Please Argue with me about Head Coverings

[quietthinker]

Lol, that gave me my early morning smile xxxx

good on you Rita. I thought I was stepping on thin ice!

 

[Rita]

good on you Rita. I thought I was stepping on thin ice!

No, it is a trait that some women have, what’s the point of denying it. I get the bus with many women who ‘ prattle ‘ ……I just sit there and in my mind say ‘ please just shut up ‘ !!!!
I do actually believe that this was the reason Paul said what he said.

No the ice you stepped on was fine ……….:)

 

[farouk]

It was considered respectful culturally.

@Rita I think there is a lot to be said about respect as a basic attitude, Godward and to others.

What also happens in countries that have a large multicultural population (reflected in local church demographics also) is the fact that what some ppl think is not the same as what others do.

Someone mentioned jewellery also; I guess similar comments can apply.

Also, undoubtedly, some things such as tattoos - decades back seemingly the preserve of men - are so culturally mainstream that women can get them - faith based or otherwise - with a great deal of social confidence.

cc @FluffyYellowDuck

 

[Ferris Bueller]

This is the opposite response than I would have expected on here lol

Technically, it's a great one. Because you should not sin against your conscience.
But if you can be set free from the conviction that you must wear one, then I personally think it's okay. My understanding of it comes down to the fact that a woman not wearing a head covering in our culture does not signify the rebellion against authority that it did in Corinthian culture.

 

[quietthinker]

@Rita I think there is a lot to be said about respect as a basic attitude, Godward and to others.

What also happens in countries that have a large multicultural population (reflected in local church demographics also) is the fact that what some ppl think is not the same as what others do.

Someone mentioned jewellery also; I guess similar comments can apply.

Also, undoubtedly, some things such as tattoos - decades back seemingly the preserve of men - are so culturally mainstream that women can get them - faith based or otherwise - with a great deal of social confidence.

you're prattling farouk!

 

[Rita]

Technically, it's a great one. Because you should not sin against your conscience.
But if you can be set free from the conviction that you must wear one, then I personally think it's okay. My understanding of it comes down to the fact that a woman not wearing a head covering in our culture does not signify the rebellion against authority that it did in Corinthian culture.

I am not sure that is completely true, generally I would agree with what you have said. However if you were part of a church that insisted on wearing head covering, and it was part of the culture within that community of people, then surely you would be going against the authority within that body of believers. ( like the armistice for example ) There are cultures within cultures

 

[Ferris Bueller]

...if you were part of a church that insisted on wearing head covering, and it was part of the culture within that community of people, then surely you would be going against the authority within that body of believers. ( like the armistice for example ) There are cultures within cultures

She should wear it in that situation, but only for the sake of the others who think she has to wear it.
I'm confident that fluffy is not wearing one because she rebelling against God's order of headship.
As long as she's not wearing a head covering in order to rebel against God's order of headship then the only circumstance it would be a sin to not wear it is among other believers who think she has to wear it.

 

[Lambano]

Technically, it's a great one. Because you should not sin against your conscience.
But if you can be set free from the conviction that you must wear one, then I personally think it's okay. My understanding of it comes down to the fact that a woman not wearing a head covering in our culture does not signify the rebellion against authority that it did in Corinthian culture.

Or, @FluffyYellowDuck, you can gently explain to your conscience about Jesus’s teachings regarding the place of παραδόσεις, the traditions of men vs. the commandments of God. Your conscience knows and trusts Jesus pretty well and will submit to His teachings.

 

[DuckieLady]

Maybe we should invite a Catholic even a Roman one to the party I’ll bet @Marymog could tell you why the nuns cover their heads?

Sure, even though I don't agree with the Catholics 100% there isn't any denying that there are just some parts of Catholic/Orthodox churches that might fill holes in understanding of all church history.

Im sorry if this already happened and I'm still catching up and haven't noticed yet

 

[DuckieLady]

@FluffyYellowDuck Does it really say that about Samuel? I'd missed that.....

Read the prayer I think in 1Sam 1 and it is in Hannah's prayer to God

We have had a number of discussion about this on the forum over the years. I still stand by the cultural card that in Paul’s day and age it was relevant and made sense. Fluffy, why did you wear it in the first place ?
We’re you told to, was it something that your church just did and you just followed the rules ?
I have never worn a head covering, never felt any leading to, yet The Lord still called to me, still worked in my life, still saved me and has continued to work in my life. ……….still answered my prayers.
There was a time over here in the U.K., and probably in many cultures when women wore hats to church, and they wore their Sunday best clothes. It was considered respectful culturally.
It gradually changed. I have not grown up in the culture that demanded head coverings.
You know what I find strange, Paul mentions the head covering in connection to prophecy …..yet elsewhere he forbids women to speak in church !

It’s always difficult asking loads of people for opinions with things that we personally have mixed feelings about, it can make it more difficult to find a way forward.

I didn't grow up Anabaptist, I studied the word for a few years and every practice I could think of. (That's where I ended up.)

It wasn't for any reason but to experience the Word and be in obedience to God. I have acceptance of his order of headship and desire to walk faithfully in it - as any child would know the benefits of walking in accordance with his/her father's will, and there are numerous practical benefits that come with it, but they aren't written in scripture.

 

[DuckieLady]

She should wear it in that situation, but only for the sake of the others who think she has to wear it.
I'm confident that fluffy is not wearing one because she rebelling against God's order of headship.
As long as she's not wearing a head covering in order to rebel against God's order of headship then the only circumstance it would be a sin to not wear it is among other believers who think she has to wear it.

I am technically rebelling AND I am also sinning according to Romans 14:23 and I am also telling on myself

 

[farouk]

Read the prayer I think in 1Sam 1 and it is in Hannah's prayer to God


I didn't grow up Anabaptist, I studied the word for a few years and every practice I could think of.

It wasn't for any reason but to experience the Word and be in obedience to God. I have acceptance of his order of headship and desire to walk faithfully in it - as any child would know the benefits of walking in accordance with his/her father's will, and there are numerous practical benefits that come with it, but they aren't written in scripture.

Sounds similar to the Nazarite vow...

In Numbers 24 it's interesting that a Nazarite - a man or a woman - was to shave his or her head after the vow was performed. Some commentators say that this is the background to Paul going to Jerusalem in Acts, to offer his - or Aquila's or Priscilla's - shaved hair to be burned in the Temple.

 

[DuckieLady]

Or, @FluffyYellowDuck, you can gently explain to your conscience about Jesus’s teachings regarding the place of παραδόσεις, the traditions of men vs. the commandments of God. Your conscience knows and trusts Jesus pretty well and will submit to His teachings.

I would have to say we fell too far from where we were meant to be. Traditions of man are one thing, but this was a custom where "the churches of God had no other custom" meaning this is what they did. And only recently we decided no more. That was a man made modern decision, contrary from the words of a man who actually walked with Jesus Christ.

And it is for God, so that the man's glory (the woman) wouldn't be flaunted about before God.

Now, why would we want to abandon humility before God? Only human pride and not wanting to feel out of place or weird, or as @Hidden In Him called it "freaks to the outside."

Who in this world can have both Christ and worldly pride, or do good work without humility before God?


Maybe this is one of the places we need to step back in order to be in accordance with Gods will- especially in a time where the title of "man" and "woman" are being abolished and His design for marriage is being trampled by sin and rebellion.

Maybe there is a time where God wants his natural order brought back into the house of God, where his people are meant to follow Him and uplift his perfect will and his design for creation - as He spoke it!

Maybe God notices all of this and had and still has the wisdom to know, it is an example of something that works as an anchor (believe me, it does) to keep us from sailing off with the rest of the soon-to-be sinking ships.

Obedience to the Word keeps us on steady ground.

 

[farouk]

@FluffyYellowDuck Your earlier ref. to Romans 14 also causes me to reflect that there are some hardline traditionalists who might try to impose arbitrary rules on women, to the effect that women should not be in employment (C H Spurgeon on the contrary said that the lack - in his day - of suitable female employment was a great social evil); dress codes should supposedly involve waist-length hair, bare earlobes (not to say nostril, also!), floor-length dresses, and so forth. (Something like Amish.) This to me would sound like a religion of works, imposed by rules, more like what the Lord criticized in the Pharisees, and what the writer of the Hebrews was at pains to exhort his readers away from.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Forcing respect by some outward observance is a suck to me. Let me use an example....when a Sergeant bellows at soldiers in a platoon I loose respect for that man. I have ears, I'm intelligent and if I don't understand I can ask him.....bellowing at me like one possessed to generate respect speaks more to me of one not worthy of it.

That is a terrible analogy QT.....a married couple are NOT like a sergeant and his subordinates where the obedience is out of fear of punishment, and where intimidation is used to coerce......where the army owns its members....and can force them to do whatever they are told.
A married couple should be nothing like that. Jesus is said to be the "head" of the congregation like a husband is "head" over his wife....that is in the capacity of loving, caring and nurturing...appreciative of each other's qualities in the role that God has assigned.

If I think outward 'signs', performances or practices are going to impress God or if they flatter my ego, I think the wrong number has been dialled.....it's the same number 'religious' folk dial incessantly.

God is not about 'performances' for their own sake, but he is about the deeper meaning of things, which in this case is respect for the arrangement that God has put in place. Its not dictatorship, but partnership.

In a marriage there is one driver....his partner can be many things....assistant, navigator, meal planner, vacation coordinator, co-parent etc....but as long as there is love and respect for God and each other, nothing has to be forced.
The vehicle does not have two steering wheels or two sets of controls....just one.
She is happy to let him drive as she feels safe and in good hands....well, that is the plan anyway....

 

[DuckieLady]

@FluffyYellowDuck Your earlier ref. to Romans 14 also causes me to reflect that there are some hardline traditionalists who might try to impose arbitrary rules on women, to the effect that women should not be in employment (C H Spurgeon on the contrary said that the lack - in his day - of suitable female employment was a great social evil); dress codes should supposedly involve waist-length hair, bare earlobes (not to say nostril, also!), floor-length dresses, and so forth. (Something like Amish.) This to me would sound like a religion of works, imposed by rules, more like what the Lord criticized in the Pharisees, and what the writer of the Hebrews was at pains to exhort his readers away from.

We could all refute that easily, though. Although having worn the covering, the long dresses and skirts were there but that was for modesty reasons. Would do again.

Women are all over the Bible working; the prophetess Deborah, The woman who made purple dye (can't remember her name), the seamstress Dorcas. And where was Ruth when Boaz was watching? Working in his fields. They're working everywhere.

 

[Lambano]

@FluffyYellowDuck This to me would sound like a religion of works, imposed by rules, more like what the Lord criticized in the Pharisees, and what the writer of the Hebrews was at pains to exhort his readers away from.

Farouk, this is part of why, as this discussion grew longer, I found myself forced more and more towards Galatians.

 

[Enoch111]

Do you mean a hat has to cover all the hair completely or be supposedly unScriptural?

Women wore veils and they still do. The Catholics call them mantillas.

 

[DuckieLady]

Women wore veils and they still do.

Yes accurate.


@farouk I should say I didn't wear a hat, I wear a cloth, basically, and from the looks of it this thread went the opposite as I planned and now I might need to sew a new one

 

[DuckieLady]

Farouk, this is part of why, as this discussion grew longer, I found myself forced more and more towards Galatians.

Which part? I'm curious and I'll read.