The Effects of the Headcovering on Divorce by Myron Horst

Great article!

...except for the title.

It ought to be, "The Effects of Feminism on Divorce."

And each time headcovering is alluded to as the culprit, it should be replaced by the word feminism.

There are a number of countries whose divorce rate is low that have no clue about the headcovering.

Again, the culprit is the sin of feminism. All these other things are merely the symptoms of this disorder.

Oh, please do not use the C-word (Calvinism) lest we get locked again.

I agree with the article, and I believe it is not the authors opinion that a piece of cloth can cure divorce.

Covering your head is a very small thing but it reaveals a great deal of your hearts attitude. We husbands should feel honored when our wifes voluntarily expresses their submission to us and God's order and that she has the moral strength to stand firm on the truth while others may scorn because they feel convicted.

About half the of the women in our fellowship cover their heads, some don't. I know I have to teach about at some point of time, but I also know I have to lay the right foundations before I can venture into this topic.
Is anyone here who has advocated and introduced this sucessfully to a fellowship where it previously has not been practised?

Why the woman’s headcovering affects the divorce rate and why the headcovering is so important for today.

There are successful marriages within Christianity but do not wear head coverings.

This guy is just preaching to his own choir, underpinning the belief system of it. That is just my opinion because in TN, I've met the most unkind women (toward me) that have head coverings. They judge me in jeans and no head covering with that "look" but we don't meet that often because we travel in different circles.

If and when there is another si conference, I hope to go but I also hope that the head covering people don't sit on one side of the church and the non on the other side.

Will there be any women there with pants on? That's a good question!! :) OR will there be rules about that?

God bless, just thinking out loud, bro greg,
Lisa

The problem is not with headcovering but legalism will find its expression through that what is outwardly recommendable without having the inward reality.

That will lead those who see their questionable testimony to reject their outward expressions. These people then discredit old hymns, King James bible, head covering, modest dress and the like. I sometimes come across people who grew up in fellowships where legalism was rampant. They think they have to counter it with tolerance and liberty or even license. They recoil at anything to do with these outward signs. This is very sad.

Headcovering in it self does not have to defend itself, it will never be a stumbling block in itself. Legalism is the stumbling block.

Legalism draws a caricature of godly things and drives immature people to counter it with license.

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Jesus did not find fault with fasting twice a week or tithing spices, contrariwise he said: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Wow! To think that head-coverings is still a relevant issue. It is! But not as an item in itself. Let me explain:

Recently I gathered up a few old fashion hats, pretty lace gloves, and costume jewelry from the attic of an elderly woman. I had my granddaughters put them on so I could take a picture of them posing like ladies of the past. They posed all right, but like the flattery sexy fashion models of today - not at all like the delicate "proper" ladies of the past. I encouraged the girls to tie their hair back in a bun, cover their shoulders, and sit up straight with their hands on their lap - to look authentic. They balked, and commented on how restrictive it must have been in the past.

In other words, this is far more than anything about outer attire, or what parts of the body needs more covering. It's about habits of presenting oneself which is deeply culturally conditioned.

I've been "round the mountain" with the attempts at making rules for women (which always feels demeaning) - and have concluded that the best way to train up young folk is model and teach the law of love: To consider other people's interests, respect one another, etc. When they respect others, they will gain habits of graciousness. That will affect their choices for attire, speech - with sensitivity to the social, religious, or domestic setting they find themselves in.

It starts with the experience of God's sacrificial love in their own lives - to gain self-respect. You can't respect others until you know your value as a human being made in God's image, whom Christ died for. Just think how important that is in preserving a marriage!

Legalism draws a caricature of godly things and drives immature people to counter it with license.

Savannah said:

...except for the title.

It ought to be, "The Effects of Feminism on Divorce."

And each time headcovering is alluded to as the culprit, it should be replaced by the word feminism.

There are a number of countries whose divorce rate is low that have no clue about the headcovering.

Again, the culprit is the sin of feminism. All these other things are merely the symptoms of this disorder.

I would go farther. Missing headcoverings on women in our culture results in a high divorce rate might possibly be one of the most creative oversimplifications one could make on the subject of divorce.

Savannah was right on the money, but this oversimplification in the O.P misses the real culprit which is feminism and godless rebellion towards male authority built into the female Psyche from the outset of their childhood.
Add to this the feminization of the male and the cultural approval of male-browbeating from females turns all upside down in a short time. Women are God designed to link with Males for family and childbirth, but all it is short-circuited when the feminist whores her way through life, pretending to put men in their place while the philandering man puts her in his bed to exploit her feminism by getting what he wants sexually and she gets to say triumphantly " I did it my way".
All of this nonsense is carried straight into the Church and delivered straight to the pastors and elders where the more rash forms of feminism are put to silence and the silent subtle forms are left to stand uncontested.
There is a lot to be said on this subject but headcoverings is probably the silliest way to approach repentance toward male leadership I've seen.
Is there no one that can muster the courage to deal with feminism and cowardly male leadership in the home?
Let me give you a Marvin-litmus test...take this recipe to your church and dip it in the Pastors "idea box" Suggest that he deal with women in rebellion to their husbands, male authority and failing to submit to authority. Then offer a series of meetings designed to address the area of feminism and its failure to keep the family safe from the harmful effects of disharmony and strife and replace it with a godly order.
Put this up right next to the same short series for men on avoiding and overcoming pornography.
If the females cannot overcome feminism, there is no sense in asking the males to turn from pornography for if the female can keep her sin, the male can keep his.
Does this sound godly? No not in a million years, but and I say a big but...this is exactly the sort of compromise and deal-making that is going on behind closed doors in the congregation. Have a look at the prevalence of dealing with males on pornography and look at the mere pittance of sermons or articles dealing with feminism, female subjection to males, godly order, patterning yourself after Sarah and other various texts in Titus 2.
I agree to in-spirit with the need for female subjection and submission to authority for a godly and orderly home, I do not agree that holiness buns will have the slightest effect in bringing an end to feminism. Holiness buns are something worn long after the issue of feminism has been put to death in the woman's heart just like pornography is long dead once submission to the Lord our bodies and repentance from coveting for male pleasure has occurred.
But again allow me to be the thorn in every churches shoe. The normative pastor will not address it for two reasons. 1. The pocketbook will be hit because when the woman writes the offering/tithe check she will vote against the leadership with her money. The Church budget will feel it and that all the way to the salary of the leaders. 2. An exodus of women pushing their husbands to get out from those mean, authoritarian, legalist, hostile, anti-women, anti-equality misogynists in charge over there. "how can you tolerate that talk about me like that"? she will say.
If the pastor succumbs to this, you can know for certain that no holiness bun will ever give the pastor the courage to confront this devil that roams freely in most big-church ministries and surely in every man-who-is-in-charge-by-permission-of-their-wife leading those churches.
So, if you want change I say deal with the real devil and leave the idea of resolving serious problems to those who will deal seriously with those problems.

Here's the connection in their own words;

"The right to birth control, abortion and divorce should be recognized. (Humanist Manifesto II)

"The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore, it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.” ( Declaration of Feminism, ca. 1971)

Much more evidence could be brought forward, but maybe it would be best left at this and another thread begun on the F word.

And...thanks Marvin that you saw fit to "go farther".

Looking at the scriptures where Jesus speaks of divorce I have to ask: is divorce a sin or is having sexual relations with someone after a divorce (which is adultery because you have already joined yourself to a woman/man and a court ordered paper does not annull that spiritual principal) actually the sin?

Im ready for the hate but go please look at the scriptures and see what they say, if i'm wrong please show me where

"Blaine, that seems like an outlandish comment, how do you justify that?"

You've just been introduced to the spirit of feminism!

Blaine,as Eve in the garden was,is under the spell. That is the only explanation of such an outlandish comment. Now, what is even worse, he will add more sin as he in his stupor attempts to justify himself and defend his comment.

When it is as clear as day to all other readers of this thread that there's absolutely no "hatred of women...in the spirit of this thread."

I knew this spirit would not be able to be silent, because this F spirit roams about seeking to devour.

Many have succumbed to this seductive spirit already.

As Ahab's wife Jezebel, many have joined themselves to the worship of the goddess Ashtoreth.

Blaine thats not what I meant by hate. What I mentioned about the scriptures and divorce isnt commonly taught and thus isnt always well accepted. Thats all brother.

Greg, I had no idea that was the standard practice until the "reformation". Thanks for sharing that!

Please note who is named in this article as the culprits who "...fought for divorce reform in which couples that wanted to divorce, could do so in the absence of any grounds for divorce."

History of Divorce in America Overview

Historically, divorces were only granted in very special circumstances and in early American history, couples found it very difficult to be granted a divorce. In fact, there were existed strict rules and regulations in place that often forbid spouses from filing for divorce. When couples were allowed a divorce, court orders were often ignored, and many women were left destitute by divorce due to their inability to collect marital property or spousal support. Generally, divorce was only granted on the grounds of extreme cases of spousal cruelty and even then, proof was required to back up any allegations. Couples had to explicitly prove that one spouse had been guilty of an extreme violation of the marital contract.

The proof required was also very definitive and it was often impossible for spouses to prove accusations, in the absence of committing perjury. One spouse had to be found guilty of violations such as abuse, infidelity or extreme cruelty. However, many couples hoping to reach a divorce settlement found that neither spouse was in fact guilty of such actions nor either could not be granted a divorce or had to commit perjury in order to get divorced.

Many judges, lawmakers, and feminist groups, fought for divorce reform in which couples that wanted to divorce, could do so in the absence of any grounds for divorce. Many people believed that spouses were entitled to divorce, simply because they wanted to do so. Eventually, couples were able to be granted a divorce in the absence of accusations and blame. No fault divorces allowed couples to divorce simply because they found that they could not be happy if they were forced to remain married. In early America, the divorce rate was less than 5%.

_______________

NOTE ABOVE: 'FEMINIST GROUPS'

Again, the proof is in history records as well. While some would cry misogyny, misogyny, the facts point to misandry, misandry!

by Greg
Just imagine 100 years ago remarried was almost unheard of in the Church and divorce much less seldomn then today. And homosexuals hid and if they flaunted in public or caught in the act they were arrested. How times have changed.

I'm sure men (own through the ages) that actually loved their wives as Christ loved the Church KEPT their wives as they do today.

God loves women just as much as He loves men. There is so much that goes into this conversation that is not feminism, if anyone is willing to have that conversation.

God bless,
Lisa

by Lysa on 2017/10/16 12:36:52

by Greg
Just imagine 100 years ago remarried was almost unheard of in the Church and divorce much less seldomn then today. And homosexuals hid and if they flaunted in public or caught in the act they were arrested. How times have changed.

I'm sure men (own through the ages) that actually loved their wives as Christ loved the Church KEPT their wives as they do today.

God loves women just as much as He loves men. There is so much that goes into this conversation that is not feminism, if anyone is willing to have that conversation.

God bless,
Lisa

___________________

Greetings Lisa

You are right in saying there is much more to this conversation that is not feminism. I would be willing to have that conversation with you but honestly I feel almost like we would be labeled as a feminist by some just for not agreeing with them.

God Bless
maryjane

Hi Mary Jane and Lisa:

Please consider a few things.
1. If what I have said causes you to take issue with me, please feel free to express that and not feel there's an attack or a "labeling" coming your way.
2. In my dealings with any "ism" that doctrinally and in practice subverts clear scripture teaching I hit it pretty hard and some might feel in attacking that "ism" they are under attack themselves. My post was not to imply all Christian women are feminists or that feminism can be attached to any Christian women who is confident, assertive or intelligent enough to have an opinion and stick to it.
3. Feminism as I addressed it is a subvert-er of home and Jesus Church as a foreign ideology to Christian doctrine.
4. As Bro Blaine mentioned he felt that the thread was proceeding in an ugly religious way, devoid of gospel centeredness. If you perceive what I am saying as lacking gospel-centeredness please offer correction and I will gladly review my wording; for my intent is always gospel-centeredness and in a spirit of grace and love toward my brothers and sister in Christ.

Over the years of posting on websites like this one, dealing with feminism or womens issues can turn women sour toward the discussion when men are harsh against "women" who practice it. Those women get defensive and/or become offended or insulted ( sometimes warranted). This issue and a mans proper love and respect for his wife and his Christ-like manner that should be expressed toward her dove-tail together, one cannot be discussed without the other.
It is obvious that feminism attacked can appear to be 'women bashing' because feminism is a woman's ideology designed for usage by women. Feminism held by men is an ideology that suits the mans particular political perspective or fits his own sexual-based liberties knowing that garnering favor with the feminist gains him ground to get what he wants. Feminism and Male pragmatism are bed-partners in our society.
I pray that my sisters in Christ who endorse this kind of thinking put it away as they would any other kind of foreign thinking which is contrary to scripture.
But...this is where the rub lies. What constitutes feminism in a Christian woman and what constitutes her God-given gifting's, perspectives and directions that put her exactly in the will of God and diametrically opposed to male-tradition or male-stupidity ( in all its forms) so the woman can and should make her case and know God has ordained it?

This has not at all been explored and if you want to start a new thread on it...since I've probably gone to far and derailed this head-covering thread into a completely different issue. I would be happy to respond and listen to what you have to say.

Signs are very helpful, I think all would agree.

The sign on the side of the the road reads, "Men at Work".

The spirit of feminism cannot read such signs without wanting to change them. As I drove through the 'work zone' I noticed several women getting their hands dirty along with the men there.

What's wrong with this picture?

It's no different in this thread.

But the feminist spirit sees nothing wrong with this picture, and takes even more offense to the comparison I am making.

But that woman who is precious in His sight, is of a meek and quiet spirit, and has no spirit in her to enter into the ring. She's too busy going about her God-given responsibilities as a woman, and setting an example for the younger women as well.

But this present world is so anarchical that the speech in this thread is viewed as hate speech. It's so far gone, it's like the couple I saw walking down the street the other day holding hands. The guy had beautiful long silky hair, was wearing tights, and had glamorous earrings dangling from his ears. The girl had a crew cut, ripped jeans along with some rugged boots, and tattoos all over her muscular arms which were exposed because of the muscle shirt she was wearing.

I'm not exaggerating! Nor am I exaggerating regarding this F spirit which is rampant in the world, and even in the church world.

Thanks for not taking offense ladies!

Ladies against feminism (a website), who are truly ladies worthy of respect, know real men when they encounter them, and certainly will not be of the wicked Jezebel spirit and be angry and try to muzzle and emasculate or manipulate the men of God who are called to be just that, men of God.

And for the ones who will write me off as a male chauvinist or a misogynist, please watch this trailer and get yourself a DVD copy of it if you can. Because this documentary does a very good job at showing what true manliness is, the manliness I am promoting as I decry feminism in this thread.

https://youtu.be/g5FULJ57PeU

by maryjane
Greetings Lisa

You are right in saying there is much more to this conversation that is not feminism. I would be willing to have that conversation with you but honestly I feel almost like we would be labeled as a feminist by some just for not agreeing with them.

God bless,
Lisa

Myron Horst is right: divorce becomes commonplace when people regard the application of I Corinthians 11 as irrelevant.

My heritage is Anabaptist and currently we are part of the Biblical Mennonite Alliance. My husband and I were both brought up being taught one should obey scripture and accept it as the authentic Word of God. However, in time we have kinfolks who have decided otherwise and their lives today are a mess - every time, no exceptions. Not only that, even if they are "decent" (and there are a few) many family lines are coming to an end - children don't marry, have no children or if they do they are caught up in the cycle of rebellious youth with unwed singles having babies. Little spirituality. Every once in a while you hear of a person who is hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit and is making an attempt to live for the LORD but it is rare.

I will suggest that wearing a head covering is an act of obedience that may make little sense to many but I suspect God uses it to test people's level of obedience, just like he did when he told Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree. Disobedience came with an awful price and this is the point Horst is making.

Thanks for sharing this article, Greg.

Sandra

Sandra,

Are you saying that Christian women who do not wear head coverings have "sinned” like Adam and Eve?

I absolutely respect the practice in your denomination of women wearing head coverings.

I am NOT against it. But I do not practise it myself.

This fact remains:

There ARE many godly Christian women who do not wear head coverings who are hungry for Christ, who are pressing on to gain Christ, and, whose marriages have *** NOT *** failed.

This is indisputedly the higher obedience:

Ps. 51:6 -- Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being, And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.

This is also the Word of God:

John 4:23-24 -- But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

This is the truth of our sanctification:

1 Cor. 1:30-31 -- But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

And Paul also said this:

Col. 2:9-17 ”“ For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and ***** in Him you have been made complete *****, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day”” things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but ***** the substance belongs to Christ *****.

Col. 3:10 -- …… put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him-- a renewal in which …… Christ is all, and in all.

I genuinely respect all Christian women who choose to wear head coverings. It has its place and its significance.

But holy also are all Christian women who do not wear head coverings but are pressing on to put on Christ and are worshipping God in spirit and in truth. (Gal. 3:26-27, Col. 3:10-11; John 4:23-24).

BranchinVINE ,

QUOTE:
Are you saying that Christian women who do not wear head coverings have "sinned” like Adam and Eve?"

To answer your question: " I do not know."

But how do you know it isn't?

Will unveiled females get to heaven? I do not know. However, if I were to cut my hair and go without it would be sin because Bro.James informs us in 4:17 "that if know to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin." So is wearing the head covering a good thing or not? And why so?

My opinion is that there are deeper issues at stake apart from the literal wearing of a head covering that needs to be addressed. I know that wearing one will not guarantee ones entrance into heaven.

Still, why the opposition to it? No one has ever answered this question to my satisfaction. Got some mocking, hostility but no good answer in my opinion.

Sandra

BranchinVINE,

In regard to the OP where Mr. Horst declares that abandoning the wearing of the head covering will lead to acceptance of of divorce and remarriage...let me share something based on observation.

I am 70 years old, was raised in a large Mennonite community, specifically, Elkhart Co., IN - home to thousands of Mennonites of all flavors and Goshen College.

If one lives long enough you accumulate a lot of memories, OK?

I want to use Goshen College as a reference point for what follows.

Back in the 1950s the coeds at GC wore coverings, abbreviated, perhaps, but they were worn. Not long after they were discarded because they considered it nonessential. In the meantime, GC got very much involved in social programs where they eventually abandoned Biblical non-resistance and embraced pacifism instead. They have also gotten involved in the political process holding political offices in the area.

Goshen College has become the bastion of liberalism in the Mennonite Church - whatever is considered liberal by anyone wll find support for it there. Unrepentent homosexuals and lesbians are not only welcomed and appreciated they are promoted to church leadership.

Conservative people in the area consider GC a serious thorn in the flesh....it is so serious some Mennonite Churches have removed the name Mennonite off their church signs. GC is viewed with sadness and distain by serious Believers in the community.

It can be argued successfully that its decline began when the educators took a low view of the absolute authority of the Word - in fact, it was because of this issue it was closed down at one point in time, back in the 1920s, I think. In time this philosophy prevailed upon the campus and consequently the student body. The abandonment of the head covering seem to put it on fast track to embrace other perversions. It is hard for me to comprehend the slide into apostasy at Goshen because I well recall the ladies there wearing a head covering.

Today the devil is working hard to discourage Mennonite/Anabaptist women from wearing a head covering. Some of the reasons are:

1. Do not want to look different from the rest of society - am too embarassed.

2. There are a lot of wonderful "christian" ladies out there with a wonderful testimony and they do not wear a headccovering so why do I have to?

3.Men are ashamed to be seen with a woman properly veiled.

In face of this, there are many who are very active in missions and the LORD has been using them mightily, or so it seems. Now the philosophy of experience superseeds the validity, authority of the WORD.

This is the process of decline that has happened and is happening in the Mennonite church.

I must say this, too. The seminary at Elkhart and Goshen had produced some great Mennonite theologians, like J.C. Wenger - whose writings are still held is high regard - and others. Mennonites as a group have been at the forefront in rendering humanitarian aid to the oppressed people, beginning with Russian Mennonites who were fleeing communism back in the 1920-30s. In the meantime, we had wonderful revivals in our communities, some that would rival Billy Graham in fervor and intensity. Parochial schools were started as well as other Bible Schools. We were taught well, God bless those men who had a passion for the LORD. I am a product of this level of education and I am extrelmely grateful for it. However, what is happening now is that in dealing with sin - particularly immorality - people are resorting to 'counseling' . Evangelistic meetings are giving way to a prosperity gospel and it is separating the sheep from the goats. And the women are once again wearing an abbreviated style of head coverings to abandoing them altogether. Divorced and remarried persons are welcomed; and I expect in time unrepentent perverts will be welcomed too. This decline is awakening concerned people where they are abandoning the liberal voices that are promoting apostasy within their ranks.

This is what happens to a culture that was given to serve the LORD but listened to the challenging voice of the devil. The cycle of revival and apostasy is similar to what happened to God's people in the OT era.

Sad. Many grieve over what has become of the Mennonite church at large.

Sandra

But Sandra you seem to be saying that not wearing a head covering causes divorce, as if it is some sort of a magic charm.

Unless I am misunderstanding.

Todd,

In our church history it has happened that its (divorce) frequency increases when the wearing of head coverings is abandoned. The head covering is NOT a good luck charm that will ward off divorce. There is a mindset that is operative in this obedience that has far reaching repercussions. We women wear it out of obedience to the Lord, recognizing Him as the head of Believers. Doing so will enpower us in ways we are at times left guessing but the blessings is that we do benefit from the ministry of angels of the which we do not fully understand. And also, we recognize we are to submit to our husband[s] which is a dirty word as far as feminists are concerned. And it may well be this is the answer for your question.

I Corinthians 11 also teaches us a veiled woman will have power on her head....now this is a different matter, or is it? What power do we have? One of them just may well be to have the ability to have stable marriages...

Are all females who wear a head covering automatically submissive? No. We have to deal with self-will and bring it under the LORDship of Jesus-it is not automatic but something that we need to work on all the time. It does not preclude one from walking with the LORD.

The blessings are great. For one it gives us many opportunities to witness for our LORD becasue strangers will ask us about it. Sometimes strangers will come up with a prayer request for something that troubles them. Why do they think our prayers are more effective then theirs?

I stick out like a sore thumb in a crowd, but I do not care....If done for the LORD Jesus why should I be embarassed? He was hung on a cross (naked?) for my sins and that is far worse then what he asks me to do.

Sandra

Are you saying that if a non covering believer starts covering that spiritual "power” is imparted to her?

Sandra: Well said, thanks for the Mennonite info.

I would love to see women wear head coverings and this would be taught world-wide. But as I said in an earlier posts ( a rant so I probably came off wrong) that feminism kills anything like this and Its my opinion that if head coverings were to be the norm, feminism would have to die in the hearts of women.

It is no surprise to me to see those women who are most in rebellion to marriage and godly order have butch-cut hair. Just an observation nothing more.

I appreciate your candor and a wonderful explanation.

What does I Corinthians 11 teach?

V. 10:For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. KJV

V. 10:Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. NASB

It has been my observation that when females get a hold of this truth, fear is displaced with TRUST in an Almighty God who cares for her well-being. I am convinced too many females who cover have no clue about this reality. My opinion.

What do these verses teach you?

Sandra

//What do these verses teach you?//

That Paul wanted the Corinthian women to abide by the customs of respectable women in their day and culture, which were generally in line with the principle of patriarchy. He does not give details about the custom, since these were well-known to his readers. This lack of detail makes it difficult, if not impossible, for us modern Christians to know exactly how we might duplicate the Greek practice. We have discussed this topic here before, but my opinion is that such imitation is not required today. In view of the corrupt and immodest styles of our own culture, with reference to headcoverings, it might be advisable for Christians to agree among themselves to honor their own "countercultural” standards of dress, possibly including some form of veiling of women. Except as such standards were essential to modesty, however, this would have to be regarded as voluntary and could not be pressed on the basis of Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 11.

Reply tomorrow.

Marvin,

The wearing of a head covering used to done by Christian women everywhere. It has been only in the recent 60 years that it has been abandoned by Protestants and Evangelicals. If you look at pictures of church gatherings before then you will see females wearing hats in the church house. Back in the 1800s females began embellishing their hats much to the chagrin of some preachers. If you ever take a tour of Williamsburg, VA, a restored colonial town, take a note how the actors dress - they wear period costumes and the ladies wear pretty caps! The difference lies in the fact that Mennonites/Amish maintained it longer then other church groups. The reason for this is because historically Anabaptists were persecuted by the popular church so they banded together for mutual support with the result of being counter-cultureal longer then other groups who worked to be acceptable to mainstream society.

Some will suggest that the rise of feminism gave way to frequent divorces and there no doubt is a correlation. The tragedy is that it is not all women's fault, either. There was a lot of abuse directed towards females by ungodly men and thus feminism went off the rails. In essense, when men and women want and work to have their own way at the expense of the other and their family you will have unresolved conflicts that make divorce an easy way out. Self centeredness is being taught, parents promote it and they end up in utter chaos. A servant mindset is scorned and rejected because it does not promote self.

Sandra

I think this whole thing is classic example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc” logical fallacy.

Per Wikipedia the form of the post hoc fallacy is expressed as follows:

A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.
When B is undesirable, this pattern is often combined with the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent, assuming the logical inverse holds: Avoiding A will prevent B.

In the case at hand:
Women stopped wearing head coverings. Divorces increased.
Therefore not wearing headcoverings causes divorce.
Wearing head coverings will decrease divorces.

"The fallacy lies in a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection.

A simple example:

The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise.”

Brother Todd,

I totally get what you’re saying and concur with your point, tho couldn’t it be that it’s the result of and not the cause?
If I’m understanding sister Sandra correctly, the disuse of headcoverings is reflective of a heart disposition whereby when cultural compromise entered in from an ungodly source (the world) then the loss of a godly feminism was observed to progressively consume the symbols of said godliness. So due to the misuse of their authority, men unwittingly introduced a contextual framework that according to the prevailing cultural movement of the day actually affected the cultural revolt and opened the door of the church to the ungodly influence. This, as has been noted, was not limited to but included the disuse of headcoverings along with the adoptions of several other aspects of women’s liberation. I maintain that it was a most precious opportunity for the church to shine brightly and we (men) failed miserably to see it and conformed not to Christ but to the world. In doing so we have ushered in a period of cultural reformation into the church the effects of which have yet to cease.

At the end of the day it’s a matter of being satisfied with and in Christ.... if one is satisfied then wether male or female we aren’t looking for attention thru objectification which is what I observe to prevail today both within and without the church. The truth is we should be and look different from the world because we have the peace that comes from knowing Him and that will naturally be reflected in all aspects of our lives, yes even down to something as innocuous as headcoverings tho if this is not the "result” of a satisfied heart then it is an external observance that is nothing more than an attempt to gain godliness thru the flesh.

Post script-
Sister Sandra, tho I’ve said it before I’d like to say again- I am in debt to the grace God has given you as yet again you are exemplary of a faithfulness rarely seen and not only are you easy to love, the wisdom of your experience and witness is a blessing to me :)

Greetings

I will admit this thread has been a difficult one for me as I have felt as though the original post was placing the blame of divorces on women because they do not cover their heads. At first I felt offended but then as I prayed on it more I realized I had no reason to be. It was only because of self that I was choosing to allow myself to become offended and I repented of that heart. I did post before to this thread but did so in fear. Fear of being seen as a feminist and said so in my post. As I read some of the other posts I was surprised at the emotion I felt was behind them. Again I have been praying about this and realize perhaps it was possible I was assigning an emotions to others post because of how I was feeling, emotions that might not have ever been there. Again I am reminded how easily I can be offended if my focus is on self and not JESUS!

After much prayer and consideration I would like to respectfully share my heart on this. My trouble with this article is the emphasis on externals and not ones daily walk with CHRIST.If the heart is not willing to submit to JESUS as LORD in all things then it matters little if one covers their head or not. At the root cause of marriages coming to an end is individuals living for "self" and not for CHRIST and thereby sinning. Self, self promotion,self love and self living is at the root of why you see so many divorces today. This attitude that I matter more than my husband and what I want is more important all comes down to sin in ones heart and self. If it were as simple as covering our heads than you would see no divorce among women who practice head covering and that is not the case. (Nor do I believe anyone was suggesting that just to be clear :)

I do think the topic of feminism and the attitudes of modern feminism do feed into self for both men and women. The desire to rule one's own life and not live daily unto CHRIST is evident in those deceived by much of today's world thinking and teachings.

Honestly as I have said before I have no issue with those who choose to follow what GOD is showing them in this area of cover their heads. I believe if they feel compelled by FATHER to do so then they must. I am thankful for what GOD has given me in this and walk with HIM in that. I do think this article for those new to CHRIST and who are young in the LORD might be taken as condemnation or blame for the high divorce rate and that does give me pause...I wonder at how helpful it is to some?

God bless
mj

//If our hearts have not been changed internally by the Holy Spirit. Then the outward obedience is merely nothing more than just religious external reflecting no internal reality of the heart.//

Women who have been equally internally changed by the HS are at odds over this issue. The problem begins when one camp says they are more obedient or spiritual than the other.

Fletcher- I do see your argument but the title of the thread is "The Effects of the Head Covering on Divorce.”

If the embracing of feminist ideas caused the disuse of head coverings then it was just the embracing of feminist ideas that increases divorce, not disuse of a head covering. The disuse of the head covering, as I understand Sandra’s argument, was a symptom of feminism, not a cause of feminism.

1st Cor. 11 is not speaking of a cloth/hat on the physical head.

It is speaking of men not allowing there conscience to be subjected (covered) by another man or a man made hierarchical system. (which is the theme of 1 Cor.)
And at the same time it is describing the hierarchical system of the family unit in which the woman is to submit (covered) by the husband.

The Woman was created for the man and for that cause the woman ought to have power/authority of an husband over her.

As far as trying to link not using the head covering to feminism, Is to ignore the pagan and wiccan use of woman head coverings

add : "not using"

vs 3 : "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Verse 3 : The heads are clearly defined.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Who is every mans head ? : "the Head of every man is Christ"

What is the covering ? : "It is our conscience being under the subjection of other men"

It is a dishonor to our Head if we allow other men to have rule of our conscience. So much so that we are not even to be called or call others master or rabbi
Matthew 23:8

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

On other hand the Woman is to be under subjection (covered) by there husbands 1 peter 3:5

It is a dishonor for the woman to pray and prophesy without being under subjection of her husband 1 Tim 2:11

For to do so is to be as a woman whom is shaven (not married)

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

If a woman will not be under subjection (covered) by her husband than let her be without a husband (shorn) But if it is a shame for a woman to be without a husband (shorn or shaven ) let her be under subjection (covered) by her husband

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Man ought not have other men be a master over there conscience so much so that Jesus said that we are not to even be called nor call other men Rabbi

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

self explanatory

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

self explanatory

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

(For this cause) that woman was created for the man: woman ought to have power/authority of an husband over them.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

self explanatory

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

self explanatory

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

The common practice :
Woman are under subjection of there fathers untill that authority is given to a husband in marriage.

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

It is almost universal among all cultures that men have shorter hair to that of woman.

The headship order can be observed by that very fact

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Woman is the glory of man vs 7 and it is a glory for the woman to be given a husband for he to be under subjection of.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

For those who are contentious and try to dictate a legal rule for others based on what Paul just described as a natural law of woman naturally having long hair and men having short hair which is a picture of the headship order Paul says : we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul simply used a a natural phenomena to show the headship order with.

Papa wrote:

"As far as trying to link not using the head covering to feminism, Is to ignore the pagan and wiccan use of woman head coverings."

Papa, there are people who are very much aware of this practice - of females veiling when attending a Wiccan ritual/service. And do you know what color they wear? Black. It is for this reason our church sisters wear white. There is too much scripture that connects 'darkness' with the realms of satan and this is why we choose to wear white because we do not want to be associated with the realms of darkness.

We must remember that satan is a master counterfeiter. He works to counterfeit God's work, commands in order to deceive people and we all admit he has done an excellent job of it. The fact he has his females wear a veil should be teaching us something: there must be some important significance in God's eyes to have his daughters veiled that he works to have his women wear a veil as well.

Sandra

ANOTHER EXPLANATION

Extract from Zodhiates and Baker’s NASB Key Word Study Bible:

Paul is writing here to the Corinthian Christians who, living in Greece, customarily complied with Greek traditions: men had their heads uncovered and the women covered theirs, which, however, was contrary to the Jewish tradition. Even to this day, Jewish men cover their heads at worship, but not the women. The question which faced the Corinthians was what to do with the existing custom of their day. Paul’s advice was to examine the symbolism of the custom. If it has nothing in it that is contrary to God’s Word or order of creation, accept it. Do not allow contentions to arise regarding customs which symbolize something that is proper (vv. 13,16). In this case, the Greeks believed that by not covering their heads, the men declared their independence as contrasted to the slaves who cover themselves. The women covered themselves, symbolizing the protectiveness that they enjoyed from their husbands. Paul intimated that there is nothing wrong in this, for in creation God created man, and from man there came the woman. That is good as far as it goes, but remember that man also, in spite of the fact that he prays without a covering, still has a Head and that is Christ (V. 3). In v. 11, however, he equated both man and woman in the Lord as it is also stressed in Gal. 3:28 and 1 Pet. 3:7. In spite of this equality in Christ, still in creation and in the present order of things, the husband is the head of the family. God made him physically stronger than woman to protect the woman. He ought to recognise his position as protector and show it overtly, and she ought to recognise her protector and abide under his care. God is responsible for the difference in the make-up of male and female (1 Cor. 4:7) and no man should at any time endeavour in any way to diminish the difference between the two either in physical or emotional constitution, appearance or function of life. Since this custom of head coverings showed beautifully that which is true in creation and also in the order of things, why should the Corinthian Christians living in Greece reject the Greek custom and assume the Jewish one? The decision was left entirely to the Corinthians as we see in v. 13 which should have been far better translated "Decide in regard to it your own selves.” Therefore these are personal decisions which must be exercised in following a custom as long as the symbol is good and there is no contrary teaching involved in the symbolism.

MY THOUGHTS:

In 2 Cor. 3, Paul moved past customs to TRUTH.

2 Cor. 3:3 -- ……written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

2 Cor. 3:5-6 -- Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

2 Cor. 3:16-18 -- but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

John 6:63 -- It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing….

Add:

John 4:23-24 -- But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

God’s Word is clear to me.

The consequence of Adam’s sin is this:
Gen. 2:17 -- ……you will surely die.

The criterion for life or death is NOT the wearing or not wearing of head coverings BUT THIS:

John 14:6 -- Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”

1 John 5:11-12 -- And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

Christ must dwell in our hearts THROUGH FAITH (Eph. 3:17). Unless we have Christ in us, we will surely die. This is the eternal truth of Adam’s sin.

We are sanctified NOT by the wearing of head coverings BUT by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 26:18 -- to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been ***** sanctified by faith in Me *****.'

IT is NOT the wearing of head coverings BUT the precious blood of our Lord Jesus that cleanses us from any and every sin.

It is NOT by the wearing of head coverings BUT by the CROSS of our Lord Jesus that sinful flesh is crucified (Gal. 2:20, 5:24).

IT is NOT by the wearing of head coverings BUT by the CROSS of our Lord Jesus that the world is crucified to me (Gal. 6:14).

1 Pet. 2:24 -- and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Rom. 6: 2-7 -- How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.

!!!!! Heb. 10:14 -- For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. !!!!!

"It is finished!” Jesus said (John 19:20).

Nothing can be added to this finished work of our Lord Jesus to make us more righteous and sin-free.

Eph. 2:8-9 -- For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

We are God’s workmanship (Eph. 2:10).

1 Thess. 5:23-24 -- Now ***** may the God of peace Himself ***** sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He who calls you, ***** and He also will bring it to pass *****.

Into Your hands, Lord Jesus, I commit my spirit.

2 Tim. 1:12 -- for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.

Jude 24-25 --Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Add:

WE PREACH JESUS CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED (1 COR. 2:2).

Thank you for sharing your experiences and observations re: the Mennonites.

I attend a Baptist church assembly near my home. I do not see women wearing head coverings. Good pastor. Biblical teaching. Within this assembly are definitely true and beloved children of God.

The Bible says:

Acts 4:12 -- "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

NOT Mennonite. NOT Anabaptist. NOT Baptist. NOT anyone else.

No other name.

The Lord Jesus ONLY.

The Mennonites, the Anabaptists, the Baptists and everyone else may fail.

BUT,

Matt. 16:18 -- and upon this rock I will build My church; ***** and the gates of Hades will not overpower it *****.

This rock is CHRIST. This is where we must be found. IN CHRIST.

Prov. 18:10 ”“
The name of the LORD is a strong tower;
The righteous runs into it and is safe.

Heb. 12:1-2 -- ……let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith……

You wrote:
"There are a lot of wonderful "christian" ladies out there with a wonderful testimony and they do not wear a headccovering......"

-------------------------------------------------------

There ARE a lot of wonderful CHRISTIAN ladies out there, beloved of God and faithful to God, who DO NOT wear head coverings and HAVE wonderful testimonies.

"We are sanctified NOT by the wearing of head coverings BUT by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

Nobody here believes that we are saved by headcovering.

This is flawed logic. This passage about headcovering means what it says and it is there for a reason. It is better to try to understand why it is there than trying to explain it away.

Head covering is a peripheral matter, not the central and crucial thing in our salvation.

You are free to have a different view.

As I said in an earlier post, I do not wear a head covering myself but I respect all Christian women who choose to wear it.

It is CHRIST who must have preeminence in all things in our hearts and our lives (Col. 1:18).

It is CHRIST who must be ALL in us (Col. 3:11).

Heb. 12:1-2 -- …… let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith…..

Ps. 42:1 ”“
As the deer pants for the water brooks,
So my soul pants for You, O God.
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8kgIggW4uc

by BranchinVINE
Head covering is a peripheral matter, not the central and crucial thing in our salvation.

You are free to have a different view.

As I said in an earlier post, I do not wear a head covering myself but I respect all Christian women who choose to wear it.

Ginny has been wearing head coverings for almost 60 years, her mind is not going to be changed nor will your posts make her a believer (if she read them all), of not wearing them.

She's still a believer and so is Greg and his wife and anyone else, so in the midst of debating head coverings/divorce we must take this into consideration and not try to post them into submission.

Here's an example that may or may not be relevant but I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and all the gifts (who here does not know that?! haha), anyway sometimes when that topic comes up I'm so passionate about it that I have been accused of worshiping tongues, even though I do not but in my passion for that part of my life I came across that way.

The head covering folks are the same way, I know they don't worship the head covering but some of them through the years have come off that way due to their passion for it.

We all have to find a way to live together, Jesus said, "All men will know that you are my disciples by the LOVE that flows from the head coverings breast to the speaking in tongues breast to the Sabbath is on Saturday breast!" I ad-libbed there but I believe I made my point. :)

God bless us all!
Lisa

Perhaps articles pushing head coverings should not be posted? It always leads to the same discussion.

Some people try to everything so complex, or that it’s about these rules and regulations, but it’s not, It’s about relationship with Jesus Christ.

I have a simple question for the men. Do you uphold the following verse which is stated along side all the others on head covering??

1 Corinthians 11:7
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."

If you teach a women must cover her head at all times, do you NEVER cover your head? If not why not?
If you teach it is just when praying or prophesying, do you insist men ALWAYS have their head uncovered even when outside praying?

Are men rebellious to God if they wear a hat and spiritual harlots??

Why is this part of 1 Cor 11 never emphasized?
Is this selective interpretation? Or could it be that men realise that maybe it it is not just simply teaching a new outward dress code for them, but somehow cannot see that it is not for the women either??

In spite of all the explanations of man on this issue, I Corithians 11 still remains. Last I looked it is still in my paper Bible and those posted online. I still consider the WORD as being the final authority on this issue.

Sandra

If one wants to cover their head, and one doesn't, it's not some sort of unforgivable sin. God sent his son here to die for ALL our sins, because he knew we could not walk perfect by the word of God. No one on this forum is perfect, nor will they ever be, so unless you are perfect, please don't judge me. You can throw out all 31,102 verses, but again, until you're perfect don't cast them at me. Everyday, all I see here is threads looking to condemn someone of something, until you have paid the price that Jesus did, don't keep starting threads that condemn, like some sort of Sunday morning armchair preacher. Were all just dirty rags, not one perfect, not ONE, how can anyone here set back and condemn? who made you Jesus Jr!

This is whats the word say's about sin....

Matthew 12:31-32 says, "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Thank you, Lisa.

This is a Discussion Forum.

I was simply responding to posts and giving and explaining my own position.

Blessings.

Add:

It seemed to me that the head covering folks were bashing the non-head covering folks.

Jer. 2:13 -
For My people have committed two evils:
They have forsaken Me,
The fountain of living waters,
To hew for themselves cisterns,
Broken cisterns
That can hold no water.

It is not head coverings we must bring back but Christ.

Christ has been dethroned.

We must bring back the King.

2 Sam. 19:11-12 -- …… Speak to the elders of Judah, saying, ‘Why are you the last to bring the king back to his house……? Why then should you be the last to bring back the king?’

In this entire discussion the hermeneutics employed by the distractors is troubing, at best.

As expoused here Bible interpretation is subject to what I want to believe, not that Scripture informs me what I need to do, believe. When Scripture is view through these lens one will go off the rails quickly into relativism. Then when does a promoted teaching fall into the category of false doctrine?

I consider it very odd that the subject of the head covering evokes such serious opposition...apparently it must be more meaningful to the LORD given the opposition. No other doctrine besides headship evokes such a response, e.g. baptism, communion, feet washing (ouch?), meeting with the believers on a regular basis, loving ones neighbor. Why?

Can one explain to me the reason for the opposition to this doctrine of a woman veiling and the man's unveiling as a symbol of Christ headship order? I so believe Jesus is the head of the church, or all creation, for that matter and I so want to honor Him! My hope of eternal life rests with HIM -` how can I do less - in face of all he has done for me?

Sandra

//Can one explain to me the reason for the opposition to this doctrine of a woman veiling//

There would be no opposition if proponents did not try to proselytize non-proponents, as if they are disobeying a major Christian doctrine based on a very nebulous passage of scripture from a letter written to a specific culture at a specific time with a specific issue that Paul wanted to address. It is absolutely not clear what the passage means exactly or what Paul meant by a veil or what is meant by "because of the angels.” There is no instruction whatsoever how this practice should be implemented today. There is no clarity as to what the covering or veil meant or looked like. It was not unclear to those in that church at that time because they knew exactly what Paul meant.

To make a doctrine for today out of such vague statements is fraught with difficulty. If God meant this to apply to all cultures in all ages He would have provided much more explicit instruction in more than this one little passage from a letter to a specific church.

"Can one explain to me the reason for the opposition to this doctrine of a woman veiling"

Every one is familiar with John 3:16, but not as familiar with Genesis 3:16.

Therein lies the answer to the mystery of your inquiry!

You see, there's more to the picture than meets the eye...this opposition will never die.

You see, even the F word began in Genesis!

I have already said that I do not oppose women wearing head coverings.

But for myself, I do not wear a head covering. I stand on these words of our Lord Jesus:

John 4:23-24 -- But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

"There would be no opposition if proponents did not try to proselytize non-proponents....."

Agree.

"There would be no opposition if proponents did not try to proselytize non-proponents....."

This statement merely skirts the issue!

For one, it makes it neither true or false, and it thrusts it aside as one would the differences we have insofar as the preference of one color over another in our choice of shoes.

That statement, if applied to modesty or worldliness (and other issues as well) would not fair well, even with those who would agree with such a statement. Such a mentality has paved the way for the present reality and condition of the young in the article from the podcast that Greg posted on millennials a few hours ago on this forum.

May we truly worship God in spirit and in truth, but not do so at the cost of turning a deaf ear or a blind eye to pleasing our Husband, whatever that may wind up looking like.

As if a hankie on the top of the head is a modesty issue.

You missed it Todd. I am certain that some of the others got it. I'll let them chime in. Maybe they can speak your language better than I.

But thanks for responding, because it sure does reveal what is truly in your heart.

Men ought always to pray, and not faint.

May we all pray one for another, that we enter not into temptation.

"There would be no opposition if proponents did not try to proselytize non-proponents....."

There would be no opposition to anything, if you don't claim a certain thing to be the truth. If we say that "everything is relative" - there will be no opposition whatsoever. But as someone said "Truth is exclusive by it's very nature."

So, 1 Cor 11 is in the Bible and in the text we can see that Paul adresses an issue that is not only relevant for the Corinthian church. His reference to nature reminds us that there is something common to men and women all over the world regardless of culture.

We know that Genesis 3:16 remains as well as Genesis 3:18. Does it mean that the woman is inferior? By no means! But it does mean that there is God given order, where the woman has her place and the man his.

Though I have been taught to cover my head since childhood, I understood its meaning only recently (perharps 2 years ago) - while I was praying. It is strange but I felt kind of contempt, or feeling of hate in the air while I was about to cover my head. And then it kind of dawned on me that some women hate it because it is a declaration of: "I accept God's order! I accept the position God has put me in as a woman."

So, dear Jade, I would urge not to fight against those who cover their hair, not to fight against the text. I do not judge those who do not cover, but I am convinced it is the will of God, and would be glad to teach my girls to do the same one day.

As it was already stated, I do not believe that the head covering in itself makes me more holy or is somehow my salvation. But it is the will of God, therefore I do it.

Just in case, you are interested:

"Answer concerning the sisters covering her head" -
http://www.ministrysamples.org/excerpts/ANSWER-CONCERNING-THE-SISTERS-COVERING-THEIR-HEADS.HTML

"Head covering" - more extensive explanation (on the website ministrybooks.org)

"Head covering for women" - http://www.cfcindia.com/article/headcovering-for-women

I do not advertise anyone's ministry, I just think that it is helpful resource.

"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

It is not a matter of freedom of choice, but a matter of rightly dividing the truth. Only one can be right and the other wrong. It sounds wise to leave everyone to decide for themselves, and there comes a point where one needs to rest their case.
I agree it is not a core truth of the bible but rather a peripheral matter. Nevertheless, I think Christ is worth obeying not only in fundamental matters but also in small things. Why does headcovering cause such a vehement reaction in some people? Though it is a small thing but it reveals the heart.

As Esther quoted it,
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Dear Esther,

I repeat:

I have already said that I do not oppose women wearing head coverings.

But for myself, I do not wear a head covering. I stand on these words of our Lord Jesus:

John 4:23-24 -- But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.

This is my last word on this matter.

In accordance with the principle in Rom. 14:15, we should not destroy with our own view of I Cor. 11 "him for whom Christ died".

Also, re: Gen. 3:16, this is a curse of sin and Christ has freed us from sin and all its curses. The command now is for a man to love his wife as Christ loves His church.

This is also my last word on this matter. Will not debate.

God bless you.

Love & Blessings.

Not sure if this has been mentioned on this thread already...I haven't read every post. Has anyone studied Dr. Michael S Heiser's interpretation of this subject? A Very interesting read for sure.

The fact is, even the pro-head covering folk don't agree. Some insist women should cover their heads all the time, others that it is just in the church gathering, and others only when praying or speaking.

So if this passge in 1 Corthians is so obviously clear as some say, why the difference of understanding??

So which of these is right?

//Not sure if this has been mentioned on this thread already...I haven't read every post. Has anyone studied Dr. Michael S Heiser's interpretation of this subject? A Very interesting read for sure. //

http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Transcript-86-Head-Covering-1Corinthians11.pdf

To summarize greatly, in that day the preeminent Greek physicians believed that a woman’s hair was part of her genitalia (and this was a common understanding among Greek citizens). Hair was not considered genitalia in men. Look it up- it’s true. Paul was aware of this understanding. So he was basically telling the women to cover their genitalia when praying etc. Men should not cover because they would be identifying as female if they did. Makes perfect sense.

Of course we know better, or should know better, today.

And all I want to do in this life is, do my best to be in the Lords will for my life everyday. Try to grow closer to him everyday, and tell everyone I can about Jesus Christ, O and see my family that's gone ahead of me in Heaven. I hope I make it to Heaven with all these rules and regulations going on, I don't know, but I'm going to keep praying. :-)

by MrBillPro
I hope I make it to Heaven with all these rules and regulations going on, I don't know, but I'm going to keep praying. :-)

Hopefully, I'll see you there!
Lisa