Head coverings

[Kathryn13]

I'm just courious if anyone in this forum has ever been convicted to wear a head covering in church because of what the Bible says in I Cor. 11? I'm not talking about you do it/did it because you went to a church where it was expected and you were just following the practice of your church, but specifically you go/went to a church were it was NOT practiced and you just felt led by the Holy Spirit to do it.

Then on the flip side of that, I'm wondering if anyone wore the covering for a while and then was convicted by the Spirit to stop.

What were your experiences either way? I'm especially wanting answers from those who have been convicted one way or the other through personal study and prayer and not simply the teachings of their particuallar denomination.

Thanks in advance to anyone who wishes to answer.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Simply said, I view it as cultural advice, not universal advice. We must keep in mind when and to whom the letter was written. In fact, in many cultures I'd be considered more masculine for my long hair.

 

[ZiSunka]

I know I want to do what Christ has taught us to do, but that passage is just Paul's opinion, not Christ's command, so I feel free, rightly or wrongly, to ignore his admonition to cover our heads.

 

[daveleau]

We have studied this in school (Liberty Baptist seminary) and believe that it is culture bound. (ie does not apply to us, but was a custom of the times) The same goes for the Holy kiss (hearty handshake or embrace is equivalent.) I have packed up my notes for a trip so I don't have them handy.

 

[ZiSunka]

It would be like Paul warning us today not to wear slip dresses or bikinis. Too revealing and immodest!

 

[Kathryn13]

Yes, I am taught and (for the most part) agree with the teaching of it being cultral, however, for the purpose of this discussion, I was wanting to find out not nessicarily everyone's opinions on the topic, but more specifically if anyone HAS had a personal conviction, and if so what brought them to that conviction. Thanks.

 

[Kathryn13]

That is, a conviction about head coverings that is.

 

[mesue]

I think it is refering to a spiritual covering, or authority, see verse 10.

Verse 15 says her hair is her covering and her glory, so this tells me that it is not a physical covering at all.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Yes, I am taught and (for the most part) agree with the teaching of it being cultral, however, for the purpose of this discussion, I was wanting to find out not nessicarily everyone's opinions on the topic, but more specifically if anyone HAS had a personal conviction, and if so what brought them to that conviction. Thanks.

Well, I think the very fact of it being cultural caused me to come to my convictions. After all, convictions should be based on God and the Bible.

 

[vlinder]

To Life Immortal

I cover my head in church and nearly every time I go outside. I do it not because of what it says in bible, but because of ethnic customs and modesty.

Peace and Long Life
~*~ Vlinder/Balafenn ~*~

 

[Crazy Liz]

There have been occasions when I have decided to wear a head covering out of reverence. I have a wool scarf from Russia like my great-grandmothers used to wear, and I often wear it to church on Christmas Eve, even though nobody else wears anything like that.

As far as my conviction from scripture, I am convinced that Paul had no strong opinions about women covering their heads. We have seriously misinterpreted the first half of 1 Corinthians 11. Paul mentions it only to draw out many esoteric details of a trivial matter that the Corinthians had been discussing, as a contrast to the second half of the chapter, where the Corinthians were neglecting the most basic aspects of a very important matter.

Now, the fact that Paul mentions it at all means it was a custom, and it's fine to observe it out of either culture or conviction, or just honor for a tradition of the past or of another place. So I do it sometimes, on occasions when I feel it is appropriate. Is it a conviction? Well, not a strong moral conviction, but a kind of conviction nevertheless.

 

[Lynn73]

To answer the question of the OP, no I don't feel any particular conviction to wear a head covering.

 

[ZiSunka]

In the Mennonite circles, it is considered a symbol of submission to the husband, and since I don't have a husband, I do not feel convicted to wear one. However, if I had a husband who asked me to wear one out of respect for him, modesty, or as a sign that I am willing to be culturally different for the sake of Christ's Kingdom, then I would feel like I should.

 

[P_G]

I would teach you that the scriptures say what they say.

A woman rightly should wear a covering outside the home.

I know it is not culturally fashionable at this time
But it is still appropriate behavior.


BTW no I don't think you will go to hell if you don't


Blessings

Pastor George

 

[Kathryn13]

Thankyou Lambslove, so far your answer is the closest to what I was looking for, but may I be so bold to ask if you will be talking to God about it if your husband doesn't have a prefrence? May I go so far as to ask if you have prayed about not wearing one now, or have you just not done it because you have been taught not too? Do you understand the question? I don't at all mean to be stiring anything up...quite the opposite actually, I'm just asking for my own personal reasons. I'm wondering if the Lord is convicting me in this area, and if so, why is He?? I'm asking about this subject simply to find out if anyone else out there in this forum has ever been convicted by the Lord of this when they were taught it was just a cultral thing that Paul was speaking of, and what they did about it. That's all. Thanks to all who answer without trying to stir the pot.

 

[ZiSunka]

Sure I would. If I felt that was God's will for me, I would definitely do it. And I have prayed about it, but still I don't feel that that is something I need to take literally.

 

[sobresaliente]

from what I understand of that scripture and its context the head covering it is referring to is a woman's hair, not necessarily a veil or hat or whathaveyou.

The reasoning is that it is shameful to a woman to have short hair, because they could be mistaken for a man...the same is said about men, it is shameful for them to have long hair.
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7

For 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.

8

For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12

For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

13

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?



Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?



But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.



Pay special attention to the last few verses.

I hope this helps,
Sobresaliente

 

[Iosias]

I'm just courious if anyone in this forum has ever been convicted to wear a head covering in church because of what the Bible says in I Cor. 11? I'm not talking about you do it/did it because you went to a church where it was expected and you were just following the practice of your church, but specifically you go/went to a church were it was NOT practiced and you just felt led by the Holy Spirit to do it.

Then on the flip side of that, I'm wondering if anyone wore the covering for a while and then was convicted by the Spirit to stop.

What were your experiences either way? I'm especially wanting answers from those who have been convicted one way or the other through personal study and prayer and not simply the teachings of their particuallar denomination.

Thanks in advance to anyone who wishes to answer.

I have never covered my head in church and that is because it says 1 Corinthians 11:4 "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head." and believe it to be wrong for men to cover their head in church. On the flipside, I believe it wrong for women to not cover their head in church. (See my commentary below).

Recently I went on holiday to France with about 50-60 Christians and there were two young ladies who covered their head for worship. Talking to them (admittedly briefly) I saw a simple faith wherein they desired to please God and give Him glory and because the Holy Bible says that God desires sisters to cover their heads in church, they did it. It was impressed upon me by their actions that such a simple faith is a very mature faith.

The commentary: (please do not debate!! It is here to be read and digested. The original post was not for debate so I ask that you do not debate this. I post it solely For Your Information)

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Paul starts off with a commendation of that which is praiseworthy at the church in Corinth. He then begins to correct that which the Corinthians were doing wrong. Some commentators have argued that verses 2 to 16 belong to times past, specific to Corinth and that the modern church can ignore these instructions. Whilst conceding that these verses may never have been written if there was no conflict between different groups in the Corinthian church, it does not necessarily follow that these fourteen verses belong to the dustbins of history. Indeed it is interesting to note that: (a) Paul sides with those arguing women ought to be covered in church; (b) Paul’s argument for this position are not at all cultural, instead referring to the timeless principles of male headship, the magnification of the glory of God, and the prevention of causing offense to angels. (c) He begins these fourteen verses by praising those who keep his ordinances and ends with establishing explicitly a new one!



3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Now no one will disagree with the statements that the “head of every man is Christ” and that the “head of Christ is God” however when we read that “the head of the woman is the man” an outcry breaks forth. But from where does it come and what does this mean? Male headship goes back to Genesis 3:16 where God curses the woman saying: “You shall be eager for your husband, and he shall be your master”. During the Edenic dispensation, men and women were equal, however due to original sin God cast men and women out from Eden and cursed them. The curse of the woman being in Genesis 3:16. This means then that the curse of the woman is that she is under the authority of men with men displaying the authority of God upon the earth. Therefore “the head of the woman is the man”. The use of Christ and God is Paul making the point that although God the Father has authority over God the Son, the two are equal in deity. Similarly man has authority over woman although they are equal in personhood.


4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Why is this? Paul kindly provides us with the answer in verse 7 when he says that a man ought not to cover his head for he is the “image and glory of God”. What then does this mean? Man reflect the glory of God, he is the mirror of God’s gloryand so for the man to cover his head would be to cover up the glory of God. This would then cause grave offense to God and to the angels that dwell in the churches of God.


5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

We have just considered why a man “praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head” and so we can use this framework to understand verse 5. If a woman was to cover her head she would be doing the right thing because “woman is the glory of the man” that is she is the mirror of man’s glory, and so in covering her head she covers up the glory of man (i.e. herself) which is as it should be. Why? Because in the church all glory should be given to God and so there should be no competing glories in the church. So if she uncovers her head, she allows her own glory to compete with God’s glory and that is as if she had short hair so allowing the glory of man to compete with the glory of God; both of which are detestable, i.e. disregarding those authorities above her.


6a For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:

This is a key verse and one can only understand it fully if one grasps the argument of verse 15. This states that, if a woman has long hair it is to her glory meaning that long hair is a good thing. Why? Well we are told that “the woman is the glory of the man” that is, she is the mirror of man’s glory, and this means that she should be covered by long hair. Therefore by not being covered with hair she is going against nature and therefore God. The long hair is the visible sign of man’s authority over her whilst the veil is the sign of God’s authority over her and so if she is not veiled then she has openly challenged the authority of God and so she may as well be shorn for one cannot recognize the authority of men is one denies the authority of God.



6b but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

The phrase “but if it be a shame” has let many to confuse the Paulian argument and the meaning of this whole passage. When Paul states ‘but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven” we know that it is indeed a disgrace because we know from verse 15 that long hair is a natural covering given to her by God and that it is to her glory to have flowing locks. This therefore means that we can read verse 6 as follows: If a woman is not to wear a veil she might as well have her hair cutoff for to wear a veil shows her submission to God’s authority whilst her long hair shows her submission to man’s authority and so to fail to wear a veil is to deny God’s authority; but if it is a disgrace for her to be cropped and shaved – which it is for her flowing locks are a gift from God and are to her glory, then she should wear a veil. But why say that if it is a shame then she should wear a veil? The answer comes about thus: If the woman recognizes that long hair is to her glory and she understands why, then she will recognize that it is a shame for her to be shorn or shaven and so she should wear a veil, that is, she will see the need for the veil!



7 For 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.

Man should not cover his head because he reflects the glory of God (see verse 4) however the woman reflects the glory of man and so needs to be covered. Therefore God has provided her with long hair as we are told: “for her hair is given her for a covering”. Woman is a mirror of man’s glory, she reflects his glory - the woman is the glory of the man. A question inevitably arises: Why is she the glory of the man? The answer is that she has her origin and purpose of life in man as seen in Genesis 2:20-25 and Genesis 3:16.


8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
That is to say she was created from the rib of man. Her origin is of man and so she mirrors his glory whilst man is of God and so he mirrors God’s glory.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Reflecting Genesis 2:20


10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Here is another of Paul’s timeless arguments! A woman should cover her head so as not to cause offense to the angels. The long hair is the visible sign of man’s authority over her whilst the veil is the sign of God’s authority over her and so to have neither or one alone is to cause offense to the angels.


11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

This verse is included to ensure that verses 8 and 9 do not lead men to be proud and abuse their position of authority. It is a reality check!



12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

This verse is included to ensure that verses 8 and 9 do not lead men to be proud and abuse their position of authority. It is a reality check!


13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

Here Paul is being rhetorical and the answer is obviously no!


14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Here Paul is again being rhetorical and the answer is obviously yes!


15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Here we are told that long hair is what women should have! Why? Simple: because God has ordained it thus. We are told that long hair is a naturally given covering which is a good thing. God gave women long hair to cover the glory of man, i.e. themselves, which illustrates man’s authority over her. So in keeping her hair long she shows her willing acceptance of this divinely instituted order. Hence her long hair is to her glory. Or put another way: the natural covering of flowing locks, reflects the natural authority of men over women, and women in having long hair acknowledge this and submit to this natural order of things and so long hair is to her glory for her acceptance of her submission and this is pleasing to the angels (verse 10)



If a woman has long hair it is to her glory. Why? Because her long hair is given to her for a covering. To cover what? To cover the glory of man i.e. herself. And so if a woman has long hair it is to her glory because she is covering the glory of man in the church.


16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Here Paul is saying ‘I have told you why a woman must be covered in church however if you disagree then recognize that there is no need for disagreement on this issue: you should be covered up!’ Or it could refer to the occurrence of women engaging in theological arguments within the church and so Paul would be saying something similar to “If you wish to debate, we have no such practice and so remain silent as it is in the churches of God” which would seem correct in the light of 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:12.



A summary of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
It seems to me the argument of Paul can be summarized thus: whilst “women is the glory of the man” God has given her a natural covering of long hair and whilst this long hair reflects “her own glory” so her hair is to be covered up with a veil. This is because all glory is to be given to God in church. Notice that the principles behind this specific instruction - women covering their heads in worship - are timeless and so one must conclude that the specific instruction must also be timeless and so 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 cannot be tied to any specific cultural period.

 

[ZiSunka]

Sometimes I worry that western Christians think every Christian should look alike, forgetting all cultural differences about Christians in other world cultures. I even went to a church for a while that demanded that all the women over age 25 wear long flowered skirts with dark blazers, whether it was 95 degrees or -20 degrees outside. Now before you start thinking this was a cult, it was a Baptist church in Dayton, Ohio. Once I wore jeans and a nice sweater, and I got haul up in front of the ladies' sunday school class and used as an example of inappropriate churchwear. They didn't care that they embarassed me, they only cared that I conform to their cultural dress code.

I think it's okay for Christians to have a lot more leeway in cultural things. As long as you're not wearing sexy clothing, what difference does it make your head is covered or not? It isn't like men in today's culture lust over a woman's hair, which is why women wore headcoverings back then. Hair was an intimate part of a woman's body and to uncover it meant that you were a prostitute on the prowl. Now we would compare it to wearing a lacy camisole and low rider jeans. It's putting too much of your body on display, creating a stumbling block for others.

 

[ZiSunka]

And AV1611, my hair is pretty short, so I still give the glory to God and not my own head!