Why no head coverings?

[12strings]

I'm going on the assumption that the majority of our baptist churches do not require women to wear head coverings in public worship. How do we justify this? This is important, because we often prove our point on various issues by saying, "The bible says it, so I believe it." So, for example, if arguing against homosexuality:

1. The bible says it's a sin, so it's a sin...don't bring your cultural arguments into this.
2. But, the bible says women should wear head coverings, but that's cultural...

See the problem?

On what basis do the majority of Baptist & Evangelical churches ignore the head covering?

(I should Edit to say that I realize some of your churches probably DO apply this principle...and of course you have great biblical justification for it.)

 

[Bro. James]

The basis: we have a squeaky clean holiness standard which is conformed to the world. Most of us would not have to worry about being charged with being a Christian--there would not be enough evidence for a conviction.

The headcovering in worship is supposed to be a sign of submission to the husband.

Better to be uncovered than a hippocrite.

We need a serious look at what true, undefiled religion might be.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[12strings]

The basis: we have a squeaky clean holiness standard which is conformed to the world. Most of us would not have to worry about being charged with being a Christian--there would not be enough evidence for a conviction.

The headcovering in worship is supposed to be a sign of submission to the husband.

Better to be uncovered than a hippocrite.

We need a serious look at what true, undefiled religion might be.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

I'm not really sure what you are saying here. Should my wife wear a head covering to church next Sunday or not?

 

[Bro. James]

Not my call. This is between you, your wife and The Lord.

"The husband is the head of the wife" is a difficult doctrine to receive and apply since women got "liberated".

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No need if she has long hair... her hair is sufficient covering. It is given to her as a covering.

 

[Salty]

No need if she has long hair... her hair is sufficient covering. It is given to her as a covering.

I agree
:thumbsup:

 

[Jerome]

Churchlady hats galore at a worship service/pep rally at the SBC President's church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXTp_Q59Yh0

 

[12strings]

No need if she has long hair... her hair is sufficient covering. It is given to her as a covering.

But why do we believe biblicaly we can say this? There are a bunch of verses before verse 15 that seem to say her hair is not sufficient...and the word for veil/covering inverse 15 is different the the word used prior to that for the head covering...

 

[12strings]

Not my call. This is between you, your wife and The Lord.

"The husband is the head of the wife" is a difficult doctrine to receive and apply since women got "liberated".

Peace,

Bro. James

So you're saying it's not a clear command from scripture, but a gray area that each Christian must decide for themselves?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

But why do we believe biblicaly we can say this? There are a bunch of verses before verse 15 that seem to say her hair is not sufficient...and the word for veil/covering inverse 15 is different the the word used prior to that for the head covering...

12strings...no there are no such verses. No verse prior to verse 15 suggests that her hair is insufficient....Her hair is given to her as a covering: Verse 5 creates a standard...it is juxtapostional. We juxtapose the ideas of a woman with her head shaven...and a man with short or a shaven head with that of a woman with short hair. A woman with "short" hair might as well be "shorn" or "shaven"...
Women don't have to "WEAR" a "covering"...God gave them a "covering"...their hair. It's all right there. I don't tend to think that it's even particularly debatable really. I suppose I am open to correction, but, I truly think that given the obvious comparisons and juxtapositions and comparisons in their contexts...this really isn't a difficult concept.

As Baptists...we tend to think that the Pentecostals are morons when we speak of the "signs" and the "gifts" and what-not...but they aren't "wrong" when they insist on short hair for men and long hair for women...on that level...they are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT...and many of us are ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Long hair was (and in many contexts still is) considered a sign of cowardice and effiminacy....NO ROMAN... (who dominated cultural understanding at that time) if he were a man....would have long hair.
I joined the Marine Corps in 1996...we were clearly instructed that the classic "high-and-tight" was a Roman legionnaire's cut, and that men..were NOT to have long hair. It follows the "complementarian" ideal:
Women are beautiful, wise, intelligent, and a veritable marvel of artistic and idealistic perfection...
You, as a man, are...well...rather utilitarian in function...and it's a durned trick by the Almighty that those beautiful creatures are actually attracted to, and need us rather uncomely beasts.....
It's how it is...stop questioning the Almighty...Your short hair is un-attractive, somewhat un-artistic, practical and....women have bad taste, and they actually find your hairy back attractive.

My beloved and beautiful bride, with her lovely locks has equally abyssmal tastes. She is fool enough to find my gorgeously hairy bod and my hairy back and my shaven head as attractive...Well, that's HER problem, not mine. I'm hideous, only she doesn't know that....Her problem, not mine.

God gave women poor taste on purpose...so they'd actually like and want our hideous persons...

We are ugly...they are beautiful. Allow them to wallow in their ignorance of aesthetic perfection.

I don't spend a lot of time questioning it in that, perhaps God might realize how un-sportingly he treated the fairer sex and if he ever gave them good taste in amorous partners...well, we'd become pretty lonely pretty quickly now wouldn't we??

My advice...just accept it, and move on :smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::laugh:

1Cr 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.
I spent a while jesting about things...but, I truly take my postion on the "head-covering" idea seriously...(the rest is sheer personal pablum.) Although...I think it is worth meditating on, it's somewhat ancillarry.

 

[DHK]

12strings...no there are no such verses. No verse prior to verse 15 suggests that her hair is insufficient....Her hair is given to her as a covering: Verse 5 creates a standard...it is juxtapostional. We juxtapose the ideas of a woman with her head shaven...and a man with short or a shaven head with that of a woman with short hair. A woman with "short" hair might as well be "shorn" or "shaven"...
Women don't have to "WEAR" a "covering"...God gave them a "covering"...their hair.

No you are wrong and 12strings is right, when he said:

But why do we believe biblicaly we can say this? There are a bunch of verses before verse 15 that seem to say her hair is not sufficient...and the word for veil/covering inverse 15 is different the the word used prior to that for the head covering...

Look at the two verses in the ASV:

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.
1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.

1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1 Corinthians 11:6 ει γαρ ου κατακαλυπτεται γυνη και κειρασθω ει δε αισχρον γυναικι το κειρασθαι η ξυρασθαι κατακαλυπτεσθω

1 Corinthians 11:15 γυνη δε εαν κομα δοξα αυτη εστιν οτι η κομη αντι περιβολαιου δεδοται αυτη

The two words are very different. They don't even look related. The one means a veil or head-covering, and it does not refer to the hair.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No you are wrong and 12strings is right, when he said:
Look at the two verses in the ASV:

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.
1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.

1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1 Corinthians 11:6 ει γαρ ου κατακαλυπτεται γυνη και κειρασθω ει δε αισχρον γυναικι το κειρασθαι η ξυρασθαι κατακαλυπτεσθω

1 Corinthians 11:15 γυνη δε εαν κομα δοξα αυτη εστιν οτι η κομη αντι περιβολαιου δεδοται αυτη

The two words are very different. They don't even look related. The one means a veil or head-covering, and it does not refer to the hair.

Interesting...as a "KJV-ONLY" (sorta) guy....I re-iterate my position...none of those verses read as you cite in the KJV:

I wouldn't even know how to apply the confusion I just read in the ASV as it's translated there.
Maybe the KJV is insufficient or inadequate...but in the KJV....this passage is simply not NEAR as confusing as your post now makes it. If the KJV'S rendering is correct....than a woman's own hair is a perfectly sufficient and adequate "covering".... No distinction is made between "veil" and "covering"....and my statement is absolutely true.
1Cr 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.
1Cr 11:6 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.
1Cr 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.
I have no interest in the confusion wrought by modern translations....This passage is clear in the AV...it means God only knows what in other translations.... I guess you guys can debate this with whatever verbiage you want to substitute...but in the KJV...................................................a woman's hair is her covering.

 

[Iconoclast]

it is not just hair.........IT IS LONG HAIR, either Long Hair or an external covering.

Short hair is not okay...Long hair is given her for a covering...

 

[DHK]

it is not just hair.........IT IS LONG HAIR, either Long Hair or an external covering.

Short hair is not okay...Long hair is given her for a covering...

That is not what it says. These are two completely different word for "covering". The first one means "veil," or head-covering. It has nothing to do with hair, not even long hair. Read the entire passage. Hair doesn't fit the context.

 

[SaggyWoman]

What is the history of the residents of Corinth?

 

[Iconoclast]

That is not what it says. These are two completely different word for "covering". The first one means "veil," or head-covering. It has nothing to do with hair, not even long hair. Read the entire passage. Hair doesn't fit the context.

Long hair...is contrasted with being shorn, or uncovered..vs 15....
long hair is given her for a covering



13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering



13 In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God?

14 doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

15 and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;

So...it can be LONG HAIR....or a covering veil.

 

[Iconoclast]

What is the history of the residents of Corinth?

Godly Women had Long hair....neatly put up......in contrast to the prostitutes.

 

[DHK]

Long hair...is contrasted with being shorn, or uncovered..vs 15....
long hair is given her for a covering



13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering



13 In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God?

14 doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?

15 and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;

So...it can be LONG HAIR....or a covering veil.

Read the same passage in the ASV and in a few other translations, and then tell me if you can honestly and objectively come to the same conclusion?

 

[SaggyWoman]

Prostitutes today have all kinds of hair.

 

[DHK]

Godly Women had Long hair....neatly put up......in contrast to the prostitutes.

There are 16 verses in this passage that deal with a woman's head covering. There is no mention of prostitutes anywhere. The first and most important reason is the matter of headship. From the time of creation onward, the man was to be the head of the home; the head of the woman. The head covering symbolizes this. A woman needs to wear a head covering to show that the man in her life is her head. This is very clear in the first four verses of the chapter.
Going on to verse 16 there are six different reasons why a woman needs to wear a head covering, and a man should not, while in the service of the church.