headcoveringwoman
Sojourner
Posts: 6
Registered: 11/2/2009
Member Is Offline
|
![[*]](./images/perspective/default_icon.gif) posted on 11/13/2009 at 11:27 AM |
|
|
Question for those who believe long hair is the covering Paul required
If you believe that the covering Paul speaks of in I. Cor. 11 is long hair, do you believe it is displeasing to God for a man to pray with a hat on?
Or are they just observing 21st century American culture and removing their hat to be polite?
Or do you believe it is okay for a man to pray with a hat or other cloth covering on, as long as they don't have long hair?
This is just something I have always wondered about.
|
|
|
Koheleth
Sojourner
Posts: 38
Registered: 5/26/2009
Location: Pyrénées, France.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Calm and thoughtful.
|
| posted on 11/13/2009 at 01:13 PM |
|
|
Be nice to get to the bottom of this one.
Myself I think it's cultural with regards to that part of history. That may not be the case though.
When I first became a Christian I was working for a very reserved evangelical family, open brethren background, the sons were away from that to more
'free' evangelical fellowships.
When I first began to visit fellowships I found them very old fashioned, the reserved ones that is, granny hats etc 
The head covering thing was a issue in the more reserved fellowships. I do not know to be honest, I will have to study it.
I do believe though that if a man has hair long like a womans, something just does not feel right about that.
It's normal courtesy to remove your hat when you enter somewhere.
This is a in church thing that's for sure.
Be nice to get to the bottom of it.
What do I know anyway?
David Harris
Christian, Aenon Baptist.
Aspin en Lavedan, 65100
France, Europe.
Statement of faith of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists
1823
You are not called to believe as elect ones or as redeemed ones. You must believe as a sinner before you can know anything. You do not need to know
who has been loved nor who has been elected; only believe in Him who justifies the ungodly.
John Elias preaching on John 3:16 |
|
|
headcoveringwoman
Sojourner
Posts: 6
Registered: 11/2/2009
Member Is Offline
|
| posted on 11/16/2009 at 09:15 AM |
|
|
I have trouble thinking of this section as cultural for a number of reasons. One that stands out to me is that so many these days are trying to say
many sections of the Bible are no longer relevant in today's society. Women preachers is just one example. A more obvious one is the sinfulness of
homosexuality. I know a manwho is an Episcopal priest and gay. He sees no problem with this.  You can see more of that attitude in this article: http://www.whosoever.org/v3i2/hats.html
So I wear a headcovering to say to my friend and all like him that I believe all of the Bible is relevant for today, not just the parts that don't
offend us.
But the most persausive argument against that particular section being cultural is the fact that Paul himself roots it in the Creation Order.
Certainly that has not changed over the years. And the refernce to the angels. I like what Andree Seu said about that: "The angel detail is so
cryptic, so off the wall, so without explanation, that it becomes the strongest argument of all. Where is the "cultural relativity" case now, where
angels transcend all historical agitations?"
(WORLD Magazine | A symbol of glory | Andrée Seu | Jun 02, 07)
A few more quotes from those more learned than myself:
It is one thing to seek a more lucid understanding of the biblical content by investigating the cultural situation of the first century; it is quite
another to interpret the New Testament as if it were merely an echo of the first-century culture. To do so would be to fail to account for the serious
conflict the church experienced as it confronted the first-century world. Christians were not thrown to the lions for their penchant for
conformity.
Some very subtle means of relativizing the text occur when we read into the text cultural considerations that ought not to be there. For example, with
respect to the hair-covering issue in Corinth, numerous commentators on the Epistle point out that the local sign of the prostitute in Corinth was the
uncovered head. Therefore, the argument runs, the reason why Paul wanted women to cover their heads was to avoid a scandalous appearance of Christian
women in the external guise of prostitutes.
What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply
Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle's mouth, but we are
ignoring words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and gave no rationale for such instruction, we would be
strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation,
not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal for knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To
subordinate Paul's stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisogesis.
The creation ordinances are indicators of the transcultural principle. If any biblical principles transcend local customary limits, they are the
appeals drawn from creation.
(R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1977), p. 110.)
So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts,
and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short
they will forget the duty of nature….So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, ‘Well, what harm in uncovering the
stomach also?’ And then after that one will plead [for] something else: ‘Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?’
Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is
proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."
(cited in Men, Women, and Order in the Church: 3 Sermons by John Calvin, by Seth Skolnitzky. Presbyterian Heritage Pub.)
Anyway, just something to think about on a Monday morning.
|
|
|
|
