Shouldnt Christian Women wear head coverings in Public Worship?

[Clarinetlover]

I think it is every person own choice if they want to or not. It is like people that have different versions of modesty or don't believe in it.

 

[hownow]

JoshuaDaryl: the greatest disrespect ever done to the rich literary traditions contained in the canonical Judaeo-Christian Bible, let alone the God represented in that Bible, has been to insist upon the sort of blind literalism most of us left behind when we actually learned to read.

You're not only wrong, you're despicably so, and completely out of line with it as well. Nobody died and made you sole arbiter and judge over everyone else and it's abusive, bully-pulpitting nonsense like what you're spouting that your very own God is going to confront you with one day when He wants to know where all that spiritual blood on your hands came from, for it is your kind and none other that drive out the sincere, the sensitive, those with conscience and heart and WORKING BRAINS, with your pathetic religious jack-booted thuggery.

Just thought you'd like to know. Not that I expect it to do any good -- a head that hard with stubbornness is impervious to reality and truth and fact. I know because I used to have one myself, so don't imagine I'm just blithering insults out of personal pique here. The words I use have meaning and I use them as objective, apt and fitting descriptors, nothing more, nothing less. I know whereof I speak on this matter.

 

[eagle48]

I am a woman and liked what Joshuadaryl posted. The scriptures he listed were spot on. The divorce rate has skyrocketed since womens lib. Some men have become wimpy in their marraige because women have become so head strong and they now wear the pants in the family, as the saying goes. But also what has happened is men quit being the spiritual leader in the household, such as praying with their wifes and kids and reading scripture with his family. The days of, Little house on the prairie are gone. (Not that I would want to bring back the outhouse and using leaves and corncobbs for toilet paper) I know many women who watch the duggar family and envy what Jim and Michele have in their relationship. They seem to be very blessed and they only have long hair for a head covering. Paul is really confusing in his scriptures on head covering. In the beginning he states that a woman should have a covering placed over her head or something like that. Then towards the end he says that the womans long hair is her covering. I am wondering if the lost books that wasn't included in the bible mentions anything on head coverings. I will say that I had an experience wearing a head covering when dressing the part for vacation bible school the theme was called the market place. For a week we reenacted what life was like back in the days of Jesus. When wearing the head covering I felt very submissive to the Lord. It is kind of hard to sin when you constantly feel the covering on your head. It is a constant reminder of who created us. It was like feeling his hand on top of my head. I even felt closer to the Lord when I prayed with it on. I still have it and pray with it on sometimes. I suppose that's how the jewish men feel wearing the beanie thing on their head. It really feels like Gods hand is resting on your head. All I can say is try it for yourselves.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I am a woman and liked what Joshuadaryl posted. The scriptures he listed were spot on.

Clearly I disagree.

The divorce rate has skyrocketed since womens lib.

Correlation does not equal causality.

Also, the advent of "no-fault" divorce may be a larger factor.

Some men have become wimpy in their marraige because women have become so head strong and they now wear the pants in the family, as the saying goes.

So?

But also what has happened is men quit being the spiritual leader in the household, such as praying with their wifes and kids and reading scripture with his family.

So? Who says that one spouse or the other should be THE spiritual leader?

The days of, Little house on the prairie are gone. (Not that I would want to bring back the outhouse and using leaves and corncobbs for toilet paper) I know many women who watch the duggar family and envy what Jim and Michele have in their relationship. They seem to be very blessed and they only have long hair for a head covering. Paul is really confusing in his scriptures on head covering. In the beginning he states that a woman should have a covering placed over her head or something like that. Then towards the end he says that the womans long hair is her covering.

The paper I linked earlier shows there is disagreement about the translation. It could refer to an item of clothing worn on the head, or it could be a prohibition against wild, unkempt hair which in that culture signified sexual promiscuity.

I am wondering if the lost books that wasn't included in the bible mentions anything on head coverings.

If you believe entire *books* have been "lost," why bother with the Bible at all?

I will say that I had an experience wearing a head covering when dressing the part for vacation bible school the theme was called the market place. For a week we reenacted what life was like back in the days of Jesus. When wearing the head covering I felt very submissive to the Lord. It is kind of hard to sin when you constantly feel the covering on your head. It is a constant reminder of who created us. It was like feeling his hand on top of my head. I even felt closer to the Lord when I prayed with it on. I still have it and pray with it on sometimes. I suppose that's how the jewish men feel wearing the beanie thing on their head. It really feels like Gods hand is resting on your head. All I can say is try it for yourselves.

This actually argues *against* the passage under discussion, because there Paul says that MEN should NOT have their heads covered.

 

[eagle48]

Going to try my best and debate with you Mr. NorrinRadd, but when I have to get a dictionary out to see what the words listed under your user name means then I know I'm not on your IQ level. Especially intellects that try to justify replacing a X in the place of the word Christ. Maybe you should try wearing the beanie, which doesn't cover the head, it might enlighten you on a few things. I will admit you were right on a few things. I guess it shouldn't matter if the man becomes wimpy in the relationship, to each is own. I prefer a man that takes charge and leads his family in the ways of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:8. For man is not from woman but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. As for as men being the spiritual leaders, it works. I see in households where the man is in charge spiritually the household has less problems. Women are more satisfied, kids are better behaved. You rarely see divorces in these households. As far as the lost books I can see your point. I guess I wonder about the lost books since revelations almost didn't make the cut to the bible because they felt the scriptures was to strange. Even Jude 14 and 15 quoted Enoch. He was apparently quoting from a book. There is a book of Enoch. That's why I mentioned the lost books. I'm sure you will have a lot of intellectual things to say, bring it on Mr.NorrinRadd.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I keep my hair long because that is my understanding of 1 Corinthians 11. If I were to lose my hair to some disease, I would cover my head. However, I don't think women who keep their hair short are less godly than I am. That's open to the way the individual sees and applies the Scripture, and is not for me to decide for them.

There are some who believe in women having long hair as I do, and then go so far as to say it should never even be trimmed. I don't go that far. If left alone, my hair will settle at seat cushion length (not quite long enough to sit on, but long enough to touch the seat cushion behind me) which is its terminal point. That's determined by genetics; not everyone can grow their hair to their knees, ankles, and beyond. Then it will thicken gradually as new hairs start catching up with the older ones, and eventually it will start drying out and fraying, feeling crunchy and brittle at the ends. When that happens, I'll trim off the broken ends to the point where my hair is healthy again, which is never shorter than waist length. I don't cut my hair to style it or be fashionable. I only cut it to eliminate the dried ends.

I haven't found long hair any harder to take care of than short. If you keep it cut in a certain style, you have to maintain it every six weeks or so. I haven't set foot in a salon in goodness knows how long, saving me quite a bit of money. I was made to grow up in that classic bowl-style hairdo, the short hair and bangs style that I've heard called a coconut, because that's what the hair looks like. I guess in a sense I may be rebelling against that, although some of the more hard-core fundamentalists may say it's the women with short hair who are in rebellion. Yet I, not allowed long hair as a child, insist on it now, and that is just as much an attitude of rebellion as those who cut their hair short because they don't want to be made to wear it long. That's why I don't judge.

Long hair or not, I've seen coverings ranging from a full bonnet to a little doily, with the spirit of it being that as long as they've got something symbolizing a covering on their head, then they are in compliance with 1 Corinthians 11.

I've also come across the belief that a married woman should never wear her hair down in public. Long, flowing tresses are thought to be seductive to some men. Therefore a woman who is married should wear her hair up in public, and allow only her family to see it down. I've seen the same reasoning from people who believe women of a certain age should cut their hair short, because long hair is for younger, sexier women. That throws a whole new monkey wrench into things, I think.

 

[donfish06]

I find it fascinating how not one person paid any attention to the scriptures.

1Co 11:5 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.

Let's let Paul tell us what a woman's head should be covered with:

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Plain as day. No interpretation needed.

Those of you who claim it doesn't matter, I don't think it would be in the scriptures if it didn't

 

[Ubuntu]

First of all, this passage has most likely nothing to do with hair in itself. Paul is arguing that women should be veiled, as was the custom in the Greco/Roman world back then. In other words, no, he's not talking about hats, hats weren't in existence back then.

So what's up with the verse where he talks about hair? His argument might be somewhat alien to us today, but he's basically saying something like: “if womans don't want to use veils, they should go ahead and remove their hair too, because the hair is also a veil”. In other words, he's not arguing that a veil is unneeded as long as woman have long hair, quite the opposite.

So is it necessary for modern day females to cover their hair in Church or elsewhere? No, I believe that this was a custom applicable to the Churches at Paul's time. Circumstances alter cases, since wearing veils is no longer recognized as necessary in order to dress modest and proper, women can ignore this admonition with a good conscience.

 

[ColoradoGrrrl21]

Let me start off by saying that I don't believe this to be an issue of Orthodoxy, but one of little "o" orthopraxy - it's not a requirement for salvation or anything like that - and I'm open to other interpretations.

Having said all that. My original stance on this passage of scripture was that it was a directive specific to the Corinthians as a means to distinguish Christian women from the pagan worshipers and temple prostitutes.

I began to reassess that view this past year. It's been a process. At first it was me deciding to keep my hair long (not to the point of never cutting or trimming it, but at least past my shoulders). Then I moved to the stance of it being for married women and that I might do it if I ever get married - and in the meantime only when I'm on worship team (the closest I come to praying or prophesying for the congregation). In the last month or so I've come to believe it is an instruction for any woman who is a believer. If you're old enough to have made that decision, you're old enough to cover if you choose.

So, I started covering for all worship services at church a few weeks ago. I do it in a stylish way (I'm in love with the coverings from Garlands of Grace and Wrapunzel) and so far I don't think anyone has noticed that I'm doing it for reasons beyond fashion - those of personal conviction and as a visual symbol of submission to God, whether I ever get married or not. Which is a good thing, so far, because I wouldn't want to put a stumbling block in front of anyone - or have them think I'm being legalistic about it or expect others to follow suit, it's just something I saw the beauty of and felt led to participate in. And when the questions eventually do come, that's what I'll share.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I would be interested in reading these papers. I am a Christian woman with Mennonite beliefs and feel that God is convicting me to cover my head when praying and attending church, possibly even all the time in my every day walk with Christ.

Yhvh will continue to convict you (in your heart/ conscience/ spirit) as you continue to seek Him (or IF you do)(love totally hopes you do, for the best).

Yeshua said He will teach you the truth if you love Him totally and completely and trust Him. trust Yhvh. In Yeshua He is Faithful.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

If I ever wear a head covering to church, it will be a broad-brimmed pirate hat with a big feather.

 

[Job8]

I have just stumbled upon this. I never knew the bible said anything about a woman wearing a head covering during Church/prayer!

Alyssa,

I have read some of the responses and noted that no one has tried to do a proper exegesis of the Scripture passage which teaches that Christian women should indeed wear a head covering during worship or prayer.

Before we look at that passage, we should ask ourselves a few questions:
1. Is the entire first letter to the Corinthians the inspired Word of God through Paul?
2. If so then whose words are we reading in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (KJV)?
3. Why then would the apostle Paul take 16 verses of Scripture on a specific subject, and in the end nulllfy his own teaching (or God's teaching) by sayiing that the head covering he is talking about is simply the woman's hair?
4. If indeed the head covering was the woman's hair, could he not have simply dismissed it in one line, and taught women not to cut their or shave their heads?

The truth is that this is the teaching of the Holy Spirit to Christian women because there is a deeper truth embedded here -- the submission of each Christian, and the local church, to the authority of Christ, and the submission of the Christian wife to her own husbands. This is a teaching concerning Divine order and Divine authority.

1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
We are told here to follow Paul's example in everything.
2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
He begins by stating that he is now addressing the "ordinances" which are in fact the teachings of Christ (Gk paradosis = that which is handed down). He will deal next with the Lord's Supper.
3But 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.
Here Paul reveals the Divine order of authority (headship). God the Father is the Head of Christ, Christ is the Head of every Christian man, and every Christian man is the head of his wife and household.
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
Therefore men are to keep their heads uncovered while praying or prophesying.
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6For 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.
Women, on the other hand, are to keep their heads covered during worship.
7For 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.
This is a reference to Adam and Eve transferred to the Christian man and woman, where the man is seen as "the image and glory of God" while the woman is seen as the glory of the man. The man's uncovered head symbolizes his authority and Christ's authority over him. The woman's covered head symbolizes submission.
8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Again a reference to Adam and Eve. Adam was a direct creation of God made out of dust. Therefore he is also called "the son of God" (Lk 3:38). Eve was created from Adam's rib to be his wife.
9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Adam was first created to serve God, and given charge of the garden of Eden. It is only after that that God saw that it was not good for him to be alone, hence Eve was created as a companion and helper to Adam.
10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
The "cause" here is the order of Divine authority given in verse 3, therfore the word translated as "power" is Gk exousia = authority. The woman's head covering is symbolic of her submission to her husband's authority, but also the submission of the local church to Christ's authority. Angels are mentioned because angels observe Christian worship, and observe the outworking of salvation in human beings. When they see women with uncovered heads, it indicates a lack of submission on both sides -- the women as well as that church.
11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Here Paul points out that while the husband has authority over his wife, he is not to be a tyrant, because God wants them to complement and complete each other in the Lord. Which also means that Christians are not to marry unbelievers (taught elsewhere).
12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
Here he refers to the creation of Eve from Adam's side, but now all men are born of women. All things are of God means that God had a plan in human marriage, which ultimately represents the eternal union of Christ (the Divine Husband) with the Church -- the wife of the Lamb (the redeemed saints)
13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
Here they are reminded that it was already a custom in Jewish synagogues for women to have their heads covered, therefore it would be unseemly for Christian women to have their heads uncovered.
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
In God's eyes, there must be a distinction between the sexes, with the men having short ("polled") hair. It is shameful for men to look like women.
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
God gave women long hair as an adornment as well as a natural covering. Women with really long hair could even use them as a covering for their bodies.
16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
What exactly is Paul saying here? That Christians should not be argumentative about this command but obey it, because in all the apostolic churches, they have NO SUCH CUSTOM OF UNCOVERED HEADS FOR WOMEN, NOT THE OPPOSITE. In other words, this is what God requires of Christian women.

Is this teaching for all time? Certainly. This is not a "cultural" issue at all, but a spiritual issue. This teaching has been generally perverted, ignored or dismissed. But we are now dealing with Scripture, and every woman must given account as to her response to Scripture, not the teachings of men. There was a time when all women in North America either wore hats to church meetings, or some sort of head covering. There are some churches which still make this a practice without argument.

 

[mafwons]

No, Jesus made no reference to it.

Paul wrote that and even admitted it was his own opinion (not doctrine), Paul as you know was raised a Pharisee (religious hypocrites according to Jesus), so some of his personal opinions/preferences were deeply colored by his upbringing.[/QUOTE

So would we assume from this information that because something in the inspired word of God does not sit well with our cultural bias then we can write it off as Paul's mistake when he was perfectly recording the inspired word of God.

 

[mafwons]

One should take care not to get legalistic over customs that have no moral or doctrinal importance. The custom in Biblical times was for men to wear robes and not pants - there were some pagan tribes in far-off places where men wore trousers even in Biblical times. So wearing trousers would have been associated with "savages" and paganism. So one could get carried away over a cultural norm in the middle east 2000 years ago and say it isn't "Biblical" for men to wear pants - thet must wear robes and they are guilty of some unspecified sin if they wear pants.

There is also nothing ordering men not to wear pants in the scripture, there is a passage ordering women to cover their heads. Shall we ignore what is not convienient inscripture.

 

[Job8]

No, Jesus made no reference to it.

Jesus made no reference to many things which He taught and commanded through the apostles. That is not a reason but an excuse.

Paul wrote that and even admitted it was his own opinion (not doctrine), Paul as you know was raised a Pharisee (religious hypocrites according to Jesus), so some of his personal opinions/preferences were deeply colored by his upbringing.

Nowhere in 1 Corinthians 11 does Paul ever say that those words or teachings are his opinion. To make such a misleading statement is very unwise, and certainly does not help those who are seeking the truth.

If we believe that every word in the Bible is a word of God, and a word from God (hence "the Word of God") then every word in 1 Cor 11 is a word of the Holy Spirit and direct instruction to all Christians for all times. And if you read Paul's epistles carefully, he fully abandoned any and all pharisaical notions. Instead he received direct revelations and instructions from Christ, and faithfully taught and recorded them. When Paul said he "delivered" doctrine (1 Cor 11:2, 23) he meant that he "handed down" to Christians what he had been handed by Christ.

So would we assume from this information that because something in the inspired word of God does not sit well with our cultural bias then we can write it off as Paul's mistake when he was perfectly recording the inspired word of God.

mafwons, this has become a real problem with modern Christians. Anything which does suit someone can be simply dismissed. The inspiration and authority of the written Word of God has been systematically undermine for at least 200 years, and now we are seeing the fruit of that.

 

[Albion]

It's a gesture. Gestures have meaning, and we all engage in some religious gestures. That this particular one should be thought obligatory, however, strikes me as silly.

 

[Job8]

It's a gesture. Gestures have meaning, and we all engage in some religious gestures. That this particular one should be thought obligatory, however, strikes me as silly.

None of Christ's commandments can be termed "silly". You could say the same thing for water baptism and the Lord's Supper.

The Holy Spirit would not devote 16 verses of Scripture to a matter that is inconsequential. And this teaching is followed further with teaching on the Lord's Supper. Would you deem the whole chapter as "silly"?

 

[DawnStar]

I am sorry I don't remember being told Christ would not accept me unless I wore a hat on my head. In fact I did not have a hat on my head when I was saved in church. I guess I'm not saved then. The problem with many churches is that they say that anyone can come to Christ and then when they do come to Christ they pile a big list of stuff on them that they are supposed to do so they can remain saved. It is nonsense. Just like this silly thread.

 

[Albion]

I am sorry I don't remember being told Christ would not accept me unless I wore a hat on my head. In fact I did not have a hat on my head when I was saved in church. I guess I'm not saved then. The problem with many churches is that they say that anyone can come to Christ and then when they do come to Christ they pile a big list of stuff on them that they are supposed to do so they can remain saved. It is nonsense. Just like this silly thread.

DID anyone tell you that you were not saved because your head was uncovered?

 

[Albion]

None of Christ's commandments can be termed "silly".

This isn't one of Christ's commandments.

You could say the same thing for water baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Not with any logic, you couldn't.

The Holy Spirit would not devote 16 verses of Scripture to a matter that is inconsequential.

I beg your pardon. The Holy Spirit did not devote 16 verses to telling women to wear a hat. That's why this line of argument is silly.