Please Argue with me about Head Coverings

[farouk]

Pretty obvious isn’t it?

Thanks for the thought-provoking comment and comparison, anyway...

 

[Waiting on him]

I guess my thought is that the venerable great-grandmothers of today: in the mid-60s the hems of their skirts were up.

Then after a few years they were down.

Then they were up again.

Then - like the Grand Old Duke of York - they were neither up not down, or both, or whatever.

But this is not an infallible guide to whether the Christians among them were spiritually minded or not....

Lol!!!!

 

[Waiting on him]

Thanks for the thought-provoking comment and comparison, anyway...

Why do you think the nuns cover their heads?

 

[farouk]

That portion doesnt make sense to me, given Samson and Hannah's promise Samuel would never be shaven.

@FluffyYellowDuck Does it really say that about Samuel? I'd missed that.....

 

[Hidden In Him]

Right but you're not just doing it for the sake of it

Fluffy, if this is a word to you, receive it. But about your convictions, some single Christians think of themselves as "married to Christ." This is Biblical in a sense, for even Jesus Himself taught, "some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God."

That said, some single Christians express this by wearing a wedding ring. I see no great harm in wearing a head covering if this is what you wish to express by it. It demonstrates submission to Christ, who is indeed your spiritual Head as an unmarried woman. Granted, it's kind of a play on the original symbolism; I'm just telling you maybe why there might still be a conviction there.

 

[farouk]

Maybe we should invite a Catholic even a Roman one to the party I’ll bet @Marymog could tell you why the nuns cover their heads?

Oh, well, if she did, maybe the thread would multiply pages even faster than now......

 

[Waiting on him]

Oh, well, if she did, maybe the thread would multiply pages even faster than now......

I believe it to only be a sign of submission to headship.

 

[quietthinker]

To my understanding, Paul’s argument on the need for a head covering is based on the principle of theocratic headship, which he stated at 1 Corinthians 11:3: “The head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.” So the head covering becomes necessary for a woman when she is performing some function or duty that normally should be performed by her husband or by a dedicated Christian brother, and that she is performing in a temporary way or due to special circumstances. It shows that she is not usurping his headship.

The important thing is not the head covering in itself, but the heart attitude and proper theocratic conscience of the woman wearing it. She appreciates that this is God’s arrangement, and wears the head covering primarily out of respect for God and His arrangement of things as far as the sexes are concerned. God has assigned the man his role as family head, but this is headship and should not be confused with dictatorship. It only means that he has responsibilities towards his wife and family members under his roof.....it is not a position of power, though some have seen it this way.
In Genesis the woman was created as a "complement" of the man....meaning that the two made up a partnership, neither of which was balanced without the other.

A woman can have a good conscience in this matter only if, besides wearing the head covering at the appropriate time, she has a wholesome respect for the one whose headship is being honored by it.

My 2c worth....

Forcing respect by some outward observance is a suck to me. Let me use an example....when a Sergeant bellows at soldiers in a platoon I loose respect for that man. I have ears, I'm intelligent and if I don't understand I can ask him.....bellowing at me like one possessed to generate respect speaks more to me of one not worthy of it.

If I think outward 'signs', performances or practices are going to impress God or if they flatter my ego, I think the wrong number has been dialled.....it's the same number 'religious' folk dial incessantly.

 

[Waiting on him]

Oh, well, if she did, maybe the thread would multiply pages even faster than now......

I some how doubt Marymog wears a covering.

 

[Taken]

No not all of the time. But "pray unceasingly" and that I do A LOT, means I don't want to go looking for it every 15 minutes and then take it off again.

That part is just practicality

Sure, if you think that applies to you.
I believe I have a NEW COVERING, ie Gods Spirit.

 

[quietthinker]

Does this mean you shouldn't pray while taking a shower and washing your hair?

definitely not while you're on the toilet

 

[farouk]

I some how doubt Marymog wears a covering.

Here I forbear from commentary...

 

[Waiting on him]

Here I forbear from commentary...

You afraid she’d snatch you up by your head covering?

 

[Waiting on him]

Here I forbear from commentary...

I am a bit perplexed by little ducks post concerning Sampson. Not being shaven.

 

[quietthinker]

Think of it as if a wife suddenly stopped wearing her wedding ring and started dressing much more seductively, sort of like testing the waters.

Same thing. Not wearing a head covering back then was essentially "advertising" in the same way. Hence the prohibition.

Lol.....where do you draw the line? or maybe go the whole hog like certain muslims and make their women wear those lovely free flowing black burkha's where even the eyes are covered with a net.....all in the name of modesty. God forbid a bit of female flesh should be seen....its likely I'll loose total control over myself.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Lol.....where do you draw the line? or maybe go the whole hog like certain muslims and make their women wear those lovely free flowing black burkha's where even the eyes are covered with a net.....all in the name of modesty. God forbid a bit of female flesh should be seen....its likely I'll loose total control over myself.

Lol. I was speaking in terms of how they viewed it in New Testament times.

Today would be a different issue, both for what might pass as potential head coverings (Fluffy's were hardly noticeable) and dressing "modestly," as the scripture puts it. Modest in our time would likely be regarded as pretty wild in theirs, but part of that also has to do with the far greater standard of living we enjoy today. The average Christian woman today is far wealthier than her New Testament counterpart, and can afford jewelry few but the rich could afford back then. This effects not only how much jewelry they wear, but how well-dressed they can be on a regular basis.

 

[Rita]

We have had a number of discussion about this on the forum over the years. I still stand by the cultural card that in Paul’s day and age it was relevant and made sense. Fluffy, why did you wear it in the first place ?
We’re you told to, was it something that your church just did and you just followed the rules ?
I have never worn a head covering, never felt any leading to, yet The Lord still called to me, still worked in my life, still saved me and has continued to work in my life. ……….still answered my prayers.
There was a time over here in the U.K., and probably in many cultures when women wore hats to church, and they wore their Sunday best clothes. It was considered respectful culturally.
It gradually changed. I have not grown up in the culture that demanded head coverings.
You know what I find strange, Paul mentions the head covering in connection to prophecy …..yet elsewhere he forbids women to speak in church !

It’s always difficult asking loads of people for opinions with things that we personally have mixed feelings about, it can make it more difficult to find a way forward.

 

[quietthinker]

Lol. I was speaking in terms of how they viewed it in New Testament times.

Today would be a different issue, both for what might pass as potential head coverings (Fluffy's were hardly noticeable) and dressing "modestly," as the scripture puts it. Modest in our time would likely be regarded as pretty wild in theirs, but part of that also has to do with the far greater standard of living we enjoy today. The average Christian woman today is far wealthier than her New Testament counterpart, and can afford jewelry few but the rich could afford back then. This effects not only how much jewelry they wear, but how well-dressed they can be on a regular basis.

It is us humans that have sexual distortions in our minds of every measure imaginable (I don't think the animals have the same obsession).....so we invent just as many distortions either way in an attempt to mitigate or enhance what is out of control.....even using getting married as a means of 'legally' justifying out of control sexual practice seems to me a desperate measure.

Anyway, this is the tip of an iceberg....and I don't want to derail Fluffy's thread.

 

[quietthinker]

yet elsewhere he forbids women to speak in church !

my guess on this is the women being mostly uneducated did what many women do....prattle....Paul had to shut them up somehow.

 

[Rita]

my guess on this is the women being mostly uneducated did what many women do....prattle....Paul had to shut them up somehow.

Lol, that gave me my early morning smile xxxx