Headcovering

Albion · Dec 24, 2007

If it were important, I'm sure a few of the many Christian churches/denominations would practice it. Each has better theologians than we here are.

The only ones that I can think of where this practice has any sway at all would be the Eastern Orthodox where it is optional and in the ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholic split-offs still using the Latin Mass, etc.

Anyone know of more?

Floatingaxe · Dec 24, 2007

Iosias said:
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.

I suggest you come out of the first century and join the twenty-first century. Paul never declared a for-all-time edict.

KorahRose · Dec 24, 2007

Floatingaxe said:
I suggest you come out of the first century and join the twenty-first century. Paul never declared a for-all-time edict.

As far as I can see, not many of the things we're told to do in the Bible say, "for all times.". I can't even think of many where context shows that they're for all time. It's just a given...

I don't completely disagree with you. I don't believe it's necessary for women to wear head coverings (unless, like in my situation, it's a very important thing to the head of the household). Yet, I don't think your logic works well into the debate.

desmalia · Dec 24, 2007

Albion said:
If it were important, I'm sure a few of the many Christian churches/denominations would practice it. Each has better theologians than we here are.

The only ones that I can think of where this practice has any sway at all would be the Eastern Orthodox where it is optional and in the ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholic split-offs still using the Latin Mass, etc.

Anyone know of more?

I think some IFB's do as well. Not many though. And some traditional Mennonites.

KorahRose said:
As far as I can see, not many of the things we're told to do in the Bible say, "for all times.". I can't even think of many where context shows that they're for all time. It's just a given...

I don't completely disagree with you. I don't believe it's necessary for women to wear head coverings (unless, like in my situation, it's a very important thing to the head of the household). Yet, I don't think your logic works well into the debate.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this, Korah.

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

But what is legalism? Let's not forget we're not talking about unsaved Pharisees practicing works to puff themselves up or even to earn their salvation. Whether we agree with this tradition or not, it is not comparable to legalism that is condemned in Scripture. And worse, I believe it would be harmful to cast judgment on those who practice it. They are following a tradition for the purpose of honouring God. Paul encourages us to be sensitive to one another in this area. In addition, there are some compelling arguments to suggest that this could indeed be something to be practiced even today. I think we must be very careful with the argument that "it only applied to the church then".

Iosias · Dec 24, 2007

Albion said:
If it were important, I'm sure a few of the many Christian churches/denominations would practice it. Each has better theologians than we here are.

Truth is not decided by majority vote.
A Letter with Augustine's sentiments on Headcoverings for Women.
John Chrysostom's XXVIth Homily on 1 Corinthians.—On the Veiling of Women.
John Calvin's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
David Dickson's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.

Albion said:
Anyone know of more?

Brethren, Presbyterians and a number of Baptists.

Iosias · Dec 24, 2007

Floatingaxe said:
Paul never declared a for-all-time edict.

Well the fact that not one of his arguments in favour of women covering their hair is cultural but concerns Gods' glory, creation, angels and nature all of which are timeless.

Floatingaxe · Dec 24, 2007

KorahRose said:
As far as I can see, not many of the things we're told to do in the Bible say, "for all times.". I can't even think of many where context shows that they're for all time. It's just a given...

I don't completely disagree with you. I don't believe it's necessary for women to wear head coverings (unless, like in my situation, it's a very important thing to the head of the household). Yet, I don't think your logic works well into the debate.

It's not MY logic. It's Paul's logical prescription for that particular church at that particular time in history, for a particular difficulty in behaviour.

We don't cover our heads anywhere in society for any reason apart from weather. It is a cultural behaviour that the middle eastern people adhere to. Paul was addressing the fact that the newly Christian women were coming into the churches with bare heads and bald heads, bearing the outward look of their pagan pasts. Baldness was found in those who were priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite. Paul wanted them to cover up their remnant look and be modest and uniform, dressing as other women of the day. Nothing wrong with that.

Today, we would stick out like a sore thumb coming into the Lord's house veiled. How welcoming would that be to visitors? It isn't the uniform dress of women today, and to adhere to an ancient custom of dress as some sort of religious and pious behaviour is legalism and serves to hold the unchurched at arm's length, rather than endear us to them.

desmalia · Dec 24, 2007

Floatingaxe said:
It's not MY logic. It's Paul's logical prescription for that particular church at that particular time in history, for a particular difficulty in behaviour.

We don't cover our heads anywhere in society for any reason apart from weather. It is a cultural behaviour that the middle eastern people adhere to. Paul was addressing the fact that the newly Christian women were coming into the churches with bare heads and bald heads, bearing the outward look of their pagan pasts. Baldness was found in those who were priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite. Paul wanted them to cover up their remnant look and be modest and uniform, dressing as other women of the day. Nothing wrong with that.

Today, we would stick out like a sore thumb coming into the Lord's house veiled. How welcoming would that be to visitors? It isn't the uniform dress of women today, and to adhere to an ancient custom of dress as some sort of religious and pious behaviour is legalism and serves to hold the unchurched at arm's length, rather than endear us to them.

So... are you suggesting that Paul commanded the women of that day to set themselves apart from the pagans, but women today are supposed to try and blend in with them so we can be seeker sensitive?

Iosias · Dec 24, 2007

Floatingaxe said:
Paul was addressing the fact that the newly Christian women were coming into the churches with bare heads and bald heads, bearing the outward look of their pagan pasts.

Could you provide some exegetical evidence for that assertion?

Floatingaxe said:
Baldness was found in those who were priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite. Paul wanted them to cover up their remnant look and be modest and uniform, dressing as other women of the day.

Could you provide some historical evidence for that assertion?

Floatingaxe · Dec 24, 2007

desmalia said:
So... are you suggesting that Paul commanded the women of that day to set themselves apart from the pagans, but women today are supposed to try and blend in with them so we can be seeker sensitive?

No, des. We do blend in already, with our customs of dress in many ways. We, as believers are called to modesty, however.

In Paul's day, a bald woman or a woman without a headcovering was viewed as immodest. That is our only standard. They also were called to be modest in their way and blend in with society's mode of dress.

We are not called to revert to first century Palestine
fashion. Paul was not discussing such a thing. He was teaching the men and women about decorum in the church meeting.

desmalia · Dec 24, 2007

Floatingaxe said:
No, des. We do blend in already, with our customs of dress in many ways. We, as believers are called to modesty, however.

In Paul's day, a bald woman or a woman without a headcovering was viewed as immodest. That is our only standard. They also were called to be modest in their way and blend in with society's mode of dress.

We are not called to revert to first century Palestine
fashion. Paul was not discussing such a thing. He was teaching the men and women about decorum in the church meeting.

I don't disagree with you on that. I am just not sure the arguments you presented really defend the point too well. And what do you say to those women here who do wear head coverings? Should they stop doing this?

Albion · Dec 24, 2007

Iosias said:
Truth is not decided by majority vote.

And even less so by a minority vote.

[Brethren, Presbyterians and a number of Baptists.

Brethren, I suppose...but Presbyterians and Baptists? No. Only if we're talking about some of the very small branches of each.

Floatingaxe · Dec 24, 2007

desmalia said:
I don't disagree with you on that. I am just not sure the arguments you presented really defend the point too well. And what do you say to those women here who do wear head coverings? Should they stop doing this?

I say nothing to those women--they don't need someone to criticize them. I pray for them that they find their freedom in Christ. He doesn't call them to do it. Religion does. It doesn't mean that they love the Saviour any less. It is their act of reverence.

However, some are doing it out of submission to a male's interpretation of Paul's epistles. I trust that as people become more filled with the knowledge of God and with the Holy Spirit, He will speak to them about it. In the meantime, let us worship Jesus Christ with abandon! Hopefully the covering will fall off!

The only thing I want on my head is the hand of Jesus blessing me.

desmalia · Dec 24, 2007

Floatingaxe said:
I say nothing to those women--they don't need someone to criticize them. I pray for them that they find their freedom in Christ. He doesn't call them to do it. Religion does. It doesn't mean that they love the Saviour any less. It is their act of reverence.

However, some are doing it out of submission to a male's interpretation of Paul's epistles. I trust that as people become more filled with the knowledge of God and with the Holy Spirit, He will speak to them about it. In the meantime, let us worship Jesus Christ with abandon! Hopefully the covering will fall off!

The only thing I want on my head is the hand of Jesus blessing me.

And if one day your husband came to you after studying the subject deeply, and told you that he strongly believed it is dishonouring to God for women to go to church without a head covering, what would you do? If he asked you to wear it, would you?

Floatingaxe · Dec 24, 2007

desmalia said:
And if one day your husband came to you after studying the subject deeply, and told you that he strongly believed it is dishonouring to God for women to go to church without a head covering, what would you do? If he asked you to wear it, would you?

No, because he would be asking amiss.

No one in our church or any churches like ours believes that there is any command to wear headcoverings. We know that it is not for this culture and that Paul didn't mean it to be a forever edict.

desmalia · Dec 24, 2007

Floatingaxe said:
No, because he would be asking amiss.

No one in our church or any churches like ours believes that there is any command to wear headcoverings.

So you believe it would be a sin for you to wear a headcovering?

Floatingaxe said:
We know that it is not for this culture and that Paul didn't mean it to be a forever edict.

How do we know this?

KorahRose · Dec 24, 2007

Floatingaxe said:
It's not MY logic. It's Paul's logical prescription for that particular church at that particular time in history, for a particular difficulty in behaviour.

We don't cover our heads anywhere in society for any reason apart from weather. It is a cultural behaviour that the middle eastern people adhere to. Paul was addressing the fact that the newly Christian women were coming into the churches with bare heads and bald heads, bearing the outward look of their pagan pasts. Baldness was found in those who were priestesses in the cult of Aphrodite. Paul wanted them to cover up their remnant look and be modest and uniform, dressing as other women of the day. Nothing wrong with that.

Today, we would stick out like a sore thumb coming into the Lord's house veiled. How welcoming would that be to visitors? It isn't the uniform dress of women today, and to adhere to an ancient custom of dress as some sort of religious and pious behaviour is legalism and serves to hold the unchurched at arm's length, rather than endear us to them.

It can become legalism. But it certainly is not in and of itself legalistic. I do not believe it should be bound upon everyone. My father, and therefore my family, has made the decision that our heads will be covered. But my father would never tell someone else that their family must. If someone asks, he explains our conviction on this subject.

And as far as the blending in... what about the modesty part you mention? Could we then call modesty "cultural"? Perhaps in their society it was wrong to be immodest. In our society today, it really isn't. I could walk around in a mini skirt and a skin tight, too low shirt and barely get noticed. So to change with culture, is it OK if I do that?? Obviously not. But going along with your argument, modesty could be a matter of what culture you live in.

We can't just pick and choose what is cultural and what isn't.

Floatingaxe · Dec 24, 2007

desmalia said:
So you believe it would be a sin for you to wear a headcovering?

Of course it is not a sin, unless a woman does it to appear pious..which is vanity and pharisaical.

ow do we know this?

It is contextually meant for the Christians who were having trouble with certain behaviours in the churches. We should know this.

This is petty stuff, and we are warned against arguing about it. That is the bigger command.

Floatingaxe · Dec 24, 2007

KorahRose said:
It can become legalism. But it certainly is not in and of itself legalistic. I do not believe it should be bound upon everyone. My father, and therefore my family, has made the decision that our heads will be covered. But my father would never tell someone else that their family must. If someone asks, he explains our conviction on this subject.

And as far as the blending in... what about the modesty part you mention? Could we then call modesty "cultural"? Perhaps in their society it was wrong to be immodest. In our society today, it really isn't. I could walk around in a mini skirt and a skin tight, too low shirt and barely get noticed. So to change with culture, is it OK if I do that?? Obviously not. But going along with your argument, modesty could be a matter of what culture you live in.

We can't just pick and choose what is cultural and what isn't.

Fashion is cultural. Modesty runs through culture, and is a command to us from God--no matter what culture we come from.

desmalia · Dec 24, 2007

Floatingaxe said:
Of course it is not a sin, unless a woman does it to appear pious..which is vanity and pharisaical.

What about not submitting to our husbands?

Floatingaxe said:
It is contextually meant for the Christians who were having trouble with certain behaviours in the churches. We should know this.

Floatingaxe said:
This is petty stuff, and we are warned against arguing about it. That is the bigger command.

Well I quite agree this is not an issue to divide over. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss it. Are we arguing? I didn't think so...

Headcovering

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

KorahRose

Guest

sounds like somebody's got a case of the mondays

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

sounds like somebody's got a case of the mondays

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

sounds like somebody's got a case of the mondays

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

sounds like somebody's got a case of the mondays

Well-Known Member

sounds like somebody's got a case of the mondays

KorahRose

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

sounds like somebody's got a case of the mondays

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency