MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

Head Coverings

November 24th, 2004 Visited 12601 times, 1 so far today

Say Your PrayersWatching any of the good old westerns, you’d no doubt see the hero (and sometimes the villains) take off their hat when entering a building– or at least in the presence of a lady. Today we have trouble having our children and adults ever taking off their hat, even for the national anthem or prayer (though the national anthem usually gets more respect).

In I Corinthians 11 we have an interesting passage of Scripture. In this passage, Paul is talking to the Corinthian believers about what head gear, if any, they should have when prophesying, preaching, or praying.

Some look at verse 2 and claim that it’s an ordinance that Paul is sharing, and give the following commands about head gear the same weight as Communion and Baptism. I think the plain reading of the passage does not give clear weight to that, since Paul states, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” The following “but” seems to say “Yes guys, you’re doing a good job keeping up with the ordinances, but there’s something I have to tell you…”

Now the next set of instruction is pretty clear– God lays out the order of leadership starting with himself down. Christ is the Head, then the man, then the woman (presumably children follow). Then we start to get into the head covering discussion. Let’s see if we can figure out first what Paul is stating:

  1. If a man has his head covered while he prophesies or prays dishonors his head.
  2. If a woman does not have her head covered while prophesying or praying, it dishonors her head.

Paul then goes on to defend his reasoning: Man being created in the image of God is the glory of God, whereas woman being created from man is the glory of man. Paul goes on to say that the two are one in the Lord, which may be reference to what happens in marriage. This is Paul’s appeal to the creation order.

Paul then makes a second appeal– to nature: He talks about the fact that long hair on men it is a shame and long hair on women is a glory. Some take this to say that women should have long hair (a topic for another time maybe). In context, to me, it looks like he’s justifying his comment about coverings by saying that the fact that there are differences in hair lengths indicating man and woman, so should there be a difference in head coverings. That the glory of the man is that the woman covers her glory (her long hair) to show respect/honor to her husband.

I’ve went to a church while at college, that had any woman involved in ministering to the congregation wear a hat– on the platform, in the choir, etc.– though the congregation was not forced to do it. I have also noticed in a few churches that I have been in that the women are not usually the first to offer to lead in prayer. Could it be because they are more keenly aware of the Holy Spirit and would feel more liberty with their head covered?

Some feel it is necessary to cover their heads all the time. Some only while in church. This passage definitely seems to teach about prophesying / praying, not about at all times.

Now, most churches I’m a part of say that this was a cultural thing. I could get that if Paul just appealed to nature. See, the same people that say it’s cultural agree with the pattern of headship laid out here “because we were created in that order.” However, the head covering seems to be intermixed within the passage.

I’m not opposed to saying it’s cultural– but if it isn’t, is the fact that it’s inconvenient excuse the obligation? Should a leader in a church call on a women to pray or prophesy if she’s uncovered? If you take this passage literally, then he shouldn’t.

Comments

31 Comments

RSS
  • Mrs. Meg Logan says on: August 25, 2006 at 9:53 am

     

    Very good post. Personally I believe the Bible to be “supra-cultural” and things directed to churches, etc, cannot be excused as “cultural”,… gee where woudl that line of thinking end? (ex. was it only a cultural thing to say homosexuality is a sin? since it is unnatural? is itonly cultural to love your neighbor as yourself? I mean today we hardly know our neighbors let alone love them!… etc you can see where that line starts going!)

    Anyway, One thing I have noticed about this passage is the very last verse under this heading… it talks about how if there is conflict over this issue, it isnt important enough to argue over, (essentially).”But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such sustom, neither the churches of God” (1 Cor 11:16 KJV)

    I am personally preferential to wearing a head covering, and I’d like to wear one all the time, as I never know when I will be engaged in prayer or prophesy… however, I do not wear a head covering at all, my husband is uncomfortable with it (and he’s the boss!) and furthermore no one at my church wears one, and I am not looking to appear more godly, or mighty… so i refrain from causing dissention regarding the head covering issue.

    One day I hope to have the liberty to wear one.

    Peace in His Presence,
    Mrs. Meg Logan

  • MInTheGap says on: August 25, 2006 at 10:48 am

     

    It is amazing how far we’ve come and what we do and don’t value. My college had women wear hats to chapel for the longest time, and then they took it away. I wondered what in God’s Word changed. My mother likes hats and wore them to church and got too much unwanted attention. I do not make my wife wear a hat, but I don’t think she has a desire.

    It’s definitely something that I see as a place that isn’t as cut and dry as a “cultural issue” as some make it to be.

  • karen says on: September 14, 2006 at 7:44 am

     

    When the Bible says that in the last verse that there is not such custom. It means that there is no other custom or command in God’s word other than that a women should have her head covered at all times. This is obedience to God’s word

  • MInTheGap says on: September 14, 2006 at 8:28 am

     

    That’s interesting. Like I said in the post, I’m certain that it’s when praying or prophesying, but I didn’t see where it was at all times, could you go a little further in your explanation?

  • CCFPuppetMan says on: November 25, 2004 at 12:58 pm

     

    Visit a Roman Catholic that still observes the pre Vatican II practices. The women’s head is always covered in church.
    But my thinking is keep the main thing, the main thing. Jesus is the son of God, our Savior, our Lord. Honor him! If we get caught up in the legalism, are we any better than the Pharisees? Are you saying God can’t use a woman with her head uncovered? I think the church today (any church) is much different than in Paul’s day. Maybe he’d be shocked, maybe not.

    May God give you many blessings to be thankful for this Thanksgiving day.

  • MInTheGap says on: November 29, 2004 at 8:08 am

     

    I understand what you’re saying, CCF, but any Christian who wants to grow closer to God will want to show his/her love by following His laws. That at least makes us have to ask the question whether the head covering pleases God, or whether it’s just legalism.

    The Pharisees added to the rules in Scripture to have control over the people and to keep from getting close to breaking the law. All I was trying to do was discuss whether it is something God wants women to do or not. 🙂

  • flashnolan says on: September 29, 2006 at 9:35 am

     

    Must…get…23 or more posts…

  • Alisa Evans says on: February 19, 2007 at 11:02 am

     

    I felt very alienated at a church last night where one woman got up to talk about the “mane event” the ladies would be having where they would be discussing how to do hairdos for long hair, and how she was so proud to have never had any scissors taken to her hair her whole life, etc…” It was so sad to me, because I love the congregation, and I always meet God in that church, but I do not agree that this is a strict doctrinal issue. I am saddened by this. I don’t know if it has turned into a spiritual superiority thing. I would love it if people used the covering and did not brag about it or alienate others, but that’s what seems to happen and it becomes another legalistic rule. Rather than circumcision of the heart. I have long hair, but I do trim it. I do believe my long hair is a covering, but it is a personal thing, and unto the Lord. Whatever you eat or drink, do it unto the Lord. This is my feeling on the hair and covering issue. If I cover my head, but do not respect the natural order, or God’s order of things by being argumentative or rebellious, what good does it do? Does the “symbolism” have any effect? Why perfect in the flesh what began as spirit?

    Respectfully,
    Alisa Evans

  • MInTheGap says on: February 19, 2007 at 11:39 am

     

    Thanks for the input, Alisa. Definitely this is a heart matter– a heart manner toward God. We shouldn’t be bragging about how good we do anything for the Lord, for they are His gifts to us.

    I’m pretty sure it’s not bad to do something because you know it’s the right thing to do, as opposed as because you want to; however, it is wrong to be a hypocrite. Did that make sense? What I’m trying to say is that if God asked me to wear only short sleeved shirts, and I wanted to wear long sleeved ones, it isn’t wrong for me to wear short sleeves because I wanted to please God, but if I then went into a church and bragged about how I’ve never worn short sleeves that does not edify my brothers and sisters in the Lord.

    We need to be careful in our praises that we make sure to praise Him and edify and encourage one another.

  • tom4him says on: February 28, 2007 at 7:32 pm

     

    We are having this discussion live in our church. It seems clear that Paul is giving instruction that should be followed. His argument is sound does not stray from the one point of ‘head covering’ and what that is (not hair).
    As far as the veil, I am uncomfortable with the veil (face covering) in old testament times and new it was the sign of harlotry.
    My concern is when we begin to selectively apply these (rules, customs or beliefs). The same Paul who is clear on head covering, is also clear on braided hair, jewelry (gold or pearls) and expensive clothes. (I Timothy 2:9) Are we in danger of hypocrisy when we select some things and not others? Currently we are only discussing when a woman prays from the front during a service.
    I am totally desirous of being a good, husband, father, follower and by no means wish to lift myself up as ‘man’ over my good wife. I believe that we as men are called to be towards our wives as Christ is toward the Church (His Bride).

  • MInTheGap says on: March 1, 2007 at 8:23 am

     

    That’s a good verse, and highlights the “problem” well. I can see the interpretation there going one of two ways. It can either go toward someone saying:

    That’s purely cultural. All of those things are things that the temple prostitutes were doing and Paul wanted the Christian women to separate themselves from the signs of prostitution of the day. That’s not specifically for today!

    or someone would say this:

    Paul said it, so I must not braid my hair or do any of the things that he said.

    Really good questions, tom4him. One would hate to do some of the things that God requires and not all of them. On the one hand, I would say that doing them would be more of a problem for wives than it would be a “sin” problem. If we take the command literally, those things may “be a pain” but they aren’t something that’s bad. However, before we ask it, we should do some more research.

    I’d definitely be interested in hearing how your church works this issue out.

  • Deborah says on: March 1, 2007 at 11:33 am

     

    I do feel rather ‘out-of-place’ addressing this, but my husband and I have had this discussion before and I’m not disagreeing with anything he would say. So, I humbly say this.

    When I have read Paul’s epistles, for me one of the biggest things that stands out is Paul’s struggle in his own life and wanting to live his life for the Lord. He was so open with his struggles and his love and concern for the churches at that time. My husband was teaching the book of Romans last summer to our adult Sunday School class at church, (which he didn’t get very far since he was doing a verse by verse study! 😉 ), but in the salutation alone, Paul was really emphasizing his relationship as a bond-servant…giving his life to God.

    So, the conclusion for us has always been, and we’ve had teaching to back this up, is that Paul’s concern is always more for the inner man, not the outward adornment of braiding the hair, jewelry, etc. We tend toward the view of the culture of that day and the temple prostitutes, with their shaven heads, so they needed to have a covering. Anything we have been taught has always said that the woman’s long hair IS her covering, which does not mean she never cuts her hair, but has it longer than her husband’s hair to show her submission to her husband.

    Again, all through Paul’s writings, he is emphasizing our inner man, our relationship to God. Because of our ‘right’ relationship on the inside, our outward man will show correctly. There are so many issues like ‘head covering’ in the Bible. I think we do need to strive to have a proper understanding of these issues and know what we believe the Bible says, but it should not become such an issue that it takes away from our walk with God and our growth in Him.

  • MInTheGap says on: March 1, 2007 at 2:33 pm

     

    I think you’re right about Paul’s emphasis, I just don’t understand why he keeps repeating the head covering command, separate from hair, and is specific about it. If he appealed to culture, that’d be one thing, but that he appeals to Creation makes me wonder.

  • Deborah says on: March 1, 2007 at 2:52 pm

     

    I understand what you’re saying! I want to talk with my husband some more on this one and get some feedback. My interest is really picking up on this issue and when that happens I usually find that God has something He wants me to learn!

  • tom4him says on: March 1, 2007 at 6:37 pm

     

    Will definitely keep you posted. ~t

  • Stephen Kingston says on: March 2, 2007 at 5:22 am

     

    These are difficult passages, but I think that Charles Hodge was helpful when he started talking about people in military uniform. If a general appears before his troops dressed as a common soldier, then he dishonours himself (and perhaps his sovereign). If The common soldier dresses as a General, then they dishonour themself and bring dishonour to the army and thus the general.

    And so Paul’s appeal to the creation order can be understood in the context of the husband being the head of the home, as Christ is his own head.

    But there is a cultural element: the uniform. The head covering and hairstyle were cultural issues. If we lived in a culture where all men dyed their hair blue, and all women dyed their hair red, then we would say that a man who dyes his hair red brings shame on himself and on Christ – and likewise the woman who dyes her hair blue.

    Now our cluture has no head coverings. Christians in Iran would be in a different position. In Iran it is illegal for women to go in public with their head incovered. Thus a church that encouraged such would be castigated by the culture, and shame would be brought.

    In our culture the differences in dress are more relaxed, although a man that went to church dressed as a woman would bring shame on himself and on Christ, and likewise a woman dressed as a man. The issue of head coverings is less pertinent (although in a church that expects hats or scarves for ladies, the interpretation of this passage suggests we should fall into line with the custom).

  • MInTheGap says on: March 2, 2007 at 8:04 am

     

    I like your analogy Stephen. I’ll have to think through it some more, but it would make sense for those that aren’t wearing a head covering. Obviously it all hinges on culture. Is Paul making a cultural statement or a detailed statement. That’s what each of us (or each church) must decide.

  • tom4him says on: April 10, 2007 at 3:54 pm

     

    Well, we finally had our day, the majority believe it would be more of a problem to require women to “cover up” and so that was the final decision made by the board. The same passage carry’s a warning about men praying ‘Covered’ and so I enquired as to whether or not we would bring this up (long hair too), well it is not an issue at our church so it would not be brought up, unless it became an issue.
    So I asked our moderator, if I came up to pray wearing my hat, ( always have one) would it then be an issue… ~:^)

    I agree, in not wanting to get too legalistic, at the same time do not want to foster any kind of activity that would be displeasing to GOD.

    Thank you for your comments and thoughts!

    ~t

  • MInTheGap says on: April 10, 2007 at 3:57 pm

     

    Thanks for coming back and telling us what happened, tom4him. It’s interesting to see how a church would approach these passages and what the current thoughts are.

    Good points as far as the men’s long hair and the hat. 🙂

  • Rob in Madrid says on: June 1, 2007 at 3:04 pm

     

    I’m sorry it I sound unspiritual but I would never attended a church that taught anything along those lines. I had my fill of legalism and holier than thou attitudes I have no interest in going back there again. I enjoy reading this blog but it runfortunatly it reminds me alot of what I came out of. And I have no interest in going back.

  • Mrs. Meg Logan says on: June 29, 2007 at 3:35 pm

     

    I was glad to see this pop up in the archive regurgitation (grin) block today as I have again been thinking on the topic.

    You asked “Could it be because they are more keenly aware of the Holy Spirit and would feel more liberty with their head covered?”

    I have prayed with my head covered and uncovered. I will attest that I certainly feel more power and ease when I am covered, especially in public (though my actual experience in that realm is limited). I do not wear a covering all the time, though I would if it would please my husband. I think covering all the time is the easiest answer as opposed to only when in the act of praying, because I at least do not know when I might engage in prayer… it is usually every five minutes LOL.

    Here are three reasons I think covering is a good thing:

    1. It covers my glory (I have plenty of very long hair which draws attention, especially male attention) I would enjoy covering it to hide that glory for my husband alone.

    2. I feel more at ease to pray when covered, and feel that my prayers are more powerful when I do so.

    3. There is some mystery about the angels in this passage… I would like to have them on my side as much as possible, so whatever the angels have to do with this, I would like to do it for them.

    Oh and a bonus reason:
    4. It is a good testimony and conversation starter (from what I hear).

    Mrs. Meg Logan

  • Arthur Eiss says on: June 30, 2007 at 3:55 am

     

    I find it ironic that I come to this topic so late yet feel so compelled to comment.

    Let me first answer my sister:

    1. Good reason.

    2. Are our prayers more or less powerful depending upon how ‘in God’s will’ we are through our actions? (I’d reference you to the book of Romans to meditate upon the value of our actions pertaining to our relationship with God or our spiritual power.)

    3. I can’t comment on this one because I myself do not understand the context of the mention of angels here.

    4. This is your best reason.

    Now, let me say this:

    What is right is defined by the law. But if we pretend to do what is right we fool ourselves and lie to God and to our neighbors. Remember that righteousness does not come by living by the Law, rather righteousness comes by faith in He who is righteousness. If a woman wears a covering, then let her do so unto her Lord, if she does not wear a covering, let her not do so unto the Lord. For man looks at the outward appearances but the Almighty looks at the inside of men and judges righteously.

    I tell you that you should not seek to require a woman to wear a covering. This is the same as requiring your sister to fulfill the Law. But let’s not add to our brothers and sisters a yoke that our fathers were unable to bear!

    Is it possible to be spiritually edified in a church that has such requirements? Certainly! With God all things are possible. Hesitantly however, I do not recommend such a course or action. (I’ve had good results recommending that the flock stay away from the yeast in the past.)

    We are not justified by the works of the Law but by the shed blood of Christ. It may sound elementary to harp on the blood, but Christ is the foundation of all the good we do in this world. The more you meditate on the righteousness of God and your place in Him through faith alone the more you will be capable of good works.

    I wonder if the next discussion should be on whether men should be circumcised. Or is there a difference between old testament law and new testament commandments? Have you ever asked that question of yourselves?

    It’s ok, I know I’m going to Heaven, I happen to be circumcised. Too bad for the rest of you. You better stay out of our church if your are uncircumcised because it’s clearly an area of rebellion in your life!

    OK, so that was a little overkill on the tongue-in-cheek, but I think the point is that important as to be that ridiculous.

    Love,
    Art

  • Mrs. Meg Logan says on: June 30, 2007 at 7:59 am

     

    Hey Art!

    I definitely agree that women should not be bound by law to cover. I certainly do not feel that were I to do so myself, it would be because my prayers were ineffective otherwise, or that I would somehow incur the wrath of God for some disobedience.

    I know you are already familiar with the passages which specifically address circumcision and that this was “tongue in cheek” but, it isn’t exactly the same, you see on the one hand, circumcision was required of the Jews as a sign of righteousness and being set apart from God, and people WERE trying to set a yoke upon others. But covering your head is NOT a requirement in the OT, infact, MEN covered and women did not have to. It was done for very different reasons in the OT.

    Men covered to show that they were unworthy to come before the Lord, and Jewish men always wore a mantle, a tzitzit with which they covered their head anytime they entered into prayer. Women sometimes wore a veil, but they were not commanded to do so, as they were covered under their husband’s mantle.

    It is in my limited understanding that once the veil covering the holy of holies was rent (on the occasion of Christ’s death), the men were allowed to come before the Lord uncovered. They are now allowed to come before Christ in glory. To come before Him covered as a man, would dishonor Him because it would mock what He did for us. However, the woman now ought to cover her head lest she dishonors her HUSBAND, not the Lord. Because her hair is considered HER glory, and so she is to cover it to show that she is in submission to her head (which is her husband or her father).

    I do not understand that part about angels, it is a great mystery, one noone seems to understand. But I would not want to offend an angel, and if it was important enough to mention in the Word, then it is important enough for me to consider, even if I do not comprehend. I do recall that there is another passage elsewhere which talks about how we might entertain angels unawares and that we ought to be hospitable so that we do not offend them. Apparently it is important not to cause them to stumble… is it possible that seeing my glory all out and flashy would cause one to stumble? I do not know….

    You ask if our prayers can be hindered or empowered by our actions, and I have to argue that YES they absolutely can. I’m not sure where you are referring to in Romans, or if you are in disagreement or not. I can think of at least two times when prayers are deemed less powerful when the behavior of the pray-er is in error.

    Husband’s prayers can be hindered if they do not treat their wives rightly.

    “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.” 1 Peter 3:7

    and

    Anyone’s prayer’s can be hindered if they are asking with a wrong heart attitude, for selfish gain or vain conceit.
    (can’t find this one, sorry… but it goes “you ask and recieve not because you do not ask rightly but for selfish gain or evil conceit.”)

    Well, anyway.

    Just a few thoughts.

    Mrs. Meg Logan

  • Arthur Eiss says on: June 30, 2007 at 12:26 pm

     

    I like your answers to my challenge about prayer being hindered by actions. I definately disagree. I would argue that it is our faith that is most important in our prayers, and this not from ourselves but from God.

    My reference to Romans was to Pauls lengthy discourse on our relationship with God being based on His righteousness not our own works. Romans mostly deals within the context of salvation by grace through faith, and therefore is not necessarily the best piece of scripture to make my point.

    Your final point is precisely correct. It’s our heart attitudes which affect our prayers’ potency. For it is also written, “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” – Matt 21:22

    We of course balance this with the passage you are quoting which reminds us that if we pray against the Father’s will, we will not receive it. Also reference the ‘Our Father’ prayer which states, “Thy will be done”

    Anyway, a whole new thread could be started to discuss hindrances to prayer etc.

    Let me also address the male head covering thing as I understand it. Clearly we were liberated from covering our heads in the presence of the Lord when Jesus fulfilled the Law, but I would encourage people to understand that the disgrace in a man covering his head is not another commandment to be followed but it deals with a heart condition.

    Do you still feel unworthy to stand in the presence of the Father? Even when He has sent His only Son to die in your place and cleanse you of your stains? Take faith! For you need not be covered and hide from the Lord as Adam did in the garden of Eden! You are fully reconciled if you believe in the one He has sent!

    In other words, Paul wasn’t talking about baseball caps and do-rags. Removing your hat in Church is not a sign of reverence or respect, except before the eyes of men. If you’re not wearing the covering because you believe you are spiritually unfit to be in the presence of the Most High God, then you are in no way disgracing the Son or His finished work on the Cross.

    For those who struggle with worthiness, remember this: Upon believing you have received the Holy Spirit which is a down payment, a seal, guaranteeing your salvation in the day of Christ! Ohh, you are worthy, as worthy as Christ!

    Love,
    Art

  • Mrs. Meg Logan says on: June 30, 2007 at 2:29 pm

     

    hmm

    I guess, I still like to take Paul literally when he says “EVERY man praying with his head covered disgraces his head.”…

    I think it does apply to hats and doo rags. I think that even though we are free to come boldly before His throne, we are still admonished to “fear the lord” and to have signs of respect. Therefore, if any man is praying with his head covered, and this is considered disrespectful, then I would think they should NOT do so. Does their salvation depend on it? Absolutely not. But shall we continue in living unholy lives so that grace may abound? Of course not!

    Guess it can come down to the issue of “legalism”. Here is where I think many people are confused. Legalism is not saying we should follow all the rules, it is saying “if you don’t follow the rules your salvation is in jeopardy.” or “If you aren’t following His commandments, then you must not be saved.”

    It is OK to follow His commandments, in fact He tells us that those who love Him will do so. Therefore if you love Him and read that He thinks it disrespectful for a man to come before Him in prayer with head covered, then you won’t do that, and if you are a woman and love Him and know that He desires a woman’s head to be covered, then out of love for Him you will do so. But I am not about to say to my weaker brother or sister in Christ that their salvation depends on such obedience and reverence. It does not, and cannot, for it is not of us, but of God alone that we are made righteous and saved.

    Love you too brother!

    Meg
    (ps. this is fun! wish you showed up here more often!)

  • Arthur Eiss says on: June 30, 2007 at 3:46 pm

     

    So what you’re saying is that caps and do-rags are offensive to God?

    Under this law no man could ever wear a hat because we are also called to pray without ceasing.

    I suggest that God is not in the business of making arbitrary rules. Even the Sabbath had a reason and a purpose: to remind the Hebrews that God made the world in 6 days and on the 7th day He rested.

    The whole idea eludes to this misconception: That we can please God by something we either do or do not do. This idea is false for “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.”

    Are you a good tree or a bad tree?

    I’m a bad tree, fit to be cut down and thrown into the fire.

    Christ is THE good tree and it is only through Him that we bear any fruit.

    We are the branches and He is the vine. There is nothing we can DO to please God, Jesus already did it. Remember the command Jesus gave, what He called us to? Jesus gave us a simple definition of what it means to do the work of God:

    John 6:28-29

    Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The workd of God is this: to believe inn the one he has sent.”

    The sacrifice of Christ and our restoration to God is not just about our security in Heaven, it is about our whole spiritual walk on earth as well. All scripture must be interpreted in the context of Christ. Yes, the epistles correct us in our errant thinking about Church, but they are not meant to create new commandments and laws. Jesus fulfilled the Law and gave the ultimate command: Love the Lord your God with all your heart.

    Again, if one wears a covering on their head while praying, let them do so unto the Lord and be thankful, and if one wears no covering on their head while praying, let them do so also unto the Lord and be thankful. As for my part, I pray that I may never look down my nose at those who wear the covering or those who do not, whether men or women.

    In other words, I suppose if I believed it was God’s will for me to pray without a baseball cap on, I’d remove it. But I cannot believe that because it goes against my understanding of scriptures, and the shape and focus of my relationship with God through Christ.

    Let me say this about legalism. You bring up a good litmus test. I too thought this way but in the greater context of the scriptures I’ve become convinced that it is not by keeping the Laws or rules that we please God, it is by loving Him. It is not by our good behavior that we please Him, it is by our good faith. The Law was not designed with the intention that people should strive to fulfill it. It was designed with the intention that people should realize their imperfections and their need for a perfect Savior.

    The Law describes what a perfect person would be like if such a person could exist post-fall. Such a person cannot exist according to the scriptures (Rom 3:10). The idea is not that we focus our lives on striving to achieve behavior fulfilling the law. To focus on this is folly, and, in fact, it was the main driving point of the Pharisees and Saducees in the time of Christ. Furthermore, it was Jesus’ main qualm with the Pharisees and teachers of the law. They were focused on themselves by focusing on their outward behavior instead of being focused on God.

    Jesus did not come into the world to teach us of the blessings of those who fulfill the law and keep the commandments, but he came to teach us the blessings of those who are forgiven for their iniquities.

    God looks upon the heart. We cannot change our heart by any matter of our own will. Only God can change our heart. And He HAS! He did the work on the Cross at Calvary. All that remains is to accept this in faith and go on growing in faith which produces good fruit.

    We should all be careful that we don’t seek out fruit we don’t have the faith for. But seek out faith and the fruit will follow. Remember that you ARE the righteousness of God in Christ. But do you really know what that means? Meditate upon that and seek a stronger faith in that and you will find that the joy of God floods your soul to such an overflowing state that your sinful practices will fall away gently as if an afterthought.

    Remember it’s all about love, not ‘did I do this and avoid doing that?’

    For it is written, “First wash the inside of the dish and then the outside will be clean also.”

    The inside is your soul (mind and emotions) and the outside is your works (body, actions.)

    Renew your mind and the rest will follow.

    (This is fun… if I could just get over the fear of being though arogant by those who read this… one of my biggest struggles of faith.)

    And how do I change my avatar?

  • MInTheGap says on: July 2, 2007 at 10:56 am

     

    There’s a link below the comment box that says “register your own avatar.” You can also send me an image you’d like to use as an avatar, and I’ll change it asap.

  • Rhondra Yasmine Treat says on: September 25, 2010 at 9:57 pm

     

    Hi Everyone, would someone please respond concering headcovering for a Woman who does not have a Husband?

    I personally prefer to wear a headcovering all the time, because it just feels respectful. The Scriptures direct women to cover “when ye pray.” and then we are directed to “pray always.” So what part of (pray) could I not welcome and understand? It was such a smooth connect. I am a new Christian! (Spring 2010).

    Since I do not have a Husband, then Jesus is my Spouse. He commands me to be chaste and covered. I wear the headcovering in respect to my Lord. I, too, like some of the women who have posted here, have long natural hair. But I choose to keep it covered in public. My choice of headcovering varies. Sometimes I choose a simple hat, sometimes a beautiful scarf, sometimes a neatly arranged wrap.

    It is amazing how many Men will look at me, and start up very decent conversations. Somehow they instinctively know I’m all about business (maybe it’s the lovely silver and brown strands which occasionally sneak from under my headcovering).

    I am the only Woman in my parish community, who wears the veil, everyday. On Sunday mornings, there are one or two elderly ladies who wear dress hats or a lace mantilla.

    Unfortunately; I get the most grief from other Christian women. They ask in a very mocking tone, “”Why do you want to wear that “thing” on your head? How do you expect to ever find a man with that “rag” on your head?””

    When I direct them to the passage in I Corinthians; they just say, “Baby, nobody does that, anymore.”

    Well, everyone, thanks for reading my post. Looking forward to seeing your reply. I am so excited to be a Christian. . . “there is no condemnation in Christ”
    THANKS BE TO GOD!

    Love,
    Rhondra

  • Nightwear for Women says on: October 17, 2010 at 2:25 am

     

    It appears that head coverings are only required by women when they are performing some sort of duty like teaching or prophesying.

    Just sitting and listening to a sermon or whatever it doesn’t appear necessary to wear a head covering although if a woman chooses to do so she shouldn’t be mocked or looked down upon for it.

    It seems from this passage that men should take the lead in teaching but of course where that isn’t possible qualified women should do so with a head covering.

    This passage also poses a big problem to believers in the trinity as it clearly says that Jesus is not equal to God. Interesting.
    .-= Nightwear for Women´s last blog ..How to Improve Your Sleep =-.

  • Meg Logan says on: November 4, 2010 at 1:53 pm

     

    Nightwear,

    Just gotta say that I don’t see this passage as saying Christ is not equal to God. Furthermore there are other passages which AFFIRM that He IS equal to God.

    “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:…” Philippians 2:6

    Jesus, when He was in the form of God, did not think it was robbery to be equal with Him (as opposed to above Him), but then He made Himself lower than the angels, while He walked upon the earth.

    I think it very important to remember that God does not say that a man is of greater worth than a woman “for in Christ there is neither man nor woman, free nor slave…”

    That said, there is however a hierarchy of authority. Hierarchy does not imply less value, or worth or inequality.

MInTheGap

Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

%d bloggers like this: