redefining the headcover

[ZiSunka]

Amen.

Or the translators did a bad job conveying the real message.

 

[Danfrey]

I do cover most of the time and I do so both as a sign of submission to God and to my future husband and also as a form of seperation. While some may dispute that the covering is not a part of seperation, I feel differently. When Paul instructed the women of Corinth to wear coverings (1st Corinthians 11: 3-17) he did so because the women in the area of Corinth did not cover, and to many cultural groups outside the area, a women who was not covered was seen as immoral, so by having these Christian women cover, Paul was having them establish themselves as moral and upright citizens, thus being seperated from the sinful culture around them.

AmishGirl,
I have a couple of questions to challenge your thinking a bit. First, let me say that I believe that a cover is scriptural, my wife covered until her death and was burried with her cover, and I am teaching my daughter to cover.

Now the tough questions. Do you have a primary source of information about the women in the area of Corinth and cultural groups that didn't cover, or is this information that you have received from others. Your statements contain alot of information, but there is similar information used to argue against the cover. It is important that we can back up our statements with primary sources.

 

[Danfrey]

It's as though the order of woman created for man is sybolized by the covering and it's some kind of lesson or testimony or sign for angels to identify with.

Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Since it's all a type of the Christ/Church Groom/Bride maybe this is some of the why? It adds to the mystery and makes me think that there is more to this than meets the eye.

I kind of like my wife's approach to this one. I remember reading 1 Cor 11 looking for a good reason to give a young guy in church a hard time. When I read it, it was the first time I had read anything about the cover. I handed my wife the bible and she read it. When she finished reading it, she decided it was time for her to start covering. She didn't have the "benefit" of several generations of people who had rejected the cover to teach her why the Bible didn't mean what it said. In her simple way, she read it and just obeyed what it said.

Like her, I don't need to know why Paul gave this teaching. I just trust that the Holy Spirit knew what he was doing.

 

[Antje]

I did a bit of reading on this since the last time I posted, and I came across an interesting idea. One scholar suggested that this all has to do with hairstyles. When I first heard this, I kind of snorted and thought "great, here's another guy who has an elaborate reason to say the Bible doesn't mean what it says." But upon further reflection, I believe he may have a point.

The usual hairstyle for women of the day was to have her hair coiled up in braids on top of her head. We know this from images on coins, frescoes, mosaics, etc. If some women were going about with their hair all loose about them, I could see how people would find it offensive or think that the woman was "easy" or morally loose or just plain a prostitute. Maybe Paul was trying to get women to wear their hair in a modest and respectable manner and not come to church as if they just rolled out of bed, which would be highly disrespectful.

The reason I am finding this explanation convincing is that it really helps to make sense of the lines where Paul says that a woman's hair is her covering and her glory. The entire passage makes sense if this is the correct view, whereas the bandanna/prayer cap view is still kind of confusing when it comes to the part that says a woman's hair is her covering.

Maybe I should stop wearing my hair loose to church.

 

[MrJim]

I did a bit of reading on this since the last time I posted, and I came across an interesting idea. One scholar suggested that this all has to do with hairstyles. When I first heard this, I kind of snorted and thought "great, here's another guy who has an elaborate reason to say the Bible doesn't mean what it says." But upon further reflection, I believe he may have a point.

The usual hairstyle for women of the day was to have her hair coiled up in braids on top of her head. We know this from images on coins, frescoes, mosaics, etc. If some women were going about with their hair all loose about them, I could see how people would find it offensive or think that the woman was "easy" or morally loose or just plain a prostitute. Maybe Paul was trying to get women to wear their hair in a modest and respectable manner and not come to church as if they just rolled out of bed, which would be highly disrespectful.

The reason I am finding this explanation convincing is that it really helps to make sense of the lines where Paul says that a woman's hair is her covering and her glory. The entire passage makes sense if this is the correct view, whereas the bandanna/prayer cap view is still kind of confusing when it comes to the part that says a woman's hair is her covering.

Maybe I should stop wearing my hair loose to church.

Never heard that approach before...

 

[ZiSunka]

I did a bit of reading on this since the last time I posted, and I came across an interesting idea. One scholar suggested that this all has to do with hairstyles. When I first heard this, I kind of snorted and thought "great, here's another guy who has an elaborate reason to say the Bible doesn't mean what it says." But upon further reflection, I believe he may have a point.

The usual hairstyle for women of the day was to have her hair coiled up in braids on top of her head. We know this from images on coins, frescoes, mosaics, etc. If some women were going about with their hair all loose about them, I could see how people would find it offensive or think that the woman was "easy" or morally loose or just plain a prostitute. Maybe Paul was trying to get women to wear their hair in a modest and respectable manner and not come to church as if they just rolled out of bed, which would be highly disrespectful.

The reason I am finding this explanation convincing is that it really helps to make sense of the lines where Paul says that a woman's hair is her covering and her glory. The entire passage makes sense if this is the correct view, whereas the bandanna/prayer cap view is still kind of confusing when it comes to the part that says a woman's hair is her covering.

Maybe I should stop wearing my hair loose to church.

Braided hair was a sign that a woman was a devotee of Bacchus, Roman god of wine, entertainment, prostitution and sexual freedom (the sexual revolution didn't start in the 1960s I guess). Women who braided their hair in long braids, sometimes augmented with hair from other women (extensions weren't invented in the 1980s either I guess), and walked around the marketplace with their braids uncovered were advertizing the fact that they were Maenads, or priestesses of Bacchus, and expected discounts on merchandise they bought. Prostitutes (there seems to be little difference between a Maenad and a prostitute) would walk around uncovered so they could advertise that they would trade sex for goods.

Christian women shouldn't do those things, either ask for discounts based on who they are or trade sex for merchandise. So it's no wonder Paul would advise women to keep their hair covered, so that no one could ask them for sex or misunderstand who they belong to spiritually.

What does this mean for women today?

I'm still struggling to understand that.

 

[MrJim]

Braided hair was a sign that a woman was a devotee of Bacchus, Roman god of wine, entertainment, prostitution and sexual freedom (the sexual revolution didn't start in the 1960s I guess). Women who braided their hair in long braids, sometimes augmented with hair from other women (extensions weren't invented in the 1980s either I guess), and walked around the marketplace with their braids uncovered were advertizing the fact that they were Maenads, or priestesses of Bacchus, and expected discounts on merchandise they bought. Prostitutes (there seems to be little difference between a Maenad and a prostitute) would walk around uncovered so they could advertise that they would trade sex for goods.

Christian women shouldn't do those things, either ask for discounts based on who they are or trade sex for merchandise. So it's no wonder Paul would advise women to keep their hair covered, so that no one could ask them for sex or misunderstand who they belong to spiritually.

What does this mean for women today?

I'm still struggling to understand that.

Seems like a lot of ladies at church use a lot of coloring and streaks and whatnot for some reason. I would say that there really isn't a lot of fancy $$ hairdos but a lot of really bad dye jobs in my opinion. They aren't a part of some weird cult, unless it's the cult of modern vanity.

 

[ZiSunka]

Seems like a lot of ladies at church use a lot of coloring and streaks and whatnot for some reason. I would say that there really isn't a lot of fancy $$ hairdos but a lot of really bad dye jobs in my opinion. They aren't a part of some weird cult, unless it's the cult of modern vanity.

That's the most popular cult of all these days. You can go into the poorest neighborhoods of the poorest, most remote village and find women with dyed hair and men with dyed mustashes and beards.

And I think it's a serious cult that has infiltrated into our churches, so maybe that in itself is enough of a reason to cover--to keep vanity from being the focus of attention in our meeting houses.

 

[Jehane]

This has been a most fascinating discussion. I do not cover; dh thinks it is legalistic & unnecessary & it would be too ironic if I covered as a sign of submission when he says not too. However my younger dd (she is only 11) has something she really likes to cover her hair with - a cross between a bandana & a hair band & I have been thinking I might try that as a compromise as it is not obviously a covering. I have been getting more & more convicted that those who say they follow Christ need to be 'seen' to be different. As a start I grew my hair down to my waist but clothing is a bit of an issue as dealing with water, boats & wind constantly I feel very exposed & immodest in dresses or skirts. As a compromise I have been following a Sri Lankan friend's dress example & putting a long tunic (knee lenght or longer) over pants. This is obviously going to be a bit of a process but God is so gracious. I've always wondered about those angels too. Jehane

 

[ZiSunka]

it would be too ironic if I covered as a sign of submission when he says not too

That would be hilarious.

I'll have to ask Joe what he thinks of headcovering since he's more or less the man in my life.

 

[Jehane]

That would be hilarious.

I'll have to ask Joe what he thinks of headcovering since he's more or less the man in my life.

Who's Joe?
Jehane

 

[handmaiden97]

wow an intresting discussion to be sure.....I dont cover and dont really feel convicted to do so...but it is a question I have discussed with my spiritual parents quite a bit. They are conservative in dress and lifestyle like me they find themselves somewhere between the worship and embracing of the Holy spirit of the charimatic church, the fundamental view on the word of God like our baptist brothers and the conservative lifestyle and values of the menonite church. I feel just as comfertable in one sort of fellowship as in another.

I suppose I lean toward the view that a womans long hair is given to her as her covering and that a woman should not pray or prophesy without a spiritual covering (Beign submitted to the God appointed authority in your life) I think the outward covering many of my friends where is a symbol of that sort of inner covering.

however I am preparing to minister in a muslim region and there I will wear the covering out of respect for the cultrue around me.

 

[Danfrey]

As a compromise I have been following a Sri Lankan friend's dress example & putting a long tunic (knee lenght or longer) over pants.

Please pardon the partial quote, but I wanted to comment on this part of your statement. My daughter went to a horse riding camp this year and we had to decide what to do about the modesty issue. The camp would not allow her to wear jumpers when riding. We decided to go with long shirts and jeans. Most of my conservative friends would shudder at the thought of putting their daughters in jeans, but for us the important issue is modesty. The shirts fell mid-thigh so they were very modest. It is important that we understand were scripture stops and tradition begins. The women in dresses thing is more of a tradition than a scriptural teaching.

Many will claim that the dress is a gender distinction thing, but we have to remember that in time the scriptures were written, the men would have been wearing what we would now consider dresses. A woman can be both feminine and modest in pants (with some care of course)

PS. The bandana cover rounds out the ensemble quite nicely

Ok, let the stoning begin
​

 

[Jehane]

Wow! You wouldn't begin to believe how weird most of my friends think I am. Thanks for the affirmation.

 

[MadFingerPainter]

~quietly slips in~
hello. i know i'm not an anabaptist but i hope it's ok to fellowship and ask questions nonetheless.

i'm just curious...what exactly are the head coverings for? i have been taught that when a woman has long hair that in essence acts as her head covering but that's for my specific beliefs. but i still don't know the reason for them.

 

[MrJim]

~quietly slips in~
hello. i know i'm not an anabaptist but i hope it's ok to fellowship and ask questions nonetheless.

i'm just curious...what exactly are the head coverings for? i have been taught that when a woman has long hair that in essence acts as her head covering but that's for my specific beliefs. but i still don't know the reason for them.

Read back through the thread and you'll see there are differences of opinions as to application and reason.

 

[MadFingerPainter]

I don't see the headcover as seperation issue. The scripture gives it as more of honor, authority type issue. \quote]

I disagree in part- when Paul told the women at Corinth that they should wear a headcovering, he did so because Corinth was known as a city where anything is permittable, much like the US today. While YES, the original symbolism of the covering did involve headship, the intent of the instruction was to seperate the women of Corinth from those around them. In many societies of the time, a woman with her head uncovered was seen as having lose morals, so in order to uphold a good image with those groups, Paul instructed them to be modest and wear the covering, in essence seperating them from the hethenistic nature of other Corinthian women.

that's the basic understanding i got out of it too.

 

[Danfrey]

that's the basic understanding i got out of it too.

Only the first two lines of that quote are mine.

 

[Jehane]

There is an interesting article in the Charity church site Menno gave on coverings which does address the issue of the angels. If I have understood correctly the arguement goes there was rebellion in heaven against God's authority & order. The mandate to cover shows That there are those who accept Godly order & authority of which the covering is only a symbol. There is a bit more to it than that but I suggest you read the article yourself. I thought it was interesting

 

[MadFingerPainter]

seems the quote thingy is messed up. ~laughs a little~
i was referring to Amishgirls part of the post.