Conference yukon::christian_v7

Hello Kent, 

An interesting passage.  I think the majority of people dismiss it as a
cultural thing, because of the disreputable ways of the Corinthians, and
the recognisable style of their prostitutes.

I do not take this stance - I see the covering stated as a matter of 
principle, rather than of culture.  For instance, the man is not to cover 
his head 'because he is the image and glory of God' (v7), while in the same 
verse, 'the woman is the glory of man'.

There is a principle here which may not be clear to our cultures, because 
we have largely lost the vision of God's reverence, and especially how He 
is revealed in the two sexes.

As I see it, the passage teaches that a man's hair is a sign of reverence 
and authority.  Not his own authority, but God's authority entrusted as a 
responsibility upon him.  In uncovering his head, he shows respect to God.

Concerning women, I see the teaching that a woman's hair is a special sign
of beauty; a measure of God's glory, but displayed in humanity.  Because it
is in humanity, to display it during worship would divert attention from
God's glory, and tarnish the worship.

I believe that there is a spiritual dimension of truth in this, established 
at creation, as the principles seem to point back to the very nature of man 
and woman, as does 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

Verse 10 sums it up in saying :
	"For this reason and because of the angels, the woman ought to 
	 have a sign of authority pn her head."

The angels can clearly see a significance in this beyond what we can.  I
would link this to Genesis 6, where I see angels involved.  Although those
angels were heavily penalised, a woman's beauty is clearly something of
which they are aware.  I believe that women's hair is also a source of
attraction to men.  To bring temptation or contention of glory - whatever
it means in either dimension - into the context of worship is clearly
grievious. So - women should cover their beauty as a sign of humility (sign
of His authority) in order to indicate that they do not compete with God's
glory. 

Having said this, I do not know many who would adhere to it.  I would not
press the practise unless the principles behind it were accepted, or at
least the wearing of a head covering was not found obnoxious.  My own wife
does not wear a hat because of the way this was used in her youth.  While I
feel that was a subsidiary situation - of less importance than the
spiritual principles involved - it is for her to resolve to her
satisfaction; not for me to impose while she finds it too difficult to
accept.  Very few women in my church wear hats.  But neither do any men.

						God bless
							Andrew

I'm in the cultural camp.  I believe there is a discussion about this very thing
somewhere else in this conference.

� I believe there is a discussion about this very thing somewhere else in
� this conference. 

Note 363 addresses women speaking in church, and with 121 replies it may 
well touch on associated areas...

Note 421 is about women song leaders, but that one only has 2 replies.

							Andrew

    I've heard it explained that this was more in reference to a particular
    kind of veil women wore to represent modesty (i.e., it covered the
    face, unlike a prostitute who would not only uncover, but intensely
    paint her face).  The instruction for men to not "cover their heads" in
    this way may have been a reference to a perverse pagan temple practice
    of male prostitutes dressing like women.
    
    I don't know if that's accurate or not, but it's one interpretation
    I've heard.  I don't fully understand the passage myself as, for
    example, the men in that time (even now?) in the Middle East always
    wore a man's head-covering (very easily distinguishable from a woman's
    head-covering); and it would be pretty much unheard of for a woman to
    not wear her own head-covering all the time.  Maybe the passage is a 
    re-affirmation of the Torah's prohibition on cross-dressing?  I dunno. 
    Sorry I can't be of more help.
    
    Steve

      Hi,
    
        Aside from the cultural aspect...to look spiritually, might this
        not look forward to the marriage between Christ and His church?
        Christ (the man, the groom) is uncovered, but the woman (the bride,
        the church) is completely lost IN HIM.  
    
        She is covered by the righteoussness of Christ.  His character is
        in her mind.  She is sealed with the character of Christ on her
        forehead.  Self is completely lost and all is Christ.
    
        The woman (church) is covered by Christ.  She is crucified and
        alive to Him.
    
                                                    Tony
    

    Thank you to each one who have contributed to this string so far.  I 
    deliberately did not enter my opinion in the original note because I 
    wanted an unbiased response to the question.  
    
    This particular section of scripture has caused a great deal of 
    controversy among commentators.  Actually, about 60% of the ones that I 
    have read support the continuation of the practice of women wearing a 
    head covering.
    
    The root of the issue that Paul seems to be addressing is that of 
    spiritual authority within the body of Christ.  That line of authority 
    being God is the head of Christ is the head of man is the head of 
    woman.  For many women this is a point of contention because it appears 
    that Paul is trying to make them second-class Christians.  However, it 
    is also Paul that says that in Christ there is neither male nor female.  
    To say that this passage makes women inferior to men would be to imply 
    that Christ is inferior to the Father.  This is clearly not true and 
    neither is it true that women are in any way inferior to men.  In fact, 
    many of the Christian women that I know (my wife included) are more 
    noble, more spiritually sensitive and more virtuous than I could ever 
    be.  When I think of my own congregation I can see the homes that are 
    out of order where the man is not the spiritual covering for his family 
    or where there have been abuses of authority and I can understand any 
    woman's fear of placing upon herself a symbol of submission to that.  
    In my opinion, whether you agree with head covering or not, it is the 
    responsibility of the husband to properly assume and exercise the role 
    of covering so that the wife would never be fearful of coming under the 
    covering.
    
    It appears from Paul's dealing with the Corinthians that the women, 
    rightly understanding that they are equal before God, are now removing 
    the head covering during worship as a sign of their equality.  This 
    then has caused a riff in the authority structure.  Paul is certainly 
    not a legalist, withstanding Peter to his face regarding circumcision, 
    but this symbol is important.  The question is why?  The cultural 
    element comes into play when looking at the covering itself.  It was a 
    sign of submission to the headship of man.  Removing it could associate 
    the women with local prostitutes who went about unveiled.  The 
    priestesses in the idol temples would remove their veil when 
    prophesying (channeling) for their god and so removing the covering 
    would then associate the Christian women with the pagans.  However, 
    Paul does not make his argument from the perspective of a custom or 
    even from modesty but from the law (specifically God's ordained order 
    in creation), from nature, and from common sense.  Three points that, 
    according to Paul, would argue for the custom even if the custom did 
    not exist.  Paul's argument is for the reinstitution of the symbol on 
    the basis that it supports the underlying principle of headship not for 
    the principle itself which should be self evident.  It may be 
    interesting to note that this 'custom' was evident within Catholic and 
    Protestant churches in the US up until 100 years ago.  In my opinion 
    the principle of headship decreased in importance and with it the head 
    covering digressed from symbolic to ornamental to non-existant.  There 
    is a remnant of churches that still observe head covering but because 
    of social norms they are considered odd.  Another thing that might be 
    interesting is that we still observe half of the 'custom' which was 
    that a man should not pray or prophesy with his head covered.  Although 
    we may not understand why or we have ascribed it to common courtesy the 
    fact that we remove our hats before entering the church or when we pray 
    is directly related to this 'custom'.
    
    The key verses for me are verse 2 and verse 10.  In verse 2 Paul tells 
    the Corinthians to keep the ordinances "as I have delivered them unto 
    you."  The word, ordinances, is in other translations given traditions 
    which give the whole passage a much softer tone.  However, the Greek 
    word has a much stronger feeling to it and is best translated 
    ordinances.  Besides that, he speaks of ordinances, plural.  The first 
    half of 1 Corinthians 11 speaks of the head covering but the remainder 
    speaks of the Lord's Supper.  Paul has linked the two under the common 
    heading of ordinances.  We would never argue that the Lord's Supper was 
    simply a custom and need not be practiced today.  In my mind the only 
    distinction between the two, or from either of these and baptism, is 
    that the Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, and confirmed 
    baptism as ordinances in the church, but this is the only reference to 
    this ordinance and to me that ascribes it a lesser importance.
    
    Verse 10 talks about wearing the head covering because of the angels.  
    I must admit that I give this verse importance because of the way that 
    I view corporate worship.  The most commonly accepted interpretation of 
    this verse refers back to Genesis 6 and infers that the reason that the 
    woman must wear a head covering is because it would cause the angels to 
    lust.  I disagree with this view on the basis that it violates the 
    continuous flow of Paul's argument which is headship/authority.  It 
    would here place the emphasis on modesty and not on authority.  In my 
    opinion, in our times of corporate worship we in fact join with the 
    angels who are gathered about the throne of God, praising Him forever.  
    In this sense, the loss of divine order and authority is offensive to 
    the angels.  To support this, there was a rabbinical custom that a 
    priest who was somehow disfigured (it was unclear to me exactly what 
    that included) could not enter the holy place.  The Dead Sea Scrolls 
    make reference to this custom and say that he could not enter "because 
    of the angels".  In other words it was an apparent offense to the 
    angels.
    
    For me, as a man, this is an awesome responsibily to my wife as she 
    looks to me as a covering.  To love her as Christ loved the church and 
    gave Himself for it.  Not lording over her but, as Christ came not to 
    be served but to serve, to serve her.
    
    Kent
    

      re: -1
    
      Boy, real nice reply Kent!  I learned a lot!
    
                                             Thanks,
    
                                             Tony

  RE .6

  Many of the temple prostitutes which were coming into the church had 
  shaven heads. This was associated with the unatural acts which were performed
  by the priestesses. It was the duty of every temple girl to have relations
  with a close male relative. When she was ready for this "act of faith" 
  her head was to be shaven as an indication of her devotion to her god(ess).
  Often, they "renewed" their vows and went through the ritual again.

  As these people were being saved (hopefully) and coming into the church
  apparently they were still unsanctified (this take time for some christians)
  in their mannerisms and perhaps even in their walk. It seems that Paul
  had to "lay down the law" to help eliminate the confusion. It would seem
  that these women were to keep their heads covered until their hair reached
  the typical length for a married woman in these hellenistic cultures in 
  Asia Minor and the Byzantine locales.

  We need to rember to whom these epistles were written and the darkness 
  the Lord was calling them out of.

  Hank D
  

    Actually women needed to cover their heads because of the angels.
    
    It seems that the angels would be sexually tempted by women's beauty if
    they saw the women with long flowing hair.
    
    
                                      Patricia

>    It seems that the angels would be sexually tempted by women's beauty if
>    they saw the women with long flowing hair.

This is an interpretation not shared by many.

MM

Indeed, I must agree with Mark, Patricia.   The head covering was a sign of 
the woman's authority in prayer and prophecy.  It showed her to be righteous,
and set apart and not partaking of the prostitution cult of the area, which 
advertised itself by the woman wearing their hair loose, flowing, and uncovered.

Leslie

    I may be mistaken it's been a while since I studied it but if you look
    in the concordance under "glory" you will notice some verses that
    reference Womans hair. I would "think" that they were to cover their hair
    so that only God's Glory was present in the Sanctuary.
    I will look in the Concordance when I get home and see if I can find
    some verses. 
    I don't believe it was to prevent the angels from being tempted.
    
    Bruce
    
     

Hi Patricia, 

Sounds as if we're in a minority here!  But I agree with you that the Word 
explicitly indicates the significance of angels in this context.  The local
cultural reasons obviously also apply, but the passage is included as
general inspired scripture for all time, and we need specific - and
scriptural - reasons to dismiss it for *our* time, rather than merely
specific additional reasons for observing it at *that* time, and arguing 
that they are the only reasons.

I do not see any reasons in the preceding to move my position from .1 .
Note that I do not believe that the angelic temptation is based solely upon
sexual attraction.  I would see it as likely to be influenced primarily in 
the area of rebellion, as this alternative glory is displayed where God's 
glory is being worshipped.  In that sense I would agree with Bruce.

.1 � To bring temptation or contention of glory - whatever it means in 
.1 � either dimension - into the context of worship is clearly grievious. 
.1 � So - women should cover their beauty as a sign of humility ...


								Andrew