Head Covering and Silence?

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
I am sure Baptist in Richmond knows where it is. 401 Azalea Ave.

That I do: it is north of Highland Park, but I don't get up that way too often. I live and work downtown, on the 11th and 8th floors respectively.

Would you like me to take some pictures of your alma mater for you?

BiR

 

[standingfirminChrist]

if ya could, that would be wonderful! Would be wonderful to see the old school again. As I understand, my Braille teacher passed since then.

we had a wonderful crew of teachers there back then.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

At the moment, I am in Kansas City, and will be back in the Commonwealth on Monday, so I may just surprise you!!!

 

[standingfirminChrist]

will be praying for you to have a safe trip back home, my Brother!

Back at the topic at hand, headcoverings...

Are our wives supposed to be wearing them today? DHK thinks so, and I respect that. One must stick to his or her convictions or one is branded a hypocrite.

 

[Hope of Glory]

There is one family in our church that wears head coverings, but it's the doile (sp?) sort, and it's up to the individual young ladies when they are older.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

We say, 'if it used to be sin, then it's still sin today'. Does the same apply to headcoverings? Are many of the American churches disobeying God's Word by not endorsing the veil?

Tough question?

Remember God's Word abideth forever.

 

[Jesus is Lord]

That is one nice way to hijack a thread

Thanks to everyone for your answers so far. Maybe I should mention that I do not believe it is necessary either. But I must admit that a quick reading of certain passages leads to the belief that women are supposed to wear coverings, be silent in any situation, are not supposed to wear jewelry (oh, oh ), make her hair etc. I also met a lot of people who believe the same way I do but not based on scripture or right interpretation but just because they "think God would never command something like that".

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
I know of no women who pray with their head covered in any American church, do you?

The context is "in the church".
The answer to your question is, yes. </font>[/QUOTE]Where or what church?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

The Mennonite women pray with their heads covered with the little doily.

The Amish women pray with a bonnet on their head.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Where or what church?

You are joking right? You want names and places posted on the board? Well I belong to one to start with. I have been to others in both Canada and the U.S. I have been to scores of others in other nations where they think that the typical American is way out of order in reference to this command. In fact they believe, as I inferred, that they don't follow it out of direct disobedience to God's Word because they would rather conform to the world's lifestyle than the Word of God. Pants for women fit right in there with the same condemnation. But that condemnation comes from Christians in other nations, that get a good close-up look at American Christianity when their missionaries visit their counties.
DHK

 

[mioque]

My church practices headcovering and no preaching when it comes to women, but not complete silence. We are after all baptist ladies not Carthusian monks.

 

[Melanie]

As a Traditional Catholic and female I attend a church where I wear a head covering. It is a sign of respect, and the general code of the women wear clothes that are rather more conservative (or modest if you like ) than the general norm.Likewise the men folk are dressed in pants and shirt, tie and jacket.

This is my choice and I find it is of worth for me in my desire to love God more. I could choose to attend the more liberal RCC and not bother.

It would not be appropriate to attend my preferred church in a confrontational manner . I wore slacks the first couple of times until I realised that I was the only woman doing so, so I changed. Simple.

The women folk do not preach, they have many other roles....

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by DHK:
Don't hijack the thread?
Since the real topic of the thread wasn't about "are headcoverings required,"
What were you reading John??

The topic was the opening poster's friends who have views on women headcoverings and perpetual silence. The OP is more about their extremism, and less about the topics themselves.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Remember God's Word abideth forever.

True, but application frequently changes in accordance with custom.

 

[Jim1999]

The Anglican Church at one time included the wearing of hats and male clergy. Times they are a changing, thank God, and the hats are mostly gone and we have female vicars. Again, silence in the church was a customary thing of the times. There are some men who ought to learn silence!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[bmerr]

To All,

bmerr here. I'm going to say the veil, or covering, that Paul spoke of in 1 Cor 11 was a cultural distinction. Here's why.

Paul makes the statement, "But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered" (1 Cor 11:6 nkjv).

"If" denotes a condition. If the situation is such that a shaved, shorn, or uncovered woman would be shameful, then a woman should be covered. If this is not the situation, then it doesn't make any difference.

As has been observed earlier, the issue in this section has to do with authority. In Corinth at the time of Paul's writing, a head covering denoted that a woman was under the authority of her husband.

In our American culture, what is the symbol that a woman is under the authority of her husband? Is it not the wedding band she wears?

Second, the fact that other women in the Bible did not wear veils, and yet were not subject to pulic shame, demonstrates that the veil was a cultural distinction.

For example, Eve had no veil. If a veil were required to be worn by all women to show that she was under the authority of her husband, would God not have provided Eve with a veil? Surely He would have, but Eve was naked, just as her husband was. Even after the forbidden fruit incident, They made themselves "aprons" out of leaves, and God provided "tunics" (NKJV word). If a "tunic" neccessitates a veil, then Adam wore one, too.

Another example is Hannah (1 Sam 1:12-13). As this married woman prayed for a son, Eli was able to see here lips moving, which would not have been possible had she been wearing a veil.

Of course, Eli thought she was drunk, but when he learned the truth, he still did not admonish her for not wearing a veil.

I wouldn't beat someone up for wearing a covering if they wanted to, but I wouldn't tell anyone they ought to if they didn't, either.

Hope this helps.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:
To All,

bmerr here. I'm going to say the veil, or covering, that Paul spoke of in 1 Cor 11 was a cultural distinction. Here's why.

Paul makes the statement, "But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered" (1 Cor 11:6 nkjv).

"If" denotes a condition. If the situation is such that a shaved, shorn, or uncovered woman would be shameful, then a woman should be covered. If this is not the situation, then it doesn't make any difference.

But it is the situation. That is why the Bible states it. It doesn't put the affidavit "only in the culture of the first century." Where do you get that from? The same type of statement is found in Rom.10:9:

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
--But only in the first century because it is a cultural thing, right? It was just a cultural thing to be saved in the first century, not today. Is this the way we treat God's "conditional" commands?

As has been observed earlier, the issue in this section has to do with authority. In Corinth at the time of Paul's writing, a head covering denoted that a woman was under the authority of her husband.

Yes it does have to with authority, and the sign of that authority was a headcovering. The sign of God's covenant with the Jews was circumcision. God has many different signs for many different purposes. This was a literal sign to show the authority of the man over the woman, or conversely the submission of the woman to the man. If the woman did not obey she was in disobedience to her husband and to God. That is not a matter of culture, but a matter of obeying the Scripture. Where does it say culture here? Where does it say culture in getting saved?

In our American culture, what is the symbol that a woman is under the authority of her husband? Is it not the wedding band she wears?

No, if you really want the roots of the ring, it no doubt comes from a pagan tradition rather than a Christian one. Where do you find that in the Bible? The sign of authority of a man over a woman in the church is the woman's head-covering. Deal with Scripture, not culture.

Second, the fact that other women in the Bible did not wear veils, and yet were not subject to pulic shame, demonstrates that the veil was a cultural distinction.

Do you have Scriptural proof for this statement?
Again, the context is in the church.

For example, Eve had no veil. If a veil were required to be worn by all women to show that she was under the authority of her husband, would God not have provided Eve with a veil? Surely He would have, but Eve was naked, just as her husband was. Even after the forbidden fruit incident, They made themselves "aprons" out of leaves, and God provided "tunics" (NKJV word). If a "tunic" neccessitates a veil, then Adam wore one, too.

And what has this got to do with the New Testament church?

Another example is Hannah (1 Sam 1:12-13). As this married woman prayed for a son, Eli was able to see here lips moving, which would not have been possible had she been wearing a veil.

First, a veil is not an Islamic burqa'. So you do not know that fact. Second, Hanna was in tears, which would have caused Eli to have a good look at her. Third, the veil doess't cling to the entire face. The Jews are not Muslims.
But most importantly of all, you are in the Old Testament again. What has that got to do with a New Testament church?

Of course, Eli thought she was drunk, but when he learned the truth, he still did not admonish her for not wearing a veil.

non sequitor

I wouldn't beat someone up for wearing a covering if they wanted to, but I wouldn't tell anyone they ought to if they didn't, either.

I am glad you are not a woman beater. They put you in jail for crimes like that.
DHK

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Jim1999:
There are some men who ought to learn silence!

Pat Robertson

 

[Eliyahu]

Can any man or woman improve what God has demonstrated for the believers?
Can any human being suggest any other way for the salvation than what was perfomed thru the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and declared by God?
Can any human being teach God about how the church gather together and about how the believers should live?
Can you imagine the women in the early church had their heads uncovered in the church meeting or in the worship service?
Have you ever heard that the most of the churches had their women wearing head-covering upto early 20th century?

Now let's have a look at what God says about this matter.

1 Cor 11:1-16 tells us in very much details about this matter.

1 Cor 11: 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. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Bible tells us:
1) head covering is related to Headship in chain from Woman, Man, Christ, even to God
2) It give a certain authority to women and is related to angels. There are some various interpretation about the angel, but even angels may be learning the obedience from the women's head-covering.
3)If any woman doesn't want to wear head covering, she should be shorn. This is the message of Bible.
4) verse 15 tells that the Long Hair is given for the covering. The Greek word is ANTI, which can be interpretted as:
i) in appostion to
ii) in replacement for
iii) in addition to, on top of ( John 1:16 - grace for grace)
iv) for the sake of.
we cannot accept ii) as the interpretation of the word, because it contradicts verse 6. If any woman is without head covering, she should be shorn. Therefore interpretation iii) is the correct interpetation.

Throughout the church history, especially the true believers assemblies have all the time kept this commandments, and the most of the church kept this teachings upto before WWII. During the War many women had to work and the situation changed a lot and women didn't wear head coverings any more. But the Words of God didn't change.

On the other hand, Men should not wear any head covering during the worship service. However, Jews wear kippa and RC priests wear head-covering, which are apparently violation of the Bible teachings.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

If anyone think that the Words of God can change from time to time reflecting the local customs, it means that the church belongs to this world, following the customs of this world.

So-called Plymouth Brethren ( I say so-called, because they deny any denomination name) have been keeping this commandments throughout the world. Harry Ironside emphasized this too.

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. Nice to speak with you again, sir. I hope you and yours have been well.

I think the comparison you made between the 1 Cor 11 "if", and the Rom 10 "if" is flawed. The conditions for salvation in Christ are universal under the NT, whereas the conditions under which a woman is viewed in a shameful light are not.

My point in discussing Eve and Hannah was to show that the veil was not based in creation, nor was it always used as a sign of a woman's submission to her husband. I understand that neither Eve, nor Hannah were members of the church of Christ.

Something else I noticed is that prior to Paul's discussion of veils, is this statement:

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the tradidtions just as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor 11:1).

The things Paul had delivered to them previously did not cover the wearing of veils, apparently. If this was something required by all women in the first century church, would such instruction not be found in other epistles? Certainly it would, as several similarities can be found in the epistles Paul wrote, as well as those by John, Peter, James, etc.

But it's only written to the church at Corinth. I guess it's possible that the church at Corinth was the only congregation that had veil-related problems, but I doubt it. It's more likely that Corinth was the only place where this was an issue.

Aside from this, the only other instruction I am aware of concerning the dress of women is in 1 Pet 3:3-6, and 1 Tim 2:9-10, both of which emphasize appropriate (modest) apparel, coupled with the good works proper for women professing godliness.

I'm going to stick with a cultural view of veils.

In Christ,

bmerr