Women praying with head wear. Can you guys explain this to me

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Have you read any of the post under Headcoverings Revisited? There are writings from miriads of Godly men...

Here's a few....

No I haven't, but goodness! It appears that you have done a lot of study on this issue. I'll read the references and get bact to you. :handshake:
 
The problem I have with this article the most, is in trying to equate it with the Muslim practice of covering and make it as unappealing as possible to their congregation, they ignore the actual practice of it in the early church and throughout history in the practical sense (I think ppl need to look a pictures and templates throughout history on what a covering covered, rather than assuming that it was a burka...take it from one who has studied historical clothing)

I don't think his point was to make it unappealing (he wasn't suggesting a Burka!) but that if you are going to wear a head covering you need to follow the way they did it in Corinth.
 
And in Corinth, they didn't cover their face.

He does make several references to how muslims cover. The inference is intentional. How about how Jewish ppl following tzitzit? Oh, that might make it seem more positive to some. And yet, that is where most of the early church came from. Interesting he chose the muslims as examples instead. That and the addition of him stressing the angels covering their feet...he kept pointing to a type of "if you are going to do this, then do it to the extreme" (thus my burka comment)...however that is not where Paul is going and not how it was practically put in use in his day.

BTW, my hair is not seen under my coverings, it is completely covered...occasionally I have used a lace covering where my hair is completely covered still, but you can "see" a strand here or there.

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by LadyFlynt]

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by LadyFlynt]

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by LadyFlynt]
 
From above:

e. The many paintings on the walls of the catacombs reveal that the uniform
dress of women in worship was to cover the head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.
 
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
I find it an interesting thing that most proponents of women covering their heads in worship:

1. Ignore the historical setting in Corinth (and the reason for Paul's remarks), and

2. Pretend like 1 Corinthians 11:15 is not even in the Bible ("For long hair is given to her as a covering.")

WRT your second point here, I would be interested to know your thoughts on verse 5. "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

How can the hair be the only covering needed when the passage says that if a woman is not covered it is "as if she were shaven". So, she had hair, yet was considered uncovered.
 
I think women's headcoverings is the least of our problems in regards to women in the church. Go to my hometown church where I grew up and try to find one girl that isn't dressed like a prostitute and I'll give you a buffalo nickel.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I think women's headcoverings is the least of our problems in regards to women in the church. Go to my hometown church where I grew up and try to find one girl that isn't dressed like a prostitute and I'll give you a buffalo nickel.

I know at my old church there was no headcovering and it got be there were no derrier coverings. :eek:
 
try to find one girl that isn't dressed like a prostitute and I'll give you a buffalo nickel.

Great point Gabe, your nickels are very safe! Which brings up this observation. Whether are not you or I agree with the ladies on the board who advocate coverings, we must recognize how blessed we are to be in the presence (virtual as it may be) of genuine ladies.

In today's culture they are the exceptions for being so diligent in seeking 'the rule'. They honor the Creator, the Word, their husbands, their families and we are privileged to have them share in this community. :amen:
 
Gabriel, you might find this quote interesting...difficult to cover the head and not cover the rear (in a manner of speaking) and be consistant. Yes, immodesty is a HUGE issue. The problems stem from women's "liberation" and "equality" issues and the feminist movement especially. That is why the covering is becoming a practice brought slowly to the forefront again. Women aren't willing to except a different role. This has led to women taking over in different areas, demanning the men, and immodesty as acceptable.

"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."17 JOHN CALVIN
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
From above:

e. The many paintings on the walls of the catacombs reveal that the uniform
dress of women in worship was to cover the head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.

Charles Hodge make the same point in regards to the type of head coverings in his commentary on these passages which I am sure you have read, which he also notes as being the dress whether in worship or not.
 
Originally posted by wsw201
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
From above:

e. The many paintings on the walls of the catacombs reveal that the uniform
dress of women in worship was to cover the head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.

Charles Hodge make the same point in regards to the type of head coverings in his commentary on these passages which I am sure you have read, which he also notes as being the dress whether in worship or not.

And thus is the reason many women cover all the time and not just for services...but that is another topic and minces the issue's details furthur as does the question "is a hat an appropriate covering" ;) Right now, I'm just happy to see a principle acted upon and not gonna beat up differing applications.
 
Kevin, I just thought of something that could be food for thought.

If you have a hat/cap...do you remove it when someone prays? Would you wear it into service?
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Originally posted by wsw201
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
From above:

e. The many paintings on the walls of the catacombs reveal that the uniform
dress of women in worship was to cover the head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.

Charles Hodge make the same point in regards to the type of head coverings in his commentary on these passages which I am sure you have read, which he also notes as being the dress whether in worship or not.

And thus is the reason many women cover all the time and not just for services...but that is another topic and minces the issue's details furthur as does the question "is a hat an appropriate covering" ;) Right now, I'm just happy to see a principle acted upon and not gonna beat up differing applications.

Hodge's point was that all women wore head coverings, not just Christians. If you haven't read his commentary, I highly recommend it, not just for this issue. The whole commentary is very good. But unfortunately its not online.
 
hmm...yes and no.

Just because you were a member of the Catholic church (or any other) also did not make you a Christian. I know many women that cover their heads, go to church, and yet are not Christians. Just because others wore them doesn't negate the requirement of Christian ladies. Women used to dress modestly, not just Christian women...doesn't change the fact that Christian women should still dress modestly.
 
many churches need to quite dancing around the scriptures. Unfortunately it seems that persons in the laity are willing to step up before the ministers, as the ministers don't want to lose half or more of their congregations or their positions.
ladyflint unfortunately i am stuck going to a church that actualy ordanes women as pastors and at times it is utter chaos and total nonsence because of there example there is one family were the wife is literally the boss she orders the husband and runs the household and thinks she is a spiritual giant it is so twisted.:(
 
Originally posted by nonconformist
many churches need to quite dancing around the scriptures. Unfortunately it seems that persons in the laity are willing to step up before the ministers, as the ministers don't want to lose half or more of their congregations or their positions.
ladyflint unfortunately i am stuck going to a church that actualy ordanes women as pastors and at times it is utter chaos and total nonsence because of there example there is one family were the wife is literally the boss she orders the husband and runs the household and thinks she is a spiritual giant it is so twisted.:(

Stuck??? Are you serious? Truthfully, you'd probably see me go to a slightly arminian church before going to one that ordains women...or homechurching (which I am not supportive of).
 
Stuck??? Are you serious? Truthfully, you'd probably see me go to a slightly arminian church before going to one that ordains women...or homechurching (which I am not supportive of).
long story short stuck until november.It is strange because i am now being looked at as the one that has been deceived by evil reformed "replacement" theologians.:banghead:
 
wow it is nice to see that there are some people that really practice 1 cor.11. for many years i attended a plymouth brethern church, they practiced it but thought there were the only noncatholics who did. after my conversion to reformed theology i thought it would be hard to believers who still thought it was biblical to practice it. i am very encouraged
 
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Kevin, I just thought of something that could be food for thought.

If you have a hat/cap...do you remove it when someone prays? Would you wear it into service?

:lol: Yes. I was hoping you wouldn't bring that up. It appears I'm being inconsistent! :handshake:
 
For those interested, I have found an old Puritanboard thread on headcoverings that isn't available on the board anymore. I stumbled across it using Google.com.

It can be found Here

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
For what it's worth see an analysis of 1 Cor 11:2-16 here:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm

Honestly, this set article, along with a couple of audio lectures by Dr Michael Barrett and Brian Schwertley have pretty much convinced me of headcoverings. I would like to read a GOOD defense of the other side, just to be sure, but so far have not found one! ;)
 
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
(1Co 11:3)

So if the head of a man is Christ, Christ is not to be covered during worship?
If the head of a wife is her husband, he is to be covered so the focus can go to Christ?

I feel there may be some intense replies, please take it easy on me...:D
 
It specifically states that WOMEN are to cover and MEN are not to. MEN are the only ones stated (also by example in the OT) that are to come before the Lord uncovered...even the angels covered themselves.
 
For another resource on this subject you can read John Chrysostom's sermon on 1 Cor 11. Very enlightening and very early exegesis of the subject. Seems it wasn't the women's error which spurred this correction from Paul it was the men's. The greek men were known for letting themselves go in the hygiene dept. as if they were too much engrossed in philosophical thinking to worry about such things as grooming.
new_rolleyessmileyanim.gif


Chrysostom Homily XXVI
 
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
For those interested, I have found an old Puritanboard thread on headcoverings that isn't available on the board anymore. I stumbled across it using Google.com.

It can be found Here

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
For what it's worth see an analysis of 1 Cor 11:2-16 here:
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/headcovr.htm

Honestly, this set article, along with a couple of audio lectures by Dr Michael Barrett and Brian Schwertley have pretty much convinced me of headcoverings. I would like to read a GOOD defense of the other side, just to be sure, but so far have not found one! ;)

This article is probably the best defense of no headcoverings that I've read to date.
 
I disagree with their conclusion and their rendering of what the contentions were.

In essence they are stating that I and other headcovering women are sinning and causing disunity by covering ourselves during worship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top