![Travis Seitler [photo]](http://travis.webseitler.com/wp-content/themes/Elite/images/header-photo.jpg)
Why My Girls Cover Their Heads
I rarely hear the question asked, but like the proverbial elephant in the room, it’s often obvious that people are wondering about the cloth on my wife’s and daughter’s heads. When we are asked, though, the questions bely just how old fashioned such coverings have become. “Are you Amish? Mennonite? Muslim?” (I do have a full beard that tends toward the scraggly side…) And my favorite: “Do you follow all the other Old Testament laws?” (This one is found in the New Testament, thank-you-very-much.) 
It came up a few times while we were in Sarasota (this being the first time we had been down there since we began practicing the tradition), and I realized it was probably high time to explain why our family does the whole “head covering thing.” Yet, as so often happens, before my thoughts gel enough to write a post, someone else comes along and sums up the whole matter in better words than I can. This time around, my wife Nicole pointed me to a recent broadcast on R.C. Sproul’s Renewing Your Mind radio program where he said this:
I’ve read countless commentaries on 1 Corinthians that say the reason why Paul tells women to cover their hair is because of the problem of prostitutes in Corinth. Now here’s a problem with that: I don’t doubt for a minute that there was a problem of prostitutes in Corinth, and I think that it’s very helpful to go and examine the cultural situation—the life setting in which that scripture comes—to try and gain clues for understanding the whys and wherefores of certain admonitions. I think that’s a very appropriate thing.
I think on the other hand it’s totally inappropriate to assign to Paul a reason for his saying something that is different from the one he himself gives. Paul does not leave us without a rationale or a defense of covering the head. And the thing that is most astonishing here is that he appeals to creation—not to Corinth—where he appeals to man and woman as man and woman and if anything, transcends local custom. It is those things rooted and ordered in creation.
That’s why I’m very frightened to be loose with this passage. Because the Apostle doesn’t say “keep your heads covered because you don’t want anyone to be thinking that you’re a prostitute,” but he appeals, again, to creation. And he says that a woman is given her hair as a covering as part of her glory.
And that’s really all there is to it for me: Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit appeals to the created order, and thus makes this a perpetual tradition for the Church to observe, not a culturally-specific tradition which can be tossed aside when it’s no longer convenient. Sproul goes on to point out that it wasn’t until our culture began to resist Biblical gender roles that this tradition went out the window in the Western Church. This tidbit is rather telling.
I don’t want to be a snob about it—if anything, it’s a bit embarrassing to stick out like a sore thumb, even in our congregation—but it is something that I am convinced Christians are required to observe. It’s not a matter of personal preference (like how often one ought to pray, or whether you use grape juice or wine for communion); rather, it’s a matter which is clearly laid out in the Scriptures but that many don’t particularly find appealing or convenient. Such ought not be the determining factor in our obedience to the Word of God.
And yet, I have many believing friends who do not observe this tradition. And they’re still my friends (well, at least before they read this). So at some point in the near future, I intend to follow up on this topic by sharing why I think Paul wanted this tradition observed by the Church. In the meantime, what are your thoughts on the issue? I’ll admit that there’s room for me to be wrong here; I would just need to be convinced first!
Popularity: 53% [?]
Tagged: 1st Corinthians 11 · Christian traditions · church history · church tradition · coverings · custom · gender distinctions · head coverings · Paul · principle · scarves · veils · women
You forgot such timeless classics as “I like your cute little… um… handkerchief.” And “Aw! She must like to wear that because you do, huh?” My favorite was when Katie asked that lady on the plane if she liked her scarf, too after the lady told her that she was cute… Oh, my.
Where did you find this transcript? There was a part towards the end that I liked and would like to quote, but what exactly it was escapes me… you know, because I don’t sleep through the night.
I didn’t—I typed it myself.
Travis,
My wife argues that her long hair is the covering, not the cloth? How does this work in that passage?
Sincerely,
Paul Schafer
Paul,
If you look at 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, you’ll see that Paul is comparing two different types of covering: “…but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven.” What he’s saying here is that nature provides a covering, but that a God-honoring woman needs to show her agreement with this gender distinction by wearing an additional covering over her hair. Otherwise, she dishonors her “head” (that is, her man/husband).
God bless you brother. You have no idea how much you were led by the Spirit to send that email. I was upset about that ‘issue’.
Anyway, I think it is wonderful that God has given you light on this issue. Thankfully it is a teaching our church holds to (Free Presbyterian), however my wife attended the Met Tab in London (Spurgeons church) when she was finishing her degree, and out of the several hundred that go there, she was one of the very few that wore a head-covering.
Paul - this is taken from an article on freepres.org - “Some object that a woman’s “hair is given her for a covering” (v. 15) and she needs no other. This is to fly in the face of all Paul says. Those who believe that the covering of which he speaks is merely the woman’s hair need only substitute hair for the covering in verses 5 and 6 to see how meaningless and impossible their argument is. Paul has made it clear that he is speaking of a covering placed on the head. In verse 4 covered literally means “having something on his head.” That is Paul’s theme. Nature gives a woman a veil in her hair. “It is a glory to her because it is a veil. The veil itself, therefore, must be becoming and decorous in a woman” (Charles Hodge).”
Armen, I’m glad I could encourage you! (A baby-dunker, though? I’ll pray for you.)
I found another series of posts on this topic by browsing around Technorati.
This article is the first on my new section in the sidebar, ‘Choice Pickings’
Congratulations!! lol
Travis,
How many churches you know have preached sermons on this passage that is available on their website in mp3 format? I might create a list on my blog.
I’d definitely be interested in a list like that! Unless Sproul’s message counts, though, I can’t think of a single sermon I’ve ever heard on the topic.
I’ll let you know if I come across anything, though!
I agree with the ‘long hair’ interpretation myself but I commend you for taking a stand for what you believe.
Josh
“…the word of God is not bound.”
–2 Timothy 2:9
Josh, welcome!
Out of curiosity… how do you deal with verse 6 where Paul says, “For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short”? If the covering he speaks of is her long hair, then wouldn’t that mean Paul is saying, “For if a wife will not [have long hair], then she should cut her hair short”? That sounds kinda redundant to me, and doesn’t really seem like a discouragement against the practice.
(Actually, it ends up reading “if she wants to have short hair, let her do it” if you interpret it that way.)
Thanks for joining in, man!
[...] I didn’t see this one coming. [...]
Travis,
Here is my post. Looking for MP3’s and articles were very hard to obtain on the internet. Seems like nobody likes to discuss this topic.
http://psalm305.blogspot.com/2007/03/head-coverings-mp3-sermons-articles.html
I can also highly recommend the Rev. John Greer as one of the most able preachers who deals with this issue here
I also recommend Colin Mercer here
Does your wife prophesy also?
If not, why not?
Yeah, my wife does in the context of that passage. To prophesy doesn’t only mean to preach, it means prayer too.
Travis - I agree that your interpretation makes the most sense of the grammar and logic in the passage. But it’s always bugged me: why does Paul in this chapter say that if a woman is going to pray or prophesy she should cover her head - and then in another place say that women should keep silence in church? Seems kind of redundant, then, to cover your head for an activity that you’re not going to do.
Alice, great question! (For everyone else’s sake, we’re talking about 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-38.)
I think it comes down to what a person does and doesn’t assume about these passages. For instance, I assume:
— Paul isn’t contradicting himself here. (I mean, these two passages aren’t very far from each other… and Paul was a pretty sharp thinker.)
— Paul isn’t quoting some Corinthian Judiazer in chapter 11, and that ch.11 is actually instruction from Paul.
And what I don’t assume is:
— the setting in chapter 11. Most commentators and preachers will say the context is a congregational meeting like the one described in ch.14, but setting isn’t mentioned in the 11th chapter at all. The only thing that comes close—the phrase “the churches of God”—refers to congregations (groups of people)… not their meetings. (Last I checked, God wants people to pray and prophesy more often than that!)
— “speaking” in ch.14 means all vocal utterances. He could be referring to the “speaking” (tongues, prophecies) he had just mentioned, but I believe it’s far more likely (based on the context of the “gag order”) that what Paul is prohibiting in congregational meetings is the speaking involved in debating and interpreting tongues and prophesies.
Because of that, I don’t see any problem between these two passages. Either women are always free to pray and prophesy while covered, or they are free to pray and prophesy while covered except during congregational meetings such as typically take place on Sunday mornings.
Sorry guys…my last comment was written just before I went to bed and it’s obvious because what I meant to say was, to prophesy means to sing.
Backed up with 1 Chron 25:1 “Moreover David and the captains of the host separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals: and the number of the workmen according to their service was.”
I agree with you on the convincement issue. Women and their families need a firm grasp on the implications of head covering before diving into it. Then dive away…
I just launched a new site for head covering Christian ladies. Check it out!
I just stumbled onto your site and appreciate the fact that you and your family are willing to obey the Scriptures no matter what others think. We are responsible to the Lord for what we do with His Word. Any ole’ fish can float downstream with the crowd, but it takes a healthy one to swim against the current! Keep on obeying and trusting the Lord.
Your sister in Christ, sheryl (I make head coverings)
WOW! I think that it’s great to see other people who believe in the authenticity of the Scriptures in the truest sense! The Word says it - I do it!
Recently, I have begun covering myself, mostly during church services. I am interesting in covering full-time. I imagine that your beauties do too. If they do cover full time, may I ask why?
Would you be in agreement with me if I said that your ideas about the head covering for women are “more or less, something like” an biblical ordinance (i.e. like baptism, communion)
I think the “silence” that Paul refers to has to do with “silence in authority over man”.
This would enable a woman to sing in church, give a word of truth, etc, but not teach men. If a woman has her head covered and has accepted her place of influence “under man” and not over him, she has glories for her husband and family that most women know nothing about.
For a Christian Woman’s Testimony, read her book at:
http://www.islamiclifestyles.com/hijab-christianity.htm
George
Thanks to everyone who left comments since I was here last!
George: When Paul speaks of women being “in silence” later in ch. 14 of this letter, he says they aren’t even allowed to ask questions during the congregational meeting. So it’s not just about exerting authority over a man.
I have a few thoughts and questions on this.
Would Nicole wear a head covering if you didn’t insist? ie. does she agree with scripture on this or is she honoring you by doing it? Does she LIKE to cover her head?
I see a bit of a disconnect between this post and much of the rest of your blog, Travis. The sense I get–correct me if I’m wrong–is that you have some sharp disagreements with church leadership that you’re obviously not “silent” about. (And on many points I agree with you, my friend; I am merely making an observation of one post in light of all your posts on matters of submission/headship.) It seems not quite right that you make your wife have an outward show of authority, but you yourself freely express your discontent. I am not trying to take a pit bull by the ears, here, but I would more readily accept your position if you were supportive of your own leaders. Make sense?
I enjoy this and I am glad you wrote it! I know of a good sermon on this subject. Email me and I will send it on to you!
Lord Bless
Ginger
Good stuff.
Of course, I’m also a proponent of the perpetuity of the sybol of authority, though I think it is specifically applicable to wives and not just women in general.
(N.B. “Wife” & “woman” are the same Greek word, but I think the context fits better for a wife being in submission to her husband, more so than a woman to a man. Hence, the ESV’s translation of “wife” instead of “woman” in 1 Cor 11.)
I’ve posted a lengthy argument in favor of the applicability of the practice on my blog and share a personal discussion I had with Dr. R.C. Sproul on the subject.
It’s a shame it’s seen as such an “odd” practice, when it was the dominant practice of the church historically AND Paul is so adamant about the practice in 1 Cor 11.
By His grace and for His glory,
Gunny
@zoanna: Scripturally there’s a huge difference between the husband/wife (or father/daughter) relationship and the elder/non-elder relationship. What the Bible calls me to do in regard to Jim Cannon, for instance, is to treat him the way I would a seasoned man in my physical family–like my granddad, for instance. If my granddad were to start making unreasonable demands on me and insist that I submit to him, it would be rather pitiful. If other relatives insisted I do what he says or find another family, I’d probably start blogging about it. “If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.”
@Gunny: According to Numbers 30, a father held a unique form of authority over his unmarried daughter, in that he could overrule vows she had vowed to God. Once married, her husband held that authority. The parallels between Num. 30 and 1 Cor. 11 are really the main reason I see this as a “woman” thing rather than a “wife” thing.
The other day I wrote a post about a family that lives near us that does this. I commend the practice, but I don’t do it. I can’t really say I’ve even thought about doing it. And I honestly don’t want to do it. I may have to think about it all. I think I’ll link this post at the bottom of mine for other people to see your perspective.
I once looked into 1 Corinthians 14. What I read about it in several commentaries led me to believe that the statement about speaking out was a cultural shift issue. Women had not been allowed to be taught and therefore learn with men. But this was changing and the women were asking questions that were “basic”. They were basically catching up and this was causing too much interruption. Hence, the “gag order”. It didn’t really have to do with speaking during what we would call a worship service. These were more like advanced Bible studies.
I heard a great speaker about the role of women in ministry once (which includes this) by Dawn Scott Jones. I even have the CD, but I think it has to be ordered. Just another view and resource!
[...] If you are interested in more information on headcoverings, this is a nice, clear and easy to understand post on my one couple does it. [...]
Elaine,
Wouldn’t gentile converts be asking the same sorts of “basic” questions? They didn’t grow up in synagogues either, y’know.
I would agree that 1 Corinthians 14 is dealing with a “cultural shift,” but where you and I would probably disagree is what to do with that. If the Church c.33AD-70AD was just the “public beta,” so to speak, then it would make sense to continue the progressiveness seen in their shifting attitudes toward women, food, etc. I lean more toward the alternative, though; I believe that the first-generation church was a restoration of appropriate roles and practices, and deviation from them is wrong, regardless of whether it’s progressive or regressive.
Also, 1 Corinthians 14 is a different passage from 1 Corinthians 11; as I quoted Sproul saying regarding chapter 11, “[I]t’s totally inappropriate to assign to Paul a reason for his saying something that is different from the one he himself gives. Paul does not leave us without a rationale or a defense of covering the head. And the thing that is most astonishing here is that he appeals to creation—not to Corinth—where he appeals to man and woman as man and woman and if anything, transcends local custom.”
I will say this, though: there is one argument against “head coverings” that I think is plausible, and it has nothing to do with weak consciences, social customs or anything like that. I’m not convinced of the view I’m thinking of here, but I am considering it. I’d tell you what it is, but I think it’s worth an entire post.
I really just happened upon your blog because I think you may have visited one of mine. I clicked the widget in the sidebar having to do with headcovering, thinking you’d probably be giving all kinds of logic against it. I am so glad to find just the opposite!
I am not currently covering, but I sure do miss it. When my husband was alive, we prayed and studied over this issue and came to the conclusion that it is for women today, too. After all, why would so many verses in a row be dedicated to it if it weren’t important, and it’s in the same chapter as communion, which is surely important.
I was suddenly thrown into the world again when my husband passed away. I had to get a job to pay the bills. I still grieve his loss and I grieve not being able to cover in my current job. I hope to return to it very soon as I miss it so much. Rare is the women around here that covers unless they are Mennonite.
You never answered the question about how Nicole feels about covering her head.
That’s because it’s my job to say how I feel about it.
Ok, well Zoanna asked and it wasn’t addressed, and it seemed like he was avoiding the answer. You should blog more, for sure.
I do.
I just blog about crafts (click on my name and you’ll see my blog). I got burnt out on “discussing” theology on-line a few years ago. Makes me twitchy now. That’s why I deleted my Little Christian Musings blog a while ago. I can’t deal with all the people who’d come and attack me for what I believe, especially if I knew them in person! o_O
Beth: Zoanna clarified the reason for her question in the paragraph that followed it. I addressed her reason for asking, which (in my mind, at least) made the question moot. (cf. Luke 11:53-54)
Nicole: I understand. It gets personal. I try and mostly blog about decorating!
As a covering girl, I always get encouraged by others that wear them as well. Blessings to you and your family!
I love you, I love Nicole, but I get upset when I come over here and see that your tone is still the same. You seem to enjoy an intellectual form of rebellion.
I’m offended that you considered my question moot. But not surprised. And by the way, Nicole still hasn’t answered the question, “Does she like to wear head coverings?”
Zo, I did respond to you. You said, “I see a bit of a disconnect between this post and much of the rest of your blog.” I cleared up the disconnect–my relationship to Jim Cannon is not the same as Nicole’s relationship to me. (He said it himself in a meeting I had with him on May 26th in his office. Go ahead, ask him. I dare you.)
See, I hold to the idea of sphere sovereignty. (In contrast, the views you’ve expressed in the comments here bear more resemblance to a Protestantized Papal Monarchy.) My expressions of “rebellion” in this blog are me pointing out where pastors overstep their God-defined boundaries of authority.
But really, when it comes to the sorts of abuses I’ve posted quotes about, your accusations of me are no different than if you were to accuse a woman of a “rebellious attitude” for writing about how it’s wrong and reprehensible for a man to beat his wife. The things such pastors do in God’s name are just as damaging–it’s just harder to see the bruises. Pastors are wrecking entire families over these sorts of things, the Gospel is being maligned because of their poor witness, and you want me to keep my mouth shut out of some perverted sense of submission? That is something you will never find in the New Testament; you’ve got to read it into the text to get it out of the text.
PS: At this point we’ve all noticed that neither I nor Nicole have given you a straight answer to your “but does she like it?” question. Out of all the people commenting here, you and Beth Young are the only two hung up on that point. Last I checked, nobody was required to answer any question solicited in a blog comment. And from offline discussions with my wife, it doesn’t seem like either of us wants to answer you. So, well… :shrug:
She answered me in person. I wouldn’t stay in a church if I felt the way you do. In fact, the last church we left was over doctrinal differences.
You just said she hadn’t answered. So are you lying to us, Zoanna?
Yes, you answered the second part but not the first. You continue to dodge this one yet blame me and Beth for being hung up on it. Given that the entire topic of your post is about headcovering, I assumed it reasonable to ask, “but does she like to?” I didn’t realize it would make you so squirmy. I mean, if she does, so what? If she doesn’t, but wears it for you, then it’s to her credit.
Zo and Beth - Why do you even care? And why do you persist? This is his blog, and he can answer or decline to answer as he sees fit.
Proverbs 27:15-16 “A constant dripping on a day of steady rain and a contentious woman are alike; He who would retrain her restrains the wind, and grasps oil with his right hand.”
Let it go, ladies.
In order to “live peaceably with all men,” I will back down now. I don’t think Jim is the abuser you make him out to be, nor do I think he’s right on every decision. You link to so many things that are wrong with the church, with others’ views, with people who seem to share yours (who doesn’t?).
I admire your quest for righteousness and justice. You know how to research and articulate your views. But you have an arrogant tone under all the smiley faces and sarcastic “shrugs” . Where’s the seeking what is good and true and of good report?
Now I repeat: love you guys!!! I am on the same path with you but don’t agree with you. I enjoy a good debate, but being prone to negativity, have to let go of this debate.
Zoanna, I don’t really understand why you keep on coming back here and stirring this topic up…
You say you wanted to know how I feel about it, but then you say that you already talked to me about it (which I’m assuming was a while ago, because I can’t recall the conversation right now). So, I’m left to wonder if you’re trying to make Travis “look bad” here (like he’s some sort of chauvinist pig or something, forcing me into subjection).
So, everybody wants a public answer from me? Well, I tried to get out from this topic since I hate having these sort of tense “debates” on-line.
But since I keep getting dragged back into it anyway, here we go:
1) I have always been most firmly convinced that the clearest command of Scripture is for me to submit to my husband in everything. So, because of that, I cover my head because he asked me to.
2) And I also believe that the covering of a woman’s head is clearly stated to be a tradition. So there’s no ground to stand on to insist that anyone else cover their head, too. I don’t think anyone can insist on this as a command (and that’s certainly not the tone of this post here!).
3) At the same time, Paul used really strong language to convey his point here and it’s hard to wiggle out of it… unless one does a bit of gymnastics. I do lean towards the “it was a cultural thing” camp, however. But reason #1 trumps this because I feel it’s my highest duty to submit to my husband.
So, does it really matter if I “like” it? If I said I didn’t, would you really advise me to resist my husband’s request? I hope not!
Zoanna, I really do wonder why you come here… All the comments I’ve seen from you tend to be a bit aggressive. Travis reads a lot of blogs and he posts a lot of quotes. When I see them, I assume he’s looking for conversation on the topic. It seems like you think he’s out to run a smear campaign against Chesapeake!
It’s funny to see how there are usually two camps of commenters: people who’ll say “Amen! That’s a good point!” or people who will get angry, call Travis arrogant and tell him to leave the church… all for posting a quote! I don’t get it and it all makes me feel rather twitchy inside.
Now that I’ve had my official say, can we all just leave this be? Thanks.
Thjanks you, thank you, thank you Nicole for finally answering the question. That’s all I wanted. And what I was hopiong for was what you delivered–that it doesn’t matter if you LIKE to wear it. You told me in person “no, I don’t, but I submit to Travis”. That is exactly the right thing to do. That’s all I wanted to hear was the truth. I have the highest respect for you. Do I like everything our leaders do? No, but I don’t blog on and on about it, hiding behind quotes and other people’s articles linked to my blog. I talk to them, pray for them, serve with them where I can rather than where I necessarily want.
If he only wants “amens, I agree with you,bro,” he shouldn’t post anything controversial. But he and I are alike in that we like to question status quo and not accept everything we hear or read immediately without chewing on it awhile. I no more readily accept your husband’s viewpoints than I do my pastors’, but I do believe God has appointed them over us and Travis is sore about that.
I don’t understand why you keep coming back Sunday after Sunday anymore than you can understand why I come back here to pick bones with Travis. Tell me how it’s different.
1) For the record: I didn’t just say I didn’t like it. What I said was I lean towards the “it was a cultural thing” camp. I can’t say that I hate it. I can’t say that I love it. It’s somewhere in between. Like I said, I think the whole emphasis is on me submitting to my husband.
2) I hope that in saying this, you don’t think it backs up some odd analogy between a husband and a wife and a pastor and a parishioner. Certainly there’s no verse in support of that.
3) I said he receives two kinds of reactions. I didn’t say he was looking for either. I said he was looking for conversation. And I’m saying that I’m the one who’s shocked over the negativity he receives.
4) I’ll tell you how it’s different: you keep saying that you’ll stop.
I asked one time about Nicole covering her head. Everyone can back off of me!
Beth: Nobody said you asked more than once. (You referred to my “not answering” in two comments, BTW.)
And you feel ganged up on in this thread?
Ok, I am fascinated by the head covering, and I want to learn more. And up until the last 19 entries I was really enjoying reading. So please either drop all this junk (defending yourselves, attacking each other) that doesn’t matter, and never will, and get back to the Biblical facts here, or someone please give me some other websites and info! Becauase inquiring minds need to know! (stuff that is their own business anyways…)
Kandis,
Point well taken!
TESTING … This is a test to see if my comment will take, so I don’t encounter another beat down of composition only to have it get cagged in the process.
This is my 4th time to attempt to post this …
As I’ve noted, I’m a proponent of the practice, but nobody gave me the business and asked me if my wife was jazzed by the idea/practice.
Should I feel unloved?
Originally, my wife was not a fan … not at all. She’s warmed some to the idea, but I think one of the main issues is being one of the few “coverers” in our church. I really think that if she felt she didn’t stand out so much she would be less apprehensive about the whole thing.
I’m not trying to hawk my post on headcoverings, but there are some great links on the subject therein, including some in the comments.
@GUNNY: I found this little gem in your comments section especially ironic, in light of the comments here:
For example, while I don’t ever recall covering proponents in my church saying that the non-coverers are insubordinate to their husbands or sinners or such, I have certainly heard accusations by the non-coverers that the coverers are just doing it for show or think they are holier than thou, etc. In other words, it’s been my experience that one group is much quicker to judge the motives of the other.
Yeah, I feel you. I’ve often found it odd that the non-coverers are so animated about the issue.
My experience has been that the coverers say something to the effect of, “Just so you know …” and the non-coverers I’ve encountered don’t come back with, “Thanks for sharing. This is how I roll and why.”
Instead there’s often accusations with regard to motive and accusations of arrogance.
I’ve also loved the comments along the lines of “Well, you don’t practice the holy kiss, so you’re a hypocrite.”
Although they’re different issues with different rationale, I’ve always thought it odd that they would be encouraging somebody to disobedience.
If a person ought to do A and B and is doing A, why would you encourage him/her to cease A until B is done as well?
Who would tell their kids, “Well, why bother telling the truth since you didn’t honor your parents today at school? You’ve broken one commandment, might as well give up.”?
Let me tell you, it’s not easy for women to cover whilst in the minority. Before I was fully convinced that was one of the things that quite impressed me, that they’d be willing to subject themselves to criticism and the inability to just “blend in” amongst the others.
*Caveat … I’m not saying that any readers who are non-coverers are nasty or whatnot. I’m just relaying my own personal experience with regard to the issue.*
Gunny, I had to laugh when I read this from what Travis posted above: “…the coverers are just doing it for show.”
Isn’t that EXACTLY what it’s all about? The head covering is a sign. It’s a symbol of authority. It IS for show! LOL!
vs16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
I’m confused. What is Paul referring to in that verse? Isn’t he saying that it makes sense that a woman should cover her hair, but- let’s not fight over this, it isn’t a rule in the church?
I’ve always thought Paul meant neither he nor the other churches have contention over this issue. That it is accepted. My paraphrase “But if any of you want to argue about this, know that we don’t argue it at all, nor do any of the other churches of God argue this matter.”
In the first chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to “all”.
v2. “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with ALL that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours”
v10 “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye ALL speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”
v12-13 “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you: or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”
Paul sets the stage in the first chapter for unity in matters of faith and conviction. He doesn’t then break that unity in a single verse, but instead uses it to point to the fact that unity of faith and custom should exist. He expounds on how things should be done in the church and covers a lot of territory. He never says, “Well, except for this.”
i’m wondering if i can get some help here…
i am having an on-line discussion about head-coverings with fellow reformed christian women. here is what one of my friends wrote:
“I understand the reasons women wear them - & believe that’s what Paul was talking about there in Corinthians. but look at verse 10 - it says it is a ’symbol’ of authority, & in the NIV ’symbol’ is italicized which means it may not be the right word, but the closest English can come to it. it would be interesting & helpful to have someone explain a word study from the Greek on ’symbol.’…â€
can someone help me answer this question? my friend adheres to the cultural symbol explanation (not a command for all time)…
thank you! - mira
Mira,
“Symbol” is italicized because in the Greek, the phrase is literally “should have authority on her head.” Since a piece of cloth doesn’t actually have authority to exert, translators assume Paul meant the covering to be a symbol of (someone else’s) authority.
Here’s the thing, though: Paul commended the Corinthians for following his teachings, “just as [he] passed them on to [them]” (v.1, NIV). In other words, the specific application is just as important here as the general principle–especially since the specific application is what Paul was insisting upon.
In this same chapter, Paul speaks of the bread and wine of communion, but few believers would say that such is “merely” cultural symbolism with no lasting significance!
I hope that helps.
I have not read all the above. I am just studying about this subject. People want to follow only part of the scriptures in the Bible and the others they toss out because it is not what our culture says it ought to be. The closer you get to God the more likely you are to be an outcast for being different. Women were made differently. The headcovering is symbolizing dying to yourself and submitting to God’s laws. Submission to the husband and glory to God, not yourself. Women get caught up in competing. If there is no competing then you can focus on God, not what the world wants. Some say circumcision is no longer needed. Maybe so but it was important to God at one time. Over and over, we refuse to obey God (head coverings, eating, circumcision) and he keeps forgiving us. God has allowed us to get away with so much. We want more. I think God would be pleased that we have shown an outward love and respect for him. Is it really going to hurt to wear one? It may be a testimony to someone.
I’m doing an extensive research work on this subject. If you would be willing to fill out a survey as to why you veil your head or why you began veiling your head, please send an email to: ec.bus.ar@gmail.com.
Here is another website discussion on the why some women veil.
http://mennodiscuss.com/viewtopic.php?t=5110
We began attending a Free Presbyterian church because we found it difficult for the females in our family to wear headcoverings and not be shunned by most of the congregation. Believe me, it’s not something you do to get attention. Travis I should point out that Free Presbyterians are open on the issue of baptism. The vast majority of people in our congregation believe in believer’s immersion.
I have to say that I really enjoyed the better part of the blog,I myself have found myself in the opposite situation where it is my decision to cover and it took a lot of convincing to have my husband accept my covering full time. I find that I feel very feminine when I wear my coverings,it gives me the opertunity to spontainiously talk about my Lord and Savior,because I get asked about it, where as with out it I would not have had that opertunity.How to sum it up… its an outward expression of an inward commitment, an act of obedience from a truly gratefull heart for my salvation.I also think that if you trully read that scripture and at the end of it IF paul had said well its up to you do what you feel like, Who wouldnt want to cover for all the reasons listed ,Headship,a symbol of power and authority ( God given) for the angels and lets not forget that if the good ones are watching the fallen are watching as well.Because God has use Symbols in the past to seperate the things of God from the things of Man for angels perhaps you could look at it in the case of the angels like the anoiting of the lambs blood on the posts and lintels ( no I dont think that a destroying angel will get you if you dont cover your head) but as a symbol of those will ing to obey vs those on their own way. I am no schollar and could not talk about grammer ect. (its all greek to me… No pun intended) but I do know that this is not a heaven or hell issue, that the spirit will lead those who are humble and are teachable to what the Lord wants them to know,I also know that there are women out there that do not take the veil but cover with scarves, hats,snoods. We dont have to all look like a Mennonite, hutterite, amish ect. It is all the same light of Christ.. just a different lamp.
with much love to my sisters (just my 2 cents)
Christine
in the referenced scripture Paul speaks about a women wearing covering during praying or prophetsizing and we have turned it to wearing it as ordinary attire only being able to take it off during showers and bedtime.
Jasmine,
Welcome! I’d have to disagree with you, though.
What Paul’s saying is more like, “when you go to pray or prophesy, don’t take off the shawl you wear the rest of the time.” Since he then goes on to talk about why shawls “Just Make Sense” for women, it seems a pretty clear case for advocating “ordinary attire” use.
i agree totally that the covering is meant to be in addition to the hair. my question is, can any type pf scarf be worn? as in the different styles of wearing it…i want to wear a headcovering, just not sure what to do about it…thanks
I see what you are saying about head coverings. I don’t know that I agree that it is neccessarily implied that head coverings are to be always worn or just worn when they go church.
Anyway, why does it have to be a scarf (or does it)? Could they wear hats (i.e. in the south women wear sunday bonnets, or could they wear baseball caps)? That is the point I am confused about.
Thanks.
My wife likes scarves more than hats.
Actually, 1st-century Christian women tended to wear long shawls!
I cover my head…and it doesn’t really matter what I feel about it…it is what the scriptures say to do. It is neither here nor there, we follow the Christian walk not because we like or don’t like it. We can’t decide what is or isn’t applicable to us…otherwise, our Christianity is our own design…which in the west can easily be inferred..as much of Christian walk in the west is referrred to as “a personal relationship”. Traditional Christianity…my Church which is Antiochian, emphasises that none of us go to heaven alone, by ourselves..and salvation is not a personal thing..but by being a part of the Church. Mary the Mother of God always covered, and if it was good enough for her, it is good enough for me.
In America many don’t cover in my church, and that is their choice, and I don’t think anything about it, but as for me…I choose to cover.
Felicity
hey, earlier on your page you were looking for sermons about the issue of headcovering. Anyone can go to: http://www.sermonaudio.com and click on “sermon by topic” on the left side, then type in headcovering. There are many sermons there.
I don’t think this can be proved from scripture, but recently the Lord showed me that hats are really the opposite of a head covering, because they elevate the head. I began to realise this when a policeman friend of mine told me that he gets treated with more respect when he’s got his (tall, British-type) helmet on. Likewise, kings and queens wear their crowns, and bishops their mitres. So they are a sign of being in authority over others, not the opposite. Blessings, Andrew