On a personal note, kudos to Nicole for covering her head. If she does it to please her husband and feels that it’s right for her, then..you go girl!

Zoanna’s comments were a bit evil in their intent. I’ll pray that she doesn’t impact the good Nicole and her family negatively.

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

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.

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.

“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 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.’…”

can someone help me answer this question? my friend adheres to the cultural symbol explanation (not a command for all time)…

thank you! – mira

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 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?

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!

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.*

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.

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.

Point well taken!

And you feel ganged up on in this thread?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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?”

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.

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 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!

@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.

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