Headcovering

[cCensor]

I have not read all the post, but as much as I read I could not find the right answer.
What Paul was talking about was the balled women in the pews.
In that time in history we have prostitutes coming from the Greek temples to join the Christian, but the problems is prostitutes were balled as prostitutes did to ID themselves.

So Paul comes in and is speaking to this issue of women who are balled and should have a head covering. (Put a hat on to your hair grows back )
In the end he points out that nature will show you that women should have long hair as women do. You don't see women with hair on their chest like men, but it grows mainly on her head.

I know some good loving Christian who believe that women should wear a hat of some kind in church. This comes from not looking at the history of what was going on at the time or plucking verses out of the letter of Paul.

Paul had a problems with the church in Corinth and the whole letter is full of problems. People drunk at the Lords table, balled women at the service and some kind of unknown tongue.
Most of Paul's writing of this letter he was HOT and that is the way you should read it.

Sure some will disagree, but I still love you

Love Censor

 

[Floatingaxe]

Thank you, it was mentioned already that the bald women were those coming out of the shrines into the Church.

You are absolutely right in that regard.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:3-16


b. 1 Corinthians 11:7 Or 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering (of hair) on her head dishonors her head—she is just like one of the "shorn women." 6 If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair

Shouldn't this argument be about if a women doesn't have long hair she should wear a head covering, but if she does have long hair, her hair serves as a head covering? Also, men shouldn't have long hair? From the commentary above, and I'm assuming the translators know what they're talking about, this passage is about bald women in church wearing head coverings--not about women with long hair wearing head coverings. So basically, from this passage I would conclude that if a woman is bald, she should grow out her hair again until she isn't bald, and men shouldn't have long hair.

 

[tamtam92]

If Paul wanted women to grow their hear, why doesn't he say so plainly ? Like "If a woman is bald, she should grow hair like nature tells us".
If Paul wanted women only to have long hair, why is it that it is only since 20th century that women don't cover their head in the church? Don't you think people in Paul's time would've known better?
Plus, do you really think that prostitutes turned christian wouldn't have grow their hair without being told?

Moreover, the letter to the Corinthians isn't addressed only to Corinthians:

Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

So the letter is for every christian, but not this single passage. Why doesn't Paul begin by saying "Concerning ex-prostitutes having bald hair, i command that..." ? For instance, in chapter 5, where the problem is general with a single worse case, he states the problem very clearly :

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife.

Moreover, if it was only about hair: why do so many christian women have short hair? Why don't they (they at least) cover their heads?

It looks to me there's a great debate here, because people simply want to keep their way of life. But without being "conservative" or "traditionnalist" per principle, i consider this:
historically, in France, starting from churches where all women were covering their heads... principles are disappearing in (more or less) order:
- women don't cover their head
- women wear pants during the week
- women wear pants at church
- music takes more time than preaching
- men cover their head / women preach
The order isn't fixed... i think there's been women preaching with the head covered, but i'm not so sure.
Anyway, i think the general direction is rather going further and further from bible teaching. This is so sad.

What i don't understand is -- why do the women see quitting the veil as a "new freedom"?

I'm very puzzled by this matter. Why is such a little piece of cloth such a problem?

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

If Paul wanted women to grow their hear, why doesn't he say so plainly ? Like "If a woman is bald, she should grow hair like nature tells us".
If Paul wanted women only to have long hair, why is it that it is only since 20th century that women don't cover their head in the church? Don't you think people in Paul's time would've known better?
Plus, do you really think that prostitutes turned christian wouldn't have grow their hair without being told?

Moreover, the letter to the Corinthians isn't addressed only to Corinthians:

So the letter is for every christian, but not this single passage. Why doesn't Paul begin by saying "Concerning ex-prostitutes having bald hair, i command that..." ? For instance, in chapter 5, where the problem is general with a single worse case, he states the problem very clearly :


Moreover, if it was only about hair: why do so many christian women have short hair? Why don't they (they at least) cover their heads?

It looks to me there's a great debate here, because people simply want to keep their way of life. But without being "conservative" or "traditionnalist" per principle, i consider this:
historically, in France, starting from churches where all women were covering their heads... principles are disappearing in (more or less) order:
- women don't cover their head
- women wear pants during the week
- women wear pants at church
- music takes more time than preaching
- men cover their head / women preach
The order isn't fixed... i think there's been women preaching with the head covered, but i'm not so sure.
Anyway, i think the general direction is rather going further and further from bible teaching. This is so sad.

What i don't understand is -- why do the women see quitting the veil as a "new freedom"?

I'm very puzzled by this matter. Why is such a little piece of cloth such a problem?

Yeah, I was just throwing an idea out there. I figured that the commentary on there might be useful. In actuality, I have not and will never pick a side to this debate because of a few reasons:

1. I don't think it's a matter of salvation (I don't think whether or not a woman wore a head covering is going to be a factor in salvation).
2. I'm not a woman.
3. I agree with many points on both sides of the debate.

Reading and participating in debates is something I always like doing, however, so for that reason, I join in!

 

[tamtam92]

It is not necessarily a matter of salvation. However, there are cases where women don't cover their heads out of rebellion. This is very annoying when some are fuelling the complaints.

Anyway, i'd rather not get cross with someone for that subject. I'm worried when some simply want to justify their not obeying the word. Some don't cover because they've always been taught like that, and i think it's entirely different.

 

[oliveplants]

Very interesting reading here.

(I cover because the Bible tells me so.)

This is an old thread or I'd be giving reps to several of the posts... You guys are great.

 

[thelovebug]

Headcoverings show respect.

 

[cubanito]

I have not read all the post, but as much as I read I could not find the right answer.
What Paul was talking about was the balled women in the pews.
In that time in history we have prostitutes coming from the Greek temples to join the Christian, but the problems is prostitutes were balled as prostitutes did to ID themselves.

So Paul comes in and is speaking to this issue of women who are balled and should have a head covering. (Put a hat on to your hair grows back )
In the end he points out that nature will show you that women should have long hair as women do. You don't see women with hair on their chest like men, but it grows mainly on her head.

I know some good loving Christian who believe that women should wear a hat of some kind in church. This comes from not looking at the history of what was going on at the time or plucking verses out of the letter of Paul.

Paul had a problems with the church in Corinth and the whole letter is full of problems. People drunk at the Lords table, balled women at the service and some kind of unknown tongue.
Most of Paul's writing of this letter he was HOT and that is the way you should read it.

Sure some will disagree, but I still love you

Love Censor

The verses say the opposite of what you claim they do. It says if a woman does not cover her head, let her be as those who shave it off completely. If a woman does not want to publicly acknowledge that in Church she is not to have authority over men, that is, if she wishes to assert her supposed right to be an elder, then she ought be considered as rebellious as a prostitute.

Now, you can claim this whole thing is only cultural, and does not apply today, but do not change the plain meaning of the text. Three types of women are here referenced: those with balled heads (publicly proclaiming they are temple prostitutes), women with hair who cover it in Church as an external sign of recognition they are not to exert authority there, and women with uncovered hair. The latter group, Paul says, should be treated as the first: disobedient to God.

Frankly, I find it very suspicious that for 2,000 years the head covering was the uniform, and then, just as "women's lib" and their anti-Christian message of rebellion becomes accepted, the coverings vanish with hardly a discussion. The Church ought not copy the World, and in head coverings, it clearly did.

JR

 

[david01]

This is long, but is the best discourse I have yet found on the issue of headcoverings. I highly commend it to your consideration:

http://www.entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Headcoverings in Public Worship2.htm

 

[KorahRose]

It's interesting to see this thread bumped up. When I orginally wrote in it, I was wearing a head covering. Since then, I have been married. My husband would rather me not wear one. But while under my father's roof, I wore one out of respect for his wishes.

 

[desmalia]

It's interesting to see this thread bumped up. When I orginally wrote in it, I was wearing a head covering. Since then, I have been married. My husband would rather me not wear one. But while under my father's roof, I wore one out of respect for his wishes.

That is very interesting. Can I ask why your husband would rather you not wear one?

Oh, and congrats on your marriage!

 

[KorahRose]

That is very interesting. Can I ask why your husband would rather you not wear one?

Oh, and congrats on your marriage!

He never felt convicted of it. And while he's not against me wearing one, it would only draw attention at the church we attend now. So he doesn't think it's wise.

 

[desmalia]

Ah, OK. And how do you feel about that? Would you prefer to wear one?

 

[KorahRose]

Ah, OK. And how do you feel about that? Would you prefer to wear one?

I actually agree with my husband's view on it, although if I felt convicted to wear one, I'm sure we would both agree that I should- even if it made me stand out in the crowd.

To be honest, I probably need to study the topic more. I personally don't care either way. When my father decided we should wear one, I did. It wasn't a matter of me believing it. My father was the leader of my home, and he felt convicted. If I'd caused an uproar in the family just not to wear one- well, that would have been very selfish (especially since I don't yet feel convicted one way or the other).

Sorry if that's rambling, I just got to typing. lol

 

[desmalia]

I actually agree with my husband's view on it, although if I felt convicted to wear one, I'm sure we would both agree that I should- even if it made me stand out in the crowd.

To be honest, I probably need to study the topic more. I personally don't care either way. When my father decided we should wear one, I did. It wasn't a matter of me believing it. My father was the leader of my home, and he felt convicted. If I'd caused an uproar in the family just not to wear one- well, that would have been very selfish (especially since I don't yet feel convicted one way or the other).

Sorry if that's rambling, I just got to typing. lol

That's pretty much how I see it as well.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I hope I'm not digging too deeply into archaeology here. I've just discovered this very interesting thread.

I have long hair, and I wear skirts the majority of the time. I'll wear shorts (but not to church) if it's very hot, and I'll wear slacks (but not to church) if it's very cold. I do not traditionally cover my head, but sometimes I am convicted to do so during private prayer. If He tells me to do it, I'll do it. And for the record, if Mike asked me to wear a headcovering in obedience to Scripture--and he wouldn't--I'd gladly do so.

I've seen many applications of the headcovering doctrine. A neighbor from several years ago simply wore what resembled a small doily on top of her head, and when my daughter asked about it, she explained her reasoning. "I wear it to show that I am a Christian woman in submission to God and my husband." She wore it not only to church but whenever she appeared outside her own home. Yet it really didn't make her stand out in any way. It covered only the crown of her head, and was quite pretty.

Then there are those who wear an attractive hat or bonnet to church, and figure that answers the command. A full nun's habit, or a hijab similar to that worn by Moslems, is the route taken by others. Some rely on the hair to be a covering, whether it is cut or not, as long as she is not bald. Different interpretations.

Some even take it farther than I do. Not only long hair--which means DON'T EVEN TRIM THE ENDS--but also no makeup and no jewelry. Not only refrain from slacks and shorts, but skirts must cover the knee, sleeves must cover the elbow, and necklines must cover the collarbones. Then there are those who take it farther still: the clothing must cover all those areas AND be of a solid, dark color, AND a bonnet or veil must be worn that covers all of the hair. This is at all times, not merely in church. (No--they don't believe in going to beaches or public swimming pools, where even the most "modest" bathing suits don't cover up more than they have to.)

Most people would say I dress very modestly. But those of some past churches I've attended would be appalled when they see me sleeveless, or in shorts, or wearing makeup and jewelry. Yeah, I've got long hair, but I do keep the broken ends trimmed off. The legalism makes no sense to me. The Bible says "modest," but where does it spell out exactly what body parts must be covered, and where does it say clothing must be a dark solid color or else it isn't modest? And where, when it says long hair, does it say never to groom that hair by trimming off broken ends? In the churches that teach that, the men are forbidden to wear hair past their collars. So, if a woman has waist length hair that has been trimmed, but a man keeps his hair consistently at shoulder length, her hair is "short," his is "long," and both are disobeying the commandment.

A case can be made against makeup and jewelry, but I don't interpret those verses the same way. They're not saying DON'T wear it, they're saying that's not where your true beauty comes from. If we took those verses literally, we can read it to mean don't wear clothes at all, and never wear your hair in a braid. (Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; I Peter 3:3 in the KJV).

Legalism can always go too far.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

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

Just so.

And IMHO, what Paul is talking about in I Corinthians 11 are not timeless principles, but culturally relative things that were appropriate in 1st century Corinth, but not necessarily so today.

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

That would be my take on it.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

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?

I'm not married, but I wouldn't marry anyone who felt that way.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

It makes it difficult to remain outward-focused as Christians, bringing people to Christ, and into the Church, when there is this foreign throwback to first century Palestine enforced on half of the congregation. A new believer or seeker today would run, not walk out of the church and away from the message. It is too weird, to be truthful.

Women are free, and are to be out there bringing in the lost to find Christ--worshiping before their God just as they are!

Hey, I worship God naked in the shower!

When we come together to worship God and celebrate Jesus as a corporate body, we worship like David did! There is no head covering in the world that can remain in place on the head of a woman who worships the way God loves it!

Get real, people! We, like nature, are to worship and praise our Father with clean hearts and lifted heads! There should be no religiosity in our standing before Him. Imposing ancient modes of dress upon women today is simply piosity run amok. You aren't going to be filling your churches with new believers if you are trapped in tradition.

Break free.

I would totally rep this, if the rep button showed for it.

As it is, I'd just like to say this is one of the best posts I've ever read!