing the yamika.


My source for the customs of the day come from the following:


It was customary for a man to remove his hat in public when he prayed. "Paul is writing here to the Corinthian Christians who, living in Greece, customarily complied with Greek traditions: men had their heads uncovered and the women covered theirs; which, however, was contrary to the Jewish tradition." Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible by: Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D.

I believe others have pointed out similar things, but I don't have the sources at hand right now.

poochie
Jan 18th 2009, 12:00 PM
My source for the customs of the day come from the following:



I believe others have pointed out similar things, but I don't have the sources at hand right now.

Manors and Customs of Biblical Times by Ralph Gower is also another excellent source on the topic.

Butch5
Jan 18th 2009, 04:01 PM
BroRog---
Hi Butch. Good question.

Yes, the Greek word for woman and wife are the same word. The author expects the reader to discern which is meant based on the subject.

Typically, when Jesus or the Apostles appeal to the first couple, Adam and Eve, the issue is marriage.


OK, but Paul was not addressing the marriage issue, he was addressing the creation issue. He said for women to wear a head covering because, woman is from the man. This is not a marriage issue or cultural issue. This is the same issue that Paul deals with regarding women teachers, Headship, consider Paul's statement to Timothy,

1 Timothy 2:9-14 ( KJV ) 9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Adam was formed first, Eve came from Adam, therefore, Paul does not want the woman in a position of headship over the man., he clearly states this when he says that a woman should not usurp authority.



BroRog---Let me put it this way, when I see a woman walking down the street wearing a hat, I don't immediately think to myself, "she wears the hat to respect her husband." And since hats don't give that signal anymore, then the principle of 1Cor. 11 doesn't apply anymore. How could it?

Well, When you see a woman wearing a hat you may not immediately think, "she wears the hat to respect her husband", however, the issue is how God sees it, And since it is a command in Scripture, a command where Paul appeals to the created order and not to the culture for his reasoning, I don't see how we can ignore it.


BroRog---Yes, headship is the issue. However, wearing a hat, in today's society, no longer signals anything about the husband/wife relationship as far as I know. I'm confident that if Paul were living today, he would continue to teach us about headship. But I doubt he would need to say anything about hats today since wearing a hat, for the majority of women today, has no substantial meaning at all except to keep warm or look presentable.


It's not about what it signals in society, it is about obedience to God's command. Just because our society does not recognize it, does not mean that God does not recognize it.

BroRog
Jan 18th 2009, 05:41 PM
OK, but Paul was not addressing the marriage issue, he was addressing the creation issue.

When Paul and Jesus speak about the first couple, it's a marriage issue.


He said for women to wear a head covering because, woman is from the man.
Yes, woman was from man. But God's bit of performance art, i.e. bringing a woman from Adam's rib, had a specific purpose as stated in Genesis.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

This statement punctuates a task God gave to Adam to name all the animals. This task taught Adam many things but primarily that he was the only one of his kind. All the other animals had mates but he did not. And God waited for Adam to discover his need before he supplied a wife for him.

Jesus cites the same passage when he taught the crowds and the Pharisees God's view of divorce. The Pharisees were citing a single verse as a proof text to justify their position on divorce in which Moses allowed a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce. Jesus, rather than citing another verse, based his rebuttal on God's larger teaching on the purpose for marriage, and referenced the first couple as a case in point.

The issue in 1 Corinthians 11 isn't a marriage issue. Rather, the central point of that chapter involves the inevitable clash between two different cultural mores. One such cultural convention embodied the fundamental value of respect that a wife has for a husband in terms of wearing a hat on the head. Paul isn't answering a question concerning marriage per se. Wives didn't want to disrespect their husbands. And they didn't want to disrespect God. The point at issue concerns the proper behavior in a church meeting, and the dilemma which arose after women got the freedom to pray alongside the men.

And the men were certainly happy to have the woman pray alongside them. I mean we have no evidence from the text that the woman were being pushy or demanding, or that the men were complaining about the behavior of the women. In fact, Paul starts out by saying, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." He praises them for holding firmly to the traditions he delivered to them, which indicates that the head covering issue was due to an innocent clash between two of these traditions as it pertained to a married woman.



1 Timothy 2:9-14 ( KJV ) [/b]9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Adam was formed first, Eve came from Adam, therefore, Paul does not want the woman in a position of headship over the man., he clearly states this when he says that a woman should not usurp authority.The Corinthian situation is quite different than what Timothy's church experienced. And so Paul has something different to say to Timothy than he had to say to the Corinthians. But even in Timothy's case, Paul's restriction on women seems to be a restriction on married women since he references Adam and Eve, and since his objection is based one of the fundamental aspects of being married, i.e. God's established hierarchy in the family unit.

Since wives should be submissive to their husbands, it wouldn't be a good practice to reverse their roles in church, making a wife into an overseer or deacon, which would automatically place a wife over a husband.

The challenge for us as Bible students in modern American, is our sensitivity to the fact that women do not become married right away as seems to be the case for those women living in the ancient world. And so, we must be open to the idea that passages which seem to speak in general terms about men and women, might in fact, be speaking about husbands and wives specifically.

I think it would be a mistake, for instance, to suggest that each and every woman must submit to each and every other man. When the Apostles admonish the women to submit to their husbands, the context seems narrowly focused on the marriage relationship exclusively.

And if, in Paul's word to Timothy, he does not permit a woman to speak, this seems as if Paul has taken away with one hand what he has given with the other. For as we read in 1 Corinthians 11:5, the women were praying and prophesying with head uncovered. And his solution was to have the wives put a hat on, not to deny them the experience of praying and prophesying in church. But we are worthy Bible students if we don't allow this apparent contradiction to stand. In the final analysis, it is apparent that Paul does allow a woman to speak in church and that his original objection was not to a woman's verbal utterances but to the possible role reversal inherent in placing a wife in authority over her husband, contrary to God's intent for marriage.

Butch5
Jan 18th 2009, 06:04 PM
When Paul and Jesus speak about the first couple, it's a marriage issue.

Yes, woman was from man. But God's bit of performance art, i.e. bringing a woman from Adam's rib, had a specific purpose as stated in Genesis.

Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

This statement punctuates a task God gave to Adam to name all the animals. This task taught Adam many things but primarily that he was the only one of his kind. All the other animals had mates but he did not. And God waited for Adam to discover his need before he supplied a wife for him.

Jesus cites the same passage when he taught the crowds and the Pharisees God's view of divorce. The Pharisees were citing a single verse as a proof text to justify their position on divorce in which Moses allowed a man to give his wife a certificate of divorce. Jesus, rather than citing another verse, based his rebuttal on God's larger teaching on the purpose for marriage, and referenced the first couple as a case in point.

The issue in 1 Corinthians 11 isn't a marriage issue. Rather, the central point of that chapter involves the inevitable clash between two different cultural mores. One such cultural convention embodied the fundamental value of respect that a wife has for a husband in terms of wearing a hat on the head. Paul isn't answering a question concerning marriage per se. Wives didn't want to disrespect their husbands. And they didn't want to disrespect God. The point at issue concerns the proper behavior in a church meeting, and the dilemma which arose after women got the freedom to pray alongside the men.

And the men were certainly happy to have the woman pray alongside them. I mean we have no evidence from the text that the woman were being pushy or demanding, or that the men were complaining about the behavior of the women. In fact, Paul starts out by saying, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." He praises them for holding firmly to the traditions he delivered to them, which indicates that the head covering issue was due to an innocent clash between two of these traditions as it pertained to a married woman.


The Corinthian situation is quite different than what Timothy's church experienced. And so Paul has something different to say to Timothy than he had to say to the Corinthians. But even in Timothy's case, Paul's restriction on women seems to be a restriction on married women since he references Adam and Eve, and since his objection is based one of the fundamental aspects of being married, i.e. God's established hierarchy in the family unit.

Since wives should be submissive to their husbands, it wouldn't be a good practice to reverse their roles in church, making a wife into an overseer or deacon, which would automatically place a wife over a husband.

The challenge for us as Bible students in modern American, is our sensitivity to the fact that women do not become married right away as seems to be the case for those women living in the ancient world. And so, we must be open to the idea that passages which seem to speak in general terms about men and women, might in fact, be speaking about husbands and wives specifically.

I think it would be a mistake, for instance, to suggest that each and every woman must submit to each and every other man. When the Apostles admonish the women to submit to their husbands, the context seems narrowly focused on the marriage relationship exclusively.

And if, in Paul's word to Timothy, he does not permit a woman to speak, this seems as if Paul has taken away with one hand what he has given with the other. For as we read in 1 Corinthians 11:5, the women were praying and prophesying with head uncovered. And his solution was to have the wives put a hat on, not to deny them the experience of praying and prophesying in church. But we are worthy Bible students if we don't allow this apparent contradiction to stand. In the final analysis, it is apparent that Paul does allow a woman to speak in church and that his original objection was not to a woman's verbal utterances but to the possible role reversal inherent in placing a wife in authority over her husband, contrary to God's intent for marriage.

BroRog,

I believe you are forcing your interpretation on the text. First, Paul does not say the head covering should be worn because Eve was Adam's wife, he says it because Eve was created from Adam. This is a creation issue, nothing else. God put the man over the woman in authority, just as Christ is over the man.

Genesis 3:16 ( KJV ) 16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Nowhere in either of his arguments does Paul ever appeal to cultural issues. As a matter of fact in the quote to Timothy Paul says "for the woman being deceived", that is a reference back to Genesis. The reason Paul says the woman's head should be covered, is based in Genesis, not his time so how can it be a cultural issue? If as you claim this issue was between husband and wife, then that would leave open the option that a virgin could have headship over the man. I do not say every woman should submit to every man. However the wife should submit to the husband and the daughter should submit to her father. The issue goes beyond marriage.

Regarding women keeping silent, there is no apparent contradiction, obviously in light of the women praying an prophesying, he was not saying they are not to speak. What he was addressing was that apparently it was the custom of the Jews, that when one was expounding on the Scriptures, the men in the congregation would question and sometimes challenge the interpretation. Apparently this was happening in the church at Corinth, and the women were challenging the men, which is why Paul said let the women learn at from their husbands. They were to keep silent and not challenge the men, again a headship issue.

BroRog
Jan 18th 2009, 06:57 PM
BroRog,

I believe you are forcing your interpretation on the text. First, Paul does not say the head covering should be worn because Eve was Adam's wife, he says it because Eve was created from Adam. This is a creation issue, nothing else. God put the man over the woman in authority, just as Christ is over the man.

Were you not convinced by God's stated reason for taking a woman from Adam's rib, rather than, say, creating her directly from the dust of the ground? His stated purpose for doing it this way was the marriage relationship between them.

Also, I believed you might be convinced by the reference to how Jesus understood the Genesis passage in the context of his debate with the Pharisees concerning God's intent for marriage.

To say that this is a creation issue is to say that human male dominance over the human female is a fixed aspect of the created order. If this be the case, then it would be evil and immoral for any prophet to announce that men and woman are equal, which would be as much a violation of the created order as homosexuality or cloning. And yet, in his letter to the Galatians, Paul explicitly gives men and women equal access to God through Jesus Christ.


Nowhere in either of his arguments does Paul ever appeal to cultural issues.
I agree. And I hope I didn't communicate to you that this entered into my thinking. The basis of Paul's ruling is God's purpose for marriage. But the context into which he makes these statements is the culture into which he is speaking.


As a matter of fact in the quote to Timothy Paul says "for the woman being deceived", that is a reference back to Genesis.
Yes, but even there, Paul's point was to highlight the hierarchy inherent in the marriage relationship. He isn't suggesting for a minute that women are inherently and uniquely subject to being deceived and therefor must be kept under the watchful eye of a man. Rather, his intent was to point out the fact that, though it was Eve who was deceived, it was Adam that God held responsible. Even while we are to acknowledge that Eve was ultimately responsible for the first sin, God did not violate the family hierarchy, to go around Adam. Adam's reluctance to take responsibility for his mate became the basis for his curse, according to the text.


The reason Paul says the woman's head should be covered, is based in Genesis, not his time so how can it be a cultural issue?Paul is taking a lesson from Genesis to use as a commentary on a wife's position with respect to her husband, in order to make a ruling regarding an established cultural practice which came into conflict when the situation changed. When women were NOT allowed to pray alongside the men, the issue of a woman's head covering was not a live issue. It only became an issue when Paul freed women to pray with the men.

This isn't a conflict between a Biblical precept and a cultural more. This situation is a conflict between two opposing cultural mores, and Paul's ruling between them based on Biblical principles.


If as you claim this issue was between husband and wife, then that would leave open the option that a virgin could have headship over the man.And? :)

Butch5
Jan 19th 2009, 01:41 AM
Were you not convinced by God's stated reason for taking a woman from Adam's rib, rather than, say, creating her directly from the dust of the ground? His stated purpose for doing it this way was the marriage relationship between them.

Also, I believed you might be convinced by the reference to how Jesus understood the Genesis passage in the context of his debate with the Pharisees concerning God's intent for marriage.

To say that this is a creation issue is to say that human male dominance over the human female is a fixed aspect of the created order. If this be the case, then it would be evil and immoral for any prophet to announce that men and woman are equal, which would be as much a violation of the created order as homosexuality or cloning. And yet, in his letter to the Galatians, Paul explicitly gives men and women equal access to God through Jesus Christ.

I agree. And I hope I didn't communicate to you that this entered into my thinking. The basis of Paul's ruling is God's purpose for marriage. But the context into which he makes these statements is the culture into which he is speaking.

Yes, but even there, Paul's point was to highlight the hierarchy inherent in the marriage relationship. He isn't suggesting for a minute that women are inherently and uniquely subject to being deceived and therefor must be kept under the watchful eye of a man. Rather, his intent was to point out the fact that, though it was Eve who was deceived, it was Adam that God held responsible. Even while we are to acknowledge that Eve was ultimately responsible for the first sin, God did not violate the family hierarchy, to go around Adam. Adam's reluctance to take responsibility for his mate became the basis for his curse, according to the text.

Paul is taking a lesson from Genesis to use as a commentary on a wife's position with respect to her husband, in order to make a ruling regarding an established cultural practice which came into conflict when the situation changed. When women were NOT allowed to pray alongside the men, the issue of a woman's head covering was not a live issue. It only became an issue when Paul freed women to pray with the men.

This isn't a conflict between a Biblical precept and a cultural more. This situation is a conflict between two opposing cultural mores, and Paul's ruling between them based on Biblical principles.

And? :)

Please state the cultural reasons for Paul telling the women to wear a head covering.

Bladers
Jan 19th 2009, 01:52 AM
If verse 15 is talking about the same covering as verse 5, then what does verse 6 mean?
I think Paul is mentioning two different types of covering. Whether or not it is cultural or a Biblical commandment is up to us to interpret as individuals.

1 Corinthians 11:6 (NKJV)
6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

If the woman's hair is her covering referred to in verse 5 then verse 6 makes no sense at all.

Just 2 cents ;)

If i'm 101% correct, no one regarded to respond to this? :hmm:

maasive10
Jan 19th 2009, 02:00 AM
I go to a very conservative Reformed Church and almost all of the women worship with thier heads covered - usually in the form of a dressy hat. I never grew up with such customs and although the consistory is firm in thier biblical interpretation - many do it out of custom, and I find that it can become a stubbling block - as if you are somehow a better Christian for wearing one - or looked down on if you don't. I wear one so as not to cause offence (when in Rome.....) but do not put the emphasis that others do. I think that we need to remember what Paul says later in the passage in verse 16 - "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God"
As I understand - if the issue of headcoverings causes controversy - than you may drop such a custom - Paul would rather us be united than argumentative over such an issue.

poochie
Jan 19th 2009, 02:22 AM
Is this a Fundamentalist Reformed church?

Fundamentalists hold to the doctrine of SEPARATION. If your church has contemporary worship or associates with such then yours is not Fundamentalist. if women can wear pants, then yours is not Fundamentalist.

But most important, its rare in my experience among churches to practice head coverings and not be Fundamentalist. I have also been in both Evangelical and Fundamentalist Reformed churches. If I remember correctly the women did wear head coverings in the Fundamentalist reformed church.


I go to a very conservative Reformed Church and almost all of the women worship with thier heads covered - usually in the form of a dressy hat. I never grew up with such customs and although the consistory is firm in thier biblical interpretation - many do it out of custom, and I find that it can become a stubbling block - as if you are somehow a better Christian for wearing one - or looked down on if you don't. I wear one so as not to cause offence (when in Rome.....) but do not put the emphasis that others do. I think that we need to remember what Paul says later in the passage in verse 16 - "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God"
As I understand - if the issue of headcoverings causes controversy - than you may drop such a custom - Paul would rather us be united than argumentative over such an issue.

maasive10
Jan 19th 2009, 03:15 AM
Is this a Fundamentalist Reformed church?

Fundamentalists hold to the doctrine of SEPARATION. If your church has contemporary worship or associates with such then yours is not Fundamentalist. if women can wear pants, then yours is not Fundamentalist.

But most important, its rare in my experience among churches to practice head coverings and not be Fundamentalist. I have also been in both Evangelical and Fundamentalist Reformed churches. If I remember correctly the women did wear head coverings in the Fundamentalist reformed church.

I wouldn't call it a Fundamentalist Reformed Church - because we as a denomination vary from church to church - for example the church I grew up in was of the same denomination - just a different city - and only a handful of women wore hats. A few of the women will wear pants to the service - but I would say they are in the minority. So you see although the church I attend now (I switched when I got married and moved away) is more conservative - others in our denomination are not - even though we hold to all the same doctrines. I think the make up of a church has alot to do with this - my current church has alot of elderly who do not welcome change - where others of our churches are on the younger side and welcome it.

I do know of a church that may closer to what you are thinking of - a different denomination than mine but still Reformed and what you are describing fits them to a "T".

poochie
Jan 19th 2009, 03:43 AM
They sound like Conservative Evangelical. Fundamentalists also despise denominations as they are separatists. I am not aware of a Fundamentalist denomination.

This is an example of a Fundamentalist Reformed Church

http://www.freepres.org/church.asp?greenville


I wouldn't call it a Fundamentalist Reformed Church - because we as a denomination vary from church to church - for example the church I grew up in was of the same denomination - just a different city - and only a handful of women wore hats. A few of the women will wear pants to the service - but I would say they are in the minority. So you see although the church I attend now (I switched when I got married and moved away) is more conservative - others in our denomination are not - even though we hold to all the same doctrines. I think the make up of a church has alot to do with this - my current church has alot of elderly who do not welcome change - where others of our churches are on the younger side and welcome it.

I do know of a church that may closer to what you are thinking of - a different denomination than mine but still Reformed and what you are describing fits them to a "T".

9Marksfan
Jan 19th 2009, 10:17 AM
If verse 15 is talking about the same covering as verse 5, then what does verse 6 mean?
I think Paul is mentioning two different types of covering. Whether or not it is cultural or a Biblical commandment is up to us to interpret as individuals.

1 Corinthians 11:6 (NKJV)
6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

If the woman's hair is her covering referred to in verse 5 then verse 6 makes no sense at all.

Just 2 cents ;)

It's clarified in that a woman's hair is referred to in v15 as "long hair" - which distinguishes her very obviously (even from behind) from a man. But some women had shortish hair, so that they were not "covered" - Paul is saying this was tantamount to her being shorn (like the temple prostitutes of the day), as having her hair cut short was making her look similar to the men and blurring the divinely ordered distinction between the two, which ought to be seen in a worship service.

Btw, my own church (Open Brethren) tends to believe in headcoverings, but not all practise this - I would go along with BroRog's position.

9Marksfan
Jan 19th 2009, 10:23 AM
Fundamentalist have misunderstood the Bible here. But this practice is only in Fundamentalism has far as I am aware and no EVANGELICAL/Charismatic church or fellowship enforces or teaches such things.

It depends on how you define "evangelical" - our church grouping (Open Brethren - we don't like to be called a denomination) will often call it's churches "evangelical church" - and we tend to believe in headcoverings (although I don't personally). Also, many Reformed churches in the UK (all conservative evangelical) would also tend to practise it. Perhaps the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (the US equivalent) does too?

Butch5
Jan 20th 2009, 12:14 AM
Was discussing/debating with a Fundamentalist on this issue recently. It seems there are differing interpretations of 1 Cor 11, and to some women must have a head covering in the church as in a piece of clothing, a hat or something of the sort. I have visited churches that believed in this practice, and although I disagree, I respect their right to practice what they believe. However what I take issue with is when some judge one's spirituality based upon their refusal to wear a head covering as in they wont allow such a woman to join a church or to serve in leadership ministry.

It seems to me that verse 15 says that the woman's hair is her head covering.

Since this board is predominately Evangelical and Charismatic, perhaps some can give me their 2 cents on this debate. Or perhaps there are some that believe that women MUST have a head covering (piece of clothing or a hat) in the church. What do you say?

If you would like a detailed explanation of this you can go to this site and listen to the Mp3's. There are 3 on this subject they are 11 1-16. Actually you should listen to all of the mp3's here are the entire series is good.

http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/audio.html

Sandusky
Jan 24th 2009, 07:08 PM
I am Catholic and I do wear a headcovering in church. It's not required in my church, although a long time ago it was part of canon law. But it's still a good thing to do in the presence of God.

And of course it's a direct instruction from the apostle Paul and there's no getting around that. :)

When I started covering my head I noticed right away that it just felt right to me. I can't explain it better than that...I knew it was the right thing for me to be doing. I've found that it makes me more reverent and less aware of my immediate surroundings, but more focused on God. Hard to describe. It has somehow helped me concentrate and pray better- (ie, I'm less open to distractions and my usual wandering mind in prayer).

Jesusdiedforme
Jul 10th 2009, 09:45 AM
If verse 15 is talking about the same covering as verse 5, then what does verse 6 mean?
I think Paul is mentioning two different types of covering. Whether or not it is cultural or a Biblical commandment is up to us to interpret as individuals.

1 Corinthians 11:6 (NKJV)
6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

If the woman's hair is her covering referred to in verse 5 then verse 6 makes no sense at all.

Just 2 cents ;)

My sister and I both agree, that if this verse was in reference to hair as a covering it would be saying 'If a woman has her hair short let her also have her hair short'- makes no sense!!! It has to be talking about another covering APART from her hair. My sister would wear some kind of hat to church.
My sister is mentioned in this because many men would agree with my convictions on this verse although their wives would not wear a headcovering in church.Many women don't want to see they should have act or dress any differently to men.

9Marksfan
Jul 10th 2009, 10:08 AM
My sister and I both agree, that if this verse was in reference to hair as a covering it would be saying 'If a woman has her hair short let her also have her hair short'- makes no sense!!! It has to be talking about another covering APART from her hair.

Not at all - do you think that there no difference between a woman with short hair and a woman with no hair? That's what shorn means! Demi Moore in that war flick, Sinead O'Connor, etc - it looks downright unnatural!


My sister would wear some kind of hat to church.
My sister is mentioned in this because many men would agree with my convictions on this verse although their wives would not wear a headcovering in church.Many women don't want to see they should have act or dress any differently to men.

I agree that's wrong - but I think the principle of the passage is that it should be clear to all the distinction between men and women - in our culture, hats and even hair length doesn't always show that - men can wear hats and have long hair! If women look feminine and dress in a feminine way, I think that is what counts - and men of course need to look masculine and dress in a masculine way! ;)

Butch5
Jul 11th 2009, 08:26 PM
Not at all - do you think that there no difference between a woman with short hair and a woman with no hair? That's what shorn means! Demi Moore in that war flick, Sinead O'Connor, etc - it looks downright unnatural!



I agree that's wrong - but I think the principle of the passage is that it should be clear to all the distinction between men and women - in our culture, hats and even hair length doesn't always show that - men can wear hats and have long hair! If women look feminine and dress in a feminine way, I think that is what counts - and men of course need to look masculine and dress in a masculine way! ;)

I disagree, I believe Jesusdiedforme is correct. Women should have their heads covered when praying in church. Paul's appeal here is to submission to headship. He says that the head of woman is man and the head of man is Christ. I always remove my hat when praying so as not to disrespect my head (Christ). If a woman prays with her head uncovered she disrespects her head (husband/father) and I believe in doing this she disrespects his head (Christ).

Denny606
Jul 12th 2009, 02:13 AM
this has always been a point of debate in the area where I live. Not whether or not that a woman should have her head covered but as to whether or not that they should be allowed to cut their hair after joining the church.I am a Baptist from eastern KY and as far as I can tell the different branches of the Baptist churches can't even agree on this within the same associations.This is my take on this subject If we believe that a woman's hair is her covering and must not be cut,How can we as men allow hair to grow on our head and say we are not covered?That does not make any sense to me whatsoever.Should we as men shave our heads to be uncovered?I am going to paraphrase rather than take the time to look it up and quote ,so go easy on me I think it says, though nature teaches us it is a shame for a man to have long hair, but it be contentious with any man we have no such customs neither do the churches of God. Did Paul not in his writings give leeway on this matter right there? The key to all this is if it causes contention ie ;strife ,arguing ,confusion,it is not of the Lord people it is of the adversary ,Satan. Jesus is not the author of confusion. Did he not tell us there would be those that would creep in unawares in sheeps clothing ,but inwardly they are as ravening wolves.I see this as another way for Satan to scatter the flock.I pray that people will do what is right and a born again Christian knows right from wrong ,is he perfect ? no but we should strive to be,Denny P.S. my personal beliefs do not make me popular in this area either!

Butch5
Jul 12th 2009, 03:58 AM
this has always been a point of debate in the area where I live. Not whether or not that a woman should have her head covered but as to whether or not that they should be allowed to cut their hair after joining the church.I am a Baptist from eastern KY and as far as I can tell the different branches of the Baptist churches can't even agree on this within the same associations.This is my take on this subject If we believe that a woman's hair is her covering and must not be cut,How can we as men allow hair to grow on our head and say we are not covered?That does not make any sense to me whatsoever.Should we as men shave our heads to be uncovered?I am going to paraphrase rather than take the time to look it up and quote ,so go easy on me I think it says, though nature teaches us it is a shame for a man to have long hair, but it be contentious with any man we have no such customs neither do the churches of God. Did Paul not in his writings give leeway on this matter right there? The key to all this is if it causes contention ie ;strife ,arguing ,confusion,it is not of the Lord people it is of the adversary ,Satan. Jesus is not the author of confusion. Did he not tell us there would be those that would creep in unawares in sheeps clothing ,but inwardly they are as ravening wolves.I see this as another way for Satan to scatter the flock.I pray that people will do what is right and a born again Christian knows right from wrong ,is he perfect ? no but we should strive to be,Denny P.S. my personal beliefs do not make me popular in this area either!


Denny,

I believe you are on the right track. Paul's argument is not that women shouldn't cut their hair. His argument is that a woman should have her head covered, then he appeals to nature, in almost all cultures it is natural for men to have short hair and women to have long hair. As you said if the hair is a covering for the woman then it is also a covering for the man this would mean that men would be required to shave their heads, yet Paul gives not such command. Also if the covering were the hair Paul's command makes no sense, if a woman is uncovered let her be shorn. Paul would be saying if the woman has no hair let her be shaved. His appeal to authority is the headship of Christ and God.

9Marksfan
Jul 13th 2009, 12:48 PM
I disagree, I believe Jesusdiedforme is correct. Women should have their heads covered when praying in church.

Can they not be covered with hair?


Paul's appeal here is to submission to headship. He says that the head of woman is man and the head of man is Christ.

Couldn't agree more - but how that headship is to be expressed in a visual and obvious way is the moot point here...


I always remove my hat when praying so as not to disrespect my head (Christ).

I never wear a hat to church but if I di, yep, I reckon I'd take it off to pray. The thing is, in our place, the sisters don't pray PERIOD - because of 1 Cor 14:34 - do you agree with that?


If she prays with her head uncovered she disrespects her head (husband/father) and I believe in doing this she disrespects his head (Christ).

As I said, it depends how her head is to be covered - what about widows and single ladies (whose fathers are either dead or not in the meeting (unbelievers)?

9Marksfan
Jul 13th 2009, 12:51 PM
Also if the covering were the hair Paul's command makes no sense, if a woman is uncovered let her be shorn. Paul would be saying if the woman has no hair let her be shaved.

No - he means if her hair is short, she might as well have a shaved head, because her head needs to be covered with hair to distinguish her from a man.


His appeal to authority is the headship of Christ and God.

Agreed.

Izdaari
Jul 13th 2009, 01:44 PM
Was discussing/debating with a Fundamentalist on this issue recently. It seems there are differing interpretations of 1 Cor 11, and to some women must have a head covering in the church as in a piece of clothing, a hat or something of the sort. I have visited churches that believed in this practice, and although I disagree, I respect their right to practice what they believe. However what I take issue with is when some judge one's spirituality based upon their refusal to wear a head covering as in they wont allow such a woman to join a church or to serve in leadership ministry.

It seems to me that verse 15 says that the woman's hair is her head covering.

Since this board is predominately Evangelical and Charismatic, perhaps some can give me their 2 cents on this debate. Or perhaps there are some that believe that women MUST have a head covering (piece of clothing or a hat) in the church. What do you say?I would say the board is predominantly conservative evangelical, but not majority charismatic. I would be conservative evangelical and charismatic myself, and fundamentalist in that I believe in the historic 'five fundamentals', but other than that ("Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" :rofl:), I tend to the liberal side.

My most common head covering is a baseball cap, but that's more to keep the sun out of my eyes than for religious reasons. I don't usually wear any head covering in church.

Jesusdiedforme
Jul 13th 2009, 06:03 PM
I disagree, I believe Jesusdiedforme is correct. Women should have their heads covered when praying in church. Paul's appeal here is to submission to headship. He says that the head of woman is man and the head of man is Christ. I always remove my hat when praying so as not to disrespect my head (Christ). If a woman prays with her head uncovered she disrespects her head (husband/father) and I believe in doing this she disrespects his head (Christ).

Butch, I believe that you have the right idea about a woman wearing a headcovering but I don't believe this enables her to pray out loud, I have a verse which I think backs this up:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I have heard some say that this reffers to chatting but the word is silence.

BroRog
Jul 13th 2009, 07:20 PM
Butch, I believe that you have the right idea about a woman wearing a headcovering but I don't believe this enables her to pray out loud, I have a verse which I think backs this up:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I have heard some say that this reffers to chatting but the word is silence.

Paul isn't talking about all men and all women. He is talking about husbands and wives. The word translated "woman", should read "wife" and the word translated "man" should read "husband."

But I suffer not a wife to teach, nor to usurp authority over the husband, but to be in silence.

Butch5
Jul 14th 2009, 12:17 AM
Can they not be covered with hair?

Well if we say the hair is a covering, then men would need to shave their heads because they would be dishonoring Christ if they had hair.

If you study the early church you will find that the woman did indeed cover their heads with a veil. The only question was did this apply only to married woman or to all woman? Tertullian says if you want the answer, look at the Corinthian Church to whom Paul wrote the letter. The Corinthian church understood Paul to mean all women.


I never wear a hat to church but if I did, yep, I reckon I'd take it off to pray. The thing is, in our place, the sisters don't pray PERIOD - because of 1 Cor 14:34 - do you agree with that?

I have an idea about that yet I still have questions that I have not answered for myself so I will have to defer at the moment.


As I said, it depends how her head is to be covered - what about widows and single ladies (whose fathers are either dead or not in the meeting (unbelievers)?

Either way they would still be dishonoring them if they did not cover up. However, I think they would also be dishonoring the man's head also, which would be Christ and God.