How come women do not cover their heads in Church anymore?

[Elizabeth619]

Gen 38:15 When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.

The Question of Dress and Hairstyles

Covering the face is different from covering the head.

REally great read! thanks for posting that.

 

[zone]

Gen 38:15 When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.

The Question of Dress and Hairstyles

Covering the face is different from covering the head.

"Since customs have changed and hairstyles no longer mean what they did in the societies of Paul's time, his specific instructions are no longer relevant to modern Christians. However, the principle behind these instructions, of being sensitive to what message our dress codes and styles convey to others, still holds."

couldn't disagree more.
that's not what it is about, at all.

 

[zone]

Bible: "As concerning the gospel, they (the Jews during the Christian era) are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election (God’s selection or divine choice), they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.” Rom 11:28-29

Forum: “Oh, those verses can’t be believed as written, the Jews of the Christian era cannot be saved unless they accept Jesus as their Messiah.”

Therapon quoting Scripture: ”Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”

Therapon teaching Christ-less antigospel and antisemitic Dual Covenant Theology.
and claiming it is Bible.

and quoting Christ's condemnation of the jews who rejected Him and were cut for so doing so...to 'prove' his point.

so what else is new?

i'm going to your thread to ask some questions Therapon.

concerning this:

That is not correct. It is true that Jer 41:5 and 52 :20 places the abolution of sacrifices in the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, 583 B.C, three years after the Temple was destroyed, but the 70th week does not begin with the abolition of sacrifices, it starts in 536 B.C, in the first year of Darius, who gave the first decree of the Medo-Persians allowing the Jews to return to the holy land.

The 70th week ends in 1948 A.D. when the Jews were back in their homeland for the final time. You are correct, the middle of the 70th "week" is exactly 706 A.D., but when God uses such an imprecise word as a "week" as the descriptor of 2520 Hebrew years (2484 solar years), 688 A.D, is still in the "middle of the week."

please just link to the thread you wish to discuss this on.

 

[savedNblessed]

Who says that women do not cover their heads anymore?In last 1000years as one Church is splited on two,on one side Church has been changed in many ways and on the other side still exist Church in the same original way,unchanged and same in all times.
So,women still cover their heads.

Well I haven't seen any in the churches I've been to in New York and Texas. Yes women used to cover them (including me) back home in India but not in the US.

 

[savedNblessed]

If it wasn't a custom then Paul would not have referred to it as a custom.
Paul also says "judge for yourselves"
If God required women to wear a covering which still applies today then Paul would not say to Judge for ourselves. God doesn't tell us to "judge for ourselves" what is a sin or not. If it is wrong it plainly says it is wrong.

It is up to our judgement if we are to wear one or not. It is not a command. Not wearing one is not an abomination.

Well my part was to bring it to your attention (which I did). Rest is between you and God, dear

 

[savedNblessed]

Who says that women do not cover their heads anymore?In last 1000years as one Church is splited on two,on one side Church has been changed in many ways and on the other side still exist Church in the same original way,unchanged and same in all times.
So,women still cover their heads.

Let me correct myself, women used to and STILL cover their heads in India. But it should be Christian women every where around the globe, not just few countries, you know?!

 

[Tonydisciple]

its not a biblical practice, you must read Corinthians 11 and you will find it is talking about her natural hair

 

[savedNblessed]

Another reason why I believe the covering was actually meant for a specific time. I don't know your views on spiritual gifts, but isn't prophecying a spiritual gift? We are told they will cease.

I cant type or spell today, sorry.

What about praying?

 

[savedNblessed]

its not a biblical practice, you must read Corinthians 11 and you will find it is talking about her natural hair

If it's not Biblical practice why women in generations before us practiced it worldwide?

 

[jgrig2]

So we aren't suppose to take those verses in it's literal meaning? Because I have always understood that head coverings for women are a sign of submission - if they are unmarried then to Christ and if they are married then to their husband.

Well, the question isn't about whether we ought to be taking the Bible literally or not; we ought to read the Bible 1. In the context of all of Scripture, 2. In the context of the Canon (OT and NT), 3. The genre of writing, 4. The context in which the original writing was received. It would be wise in some cases and foolishness in others to presume that we (as individuals or the church gathered together for worship) ought to directly put us in the text.

First, let me say I am an American by birth and a Quebecker by Choice. I have lived in two relatively different cultures. Because of this, how we read the texts will be slightly different. India traditionally has a much more traditional understanding of authority and hierachy and the notion of preordained rules (from such things as gender, social class, and economics). This is what we were traditionally taught, please correct me if I am misrepresenting your culture.

The United States, in contrast, was historically founded on much more liberal and egalitarian values. This is why the argument for gay marriage has gained so strongly. This is not to say the country has always been true to its roots, but generally over time it has pushed for individual right and egalitarianism.

In my mind women wearing head garments are not Biblically obligatory. But I am not an egalatarian. I believe the NT forbids women from governing the Church and from being the regular Bible teacher/preacher in the context of Christian Worship. Am I being inconsistent? I do not believe so. When Paul says that, this was because many women were abusing his own concept of Christian equality (Gal. 3:28) and ignoring the creational difference we have on earth. The context in which men and women are completely unequivocally equal is in the manner of justification (being reconciled and forgiven by God). Not sanctification (the living out of the Christian life). In the Greco-Women world, women still had traditional gender roles in society. And this was extended to clothes and head coverings. In a misapplication of their Christian freedom, they hurt the name in Christ and were willing to cause social chaos. Christians were seen as insane not for their belief in the foolishness of the cross, but having a chaotic social order. This is why Paul using apostlic authority to command them to wear them so that may live peacefully amoung all persons. Paul wanted it to be clear that Christians believed that God had instituted gender roles from creation and that the world would see it in practice.

In our context, how we show the creational difference (though let me be clear: difference doesn't mean different in value or worth but in the context of the home and the church) is logically different. In Civil society it makes no sense for women to wear head coverings (though in the NT that would have been what Paul was commanding literally to the readers of his epistle). In the Church and family, how today we show it? Well some don't. They call themselves Christian egalitarians or feminists. I disagree with my brothers and sisters on this subject even though I love and respect many. But the majority do who profess belief in the authority of the Scriptures. Each church and family will handle it differently.

If your curious about this subject there is an excellent organisation that is devoted to thinking and publishing (mostly all for free) about this subject called Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (cbmw).

I hope I was of some help.

 

[savedNblessed]

Well, the question isn't about whether we ought to be taking the Bible literally or not; we ought to read the Bible 1. In the context of all of Scripture, 2. In the context of the Canon (OT and NT), 3. The genre of writing, 4. The context in which the original writing was received. It would be wise in some cases and foolishness in others to presume that we (as individuals or the church gathered together for worship) ought to directly put us in the text.

First, let me say I am an American by birth and a Quebecker by Choice. I have lived in two relatively different cultures. Because of this, how we read the texts will be slightly different. India traditionally has a much more traditional understanding of authority and hierachy and the notion of preordained rules (from such things as gender, social class, and economics). This is what we were traditionally taught, please correct me if I am misrepresenting your culture.

The United States, in contrast, was historically founded on much more liberal and egalitarian values. This is why the argument for gay marriage has gained so strongly. This is not to say the country has always been true to its roots, but generally over time it has pushed for individual right and egalitarianism.

In my mind women wearing head garments are not Biblically obligatory. But I am not an egalatarian. I believe the NT forbids women from governing the Church and from being the regular Bible teacher/preacher in the context of Christian Worship. Am I being inconsistent? I do not believe so. When Paul says that, this was because many women were abusing his own concept of Christian equality (Gal. 3:28) and ignoring the creational difference we have on earth. The context in which men and women are completely unequivocally equal is in the manner of justification (being reconciled and forgiven by God). Not sanctification (the living out of the Christian life). In the Greco-Women world, women still had traditional gender roles in society. And this was extended to clothes and head coverings. In a misapplication of their Christian freedom, they hurt the name in Christ and were willing to cause social chaos. Christians were seen as insane not for their belief in the foolishness of the cross, but having a chaotic social order. This is why Paul using apostlic authority to command them to wear them so that may live peacefully amoung all persons. Paul wanted it to be clear that Christians believed that God had instituted gender roles from creation and that the world would see it in practice.

In our context, how we show the creational difference (though let me be clear: difference doesn't mean different in value or worth but in the context of the home and the church) is logically different. In Civil society it makes no sense for women to wear head coverings (though in the NT that would have been what Paul was commanding literally to the readers of his epistle). In the Church and family, how today we show it? Well some don't. They call themselves Christian egalitarians or feminists. I disagree with my brothers and sisters on this subject even though I love and respect many. But the majority do who profess belief in the authority of the Scriptures. Each church and family will handle it differently.

If your curious about this subject there is an excellent organisation that is devoted to thinking and publishing (mostly all for free) about this subject called Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (cbmw).

I hope I was of some help.

Well I am not confused myself. Because I believe in these scriptures completely and in showing (covering head in church) that Christ(before marriage) and my husband(after marriage) has authority over me But the thing was, many of my friends back in India, following the western culture, has stopped covering their heads in church. Like it has become this new "trend" to rebel against God. So this seemed like a good platform to bring this topic to attention. And also getting some feedback from different perspectives around the globe.
Btw your interpretation of Indian culture was right on target!

 

[jgrig2]

Well I am not confused myself. Because I believe in these scriptures completely and in showing (covering head in church) that Christ(before marriage) and my husband(after marriage) has authority over me But the thing was, many of my friends back in India, following the western culture, has stopped covering their heads in church. Like it has become this new "trend" to rebel against God. So this seemed like a good platform to bring this topic to attention. And also getting some feedback from different perspectives around the globe.
Btw your interpretation of Indian culture was right on target!

I thank you for your kind words. I think the question comes down to does Paul's command to one Church extend to all Churches today? I am convinced the answer is no. But that is not the end of the story. I have no problem with rebelling against unnecessarly rules that violate Christian liberty as long as it's clear that it is a manner of liberty and not wanting to justify sin. The act of refusing to wear a head covering is appropiate. What isn't appropiate is intentionally causing to divide churches and making the elders and pastors of a church's work even harder. There is a point when biblical rebellion becomes sinful rebellion. It also is sinful to disobey parents unless it is contrary to what God says. Nothing mandates a woman to wear a covering in the church, but a culture in which that has been present for centuries will pragmatically all do that because parents want to enforce their values to their children. The Church has no right to, parents on the other hand may. This is where I think it is important to distinguish roles of church member, parent, and citizen. How each structure functions is different and our roles in the church and as children are the same from culture to culture, but as citizens this is very culturally relative. So how society is will affect how we raise our children and given families are usually the majority in a church context, this will affect many things. And the Church is a clear distinct kingdom from civil society so there will always be awkwardness in that.

 

[savedNblessed]

I thank you for your kind words. I think the question comes down to does Paul's command to one Church extend to all Churches today? I am convinced the answer is no. But that is not the end of the story. I have no problem with rebelling against unnecessarly rules that violate Christian liberty as long as it's clear that it is a manner of liberty and not wanting to justify sin. The act of refusing to wear a head covering is appropiate. What isn't appropiate is intentionally causing to divide churches and making the elders and pastors of a church's work even harder. There is a point when biblical rebellion becomes sinful rebellion. It also is sinful to disobey parents unless it is contrary to what God says. Nothing mandates a woman to wear a covering in the church, but a culture in which that has been present for centuries will pragmatically all do that because parents want to enforce their values to their children. The Church has no right to, parents on the other hand may. This is where I think it is important to distinguish roles of church member, parent, and citizen. How each structure functions is different and our roles in the church and as children are the same from culture to culture, but as citizens this is very culturally relative. So how society is will affect how we raise our children and given families are usually the majority in a church context, this will affect many things. And the Church is a clear distinct kingdom from civil society so there will always be awkwardness in that.

Is it okay if we pm? Plus, it's not a cultural difference that women don't cover it here and back in India do.

 

[Elizabeth619]

Well I am not confused myself. Because I believe in these scriptures completely and in showing (covering head in church) that Christ(before marriage) and my husband(after marriage) has authority over me But the thing was, many of my friends back in India, following the western culture, has stopped covering their heads in church. Like it has become this new "trend" to rebel against God. So this seemed like a good platform to bring this topic to attention. And also getting some feedback from different perspectives around the globe.
Btw your interpretation of Indian culture was right on target!

Rebelling against God? I don't wear a covering so it's rebelling against God?
That comment was highly uncalled for.
Looks to me like this thread was created with a little bit of a self righteous attitude.

 

[Ugly]

I'll take Old Testament Legalism for 1000, Alex.

 

[Elizabeth619]

I'll take Old Testament Legalism for 1000, Alex.

You read my mind!
I'm pretty sure the scripturs say multiple times that God doesn't judge outward appearance.

But since not wearing a covering is rebelling against God then I guess women wearing pants is too.
I also wear makeup, color my hair, wax my eyebrows and shave my legs. To top it all off I had plastic surgery when I was 18. I guess I'm just a walking abomination.

 

[Ugly]

You read my mind!
I'm pretty sure the scripturs say multiple times that God doesn't judge outward appearance.

But since not wearing a covering is rebelling against God then I guess women wearing pants is too.
I also wear makeup, color my hair, wax my eyebrows and shave my legs. To top it all off I had plastic surgery when I was 18. I guess I'm just a walking abomination.

Its nice to hear you finally admit it, Elizabeth.

 

[jonrambo]

lol ugly! i cant stand christian girls that dress in a way that causes weaker men to lust (i have my moments) i recon real girls dont have to try to be beautiful they just are

 

[jonrambo]

mind you im no george clooney so i spose i wouldnt know much about "being beautiful" lol i am who the I AM made me

 

[Elizabeth619]

lol ugly! i cant stand christian girls that dress in a way that causes weaker men to lust (i have my moments) i recon real girls dont have to try to be beautiful they just are

If you're referring to his response to me he was joking. He knows me well enough to know I'm not vain.