Daniel,
Personally I have trouble labeling 1 Cor. 11 as a mere worship practice But more of a headship practice.... I guess it is one view if they believe it is linked to the following sections which describe worship under the Lord Supper sacrament. Difficult to say for sure since there was no chapter or verse distinction until the Geneva Bible.
I do believe it holds out a modesty clause in addition to other passages teachings woman to cover for modesty.. Passages in Genesis, Song, Isaiah 47:2, etc..
Personally I hold to headcoverings for modesty and still believe them to be for the Christian woman today.. I believe for a woman to show her hair is immodest, as hair is very lustful, even for the Western Man today.. I see nothing cultural about it.
I also do believe that the whole head constitute the woman.. So I am a proponent that believes the whole hair is to be covered.
Many of the Early Church Fathers taught that even the face of the woman was to be covered... It is plausible and I could lean that way but I am not going to be dogmatic about the face.
All in all, I believe that a wrap that covers the hair is required and would be closer to a muslim shayla or a hijab head scarf aleast according to my Hebrew and Greek study of the words.
I am also not for hats which is a protected head gear for the cold and not a sign of submission to headship.
As for my wife.... Currently she covers in worship and she understands my position.. I have been given her space to study my work and come to it on her own without "Lording It Over Her".. Husbands must dwell with their wives in Understanding. A time may come when I politely ask her to cover even if it is not her conviction for her husband but that is not today... Time and Space must be given..
Here are a few photos describing what I meant according to my Hebrew and Greek word studies....
Here is a Christian woman from England around the year 800 A.D.
Here is a Modern Day Christian woman from the Middle East, I believe from Israel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie  Quote:
Originally Posted by JOwen Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie
No problem, I plan to listen to it later today; just thought I would post it in advance for the benefit of others. I presumes Pastor Martin would take this view. I think a good Biblical example of this is 1 Cor. 11:2-16, where a lady not wearing a veil was an act of immodesty (she "dishonoured her head"), while in western society today it is not immodest.
| Ummmm, there is nothing in that passage that says anything about cultural immodesty. It does however say things like "ordinance" and "light of nature". These are not cultural but biblical. :-) | The light of nature is referring to long hair, while the word ordinances really means "teachings", yet this is not even referring to the headcovering as Paul says "2. Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3. But I want you to understand that", therefore, he changes the subject when he speaks about the headcovering. I agree that the underlying principle in that passage is Biblical, but the literal application has expired. Note that in the next chapter Paul explains that rationale for covering parts of the body: "on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty" (1 Cor. 12:23), thus the reason why a woman's hair was to be covered is because the public display of it in that culture was seen as immodest. Moreover, I have yet to see any modern proponents of head-coverings make their women wear veils which fully cover the hair. A hat which merely covers part of the head, while the lady has two-feet of hair on display, does not conform to what Paul told the Corinthians.
Anyway, I have not got time to go into it further; see my RPW book for more.  |