Who here Covers?

[RenJac]

how about you?

 

[PaulaS]

Just out of curiosity.

How many people have you brought to the lord in the past year?

How many of those were people you approached in public?

Yes ,How about you?

 

[PaulaS]

Just out of curiosity.

How many people have you brought to the lord in the past year?

How many of those were people you approached in public?

Now you have me curious, Bella Vita. How many people have you lead to the Lord in the past year? How many of those people did you approach in public?

I'm usually just a lurker and read the threads but this one has really gotten my curiosity up. I am a Southern Baptist from the top of my head to the bottom of my feet. I stand on my rock of salvation and will tell anyone about our Savior. I will tell them the plan of salvation and try to help them make a decision but ultimately it's up to that person. If God convicts their heart and they repent of their sins to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, then they are saved and their sins are forgiven as far as the East is from the West! It's the same way with coverings or any other decision you make, if you pray and wait on the Lord and listen for His still small voice you will make the right decision that God has for you. There is no debating the questions or answers that God gives you. HE gives you the Bible and that provides you, along with prayer, the answers you need.

 

[Tallguy88]

I don't understand the harassment that RenJac is receiving on this. Covering is a non-salvific issue. Why then are Sola Scriptura Christians berating a fellow Sola Scriptura Christian about something found in the Bible that she has prayed about and feels called to do?

 

[PaulaS]

I don't understand the harassment that RenJac is receiving on this. Covering is a non-salvific issue. Why then are Sola Scriptura Christians berating a fellow Sola Scriptura Christian about something found in the Bible that she has prayed about and feels called to do?

I can't understand it either. She has prayed about it and this is what God has told her to do. Others should accept it and go on about their lives. If they do not feel that God has called them to cover then they shouldn't have anything to say to RenJac about something that she knows God has called her to do. I pray for those that cause chaos, conflict and confusion for others who are just trying to do what our Holy Father has called them to do. May God bless you all.

 

[Fencepost]

I don't understand the harassment that RenJac is receiving on this. Covering is a non-salvific issue. Why then are Sola Scriptura Christians berating a fellow Sola Scriptura Christian about something found in the Bible that she has prayed about and feels called to do?

Same here but I guess it goes to the heart of the matter. Do you do what God says or do you do what you think God says. I have been a believer for 18 years and am by no means perfect but I think we have to ask ourselves if we call Jesus Lord how come we do not do what He asks us to do?

 

[OzSpen]

The Bible talks about this in 1 Cor. 11, where it uses nature as a parenthetical example as to why women should wear headcoverings. Just like in the natural, the woman should have long hair, so as a symbol for the spiritual, she is to also wear a head covering. So, Scripturally speaking, the Bible tells us that women should both have long hair, and wear a head covering - 1 Corinthians 11.

While I do not support the covering of a woman's head in 21st century churches in my country, it is not an issue relating to salvation. Paul made it clear in 1 Cor. 11:16 that this was not to become contentious:

If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God (ESV).

Sadly, I think this thread has become contentious.

My understanding is that in the Corinthian church a woman wearing a covering was to honour her husband.

How do we apply this to 21st century Australia where I live? Is Paul indicating a cultural pattern in his day that is not needed today? I'm not of the view that Paul was teaching a custom to all people throughout all Christian centuries that he was teaching to the Corinthians.

What is the principle he was teaching? It seem to me that Paul was teaching that in the marriage relationship the wife honours and respects her husband and the husband honours and leads his wife. This is the fundamental principle he was teaching and this will apply differently in various cultures throughout the world and down through the centuries.

The principle is: husbands and wives are to honour one another and each has different roles. I'm not convinced in my culture that a woman wearing a head covering when the church gathers is a sign that she is doing that.

I don't consider that a lack of a covering is a sign of worldliness or lack of submission to her husband. It's that in my culture, the head covering does not have that kind of application that it had in the Corinthian church and culture.

In Christ, Oz

 

[Diakoneo10]

Well said. I wanted to join in and defend your position, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do that here. However, I take extreme issue with the poster who said that those who cover don't know the Bible. How presumptuous.

This is for you:

Thanks for your support!

 

[Diakoneo10]

I think that by wearing the covering you are doing the exact opposite of what Jesus did. But if you feel called to that then so be it but I would really pray for cultural conviction and I wouldn't use scripture as your reasoning for practicing this. Because in scripture it is talking about using the covering in their culture to show if they are married or not. In a society that does not use coverings for that purpose a wedding band or another symbol of married is fine.

My Bible study notes on that passage...

1 Cor. 11:5-6 head uncovered. A married woman who uncovered her head in public would have brought shame to her husband. The action may have connoted sexual availability or may simply have been a sign of being unmarried. In cultures where women's head coverings are not a sign of being married, wives do not need to cover their heads in worship, but they could obey this command by wearing some other physical symbol of being married (such as a wedding ring). While a shaven head or short hair was considered shameful for a woman in first-century Corinth, long hair was considered to be a woman's "glory"

Your "notes" are based on an interpretation of scripture. If you had a different version of the Bible, it may say something very different. You can't apply a cultural lens to one passage and not to the rest of the New Testament... Also, there is a difference between obedience and setting oneself out as different and using religion to seek notoriety as the Sadducees were doing. This is what Jesus was speaking of, not the other... Perhaps it is you who should study more into context before you use examples that do not qualify in error.

 

[Diakoneo10]

I was going to jump in, but you slammed that on out of the park.

God's Word trumps all

In Christ
Dan

Thanks Dan

 

[Diakoneo10]

If the above were referring to just the spiritual/authoritative head, then why should a woman be shaved or shorn if not covered? What in the world would her hair have to do with it? Do you see the two heads? They are clearly the physical head, and the spiritual head, which stands for authority.

In verse 3, we see that the woman's husband is her spiritual head. What about unmarried women? When a woman is not married, if she is still living at home, then her father is her authority - he is the one taking care of her, and while she is under his roof, she is to submit to him. The single woman who is living on her own is not under the headship of her father, because he is no longer taking care of her - she is on her own. Therefore, until she marries, if she does, her spiritual head is Christ:

"There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband." -1 Corinthians 7:34

Let us move on. Verse four makes it clear that there are the two heads - the spiritual and physical, else one would have to seriously allegorize this verse, instead of taking it at face value. This verse also makes it clear that the headcovering is not hair, else all Christian men should be bald when they pray. For a man to take off his hair when he prays or prophesies is not what this verse is obviously talking about. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is referring to a physical headcovering that sits on top of the hair.

Now look at verses 5 and 6. In verse 5, notice that if a woman prophesies without a covering on her head, then she is dishonoring her spiritual head - her husband. This jives perfectly with other Scriptures, such as the following:

Well said...

 

[Diakoneo10]

Even though that law was no longer important because Jesus died on the cross Paul had him circumcised anyways. Because Paul knew that Timothy needed to be excepted into the culture in order to be taken seriously

Actually I would encourage you to be the one praying about this. That is not supported by scripture at all and is in fact a belief of the "church" used to fit into various pagan societies without making them change their culture and current practices.

 

[Tallguy88]

I would suggest to the OP that she posts this question on TAW: the Eastern Orthodox forum here on CF. It's the cultural norm for Orthodox women to cover their heads in church and I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss their reasons for doing so.

 

[RenJac]

I agree, we should do what God says, regardless of what others say. This is why I head cover. God says to.

 

[RenJac]

Actually I would encourage you to be the one praying about this. That is not supported by scripture at all and is in fact a belief of the "church" used to fit into various pagan societies without making them change their culture and current practices.

Amen!

 

[If Not For Grace]

to blatantly tell us we are wrong and try to convert us to your way of thinking is completely against the spirit of the OP. Kindly take your arguments elsewhere. We are following God's will in our lives and we don't need your help to do so.

Yet the inference you both make is that by not doing so the rest of the women here are "not in God's will" or in rebellion by not doing something "God" said do..If anyone just want syes and no answers to a question, perhaps it is best to put the question in the form of al poll.

there is also a passage about "not being easily offended" and with all the comments flying around in this thread from both "sides" this might be something for some to work on.

 

[Diakoneo10]

No actually I never implied that. You do not know enough of me to assume that is what I believe. In fact, I believe God calls each of us to what we need in life. Some are called to preach because they and those around them need that role to grow spiritually. What Ren and I feel called to has nothing to do with what others are called to do. The problem is that by telling us we are wrong, you are doing the same as if you told a pastor he wasn't called to preach. God speaks to each of us differently, according to our needs. We have never inferred that we felt this is something all women should do... We just defended our reason for "why" when we were attacked.

 

[JuJube]

Here's a good one to go by...IMO:

In the essentials unity; in the non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.

 

[JuJube]

Here's a good one to go by...IMO:

In the essentials unity; in the non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.

I'm sorry i didn't finish, but I just wanted to say is that the disciples wrestled with these things also, but what it all boils down to is what Jesus did on the cross !! Amen?

 

[Tallguy88]

Yet the inference you both make is that by not doing so the rest of the women here are "not in God's will"

I didn't pick up on that vibe in RenJac, or Diakoneo's posts.