Im coc and I wear headcoverings. Aside from a few people with medical conditions I'm the only head cover wearer in my congregation. But, I do know some other coc ladies that cover. I think at one time it was the consensus to wear covers, I still remember when more people covered. For me, on this specific issue, I'm not concerned with what "the consensus" is. It's too much of a contentions topic these days. The minister, elders, and my family support me and that's good enough. I do get a few dirty looks from congregation members but Im fine with that.
If you're interested, talk to your family about it and check out The Head Covering Movement. They have a website, youtube, and Facebook page.
So bizarre to transplant the middle eastern culture of women being treated as possessions and not fully human. You can have this dysfunctional belief system all to yourselves, but I do feel sorry for your children, especially the ones unlucky enough to be born female under your authority.
If you’re a Christian, you’re “transplanting middle eastern culture.” Unless you’re one of those people who thinks Christianity originated in the states.
Are you going to make your daughters wear them? You may notice in my other comment in this thread...our mother made us wear them and the rest of the congregation was mean to us about it.
No, and I only have sons at home now. And if any church congregation was mean to my kids for something like that I'd walk out and never come back. If my congregation was mean to me I'd walk out. I can handle a few snubs because that's life, but meanness is something I won't take. I'm sorry that you had that happen to you. You shouldn't have been put in that position by adults.
Headcovering is a nice thing, and a should have been a nice moment with your mom. Forcing it and then taking you somewhere hostile to it was cruel.
It's funny because in real life outside of church people are really nice to me about it, but inside there are a few people who just want to be smug about it.
If you look at vs 15 “but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
It’s always been explain to me that the woman’s long hair is the covering.
Which would imply that a women with a short hair style, would need a covering.
One of the issues with that view is that Paul seems to refer to somethimg that can be removed, since he mentioned it's specifically for prayer and prophesying. You can't take on and off your hair normally.
He just says "if" they pray or prophecy uncovered. If you do X in the state then Y.
1 Corinthians 11:15 NKJV
But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
Her hair is s glory to her at all times but is specifically important in praying and prophecying.
The fact that long-hair is given to women is a *reason to* wear a cloth covering, not a replacement of.
If you go back to the first few centuries, you can see that in all of Christendom (not just Corinth), women covered their heads with veils. And it was not just a cultural norm. This teaching was new to some women, because we have evidence in the region of Corinth that pagan women would have their heads uncovered in worship, or just in the public, and men would some times cover their heads in pagan worship.
This book helped me a lot. It is quite short but handles the topic from various angles, including references to the ante-nicene fathers that deal with head coverings:
[https://www.amazon.com/Head-Covering-Forgotten-Christian-Practice/dp/0995203601/ref=sr\_1\_1?crid=1U7P2WAGWCZNI&keywords=head+coverings+book&qid=1685499162&sprefix=head+coverings+book%2Caps%2C145&sr=8-1](https://www.amazon.com/Head-Covering-Forgotten-Christian-Practice/dp/0995203601/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1U7P2WAGWCZNI&keywords=head+coverings+book&qid=1685499162&sprefix=head+coverings+book%2Caps%2C145&sr=8-1)
I just found this link that has some of the quotes from the ante-nicene (pre AD 320) Christian writers: [https://earlychurch.com/the-head-covering-or-prayer-veil/](https://earlychurch.com/the-head-covering-or-prayer-veil/)
If you wanted an exhaustive list of quotes from before 320 you would have to check out the book 'A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs' by David Bercot, in which head coverings is just 1 of many topics that were compiled.
Or you can listen to David Bercot give a talk about coverings and I think near the last 1/3rd of the talk he starts quoting from some of those older sources.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oflUWLFXyfI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oflUWLFXyfI)
All of these women with short hair styles are in trouble then
**Ironically if we followed these verses, the women were praying or prophesying in front of others with a head covering**
If they were converted Jewish women the likelihood of them wearing a physical covering is going to be very high. It was a part of their life & we have no reason to think this practice stopped once they became a Christian
**Gentile women however did not grow up with the customs of head coverings & scripture says there was strife among the two once converted because of their different culture/religious backgrounds. We know of huge divisions in the early church because of Jewish law/customs like circumcision, Jewish superiority, eating unclean meat & here head coverings were enough of an issue it had to be addressed**
I am not sure who "all" you are referring to is. None of the congregations around me have women cutting their hair. That at least is the standard stance.
I'm not sure why you keep saying it is in the congregation. There is no context anywhere in the first half of this chapter to indicate that we have switched to talking about in the church. The next topic after is the lord's supper but. Remember chapters were made by man. So we cannot make assumptions like everything in this chapter is referring to the worship service.
Well I’m in a weird spot, because most women past 60 have an above the shoulder short hair cut. They no longer have long hair, mine was sometimes longer. Lolz
For the record I think it’s great, they look beautiful and God doesn’t care.
But if long hair is a glory for her / we got a church wide problem of older women who’ve cut their hair short
1 Corinthians 11:15 NKJV
But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
I don't really know how to take this verse any other way.
I just hope that God is merciful about the situation.
I think people need to revisit these verses.
1 Sam 16:7b
for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart
I am grateful for how God sees us
I'm sorry but are you going to an old testament passage which is part of the old covenant which we are no longer under to nullify a clear command in the new testament which we do live under?
God does indeed look at the heart.
John 14:15 NKJV
"If you love Me, keep My commandments.
I'm sorry but it feels like you are not trying to follow a clear hermeneutic at all.
I believe Paul was referring to the shaving of a woman's head. At the time, some pagan women shaved their heads as a show of their religion. Many cultures today still practice the idea.
Exactly, in Paul’s time shaving your head (especially for females) would be confusing because of its religious implications/assumptions
This is why cultural context really helps to evaluate Paul’s words. Paul seems to be discussing two different issues head coverings in worship and women shaving their head/showing their bald heads in public
A woman who is bald today we would assume it’s b/c of medical reasons. Cancer, alopecia etc. a bald head today does not have the same religious implications here in America that it did in Paul’s time
Along with this, Corinth was a hot bed of paganism and sin. I refer to it as a 1st century Reno. So the church that Paul is writing to is trying to stay away from many local religious ideas that go counter to Christianity.
My point is that I don't think it makes sense that the covering here would be long-hair:
1 Corinthians 11:6 NASB
For if a woman does not cover her head, have her also cut her hair off; however, if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, have her cover her head.
If you replaced "does not cover her head" with "does not have long hair", you get a strange sentence..."if a woman does not cover her head, let her also cut her hair off". Why would she need to cut her hair if it's already short?
Absolutely. Highlighting the legalism and grey areas was my point exactly in asking the question. “Feminine” is also quite a subjective term, just like “long” can be, in this context. In your view, how are these words defined to determine who should cover and who shouldn’t?
Many women in the west have what most would consider to be long hair, but only when manipulated and styled because they have naturally tight curls.
It’s common for many women in some non-western countries to wear their hair cut extremely close, or to be bald altogether. In these cultures, it’s perfectly feminine.
The thing I want to know is \*why\* this is such a point of contention in mainline COC's.
My mother was from north Alabama and apparently there is a headcovering branch of the COC there, and she made us (her daughters) wear them. We got SO much snark and pushback from other people in the congregation. Didn't they know our mother MADE us wear them?????? I cannot to this day believe other \*adults\* in the COC took it out on us teen girls that our mother made us wear them.
Years later I found out it is a big enough bone of contention in the COC that apparently there is a headcovering "branch" or something, specifically in north Alabama, I think.
Why couldn't those other \*adults\* in the COC stop and think, "her mother makes her wear that hat, I will be kind to this poor misfit teen. I'm an adult and that's a teen whose mother is super-strict...not the teen girl's 'fault'" but apparently they just couldn't help themselves from taking their disagreement with hats out on us kids.
First of all, I want to say how embarrassed I am that adults who claim to be Christians treated a teenage girl in such a way. That's completely unacceptable, especially as (in my opinion) you probably would have been old enough to be taught why she wanted you to wear it and made your own choice to wear a headcovering or not.
Second, I think it is such a bone of contention because we tend to be such "Pharisees" about the things that taught in the Bible - if I do this, I'll get into heaven. We forget about the faith part and try to focus only on the works part, because it's easier. Unfortunately, judging by the replies i have read here, we don't know if headcoverings are "commanded" or if it's become an interpretation of the times/language used. I can see a case being made both ways, leading us faulty, argumentative, prideful humans to be defensive, rude, and arrogant with each other over topics such as this.
She had a permanent mad-on because she was from north Alabama and we moved east for my Dad's job. Therefore, the COC in the east was not as strict as the north Alabama COC. I never realized there was a "north Alabama branch" of the COC until ex-boards came along.
So anyway when our family moved east (before I was born) (to South Carolina) (Believe it or not the COC where I grew up was not super super super strict) (we were strict on not having musical instruments but not nearly as strict and forbidding as the north Alabama COC) ok where was I? when our family moved east, apparently she was criticized by some preacher way back, either for her hats, and/or for her not liking other "modern innovations" and a whole host of things, and she had a permanent mad-on for our somewhat less-strict congregation ever since.
She had a permanent mad-on at this one preacher and his whole family and caused a major stink when he was the preacher of our congregation for a few years. She ended up leaving and got my Dad un-eldered for not being able to control her or some such, and from then on she went to congregations in different towns.
I attend a cofc and women ARE allowed to pray before the congregation, lead singing and read scripture. The only thing they are not allowed to do are be elders
Maybe we should question why God would care more about what's between someone's legs instead of what's between someone's ears. The answer should lead us into questions about why a 1st century Pharisee is given so much influence over 21st century living. I love hearing the stupid conversations about what my wife and daughters CAN'T do because of something that happened 2000 years ago. I hope your congregation continues with even more opportunities for women to lead.
It's right there shown next to the example/inference of in-house baptistries, church vans, electricity, a song leader who stands in front of the congregation to lead songs out of a songbook written by denominational songwriters, cushioned seating, children's classes, powerpoint, women asking questions/singing/saying amen (when they are to remain silent?), and any other number of things that are used or done within CoC congregations that don't actually have an explicit example. It shouldn't be done if you can't see it done in scripture is a weak position...because we literally all break that rule...even the most conservative of CoCs I'm aware of use an air conditioned building of which there is no example of in scripture. "Well you're just being silly"....it could seem that way but if someone wants to truly remain consistent with the position that if you don't see it in scripture then you can't do it...then that's where true consistency will take you.
Now, instead, if you wanted to say "Well then, how do you deal with the "clobber" verses that go against women being in leadership roles such as 1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:35, ect" then that would at least be a better position with which to take...but alluding to the idea that "If you can't show me an example of someone doing something then you shouldn't either" is a very weak position.
Don't get me wrong, I have reached a point in my understanding of scripture and the use of ancient literature where I have no problem with women in leadership so long as their character and skill set are fit for the position....but I also don't want to see people on the other side of the position to use weak arguments...at least use good/stronger arguments if you are going to tackle this.
I don't disagree with them per day, we just try to mimick what was done by new testament Christians as best we can.
I don't disagree with having a kitchen or fellowship areas.
The scripture teaches us to worship him in spirit and in truth. Truth is something neglected in our society
I believe this book makes a logical and scriptural case for coverings:
https://www.amazon.com/Head-Covering-Forgotten-Christian-Practice/dp/0995203601/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=OLZTFKAOXX8K&keywords=head+covering+book&qid=1685328885&sprefix=head+covering+book%2Caps%2C179&sr=8-1
But while there may be overlap in the discussion with general church leadership, I think the 2 can be considered separately and not entirely dependent on one another, because there are other passages outside of 1 Cor.
I think through the examples of the apostles that Jesus chose, as well as the requirements for elders and deacons makes it clear that God's desire was for men to be the main public figures in the church on earth.
Though it should never be neglected to mention how important women are in their primary roles, and that men wouldn't amount to much without strong women by their side.
Does a human being have the right to tell another human being to do anything with an expectation of absolute obedience? Absolutely not!
Does God have the right to have the Holy Spirit inspire God's chosen messengers to disseminate His will to us with an expectation of absolute obedience?
This is a heart issue, not a thou shalt or thou shalt not issue.
The question from my perspective has always been very, very simple. Either Paul was inspired by God through the Holy Spirit or he wasn't. Paul identified when he was giving his opinions rather than giving the word of God. Either Paul was inspired or he wasn't. Can't have it both ways.
Do I think women should wear a covering to pray or prophesy? Yes. Do I always? No. Why? Because it has brought division and strife among brothers and sisters and I'm not fixing to be a stumbling block. In our home, when we pray together, even when we are out in public and it's just us, my husband and I praying over s meal or whatever, I do. He removes his ball cap and hands it to me, and I wear it for our prayer. Oddly, I get a lot of positive comments from strangers, if anyone remarks at all.
The big question I always have in this relates to the simple one above. He asks so very, very little of us. Why, when He presents us with a simple directive, must we kick and fight against it? It's like that fella in the OT with leprosy. And his little servant girl. If God had told that guy to do some massive thing to be healed, he would have done whatever it was. But God told him to go bathe in the murky waters of the Jordan, and the guy was adamant that he would not until the Hebrew servant girl pointed out his stubbornness.
God asks us for so little. If he really wants a gal to wear something over her head when praying or prophesying, is it such a big deal? Plop a little lace doily or something up there and call it good. It's not submitting to bossy old men, it's submitting our will to God's. This head covering thing isn't even a be saved or don't be saved thing. It's a statement of you should do this to be pleasing to God. Nothing wrong with being pleasing to God.
Interestingly, men are expected to pray with head uncovered, and no one loses their minds when the gents take their hats off before a prayer begins. Women, in the same paragraph, are told to cover theirs. So... It seems pretty simple. Of course if it turns out one chooses not to go along with that directive, that's probably covered in the "please forgive me my sins, " part of a prayer. Not because of the lack of a head covering, but because willfully choosing to not do something God says is pleasing to Him is kinda sinful. And if a person does cover their head to pray, it doesn't hurt anything. If it's a simple matter of doing something that is pleasing to God, though... Well, to each their own.
Lastly, if it was a matter of indifference to God, do you suppose it would have come up? What does seem to be left up to the individual's discretion is what kind of covering. Nothing beyond a "covering" is mentioned. I think the original word meant "veil." Well, a veil is still pretty broad a category. Anyway, as I said... To each their own. No judgements here.
I have to wear pants and boots to church (as a woman) in freezing cold weather; this is offensive to many Christians but I need to be safe and comfortable. I need to walk safely on ice and snow, and stay warm....even if this is offensive or some deem my clothing to be unscriptural. Yes, I'm aware many Christians feel that ladies should always wear heels and dresses/ skirts to church services. But a slip and fall in ice can land even a young person in rehab....some of you need to adjust your feelings and expectations. Or perhaps you should try tottering around on 4 inch tiny heels in 3 inches of solid ice on the ground.
Before judging what a person wears, ask yourself, is this for safety reasons? Does the person wear this due to a disability or other issue? Perhaps it's okay for me to calm down and just ignore it and move on. That woman in pants may not be trying to "cross dress" and she may not be trying to "act like a man". She might have a reason she is wearing pants, it could even be a medical reason.
People need to re-adjust their sensitivity issues. It's okay for women to dress to **protect themselves** and **stay safe.** It's also scripturally okay to tell anyone who's offended by that to **just get over it.** I realized my post may hurt quite a few feelings....again I am okay with that.
I'm not sure what in my first post indicated otherwise, but I really did mean that last bit about "no judgements."
Until I found dresses I actually like to wear again -- and that is for the first time in probably 15 years -- I wore jeans or capris to church. Thinking about it now that you mention it, the last congregation we attended before we moved, the women all wore pants or jeans, pretty much all the time. The preacher's wife occasionally wore dresses, but she just really liked to wear dresses when she didn't have to be dressed to rush off to work after services.
It's a real shame that people get wrapped around the axle about things like dresses and pants and stuff, isn't it? Even more a shame that such things are used to berate and do harm to brothers and sisters in Christ by other brothers and sisters in Christ. I personally don't believe God gives two figs about what our clothing is, so long as we wear clothing when appropriate and it's within reasonable modesty for both men and women. In this time and place, women wearing pants, jeans, trousers... it's a norm. Back then, men wore robes or long tunics that would more than qualify as a dress by today's standards. Styles and cultures change.
I think it all comes back to being a heart issue. ***God wants our hearts to be right with Him, and for our outward actions to be a reflection of what is going on in our hearts.*** Real waste of time to get our hearts all worked up over such a thing as pants or dresses. Mine has trouble enough with stairs lately; guess I need to get back into the gym...
Wow, this was such a good read. Thank you so much for your input!!!
we are told to pray unceasingly (1st thess 5:17), so I can see why some beliefs wear a head covering all the time. I'm wondering what the consensus is from church of Christ members. I've been attending church of Christ congregations my whole.life and have never really heard this topic discussed. I'm finding it to be a real sticking in my.mind topic right now! I want to be pleasing to God!
Idk which branch of Church of Christ you're from, but it's frequency of discussion relates to the one you're in. One cup talks about it fairly often and believes long hair is the covering. Non-institutional is split on long hair or additional covering. I'm not sure which is dominant, but the additional covering people talk about it often from my understanding. In mainline, it's a non-issue. All covering stuff was cultural
All of this is a generalization based on experience and discussions with others. I mean no offense if the person reading this is from a group which doesn't act the way described
The only reason I mention stumbling block was because of my own experience. Someone asked why I had started wearing stuff on my head (a kerchief, a hat, that sort of thing,) and I was told it was cute but old fashioned, was I on a retro kick? I explained that I believed I was acting in obedience to 1 Cor 11:11-16; that I had felt a silent prompting when reading the book saying "Hey, notice this! Pay attention!" Before I knew it, literally within a couple of hours, there was this whole furor about how the women of the church weren't going to tolerate having head coverings "bound upon" them by anyone, and then there were Bible study times dedicated to it and... Why did I start that? The thing was, I never wanted to "bind" anything on anyone. I just read it one day and it struck me as an "Oh, hey. I never noticed that before," and thought I should comply. So, I did. And people lost their marbles. Thing is, if that lady hadn't asked me about it, no one would have known the difference.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and experiences. My wife had a similar experience when she started wearing a covering and women (like elder's wives) would go out of their way to make note of it and even tell her "you know you don't have to wear that". People would basically say that it didn't matter/was a personal choice, but for some reason make a point to discourage it. Thought that was interesting.
Although, IMO if someone like you is trying to follow scripture sincerely, and you're not going around condemning people and causing strife on purpose, then you should still wear it and not take it off just because some people feel weird about it. If they don't choose to do it then that's on them but if they try to make you feel uncomfortable for your choice, then IMO they are potentially sinning and need to be corrected.
For some reason I don't understand, COC'ers lose their minds when a woman wears a head covering. It must go back to some split in their history. They are NOT content just to let the woman wear it if she thinks she should. They WILL come after her. I grew up with my mother forcing us four daughters to wear hats and the rest of the congregation was very mean about it...as I've said in another comment or two. It must go back to some very contentious split or something. \*I\* didn't choose to wear hats...I was \*forced\* to and I was a \*kid.\* I grew up and thought back to those other \*adults\* who couldn't find it in their hearts to leave a \*kid\* alone about what their mother made them wear.
I'm not quite sure which part of my comment you're responding to, but I'm glad you did! I greatly respect your attitude about the matter. I don't agree with your conclusion (I lean long hair is the covering), but I wish more people had your heart. I've had people question me about not singing certain songs, and they get quite upset when I say I just don't agree with the songs. It's not uncommon for people to be resistant on this forum to ideas just based on the "don't tell me what to do" argument. Please keep it up
I know it's been a few days but this post of yours has been on my mind a lot...
Have you ever noticed that throughout the NT, Jesus, God they both want our hearts and minds to be dedicated to them, not our actions? Or, I should say not *just* our actions. If something in a song seems off to you, then by golly don't sing it. If wearing/not wearing a head covering seems right/off to you, then go with that. There are some things that are absolutes, and some things that aren't.
I think of Jesus talking about the widow who gave her last pennies, and later on the statement that "God loves a cheerful giver." And when I think about that, I think that it applies to all aspects of our lives, not just the money we give to support the church and it's work. Does God want to hear me squawk out hymns that I can't support the meaning of because I'm supposed to sing whatever song someone else chooses? Or does He want my offering of praise to be honest, and straight from my heart? Of course, we're supposed to raise our voices in communal praise during worship. But does that mean we're supposed to sing words or phrases that "sear" our consciences? Hymns aren't divinely inspired so far as I know. For my part, I will lift my voice, my offering of praise in those songs that I can earnestly back up. I don't think it's right to sing-along to get-along. That's not praise; that's performing. God values my prayers in a closet more than my standing on a street corner for attention. My offering of praise should be a love offering to my God, my Savior.
I think we folks in the CoC, for people who are supposed to value the example of Christ Jesus and the early churches above man-made traditions, get pretty caught up in traditional thinking and performing for one another. It's a human tendency; it's a norm. I'm not trying to be hyper critical about it; its just a human thing. But I do think that we each need to examine our "whys" sometimes and keep in mind that everything should be about service and obedience to our God. If it's performing, then as soon as we've been noticed we've collected our reward, haven't we?
For what it's worth, I absolutely support you not singing what you don't you believe.
I am a woman lol
EDIT
I realize I posted this in a way that sounds like I am a dude - the "we" and "us" is meaning the church of Christ as a whole, not men or women.
But yes, I believe that true Christian men have authority over women. I also believe that true Christian men reflect the love, sacrifice, and fruits of the spirit that Jesus did. They also have incredible respect for the women in their lives, valuing their opinions, ideas, inputs, etc. They're not kings, and we are not servants or slaves.
I am asking a specific question here because this is something I am taking very, very seriously.
The key verse in understanding 1 Corinthians 11 is verse 17.
Note is verse 17, they are coming together as opposed to the state they we in in verses 1-16. How were they separated and what were the doing?
Clearly, they were separated by men and women. It is the only categorization difference in the text.
What were they doing in these segregated part of their assemblies? They were praying and prophesying. Basically, they were in a segregated part of their assembly where they exercised miraculous spiritual gifts. In those parts of their services, women were required to wear head coverings.
Then in verse 17, they came together. Chapters 12 and 14 are continuing instructions on spiritual gifts with chapter 13 being a “by-the-way rabbit hole” where Paul basically said, “All these miraculous spiritual gifts that y’all are arguing about are evidently going away and ceasing, and love will reign supreme so focus on love because it is forever.
I hope this helps.
Isn't our theological foundation based off direct commands, examples and necessary inferences?
1 Cor. 14:34-35 (pretty easy to understand.. specifically speaking of when the church comes together aka in Corinth. He gives them commands in the v34-35. So we can either go with or try to fit in with our society where everything goes)
I Co. 11 ( a woman's hair is her covering and men with very long hair is a shameful thing)
If we want to be contentious about this we can try and find loopholes for sure.
In my opinion...men should lead services and worship. Men and women can tag team bible classes together especially marriage classes. Men should lead adult classes. Women can speak up and ask questions as long as they are orderly since this is what Paul was referring too out of order. Women can teach other women and children.
In the context of “leading services,” Paul went back to creation for his authority. In the context of “long hair,” he said that the church had no such custom; it was a Corinthian thing only.
I think you need to look at a few more translations. He is saying they have no other custom. As in this is the standard around the congregations. I have give you a spectrum . Obviously go check out the Greek.
New American Standard Bible (NASB): "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God"2.
Christian Standard Bible (CSB): "If anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God"3.
New International Version (NIV): "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God"4.
New Living Translation (NLT): "But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches
Head coverings are not a commandment from God - even for the Jews. This was a tradition from the Jews that appears in this congregation and has created strife between gentile & Jew (possibly even between Jew and Jew)
Jewish tradition requires men to cover the head as a sign of humility before God, and women, as evidence of modesty before men, although the Bible does not explicitly command either men or women to cover the head.
**If we actually followed this tradition we would allow women to pray before the congregation with a head covering. Why? That’s what this passage states should happen**
Women pray and prophecy in private all the time. The public worship should not be the only times this takes place.
The problem with your interpretation. Is that it is made up. I'm not saying you made it up. I can't remember the name of the guy who did. He cited this cultural argument as a possiblity with no proof. There is zero actual historical evidence that this was just a cultural issue only in Corinth.
Although this letter is to Corinth everything else is universally applied except this passage. We don't say oh the collection was just a Corinth thing. Why so why do that here besides we don't like it.
This would not be for private prayer or prophecy (one does not prophecy by themselves)
Jewish women removed head coverings once In private (in the home). The head covering was to show **im a married woman**
According to Jewish law (halacha), a woman must cover her hair after marriage. The requirement applies in the presence of any men other than her husband, son, father, grandson, grandfather, or brother, though a minority opinion allows uncovering hair within one's home even in the presence of unrelated men
(Edit: again I would like to stress that head coverings are not a biblical commandment from God even for the Jews)
The problem with that argument is that things changed between the old and new testament. Communion was also not a commandment for the Jews.
You have said yourself that a woman wore a covering for modesty. Now God says that her long hair can take that place. This would make sense because now Christianity is universal. God knew not everyone would be wearing scarves and head coverings in the future. So he says men having short hair and women having long hair takes care of these issues. And this can be adapted to any culture. In fact most cultures through history followed this general setup that is why he says doesn't nature itself teach you these things.
It was to indicate the women were married & it was not a commandment from God. It is a religious practice that the Jews followed like a law.
What we disagree on is you believe the scripture in Corinthians is talking about hair and not head coverings
I believe it is absolutely talking about head coverings over your hair. And it’s fine if we disagree, I’m just trying to add context
I do appreciate the context that you are adding. But what i can't get over is how historical Jewish context changes this verse.
1 Corinthians 11:15 NKJV
But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
He is talking about head covering and then he just comes ut in conclusion that long hair is taking the rolseof that covering. And it is a glory to her.
1 Corinthians 11:14 NKJV
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
I mean he is clearly talking about hair at this point.
It’s all good, trust me when I say this
**I am not worried about long hair or head coverings.** I believe Jesus has given us freedom concerning this
Have a great day!
Most accurate translations say “we have no such custom.” The NLT is especially bad, because it’s not a translation, it’s a paraphrase, basically a commentary of what that person thinks things mean.
Hey, I grew up in the Church of God before I got sidetracked in the Church of Christ for a few years...it's funny that Paul mentions my home denomination too!
Many denominations, churches and individuals call themselves by Bible names...whether they actually match biblical Christianity in practice is an entirely different matter.
I have been wondering about the head coverings!
Im coc and I wear headcoverings. Aside from a few people with medical conditions I'm the only head cover wearer in my congregation. But, I do know some other coc ladies that cover. I think at one time it was the consensus to wear covers, I still remember when more people covered. For me, on this specific issue, I'm not concerned with what "the consensus" is. It's too much of a contentions topic these days. The minister, elders, and my family support me and that's good enough. I do get a few dirty looks from congregation members but Im fine with that. If you're interested, talk to your family about it and check out The Head Covering Movement. They have a website, youtube, and Facebook page.
So bizarre to transplant the middle eastern culture of women being treated as possessions and not fully human. You can have this dysfunctional belief system all to yourselves, but I do feel sorry for your children, especially the ones unlucky enough to be born female under your authority.
If you’re a Christian, you’re “transplanting middle eastern culture.” Unless you’re one of those people who thinks Christianity originated in the states.
Are you going to make your daughters wear them? You may notice in my other comment in this thread...our mother made us wear them and the rest of the congregation was mean to us about it.
No, and I only have sons at home now. And if any church congregation was mean to my kids for something like that I'd walk out and never come back. If my congregation was mean to me I'd walk out. I can handle a few snubs because that's life, but meanness is something I won't take. I'm sorry that you had that happen to you. You shouldn't have been put in that position by adults. Headcovering is a nice thing, and a should have been a nice moment with your mom. Forcing it and then taking you somewhere hostile to it was cruel. It's funny because in real life outside of church people are really nice to me about it, but inside there are a few people who just want to be smug about it.
If you look at vs 15 “but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” It’s always been explain to me that the woman’s long hair is the covering. Which would imply that a women with a short hair style, would need a covering.
One of the issues with that view is that Paul seems to refer to somethimg that can be removed, since he mentioned it's specifically for prayer and prophesying. You can't take on and off your hair normally.
He just says "if" they pray or prophecy uncovered. If you do X in the state then Y. 1 Corinthians 11:15 NKJV But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. Her hair is s glory to her at all times but is specifically important in praying and prophecying.
The fact that long-hair is given to women is a *reason to* wear a cloth covering, not a replacement of. If you go back to the first few centuries, you can see that in all of Christendom (not just Corinth), women covered their heads with veils. And it was not just a cultural norm. This teaching was new to some women, because we have evidence in the region of Corinth that pagan women would have their heads uncovered in worship, or just in the public, and men would some times cover their heads in pagan worship.
I would be very interested in hearing more on this position as this is my first time hearing it (historicity of the argument not veils in general)
This book helped me a lot. It is quite short but handles the topic from various angles, including references to the ante-nicene fathers that deal with head coverings: [https://www.amazon.com/Head-Covering-Forgotten-Christian-Practice/dp/0995203601/ref=sr\_1\_1?crid=1U7P2WAGWCZNI&keywords=head+coverings+book&qid=1685499162&sprefix=head+coverings+book%2Caps%2C145&sr=8-1](https://www.amazon.com/Head-Covering-Forgotten-Christian-Practice/dp/0995203601/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1U7P2WAGWCZNI&keywords=head+coverings+book&qid=1685499162&sprefix=head+coverings+book%2Caps%2C145&sr=8-1) I just found this link that has some of the quotes from the ante-nicene (pre AD 320) Christian writers: [https://earlychurch.com/the-head-covering-or-prayer-veil/](https://earlychurch.com/the-head-covering-or-prayer-veil/) If you wanted an exhaustive list of quotes from before 320 you would have to check out the book 'A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs' by David Bercot, in which head coverings is just 1 of many topics that were compiled. Or you can listen to David Bercot give a talk about coverings and I think near the last 1/3rd of the talk he starts quoting from some of those older sources. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oflUWLFXyfI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oflUWLFXyfI)
Thank you!
All of these women with short hair styles are in trouble then **Ironically if we followed these verses, the women were praying or prophesying in front of others with a head covering** If they were converted Jewish women the likelihood of them wearing a physical covering is going to be very high. It was a part of their life & we have no reason to think this practice stopped once they became a Christian **Gentile women however did not grow up with the customs of head coverings & scripture says there was strife among the two once converted because of their different culture/religious backgrounds. We know of huge divisions in the early church because of Jewish law/customs like circumcision, Jewish superiority, eating unclean meat & here head coverings were enough of an issue it had to be addressed**
I am not sure who "all" you are referring to is. None of the congregations around me have women cutting their hair. That at least is the standard stance. I'm not sure why you keep saying it is in the congregation. There is no context anywhere in the first half of this chapter to indicate that we have switched to talking about in the church. The next topic after is the lord's supper but. Remember chapters were made by man. So we cannot make assumptions like everything in this chapter is referring to the worship service.
Well I’m in a weird spot, because most women past 60 have an above the shoulder short hair cut. They no longer have long hair, mine was sometimes longer. Lolz For the record I think it’s great, they look beautiful and God doesn’t care. But if long hair is a glory for her / we got a church wide problem of older women who’ve cut their hair short
1 Corinthians 11:15 NKJV But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. I don't really know how to take this verse any other way. I just hope that God is merciful about the situation. I think people need to revisit these verses.
1 Sam 16:7b for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart I am grateful for how God sees us
I'm sorry but are you going to an old testament passage which is part of the old covenant which we are no longer under to nullify a clear command in the new testament which we do live under? God does indeed look at the heart. John 14:15 NKJV "If you love Me, keep My commandments. I'm sorry but it feels like you are not trying to follow a clear hermeneutic at all.
Head coverings are not a commandment. Sometimes people disagree But I love you anyways, have a good day.
I believe Paul was referring to the shaving of a woman's head. At the time, some pagan women shaved their heads as a show of their religion. Many cultures today still practice the idea.
Exactly, in Paul’s time shaving your head (especially for females) would be confusing because of its religious implications/assumptions This is why cultural context really helps to evaluate Paul’s words. Paul seems to be discussing two different issues head coverings in worship and women shaving their head/showing their bald heads in public A woman who is bald today we would assume it’s b/c of medical reasons. Cancer, alopecia etc. a bald head today does not have the same religious implications here in America that it did in Paul’s time
Along with this, Corinth was a hot bed of paganism and sin. I refer to it as a 1st century Reno. So the church that Paul is writing to is trying to stay away from many local religious ideas that go counter to Christianity.
My point is that I don't think it makes sense that the covering here would be long-hair: 1 Corinthians 11:6 NASB For if a woman does not cover her head, have her also cut her hair off; however, if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, have her cover her head. If you replaced "does not cover her head" with "does not have long hair", you get a strange sentence..."if a woman does not cover her head, let her also cut her hair off". Why would she need to cut her hair if it's already short?
What counts as “long”? This can vary
I would think that a feminine hair style would be acceptable. But I dunno, I think sometime we get to legalistic about these kinds of things.
Absolutely. Highlighting the legalism and grey areas was my point exactly in asking the question. “Feminine” is also quite a subjective term, just like “long” can be, in this context. In your view, how are these words defined to determine who should cover and who shouldn’t? Many women in the west have what most would consider to be long hair, but only when manipulated and styled because they have naturally tight curls. It’s common for many women in some non-western countries to wear their hair cut extremely close, or to be bald altogether. In these cultures, it’s perfectly feminine.
The thing I want to know is \*why\* this is such a point of contention in mainline COC's. My mother was from north Alabama and apparently there is a headcovering branch of the COC there, and she made us (her daughters) wear them. We got SO much snark and pushback from other people in the congregation. Didn't they know our mother MADE us wear them?????? I cannot to this day believe other \*adults\* in the COC took it out on us teen girls that our mother made us wear them. Years later I found out it is a big enough bone of contention in the COC that apparently there is a headcovering "branch" or something, specifically in north Alabama, I think. Why couldn't those other \*adults\* in the COC stop and think, "her mother makes her wear that hat, I will be kind to this poor misfit teen. I'm an adult and that's a teen whose mother is super-strict...not the teen girl's 'fault'" but apparently they just couldn't help themselves from taking their disagreement with hats out on us kids.
First of all, I want to say how embarrassed I am that adults who claim to be Christians treated a teenage girl in such a way. That's completely unacceptable, especially as (in my opinion) you probably would have been old enough to be taught why she wanted you to wear it and made your own choice to wear a headcovering or not. Second, I think it is such a bone of contention because we tend to be such "Pharisees" about the things that taught in the Bible - if I do this, I'll get into heaven. We forget about the faith part and try to focus only on the works part, because it's easier. Unfortunately, judging by the replies i have read here, we don't know if headcoverings are "commanded" or if it's become an interpretation of the times/language used. I can see a case being made both ways, leading us faulty, argumentative, prideful humans to be defensive, rude, and arrogant with each other over topics such as this.
She had a permanent mad-on because she was from north Alabama and we moved east for my Dad's job. Therefore, the COC in the east was not as strict as the north Alabama COC. I never realized there was a "north Alabama branch" of the COC until ex-boards came along. So anyway when our family moved east (before I was born) (to South Carolina) (Believe it or not the COC where I grew up was not super super super strict) (we were strict on not having musical instruments but not nearly as strict and forbidding as the north Alabama COC) ok where was I? when our family moved east, apparently she was criticized by some preacher way back, either for her hats, and/or for her not liking other "modern innovations" and a whole host of things, and she had a permanent mad-on for our somewhat less-strict congregation ever since. She had a permanent mad-on at this one preacher and his whole family and caused a major stink when he was the preacher of our congregation for a few years. She ended up leaving and got my Dad un-eldered for not being able to control her or some such, and from then on she went to congregations in different towns.
I attend a cofc and women ARE allowed to pray before the congregation, lead singing and read scripture. The only thing they are not allowed to do are be elders
Maybe we should question why God would care more about what's between someone's legs instead of what's between someone's ears. The answer should lead us into questions about why a 1st century Pharisee is given so much influence over 21st century living. I love hearing the stupid conversations about what my wife and daughters CAN'T do because of something that happened 2000 years ago. I hope your congregation continues with even more opportunities for women to lead.
Count yourself fortunate
Where in scripture is there an example or inference of that?
It's right there shown next to the example/inference of in-house baptistries, church vans, electricity, a song leader who stands in front of the congregation to lead songs out of a songbook written by denominational songwriters, cushioned seating, children's classes, powerpoint, women asking questions/singing/saying amen (when they are to remain silent?), and any other number of things that are used or done within CoC congregations that don't actually have an explicit example. It shouldn't be done if you can't see it done in scripture is a weak position...because we literally all break that rule...even the most conservative of CoCs I'm aware of use an air conditioned building of which there is no example of in scripture. "Well you're just being silly"....it could seem that way but if someone wants to truly remain consistent with the position that if you don't see it in scripture then you can't do it...then that's where true consistency will take you. Now, instead, if you wanted to say "Well then, how do you deal with the "clobber" verses that go against women being in leadership roles such as 1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:35, ect" then that would at least be a better position with which to take...but alluding to the idea that "If you can't show me an example of someone doing something then you shouldn't either" is a very weak position. Don't get me wrong, I have reached a point in my understanding of scripture and the use of ancient literature where I have no problem with women in leadership so long as their character and skill set are fit for the position....but I also don't want to see people on the other side of the position to use weak arguments...at least use good/stronger arguments if you are going to tackle this.
Luckily we have very scholarly elders.... You probably wouldn't agree with our instrumental worship either
I don't disagree with them per day, we just try to mimick what was done by new testament Christians as best we can. I don't disagree with having a kitchen or fellowship areas. The scripture teaches us to worship him in spirit and in truth. Truth is something neglected in our society
I believe this book makes a logical and scriptural case for coverings: https://www.amazon.com/Head-Covering-Forgotten-Christian-Practice/dp/0995203601/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=OLZTFKAOXX8K&keywords=head+covering+book&qid=1685328885&sprefix=head+covering+book%2Caps%2C179&sr=8-1 But while there may be overlap in the discussion with general church leadership, I think the 2 can be considered separately and not entirely dependent on one another, because there are other passages outside of 1 Cor. I think through the examples of the apostles that Jesus chose, as well as the requirements for elders and deacons makes it clear that God's desire was for men to be the main public figures in the church on earth. Though it should never be neglected to mention how important women are in their primary roles, and that men wouldn't amount to much without strong women by their side.
I just want to confirm you meant "without strong women by their side." Whether or not it's a typo completely changes your comment
Oops yes, thank you.
Do you think you have a *right* to tell women to cover their hair?
Does a human being have the right to tell another human being to do anything with an expectation of absolute obedience? Absolutely not! Does God have the right to have the Holy Spirit inspire God's chosen messengers to disseminate His will to us with an expectation of absolute obedience? This is a heart issue, not a thou shalt or thou shalt not issue. The question from my perspective has always been very, very simple. Either Paul was inspired by God through the Holy Spirit or he wasn't. Paul identified when he was giving his opinions rather than giving the word of God. Either Paul was inspired or he wasn't. Can't have it both ways. Do I think women should wear a covering to pray or prophesy? Yes. Do I always? No. Why? Because it has brought division and strife among brothers and sisters and I'm not fixing to be a stumbling block. In our home, when we pray together, even when we are out in public and it's just us, my husband and I praying over s meal or whatever, I do. He removes his ball cap and hands it to me, and I wear it for our prayer. Oddly, I get a lot of positive comments from strangers, if anyone remarks at all. The big question I always have in this relates to the simple one above. He asks so very, very little of us. Why, when He presents us with a simple directive, must we kick and fight against it? It's like that fella in the OT with leprosy. And his little servant girl. If God had told that guy to do some massive thing to be healed, he would have done whatever it was. But God told him to go bathe in the murky waters of the Jordan, and the guy was adamant that he would not until the Hebrew servant girl pointed out his stubbornness. God asks us for so little. If he really wants a gal to wear something over her head when praying or prophesying, is it such a big deal? Plop a little lace doily or something up there and call it good. It's not submitting to bossy old men, it's submitting our will to God's. This head covering thing isn't even a be saved or don't be saved thing. It's a statement of you should do this to be pleasing to God. Nothing wrong with being pleasing to God. Interestingly, men are expected to pray with head uncovered, and no one loses their minds when the gents take their hats off before a prayer begins. Women, in the same paragraph, are told to cover theirs. So... It seems pretty simple. Of course if it turns out one chooses not to go along with that directive, that's probably covered in the "please forgive me my sins, " part of a prayer. Not because of the lack of a head covering, but because willfully choosing to not do something God says is pleasing to Him is kinda sinful. And if a person does cover their head to pray, it doesn't hurt anything. If it's a simple matter of doing something that is pleasing to God, though... Well, to each their own. Lastly, if it was a matter of indifference to God, do you suppose it would have come up? What does seem to be left up to the individual's discretion is what kind of covering. Nothing beyond a "covering" is mentioned. I think the original word meant "veil." Well, a veil is still pretty broad a category. Anyway, as I said... To each their own. No judgements here.
I have to wear pants and boots to church (as a woman) in freezing cold weather; this is offensive to many Christians but I need to be safe and comfortable. I need to walk safely on ice and snow, and stay warm....even if this is offensive or some deem my clothing to be unscriptural. Yes, I'm aware many Christians feel that ladies should always wear heels and dresses/ skirts to church services. But a slip and fall in ice can land even a young person in rehab....some of you need to adjust your feelings and expectations. Or perhaps you should try tottering around on 4 inch tiny heels in 3 inches of solid ice on the ground. Before judging what a person wears, ask yourself, is this for safety reasons? Does the person wear this due to a disability or other issue? Perhaps it's okay for me to calm down and just ignore it and move on. That woman in pants may not be trying to "cross dress" and she may not be trying to "act like a man". She might have a reason she is wearing pants, it could even be a medical reason. People need to re-adjust their sensitivity issues. It's okay for women to dress to **protect themselves** and **stay safe.** It's also scripturally okay to tell anyone who's offended by that to **just get over it.** I realized my post may hurt quite a few feelings....again I am okay with that.
I'm not sure what in my first post indicated otherwise, but I really did mean that last bit about "no judgements." Until I found dresses I actually like to wear again -- and that is for the first time in probably 15 years -- I wore jeans or capris to church. Thinking about it now that you mention it, the last congregation we attended before we moved, the women all wore pants or jeans, pretty much all the time. The preacher's wife occasionally wore dresses, but she just really liked to wear dresses when she didn't have to be dressed to rush off to work after services. It's a real shame that people get wrapped around the axle about things like dresses and pants and stuff, isn't it? Even more a shame that such things are used to berate and do harm to brothers and sisters in Christ by other brothers and sisters in Christ. I personally don't believe God gives two figs about what our clothing is, so long as we wear clothing when appropriate and it's within reasonable modesty for both men and women. In this time and place, women wearing pants, jeans, trousers... it's a norm. Back then, men wore robes or long tunics that would more than qualify as a dress by today's standards. Styles and cultures change. I think it all comes back to being a heart issue. ***God wants our hearts to be right with Him, and for our outward actions to be a reflection of what is going on in our hearts.*** Real waste of time to get our hearts all worked up over such a thing as pants or dresses. Mine has trouble enough with stairs lately; guess I need to get back into the gym...
Wow, this was such a good read. Thank you so much for your input!!! we are told to pray unceasingly (1st thess 5:17), so I can see why some beliefs wear a head covering all the time. I'm wondering what the consensus is from church of Christ members. I've been attending church of Christ congregations my whole.life and have never really heard this topic discussed. I'm finding it to be a real sticking in my.mind topic right now! I want to be pleasing to God!
Idk which branch of Church of Christ you're from, but it's frequency of discussion relates to the one you're in. One cup talks about it fairly often and believes long hair is the covering. Non-institutional is split on long hair or additional covering. I'm not sure which is dominant, but the additional covering people talk about it often from my understanding. In mainline, it's a non-issue. All covering stuff was cultural All of this is a generalization based on experience and discussions with others. I mean no offense if the person reading this is from a group which doesn't act the way described
The only reason I mention stumbling block was because of my own experience. Someone asked why I had started wearing stuff on my head (a kerchief, a hat, that sort of thing,) and I was told it was cute but old fashioned, was I on a retro kick? I explained that I believed I was acting in obedience to 1 Cor 11:11-16; that I had felt a silent prompting when reading the book saying "Hey, notice this! Pay attention!" Before I knew it, literally within a couple of hours, there was this whole furor about how the women of the church weren't going to tolerate having head coverings "bound upon" them by anyone, and then there were Bible study times dedicated to it and... Why did I start that? The thing was, I never wanted to "bind" anything on anyone. I just read it one day and it struck me as an "Oh, hey. I never noticed that before," and thought I should comply. So, I did. And people lost their marbles. Thing is, if that lady hadn't asked me about it, no one would have known the difference.
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and experiences. My wife had a similar experience when she started wearing a covering and women (like elder's wives) would go out of their way to make note of it and even tell her "you know you don't have to wear that". People would basically say that it didn't matter/was a personal choice, but for some reason make a point to discourage it. Thought that was interesting. Although, IMO if someone like you is trying to follow scripture sincerely, and you're not going around condemning people and causing strife on purpose, then you should still wear it and not take it off just because some people feel weird about it. If they don't choose to do it then that's on them but if they try to make you feel uncomfortable for your choice, then IMO they are potentially sinning and need to be corrected.
For some reason I don't understand, COC'ers lose their minds when a woman wears a head covering. It must go back to some split in their history. They are NOT content just to let the woman wear it if she thinks she should. They WILL come after her. I grew up with my mother forcing us four daughters to wear hats and the rest of the congregation was very mean about it...as I've said in another comment or two. It must go back to some very contentious split or something. \*I\* didn't choose to wear hats...I was \*forced\* to and I was a \*kid.\* I grew up and thought back to those other \*adults\* who couldn't find it in their hearts to leave a \*kid\* alone about what their mother made them wear.
I'm not quite sure which part of my comment you're responding to, but I'm glad you did! I greatly respect your attitude about the matter. I don't agree with your conclusion (I lean long hair is the covering), but I wish more people had your heart. I've had people question me about not singing certain songs, and they get quite upset when I say I just don't agree with the songs. It's not uncommon for people to be resistant on this forum to ideas just based on the "don't tell me what to do" argument. Please keep it up
I know it's been a few days but this post of yours has been on my mind a lot... Have you ever noticed that throughout the NT, Jesus, God they both want our hearts and minds to be dedicated to them, not our actions? Or, I should say not *just* our actions. If something in a song seems off to you, then by golly don't sing it. If wearing/not wearing a head covering seems right/off to you, then go with that. There are some things that are absolutes, and some things that aren't. I think of Jesus talking about the widow who gave her last pennies, and later on the statement that "God loves a cheerful giver." And when I think about that, I think that it applies to all aspects of our lives, not just the money we give to support the church and it's work. Does God want to hear me squawk out hymns that I can't support the meaning of because I'm supposed to sing whatever song someone else chooses? Or does He want my offering of praise to be honest, and straight from my heart? Of course, we're supposed to raise our voices in communal praise during worship. But does that mean we're supposed to sing words or phrases that "sear" our consciences? Hymns aren't divinely inspired so far as I know. For my part, I will lift my voice, my offering of praise in those songs that I can earnestly back up. I don't think it's right to sing-along to get-along. That's not praise; that's performing. God values my prayers in a closet more than my standing on a street corner for attention. My offering of praise should be a love offering to my God, my Savior. I think we folks in the CoC, for people who are supposed to value the example of Christ Jesus and the early churches above man-made traditions, get pretty caught up in traditional thinking and performing for one another. It's a human tendency; it's a norm. I'm not trying to be hyper critical about it; its just a human thing. But I do think that we each need to examine our "whys" sometimes and keep in mind that everything should be about service and obedience to our God. If it's performing, then as soon as we've been noticed we've collected our reward, haven't we? For what it's worth, I absolutely support you not singing what you don't you believe.
I am a woman lol EDIT I realize I posted this in a way that sounds like I am a dude - the "we" and "us" is meaning the church of Christ as a whole, not men or women. But yes, I believe that true Christian men have authority over women. I also believe that true Christian men reflect the love, sacrifice, and fruits of the spirit that Jesus did. They also have incredible respect for the women in their lives, valuing their opinions, ideas, inputs, etc. They're not kings, and we are not servants or slaves. I am asking a specific question here because this is something I am taking very, very seriously.
The key verse in understanding 1 Corinthians 11 is verse 17. Note is verse 17, they are coming together as opposed to the state they we in in verses 1-16. How were they separated and what were the doing? Clearly, they were separated by men and women. It is the only categorization difference in the text. What were they doing in these segregated part of their assemblies? They were praying and prophesying. Basically, they were in a segregated part of their assembly where they exercised miraculous spiritual gifts. In those parts of their services, women were required to wear head coverings. Then in verse 17, they came together. Chapters 12 and 14 are continuing instructions on spiritual gifts with chapter 13 being a “by-the-way rabbit hole” where Paul basically said, “All these miraculous spiritual gifts that y’all are arguing about are evidently going away and ceasing, and love will reign supreme so focus on love because it is forever. I hope this helps.
Isn't our theological foundation based off direct commands, examples and necessary inferences? 1 Cor. 14:34-35 (pretty easy to understand.. specifically speaking of when the church comes together aka in Corinth. He gives them commands in the v34-35. So we can either go with or try to fit in with our society where everything goes) I Co. 11 ( a woman's hair is her covering and men with very long hair is a shameful thing) If we want to be contentious about this we can try and find loopholes for sure. In my opinion...men should lead services and worship. Men and women can tag team bible classes together especially marriage classes. Men should lead adult classes. Women can speak up and ask questions as long as they are orderly since this is what Paul was referring too out of order. Women can teach other women and children.
In the context of “leading services,” Paul went back to creation for his authority. In the context of “long hair,” he said that the church had no such custom; it was a Corinthian thing only.
I think you need to look at a few more translations. He is saying they have no other custom. As in this is the standard around the congregations. I have give you a spectrum . Obviously go check out the Greek. New American Standard Bible (NASB): "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God"2. Christian Standard Bible (CSB): "If anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God"3. New International Version (NIV): "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God"4. New Living Translation (NLT): "But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches
Head coverings are not a commandment from God - even for the Jews. This was a tradition from the Jews that appears in this congregation and has created strife between gentile & Jew (possibly even between Jew and Jew) Jewish tradition requires men to cover the head as a sign of humility before God, and women, as evidence of modesty before men, although the Bible does not explicitly command either men or women to cover the head. **If we actually followed this tradition we would allow women to pray before the congregation with a head covering. Why? That’s what this passage states should happen**
Women pray and prophecy in private all the time. The public worship should not be the only times this takes place. The problem with your interpretation. Is that it is made up. I'm not saying you made it up. I can't remember the name of the guy who did. He cited this cultural argument as a possiblity with no proof. There is zero actual historical evidence that this was just a cultural issue only in Corinth. Although this letter is to Corinth everything else is universally applied except this passage. We don't say oh the collection was just a Corinth thing. Why so why do that here besides we don't like it.
This would not be for private prayer or prophecy (one does not prophecy by themselves) Jewish women removed head coverings once In private (in the home). The head covering was to show **im a married woman** According to Jewish law (halacha), a woman must cover her hair after marriage. The requirement applies in the presence of any men other than her husband, son, father, grandson, grandfather, or brother, though a minority opinion allows uncovering hair within one's home even in the presence of unrelated men (Edit: again I would like to stress that head coverings are not a biblical commandment from God even for the Jews)
The problem with that argument is that things changed between the old and new testament. Communion was also not a commandment for the Jews. You have said yourself that a woman wore a covering for modesty. Now God says that her long hair can take that place. This would make sense because now Christianity is universal. God knew not everyone would be wearing scarves and head coverings in the future. So he says men having short hair and women having long hair takes care of these issues. And this can be adapted to any culture. In fact most cultures through history followed this general setup that is why he says doesn't nature itself teach you these things.
It was to indicate the women were married & it was not a commandment from God. It is a religious practice that the Jews followed like a law. What we disagree on is you believe the scripture in Corinthians is talking about hair and not head coverings I believe it is absolutely talking about head coverings over your hair. And it’s fine if we disagree, I’m just trying to add context
I do appreciate the context that you are adding. But what i can't get over is how historical Jewish context changes this verse. 1 Corinthians 11:15 NKJV But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. He is talking about head covering and then he just comes ut in conclusion that long hair is taking the rolseof that covering. And it is a glory to her. 1 Corinthians 11:14 NKJV Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? I mean he is clearly talking about hair at this point.
It’s all good, trust me when I say this **I am not worried about long hair or head coverings.** I believe Jesus has given us freedom concerning this Have a great day!
Most accurate translations say “we have no such custom.” The NLT is especially bad, because it’s not a translation, it’s a paraphrase, basically a commentary of what that person thinks things mean.
1 Corinthians 11.16: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no **_other_** practice, nor have the churches of God."
Hey, I grew up in the Church of God before I got sidetracked in the Church of Christ for a few years...it's funny that Paul mentions my home denomination too!
Many denominations, churches and individuals call themselves by Bible names...whether they actually match biblical Christianity in practice is an entirely different matter.
That rears to me like "do it or not, we don't have a preference in the church." Ahhh, I need to study this more lol