But if any man seem to be contentious...

1 Corinthians 11:16 (KJV)
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

if any man seem to be contentious””The Corinthians were apparently fond of arguing, each claiming to have the last word or the ultimate answer (8:1).

we””the apostles. have no such custom””as that of women praying uncovered. neither the churches of God””Paul closed his argument by appealing to the universal custom of the churches.

While custom does not determine correct doctrine (since doctrine has been authoritatively revealed in Scripture), custom is a helpful guide in practical questions of what is proper or appropriate.

This phrase, then, supports the conclusion that the specific instructions regarding veils, etc., depend on cultural expectations and would not always apply. Paul's teaching, however, is based on underlying principles that should always be observed.

While I do believe there are sincere christians on both sides of the issue at hand who must follow their own conscience on how they are convinced that they understand it.

I do not believe that we should make it an issue at the expense of destroying Christian unity of the brethren in the body of Christ.

Romans 14:4-5
4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Blessings to everyone!

But just so you know, some use the "one" version that doesn't say or mean that!! Here's the BibleHub of every version that supports KJV...
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-16.htm

But any way, I agree with that but also that that scripture can include anything that man would dictate as a law over anyone and thereby causing an argument (not just head coverings brother), "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." And leave it there.

But that's just me and I will leave it there!!
God bless,
Lisa

It is totally out of character for any Biblical writer to go to great lengths to teach a principle and application and then end up saying it is not all that important - just let local custom dictate your decision on this issue.

Weird hermeneutics, I say.

Sandra

"we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."v 16

No such custom that men can not : "have long hair" v 14

No such custom that woman have to : "have long hair" v 15

Paul has simply pointed out that the headship order can be observed symbolically in nature through the fact that naturally woman tend to have long hair and men shorter hair .
Which is why Paul starts v 14 : " Doth not even nature itself teach you"

clarity

Add :

Tradition has misread 1 Cor 11, They have read it that Paul was teaching that woman should symbolically mimic the Spiritual headship order by the use of head apparel for woman.

By reading it this way : Pauls entire point has been lost.

And Church history seems to me to have become a record of a divisive hierarchical systems instead of the Biblical unified body paradigm fitly joined together with Christ as the Head, as what we read about in Scripture

Paul was not adding another law to Christianity, he was simply pointing out that nature itself teaches symbolicly the headship order

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

Paul does not say : Ordinances as I am fixing to deliver to you.
He says : "as I delivered them to you."
That connects to what he has previously been speaking about through out 1 Cor.

The ordinances that where delivered to the Church and was to be passed down was this :

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15: 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

The context leading up to the 11th chapter of 1 Cor. has been Paul addressing some of these ordinances with more detail :

abstain from meats offered to idols 1 Cor 10 : 19 - 33
1 Cor 8 : 1-13

fornication : 1 cor 10:8, 1 cor. 7, 1 cor 6:18, 1 cor 5

clarity

Have you ever thought that the word custom may be referring to contentions. In other words, he would be saying: If someone wants to be disputatious or contentious about these teachings, we do not tolerate such practice, or moral habit ( referring to contentions) in the churches of God.
I say that because i grew up to reading the Bible in another language( other than English) and that is how i always understood this verse to mean.

I believe a contentious person here would be in reference to someone who, having heard the apostle give a thorough argument for the headcover, would continue to oppose its practice.

I am sorry, i am not referring to anyone in this forum. I do not know what your convictions are. Please do not take it personally. I am referring to however the apostle has in mind
in the text.

Well, I personally soldemn get involved in such arguments but that is only because I believe there are more important issues out there to be concerned with and my time does not allow me to be involved in it all. But I would not consider someone who thinks this issue is important someone with an agenda, nor do I think this issue to be up to individual churches to decide. If it is a command, then it is meant for all believers. And if Paul himself thought it to be important to spend a whole chapter on, then who are we to argue with the Holy Spirit who inspired him. Having said that, I would never judge somebody for practicing or not practicing this command, because I myself did not see it till later in my Christian walk.

I think there is a bit of a logical fallacy in what you're saying. You are assuming that having a universal standard of moral absolutes for all christ followers will create higherarchy, but that is not the case. Jesus never meant that his commands be coerced, neither are we to live them only when we feel like it . It is neither nor. They are to be taken seriously yet obeyed willingly . The Holy Spirit alone is the convicting agent.

I don't think we need to be afraid of having an agenda. When I go witness to somebody, I definitely have an agenda in mind. My agenda is that they would come to see the truth of Christianity. But if SI has some guilines against agendas, then people need to respect that. Here is how you can tell, if the same person keeps posting the same thing over and over, then you may assume they have an agenda. But if a certain topic gets posted by different people, you really have no ground for your suspicion, because maybe the Holy Spirit is doing some convicting.

Over one third of the posts thus far on this thread are from one poster who is insisting that christians argue over everything. I wonder if that poster might begin a thread with that as the subject.

I do not consider headcovering a moral absolute either, but I believe a Christian can forfeit her/his salvation not merely over moral absolutes but over any violation of conscience, no matter how small an issue it may be. If the Holy Spirit convicts us on something and we violate that conviction, that is very dangerous. Take heed that you do not cause your brother to perish, for whom christ died. Now, that may or may not relate to the headcover issue, but just as a principle we need to heed. Violation of the light of the Holy Spirit and violation of the conscience are of serious consequences in the Christian walk.

Hello Frank, I am afraid this will turn into another topic but to answer you, I have never suggested that salvation is earned, but the Bible equates sin and disobedience with unbelief. The Bible says when the children of Israel lusted after food, that was unbelief. When they murmured in the wilderness, that was unbelief. When they wanted to stone Moses, you guessed it. The Bible warns believers not to follow their example of unbelief...... God bless you all but my time here is due.

The issue is clouded somewhat because in the earlier part of the 20th century up until the late 60s it was fashionable for ladies to wear a hat when they went out in public. For example, if you watch old "leave it beaver" or "i love Lucy" episodes mom didn't leave the house without a hat on. The same can be seen in other shows from that period.

Then hats fell out of fashion and women stopped wearing hats to churches (but not all churches- it has been my experience that many black women still wear hats to church- but I contend that is primarily a cultural and fashion thing).

My point is that in the earlier part of the 20th century, hat wearing in church by women had more to do with acceptable fashion and expectation of the day (even among non churched women in public) and very little or nothing to do with the 1st Corinthians passage.

I consider it very odd how most folks will agree with the principle of headship until it comes to an application of a symbol that will display for all to see that this is a guiding principle in the individual. Since there is such a resistance may I suggest that there are hidden forces at work to downplay its application because of the benefits it affords those who do obey.

We are in a war, a spiritual war.

Quote by Awakened:

"I think the reason that this is so contentious is because it is regarded by many to be a command from God. And if a command from God is disobeyed then there is no other way to put it except that those who are disobeying are living in perpetual rebellion and sinning against God."

I agree.

Sandra