women's heads

Because Baptists selectively interpret scripture the way they accuse others of doing--and I know, being one of 'em.

 

Because most Baptists believe that God gave a woman her hair for her covering.

 

Wherever and whenever women pray and proclaim the Word appropriately, they must do so maintaining a proper distinction from men. In the culture of Corinth, a woman’s covered head while ministering or worshiping was a symbol to signify a subordinate relationship to her husband. The apostle is not laying down an absolute law for women to wear veils or coverings in all churches for all time, but is declaring that the symbols of the divinely-established male and female roles are to be genuinely honored in every culture. As in the case of meat offered to idols (chaps. 8, 9), there is nothing spiritual about wearing or not wearing a covering. But manifesting rebellion against God’s order was wrong. “Head” may refer to her own self being disgraced by refusing to conform to recognized symbols of submission, or to her husband, who is disgraced by her behavior.

Times change and cultures change. Much of Paul’s “Corinthian teachings” were to bring order and dignity to a church that had gotten out of hand. Paul’s primary focus and objective was to teach the church to glorify God in all that they do, and in particular, how they worshiped.

 

The point of the context of this passage is about authority. No woman has any business praying, etc. if she is out from under her husband's authority (if she has one, of course). I know women who wear a literal head covering and some who never cut their hair, believing they are in compliance with this passage, yet they are grossly out from under their husband's authority. They do not respect, honor, obey or submit to their husbands. Are they obeying the Word when they literally cover their heads but miss the whole point? And those things - respecting, honoring, obeying and submitting - are also heart issues, not outward compliance issues. I can obey on the outside while rebelling in my heart and that is just as wrong. I can act respectful while not truly respecting my husband in my heart and that is just as wrong. I have had to do some confessing and repenting in this department myself! Jesus said that it wasn't outward conformity to the rules of the Law that determined obedience, it was the truth of the heart. (Mt. 23:23-26)

If a husband and wife believe before God that this passage means either that a woman must have literally long hair or must wear a head covering all the time or in church, then they should certainly do what they believe is right. However, there was a time when I started to let my hair grow longer (it's never been cut like a man's), thinking that's what I should do in compliance with this passage. Both my father and my future husband told me to cut it. What was right for me to do? Obey my authority!

-- Danette

 

Covering the hair, or never cutting the hair because of this verse, is a misunderstanding of scripture, and legalism.

Michael
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because Baptists selectively interpret scripture the way they accuse others of doing <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This would be like twisting scripture. Is that what you do? Do you think Baptists are wrong in their scripture intepretation of scripture? Are you wrong? If you think so then why are you a baptist?

 

It's amazing what fundamentalists do in their selective interpretation of scripture. John says this passage is not a universal law for all churches at all times, that iit is culturally conditioned, but then he turns around and interprets the passage in 1 Timothy, that supposedly forbids women pastors, as being such a law--one applicable universally and for all times. And that's what I meant by my first post on this thread.

Katie,

I'm a Baptist because I believe the Baptist distinctives, but, unlike fundamentalists, I am willing to admit that I might sometimes be wrong and that I don't have all the answers--that I "see through a glass, darkly."

 

Amen, John. That is one of the best ways I have heard it put ever. In the meantime, I have to admit that after the hours of Bible study I just did for the 'dragon' post at evolution/creation, I was a little giddy, and when I saw the title, "women's heads" the first thought that came to mind was "We have them?"

Time for a break, obviously!

 

Why, thank you, Jim, for that defense--I think.

 

Michael, everyone else:

There is a distinction that is hardly ever discussed.

In 1 Cor 11, where the head covering is discussed, almost no one pays attention to the final verse addressing the subject: (16) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,neither the churches of God.

The passage is talking about authority, focusing on the women in the church of Corinth showing their new-found liberty in Christ to the heads of the church and their households. But they were taking the liberty too far--just as many of us do today.

The passage about women pastors, however, has no such qualifying verse. In other words, the passage on women pastors isn't talking about a "custom," but about who should have the authority.

And that's where this disagreement always should end up: Who has, or is supposed to have, the authority?

 

John Wells posted…

&gt;&gt;there is nothing spiritual about wearing or not wearing a covering. But manifesting rebellion against God’s order was wrong.&gt;&gt;

Personally, I think John hit the nail on the head with the use of the word "spiritual".

Most of us (myself included of course) are prone to forget the following verse in 1 Corinthians :

KJV 1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

1 Corinthians is/was an epistle to the carnal not the spiritual.

KJV Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

There was another reason for head covering as well. The Roman and Greek empires were known for their false gods and religious cults, in which priestesses shaved their heads in order to be identified as such.

Paul did not want the Christian women to be any way identified with that pagan lifestyle, yet some of his converts were saved out of that. Covering their heads until their hair grew back out was a way for them to show their submission and new found faith in the one true God.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Why confuse us? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not confused, are you?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joy:
There was another reason for head covering as well...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We should be careful of bringing into the issue reasons that Paul left out of the issue. He gave several reasons, such as the headship of man, the order of creation, the presence of angels, the practice of the church, etc.; but never entered any social elements into his argument.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by katie:
Covering the hair, or never cutting the hair because of this verse, is a misunderstanding of scripture, and legalism...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you feel the legalism is in simply misunderstanding the verse? Or is it in trying to force your (mis)understanding on others?

I personally feel this passage indicates that a man should not have long hair, and that a woman should wear a covering when she is praying; but I am perfectly content to leave each to his own in the matter. I never bring it up unless someone wants to discuss it with me. BUT I DO THINK that some carefully "tithe mint and anise and cumin" on this passage and "forget the weightier matters of the law."

 

I understand that we should be careful about it, but bringing in historical context sometimes helps us to understand how the people of Paul's day thought and understood the passage. This can be very helpful in interpretting it. Remember, there are 2000 years and several tranlations between then and now. I think it is important to study to show yourself approved.

The bigger picture is still one of authority and submission, but there also seems to be an underlying picture of identification here, which is perfectly in line with Paul's other teachings about how a woman is to look and dress and conduct herself.

 

We certainly should study to show ourselves approved unto God; and there is nothing wrong with studying historical information. But interpreting Biblical passages by historical context, when the historical context is not actually in the passage, is a very risky business. If Paul had meant that he wanted the converted whorish priestesses to cover their heads until their hair grew back out, he could have quite easily have said that. Is it not probable that Paul did not use this supposed argument for a reason? If so, to enter it back into the mix would be a mistake. The reasoned argument comes across on solid weighty settled issues, rather than one limited to time, geography, and culture.