Should women cover up? - Page 2

bookslover · #41 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

Let the followings names be put forth of those down through church history who believes that the headcovering is for today and not a cultural norm and that it deals with modesty.....

Tertullian
Irenaeus
Hermas
Hippolytus
Clement of Alexandria
Martin Luther
John Calvin
John Knox

Others like Augustine speaks of the headcovering for today and not a cultural norm but does not make clear it is for modesty....

John Chrysostom
Augustine
Jerome
George Gillespie

Well, so? What matters is what the Scripture says. These gentlemen may have some interesting opinions on the matter, but we are to adhere to what the Bible tells us. And, on this subject, I don't believe a case can be made in favor of headcoverings for females.

Southern Presbyterian · #42 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

Well, so? What matters is what the Scripture says. These gentlemen may have some interesting opinions on the matter, but we are to adhere to what the Bible tells us. And, on this subject, I don't believe a case can be made in favor of headcoverings for females.

Iconoclast · #43 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 03:18 AM

The head covering is about authority,not modesty. Long Hair is the womans covering.

Mayflower · #44 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

What are the views of PB members?

My wife always wears a headcovering, during the church service and during private and family prayer.
My wife is the only one in our church whom is diong that,and i hope when my daughter is a little more of age, that she she will also follow the scripture in 1 Cor. to cover hear head during prayer.

Mayflower · #45 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

I am working with coverings with my daugther now... She is 2 and active and hard to keep anything on her head for long.... lol

As per my wife.... She wears the headcovering in worship and as her head I am patiently teaching my wife about the modesty scripture passages... No husband should force... I need to lovely teach her and be patient with her to come to such an understanding...

If after a long while a wife still does not believe in it then she should still cover out of obediences to her husband but a husband should never be forceful or speak bitter against her......

Exactly, the same situation with in our house.

Mayflower · #46 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calgal

So why wear a head covering outside of worship. The requirement was during church and again is a cultural norm in the middle east. I do not see anything requiring a headcovering OUTSIDE of church.

During her private prayer time and family devotion and prayer.

S. Spence · #47 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 06:29 AM

This is something I'm trying to work through at the moment. My wife wears headcovering during public worship but I'm not entirely convinced it's necessary.

There appears to be a lot of stuff on the net for a pro-headcovering position but not so much for a con-headcoverng position. If anybody knows of any good resources for the 'con' position could you let me know.

Thanks

Romans922 · #48 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookslover

Someone's probably mentioned this already, but there's no command in this passage, either expressed or implied. It merely shows that she had a veil and put it on her head, but not that she was morally required to do so. Doubtless, it was part of her culture, and so expected, but there's no command from God to do so.

I just taught on this, she puts the veil on because it was a very special occasion and the culture at that time they would do that in those moments. Also, you see that Rebekah is the only one who covers herself, her women servants do not (at least it is not mentioned).

Notice she is traveling with Abraham's servant (a man) prior to this, and she is not veiled or covered. She only does this when she knows her future husband is right in front of her. So she obviously did not think that she needed to be covered at all times, even in front of men; just in special occasions when she is about to meet her future husband!

mangum · #49 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunaer

Let John Calvin speak for this.......

"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show
their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts,
and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show;
they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short
they will forget the duty of nature... So, when it is permissible for the
women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering
the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for] something else:
'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?'
Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be
no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper
and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."

Source, please?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raj

During worship Headcovering is practiced in Nepal and major parts of India.

That's what I hear. But Nepal has not been ravaged by western feminism . . . yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

That would be true -- of men. See Witsius on the Lord's Prayer, 84-89. On pp. 87, 88, he gives the standard reformed answer: "Paul, when writing to the Corinthians who were Greeks, gives the preference to that custom. In doing so, he did not intend to lay down a universal law which should be everywhere observed. He merely accommodated himself to a custom of civil life observed, at that time, by those to whom he was writing."

That being said, I think a good case can be made for women wearing hats as a customary sign of their womanhood, which is accepted in English culture.

I understand Witsius's reasoning here but does this sound like one accommodating to the [greek] culture?:

I Corinthians 11:8-10

7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

"For this cause". For what cause? Because the woman was created for the man who is the image and glory of God - so the woman has "power on her head because of the angels". Not because it was a Greek custom. Paul's entire line of reasoning is grounded in the Creation and authority derived from God. Then the angels are mentioned. Creation (along with the angels), authority, and God's glory are appealed to by the Apostle.

Where is the appeal to the Greek custom of the day?

Blessings brother.

Reformed Baptist · #50 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 08:17 AM

And my 2 cents is the biblical head covering was in line with a muslim style head covering than the doiley we see women putting on their heads today. Some women in our church wear the doiley, most don't Let each one be convinced in their own mind on this issue. Let us not judge one another in the matter, and let there be liberty.

And I would have voted if there was an option for liberty of conscience. I don't think its a yes or no answer.

LadyFlynt · #51 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

That would be true -- of men. See Witsius on the Lord's Prayer, 84-89. On pp. 87, 88, he gives the standard reformed answer: "Paul, when writing to the Corinthians who were Greeks, gives the preference to that custom. In doing so, he did not intend to lay down a universal law which should be everywhere observed. He merely accommodated himself to a custom of civil life observed, at that time, by those to whom he was writing."

That being said, I think a good case can be made for women wearing hats as a customary sign of their womanhood, which is accepted in English culture.

Actually, our pastor states otherswise. Corinth women did not cover their heads. So he was telling them to do something different than the culture around them. I will ask him for his resources again.

LadyFlynt · #52 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reformed Baptist

And my 2 cents is the biblical head covering was in line with a muslim style head covering than the doiley we see women putting on their heads today. Some women in our church wear the doiley, most don't Let each one be convinced in their own mind on this issue. Let us not judge one another in the matter, and let there be liberty.

And I would have voted if there was an option for liberty of conscience. I don't think its a yes or no answer.

I also disagree with the "doily". I generally do not make an issue as I would rather see a doily than nothing. Covered in scripture means "fully covered"...the head (not the face and head).

Raj · #53 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 09:05 AM

"That's what I hear. But Nepal has not been ravaged by western feminism . . . yet.
Blessings brother."[/quote]

If you would say about the feminism devolepment yes its not that much as it is in India. But pls see the difference on the border of Nepal and India between the youth of both countries. I believe Nepali Youth is more influenced by (not feminism) western clothing/fashon but still when it comes to worship, they do follow the tradition.

Jeans and skirts wearing girls can be seen headcovring.

In my personal opinion and observation in the ministry, it is the submissive heart and obedience which matters more than the external thing.

ServantOfKing · #54 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

I think he's talking about the effect a woman's appearance has on men as well. If a woman is covered head to toe with a heart in the wrong place, it still keeps men from seeing her skin.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I just don't for certain think that having a skirt which falls just above the ankles or showing hair arranged in a modest way would cause a man to stumble more so than if the skirt went all the way down or if the hair was covered. But I can't speak with absolutely certainty because I'm not a man

I would be glad to be corrected, however.

It just seems like it could almost become too rule-oriented at that point when it is really about the heart.

I do though think that if we are not going to take Paul's directions literally that women should wear head coverings (hats/ doilies/ bonnets/ etc), then our reasons for doing so will naturally lead into a dialogue on modesty and submission.

LadyFlynt · #55 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 09:38 AM

For many men, hair is erotic.

Since we have many new people on the board, I will state my position. If you want to find my arguements, please use the search toggle...I've argued this issue many times.

I wear full time. Shower and bed are about the only times I don't have it on...and then I have it nearby. It is for order, testamony, and modesty. And there are examples throughout scripture and church history.

AV1611 · #56 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 11:30 AM

Interesting discussion brethren.

May I suggest Head Coverings in Public Worship by Rev. Brian Schwertley

victorbravo · #57 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ServantOfKing

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I just don't for certain think that having a skirt which falls just above the ankles or showing hair arranged in a modest way would cause a man to stumble more so than if the skirt went all the way down or if the hair was covered. But I can't speak with absolutely certainty because I'm not a man

I would be glad to be corrected, however.

This might be much too much information, but a long time ago, when I was a pagan rebel, I once worked for a while as a life guard. One of the beaches I was stationed at was a semi-legal nude beach. I learned from that experience that clothing itself can make a man stumble. I became numb to nudity, but I often noticed flowing beach dresses. Strange how the mind of a sinner works.

Mayflower · #58 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Interesting discussion brethren.

May I suggest Head Coverings in Public Worship by Rev. Brian Schwertley

Very

good!!!!

Staphlobob · #59 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by victorbravo

This might be much too much information, but a long time ago, when I was a pagan rebel, I once worked for a while as a life guard. One of the beaches I was stationed at was a semi-legal nude beach. I learned from that experience that clothing itself can make a man stumble. I became numb to nudity, but I often noticed flowing beach dresses. Strange how the mind of a sinner works.

Back in the early '70s my girlfriend's mother and her live-in boyfriend were trying to get us to join them at their nudist colony. We refused, but they said the same thing - clothing was erotic, not nudity. I find your comments interesting.

On the other hand ... if modesty begins in the heart, can a woman go completely naked but still be biblically modest?

My own congregation doesn't practiced head-covering because we came out of a dead, liberal denomination (ELCA) which doesn't believe Scripture to begin with. Just moving from a liturgical service to the Regulative Principle is traumatic. However, I've often thought that should our tiny church fail, I would probably like to join up with Michael Daniels at Trinity Reformed (RPCNA) in Beltsville and their head-covering practice. (Though my own wife, still something of a liberal, wouldn't join me. Heartbreaking.)

victorbravo · #60 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Staphlobob

On the other hand ... if modesty begins in the heart, can a woman go completely naked but still be biblically modest?

The short answer is no. I hope nobody takes my personal experience as normative!

I once started an essay on this subject, but I can't find it right now. I do think that Genesis 3 gives us a lot of information about what nudity is. In God's perfect creation, it was normal. In the fallen world, it is an exposure or type (as in allegory) for sin.

I really think nudist colonies, somewhere in their thinking, hope to reverse the curse and the Fall by their actions. Of course, that is futile, regardless of whether they profess Christ or not.

armourbearer · #61 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangum

I understand Witsius's reasoning here but does this sound like one accommodating to the [greek] culture?:

...

Where is the appeal to the Greek custom of the day?

It is not Greek culture per se, but what the Greeks did when they worshipped. There was a certain decorum which was observed, and which gave expression to the proper distinction between men and women. To violate this decorum in Christian worship would only serve to bring shame on the participants. The same would be true in Judea, but the customs would be different; and the "angels" would have been present to observe the diverse customs of the Jews. The reference to angels is to the upholding of decency in the worship of God, but does not imply that the particular practice was itself unalterable.

FWIW, my wife and daughters wear hats, not because it is morally required, but because it is customary English dress for females.