Should women wear headcoverings in church?

[Asyncritus]

This is currently a hot topic in some churches, and I wonder what members here think about it.

1 Cor 11. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
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.
6 For 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.

Apologies if this has been previously discussed.

 

[Webb]

Hi Asyncritus

My wife wears the head coverning.

 

[D4Christ]

Sometimes I waiver in my position on this. But this is a comment I posted on the Ladies forum.

1 Cor 11 (NLT)

13 Judge for yourselves. Is it right for a woman to pray to God in public without covering her head? 14 Isn’t it obvious that it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair? 15 And isn’t long hair a woman’s pride and joy? For it has been given to her as a covering. 16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches.

I find it interesting that Paul states a woman's head should be covered and then states that her hair is her covering. Paul is also clear that this is a "custom" of his time and does not suggest his statement is a commandment from God, which he clearly does with many of his other decress.

Blessings,
Dee

 

[Webb]

I do not perceive the head covering to be cultural as Paul not only addressed his epistle to Corinth but to "---all that in everyplace calll upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord---" and in chapter 4 he wrote that he taught the same thing in "all the churches." This transcends culture and includes us.

 

[Asyncritus]

I find it interesting that Paul states a woman's head should be covered and then states that her hair is her covering. Paul is also clear that this is a "custom" of his time and does not suggest his statement is a commandment from God, which he clearly does with many of his other decress.

Blessings,
Dee

This is making the apostle look quite dumb.

You mean, he couldn't figure out that if a woman's hair was the 'covering' he is talking about, then she was already 'covered if she simply had hair on her head?

Then what about men?

If they shouldn't have their heads covered, and hair is the covering, then every man should have his head shaved, or be bald. True?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Sure - if they feel in their spirits that they should. Rom 14 governs: If you can do it in Faith, then DO IT, if you CAN'T do it in faith - then DON'T.

Simple as that.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If headcoverings meant the same thing today that they did back then, then, yes, women would be required to wear them. But as it is, headcoverings, like footwashings, have no place in most modern cultures to begin with that their absence would represent something spiritually disobedient.

 

[Webb]

My 2nd post in this op shows the woman's head covering is not and was not a cultural matter.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

My 2nd post in this op shows the woman's head covering is not and was not a cultural matter.

The problem with your argument is assuming that the whole church was as culturally diverse then as it is today when Paul refers to all the churches of God.

 

[jasoncran]

often the pro head covering argument say that.

where is it in the law? is their an ot command of such?

in judaism and then the wife didnt sit with the husband in the church. so i hear. if that is fact then we should be doing that in our churches

 

[kjb1769]

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? -1 Corinthians 11:13
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. -1 Corinthians 11:16

Does this say covered or uncovered it does not matter?

 

[Webb]

Hi Jethro--Inspiration still says "--with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord---" I Cor.1:2. Cant get around, under, over or through that. The Bible says what it says and means what it means. If we can discard what Paul wrote by inspiration here we can discard anything we wish in the scripture. Besides, in chapter 4 Paul said he taught the same thing in all the churches. Would to God men did the same today.

 

[Asyncritus]

If headcoverings meant the same thing today that they did back then, then, yes, women would be required to wear them. But as it is, headcoverings, like footwashings, have no place in most modern cultures to begin with that their absence would represent something spiritually disobedient.

This is making scripture look quite foolish, Jethro.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that God couldn't foresee the cultural changes that would come over the centuries?

The Word is eternal.

It is so curious that such a simple matter could even begin to become a source of contention.

The spirit of the contradictors is based on rebelliousness, it seems to me.

Does the Bible mean what is says? It most certainly does.

Otherwise, you begin to whittle away at its authoritativeness. If this goes, then what about the other things we are commanded to do and not to in Corinthians?

Shall we happily fornicate? It says not to do so. Wasn't that merely a cultural thing too?

And why not 9 wives? Or even 20?

Shall we bother to break bread? Or substitute something else - like wafers or sausages?

Shouldn't we substitute sprinkling for baptism? And why bother with water? Orange juice or asses milk would do just as well.

Is this the word of God, or not? That's where this ends. And...

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

 

[jasoncran]

so man should pray with their heads covered per talmudic traditions? we should all wear a yarmuc?

or what about the feasts? and well the sadly missuse of genesis for the creo-evo debate when it wasnt meant for that.it can be but we are not the audience it was handed too but can draw conclusions from that and principals.

the bible was written in the age it was written in and deals with that issue. we can read it and look into the issues and draw principals.

are there modern gnostics? are there modern sophists. greeks and romans? NO,NO.

 

[Asyncritus]

so man should pray with their heads covered per talmudic traditions? we should all wear a yarmuc?

or what about the feasts? and well the sadly missuse of genesis for the creo-evo debate when it wasnt meant for that.it can be but we are not the audience it was handed too but can draw conclusions from that and principals.

the bible was written in the age it was written in and deals with that issue. we can read it and look into the issues and draw principals.

are there modern gnostics? are there modern sophists. greeks and romans? NO,NO.

I'm not clear what you're saying here jason.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The problem with legalistic understandings of scripture is they do not take into consideration the intent and purpose of a command and insist it be kept simply because it has been commanded.

In our western world a woman's headcovering has no spiritual significance one way or the other that it would be necessary to be careful to follow what Paul taught to a world that did understand the spiritual significance of not wearing a headcovering. But if a person can't understand that then they do indeed have the moral obligation to obey that command because for them it would be a sin not to. But not for a woman who understands what the headcovering signified, but which no longer signifies in most of the world today.

 

[Asyncritus]

Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? -1 Corinthians 11:13
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. -1 Corinthians 11:16

Does this say covered or uncovered it does not matter?

It says covered.

We don't have any variation from that, is what he's saying.

 

[Asyncritus]

The problem with legalistic understandings of scripture is they do not take into consideration the intent and purpose of a command and insist it be kept simply because it has been commanded.

So you agree that it HAS been commanded.

Should we keep it or not, then?

In our western world a woman's headcovering has no spiritual significance one way or the other that it would be necessary to be careful to follow what Paul taught to a world that did understand the spiritual significance of not wearing a headcovering.

We are not talking about 'in the world'. Who cares what the world does? This is about IN THE CHURCH.

Paul obviously sees that the practice has serious spiritual significance IN THE CHURCH.

If he didn't, he wouldn't have bothered, and God wouldn't have bothered to have it included in the text, and kept at the cost of many lives.

But if a person can't understand that then they do indeed have the moral obligation to obey that command because for them it would be a sin not to. But not for a woman who understands what the headcovering signified, but which no longer signifies in most of the world today.

I don't get this.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So you agree that it HAS been commanded.

It's plainly commanded by Paul to the churches in existence at that time. That's not what's in debate.

Should we keep it or not, then?

Only if you believe in your heart that you believe that you still need to serve the purpose it was given for--a purpose that I suggest has no meaning anymore since headcoverings, like owning oxen and foot washing, are obsolete, and thus the commands governing those things has become obsolete along with the practice.

We are not talking about 'in the world'. Who cares what the world does? This is about IN THE CHURCH.

All the churches means all the churches that exist in the world. For Paul that meant churches that exist in the then known world where headcoverings were a symbol of submission and modesty. Not so anymore. The command concerning those has become obsolete because the tradition itself is now obsolete and does not represent what it used to.

Paul obviously sees that the practice has serious spiritual significance IN THE CHURCH.

If he didn't, he wouldn't have bothered, and God wouldn't have bothered to have it included in the text, and kept at the cost of many lives.

It once did have legitimate spiritual significance, but only because headcoverings were at that time a symbol of submission and modesty. Especially in that day when, if I remember correctly, women went about topless to assert their equality with, and freedom from the authority of men. But since a headdress is not a symbol of submission and authority today it is meaningless to command women in the church today to display their spiritual submission that way. It's an obsolete and meaningless show of submission and modesty nowadays. It's simply not a sign of submission and modesty anymore that makes doing that somehow meaningful.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I said:

"But if a person can't understand that then they do indeed have the moral obligation to obey that command because for them it would be a sin not to. But not for a woman who understands what the headcovering signified, but which no longer signifies in most of the world today."

And you said:

I don't get this.

As has already been shared, if a person thinks in their heart that a headdress does indeed signify submission and modesty, and to not do that is to not be in submission to God or man, then they personally do have the obligation to obey their conscience. But your conscience about the matter does not govern mine, or anyone else's. This is not capital murder we're talking about here, lol. It's a disputable matter of a tradition in the early church that each of us has to follow our own conscience about...and a matter of conscience that we have to be careful not to impress on others and condemn or look down on them about. According to Romans 14, the greater command to love is the more important will of God in this matter.