Should women cover up? - Page 4

LadyFlynt · #**121** (**permalink**) 08-11-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augusta

I need a little clarification if you would Rev. Winzer. It seems some (including me) may be misunderstanding you to be arguing against a requirement for a covering in worship and not merely arguing against an all the time covering. Is this what you are saying when you say the passage is cultural? I am confused because you agreed with Professor Murray excepting what you said above.

I maintain the headcovering is an alterable sign. I imagine many of our ladies think the same, otherwise they wouldn't wear hats but something a little more middle eastern.

Exactly why I do not wear a hat. I see a hat as "outside gear". Historically women would wear a covering and then a hat over that if "going out". I also have a friend that does this.

However, I will state that I would rather see hats than nothing at all....the hat thing is just my own personal convictions.

SRoper · #**122** (**permalink**) 08-11-2007, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaalvenist

Is there any way to see how everybody voted on this topic?

The person who creates the poll determines whether one can see how people voted. In this poll the person opted not to make that information available. (I voted "yes".)

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I maintain the headcovering is an alterable sign. I imagine many of our ladies think the same, otherwise they wouldn't wear hats but something a little more middle eastern.

How alterable is it? Could it be changed to something unrelated to headgear?

kvanlaan · #**123** (**permalink**) 08-12-2007, 10:43 AM

Sometimes I think that covering is indeed reduced to a 'cultural thing' (by its own adherants) and to those watching, it seems to lose its Scriptural significance altogether. In the past, when I saw a ~1950's era church scene in a movie, I would look carefully at the women in hats and veils. Yes, it was just a scene in a movie, but I can see that those with the means to do so would pull out all the stops and make a church service look like the Royal Ascot! This is vanity run amok, nothing more, and is serious fodder for those who want it to be left as a cultural peculiarity.

armourbearer · #**124** (**permalink**) 08-12-2007, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRoper

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I maintain the headcovering is an alterable sign. I imagine many of our ladies think the same, otherwise they wouldn't wear hats but something a little more middle eastern.

How alterable is it? Could it be changed to something unrelated to headgear?

I can't see how, considering one's attitude to the "head" is the focus of attention in 1 Cor. 11.

Just to clarify, many historic reformed commentators state that the apostle is telling the Corinthians to observe the cuturally relevant way in which men and women are differentiated in public gatherings, especially solemn or religious gatherings. Given that our culture is rapidly moving towards a unisex approach to all manner of acting and modes of dress, my view is that it is best for the church to observe what was done in the past so as to avoid the stigma of holding that the sexes are the same. We should also observe the biblical principle of obeying father and mother, and uphold good traditions. So I qualify that this is not a moral issue, but a cultural one. It is not about guilt, but shame or embarassment.

The ladies have worn hats to worship services for a long while now in cultures of British origin. I observe that in etiquette books it is still considered customary for ladies to wear hats on solemn occasions, such as at weddings and funerals. Whether they actually do today is not really at issue. I see many occasions where the etiquette is violated. It appears to me to be violated either out of ignorance, or out of libertine disrespect to tradition. I think the same applies to the way people dress for worship services in general. In fact, the same applies to the way people act in worship services as well. If they are there to worship the great and holy Name of God, it is barely apparent by their actions.

SRoper · #**125** (**permalink**) 08-12-2007, 07:46 PM

Rev. Winzer, do you think it is acceptable for a woman in a culture of British origin to adopt a different style of headgear than the traditional hat? I ask because the women I know personally who cover usually wear something other than a hat. It seems to me that this is OK as our style of dress in general has become more eclectic, borrowing from many cultures.

armourbearer · #**126** (**permalink**) 08-12-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRoper

Rev. Winzer, do you think it is acceptable for a woman in a culture of British origin to adopt a different style of headgear than the traditional hat? I ask because the women I know personally who cover usually wear something other than a hat. It seems to me that this is OK as our style of dress in general has become more eclectic, borrowing from many cultures.

I don't know the demography of the area where this is happening, so it would be unwise for me to comment. One thing I have noticed, however, is that there seems to be a tendency for some to go too far. Having taken up "headcovering" as a moral issue, they tend to move towards middle eastern forms out of a desire to be consistent. The end product is an alienation of our western culture altogether -- which is the very thing the apostle was seeking to avoid. As Christians we should utilise the best forms of our own culture (which has a very rich tradition from which to draw) in order to convey the principles of gospel-reconciliation, conversation, reverence, and worship in an intelligible and decent manner. I do not believe Muslim women have a thing or two to teach us here. Christianity has "liberated" women in the true sense of that word, and I wouldn't like to see our ladies brought into a state of bondage out of a desire to imitate one false religion's debased concept of female servility.

amishrockstar · #**127** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 10:33 AM

If you (anyone) believe that the headcovering is not cultural, then when was the last time you took out the ol' wash-bucket and scrubbed the saints' dirty feet??? Jesus said that "if I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet" (JN.13:14), He also said that "a servant is not greater than his master" so if Jesus--the LORD-- washed feet and Paul wrote that one of the 'marks' of a faithful widow (who should be taken care of by the church) is that she wash the saints' feet (hence, it is not said to be cultural-- 1Tim.5:10), then do you wash feet also???

LadyFlynt · #**128** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amishrockstar

If you (anyone) believe that the headcovering is not cultural, then when was the last time you took out the ol' wash-bucket and scrubbed the saints' dirty feet??? Jesus said that "if I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet" (JN.13:14), He also said that "a servant is not greater than his master" so if Jesus--the LORD-- washed feet and Paul wrote that one of the 'marks' of a faithful widow (who should be taken care of by the church) is that she wash the saints' feet (hence, it is not said to be cultural-- 1Tim.5:10), then do you wash feet also???

I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM with this being practised in the church (and personally, it should be).

Coram Deo · #**129** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 10:49 AM

At my wedding....... We had a Footwashing aspect to our wedding ceremony....

Not that I see Foot Washing as a Sacrament, I do not have a problem with doing it in the worship service...

Quote:

Originally Posted by amishrockstar

If you (anyone) believe that the headcovering is not cultural, then when was the last time you took out the ol' wash-bucket and scrubbed the saints' dirty feet??? Jesus said that "if I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet" (JN.13:14), He also said that "a servant is not greater than his master" so if Jesus--the LORD-- washed feet and Paul wrote that one of the 'marks' of a faithful widow (who should be taken care of by the church) is that she wash the saints' feet (hence, it is not said to be cultural-- 1Tim.5:10), then do you wash feet also???

amishrockstar · #**130** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 10:56 AM

thunaer,
I'm curious why you would have a problem washing feet in the worship service? I'm sure that you and everyone else do a lot of things that aren't "sacraments" during the service.

Coram Deo · #**131** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 10:59 AM

I said I do not have a problem with it..... I would love to see it done, maybe before the Lord Supper since it was tacked on like that in John.

In fact All the early Calvinistic Baptist had nonsacramental Footwashing in their worship services......

Michael

Quote:

Originally Posted by amishrockstar

thunaer,
I'm curious why you would have a problem washing feet in the worship service? I'm sure that you and everyone else do a lot of things that aren't "sacraments" during the service.

amishrockstar · #**132** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 11:01 AM

Sorry,
I read through your answer too fast.

Coram Deo · #**133** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 11:02 AM

No Problem, I have done that myself anumber of times...

Quote:

Originally Posted by amishrockstar

Sorry,
I read through your answer too fast.

amishrockstar · #**134** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 11:04 AM

The only churches that I know of that hold to a headcovering and footwashing are the Anabaptists (Mennonites). Thunaer, can you please site a Calvinistic Baptist or C.B. Church that held to footwashing? I'd be interested if you can offer a 'name' to look up--Thanks.

Coram Deo · #**135** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 11:07 AM

Let me get back to you on a Historical Name in my collection of articles..... But if you want to know if ANY Calvinistic Churches still hold to footwashing, The Primitive Baptist who are also known as Old School Baptist still hold to footwashing in their churches, but I think they would view it as a third sacrament....

Michael

Quote:

Originally Posted by amishrockstar

The only churches that I know of that hold to a headcovering and footwashing are the Anabaptists (Mennonites). Thunaer, can you please site a Calvinistic Baptist or C.B. Church that held to footwashing? I'd be interested if you can offer a 'name' to look up--Thanks.

amishrockstar · #**136** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 11:10 AM

I looked at the Primitive Baptists awhile ago and from what I remember, they aren't Calvinists. I have to go back and look at their doctrine again, but I think that they might have been hyper-Calvinists, I don't remember.

Coram Deo · #**137** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 11:19 AM

Some are HyperCalvinist, others are not hyper.... It is sorta 50/50 right now in the denomination... Historically they weren't hypercalvinist at all... Some of my friends are Primitive Baptist and they are 1689ers and not hyper at all...

Quote:

Originally Posted by amishrockstar

I looked at the Primitive Baptists awhile ago and from what I remember, they aren't Calvinists. I have to go back and look at their doctrine again, but I think that they might have been hyper-Calvinists, I don't remember.

Coram Deo · #**138** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 11:36 AM

Ok, It looks like Hansard Knollys, William Kiffen, and Benjamin Keach all held to footwashing as a rite, not a sacrament of the church and for the worship service.....

Michael

Quote:

Originally Posted by amishrockstar

The only churches that I know of that hold to a headcovering and footwashing are the Anabaptists (Mennonites). Thunaer, can you please site a Calvinistic Baptist or C.B. Church that held to footwashing? I'd be interested if you can offer a 'name' to look up--Thanks.

LadyFlynt · #**139** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 12:23 PM

Matthew, unfortunately that is the crux of the situation. I know of ONE reformed denomination that has the guts to teach the covering from the pulpit. The Anabaptist churches are dead and doctrinally unsound (the outside means everything, but when it comes to opening the scriptures, I know more catholics that are familiar with the scriptures than anabaptists).

SRoper · #**140** (**permalink**) 08-13-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I don't know the demography of the area where this is happening, so it would be unwise for me to comment. One thing I have noticed, however, is that there seems to be a tendency for some to go too far. Having taken up "headcovering" as a moral issue, they tend to move towards middle eastern forms out of a desire to be consistent. The end product is an alienation of our western culture altogether -- which is the very thing the apostle was seeking to avoid. As Christians we should utilise the best forms of our own culture (which has a very rich tradition from which to draw) in order to convey the principles of gospel-reconciliation, conversation, reverence, and worship in an intelligible and decent manner. I do not believe Muslim women have a thing or two to teach us here. Christianity has "liberated" women in the true sense of that word, and I wouldn't like to see our ladies brought into a state of bondage out of a desire to imitate one false religion's debased concept of female servility.

I think it is an issue of fashion rather than demographics. The Gypsy/Boho look of a few years ago is still popular here, so I think those who are into that style choose headcoverings that are more Eastern European. I don't think that is a problem as long as they are honoring the principle. I am sure there are some who think we should reproduce the headcovering of Paul's day, but thankfully I haven't heard anything like that.

Romans922 · #**141** (**permalink**) 08-18-2007, 09:16 AM

Hey I just found this in the writings of Tertullian:

Quote:

Chapter VII.—Of the Reasons Assigned by the Apostle for Bidding Women to Be Veiled.
Turn we next to the examination of the reasons themselves which lead the apostle to teach that the female ought to be veiled, (to see) whether the self-same (reasons) apply to virgins likewise; so that hence also the community of the name between virgins and not-virgins may be established, while the self-same causes which necessitate the veil are found to exist in each case.
If “the man is head of the woman,” of course (he is) of the virgin too, from whom comes the woman who has married; unless the virgin is a third generic class, some monstrosity with a head of its own. If “it is shameful for a woman to be shaven or shorn,” of course it is so for a virgin. (Hence let the world, the rival of God, see to it, if it asserts that close-cut hair is graceful to a virgin in like manner as that flowing hair is to a boy.) To her, then, to whom it is equally unbecoming to be shaven or shorn, it is equally becoming to be covered. If “the woman is the glory of the man,” how much more the virgin, who is a glory withal to herself! If “the woman is of the man,” and “for the sake of the man,” that rib of Adam was first a virgin. If “the woman ought to have power upon the head,” all the more justly ought the virgin, to whom pertains the essence of the cause (assigned for this assertion). For if (it is) on account of the angels—those, to wit, whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven on account of concupiscence after females—who can presume that it was bodies already defiled, and relics of human lust, which such angels yearned after, so as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins, whose bloom pleads an excuse for human lust likewise? For thus does Scripture withal suggest: “And it came to pass,” it says, “when men had begun to grow more numerous upon the earth, there were withal daughters born them; but the sons of God, having descried the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they elected.” For here the Greek name of women does seem to have the sense “wives,” inasmuch as mention is made of marriage. When, then, it says “the daughters of men,” it manifestly purports virgins, who would be still reckoned as belonging to their parents—for wedded women are called their husbands’—whereas it could have said “the wives of men:” in like manner not naming the angels adulterers, but husbands, while they take unwedded “daughters of men,” who it has above said were “born,” thus also signifying their virginity: first, “born;” but here, wedded to angels. Anything else I know not that they were except “born” and subsequently wedded. So perilous a face, then, ought to be shaded, which has cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven: that, when standing in the presence of God, at whose bar it stands accused of the driving of the angels from their (native) confines, it may blush before the other angels as well; and may repress that former evil liberty of its head,—(a liberty) now to be exhibited not even before human eyes. But even if they were females already contaminated whom those angels had desired, so much the more “on account of the angels” would it have been the duty of virgins to be veiled, as it would have been the more possible for virgins to have been the cause of the angels’ sinning. If, moreover, the apostle further adds the prejudgment of “nature,” that redundancy of locks is an honour to a woman, because hair serves for a covering, of course it is most of all to a virgin that this is a distinction; for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair.