Headcoverings for women in church

[Mungo]

Rather than pointless banter do you have anything (of your own) on this subject?

Not to you it would not be productive.

You should know only One is infallible.

I do, but some people on this forum seem to think they are.

 

[Purity]

Not to you it would not be productive.

I take this to mean you have looked at this subject for yourself and come to the same conclusions as your church Father?

Or you have beliefs contrary to those you have posted?

I do, but some people on this forum seem to think they are.

Infallible? Do you know what it means to accuse a person of this?

It means incapable of sin.

From my previous discussions with RCC members they believe Mary and Jesus were incapable of sinning. You believe Jesus is God (who we know cannot even be tempted) and I am not sure where Mary fits in all this, but needless to say your inference of me being unable to sin on one hand places me in good company, but on the other, an impossibility.

Purity

 

[Selene]

Infallible? Do you know what it means to accuse a person of this?

It means incapable of sin.

Impeccable means incapable of sin. Infallible is not the same as impeccable. See dictionary.com on the definition of "impeccable". I provided the weblink for you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Impeccable?s=t&path=/

 

[Mungo]

I take this to mean you have looked at this subject for yourself and come to the same conclusions as your church Father?

Or you have beliefs contrary to those you have posted?



Purity

It means that I think it is not possible to have a sensible discussion with you.

 

[Purity]

It means that I think it is not possible to have a sensible discussion with you.

You "think" or you "know"? :)

Impeccable means incapable of sin. Infallible is not the same as impeccable. See dictionary.com on the definition of "impeccable". I provided the weblink for you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Impeccable?s=t&path=/

Infallible:

in·fal·li·ble (ĭn-făl′ə-bəl)
adj.
1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.

2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.

3. Roman Catholic Church Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.

Erring:

err (ûr, ĕr)

intr.v. erred, err·ing, errs
1. To make an error or a mistake.

2. To violate accepted moral standards; sin.

3. Archaic To stray.

I have placed a few scriptures to see how err is used.

are a people who err in their heart, Ps 95:10 8582

mouth should not err in judgment. Pr 16:10 4603

who err in mind will know the truth, Is 29:24 8582

And yes you are right regarding the word impeccable.

impeccable /ɪmˈpɛkəb(ə)l/

adjective in accordance with the highest standards.

Theology, rare not liable to sin.

—origin 16th century: from Latin impeccabilis, from in- ‘not’ + peccare ‘to sin’.

In summary to accuse one of being impeccable or infallible is to go against scripture. Unless otherwise Mungo says things he doesn't mean?

 

[Selene]

Infallible:

in·fal·li·ble (ĭn-făl′ə-bəl)
adj.
1. Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.

2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.

3. Roman Catholic Church Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.

As you can see from what I placed in BOLD in the dictionary that you provided.....this is the definition that we go by. The dictionary actually gave our own definition of what "infallibility" is according to Roman Catholic teaching, which is why they mention "Roman Catholic Church". So, why are you looking at the rest of the definitions when you should only be looking at one?

Infallibility means that the Pope and the teaching Magisterium cannot make an error in doctrines of faith and morals. All the Apostles had infallibility because they did not make any error in what they were teaching in regards to faith and morals. This power of infallibility was given to them by Christ through the Holy Spirit. It was the infallible Holy Spirit who used fallible human beings like the Apostles to write infallible scripture (which we call the "word of God) and to teach infallibly the faith to the congregation. It is the same with the Pope and the teaching Magisterium. Do you believe that your pastor has the Holy Spirit in him to teach infallibly without error in regards to faith and morals just as the Apostles did? Apparently not.

 

[Poppin]

If I may, Paul's writing might be difficult to understand, but at the end of the day, he is saying...women must cover their heads in the assembly.
Poppin.

 

[Purity]

As you can see from what I placed in BOLD in the dictionary that you provided.....this is the definition that we go by. The dictionary actually gave our own definition of what "infallibility" is according to Roman Catholic teaching, which is why they mention "Roman Catholic Church". So, why are you looking at the rest of the definitions when you should only be looking at one?

You do appreciate there being more than one definition and use of a word? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Infallibility means that the Pope and the teaching Magisterium cannot make an error in doctrines of faith and morals. All the Apostles had infallibility because they did not make any error in what they were teaching in regards to faith and morals. This power of infallibility was given to them by Christ through the Holy Spirit. It was the infallible Holy Spirit who used fallible human beings like the Apostles to write infallible scripture (which we call the "word of God) and to teach infallibly the faith to the congregation. It is the same with the Pope and the teaching Magisterium. Do you believe that your pastor has the Holy Spirit in him to teach infallibly without error in regards to faith and morals just as the Apostles did? Apparently not.

Scripture please....

Would you like to discuss the Apostle Pauls rebuke of Peter? Maybe for another thread?

If I may, Paul's writing might be difficult to understand, but at the end of the day, he is saying...women must cover their heads in the assembly.
Poppin.

You may ;) ...after all it is your OP!

 

[Selene]

You do appreciate there being more than one definition and use of a word? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Not when one is specifically referring to Catholic doctrine.

Scripture please.

Mark 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Would you like to discuss the Apostle Pauls rebuke of Peter? Maybe for another thread?

I already got into a discussion on that topic on this forum board in another thread, so I'll save you the trouble. Here's the weblink:

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/19243-the-apostle-paul-vs-the-apostle-peter/

If I may, Paul's writing might be difficult to understand, but at the end of the day, he is saying...women must cover their heads in the assembly.
Poppin.

I agree. :)

 

[Mungo]

You "think" or you "know"? :)

Think. I'm not infallible.

Unless otherwise Mungo says things he doesn't mean?

It is always possible I say things I do not mean. I'm not infallible and may not always express myself clearly.

However I think I have not done so in this thread.

 

[Wormwood]

Hey everyone,

Let's try to keep the topic on the OP. This discussion should be about the issue of head covering for women and whether you think it should be practiced or not.

 

[Poppin]

Thank you Wormwood.
Here is the passage again (ESV):

1 Corinthians 11
Head Coverings
2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wifea is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5but every wifeb who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.c 11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

NIV:

On Covering the Head in Worship
2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,a and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7A man ought not to cover his head,b since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her ownc head, because of the angels. 11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

---

I realize there is no way to resolve this: "because of the angels"
But it looks pretty important :huh:

 

[Purity]

Over the course of my studies in this subject I realised how little we appreciate and understand the Angels and their role in ministering to the heirs of salvation.

1 Corinthian 11 clearly has Gen 1-3 in view.

The angels created for God and watch over His chosen
Adam was created first
Adam was put in control of creation
Adam was given the Law before Eve was created
Eve was created for Adam, as support to him
Eve usurped Adam’s leadership role
Adam failed to lead in God’s law
The curse reinforced God’s original order
Eve’s creation and supporting role portray the ecclesia’s relationship to Jesus Christ

Compare this to the inspired record in 1 Corinthians 11:

THE APPEAL

1 Cor 11:2 Keep the apostle’s guidelines

REASONS FOR THE APPEAL

1 Cor 11:3-9 Respect God’s principle of headship – in keeping His symbols
1 Cor 11:10 Respect the role given by and the feelings of the angels
1 Cor 11:11-12 See God’s wisdom in co-dependency
1 Cor 11:13-15 What nature should teach us
1 Cor 11:16 We must conform to ecclesial customs and practices across the brotherhood

I would love to see the Christians in this forum speak to the numerous principles in aligning these two passages of Scripture.

Purity

 

[IanLC]

I as a man do not wear a hat into the sanctuary. For I serve in ministry and know not at what moment I could be called on to minister, pray or teach and thus the Apostle Paul outlined that "if a man prays, prophesies, etc with his head covered he dishonors himself" (paraphrased from Corinthians). But that is my personal conviction! I know some Apostolic "Oneness/Jesus Only" Pentecostals that make it mandatory and compulsory for women to wear head coverings and skirts and bans pants for them. I do believe that a woman should not wear things pertaining to a man in the House of God 1. to keep in peace (exp. if in a church that this is the order or custom) 2. modesty 3. exp. if you are serving in ministry or a service in the church. Yet I believe that if a pastor or congregation does not have these rules set in place then where there is no law there is no transgression. So I believe that we must adhere to the Word of God and the customs and rules of the assembly we attend or serve under! My pastor does not require headcoverings because a woman's hair is her covering so I do not believe it is a very important or vital aspect to the Christian faith or Church.

 

[Purity]

My pastor does not require headcoverings because a woman's hair is her covering so I do not believe it is a very important or vital aspect to the Christian faith or Church.

UHC, could you see how the principles expounded in this tread are lost in your congregation? What I mean by lost, is by approaching Christ without man's glory being covered (i.e. The woman's head and her glory being her hair) they are through ignorance, or otherwise, allowing the flesh to glory in His presence 1 Cor 1:29,30. I am sure if your Pastor was taught these vital principles his approach to 1 Cor 11 would change...one would hope.

Purity.

 

[Poppin]

I as a man do not wear a hat into the sanctuary. For I serve in ministry and know not at what moment I could be called on to minister, pray or teach and thus the Apostle Paul outlined that "if a man prays, prophesies, etc with his head covered he dishonors himself" (paraphrased from Corinthians). But that is my personal conviction! I know some Apostolic "Oneness/Jesus Only" Pentecostals that make it mandatory and compulsory for women to wear head coverings and skirts and bans pants for them. I do believe that a woman should not wear things pertaining to a man in the House of God 1. to keep in peace (exp. if in a church that this is the order or custom) 2. modesty 3. exp. if you are serving in ministry or a service in the church. Yet I believe that if a pastor or congregation does not have these rules set in place then where there is no law there is no transgression. So I believe that we must adhere to the Word of God and the customs and rules of the assembly we attend or serve under! My pastor does not require headcoverings because a woman's hair is her covering so I do not believe it is a very important or vital aspect to the Christian faith or Church.

Hello UHCAIan :)
I think "forcing" women to cover their heads (or forcing/enforcing other things, like "giving"); rather than actually teaching/preaching straight from the Word on the matter, allowing the Holy Spirit to convict or lead the people to understand and then do according to their convictions (which if properly taught would eventually align with the Word) is the best way.

When something has been forgotten (like head coverings), it can be a very difficult thing to simply talk about and say - "now you must DO this". Like all others things we learn as we go, some sooner, some later...I myself gave no thought whatsoever to headcoverings since the practice is forgotten.

But the subject interested me personally when i came across it. I had asked my pastor during my confirmation why women no longer covered their heads - he looked a little sad and said "it used to be a sign that one was a decent woman". So i decided to look into it. It took several weeks of serious study both of the history in Scripture itself; along with simply looking at the practice in the East!

I took the passage apart and examined all the arguments for and against and had the "aha" moment that indeed, Paul is saying women must cover their heads.

This was alarming initially...what to make of the fact that it is rarely done in the West (even falling out of practice in the RC church)? Had I come to the understanding a few years earlier, my (im)maturity level (I can't really know) might have led me to make a production out of it somehow at my own church, or with others. But I realized it is something each one (man and wife) must be shown for themselves to be the Will of God, otherwise they are being "forced" to "do" something they may not understand. This never works. So I don't talk about it.

And admittedly because no one else covered their heads at my church I was intimidated to suddenly start doing it (group think/peer pressure - and the question - had i really understood the passage?). So for awhile I did not cover my head. But too late - the understanding was there now and so was the conviction (even though I am a widow and not remarried). Fortunately I sit at the back of the congregation. So the day came (I always wear a light scarf around my neck anyway), I discretely pulled the scarf up over my hair as we prayed and made confession of our faith. I doubt anyone even noticed. And so it is to this day. If I am ever asked about it (I doubt I will be), I'll simply say I believe it was always purposed, and I choose to do it.
I in no way will make any issue of it for anyone else....
Poppin

 

[Mungo]

When my wife and I went to Jerusalem a few years ago we went to visit the Western Wall. When I went forward to pray at the wall I was offered a paper "kippah" to cover my head. All the men had their head covered. But there seemed to be no such requirement for a women. Some did have a hair covered some did not.

So it there was no requirement for a woman, and it was a requirement for a man to pray with his head covered, it seems strange that Paul should have required it the other way round. Perhaps was something going on in Corinth that made Paul write as he did.

 

[Poppin]

When my wife and I went to Jerusalem a few years ago we went to visit the Western Wall. When I went forward to pray at the wall I was offered a paper "kippah" to cover my head. All the men had their head covered. But there seemed to be no such requirement for a women. Some did have a hair covered some did not.

So it there was no requirement for a woman, and it was a requirement for a man to pray with his head covered, it seems strange that Paul should have required it the other way round. Perhaps was something going on in Corinth that made Paul write as he did.

Greetings Mungo,
One might venture to say that Judaism (including the veneration of the Roman wall) is a false religion, and is younger than Christianity.
Perhaps that is why the disparity.
The practice of men covering their heads comes from the Talmud (Oral Traditions):

"The Tanakh (books of the Prophets and Writings) contains few references to head coverings, and nowhere does it suggest the modern practice. In Exodus 28:4, for instance, a head covering is listed as part of the priestly vestments, and in II Samuel 15:30 the covering of one's head and face is regarded as a sign of mourning. The kippah does, however, have some basis in Talmudic literature, where it is associated with reverence for God. In Kiddushin 31a, for example, R. Honah ben Joshua declares that he "never walked four cubits with his head uncovered . . . Because the Divine Presence is always over my head." In like manner, tractate Shabbat 156b states, "Cover your head in order that the fear of heaven may be upon you"; and in Berachot 60b, it is written, "When he spreads a cloth upon his head he should say: Blessed are you (God) . . . Who crowns Israel with splendor."
http://www.jewishmag.com/122mag/kippa%5Ckippa.htm

Poppin

 

[IanLC]

UHC, could you see how the principles expounded in this tread are lost in your congregation? What I mean by lost, is by approaching Christ without man's glory being covered (i.e. The woman's head and her glory being her hair) they are through ignorance, or otherwise, allowing the flesh to glory in His presence 1 Cor 1:29,30. I am sure if your Pastor was taught these vital principles his approach to 1 Cor 11 would change...one would hope.

Purity.

I do not understand what you are saying could you expound are explain a little more. Because what I am interpreting is that you are stating that my church and the believers that worship there are ignorant or prideful and fleshy? And also saying that my pastor is not teaching the scriptures of Christ? Before I react or address the situation I want to see if I have the correct interpretation of your statements first.

Hello UHCAIan :)
I think "forcing" women to cover their heads (or forcing/enforcing other things, like "giving"); rather than actually teaching/preaching straight from the Word on the matter, allowing the Holy Spirit to convict or lead the people to understand and then do according to their convictions (which if properly taught would eventually align with the Word) is the best way.

When something has been forgotten (like head coverings), it can be a very difficult thing to simply talk about and say - "now you must DO this". Like all others things we learn as we go, some sooner, some later...I myself gave no thought whatsoever to headcoverings since the practice is forgotten.

But the subject interested me personally when i came across it. I had asked my pastor during my confirmation why women no longer covered their heads - he looked a little sad and said "it used to be a sign that one was a decent woman". So i decided to look into it. It took several weeks of serious study both of the history in Scripture itself; along with simply looking at the practice in the East!

I took the passage apart and examined all the arguments for and against and had the "aha" moment that indeed, Paul is saying women must cover their heads.

This was alarming initially...what to make of the fact that it is rarely done in the West (even falling out of practice in the RC church)? Had I come to the understanding a few years earlier, my (im)maturity level (I can't really know) might have led me to make a production out of it somehow at my own church, or with others. But I realized it is something each one (man and wife) must be shown for themselves to be the Will of God, otherwise they are being "forced" to "do" something they may not understand. This never works. So I don't talk about it.

And admittedly because no one else covered their heads at my church I was intimidated to suddenly start doing it (group think/peer pressure - and the question - had i really understood the passage?). So for awhile I did not cover my head. But too late - the understanding was there now and so was the conviction (even though I am a widow and not remarried). Fortunately I sit at the back of the congregation. So the day came (I always wear a light scarf around my neck anyway), I discretely pulled the scarf up over my hair as we prayed and made confession of our faith. I doubt anyone even noticed. And so it is to this day. If I am ever asked about it (I doubt I will be), I'll simply say I believe it was always purposed, and I choose to do it.
I in no way will make any issue of it for anyone else....
Poppin

At one time I did believe that a woman should cover her head but the Apostle Paul states that a woman's hair is her covering and her glory. The true spirit of the text is to show that there must be a distinction between those of the household of Faith and those of the world and that in all things decency and order must be at the forefront! Modesty is something that is lacking in many churches today! If a woman has a headcovering or not has no bearing on her salvation or service unto the Lord. Its a minor issue that is not as I have stated vital or dire to the gospel of Jesus Christ or the mission of the Church! I respect your convictions and am inspired by your submission to the Holy Spirit prompting you to make that choice! According to each man's faith so be it unto him!

 

[Poppin]

At one time I did believe that a woman should cover her head but the Apostle Paul states that a woman's hair is her covering and her glory. The true spirit of the text is to show that there must be a distinction between those of the household of Faith and those of the world and that in all things decency and order must be at the forefront! Modesty is something that is lacking in many churches today! If a woman has a headcovering or not has no bearing on her salvation or service unto the Lord. Its a minor issue that is not as I have stated vital or dire to the gospel of Jesus Christ or the mission of the Church! I respect your convictions and am inspired by your submission to the Holy Spirit prompting you to make that choice! According to each man's faith so be it unto him!

Amen :)