The Head Covering Movement

Head coverings are not a popular doctrine. In fact, that’s quite the understatement. So why would I start a movement based upon it? Do I enjoy controversy? Absolutely not. Looking to be divisive? The opposite. Then what would possess me to do such a thing? The short answer is, because it’s in the Bible. See, if “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16 NASB) then all Scripture deserves fair treatment. On top of that, this particular topic is not just mentioned in the Bible, but it’s defended. It’s not just one or two obscure verses but it occupies 15 consecutive verses. We can debate what Paul meant and we can debate how it applies in the 21st century, but the one thing we can’t do is ignore this topic.

Daniel Wallace is one of the leading textual critics and the founder of the “Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts”. To say this brother knows the Greek text well would be quite the understatement. He said this about the “actual head covering” view (the position I’m advocating) which I think many can relate to:

The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically. Since it is never safe to abandon one’s conscience regarding the truth of Scripture, I held to this view up until recently. Quite frankly, I did not like it (it is very unpopular today). But I could not, in good conscience, disregard it. *

That’s an incredibly honest statement. Because a head covering is a visual symbol, it’s impossible to hide or delay in stating your views. It’s the first doctrine that people know you believe if you meet someone at church, even before you shake their hands. They may be feeling judged just by you wearing one (because they’re not) and you may be thinking that they must be thinking that you’re stuck in the 50′s. To top it off, your pastors or those closest to you may be concerned that you’re embracing legalism. These are real struggles that people face when even contemplating the “actual head covering” view. So suffice it to say, when Dr. Wallace noted that it’s “unpopular today” he has an accurate perception of how well it’s received. When you wear a head covering it forces everyone in your church to deal with the text and some just aren’t ready to.

Daniel Wallace again says:

The real danger, as I see it, is that many Christians simply ignore what this text says because any form of obedience to it is inconvenient. *

Now this is not to say that the only reason that people don’t embrace head coverings is fear. Some are persuaded by other interpretations and if convinced by Scripture, would change their minds. I hope that is you and you share my desire to rightly understand everything the Bible says and submit to that. But I’m worried that many read over 1 Corinthians 11, thinking “that can’t mean what I think it says. No one I know wears one and we can’t all be wrong.” Then scurry off to chapter 12, making a mental note to look into it later (which if we’re honest rarely happens). If I described your response, now is that time. We’re going to go deep into the text and wrestle through it together as a community. Don’t worry though, this blog isn’t written to scholars, I wrote it for the average Christian, the layman and laywoman, for you. In the next four posts I’ll be making a positive case for the wearing of an artificial head covering for women while in church. Likewise, I’ll argue that men are commanded to keep a bare head in the same context. I’ll do this by pointing to four reasons that Paul himself gives in 1 Corinthians 11. When I explain those reasons, I won’t be giving as much attention to competing views as this will largely be a positive case. After that I’ll make a case for why head coverings only need to be practiced when the local church is gathered together. Finally, we’ll give attention to your questions and the popular objections.

The Heart of the Matter
Before this post comes to an end I want to bring up a word of caution: make sure your heart is prepared. I figure most people reading this blog either disagree with or don’t know what to make of head coverings, so your guard is probably up. I know, I do it too and it’s not a bad thing really. We’re always in a battle against false teaching and false teachers, so it’s good to be skeptical and keep a guard up, filtering everything through the Word of God. Just make sure you won’t accept any old argument against head coverings because you don’t want it to be true. What will my husband or wife think? What will those in my church think? How will I find a spouse if he/she knows I believe this? The fear of man can be overwhelming, but we must fear God and His commands above men. We must bind ourselves to the text of Scripture and obey no matter how uncomfortable the outcome may be. So if your heart is not ready, make sure you stop and seek the Lord in prayer before moving on. Then when you’re ready give 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 a good read. Please read through this text slowly and become intimately familiar with it. This is the only chapter in the Bible that commands and explains the practice of head coverings, so you must know it well to be a good Berean (Acts 17:11).

You can learn more about this movement to de-mystify the doctrine and practice of headcovering by sisters in the Lord: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com

Brother Greg, to say I am confused as to the onus and aim of this post is to put it mildly.

I came onto the website this morning to download more brother Len's exhortations, as my dear older brother ALWAYS blesses me, teaches me via the Leading of the God the Holy Ghost.....BUT, I saw the leadline of the post and my heart sank....I did not know you were the author, which begs the question, "is this now "doctrine" of the Gospel Fellowships?"...

which further begs the question, since when did something EXTERNAL, become a "doctrine"?....if we wish to go BACK, into Scripture and look for NEGLECTED Ordinances. why not go to John 13?

to quote, and may God add His Blessing to this Precious Portion of Holy Scripture:

"Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.” For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean.”

When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you."
John 13:1-15

lets look at that last verse again:

"For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you."

That's RED LETTER, coming from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ...hence a "foot washing" movement demonstrating Jesus Love, and Servanthood to the saints, would that not be of invaluable knitting us together as the Body of Christ?would that not be of Divine profit in underlining humility one to another?

I don't understand, with a world on fire, how such external displays, qualify as "doctrine". and I did read this dear mans website, and was taken aback in the first sentences by such as this:

Hello everyone and welcome to the Head Covering Movement.

My name is Jeremy and I’m the founder

"and I'm the founder"?

my question is this, is this now part of the Gospel Fellowships?

I have MANY more questions, but I wont belabor you. I could even bring up the importance of the Jerusalem Council Four very simple edicts, to help Early Church Gentile followers of Jesus, who were being confused by those who maintained all the external requirements of Moses and the Law, must be maintained to follow Messiah.

this whole thread greatly concerns me as it relates to Gospel fellowships, and whether such a formation is to be IN-clusive, or EX-clusive.
In Jesus' love, neil

Saints,

Just again to clarify what was shared. It is a blog website that is not run by myself but brother Jeremy who runs www.gospelebooks.net Which is a great website for kindle ebooks.

I am more partial to encourage the "re-thinking" of this practice in the church and therefore am not ashamed to encourage the consideration of it. As towards Gospel Fellowships this is not an issue of fellowship either way sisters interpret the passage.

There is a footnote in the Principles volume to encourage this practice but it is not a major issue or nor theme to dis-fellowship or fellowship around.

brother Niel quoted Ravenhill and their movement had sisters to be covered I believe as did most holiness pentecostal groups and most other denoninations in the early 1900's and before.

Again it is not an issue to dis-fellowship or approve. I believe the wording "movement" simply is a movement to discuss and re-think the intrepretation of it in the Church.

Watchman Nee considered it important for spiritual reasons therefore his entire little flock church in China practiced this for sisters to wear coverings in meetings.

Thank you saints for the humble heart to learn of the Lord, re-think things and if disagreed then that is fine. But we should not discourage other sisters who feel it was shown by the Holy Spirit for them to do it.

So neither compulsion or requirement is the case but all are left to the Spirit's leading and Scriptures for themselves.

what are the spiritual advantages of making godly, spirit filled sisters wear one? Serious question.

Brother, I am going to respond in short to this post but is not my objective to defend this practice or promote it overtly. I would say personally it is not "making" anyone wear headcoverings. It is in scripture and if true then a practice the Lord gave for the Church.

So we would have to say it is God making or desiring sisters to do this.

God never will force, we must come to these things by His grace and with a willing heart.

It seems the head covering is the female version of male circumcism. How many Jews were circumcised outwardly yet failed to keep the law. Paul reminds us that the one who is uncircumcised yet keeps the law in his heart is approved by God.

So if the sister wears a head covering as a sign of outward submission but in her heart is not submitting to God is she approved by God? It seems the sister who is not wearing the head covering but submitting to God is the one God approves.

I believe I read it is man that loooks at the outward appearance but God looks at the heart. God is more concerned about what is in the hear of a sister then what is on her head. I read in 1 Peter 3 that a sister's adorning is not to be external but internal. The internal adorning that comes out of a heart governed by the Holy Spirit. Peter speaks of a gentle and quiet spirit that is precious in God's sight.

In the New Testament believers are exhorted to clothe themselves with Christ. In doing so the fruit if the Spirit will flow out of their hearts as rivers of living water. That fruit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness goodness , faithfulness, gentleness self control. These virtues of the heart are far more precious to God in a sister than whether their head is covered or not.

In ny walk with God the sisters I have met that have shown the beautiful fruit of tthe Spirit did not have a cloth on their head. But they had the covering of Jesus himself. That covering of being clothed in Christ himself.

As usual, my thoughts.

Bearmaster.

Head covering [women] or uncovering [men] is scriptural and there is no argument with that, It is men and women. It is outward and it is visible, which is its meaning and purpose. It is for the angels and not principally for the man.

If you ever get the responsibility of employing a man and you find one who calls you "master" you can be certain that it will be his countenance and not the words which will decide who you employ. When you walk down the queue to select your labourers it will not be the ones who have removed their hats when you pass by which you will employ, but the one who removed his hat, calls you master and shows a good spirit to serve you according to days wage.

If Satan is looking for his labourers who will he choose? The one who wears the hat or the one who removes it? He will choose both because he is looking for hypocrisy at work and if he sees it he will seek to have its benefit. On the other hand if he sees a sincere heart and a covering he will flee.

AA writes..........

"And, the very fact that you tie it to submission, tells me that you cannot help but judge those who don't wear it as being unsubmissive. No matter how much you deny that, the very fact that you believe wearing a head covering proves that a women is submissive, then conversely, is an indication to you (and others I am sure) that those who do not wear them are rebellious. how could you not think that? Either you think others are rebellious who refuse to wear one after they have receive the "teaching" or you think others are just ignorant and must not have had the "teaching", yet."

Brother, you have captured the very essence of it. Sometimes we have glimpses of that truth coming out, but most times it is hidden. On this very forum, someone of the head covering persuasion suggested that they did not know if Corrie Ten Boom was saved because she did not cover her head.

Andrew, are you suggesting that if a man ever wears a hat, he is in rebellion? For those of the head covering persuasion do not simply cover their heads when praying or prophesying, they cover their heads all the time in public. So, conversely, following that logic, men would not be allowed to cover their heads in public, as a sign of their own submission.............bro Frank

Andrew, are you suggesting that if a man ever wears a hat, he is in rebellion?...........bro Frank

No

"And, the very fact that you tie it to submission, tells me that you cannot help but judge those who don't wear it as being unsubmissive. No matter how much you deny that, the very fact that you believe wearing a head covering proves that a women is submissive, then conversely, is an indication to you (and others I am sure) that those who do not wear them are rebellious. how could you not think that? Either you think others are rebellious who refuse to wear one after they have receive the "teaching" or you think others are just ignorant and must not have had the "teaching", yet." allaboard

Whatever benefit there may be to a sister wearing a head covering when the church assembles together is no doubt something for the sister to decide herself. If she sees benefit in it then it is for her a benefit. As for the hypocrisy of anyone making assumptions as to another sister who sees no benefit thereby "proving" her rebellion is of course legalistic. As to who has the power to comprehend why a sister does or does not wear a covering on her head, or as to why any one does or does not see it as error is hidden unless it is openly stated. My wife Helen does not wear a head covering in the church. Yet she has never stood against me before our children, nor whispered in private nor gossiped in public against me. Yet I believe in head covering in the church for those sisters who are minded to speak openly in the church by way of prayer of prophecy.

Most people do not believe me when I bear witness of my wife's good attitude. They imagine I am joking in some way. However it is the plain truth. Apart from that no man should instruct another mans wife or his children in contradiction to the head of the household.

Brother, very respectfully and in his Spirit, I invite you and others to address the issue of foot washing. I have opened up a thread on that very topic under "And what of John 13:1-20". Not to take away from this thread. But if we are going to speak of New Covenant commands then maybe we need to take a look at the example if the Son of God himsrlf.

It seems to me that Jesus is teaching something that applies to both brother and sister A practice that takes far more courage for one to practice because it takes a crucified life to wash one's feet.

My question to the sisters who wear the head covering. And this asked out of Spirit filled respect. You have the courage to wear the head covering, but do you have the courage go wash someone's smelly feet?

In the New Testament two women washed the feet of Jesus and with tears and perfume no less. One was the woman who lead a sinful life and came and repented. She washed the feet of Jesus with her tears and perfume . The account is found in Luke 7:36-42.

The other account is Mary, the sister of Martha, pouring perfume and annointing Jesus feet. This account is found in John 12:1-8.

So as to not hijack this thread I invite you to respond on the thread I have opened up on "And what about John 13:1-20".

Submitted in the Spirit.

Bearmaster.

1 Cor. 11:4-5
Every man who PRAYS OR PROPHIES with his head covered dishonors his head but every wife who PRAYS OR PROPHESIES with her bead uncovered dishonors her head.

j

1 Cor. 11:4-5
Every man who PRAYS OR PROPHIES with his head covered dishonors his head but every wife who PRAYS OR PROPHESIES with her bead uncovered dishonors her head.

1 Cor.11:13
Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a wife to PRAY to God with her head uncovered.

Acts 2:18
even on my MALE SERVANTS ABD FEMALE SERVANTS
In those days I will pour out my Spirit and THEY SHALL PROPHESY.

....Caps are for emphsasis only....Cannot underline.

Brothers and sisters if we are going to rethink this issue. Then I respectfully suggest we do it in the context of the passage under discussion. The issue is not the external covering. The issue of tbis passage is the praying and prophedying of saints in the church meeting. Particularly of Christians sisters. This is the heart of the matter.

I ask the sisters, respectfully, who wear the bead covering, do you pray or prophesy in your church meetings? I mean do you pray of prophesy in the public church meeting. I ask you brotbers, respectfully, who advocate the head covering, do you pray or prophesy in the church meeting? Presumably with your head uncovered.

My brother or sister who advocate the head covering, if you cannot answer yes to the above questions then I gently say you are pursuing dead religion. For this is merely not submission. But the body praying and prophedying in the Holy Spirit.

As one brother said to me. I am more interested in what the sister is doing under the covering. What is she praying or prophesying?

Bearmaster.

Do not agree. There is a difference of opinion ("argument") otherwise this thread would not exist. It exists because some think it is scriptural and some think it was cultural (per Corinth). allaboard

By saying that head covering is scriptural I am simply agreeing with the OP. Especially the point made about exegesis. In this instance the exegetical formula is grammatical and syntactical and not cultural.

Daniel Wallace is one of the leading textual critics and the founder of the “Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts”. To say this brother knows the Greek text well would be quite the understatement. He said this about the “actual head covering” view (the position I’m advocating) which I think many can relate to:

The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically………..

I think this element of the OP is intended to put to bed any notion that the passage of scripture from Corinthians has a grammatical or syntactical opt out clause and therefore the possibility of claiming that it doesn't carry an apostolic meaning. If it were simply a symbolic expression used by Paul to instruct this particular church then of course some would say that this teaching was weighed in that balance and may not have meaning for every other church. This is in a sense what has happened and still happens. Hence the claim that what Paul taught the Corinthians in this instance is just for the Corinthians. To put it into context it would be the same as saying that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were just for the Corinthian believers. Likewise it would be conversely the same as saying that there were believers in every church who were fleshy because the Corinthian believers were given an explanation as to why some of them were dying prematurely. In short the deaths at Corinth are local, and needed an explanation. If they were not local at that time in the authority of Paul's apostleship of many churches, then he could have made reference to the other churches who had the same problem. He didn't and so exegetically the issue of the Corinthian believers fleshy lives was a basis for an explanation of their problem, and not a basis for saying all the churches were fleshy. Whereas the head covering issue was not intended to be a local explanation. Hence the phrase "we have no other tradition". i.e. the same thing is done everywhere.

In this light I agree with the OP. What else I may think is irrelevant.

Then Andrew if you are going to agree with the OP you will have to agree that the issue is the praying and prophesying of the Christian sisters in Corinth.

If we are going to carry this command today to have women where a head covering in the church meeting then the women and the men will have to be allowed to pray and prophesy. And tbis may be in the language of tongues.

This is the issue I am raising and I do it respectfully. If one is going to insist that the head covering be binding as a New Covenant commmand. Then one is going to have to allow for the New Covenant gift of prophesy to be exercised.

You cannot separate the head covering issue from what Paul is addressing in the passage. Mainly the way in which men and women were to prophesy in the Corinthian church.

But if this command is to be binding today. Then one must allow for the gift of prophesy.

Bearmaster.

Respectfully I ask of those sisters who sear the head covering. Do you pray or prophesy publically in the church meetings?

Bearmaster.

If God has given Head covering and submission to wife as a commandment to man then I will cover my head and submit to the decisions of my wife, no matter what the world follows. I will do it because I want to please God.

Head covering is a new covenant command unlike other external commands of old covenant. There are very few new covenant commands that are external. One such command is water baptism. Most of the Churches practices it as a sign for born again life. They do not discourage people saying born again is an internal thing and you do not need an external sign. But when it comes to head covering we see people discouraging others from following God's command.

I believe this is well said, there are few New Covenant practices. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are emphasized the most. And then Headcoverings is given one chapter.

Other ones such as Foot washing, Holy Kiss, Baptism for the dead are 1-2 verses are not really as important or they would be commanded or emphasised more. Also there is no specific spiritual allegory behind the practice as shown in scriptures for Foot Washing etc. But for headcovering as other have alluded to, submission and spiritual headship is a major spiritual teaching behind it.

Almost every denomination or group before the 1950's roughly had this practice of headcovering. It was a given.

I personally think it is healthy to teach it as in scriptures and allow the saints to follow the leading of the Spirit in its practice. I see no fruit in especially brothers speaking against it except that in some circles it is a religious rite and a source of pride and contention. This is in very few groups. I would say most evangelical sisters I have met who covered were doing it out of a love relationship to Jesus Christ. This is the case of my wife that with also the fear of the Lord she desires to follow everything the Lord has commanded and desires for her.

My brother or sister who advocate the head covering, if you cannot answer yes to the above questions then I gently say you are pursuing dead religion. For this is merely not submission. But the body praying and prophedying in the Holy Spirit.

Brother, I do not believe it is fair for you to say to sisters it is all dead religion. It is also about submission and in even some cases MODEST DRESS. In the past a covering for the head is considered a way of being modest also for woman. Such should not be looked down upon.

The underlying assumption is that those who cover heads will not speak in meetings or be "silent" as the Apostle Paul commanded sisters in one case in the Epistles. But rather woman who cover their head in the right way are recognizing God's economy, His ways in the Church and in the world. She is submitting to God's order and respecting the unseen world under God's and Christ's rulership. Such a sister can prophesy and speak God's word BOLDLY as under the leading of the Spirit and respecting the authority of men in the home and brothers in the Church. Ultimately the MAN Jesus Christ who is over the Church as Head.

They can prophesy and should but only under submission just as Christ did not share a word except from the Father and the Holy Spirit submitted to Christ to speak only of Him.

Then Andrew if you are going to agree with the OP you will have to agree that the issue is the praying and prophesying of the Christian sisters in Corinth.

If we are going to carry this command today to have women where a head covering in the church meeting then the women and the men will have to be allowed to pray and prophesy. And tbis may be in the language of tongues.

This is the issue I am raising and I do it respectfully. If one is going to insist that the head covering be binding as a New Covenant commmand. Then one is going to have to allow for the New Covenant gift of prophesy to be exercised.

You cannot separate the head covering issue from what Paul is addressing in the passage. Mainly the way in which men and women were to prophesy in the Corinthian church.

But if this command is to be binding today. Then one must allow for the gift of prophesy. Blaine

Not sure why you feel the need to draw me on that one Blaine but I am happy to be drawn. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are for all members from the least to the great and both male and female. Amen.

It was whilst observing an elderly sister in the 1980's that I both learned the real meaning of head covering as well as the reality of sisters ministering in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. When this sister prayed she always discreetly drew her shawl over her head. Then similarly when she prophesied and so on. It was a good living example. I have also see raven headed sisters with more hair than you could shake a stick at prophesying unto destruction with a spirit of malice and judgementalism. Both good lessons. One to glorifying the Lord the other to a grieving of the Spirit.

Andrew only responding to your post. This done respectfully. I appreciate your position that all of the spiritual gifts are for the believers today. Also about the the example of the elder sister who prophesied with her shawl on. At least she was consistent with the passage under discussion.

Blaine

Brother in reading your post you are saying women can prophesy and pray in church provided they are covered.by an external cloth?

Bearmaster.

Brother just to clarify. I have been respectful of the sisters who wear the head covering. I do not look down on them. I did say in a spirit of gentleness if prophesy or praying were not done while the sisters bead were covered, that they would be pursuing dead religion. Perhaps I should say if not done with a fight heart attitude then a sister is pursuing dead religion.

But brother might I suggest, respectfully, that it could be the other way around. I have heard that some of those sisters wbo wear the head covering look down on those who do not. One brother posted that was his experience when he went to a Zac Poohnen conference.

Indeed to insist on this practice could lead to a spiritual elitism. It should be a matter of spiritual liberty as to what God may tell each sister. Personally I do not hold to tbis practice to be binding on churches today.

As usual these are my thoughts.

Bearmaster.

Pride is the operation of all men and women naturally speaking. Although some folks do seem to have an ability not to be overtly proud. This is true for believers and unbelievers. If we spent some time in a culture where women automatically wear head coverings the same reality can be found. In the Gujarati community where I once lived I was always blessed by the attitude of many women. I witnessed mothers with their families and saw their willingness to be a good example for their daughters and at the same time to honour their husbands. On the other hand some of the matrons of households behaved like devils and oppressed everyone under them. The same is true for every other culture I feel certain. Yet none of this can take away from or compare with the pleasantness and delight of a godly sister who covers her head and does so as a sign of obedience in essence unto the Lord. Even an unbelieving women is more pleasing when she has no anger towards other men, but desires to please those she respects.

It is a natural phenomena and this is why I believe Paul expressed this issue in terms of a woman's hair. If cutting the hair off is not shameful to a woman, no amount of head covering will contribute to a good attitude. Things have become confused in many places and rebellion of both men and women has made for an impossible confusion. Yet even naturally speaking the hair has its own effect on those who see it. My daughter as a young girl had a full head of golden red hair. When we walked down the public streets the Gujarat's would often stop us and just look at her hair with wonder. How many mothers simply wanted to touch it and how many old men were openly blessed by the sight of it, is lost to count. Yet in that place there came a time when little girls were required to cover their beauty for the sake of modesty.

How much more then ought we who comprehend eternal life, to do that which is pleasing to Christ. If we can comprehend how to please other men, how much more ought we to comprehend how to please the Lord. Sadly this subject as with so many is cast onto the ground not only because of those sisters who reject it out of hand, but because of those men who fail to comprehend that nature itself teaches in visibility what God intends in visibility. It is not about the body but the one who created the body. The difficulty is intensified when we do that which we ought to do simply for the sake of appearance. Then it is further intensified when pastors and elders commend those sisters who do cover their heads in the local churches, failing to see which sisters are doing it for approval and in that motive some of them do take a dim view of those sisters who will not do it.

It seems to me to be ironic that Zac Poonen is mentioned in two threads. One in this thread because sisters in his fellowships allegedly shunned other sisters on this issue of head covering and in another thread because he was willing and able to clean up the excrement of a child with his own hands. Do we really want to comprehend reality or are we simply proud ourselves? What father would not want to preserve his daughter for her husband alone? What husband would not honour the father who laboured well in it? I believe there are those who for a similar motive encourage sisters to cover their heads in the churches, especially when they pray or prophecy in order to please our heavily Father. There are also sisters who obey their consciences and in doing so honour the Father in heaven. It would be a brave man who discouraged a godly attitude.

One wonders about a female who may have been converted out of Islam. She is told she has freedom in Christ. She need not wear the burka or the hajeeb. Yet she goes into a fellowship that requires a head covering. One wonders?

I am speaking of a Moslem woman who may be converted in the west. In places like Egypt and Iran, those sisters who have cone to Jesus wear the head covering for protection against Islamic persecution.

Bearmaster.

Koheleth no one is denying that head covering is not in the scriptures. But the question would be is the command still binding on the church today or was it a cultural issue particular to the Corithians

All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable. However not all scripture is applicable. That would certainly convey O.T. law. There are ceremonial verses in the Old Covenant writings that are not binding on New Covenant believers.

There are web sites that will argue both sides of the passage under question. It may be for the Holy Spirit to lead and guide what each sister is to do in each situation.

Bearmaster.

What do Elisabeth Elliot, Corrir Ten Boon, and Nancy Leigh DeMoss have in common? To the best of my knowledge they did not wear a head covering. Yet they were mightily used by God. Dies anybody dispute this?

Bearmaster.

What do Elisabeth Elliot, Corrir Ten Boon, and Nancy Leigh DeMoss have in common? To the best of my knowledge they did not wear a head covering. Yet they were mightily used by God. Dies anybody dispute this?

Brother, obviously no one considers having a head covering practice the greater spirituality where someone is more saved or more anointed with the Spirit. It is a simple act of obedience that declares a hidden spiritual truth. Not all sisters receive the revelation of it because it is not taught in mainstream christendom and also that is not a very important command compared to many other repeated New Covenant principles and commands.

Thus it is important because it "is" in Scripture. Yet it is not a full requirement for a healthy church. All first century Christians gentile or Jewish wore head covering, that is just a fact. Along with over 1900 years of Christianity by in-large had this practice.

Another way to show how this is practical is by the question: Does Christianity change everything about us or just our hearts and we can still live 100% like the world in everyway including our appearance etc? Obviously Scripture has much to share on how we can be different in almost every realm of life.

Again brethren for me this is not a point of division for any brethren. We MUST NOT divide over this but we should give freedom to those who feel led to practice this. And those that practice this should NOT ever demand it of others. That to me is a worthy conclusion and let each person be convinced in his own mind.

I am going to close and lock the thread at this point to just leave the discussions as-is and consider them profitable to encourage saints who have interest to seek the Lord personally on this matter.

It was a blessing that by-in large there was a graceful tone to many posts and we can disagree with each other on this and still 100% be brethren who are united in the common faith and pursuing Christ as His Bride.