Please Argue with me about Head Coverings

[Enoch111]

I might need to sew a new one

Or you could purchase one.

 

[DuckieLady]

Or you could purchase one.

I have tried that but the kind I like (they have a band, so don't slip off as easily) my head is too small. lol (Short person)

I can easily hand sew one in an hour or so though

 

[quietthinker]

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.


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....

Maybe it is a poor analogy AJ, however the fact of the matter is that one only has to listen to peoples prayers to determine who wears the pants, ie where or how the heart sees....ie, who is Lord and who is servant.
What is affirmed as being believed is not necessarily what is actually being believed.

 

[Lambano]

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

In particular, QT’s post 83 and my response in post 88. Also QT’s post 108.

My next two posts are going to get a little personal.

When I broke down spiritually and God started rebuilding me, I got involved with a ministry that gets accused of antinomianism. It looks like antinomianism, but it's about Christian freedom. Religion is about

Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there,”
That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.
(Isaiah 28:13,

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
“Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”, which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of man? These are matters which do have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
(Colossians 2:20-23)

I was taught to not see the Bible as a book of rules. I understand the need for order in the church, but Christ didn't call us to be captives. We're daughters and sons. (Galatians 3:26). We are called to freedom (Galatians 5:1).

If I’ve gauged your character correctly, prayer for you is as natural as breathing. Which is how it should be. I can't see putting in rules that keep you from doing what you do naturally.

 

[Lambano]

The next personal post:

I confess I may be unduly influenced by the spirit of the times, but I have some serious problems with the "natural order" of a husband being the head over his wife. My wife's ex would kick her and throw her into walls and tell her how worthless she was. A bitter man (which I typically am not) might say, "may God reward him according to his works". It took a lot of love, counseling, assertiveness training, and time to regain her sense of self-worth and rebuild her self-confidence. These verses stating a man is head over his wife have been used to justify some horrible behavior and trap women in abusive relationships. I find that unacceptable.

I was never looking for someone to be my glory; I wasn’t looking to be somebody’s head; I wanted a partner in life. God gave me one (thank you Father), and today is the 38th anniversary of our engagement. My wife may have an obligation to respect me; that's between her and God. My obligation is to love and protect her. (Ephesians 5:25, Ephesians 5:28). As for "headship"... I do not see my wife as my subordinate. She is my partner. For this marriage to have worked this long, I have had to submit to her about as often as she has submitted to me. I wasn't called to be a leader; my gifts lie elsewhere. Is this relationship contrary to God's plan as described in 1 Corinthians 11:3? Perhaps. But God apparently thought I was the right man for this job. So, I take issue with the concept that the woman should be subordinate to the man.

[Editor's note: I've edited this post multiple times, and I'm still not sure it says want I wanted it to say. Fluffy, you're a spiritually gifted, talented, intelligent, faithful woman. Don't lose yourself again.]

 

[Hidden In Him]

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?

Actually there are a Mountain of things we have fallen from, the most important of which is that the operation in supernatural gifts is no longer the dominant part of church services. This one thing right there has converted us over into the flesh more than any other, and everything else has followed.

When it comes to customs like head coverings, and more importantly the underlying meaning of wives being in submission to husbands, so long as we are in the flesh this is a teaching that will be and has often been abused, with Christian men teaching and interpreting it in a fleshly light.

My opinion is until we fix the big one, we'd do well to leave the other ones alone or they will simply be corrupted forms of the original teachings and not true examples of it. To this day I rarely hear or read anyone teaching accurately on the role of husbands and wives according to actual New Testament teaching.

 

[DuckieLady]

In particular, QT’s post 83 and my response in post 88. Also QT’s post 108.

My next two posts are going to get a little personal.

When I broke down spiritually and God started rebuilding me, I got involved with a ministry that gets accused of antinomianism. (And I got into a fight with Wynona about it, and nobody gets into fights with Wynona.) It looks like antinomianism, but it's about Christian freedom. Religion is about

Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there,”
That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.
(Isaiah 28:13, NASB)

I understand the need for order in the church, but Christ didn't call us to be captives. We're daughters and sons. (Galatians 3:26). We are called to freedom (Galatians 5:1).

If I’ve gauged your character correctly, prayer for you is as natural as breathing. Which is how it should be. I can't see putting in rules that keep you from doing what you do naturally.

I agree, but I can't consider obedience bondage or slavery, but there's something that catches my attention in this.

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and he also wrote Galatians, so I would have to say that he wouldn't write one thing AND take it back in another thing, right?

So he wouldn't dismiss himself with a "never mind" but what he would say, I believe, is he wasn't referring to that.

The yoke of slavery is referring the yoke to sin. We aren't saved by the law, we are saved by Christ, but despite saying this - Paul still said to do the other thing, but no, it won't be the answer to salvation. Jesus is. It's just important because God is not unchanging, he doesn't waver from himself, and the order still stands because he made it that way.

The next personal post:

I confess I may be unduly influenced by the spirit of the times, but I have some serious problems with the "natural order" of a husband being the head over his wife. My wife's ex would kick her and throw her into walls and tell her how worthless she was. A bitter man (which I typically am not) might say, "may God reward him according to his works". It took a lot of love, counseling, and time to rebuild her life. These verses stating a man is head over his wife have been used to justify some horrible behavior and trap women in abusive relationships. I find that unacceptable.

I was never looking for someone to be my glory, I wanted a partner in life. God gave me one (thank you, Father.) My wife may have an obligation to respect me; that's between her and God. My obligation is to love and protect my wife. (Ephesians 5:25, Ephesians 5:28).

I know a lot about abuse and what I can say is the Bible says the man is meant to love like Christ, and anything against God is not part of his design. Jesus was incredibly feminist for his time - look at the woman who committed adultery and it was women who first came to the tomb after Jesus was resurrected.

And I was abused through that mindset also, and feared I wouldnt be able to handle the idea of submitting!

But what I believe is they will have to answer for every idle word spoken, and especially for using the Bible as an excuse for evil. That isn't God's design - that is sin.

 

[Lambano]

I know a lot about abuse...

I hope I didn't poke any scar tissue.

 

[DuckieLady]

I hope I didn't poke any scar tissue.

Not at all - let me put it a simpler way.

If men of God gave women the same love, the same peace, the same grace that they worshipped God for - which is what Christ taught, you would never hear those stories.

They only read the parts that they wanted to hear, but they sin because they closed their ears to the rest.

 

[DuckieLady]

Actually there are a Mountain of things we have fallen from, the most important of which is that the operation in supernatural gifts is no longer the dominant part of church services. This one thing right there has converted us over into the flesh more than any other, and everything else has followed.

When it comes to customs like head coverings, and more importantly the underlying meaning of wives being in submission to husbands, so long as we are in the flesh this is a teaching that will be and has often been abused, with Christian men teaching and interpreting it in a fleshly light.

My opinion is until we fix the big one, we'd do well to leave the other ones alone or they will simply be corrupted forms of the original teachings and not true examples of it. To this day I rarely hear or read anyone teaching accurately on the role of husbands and wives according to actual New Testament teaching.

I don't think we can succeed fully in spiritual gifts without humility and obedience first. Because of the same reason of being unequally yoked, you have to decide flat out on that narrow road, or you're just gonna go in a big circle and end up lost in some spiritual woods.

If you are called to obedience and want to work for God, but slack off or rebel, unenjoyable things can happen

 

[quietthinker]

Please Argue with me about Head Coverings
I daren't, there's too many to choose from!

 

[Lambano]

The yoke of slavery is referring the yoke to sin.

Theologians' understanding of what Galatians and Romans are saying has changed in the past 50 years, particularly due to the work of Ed Sanders, J.D.G. Dunn, N.T. Wright, and Richard Hays. Galatians is Paul's earliest letter and is about Jewish Christians who know what God has required of His people in the past, and who naturally think that Gentile Christians must also have the same obligation to obey Torah in order to be considered part of God's people. Paul is likening obeying Torah's rules (even though they are God's commands) to slavery, which would be shocking, offensive, and totally unacceptable to Jewish Christians. But Paul takes the position that in the New Creation, Torah obedience is not necessary, though resisting the desires of the flesh and walking in the Spirit is.

Then the question becomes, does wearing the covering help you resist the desires of the flesh and walk in the Spirit?

Paul softens his stance by Romans 14 to just exhort the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in Rome to love and support each other, and to respect each other's different ways of doing things. So Paul does change over time, and his views are not always consistent. Such are the tensions in the Bible.

 

[Deborah_]

In early Christian meetings both men and women were allowed to address the congregation, in marked contrast to the Jewish synagogues. Paul was concerned, not because the women were engaging in a ‘masculine’ activity but because they were doing so in an inappropriate way - with uncovered heads (verses 4,5).

In Christ, men and women are equal in status; there is no difference between the sexes spiritually. Yet there is a world of difference biologically and socially, and in virtually all societies this is marked by differences in appearance. In the first century, the normal everyday dress code in the eastern Mediterranean dictated that free men should not cover their heads; married women, on the other hand, covered their hair in order to honour their husbands and to indicate that they were not sexually available. A woman’s long hair was considered erotic; only prostitutes put their hair on public display. It was therefore as inappropriate for a woman engaging in public ministry in Corinth to let her hair down as it would be for her to appear on a platform today wearing a bikini.

A Christian man (unlike a Jew, who covers his head in God’s presence) worships bare-headed to symbolise his new status in Christ (II Corinthians 3:16-18). He is not a servant but a son, able to engage with God directly; to cover his head would dishonour the Saviour who has set him free (verse 7). But a woman showing her hair in first-century Corinth would draw attention to herself - and not in a good way. Christian women flouting this social convention would not only disgrace their husbands but also bring shame on the church. A church worship service cannot be an anarchic free-for-all where any and all behaviour is acceptable just because it carries a ‘Christian’ label. There is a sense in which no Christian meeting is ‘private’; the Jews believed that when God’s people met for worship, the angels were also present. If we are in heavenly company, we should conduct ourselves accordingly (verse 10). The woman’s head-covering, far from being a mark of subjugation, was her ‘licence’ to participate in the service on equal terms with the men without causing offence. The other alternative - to exclude women completely - is not acceptable because God has so ordained that the two sexes are interdependent (verses 11,12). Whether we like it or not, we need each other (and not only for procreation!).

There is a tacit assumption here that women will contribute to the worship service by praying and prophesying. But failure to observe the conventions of society (whatever they are) while doing so causes unnecessary distraction, when all our attention should be on Christ. Cultural gender markers vary from one culture to another, but they are not totally arbitrary. Men and women are different - a fact that is almost universally recognised. We should neither ignore the distinctions that God has made nor attempt to obliterate them. In modern Europe, women do not wear veils; but we still need to respect the conventions of our own society in our behaviour and in our manner of dress. Appearances do matter!

 

[Lambano]

If you are called to obedience and want to work for God, but slack off or rebel, unenjoyable things can happen

Yeah, and that's something else I need to respect. You know your own heart, and you said you consider your desire to forego the covering to be rebellion that needs to be brought under control. Though I have tried to show why I think it is not mandatory (and rebellion against traditions that unnecessarily restrict your God-given freedom is justifiable), it may well be something you need to do for your own spiritual development. That's between you and God. By all means, do what you’re called to do!

 

[Lambano]

I stumbled on old pictures and felt guilty for giving up my covering. Honestly I quit out of pride and I was afraid I wouldn't be ever seen as marriage potential because of it. There, I said it.

Hey, if God has a man out there for you, it's not going to matter whether you wear the covering or not. The man will love you for who you are.

 

[Cooper]

In a nutshell, the church at Corinth had many problems. "Sin City" is how it was known. It was dominated by the temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love, built on the heights of the acropolis. There were thousands of temple prostitutes, and the city was a by-word for its excesses and sexual licence. There was even a word for it: to ‘Corinthianize.’

The temple prostitutes walked the streets with shaved heads, so if a woman had a full head of hair it was a glory to her. If a man walked to church with his bald headed wife, think how embarrassing it would be for both of them. A full head of hair was a glory not only to the lady herself, but it was a glory to her husband also and like a badge of honour.

The other thing women did if they were married to a rich man was to show off their wealth by wearing their jewellery in their hair for all to see. This created a sense of inequality in the church, and as all are equal in the sight of God a head covering solved the problem. The rich ladies looking the same as the poor, all being equal in the sight of God.

Something else, is that pagan priests wore a hat as a status symbol, so in order to separate themselves from pagan customs and in order to identify themselves as Christians, the men refrained from wearing hats.

So the women wore hats and the men didn’t. Basically, they were separating themselves from the things of the world.
.

 

[JohnPaul]

Here is the deal.

I stumbled on old pictures and felt guilty for giving up my covering. Honestly I quit out of pride and I was afraid I wouldn't be ever seen as marriage potential because of it. There, I said it.

And I can't change my mind and I have convictions, and every argument that I know of I have the answer to already, so I need you guys to argue with me and see if someone can change my mind.

It will take me a few hours to get back but I'll contest any responses- unless someone has one I can't deny.

Warning: I spent years studying this.

No need to feel guilty @FluffyYellowDuck , it's your choice, but just let me say something head covering for women started with the jews, hence you see the Blessed Mother with her head covered, and Nuns also where their habits which covers their heads and body, it's where the Muslims copied another thing from the Judeo-Christian rules.

Mostly Christian women wear head coverings or head scarfs while in Church, so there is no need to feel guilty.

 

[JohnPaul]

PS: I'm not sure nose studs are even necessarily about getting married, either; the Ezekiel 16 passage seems to be more about imputed righteousness, as a background.

(They obviously don't need to but, if Christian women - single or married - do want a nose stud clicked in, then it would seem Romans 14 Christian liberty comes into play...)

@farouk, sorry to say brother but you seem obsessed with tattoos, piercings and all the other stuff that goes along with it, this is about head coverings, not nose studs or piercings.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I don't think we can succeed fully in spiritual gifts without humility and obedience first.

Humility yes, but the question comes in as to knowing what "obedience" actually is.

I had to run off to work so I only had time to give you the short answer, but let me clarify what I meant about the dangers involved in coming off as freaks to the world. In virtually every instance where the teaching on wives submitting to husbands is found, slaves obeying their masters is also taught. What this means is that if we were to advocate for a strict return to all the early Christian customs, it would have to include advocating a return to the practice of slavery, which while it might not be quite as bad as it sounds if practiced in the context of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," would still nevertheless be an EXTREMELY bad look for the Christian image in the 21st century. Satan would beat our brains in with it relentlessly in the public square, and so long as we were defending it, we would be laying ourselves wide open for ridicule and maybe rightly so.

The same can be said of the teaching on marital submission, and Satan is indeed trying to beat orthodox Christianity to death with it as much as possible, especially through people like the Gnostics. We had several of them active here back at the early part of the year, and this is one of the arguments one of them was making regularly; that the cruel Old Testament God was "unfair" in the way He treated women. The way they actually really want to say it if they think they can get away with it in Christian circles is that the God of the Old Testament is EVIL, and HATES women, and it's why He wants them subjugated and under the thumb of men. Thus, in the present circumstances of the 21st century, we are now faced with a decision over what we have to gain being weighed against what we have to lose.

Again, I don't teach that it is an ungodly thing but a godly thing, and we are to expect that the god of this world will level insults at the people of God, and the true teachings of Christianity. And the type of head coverings you wear are rather unobtrusive. I'm simply saying that when head coverings were taught in NT times they were a cultural norm, not only among Jews and Christians but throughout much of the pagan world as well. Now we would stick out like a sore thumb, and since it can very easily be associated with the abuses of times past, the whole issue of reinstituting the practice becomes more complicated and problematic than anything the early church had to deal with.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I am technically rebelling

Exactly what or who are you rebelling against? The scriptures, God, the church?