Should women wear headcoverings in church?

[handy]

One part of this section of Scripture that I haven't seen discussed yet is this:

verse 6 "For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head."

That "if" in the text shows that this is a cultural thing...mainly because in our culture it isn't disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off. Most women don't go around bald, per se, but most adult women, especially once babies show up, do cut their hair quite short. That is our culture, for grown women to have short hair. Most women have hair that is no longer than most men, and no matter what the length of hair, it certainly isn't considered disgraceful or shameful for a woman to have extremely short hair.

The deeper context of this passage isn't the length of a woman's hair or whether or not she covers it, but rather whether or not she submits to and honors her "head" that is, her husband, and recognizes the godly roles of men and woman and our relationship in Christ.

When my dad was dying, I stayed with them and, up until the time he simply couldn't do it anymore, dad went to church. Their church, the OPC, is a pretty conservative church and many of the women would wear hats to church, including my mom and the pastor's wife.

Here's the thing...I don't know what was going on between the Pastor and his wife, nor do I care to, but one Sunday when my sister's family was visiting, I took my great nephew and sat at the back because he was a bit fussy. While I was sitting back there rocking the baby, I was astounded to see the pastor's wife, hat firmly planted on her head, doing games on her iPad during church. She then got up and laid down on her back on the floor, holding the hat in place, and closed her eyes, apparently napping.

It was so bizarre that I brought it up to my dad, who was an elder in the church and therefore in a position of authority...and he said that she did that every Sunday and the elders were "dealing with it"...end of my part in the situation. (And, yes, as I continued to go to church with dad and mom, it was noticeable that she did indeed do that every week.

I bring it up here as an example of how this text can be misunderstood and misconstrued. The pastor's wife was following the letter of the context here, head was covered, but was nonetheless dishonoring both her husband as well as Christ, (not to mention the entire congregation) to play games and lay down and take a nap, during the worship service.

Paul uses a cultural norm for back then, when it was a shame and dishonor for a woman to cut her hair, to give an example of the importance of a woman submitting to her husband's authority ( verse 3 "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." and verses 7-9 "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.") The head covering was a recognized symbol of this truth...back then. But, not today.

As I shared in the Ladies forum, in our culture of today, a head covering would be almost counter productive to the gospel of Christ, for it is seen as a symbol of oppression of women...think of the hijab for Muslim women and how Muslim's treat their women. I think most Americans would associate a head-covering with such spiritual negativity, it would serve to distract from the Gospel rather than promote it.

Having said that, I also agree wholeheartedly with Jethro, that if a woman feels the conviction to cover her head, or if her husband would prefer that she keep her head covered, then by all means she should do so.

 

[Asyncritus]

verse 6 "For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head."

That "if" in the text shows that this is a cultural thing...mainly because in our culture it isn't disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off. Most women don't go around bald, per se, but most adult women, especially once babies show up, do cut their hair quite short.

What the world does, and culture and/or fashion dictates, is immaterial to this discussion. What Jews and muslims do is equally immaterial. They can do exactly as they like.

Paul, no, God, is writing TO THE CHURCH..

It is behaviour IN THE CHURCH that is being discussed in 1 Cor 11.

If we look around the world today - or in Paul's day, we are bound to find cultures

a. where headcovering by women is the norm

b. where head covering by women is anathema

c. where it is neither.

It was the same then as now. So why is it A. such a big deal here in Corinth? And B. significantly, why is it mentioned nowhere else in the NT?

The answer to part A is that God says so. And it is therefore incumbent on disciples, believers, who are IN THE CHURCH, to obey the command.

The answer to part B is very simple too.

WEARING HEADCOVERINGS BY WOMEN IN THE CHURCH WAS THE NORM EVERYWHERE, and only in Corinth were they being recalcitrant, And Paul puts his foot down very heavily here.

Question is, are we to regard it as an optional extra?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What the world does, and culture and/or fashion dictates, is immaterial to this discussion.

Immaterial? You are so terribly wrong.

Do you believe that a woman with her hair uncovered might as well be bald, because a woman's hair being uncovered is the same as, and equally disgraceful as her being bald? Probably not. And even if you do believe that, you did not learn that from our modern western culture. That is a first century cultural belief, not a spiritual absolute.

Because it was believed that a woman's uncovered head was the same as having the hair cut off, Paul commanded that the church not allow the woman's hair to be uncovered. In the culture of that day the spiritual truth that woman is to be in submission to the authority of the man would be undermined, even contradicted by what is at that time understood to be a sign of the very rebellion against authority the church says God does not allow.

So you are very wrong. This is indeed a cultural issue based on what the cultural beliefs were at the time...and how those cultural beliefs were to be taken into consideration in order to not undermine what really is the spiritual absolute in this whole matter, that God has ordained that woman be in submission to (and the glory of) the man.

If we look around the world today - or in Paul's day, we are bound to find cultures

a. where headcovering by women is the norm

b. where head covering by women is anathema

c. where it is neither.

Yes. And where the culture is 'a', and for reason of authority and modesty, Paul's rabbinical authority regarding the matter is entirely binding on the churches dwelling in such a culture.

Question is, are we to regard it as an optional extra?

Only where head coverings do not mean what they meant to Paul's audience in the first century.

 

[jasoncran]

so men should be bald? or have a military hair cut?

if we take the context of what went on then and take it as now. women shouldnt work, and also they shouldnt speak in churches.

and a child is an adult at age 13, not 18. now then i guess women in sunday school teaching them 13 yrs old is a no-no

 

[Asyncritus]

Immaterial? You are so terribly wrong.

Do you believe that a woman with her hair uncovered might as well be bald, because a woman's hair being uncovered is the same as, and equally disgraceful as her being bald? Probably not. And even if you do believe that, you did not learn that from our modern western culture.

You're not listening to me Jethro.

I said as clearly as I could, that 'who cares what the world does'?

It is totally irrelevant to the church of Christ.

Just think of all the things that the church is COMMANDED to do that the world gives not a hang about. Does the world love its enemies? Get baptised? Have breaking of bread services? Pray for them that persecute them? Anything like that?

They are not under the same governance that disciples of Christ are ie God's. So why do you bring their practices up here in this discussion?

This sentence is particularly puzzling to me:

That is a first century cultural belief, not a spiritual absolute.

How do you know? Are there any others that you know about? Are those I referred to cultural practices or spiritual absolutes? And how do you distinguish between the two things?

Perhaps I should be asking: is this (1Cor 11) the word of God, or not? Have you got a nice red line through this, and any others? I'd like to know.

Because it was believed that a woman's uncovered head was the same as having the hair cut off, Paul commanded that the church not allow the woman's hair to be uncovered. In the culture of that day the spiritual truth that woman is to be in submission to the authority of the man would be undermined, even contradicted by what is at that time understood to be a sign of the very rebellion against authority the church says God does not allow.

Whatever Paul's reasons, his instructions are extremely clear, and you will have to do a lot better than that to convince me that he didn't mean exactly what he said.

So what about the other commandments he gives in the same passage? He says men ought not to have their heads covered. Should they, or not?

Do you think its OK for these priests to wear all this garish and heathenish headgear during services, a good and right thing to do? Do you wear one when you go to church? If not, why not?

So you are very wrong. This is indeed a cultural issue based on what the cultural beliefs were at the time...and how those cultural beliefs were to be taken into consideration in order to not undermine what really is the spiritual absolute in this whole matter, that God has ordained that woman be in submission to (and the glory of) the man.

You really have to produce some proof that this is really the case. And I don't think you can.

You will find that women had their heads uncovered for 2 main reasons:

1 they were in mourning

2 they were mad.

Yes. And where the culture is 'a', and for reason of authority and modesty, Paul's rabbinical authority regarding the matter is entirely binding on the churches dwelling in such a culture.

In the Congo culture, men are permitted (as in muslim countries) to have 5 wives (might be 4). Paul says have 1. Would you say that rule holds in the Congo or not?

 

[handy]

What the world does, and culture and/or fashion dictates, is immaterial to this discussion. What Jews and muslims do is equally immaterial. They can do exactly as they like.

Paul, no, God, is writing TO THE CHURCH..

It is behaviour IN THE CHURCH that is being discussed in 1 Cor 11.

If we look around the world today - or in Paul's day, we are bound to find cultures

a. where headcovering by women is the norm

b. where head covering by women is anathema

c. where it is neither.

It was the same then as now. So why is it A. such a big deal here in Corinth? And B. significantly, why is it mentioned nowhere else in the NT?

The answer to part A is that God says so. And it is therefore incumbent on disciples, believers, who are IN THE CHURCH, to obey the command.

The answer to part B is very simple too.

WEARING HEADCOVERINGS BY WOMEN IN THE CHURCH WAS THE NORM EVERYWHERE, and only in Corinth were they being recalcitrant, And Paul puts his foot down very heavily here.

Question is, are we to regard it as an optional extra?

I agree with you that what fashion or culture dictates isn't important, but rather what the Spirit is teaching the Church.

Being as well informed of Paul's teachings as you are, Asyncritus, I'm sure that you will agree with him (and the Holy Spirit) that it is important to follow the Spirit and not the letter of the law.

So, what is the Spirit telling us about the head coverings? That if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut, that she should wear one. You seem to be ignoring the word "if" in that text, as if it is unimportant to the what the Spirit is teaching us here. Why was it a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut in that culture? I've head a variety of reasons, some from biblical scholars, some from historical sources. Mainly, it was considered a punishment for an immoral woman, a prostitute or adulteress. The Bible doesn't give us the reasons why it was a disgrace for the woman to have short hair back then, but it's clear that it was the norm for a woman to have her head covered (no matter what religion she was) and a disgrace for her to have cut hair.

But, again, we cannot ignore the fact that the Spirit inspired Paul to frame the issue with the word "if". If it be a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shorn, let her wear a head covering. And, the reason here was that it was not only a disgrace, but a sign of rebellion to her husband and to God.

Context is everything when seeking to follow the Spirit rather than the letter and the context here is clearly that a woman needs to keep herself in submission to her husband. Apparently, according to this section of Paul's letter as well as chapter 14, women were acting unbecomingly within the Corinthian church and their behavior was a hindrance to the Gospel. All things are lawful, but whatever is a hindrance to the Gospel must be jettisoned. Whatever becomes a "bad witness" needs to be set aside.

I don't wear a head covering in church. Neither my husband, nor my pastor, nor the church itself expects it, for it is outside of our culture to do so. As a matter of fact, I would be uncomfortable wearing one, because it would be calling attention to me, as if I were somehow acting "holier" than the other women there. However, I can think of at least three reasons why I would put one on and not take it off in public ever again if need be: 1. If my husband decided he wants me to wear one, I'd do so out of submission to him. 2. If we ever wound up in a church where it was expected for women to wear one, and 3. If we ever wound up in a culture, like in a predominately Muslim nation, where it was the norm. Which might happen, as my husband would love to go to Africa someday.

For the most part, I'm a witness to the Gospel of Christ here in 2011 in Idaho, USA...a place where most people, seeing a woman wearing a head-covering would be inclined to think that said woman was a part of a cult or completely oppressed by a jerk of a guy. Any woman looked at as being "forced" to wear a head-covering certainly would lose a lot of credibility. Not conducive to sharing the gospel of Christ.

Paul also teaches the Corinthian Church, "To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it." (1 Corinthians 9:20-23)

Going back to the following the Spirit, rather than the letter, we see then that we should work not as someone bound by laws, but as those free in Christ, to further the gospel. Here, in my town, in my place, my witness for the gospel of Christ is far better served without a head-covering than with one.

 

[Webb]

If only we could learn to appreciate its NOT what the "world teaches" NOR what culture dictates, its WHAT the scripture says. No wonder we have so many divisions. The Bible IS our standard, NOT the world or culture.

 

[Destructus86]

things like this in the Bible were written from a cultural perspective. Head covering was not only the "law of the land" but had spiritual significance in that culture. In the western world it is neither the law of the land or have spiritual significance unless you want to make it that.

 

[handy]

If only we could learn to appreciate its NOT what the "world teaches" NOR what culture dictates, its WHAT the scripture says. No wonder we have so many divisions. The Bible IS our standard, NOT the world or culture.

The problem is, every one in the Church today has a different opinion as to what the Bible is teaching on, not just this, but any number of subjects.

The Bible is certainly inspired, and profitable for teaching, correction, reproof and training in righteousness and I'll add inerrant as well. But, just as always, men have differing opinions about what it does teach. We cannot understand the Scriptures without the Spirit, and I really have no idea as to why the Spirit shows some His truth in a matter and not others....I can only surmise that He wants us to co-operate and be humble with one another, even though we usually don't and aren't.

I know solid Christians who hold God's word as the only standard by which to judge anything believe wholeheartedly that God predestines some to hell and other just as solid Christians who hold God's word as the only standard by which to judge anything believe that God predestining anyone to hell is a lie straight from the pit of hell...and both will use the Scriptures to back up their point of view. Happens around here all the time. And not with just predestination...the same can be said for infant baptism, baptism by immersion only, whether or not one can "lose" salvation...most Christians around here base their opinion solidly upon Scriptures...and yet disagreements still abound.

I believe that Asyncritus is a bible believing Christian who wants to live according to "what the Scriptures says"....I also know that is also true for me as well...I've been living according to what the Scriptures teach for well over 30 years now....and yet we have both read the same passage and studied the same Scriptures, and have come to opposite conclusions about what is being taught.

It would be easy enough for me to say that Asyncritus doesn't really have the Spirit...that no 'real' Christian would come to his conclusion and it would be pretty easy for him to say the same about me...but it would also be wrong of us to go down that road. I believe that it's also wrong to go the "agree to disagree" route...that "agree to disagree" has lead to so much disunity in the church, even though most view it as a way to be unified in disagreement.

Rather, I would hope that both Asyncritus and anyone else who holds differing opinions on this subject would be willing to continue to study, to search, to seek out what is the Spirit's meaning regarding it.

My mom and I studied this passage a while back ourselves. We both came down to the fact that a woman doesn't need to wear the head-covering, but she most certainly can if she wants to. I don't, because, as I said, it would call attention to me at my church...making me look like I'm trying to be more holy than others or something. Mom does, because she grew up wearing hats pretty much everywhere and has never really been comfortable not wearing a hat to church. And, at her church a number of the women (though by no means all) do wear hats, although her pastor's wife obviously has some issue about it. Dad also believed that the Scriptures teach that the wearing of a head-covering isn't necessary for us today, and believe me, Dad never came to any conclusion about anything without careful and extensive study on the issue. My pastor holds the same view on it as my Dad did and points to the same passages as Dad would have, some of the same that I've pointed out here as well.

However, even though mom and I did a really extensive study about this...I'm certainly willing to go back over the Scriptures again and look at the issue again. So far, I haven't seen a reliable reason as to why we should ignore the word "if" in the passage, nor why we shouldn't look at the context as being one in which a woman's submissiveness to her husband is the bottom line, not what she is wearing on her head. But, I'm open to seeing what others have to say.

Really, Webb, I'm not trying to read more into what you've said that what you did say...but we do need to be careful that we're not implying that some who hold one view is going by "what the Scriptures teach" and all others are jettisoning the Scriptures and coming up with worldly conclusions.

 

[Webb]

Again, its not a matter of the "cultural perspective" of the ancient or modern western or eastern world, its what the Bible teaches. Scripture transends all cultures of man.

 

[Destructus86]

Again, its not a matter of the "cultural perspective" of the ancient or modern western or eastern world, its what the Bible teaches. Scripture transends all cultures of man.

By that....we also have to follow that women are not allowed to speak in church among other things.

No. The Bible was written from a cultural perspective. We are to follow the law of the land as it says. Now, if you were american and went to the middle east you must cover your head.

There are MANY parts of the bible that were written specifically from a cultural view.

Since you seem to ignore culture influences in the Bible...how often do you wash a house guests feet?

 

[handy]

Again, its not a matter of the "cultural perspective" of the ancient or modern western or eastern world, its what the Bible teaches. Scripture transends all cultures of man.

OK then, why do you think the Spirit inspired Paul to put that "if" in there and do you truly believe that it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut in America today?

Also, why would Paul say that for Jews, we should be like Jews, for those living under the law, we should be like that, even though we are free from the law, to be all things to all men, so that we might win all the more? How do we become all things to all men if we ignore their culture?

 

[theLords]

Again, its not a matter of the "cultural perspective" of the ancient or modern western or eastern world, its what the Bible teaches. Scripture transends all cultures of man.

According to the Bible of Webb? Not everyone, who doesn't agree with you, is walking outside of the Bible's teachings or the Spirit. You are a part of the problem of "disunity" that you accuse others of being.

Romans 14:8 (NIV)
If we live, we live to the Lord [not theLord's, not Webb, not Handy]; and if we die, we die to the Lord [not theLord's, not Webb, not Handy]. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord [exclusively & only].

 

[Webb]

Thank you "global moderater", however, the problem lies with those who prefer "custom" over Bible.

 

[Webb]

Hi Destructus86: Well, Paul DID say it was a shame for a women to speak in church!

 

[handy]

Webb, I am interested in your answers to these questions...

OK then, why do you think the Spirit inspired Paul to put that "if" in there and do you truly believe that it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut in America today?

Also, why would Paul say that for Jews, we should be like Jews, for those living under the law, we should be like that, even though we are free from the law, to be all things to all men, so that we might win all the more? How do we become all things to all men if we ignore their culture?

 

[Webb]

Hi Handy

Perhaps it will help if you consider "AS IF" in verse 5 along with only the word "IF" in verse 6. It did me.

 

[theLords]

Thank you "global moderater", however, the problem lies with those who prefer "custom" over Bible.

No one disagreeing with you in this thread prefers "custom" over Bible. Both parties prefer truth over "custom," but I think you're too focused on the doctrines of men to realize that. But, again, according to your doctrine, I'm not even allowed to be speaking right now. Guess I better get myself back in the kitchen! :eeeekkk

"Jesus said, "I am the Truth." Truth is not a teaching. Truth is a Person, and if you have that Person, you have that Truth and in that Person there's always unity. But, if we put our understanding of the Scripture and our doctrinal views higher than the Person of Jesus...we worship idols. Anything we place above the Lord Jesus is an idol. Our unity is not in a teaching, it's in a Person, and in that Person we always find one another."

 

[Webb]

Hi The Lords: I'd rather you stay out of the kitchen and instead show where I endorse the doctrines of men.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You're not listening to me Jethro.

I said as clearly as I could, that 'who cares what the world does'?

It is totally irrelevant to the church of Christ.

You are very wrong. Paul took the time to instruct the church in the matter of meats that local pagan temples sold after they had been sacrificed to the false gods worshiped in those temples. We do have to care what the world does and whether we will participate in those things, and how, out of consideration for both the health of the body and our witness to the world.

Just think of all the things that the church is COMMANDED to do that the world gives not a hang about. Does the world love its enemies? Get baptised? Have breaking of bread services? Pray for them that persecute them? Anything like that?

You've got this backwards. This is not about how the church is going to handle the ordinances of God in a fitting and proper way. This is about how the church is going to handle the prevailing traditions of the world in a way that is fitting and proper. If you think the church never has to consider the cultural values of the world it dwells in you may want to consider how the church has had to deal with things like contemporary music, and tattoos in recent years. These are not Biblical issues, yet we have no choice but to consider how we are going to handle them in light of what are Biblical truths and absolutes.

This sentence is particularly puzzling to me:

Me: "That is a first century cultural belief, not a spiritual absolute."

How do you know? Are there any others that you know about? Are those I referred to cultural practices or spiritual absolutes? And how do you distinguish between the two things?

Paul is not teaching and defending a law of head dresses. He is passing rabbinical judgment on a non-law issue using known and established spiritual truth to make that decision.

Perhaps I should be asking: is this (1Cor 11) the word of God, or not? Have you got a nice red line through this, and any others? I'd like to know.


Whatever Paul's reasons, his instructions are extremely clear, and you will have to do a lot better than that to convince me that he didn't mean exactly what he said.

He did mean exactly what he said. But what he said only applies where head dressings are even worn that the matter of what they signify even has to be addressed.

So what about the other commandments he gives in the same passage? He says men ought not to have their heads covered. Should they, or not?

It depends on what a man with his head covered means to the people seeking to answer that question. If it represents (since there is no law about it) something sinful and forbidden by God then the church ought not to allow it. As far as I know a man with his head covered means nothing in our modern culture that we would have to make a judgment that men ought not to do that.

Do you think its OK for these priests to wear all this garish and heathenish headgear during services, a good and right thing to do?

I'd have to check, but I think they are mimicking the OT priests' garb.

Do you wear one when you go to church? If not, why not?

Well, for starters I'm not a priest. And I just don't wear anything on my head. Not because Paul said not to, but culturally, like most men, I just don't. And even if I did, in our culture it would not be to represent some aspect of spiritual truth, for or against. So we have no need for an official judgment regarding that.

In the Congo culture, men are permitted (as in muslim countries) to have 5 wives (might be 4). Paul says have 1. Would you say that rule holds in the Congo or not?

They should have only 1 wife, not just because Jesus and Paul said so, but because there is an already binding spiritual truth that is indeed violated in having multiple wives in any culture no matter what that culture thinks about it--that principle being the Biblical truth of 'one man, one wife'. It's impossible to have more than one wife and think it does not violate the truth that God established in the beginning of 'one man, one wife'.

What you don't understand is that head coverings is not an expression of submission established by God. That expression of submission is a cultural tradition of man. And since that is what some cultures (not God) have decided head coverings mean Paul says the church should respect the practice for the sake of that which really is truth--the godly submission of the woman.