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?

I know what will probably be said about my last question, "Jewish men wore their hair longer than Greek men, but shorter than women. So they were fine." Which raises the question, "How long is too long? What is that cut-off ;) ;) length?" (Pun intended).

Paul doesn't give any direction regarding actual length of hair, beyond that men shouldn't wear "long hair," and womens' hair should be long. I would submit that this is another evidence that the practice is local and cultural, as the Corinthians in the Church at Corinth would know exactly the styles he's talking about without him having to explain. Christians in and around Corinth would have very different opinions about what constitutes "long hair" than Christians in Jerusalem. And the same goes for Christians in Europe several centuries later and for Christians in America today.

To my mind, it's a parallel issue with the teaching that women shouldn't wear men's clothes and men shouldn't wear women's clothes. I know people who think that statement means women can't wear jeans, because jeans are "men's clothes." The problem is, jeans weren't anyone's clothes when those lines were writen. To insist that God has a particular style of hair, or manner of dress, in mind when these passages were writen tends to cause people to jump to some rather strange conclusions, like God's personal dress style preference is 1875 farm chic.

I would recommend reading C.S. Lewis' chapter on Modesty versus Chastity in his wonderful book, Mere Christianity. While it doen't directly address this discussion, it does provide a wonderfully thoughtful approach to the tension between specific moral practices and moral principles, which contrast I do think is at work in this passage from Paul.
 
Hi Nathan

I too appreciate the acquaintance and welcome to the "forum."

Perhaps it should be pointed out to some that in the matter of the head covering the inspired, and I repeat, inspired apostle fails to mention his instruction is of his personal "judgment". The subject is rather couched between a discussion of the Lord's supper, imitating him as he follows Christ, keeping the ordinances as delivered and a continuation of instruction on the Lord's supper etc. on thru chapter 14. Hardly his personal judgment or local customs. If Paul HAD stated this was his "judgment" I much prefer the "judgment" of an inspired man ( who was on site ) than that of any today not only uninspired of the Holy Spirit but centuries removed. Nor was it by his personal "judgment" that he wrote (if he be the writer of Hebrews) that the priesthood and the law had been "changed". Please give some attention to that.

You wrote: ''---I DO BELIEVE THAT ITS A VALID POINT TO SAY THAT IT SEEMS STRANGE THAT GOD WOULD COMMAND SOMETHING UNDER THE OLD COVENANT THAT HE NOW SEES AS DISHONORABLE." Well, Nathan, how about animan sacrifice for one? God commanded it under the Old. Under the NT would such sacrifice be accepted? Honorable or dishonorable, which? The real point is God said that the Old Covenant had "fault", Heb. 8. Please note the inspired writer in those Hewbrew chapters uses these terms for the NT: "Better promises", "more excellent ministry", "better covenant", "better promises" etc. I prefer as I know you do as well the "better" and the "better" has under it the woman's head coverning.

I too have C.S. Lewis but much prefer to remain with inspired scripture. As good and interesting as Lewis is a man who also wrote "The Chronicles of Narnia" which is a mythycal children's story can hardly qualify as as what I can accept as a reliable teacher compared to Paul.



I shall be happy to discuss vs.16 later. It is indeed difficult (as bro. Peter once said of some of Paul's writings) but not impossible to understand.

God bless
 
Should women wear headcoverings in church?
Click to expand...

Not unless they want to. Paul was addressing a cultural issue, not a universal truth.

And even if it isn't...

I wouldn't expect any woman in this day and age to wear one if she didn't want to. We're Christians, not the Taliban.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its a commentary on our modern day attitude toward God and His inspired book that we have degenerated down to this "NOT UNLESS WE WANT TO'' attitude.
 
Storm, Pick and choose are the worst kind.

Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
 
Should they wear the robes, too?

http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/corinthians/veils.stm

View attachment 2209

View attachment 2210

The head covering of the first century wasn't a simple "hat." It looked more like the Hajib that Muslim women wear.

View attachment 2211

Dress is a cultural issue. Paul was addressing a cultural issue. He was not setting forth a universal dress code for women in the church for all time.

If any woman wants to dress this way in church, more power to her. It's not required in today's culture and those who would require it based on a single 1st century passage of scripture are nothing more than legalists of the worst kind.

Men should stop using the Bible to justify their own, personal misogyny. Women are not chattel. Stop treating them that way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stormcrow said:
Should they wear the robes, too?

The head covering of the first century wasn't a simple "hat." It looked more like the Hajib that Muslim women wear.

Dress is a cultural issue. Paul was addressing a cultural issue. He was not setting forth a universal dress code for women in the church for all time.
Click to expand...

I agree. Dress IS a cultural issue.

But Paul was not discussing culture in the world. The church is a world with entirely different rules to the world.

So why drag the world into this discussion?

If any woman wants to dress this way in church, more power to her. It's not required in today's culture and those who would require it based on a single 1st century passage of scripture are nothing more than legalists of the worst kind.
Click to expand...
This calls into suspicion your entire view of scripture SC.

I note that you quote it extensively - the bits that suit you, that is - and this particular bit which doesn't, you reject on a 'cultural' basis.

Men should stop using the Bible to justify their own, personal misogyny. Women are not chattel. Stop treating them that way.
Click to expand...
What a disgraceful statement!

Would you have said the same thing to Paul if he was standing here before you? After all, it's his position we are supporting, not our own personal prejudices.
 
Webb said:
Sorry Paul disturbs you!
Click to expand...

Tell you what: I'll give you my wife's phone number and you can call her and tell her she has to dress in a Hajib for church next Sunday. I'll be out of the house when she takes your call so I won't be deafened by her screaming at you.

"Mind your own business" is probably the most respectful thing you'll hear.

Take care of your own issues before you start telling women how to dress for church. :thumbsup
 
Stormcrow said:
What? They do! :verysick
Click to expand...
They may do, but that is not your real point, is it?

If you take scripture seriously, does that make you a legalist? I sincerely hope not - because there are a lot of legalists on this forum everywhere, in that case.

Watch it guys. You sicken Stormcrow!
 
Stormcrow said:
Tell you what: I'll give you my wife's phone number and you can call her and tell her she has to dress in a Hajib for church next Sunday. I'll be out of the house when she takes your call so I won't be deafened by her screaming at you.

"Mind your own business" is probably the most respectful thing you'll hear.
Click to expand...

This is getting absurd. Please, exercise some good sense SC.
 
Would you have said the same thing to Paul if he was standing here before you?
Click to expand...

Yep. First century attire is not a 21st century issue Paul or any other Christian should be dealing with. The fact that some people think it is simply shows me what control freaks (a.k.a. "legalists") they are. It's an utterly vapid and absurd discussion to be having 2,000 years after the fact.
 
Stormcrow said:
Yep. First century attire is not a 21st century issue Paul or any other Christian should be dealing with.
Click to expand...

I see. And which other parts of his writings (about half the NT) would you also reject as being none of his business?
 
I note that you quote it extensively - the bits that suit you, that is - and this particular bit which doesn't, you reject on a 'cultural' basis.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's called "rightly dividing the word of truth." You should try it some time. :thumbsup
 
Guys, be careful....not everyone who takes Scriptures seriously are legalists and not everyone who views what 1 Corinthians 11 states about headcoverings as being more of a cultural illustration of a biblical truth rather than a legally binding YOU-ARE-SINNING-IF-YOU-DON'T-DO-THIS commandment are "offended by Paul."

I take the Scriptures very seriously, but I do see and have already presented my reasons as to why it is much more scriptural to view the passage as being about the woman's submissive role as opposed to what I should wear on my head.

This has been one of these threads where just about everything that can be said, has been said and no one appears to be changing their minds. As for me, I'm bowing out for good now. It was a good discussion....but there just doesn't seem to be any more that needs to be said and no point in wrangling.

:waving
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top