From: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Should women cover their heads?
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:13:38 GMT
Reply-To: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Kingston)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.

ALICE LOO writes:
>         Last Sunday, the speaker at my church preached on a
> rather controversial topic -- that women should cover their
> heads during worship. His sermon was based on 1 Corinthians
> 11:3-16. My pastor apparently believes in this practice, and
> a good proportion of women in my church do cover their heads
> with scarfs, etc. But personally, I'm not convicted to do so.
> How do you interpret this passage? 

I believe that the head covering issue was a cultural issue, and 
is much more involved then it appears at first glance. (See below)

> Is covering of heads practised
> in your church? 

No, it is very uncommon in mainland Britain, but the practice is 
quite widespread in Northern Ireland.

Now let's look at the passage in detail:

> 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.
> Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth
> his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head
> uncovered dishonoureth her head: 

The first major point we can see in this passage is that the head 
covering was not necessary at all times, but only when a woman prayed
or prophesied in the church service. Now it is worthy of note that 
the women were allowed to pray or prophesy *at all* in the service,
that being an unheard of practice within the pagan community. It is 
my thesis (and I borrow extensively from Gordon Fee, who has written
an excellent commentary on Corinthians) that the head covering was 
a symbol of the authority given to the women to prophesy within the
services, this being a necessary *cultural* practice.

> for that is even all one as if she
> were shaven. 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. 

Women with shorn hair were temple prostitutes in the pagan temples. 
We now see a pattern emerging, for a temple prostitute certainly took
a part in temple worship. Paul, it seems, was afraid that a woman 
prophesying in a service with no head covering would be seen by 
outsiders as a Christian Temple Prostitute! You can see why he took
such drastic measures.

It is also shown that a Roman law of the time decreed that women should
wear head coverings in public worship. I do not remember the reference
to which I refer, but I obtained this information from "1 Corinthians"
by C.K. Barret (Black's New Testament Commentaries).

> 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. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither
> was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 

This is the *whole* of Paul's scriptural argument. If we look at Paul's
argument from scripture and find it to be a convincing argument for 
the practice to continue today then we must continue the practice. 
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the scriptural argument only 
reinforces the continuance of this practice *if the culture in which
you live would demand it*

Now if you are in a culture where all women in places of worship are 
expected to wear head coverings (islamic countries for instance), then
maybe you should also wear a head covering. Otherwise I do not think 
it necessary.

Note also that the head covering was not a hat. Whatever it was (and
we are not quite sure), it must have been shoulder length and covering 
much of the face too. A yashmak comes to mind. People arguing for 
women to wear brightly decorated hats are mis-reading the passage.

> For this
> cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
                                ^^^^^
This word actually reads as "authority" in the Greek, supporting my
thesis that this practice gave the women the authority to pray and 
prophesy in public.

The phrase "because of the angels" is most likely a reference to the
angels being most upset by a break in the natural order of things.

> Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman
> without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man ,
> 
> even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in
> yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray to God uncovered. Dothe not
> even nature itself teach you, that is a man have long hair, it is a
> shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:
> for her hair is given her for a covering. 

I think this is an ad hominem argument given by Paul in defense of the
cultural practice.

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

And this is a virtual admission that the practice is cultural.

>                                 1Corinthians 11:3-16 (KJV)
> 
> Alice

Stephen.


-- 
Gweleis i rac neb nym gweles pop annwyl. ef diwyl yneges. Gweleis i pasc.
(I saw the one above all men,  he saw me;  he, the beloved of his people,
who fulfills his mission. I saw Easter.) "Yspeil Taliesin" ---Taliesin---
spk@uk.ac.aber --- spk%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --- Stephen Kingston
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU