Is it ok for a man to pray while wearing a head covering? Paul told the Corinthians it was NOT ok.

[Always Believing]

Why is this unimportant issue concerning dress 2,000 years ago still being discussed?

If you were reading, then you would see some Christians today use it to impose head-wraps on women in church, and condemn those that don't. So it's still pretty up to date, just like some Christians that still command Sabbath days, and condemn others that don't, 2000 years after such holy days were abolished with the law of Moses.

Also, it's not about dress with Paul, but about an ordinance of Christ in length of hair, which still pertains today.

So, the fact that you don't care about such things is a blessing in not being wrapped up in artificial head-wraps, but is foolishness in thinking some ordinances of Christ are outdated.

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

 

[Ziggy]

Thank you for the reference to length of hair commanded by God. He also says lepers should shave their heads, as well as accused adulteresses.

In the adulteress case, it is called uncovering her head. Which proves it is the rule of God, that Paul confirms, not the tradition of men.

1. In the OT, cutting the hair is uncovering the head.
2. In the OT, It is for lepers, adulteresses, and newly captive slaves.

2. In the NT, if a woman does cuts her hair short, let her shave it as an adulteress, a leper, or a captured foreign slave.

it has nothing to do with Corinthian pagan temple prostitutes. Not only does God not make His commandments out of traditions of men, He doesn't even equate disobedience to Him with their personal shamefulness.


True. The Spirit of God wants to see His daughters with long enough hair to cover their heads, so that they don't appear like a man, which is confusing to any child. Including men that appear like women with long hair.

And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

It's not just physically confusing, but spiritually also. Really confusing.


You go too far by adding cover to sanctified. The sanctification is only physical in providing for the household. It does not mean the unbeliever is 'covered' and honored by God, as the woman with long hair. No unbeliever is spiritually sanctified and covered in the glory of Christ.

To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.




Captured women of war, sure. Not free daughters of Israel and honorable wives of Israelite men.



There are plenty of false prophetesses, such as Jezebel rebuked by Jesus.


All false prophesy is shameful, whether by man or woman.


See above. Physically sanctified and protected against a wicked world, not spiritually covered in Christ's glory.


Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?


True.



True.


True. Same as her long hair is her glory, not the man's.



You've inserted your own teaching.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Men and women dishonors their own physical head, as well as Christ and God, by disobeying the new ordinance for God's people: Women keep their hair long, and men keep it cut short.



Tell that to Deborah. And if she was married, which we are not told, then it certainly does not include Anna.


But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Your comparison between headship and covering is unique, but doesn't work. Heads don't cover heads. Heads are over the body. Christ is head of the body of the church, and man is head of the body of the woman, and woman has power from God over her own head to have long hair.

No man ought intrude into that.




True, and she was not dishonoring her head at the time, because God had no ordinance at the time condemning it.

Same for the Nazarite man with hair grown long. God does not command any one to sin against His own word. The ordinance for women's long hair, and men's short hair is not until Christ over His church.



Once again. Scripture doesn't say that. She is only to shave her head, etc...while he has her body in his power. He can still make a decision whether to make it for life in marriage or not.

And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

It's not about the strange woman captive being made a daughter of Israel by such carnal submission. She must believe for herself to be made the circumcision of God.

This is partly true. His first references only speaks of that which hides the head, which darkness can do. It is not until he specifically gives the ordinance for women to cover their heads with their hair, that the word cover is for man-made wraps.

The old tradition of pagans and Jews requiring such carnal wraps on women's heads, is finally done away with to preserve the purity of the newborn churches of God, from such old pagan and Jewish foolishness.

Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.


It is a physical rule and ordinance for the churches pertaining to hair length. The spiritual part is the same for keeping all commandments of the Lord: Obedience from the heart and sanctification in the Spirit.

All ordinances of God are spiritual in nature, because they are kept first with spiritual purity from the heart. Men's traditions and ordinances are not spiritual in nature, but only require outward obedience.

Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

The power on the head of the woman with long hair, is not just about the hair itself, but is her obedience to Christ and His physical rule in the churches. It was the same with the Nazarite with long hair. The Lord left Samson for disobeying Him. The cut hair was only a the evidence of inward rebellion.

In this way, it's the same for men with women's hair, and women with men's hair: it's not just length of hair, but obedience of heart, and love and fellowship in the Spirit.

Babes in Christ may have long or short hair, but in time it's a matter of obedience to the written word.

1Sa 16:7
But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

1Pe 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1Pe 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1Pe 3:3
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1Pe 3:4
But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
1Pe 3:5
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1Pe 3:6
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Hugs

 

[Always Believing]

1Sa 16:7
But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

1Pe 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1Pe 3:2
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1Pe 3:3
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1Pe 3:4
But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
1Pe 3:5
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1Pe 3:6
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Hugs

True. No one is honored by God for a piece of man-made clothing they wear. Other than being clothed modestly in public of course.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

In the adulteress case, it is called uncovering her head. Which proves it is the rule of God, that Paul confirms, not the tradition of men.

1. In the OT, cutting the hair is uncovering the head.
2. In the OT, It is for lepers, adulteresses, and newly captive slaves.

2. In the NT, if a woman does cuts her hair short, let her shave it as an adulteress, a leper, or a captured foreign slave.

it has nothing to do with Corinthian pagan temple prostitutes. Not only does God not make His commandments out of traditions of men, He doesn't even equate disobedience to Him with their personal shamefulness.

There is nothing in the OT about shaving a woman's head. The only reference is about a woman taken in captivity that a Jewish man desires to marry. She is to cur her nails and shave her head. But it gives no reason for this law. Just says it is a law.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I showed you proof. You spit it out. Okay. Did you taste it first?

Yes I did. I do not take human reasoning to define Scripture. I let Scripture define Scripture and that is what you did to try to show it was axiomatic. I am sorry, if you want to redefine a simple clear teaching of Scripture with another definition you need proof and not just posit a different meaning.

You assume that background information is essential. I don't assume that because Paul gives us all the background information we need in order to follow his argument. In my view, you have decided that Paul's statements concerning the background are dictums instead.

That is because they are! He presents His arguments as clear priniciples to show his points an d why the apostles ordered such covering for church.

There are many reasons to reject self-evident truth. God proved himself 10 times in the wilderness to Israel, and yet, they still didn't believe him or trust him.

Just as you don't in this passage.

What I do is reason from the scriptures when the author, in this case, Paul, offers an argument from reason. I assumed nothing. Apparently, you don't see or understand that Paul is making an argument. Right? Just a series of unconnected random statements?

No, He is making a cogent sound argument for his dictate for women to wear a man made head covering.

I have showed you Pauls argument.

1. I showed Paul used 2 separate words for covering to distinguish between hair and a man made covering.
2. I showed you that woman is subordinate to man and made for man by Paul.
3. One reason why woman should have authority on their head (covering ) because of the angels.
4. and Paul even cites natural law instituted by God (hair as a covering for women)

I suspect your rejection of this is because of the curse in Gen. 3 than any sound teaching of Scripture which does not defend your position.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

A sure sign of a failed argument, is turning fair challenges into something utterly ridiculous.

That is childish. YOu made a claim. I asked for the proof to support your claim. I assume then you have no proof, just your say so?

Head-wraps themselves in church are not pagan in nature, and should not be forbidden in any church.

NOw you are sounding like me.

However, the tradition of head-wraps for godly honor, began among pagans and Jews, that God never said.

Again you throw out this claim and once again I am asking for proof it is so.

And so, to then make that religious tradition of head-wraps into religious ordinance for churches of God, is to slip pagan and Jewish religion into the body of Christ.

Paul didn't think so. He didn't cite pagan practices (which you haven't either). He made his argument from order of creation and symbol of respect. Once again you are accusing Paul of practicing paganism.

Your problem is your pride in your head-wraps. It won't allow you to see the difference between a personal choice of any believer, and an ordinance of Christ for all His believers.

If you knew me in the least, you would realize how completely foolish you sound here! there are tons of areas where believers have personal choice. Paul made it clear this is not one of those areas. I think it is more your pride in wanting to follow passing fads and whims instead of taking god at His Word.

You can wear two or three head-wraps in our church, and no one would care, except for the oddity of it. Just don't command others to bow down to your pagan head-wrap tradition.

.As I am not an apostle or pastror over teh churches I do not make commands. I simply report what Scripture says as written.

Head-wraps are personal choice with no harm nor foul. Head-Wrap commandment is destructive division in the body of Christ, along with Sabbath day keeping and outward circumcision.

Well show where Paul makes it a personal choice. and please do not use the verse in chapter 11:
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Paul is using rhetoric here and the answer is yes it is a shame for a woman to pray without a man made head covering as Paul said repeatedly in this passage

The ordinance made by Christ for His churches, is women to have long hair, and men to have short hair. And He once-for-all rebuked the old tradition of pagan and Jewish religious head-wraps in the process. Head-wraps never justifies the people of the true God with His honor.

And it isn't about justification, but honor and respect!

You keep a pagan tradition alive by your commandment of it, the same way Judaizers try to keep a dead law alive in circumcision and Sabbath day keeping. (At least those things were once commandment of God. Head-wraps weren't even bothered with at all, until Paul dismissed them out of hand.)

Lying is way beneath you. I seek to keep an ordinance Paul and the Apostled issued to all teh churches of God. Why are you so intent to disavow it?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes I did. I do not take human reasoning to define Scripture. I let Scripture define Scripture and that is what you did to try to show it was axiomatic.

We are stuck with the efficiency of language. We must bear in mind that an epistle is written to a specific group of people with whom Paul has already developed a relationship. As such, he and the Corinthian share experiences and information in common, which are not repeated in the epistle. For the sake of efficiency, Paul would not repeat facts and information he is certain they already know. It's a waste of time to be repetitious unless something needs to be emphasized.

He tells you his concern right up front: instructions that he already previously gave them. But since his last visit, something new has come up, which needs his attention. That's why he says, "I want you to understand . . . bla, bla, bla.

I don't believe you when you say that you are using scripture to interpret scripture, because such a thing is impossible. Whatever you are doing it isn't THAT. Scripture doesn't interpret scripture. We employ ordinary reading skills, finely honed with practice, in order to seek what the author originally intended to convey. I say "finely honed" because the practice of Bible interpretation is subject to pitfalls, which can be hard to spot.

For instance, you and I are reading the scriptures and when we read the scriptures, we bring our biases and our presuppositions with us. Interpreting the scriptures is a discipline that seeks to remove or set aside our biases and preunderstanding in order to find what Paul or any other Biblical writer is trying to tell us.

The correct interpretation of any passage will be able to answer the most fundamental questions, "Why did Paul bring this up? Why did he spend the time to write a letter? What couldn't wait until the next time he visited the church? Why didn't he bring this up when he was there last?

I am sorry, if you want to redefine a simple clear teaching of Scripture with another definition you need proof and not just posit a different meaning.

I gave you proof. You ignored it. It's a matter of addressing the fundamental questions.

That is because they are! He presents His arguments as clear priniciples to show his points and why the apostles ordered such covering for church.

Perhaps you didn't notice that there are NO imperatives in the chapter. All we have are a list of facts concerning headship and the nature of women and an allusion to a previous instruction concerning head covering.

Paul tells his readers that he gave the Corinthian church instructions; he praises them for keeping some of the instructions and does not praise them for the others. He NEVER explicitly says what the instructions were. All we can do is deduce what the instruction might have been, which involved guidance as to what a man should do with his head covering during prayer and prophecy.

He doesn't tell the men to remove the head covering. He simply states the significance of not doing so. If a man should fail to remove his head covering, he will disgrace his head. This simply answers to the question, "why is it important?"

Paul never explicitly says, "I require that men remove the head covering during prayer or prophesying." Such a command is absent from the passage. Take a look; it is not included in the text. Rather, he makes a reference back to a tradition he already gave them. ". . . just as I delivered them to you. -- past tense. We can't know, for certain, what instructions he gave them.

NEXT, (and this is a bit you seem to ignore) he begins an entirely new thought with the phrase, "But now I want you to understand . . .", which strongly implies that he is giving them new information, which he didn't previously share. He wants to give them a new bit of knowledge that he never gave them before. NOW, he says, I want you to understand . . . (what follows.)

WHAT FOLLOWS?
The Apostle describes the hierarchical relationship between authority figures. In brief, Paul defines headship then he states the problem in terms of that definition and remember, he hasn't mentioned this to the Corinthians before. The same behavior has two different implications depending on whether it is performed by a man or a women. If a man wears the head covering he disgraces his head, but if a woman removes the head covering she disgraces her head.

"But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head . . ."

The question is, why didn't he mention this before? Why is this new information? Think about it, if women were forbidden to pray or prophesy in Church, this wouldn't be a problem would it? Second, if women were ALREADY praying and prophesying in Church while Paul was present, he would have told the woman what to do when he was there last.

THIS is a NEW problem that arose AFTER Paul left. Understand? He tells his readers that he is giving them NEW instructions saying "But I want you to understand . . ."

Notice also that Paul isn't commanding women to do anything at all. He is attempting to illicit a behavior from the Corinthians through persuasive speech. He wants them to reason it out and act voluntarily based on information he supplies.

Let me say it another way. Verse 4 is the New Information. Verse 5 is a restatement of the New problem in terms of the hierarchy of leadership. Verse 4 tells the women that her husband is her "head", and the women are telling Paul, "But if we remove our head covering, we will dishonor our head." THAT is the problem they want Paul to solve. And why is it a problem? Because when Paul was present with them, he gave them instructions concerning the men; but didn't give them instructions concerning the women.

No, He is making a cogent sound argument for his dictate for women to wear a man made head covering.

If this is so, the problem is, he never dictates. All he does is spell out the significance of actions such they be performed.

I have showed you Pauls argument.

1. I showed Paul used 2 separate words for covering to distinguish between hair and a man made covering.
2. I showed you that woman is subordinate to man and made for man by Paul.
3. One reason why woman should have authority on their head (covering ) because of the angels.
4. and Paul even cites natural law instituted by God (hair as a covering for women)

I suspect your rejection of this is because of the curse in Gen. 3 than any sound teaching of Scripture which does not defend your position.

I wouldn't say that Paul is drawing a distinction between hair and a man-made covering.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

We are stuck with the efficiency of language. We must bear in mind that an epistle is written to a specific group of people with whom Paul has already developed a relationship. As such, he and the Corinthian share experiences and information in common, which are not repeated in the epistle. For the sake of efficiency, Paul would not repeat facts and information he is certain they already know. It's a waste of time to be repetitious unless something needs to be emphasized.

So are you suggesting we can simply ignore the ep[istles because they were to written to us specifically?

I don't believe you when you say that you are using scripture to interpret scripture, because such a thing is impossible. Whatever you are doing it isn't THAT. Scripture doesn't interpret scripture. We employ ordinary reading skills, finely honed with practice, in order to seek what the author originally intended to convey. I say "finely honed" because the practice of Bible interpretation is subject to pitfalls, which can be hard to spot.

That is your problem. So maybe you are not spotting your own pitfalls.

Let me say it another way. Verse 4 is the New Information. Verse 5 is a restatement of the New problem in terms of the hierarchy of leadership. Verse 4 tells the women that her husband is her "head", and the women are telling Paul, "But if we remove our head covering, we will dishonor our head." THAT is the problem they want Paul to solve. And why is it a problem? Because when Paul was present with them, he gave them instructions concerning the men; but didn't give them instructions concerning the women.

Well it is a good thing you were there to know what Paul did or did not address.

I wouldn't say that Paul is drawing a distinction between hair and a man-made covering.

That is because you do not wish to do the work.

YOu are making Paul this linguistic scholar superb and knowledgeable of all the finer points and nuances of argument.. but this dictum comes from God and not Paul.

 

[Always Believing]

There is nothing in the OT about shaving a woman's head. She is to cut her nails and shave her head.

Try again. The second statement is OT scripture, that contradicts the first statement rejecting OT Scripture.

But it gives no reason for this law. Just says it is a law.

True. It shows Paul ws referring to the shame of women with shorn hair, as being just as bad as lepers, accused adulteresses, and captive slave women, who must shave their heads by OT law.

He was so far from appealing to any pagan and Jewish tradition, in order to make a new commandment of God out of it, that he didn't even use the shamefulness of such traditions as examples. He was not comparing shorn and shaved heads of women to pagan temple prostitutes, but to the OT law.

He used the shamefulness of God's own law about having shorn hair and shaved heads of women.

God has nothing to do with traditions of men made up for themselves to try and honor God with, much less take their lead and put it into His own law.

God's law, commandments, and prophecy are according to His own will, not the will of men.

 

[Always Believing]

The conclusion of the matter is simple. Other than the priest's garb of the OT, foreshadowing being clothed with Christ, there is no man-made garment nor piece of garment, that makes any person on earth more honorable, godly, nor drawn closer to God.

Other than being dressed modestly in public, someone might as well cover their head with a pair of old underwear, if they think artificial head-wraps pleases God.

Afterall, so long as it covers the head, right? Right.

A carnal ordinance Christianized from pagan tradition, by carnal minded Christians, is no more accepted of God, than any tradition of man.

 

[Always Believing]

Again you throw out this claim and once again I am asking for proof it is so.

Already have. Let's try it this way:

Did pagan women wear man-made head covers to honor of their gods? When?

Did Jewish women do so in honor to the God of Israel? When?

Did God ever say to do so to any woman on earth beforehand?

 

[Always Believing]

Paul didn't think so. He didn't cite pagan practices (which you haven't either). He made his argument from order of creation and symbol of respect.

And so, you turn from any tradition of man-made covers as any source for your teaching on covering the head or not. You now trust solely upon Scriptural order of nature alone:

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Both men and women are here included in what nature teaches us. And it only speaks of hair length: By order of God's creation, Long hair is a shame on men, and long hair is the glory of women.

By distancing yourself from any old pagan and Jewish custom for covering the head, you must therefore also move away from any man-made hair covering for covering the head.

Why? Because what nature teaches in Scripture only pertains to length of hair, and says nothing about artificial head covers.

You show here the only way to teach head covering and uncovering by nature, is with hair only. By Scripture you can only appeal for man-made covers, by appealing to man-made tradition, and not Scriptural order of creation of God.

Once again, just to be clear, when you try to claim justification for your teaching about covering or uncovering the head, by turning solely to God's order of nature as written in Scripture, and not tradition of men, then you can only speak of hair length, not of man-made objects. Otherwise, you change the Scriptural teaching about order of creation of God, and make your own natural order apart from God.

By appealing solely to God's natural order of covering the head, you've brilliantly stumbled into ruling out any argument for man-made head covers.

Conclusion: If we are to teach about Christ's new ordinance for His churches in matter of covering or uncovering the head, solely through God's Scripture on natural law, and not by old pagan and Jewish tradition, then we must conclude it only has to do with length of hair, and nothing to do with man-made head scarfs, wraps, hats, etc...

Beautiful. Thanks much. I give honor where honor is due.

 

[Jim B]

Why on earth is something so trivial being discussed over and over? This is post #193 about this trivial point of "law". God looks at the heart, not the head covering or lack of it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

He was so far from appealing to any pagan and Jewish tradition, in order to make a new commandment of God out of it, that he didn't even use the shamefulness of such traditions as examples. He was not comparing shorn and shaved heads of women to pagan temple prostitutes, but to the OT law.

If you could only understand what you write! This has been my position from the beginning,

 

[Space_Karen]

Ever notice how some take their hats off for the national anthem?

Perhaps Paul's words are more deeply embedded in our culture and society than we realize?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And so, you turn from any tradition of man-made covers as any source for your teaching on covering the head or not. You now trust solely upon Scriptural order of nature alone:

Once again you have twisted my words. We have beat this enough! Time to end it.

Coverings are a trivial manner. Not doing so will not cause a church to lose the Holy Spirit or indiviuals to be taken out back of the woodshed by God. It is a question of obedience and honor.

But the issue I have spent the most time arguing here is your calluos lack of respect for Scripture as written to adopt modern cultural flings.

Have the last word. I will not respond again.

 

[Always Believing]

Coverings are a trivial manner. Not doing so will not cause a church to lose the Holy Spirit or indiviuals to be taken out back of the woodshed by God. It is a question of obedience and honor.

Beautiful. I was waiting for you to go lukewarm on your own 'commandment'. So, to you, the commandments of the Lord are trivial, and disobedience and dishonoring God has nothing to do with having the Holy Spirit. Spoken like a true OSAS 'warrior' of mush.

You simply show your personal commandment for the churches is nothing worth getting excited over, because it's just trivial in nature.

It proves you don't have any respect for your own phony commandment. There is no honor, integrity, nor godly character in it. It's just trivial rubbish.

But the issue I have spent the most time arguing here is your calluos lack of respect for Scripture as written to adopt modern cultural flings.

I no longer accuse you of it. I totally agree with your stand on natural rule of God, that pertains to hair, and has nothing to do with man-made head coverings.

Have the last word. I will not respond again.

I.e. bail time.

And I agree. I've gotten enough from you to know the errors, but best of all the proof that God only refers to hair length, when honoring Him with head covering or uncovering.

Conclusion in the matter of covering and uncovering the head: Unless we want to bring in old pagan and Jewish tradition of man-made coverings, to appeal to for new commandment of God, then we must only trust in Scriptural rule of natural law. The new ordinance of Christ, therefore, only pertains to long hair given for women, and short hair for men, that they may both honor God and their own heads.

Also, we see that the great genuflecting of phony female head-scarf 'stands' for God, is used to avoid preaching the written rule of Christ. It is specifically done so in order to please people, that get offended by ordinances of Christ for His churches.

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Head-scarfs commanded to women are Christianized placebos of wilful humility, that bring no honor to God nor man.

The head-wrap posers of honor are more willing to keep their daughters and women captive to pagan and Jewish carnal tradition of artificial head covers, rather than teach the written admonition about length of hair.

Apparently certain church-women with butch haircuts don't mind donning a head scarf or spare pair of underwear from time to time, so long as they can keep their butch haircuts. And overgrown church-hippies can just tie there long locks back into cute little ponytails for church service, so long as they don't have to cut it like a man.

 

[Always Believing]

Ever notice how some take their hats off for the national anthem?

Perhaps Paul's words are more deeply embedded in our culture and society than we realize?

The Christian tradition is in play, not Christ's ordinance.

The real notice is these boys becoming young men with men's haircuts.

I wouldn't openly disrespect the tradition like radical loser activists, but neither did I ever remove my battle helmet when praying in a firefight. I removed my helmet in field chaplain services only.

 

[Always Believing]

Once again. There is no man-made item worn nor unworn by men and women, that makes us any holier, godly, or honorable in sight of God.

Other than the admonition to dress modestly in public.

Soldiers in foxholes praying with helmets on, nor even football players on the line, is not dishonoring God.

Women praying without scarfs or underwear on their heads does not dishonor God.

Preaching pagan and Jewish carnal tradition to Christian daughters and women, is indoctrinating them with phony carnal godliness, and subverting true righteousness and holiness in the Spirit of Christ.

 

[Always Believing]

If you could only understand what you write! This has been my position from the beginning,

Yes, I see that now. And thanks for clearing it up, and showing we can only teach from Scriptural natural rule of God.

Length of hair is the only issue, not man-made coverings of old pagan and Jewish tradition.