Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Women AND head Coverings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Discussion Women AND head Coverings

    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?

  • #2
    Originally posted by poochie View Post
    It seems to me that verse 15 says that the woman's hair is her head covering.
    I agree .


    Originally posted by ConqueredbyLove
    Even sheep fall down sometimes...But Jesus picks them up as they can't pick up themselves

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by FaithfulSheep View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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
        Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.


          Originally posted by shepherdsword View Post
          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

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              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.
              I am a Christian man in the Devil's land, spreading the gospel man to man.
              Have you laid your burdens down?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by poochie View Post
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BroRog View Post
                  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.....
                  Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.
                  Proverbs 3:5

                  My soul yearns for you in the night; in the morning my spirit longs for you. When your judgements come upon the earth, the people of the world learn righteousness.
                  Isaiah 26:9

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.


                    Originally posted by BroRog View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by poochie View Post
                      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.
                      I am a Christian man in the Devil's land, spreading the gospel man to man.
                      Have you laid your burdens down?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by poochie View Post
                        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.
                        Amazzin

                        Obedience to God is more than a soldier obeying his commander. It is our grateful response to the Lover of our souls.

                        CHURCH: Where worship is enjoyed, not endured - Grace is preached, not legalism - And Christ is exalted, not religion!



                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by poochie View Post
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by poochie View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Butch5 View Post
                              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.
                              I am a Christian man in the Devil's land, spreading the gospel man to man.
                              Have you laid your burdens down?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X