Headcovering

[Iosias]

This is an excellent article on this important issue.

 

[George40]

i dont think this is an important issue.

 

[Iosias]

Obedience to the revealed will of God is always an important issue IMO

 

[desmalia]

Obedience to the revealed will of God is always an important issue IMO

Agreed. 100%.

However, I really don't think the article represents that very well. It's got some good info in places, but doesn't address the issue effectively. It comes off as legalistic and defensive, even addressing so-called issues that are really not central to the "debate", which is really a waste, IMHO. Personally, I'm very anti-women's lib, and in total agreement with women's submission, but still found the article to be emotionally charged and inaccurate in places.

Thanks for sharing the article though. Very interesting.

(Sorry, I'd share more from other authors than MacArthur, but biblebb.com is the best online source I've found so far!)
This summary keeps it simple while still exploring context effectively and without political agenda.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/54-16.htm
So, let me give you a little cultural thing. In Corinth, women as a custom covered their heads. That was how a woman identified her humility, that's how she hid herself as if to say I am not available, I belong to one man. And that was her modesty, that was her femininity. This is how she carried herself and how she clothed herself to demonstrate her womanliness, her femininity.

In the Corinthian society, men were uncovered. Their heads were bare, their faces were open and that was the mark of maleness. Somehow in the Corinthian church these things were getting inverted. And women were praying and speaking the Word of God with their heads uncovered, actually sort of identifying with the prostitutes and the woman's liberation movement. And men, maybe from some Jewish background or something, were covering their heads and praying and people were looking at them and saying, "They're feministic." So he says in verse 4, look, every man who prays or prophesies having his head covered dishonors his head. What are you doing? Don't do that. Why? You say, "You mean it's a sin to put something on your head when you pray?" No...not unless your culture perceives that as something that's feminine. And the point there was for a man to cover himself was to be acting like a woman. Men didn't do that. Verse 5, "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head and she might as well be like one who is totally shaved, she might as well destroy all of her femininity, look like a prostitute or some liberated person." Verse 7, "A man not to have his head covered..." See, in their society that said something.

So what Paul is saying is this, now listen carefully. Look at your society and mark out the symbols. What are the symbols of femininity in our society? What are the symbols of masculinity? And identify with those. If they don't violate Scripture, if they don't violate God's design for morality, then adhere to those symbols because that says something to your society. Listen, even this society today still knows when a woman looks like a woman. There are symbols in our society for femininity. And you know as well as I do that you can look at a woman who obviously has adapted the symbols of femininity and looks like a woman, and you can look at another woman who looks like she is rebelling against everything that womanhood absolutely means. Can't you tell that difference? Of course you can because even our society has symbols. Every society does.

Our society has symbols of maleness. You can look at a man and by the way he appears and carries himself and dresses, you can say now that guy's a man. And you can look at another guy and you get the impression that this guy is really very feminine. Because he's denying the symbols of maleness and he's communicating an inverted perverted message. So that's all he's saying to the Corinthians. Look, when you behave yourself as Christians, do so in a way that adheres to the perception of your culture so they'll understand. And further on down in verse 10 he says even nature...pardon me, verse 14, even nature has provided an analogy for the symbol of head coverings by giving faster growing hair to women as a special covering from God.

 

[Iosias]

However, I really don't think the article represents that very well. It's got some good info in places, but doesn't address the issue effectively.

Dear sister, it is strange that we can read the same thing but come to such radically different conclusions eh?

In brief my understanding is this:

A. There are three glories:
1. The glory of God
2. The glory of man
3. The glory of woman

B. The glory of God should be the only glory in public worship and so the glory of man and the glory of woman must be covered.

C. This means:

1 Corinthians 11:7a "a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God"

1 Corinthians 11:7b "but the woman is the glory of the man" and therefore ought be covered. What does this? Well to the woman "her hair is given her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:15).

1 Corinthians 11:15a "if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her" and this needs to be covered with a veil.

I trust this is clear


I concur with Professor John Murray when he said that "Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (Vss. 3b,vss 7ff ), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising therefrom."

 

[desmalia]

Yes, I would agree that is what the article is saying. However it is not a fully accurate discussion on the Bible passage, and sadly, ventures into the area of legalism.

 

[Iosias]

Yes, I would agree that is what the article is saying. However it is not a fully accurate discussion on the Bible passage, and sadly, ventures into the area of legalism.

Perhaps you could venture an alternative understanding and show why my argument is wrong?

 

[EllaBella]

Hi All

Do you mind if I ask if any of the other women here wear a headcovering in Chruch?

I've heard a couple of sermons on the subject and find it a little confusing really.

Thank you in advance

May God Bless,
Ella

 

[ReformedChapin]

Maybe we should focusing on extratcing the timeless principles of scripture and not the tradition of the time ey?

 

[cubanito]

Yes indeed, the timeless principles of marrying one's sister and slaughtering the Moabites (but hey, leave Ruth alone, OK?).

;>

JR

 

[ReformedChapin]

Yes indeed, the timeless principles of marrying one's sister and slaughtering the Moabites (but hey, leave Ruth alone, OK?).

;>

JR

Let's not misrepresent each other ey?

 

[cubanito]

You're right. Consider it an uncalled for nuggie from a brother.

Frankly I didn't understand your point at all, so I couldn't have misrepresented you because I have NO IDEA what u were trying to convey.

My post was generally offensive to everybody who believes in Biblical Inerrancy, such as myself. Shows you what Hippos are prone to do. Hippos are foul, careless, disgusting creatures of few social skills. Nevertheless, they are among God's creations, and methinks, bemuze Him greatly.

Me, I'm for headcoverings, and my wife and daughters know to put something on their head as a symbol of being under authority at Church. However, my Church does not practice headcovering, which is fine by me. It is not something I obsess over.

JR

 

[desmalia]

Richard, I would like to apologize for jumping into this thread. I have done research on this topic in the past, but it's been quite a while, so I don't have all the details with me and I have a terrible memory! I also do not consider this subject to be of primary importance, so have not prioritized my time to allow me to focus on doing all the research over again. So I should have just kept my nose out of it to begin with. I will however jump back in here with a proper detailed discussion should I find time and interest in persuing it again in the future.

Me, I'm for headcoverings, and my wife and daughters know to put something on their head as a symbol of being under authority at Church. However, my Church does not practice headcovering, which is fine by me. It is not something I obsess over.

JR

This is very interesting to me, JR. I'm curious, what brought your wife and daughters to choose headcoverings? Is this how your wife was raised? Is it in her cultural background? Is this something you have requested of them?

That is where I could see it being very important - when it's culturally relevant (and of course if a husband requests it). Actually, considering the number of Mennonite churches I've attended in the past 12 or so years, you'd think I would have seen headcoverings quite often, and maybe even been encouraged to do the same. But so far, I can't remember a single instance.

 

[cubanito]

What brought my wife and daughters to put something on their heads was me telling them to.

In my usual tactless form, I don't CARE what they think on this matter. They are to do as they are told.

Actually, they have little opinion one way or the other on this matter, but they DO believe they ought obey me whenever it is not immoral, illegal or just plain mean of me.

Now, all I ask of them about this is 3 things:

1- It need be SOMETHING, a pair of glasses, a hairclip, ANYTHING at all is sufficient for me. If you tell me I'm compromizing because it was meant as a full covering, well, maybe your right.

2- They need to know WHY it's there: as a symbol that in the Church they are barred from leadership position. I've no quarrel w women deacons, though my own denomination does not allow that either, but a female elder, pastor or adult sunday school leader is not acceptable. And yes, it is irritating to the Angels who kept their place to see man, that puny, disgusting and far less intelligent being whom God chose to eventually judge even them not keeping their place.

3- That they understand this is not some decision based on my Latin machismo, male insecurity or anything like that. It is based on my best understanding of the Scriptures. Could I be wrong in my interpretation of those Scriptures? Sure, but since this is what I DO believe, why exactly would I go against my conscience and irritate the angels of God? Ever see "Dogma?" Not a good idea to irritate the angels...

JR, and no, I'm not some swaggering control freak idiot repeating Oh-BEY like some mantratic excuse for abuse.

 

[desmalia]

Thank you for sharing that JR. If my husband felt as you do, I would happily do the same for him. For him, that I dress modestly is his standard, and honestly I would do that regardless of whether he required it of me or not.

 

[cubanito]

EXACTLY RIGHT, Desmalia!

With your kind of attitude, the whole headcovering issue is minor and rather silly! Which is why I go to a Church where women DON'T cover their heads, and I don't bother at all about it.

My problem is with those women who downright rebel againt rules just to rebel, even when it is a minor little thing that would please their husbands. So my wife puts her glasses up on her head when whe formally meet for worship as a sign of respect to me. And you leave your hair free because the person under whose authority you are dosen't care. Everybody wins, order, peace and decorum is preserved. God is honored either way.

Now, if we ever here decide to have a serious discussion on this MINOR issue, fine, let's have at it. But it will be an intramural debate among brothers (and sisters).

JR

JR

 

[ReformedChapin]

You're right. Consider it an uncalled for nuggie from a brother.

Frankly I didn't understand your point at all, so I couldn't have misrepresented you because I have NO IDEA what u were trying to convey.

My post was generally offensive to everybody who believes in Biblical Inerrancy, such as myself. Shows you what Hippos are prone to do. Hippos are foul, careless, disgusting creatures of few social skills. Nevertheless, they are among God's creations, and methinks, bemuze Him greatly.

Me, I'm for headcoverings, and my wife and daughters know to put something on their head as a symbol of being under authority at Church. However, my Church does not practice headcovering, which is fine by me. It is not something I obsess over.

JR

Well I should have clarified since it seems by your church tradition you have been taught something else. I believe that the verse in question address cultural issues. What is the timeless principle that the bible stress for head covering? Respect...not wearing the headcovering which no longer applies in our contemporary tradition.

 

[KorahRose]

I wear a head covering because my father has asked me to do so. Only one of my sisters does not. She is married and her husband does not think it necessary. She did, however, wear one without argument when she was under my father's roof.

My father's reasoning is that the Bible says it, he will not argue it. He also says that it is a sign that we are set apart, and that we are in submission. We try, in every area of our lives, to be truly biblically feminine in every way. This is a way my father believes is necessary.

 

[Floatingaxe]

It is strictly legalism to impose ancient Jewish Christian cultural clothing traditions on the 21st century Church.

 

[Iosias]

It is strictly legalism to impose ancient Jewish Christian cultural clothing traditions on the 21st century Church.

The headcovering for women in public worship is clearly taught by St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. I would suggest you read this.