What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Should women wear headcoverings in church?

There are so many times, especially in the winter, when I would just L-O-O-O-O-O-V-E to wear a balaclava or something similar in the meetings to keep off the cold.

I simply will not do it - because of that commandment.

But I again raise the point, what do people think about these 'priests' in the catholic, anglican, greek orthodox churches, and doubtless others, wearing these incredible pieces of headgear in absolute defiance of this very plain instruction?

See here:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?pq=c...urce=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=RCrjToz0I8jQ4QTCmbXKBg

​
 
Dora,

for this:

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.
Click to expand...

I give you the gold thumb award. :thumbsup (yeah, I know it's not gold, lol)

It is the proper interpretation of this passage and it seems the respected scholar and commentator Adam Clarke agrees.
the man had his head uncovered, because he was the representative of Christ; the woman had hers covered, because she was placed by the order of God in a state of subjection to the man, and because it was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils. And if a woman should appear in public without a veil, she would dishonour her head-her husband. And she must appear like to those women who had their hair shorn off as the punishment of whoredom, or adultery.
Click to expand...
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=011

This is one of those topics that brings out the legalism and over extreme literalism in some people. :shrug

I wonder if some of you have actually tried to push a camel through the eye of a needle or have hung a millstone around their neck or have plucked out an eye over a transgression.

Really now... :help
 
Vic--As I understand this thread the comments of those of us who advocate the head covering for the woman pertrain not to the public wearing in general (as Clarke did) but the assembly.
 
Webb said:
Vic--As I understand this thread the comments of those of us who advocate the head covering for the woman pertrain not to the public wearing in general (as Clarke did) but the assembly.
Click to expand...

Funny how all the advocates in this thread for the head covering that women should wear are men. :lol

Ecclesiastes 7:20
For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

Genesis 3:16
...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

When will the men of the church understand, that this was a curse because of sin, and that Jesus Christ came to save us from the curse of sin and death with His death?
 
When head covering comes, most women and some men consider themselves to be degraded and fight against it. They feel as if their freedom stripped away. This is why I posted the question in a different way in #59.

If any man advocates women to not wear a head covering, first he must follow it contrary to scriptures. Can he first wear a head covering and pray?

All other explanations are actually nonsense because head covering is asked to put only when praying/prophesying 'to God' and it is not for others to see. So, if a woman doesn't want others to see her putting a head covering, let her not pray in the church so that she can be without head-covering in the church or assembly and pray in home with head-covering with rooms locked known only to God.

The real reason given at 1Cor 11:10 'because of the angels' is something I don't understand and God haven't revealed it to me.
 
felix said:
Why don't you advocate men to wear head covering while praying?
Click to expand...

Because I am not the convictor of hearts, God is. And, legalism and the spirit of religion that inflates the ego and controls and keeps people in bondage, was crucified as sin on the Cross of Christ.
 
felix said:
... The real reason given at 1Cor 11:10 'because of the angels' is something I don't understand and God haven't revealed it to me.
Click to expand...
There is one explanation I found some time ago that makes sense. Angels are viewed in two different ways in scripture; An angel in scripture is a messenger. They can be from Heaven or simply be earthly messengers.

It is likely that these angels are earthly messengers sent to various churches to observe and report on the activities of the churches they observed. It was not uncommon in the days of the developing church assemblies.
 
Headcoverings... :chin I think it's optional. After all I believe it was the Corinthian women who wore the head coverings and I believe it was a cultural thing to represent the order of the church or the order of the house.
 
theLords said:
Because I am not the convictor of hearts, God is. And, legalism and the spirit of religion that inflates the ego and controls and keeps people in bondage, was crucified as sin on the Cross of Christ.
Click to expand...

Well, this is the attitude I am speaking about. putting a head covering, you think it is bondage, that inflates the ego and controls. But, putting on the head is only when praying to God and not for others to see which you can do in private not knowing to anyone.
 
felix said:
Well, this is the attitude I am speaking about. putting a head covering, you think it is bondage, that inflates the ego and controls. But, putting on the head is only when praying to God and not for others to see which you can do in private not knowing to anyone.
Click to expand...

Look at my words again. Don't put words in my mouth:

Because I am not the convictor of hearts, God is. And, legalism and the spirit of religion that inflates the ego and controls and keeps people in bondage, was crucified as sin on the Cross of Christ.
 
theLords said:
Look at my words again. Don't put words in my mouth:

Because I am not the convictor of hearts, God is. And, legalism and the spirit of religion that inflates the ego and controls and keeps people in bondage, was crucified as sin on the Cross of Christ.
Click to expand...

Oops...

Anyway, I can say that if a women feels putting a head covering is something that makes her uncomfortable, then she can go to a locked room where she can pray to God in private with head-covering.
 
Lord's--Read the book again, the head covering originates not because of Eve's sin but the order of creation and Paul begins it by saying "But I would have you know." If this is just all culture and its not OUR culture then I suppose man is no longer "HEAD OF THKE WOMAN." It gets to the point we feel free to discard anything in the Bible that doesn't suit us.
 
Webb said:
Lord's--Read the book again, the head covering originates not because of Eve's sin but the order of creation and Paul begins it by saying "But I would have you know." If this is just all culture and its not OUR culture then I suppose man is no longer "HEAD OF THKE WOMAN." It gets to the point we feel free to discard anything in the Bible that doesn't suit us.
Click to expand...

It's your interpretation of the Bible, and you expressing that anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of "why women should wear head coverings" by repeatedly telling them they are discarding the Bible (despite the fact that many have stated they sought guidance from the Holy Spirit about the matter), reveals the heart condition that your interpretation is coming from... :yes
 
Last edited by a moderator:
reba said:
Should a man answer more than yea yea or nay nay?
Click to expand...

John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

I guess this means none of us have eternal life since we weren't alive 2000 years ago to eat chunks of flesh off Christ's body.

The game of Bible literalism is always fun. :yes
 
Lord's--Why not rather answer the points I made in my last post. Easier to redicule I suppose. So far as those you claim to have sought the Holy Spirit's "guidance", the Holy Spirit has already given it, He has given it in the scripture, He will not give any guidance outside what He has inspired to be written.
 
Webb said:
Lord's--Why not rather answer the points I made in my last post. Easier to redicule I suppose. So far as those you claim to have sought the Holy Spirit's "guidance", the Holy Spirit has already given it, He has given it in the scripture, He will not give any guidance outside what He has inspired to be written.
Click to expand...

Yeah, according to you and your interpretations. It's a good thing your doctrinal views are a minority in the church. Exactly the point, anything other than what you think and what you want to hear and what you personally believe, is not Scriptural. So, the fact that the Holy Spirit doesn't guide one to believe your way, means that the Holy Spirit didn't truly guide! ("guidance" as you made sure to write).

It's getting alot easier to see why men murdered one another in the past because of their pet doctrines. Men :nono2
 
The one thing this discussion has thrown up (in my view, anyway) is the willingness that people are prepared to exhibit, in throwing overboard the words of the Holy Spirit when it doesn't suit.

We've got it here: 'The HSp told me that I shouldn't wear headcoverings' because its 'legalism' or some such nonsense.

'Only men advocate this'. Paul, of course, was a man too. Sorry, Paul. Go get your head examined.

We've got it in the baptism thread too.

'We don't need to be baptised, because the HSp convicts our hearts, teaches our hearts, and that's enough.'

Never mind what the HSp says in God's most prized book.

The HSp is now saying, 'Forget it, it's an optional extra guys. I made a mistake in those early days when the culture wasn't quite like it is now. I couldn't see down a few thousand years'.

Hadn't you people better get your views on the inspiration and authority of scripture settled in your minds?

If it isn't inspired and authoritative, then forget it. Go play on the literature forums and such like. There's no need for you to stay here.

If it IS authoritative, then for pity's sake, let's treat it as such and obey what is so clearly says.

There's Felix doing his best to backtrack now he's been called to account for his strange views on his 'word of God' doctrine.

Felix, given what you've said in that thread, I can't honestly see how you can make any serious contribution here at all. If it isn't the word of God, then how can you tell tL to go cover her head in a cupboard or something and pray?

Jesus said that - but was it the word of God? After all, it was a tax collector who wrote those words down, wasn't it? And he must have been some kind of a crook, like David.

I said it before: your position is untenable, and must be changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top