Women's Covering

[ChananBachiyr]

I tried searching for this for a while and read several threads, but I've found them inconclusive... and all of them are closed so a new thread must be started.

1 Corinthians 11:1-16... Coverings... What's the interpretation?

I saw that someone mentioned the Greek terms being different:
• katakalyptō in verse 6, taken from kalypto which is usually used in the sense of concealment.
• peribolaion in verse 15, taken from periballo which is usually used as a garment or covering.

A woman's long hair is said to be "given" to her for a covering."

Thoughts?

 

[johnny]

Hi Daniel, have you seen this website?

http://www.headcoveringmovement.com

The site is supported by RC Sproul among others.

 

[ChananBachiyr]

Hi Daniel, have you seen this website?

http://www.headcoveringmovement.com

The site is supported by RC Sproul among others.

No sir, I'll check it out!

 

[Logan]

I culled through a bunch of Reformation and Puritan-era commentaries a while back and was surprised to find what appeared to be complete consensus: that this was an abiding precept wrapped in a temporary custom.

Note that many of these comments refer to the men's portion of the passage in 1 Corinthians 11, but in my mind it is hard to detatch the two: if the one is a perpetually binding precept, then the other cannot be just a custom with general application. Either both are principles adapting to the customs and times of the nation, or both are perpetual. Almost all of these commentaries were referenced through Travis Fentiman's listing:
https://reformedbooksonline.com/commentaries/

Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection, and this is secured when the man uncovers his head in the view of the Church, though he should afterwards put on his cap again from fear of catching cold. In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther...
"Doth not even nature itself": He again sets forth nature as the mistress of decorum, and what was at that time in common use by universal consent and custom — even among the Greeks — he speaks of as being natural, for it was not always reckoned a disgrace for men to have long hair. Historical records bear, that in all countries in ancient times, that is, in the first ages, men wore long hair. Hence also the poets, in speaking of the ancients, are accustomed to apply to them the common epithet of unshorn. It was not until a late period that barbers began to be employed at Rome — about the time of Africanus the elder. And at the time when Paul wrote these things, the practice of having the hair shorn had not yet come into use in the provinces of Gaul or in Germany. Nay more, it would have been reckoned an unseemly thing for men, no less than for women, to be shorn or shaven; but as in Greece it was reckoned an unbecoming thing for a man to allow his hair to grow long, so that those who did so were remarked as effeminate, he reckons as nature a custom that had come to be confirmed.

This tradition was observed according to the time and place that all things might be done in comeliness and to edification.

It appeareth that this was a politic law serving only for the circumstances of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection...
And in like sort he concludeth, that women which shew themselves in public and ecclesiastical assemblies without the sign and token of their subjection, that is to say, uncovered, shame themselves.

V. 3. "But I,": a new precept or renewed by the Apostle, concerning common civility for habit namely that women in public assemblies of the church should be covered, and men should have their heads uncovered by reason that in those places and times, the covered head was sign of subjection and an uncovered head contrary-wise of liberty, and command wherefore that they might keep in the church that degree amongst sexes which God had established, they were to observe such signs and marks thereof as were used by the common consent of nations.

Among the Corinthians the covering of the head was not as it is with us, a token of preeminence and superiority, but a sign of subjection; therefore the Apostle would have the women of Corinth when they came into the Congregation to have their heads covered, to signify their submission and reverence unto the Ministry of the Gospel.

"Dishonoureth his head": As they accounted it then and there. In other places it is otherwise. The French preach covered. The Turks neither kneel nor uncover the head at public prayer, as holding those postures unmanly. Several countries have their several customs.

His argument seems to be this: That the woman in religious services ought to behave herself as a person in subjection to her husband, and accordingly to use such a gesture, as, according to the guise and custom of that country, testified such a subjection...
Interpreters rightly agree, that this and the following verses are to be interpreted from the customs of countries; and all that can be concluded from this verse is, that it is the duty of men employed in Divine ministrations, to look to behave themselves as those who are to represent the Lord Jesus Christ, behaving themselves with a just authority and gravity that becometh his ambassadors, which decent gravity is to be judged from the common opinion and account of the country wherein they live. So as all which this text requires of Christian ministers, is authority and gravity, and what are external ludications of it. Our learned Dr. Lightfoot observeth, that the Jewish priests were wont in the worship of God to veil their heads; so that Christian ministers praying or prophesying with their heads covered, Judaized, which he judgeth the reason of the apostle’s assertion. The heathens also, both Romans and Grecians, were wont to minister in their sacred things with their heads covered. Some think this was the reason why the Christians used the contrary gesture; but the apostle’s arguing from the man’s headship, seemeth to import that the reason of this assertion of the apostle was, because in Corinth the uncovered head was a sign of authority. At this day the Mahometans (or Turks) speak to their superiors covered, and so are covered also in their religious performances. The custom with us in these western parts is quite otherwise; the uncovering of the head is a sign or token of subjection: hence ministers pray and preach with their heads uncovered, to denote their subjection to God and Christ: but yet this custom is not uniform, for in France the Reformed ministers preach with their heads covered; as they pray uncovered, to express their reverence and subjection to God, so they preach covered, as representing Christ, the great Teacher, from whom they derive, and whom they represent. Nothing in this is a further rule to Christians, than that it is the duty of ministers, in praying and preaching, to use postures and habits that are not naturally, nor according to the custom of the place where they live, uncomely and irreverent, and so looked upon. It is only the general observation of decency (which cannot by any be created, but ariseth either from nature, or custom, and prescription) which this text of the apostle maketh to be the duty of all Christians; though as to the Corinthians, he particularly required the man’s ministering in sacred things with his head uncovered, either to avoid the habit or posture used by Jews and pagans; or for the showing of his dignity and superiority over the woman, (whom we shall by and by find commanded to pray or prophesy covered), or that he represented Christ who was the Head of the church. The uncovering of the head being with them as much a sign of subjection, as it is with us of superiority and pre-eminence.

[paraphrasing Paul:] "It being the custom then to cover the faces of those that were put to any great shame, a man that shall veil his head and face, doth thereby take reproach unto himself...as custom maketh it a shame to be shaven, so also to be unveiled (note, that this was a changeable custom, and is contrary now with us)...the signification of being uncovered, being by custom, a note of superiority, judge in your selves whether such be decent for a woman at the church's prayers."

In this chapter the apostle blames, and endeavours to rectify, some great indecencies and manifest disorders in the church of Corinth; as, I. The misconduct of their women (some of whom seem to have been inspired) in the public assembly, who laid by their veils, the common token of subjection to their husbands in that part of the world...
The thing he reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man's doing either covered, v. 4, 5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,...

We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal...
It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so. The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities receive no countenance from any thing in the Bible.

The contrary is found with us at this day; for those that have power over others, now keep their heads covered, and those that are inferior to others, keep their heads uncovered before them...
it being then and there accounted as immodest a thing for a woman to appear in public uncovered, as to appear with her head shaven. From the whole learn, That God requires at the hands of all persons, who either administer behaviour and comely accomodation in his house, especially in the acts and exercises of his worship and service. For if in their habit and dress, surely much more in their gesture and deportment, doth he hate what is unseemly and unbecoming in any person.

[paraphrasing Paul:] "Now, upon this principle, I may say, in reference to the usages which prevail at this time in your country..."
By the passage before us, we see the force of custom for determining in many respects what is decent, and what is otherwise. Let us maintain a proper regard to this: lest even our good should be, through our imprudence, evil spoken of, and all our infirmities magnified into crimes.

[paraphrasing Paul:] "Now the veiling of the head being a badge of modesty and subjection, and uncovering of it a token of superiority, in your country and many others..."
it therefore follows, that veils, or any mode of dress which betokens modesty or subjection, ought always to be worn by your women in your religious assemblies.

Having corrected the more private abuses which prevailed among the Corinthians, the apostle begins in this chapter to consider those which relate to the mode of conducting public worship. The first of these is the habit of women appearing in public without a veil. Dress is in a great degree conventional. A costume which is proper in one country, would be indecorous in another. The principle insisted upon in this paragraph is, that women should conform in matters of dress to all those usages which the public sentiment of the community in which they live demands. The veil in all eastern countries was, and to a great extent still is, the symbol of modesty and subjection.

Kistemaker likewise agreed with the above commentators.

I also looked at Gill, Dodd, Hammond, Lightfoot, and Dickson but they aren't clear to me one way or the other.

Note that I did not find any commentaries that specifically disagreed with the above. Though I am sure they are out there and if I had found them, I would have posted them. I was just surprised at how uniform thought seems to have been in the mainstream commentaries of the past.

Note also at how commonly it seems to have been taken to be a veil. And how the common propriety of the day historically seems to have been for women to wear something on their head all the time, not just during worship, yet still not a veil. I'm more convinced that a veil was the custom in the Corinthian's time, a cap in the Puritans.

 

[ChananBachiyr]

I was just surprised at how uniform thought seems to have been in the mainstream commentaries of the past.

Note also at how commonly it seems to have been taken to be a veil. And how the common propriety of the day historically seems to have been for women to wear something on their head all the time, not just during worship, yet still not a veil. I'm more convinced that a veil was the custom in the Corinthian's time, a cap in the Puritans.

Wow! Thanks for this! Seems to be unanimous!
I also noticed on the website that John posted, Dr. R. C. Sproul states

"The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church...?

"Always Reforming"
... man, seems like this one flew right under my radar!

 

[Logan]

Wow! Thanks for this! Seems to be unanimous!

Unanimous yes, but not quite in the way you seem to think it is. Seemingly unanimous that it was appropriate to the customs and times, not a perpetually binding practice. The point about the veil was to show that even with the Puritans, the symbol apparently changed based on the culture.

Now whether our culture's customs should be the same is another topic.

 

[ChananBachiyr]

Now whether our culture's customs should be the same is another topic.

Well that's the only reason any of us want insight and help understand how to apply Scripture, isn't it? How can we best live out the holy Scripture and bring glory to God, through Christ, in daily life?

I'm hoping to find application for today... it seems as though it should be for today, but just like all things new, its like God needs to whack me over the head with it in order for me to see that its biblical and I need to adopt the teaching.

Men don't wear hats behind the pulpit... why? Same reason? Men don't wear hats while praying or while in congregational worship... same reason or just tradition? Or is the tradition based on the reason!?

If men don't wear hats in worship and service today, for a sign of submission to God, respect to God,and authority in the church and home, then it would seem hard if not impossible to separate male precepts from female precepts from the passage; females ought to be continuing the precepts too.

Just thinking logically here... I'm not sure I've ever even considered this subject...

 

[OPC'n]

Men and women pray throughout the day. This would mean the woman would have to put their coverings on every time they prayed. We would end up being mistaken for muslims. Lol

 

[ChananBachiyr]

Men and women pray throughout the day. This would mean the woman would have to put their coverings on every time they prayed. We would end up being mistaken for muslims. Lol

I'm not talking about full time covering, I would figure that would be up to the individual's conscience. Rather, what I'm speaking of, as what most theologians seem to interpret the passage also speaking of, is corporate worship.

 

[OPC'n]

Men and women pray throughout the day. This would mean the woman would have to put their coverings on every time they prayed. We would end up being mistaken for muslims. Lol

I'm not talking about full time covering, I would figure that would be up to the individual's conscience. Rather, what I'm speaking of, as what most theologians seem to interpret the passage also speaking of, is corporate worship.

I've read most of the head covering threads here, and from what I can remember some think women should wear head coverings whenever they pray. Also, if we are going to take this chapter literally then women are not allowed to have short hair and men are not allowed to have long hair. If we ever agree on that, then who decides what long and short hair is?

 

[Logan]

Men don't wear hats behind the pulpit... why?

Check out the commentary quotations again. They specifically say that some men do wear hats in the pulpit or while praying, because of different customs in different times or because of different circumstances.

 

[Romans922]

First, one would be hard pressed to find a minister/theologian against a type of cloth covering prior to the 19th C.

It is important also important to separate the arguments, is a covering required? Then after that is determined what is the covering?

When tackling the first argument it is important to grasp the argument Paul is making.

The goal of the passage is the glory of God in corporate worship.

A man ought not cover his head since he is the image and glory of God (v.7a). Man doesn't cover because of the glory of God.

But woman must cover for she is the glory of man (v7b). If woman is the glory of man, then woman is to cover her head to not take glory away from the Lord. God alone is to be brought glory.

A woman's long hair is her glory (v15a). Woman's glory must be covered (just like man's glory - woman). Thus as a woman's hair is given as covering (man's glory) so her hair (her glory) must be covered, so that only God's glory is shown.

 

[lynnie]

The most important thing to grasp, in my opinion, is that in the Greek Paul uses the same terms for both communion and head coverings in Ch 11. They are both handed down or delivered over or "traditions." Not tradition like turkey on thanksgiving or fireworks on the 4th of July which originate with man, but something handed down and delivered over that is binding upon us...in the case of communion by the recorded words of Jesus. To try and separate the two and say that one was for back then only but one is for all time, is very poor exegesis.

Having determined that it is for today as is communion, not a cultural tradition but something delivered over with authority for all time, you can move on to the other questions like what does that covering look like and who wears it. But the latter subjects must follow from accepting that the command is for all time everywhere.

Having said that OP, Paul repeatedly refers to the headcovering with one word, and then says her hair is given as another word. If he was trying to say her headcovering was hair he would have said the long hair was the Katakalypto. But he does not.

I happen to be something of a congregation of one (well two, counting my hub) in who I think is commanded to wear it. I believe that passage is clearly referring to husbands and wives, not all men and all women. The Greek words are interchangeable and my husband has authority over me, but not all men everywhere over all women. So I do not believe it is binding on girls or single women. That usually invokes criticism from the average head covering believers....but I think we would have more impact if we stuck with the unmistakable command to wives and didn't try to add to it with all females. Just my opinion.

 

[ChananBachiyr]

Just found another thread on this topic from 2010 with some good discussion!
"No such custom - A look at head coverings"

 

[ChananBachiyr]

Also, I was doing some reading earlier and remembered something about Rebekah and Isaac.
Check out Genesis 24:63-67

Isaac went out to meditate in the field toward evening; and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, camels were coming. Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac she dismounted from the camel. She said to the servant, "Who is that man walking in the field to meet us?" And the servant said, "He is my master." Then she took her veil and covered herself. The servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; thus Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

As soon as Rebekah knew who it was that was approaching, the man she is soon to marry, she covered herself.
Just as Paul seems to allude in 1 Corinthians 11, I'm thinking head covering is a sign of submission to God above all, husbands of the married, fathers of the single...

A cultural argument has always had very little weight for me except when it comes to partaking in particular things rather than abrogation of established practices... because let's face it, if we reason away practices for "cultural" reasons, then a lot can be reasoned away.

 

[Logan]

A cultural argument has always had very little weight for me except when it comes to partaking in particular things rather than abrogation of established practices... because let's face it, if we reason away practices for "cultural" reasons, then a lot can be reasoned away.

I mean this gently, but you seem very exuberant about this topic without having studied it in-depth. And you still don't seem to understand the point of the quotations posted earlier. I thought I was clear earlier but let me outline the specific train of thought:

1. The passage makes the case for women's head coverings. The question (to me) is whether the practice of headcoverings is perpetually binding, or if the general principle of submission is what is being taught (and is binding)
2. The passage likewise makes the case for men's head being uncovered.
3. Many people in support of coverings believe that head coverings were not cultural, but are a perpetually binding practice (at least in public worship).
4. I propose that if the men being uncovered is cultural and not perpetually binding, then so to with the female.
5. It is clear from all those quotations that the overwhelming consensus, is that both male and female coverings are indeed cultural (or part of the customs of the country). At the very least, that the male being uncovered is cultural.
6. Therefore, at least according to every Reformation-era, Puritan, and reformed commentator I could find (I would have included opposing views if I had found them), this is not meant to be a perpetual regulation on clothing, but on the heart.
7. Now again, I have absolutely no doubt that this was a non-issue, the common practice of nearly every European country being that women wore coverings on the head all the time, so naturally would in worship.
8. However, note again that this covering was not a veil, as many of the commentators believed Paul to have been speaking of. Does this not heavily imply that they believed following the practice exactly to be non-critical?

I culled through these expecting to find a unanimous consensus in support of head coverings for all ages. What I found was surprising because it appeared to be a unanimous consensus of the opposite, though once again, I have no doubt they approved of their own cultural practice. The "cultural argument" is NOT just dismissing whatever we want to reason away.

To this add that the Directory for Public Worship does not mention head coverings and I think there is a strong case that none of the Reformed thought this essential in all ages. They certainly didn't for men, and how can you have a cultural argument for the one and not the other? Now note, I am not opposed to head coverings at all. I have no problem with those who have such a conviction if they believe they are honoring God and showing submission in that way. But I also do not think it is a sin not to be convicted of the practice.

 

[MW]

Note that many of these comments refer to the men's portion of the passage in 1 Corinthians 11, but in my mind it is hard to detatch the two:

In seeking to find out the mind of others it would be important to learn whether they detached the two. I think there is enough evidence in the text to show that the focus of the passage was on the actions of the women, not the men, and that there are reasons given for the actions of the women which are not given for the actions of the men, e.g., the angels. The commentators, in following this focus, tend to present the same disparity.

It is also noteworthy that some of the commentators who appeal to "custom" also find something fitting in the custom, and some of them go further so as to state the obligatory nature of the custom because of the reference to the angels. We see both of these points, for example, in the comments of Diodati. On verse 5, "it is fitting that custom should second nature now nature hath given a woman the natural vail of the hair wherefore she is obliged to make use of the other artificial vail to cover her head, which a woman ought to hold to be as proper for her as her natural vail of hair." And on verse 10, supposing men gave permission for women to cast off their covering, Diodati comments, "The Apostle answereth; though men would give consent to this disorder, yet the Angels who are continual guardians of the Church, and assistants in their assembles, they would be offended at it."

The fact Diodati maintained the covering of the head was a "custom," and yet gave further reasons for the fitness of the "custom," indicates to us that the subject is not as simple as finding the term "custom" in the text of a commentator.

 

[Parakaleo]

Men and women pray throughout the day. This would mean the woman would have to put their coverings on every time they prayed.

The Dutch Reformed had an expression for a short plea to God during the day; they called these "hat-on" prayers. This term describes a man struck with a sudden need to pray and he proceeds without taking off his hat because of expediency, not defiance to God's order and commandments. I think the same principle would apply to women who pray throughout the day without going to fetch their cover first.

 

[Logan]

In seeking to find out the mind of others it would be important to learn whether they detached the two. I think there is enough evidence in the text to show that the focus of the passage was on the actions of the women, not the men, and that there are reasons given for the actions of the women which are not given for the actions of the men, e.g., the angels. The commentators, in following this focus, tend to present the same disparity.

Do you believe men praying uncovered to be a mere custom while women praying covered to be required?

I used the term "I propose" to hopefully indicate that I couldn't see how the two could be disconnected as such, even if there are different reasons given they are part of the same passage. Yet I don't claim infallibility there.

It is also noteworthy that some of the commentators who appeal to "custom" also find something fitting in the custom,

And I stated multiple times that I see this and agree with it. And that a form of head covering was practiced historically both by pagan and Christian, inside the church and outside, makes it all the more interesting that it even received this much attention as a "custom".

The fact Diodati maintained the covering of the head was a "custom," and yet gave further reasons for the fitness of the "custom," indicates to us that the subject is not as simple as finding the term "custom" in the text of a commentator.

Agreed. But that the word "custom" or "tradition" or "practice" was even used indicates that it's not as simple as "Paul instructs men to pray uncovered and women to pray covered in public worship." And for example, Poole seemed to explain pretty clearly what he meant by his term.

 

[TylerRay]

For those who believe that Paul's argument was an argument from culture, what do you think women covering their heads symbolizes in today's culture?

In other words, what do people think of when they see women covering their heads in worship today?

 

[Jake]

For those who believe that Paul's argument was an argument from culture, what do you think women covering their heads symbolizes in today's culture?

In other words, what do people think of when they see women covering their heads in worship today?

I think that the meaning had changed, so I'd be wary of basing whether to cover or not on that alone. The cultural argument necessarily changes, and I'm not sure I could definitively assert what covering for women and not covering for men symbolizes in our culture. For example, among men, it seems that covering/wearing a hat in the assembly showed authority in time past among the Jews and still does in some cultures today.

Gillespie noted in his English Popish Ceremonies that the meaning of covering/uncovering had changed, and that at the time, men covered in worship. This is covered in Naphtali Press edition p. 247-248. I can get quotes later if anyone is interested/doesn't have the volume.

 

[Logan]

For those who believe that Paul's argument was an argument from culture, what do you think women covering their heads symbolizes in today's culture?

In other words, what do people think of when they see women covering their heads in worship today?

These seem to me to be questions coming from a specific viewpoint already. But I said earlier:

Now note, I am not opposed to head coverings at all. I have no problem with those who have such a conviction if they believe they are honoring God and showing submission in that way. But I also do not think it is a sin not to be convicted of the practice.

A better question for those with a cultural view, might be "how do women show submission today"? I don't have the best answer for that and once again, if some are convicted that the way they can show it is by using head coverings, I'd encourage it. As for me personally, I admit that when I do see a head covering I don't naturally correlate that with "submission to husband's headship". Maybe that's just my cultural upbringing and maybe that culture isn't what it should be, but that's another discussion. I'd be curious to see how many people do automatically correlate it with "submission". My gut feeling is that, whether right or wrong, most Christians today (let alone people) would completely miss that symbolism.

 

[Dachaser]

In addition to it being, as the other bethren stated here, as being a reference to a local custom regarding women in church, there also seems to be here in the letter Paul addressing the issue of headship in the local churches. In that the female is under her husband spiritual covering, and that there is an ordained/set pattern of one being under authority, as shown by Jesus being head over His church, and that God the Father is head over Christ Himself.

 

[OPC'n]

For those who believe that Paul's argument was an argument from culture, what do you think women covering their heads symbolizes in today's culture?

In other words, what do people think of when they see women covering their heads in worship today?

Head coverings only remind me of Muslims

 

[OPC'n]

Men and women pray throughout the day. This would mean the woman would have to put their coverings on every time they prayed.

The Dutch Reformed had an expression for a short plea to God during the day; they called these "hat-on" prayers. This term describes a man struck with a sudden need to pray and he proceeds without taking off his hat because of expediency, not defiance to God's order and commandments. I think the same principle would apply to women who pray throughout the day without going to fetch their cover first.

So you're saying that their custom overceeded (is that a word? Lol) what they felt was a requirement from the Bible out of convenience? I mean i can see in an emergency a man not taking off his hat, but otherwise one should all the time if one believes in it.

 

[Afterthought]

Head coverings only remind me of Muslims

There are head coverings that do not look like what Muslims use. There are also hats.

As for me personally, I admit that when I do see a head covering I don't naturally correlate that with "submission to husband's headship". Maybe that's just my cultural upbringing and maybe that culture isn't what it should be, but that's another discussion. I'd be curious to see how many people do automatically correlate it with "submission".

You never did mention what you do associate it with. Merely out of curiosity, what do you associate it with (if anything)? Do you think of 1 Cor. 11 when you see a woman covering her head in worship?

 

[ChananBachiyr]

A cultural argument has always had very little weight for me except when it comes to partaking in particular things rather than abrogation of established practices... because let's face it, if we reason away practices for "cultural" reasons, then a lot can be reasoned away.

I mean this gently, but you seem very exuberant about this topic without having studied it in-depth. And you still don't seem to understand the point of the quotations posted earlier.

I'm only exuberant to study God's word and learn, I am not, however, eager to jump on band wagons.
I want to get back to the text itself... its all too easy to rest on the opinions of saints before us rather than resting on the Holy Spirit's teaching instead.
I didn't mean that cultural arguments have no place in the Bible... I understand that often times, they do, but I don't believe that in this passage, the apostle Paul is making a cultural argument. Here is why:
1) He appeals to the creation order (vv. 7-9, 11-12)
2) He appeals to the angels (v.10)
3) He appeals to nature (vv. 13-15)
4) Lastly, he appeals to the practice of the church ("traditions, just as I delivered them to you." v2)(v16)

Wouldn't the only cultural comment in the passage be v. 6b? "but if it is disgraceful..."

The question (to me) is whether the practice of headcoverings is perpetually binding, or if the general principle of submission is what is being taught (and is binding)

Couldn't it be both? Couldn't the question be "Is the practice of headcoverings for both genders meant to be kept because of it's significance, pointing to submission to God in all things, especially ministry and corporate worship?"
Is this or anything other passage in the Bible required to state "This is a perpetually binding practice..." in order for us to imitate it and adopt it as such? Didn't he say in the very 1st verse of this chapter, "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ." - So I'd say no... it isn't always required to be stated.

Brother, please don't take me to be combative.
I'm coming from a background where everything was taken as tradition (Independent Fundamental Baptist) and upon realizing that, it seems to me that God's word ought to be carefully thought out, prayed over and searched diligently for God's will in our practice. Learning of God's sovereignty in the realm of saving grace over the past 3 years or so, learning about presbyterianism, Biblical form of government, Covenant Theology, paedobaptism... my world is pretty much flipped. So I never want to just dismiss or adopt a practice without thoroughly studying and fleshing out arguments for both sides first.
I hope you can understand where I'm coming from

 

[OPC'n]

I could probably be convinced of head coverings if every Christian man felt it was a sin to have long hair and every Christian woman felt it was a sin to have short hair. That command is also tucked into this Scripture, but I don't see anyone having trouble with women having short hair. I really haven't seen too many Christian men having long hair so I don't think it would be a large issue, but there are many Christian women who have very short hair.

 

[ChananBachiyr]

In addition to it being, as the other bethren stated here, as being a reference to a local custom regarding women in church, there also seems to be here in the letter Paul addressing the issue of headship in the local churches. In that the female is under her husband spiritual covering, and that there is an ordained/set pattern of one being under authority, as shown by Jesus being head over His church, and that God the Father is head over Christ Himself.

Indeed, this is a good observation! This would go right along with 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35 "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

To which I would like to add that this goes to the men as well, it is shameful to be speaking and carrying on during worship, for any participant, but apparently there were problems with the women in particular so as to invoke the rebuke of the apostle.

Also that great passage in Ephesians 5, particularly verses 22-23 "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior."

 

[ChananBachiyr]

I could probably be convinced of head coverings if every Christian man felt it was a sin to have long hair and every Christian woman felt it was a sin to have short hair. That command is also tucked into this Scripture, but I don't see anyone having trouble with women having short hair. I really haven't seen too many Christian men having long hair so I don't think it would be a large issue, but there are many Christian women who have very short hair.

I wonder if our liberty has come into play concerning this?
As he points to nature, Paul says its shameful for men to have long hair... that should settle it for us. I've seen men from behind or from the side and could've sworn that it was a woman... the new age, often "metrosexual" clothing these days doesn't help at all. But also the same with women, I've seen them from another angle and thought for sure it was a man... this is bad!
Paul also says that a woman's glory is her long hair... it is so befitting for a woman... it is feminine and natural... seems to call attention to creation if you ask me and people have just let it go.