Head Coverings

What is your personal opinion or your church's opinion about this passage in 1 Corinthians 11?

"4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."

Are these verses talking about hair on women and men, or are they talking about actual head coverings that women are required to wear when praying and worshiping? Was this merely a cultural command that applied only to the Corinthian church?

Discuss!

Well, I guess I 'll say something. I think if you want to wear a head covering why not? And if you don't want to wear one, don't wear one.

I'm pretty sure Paul was just giving his own opinion.Being steeped in Jewry and their customs, cultural and religious, it's possible he was saying what he personally preferred, but wasn't taking a hard line on it.

There are some issues that Paul gives his own opinion on, and says "this say I and not the lord" and this may be one of them.

Just to make this conversation more fun………….. If anyone pounds on the pulpit and says " we have to wear a head covering! " What about feet washing ?
Didn't Jesus say : Jn 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

In all my years of travel and church visitations, I have never seen one of them that practiced that suggestion.

I'm sure there must be some.

Actually, JohnProject, the church (my dad calls it a social club) that our family used to attend practiced feet washing with the communion service about once a year. All the men and boys gathered and took off their shoes and socks, and they washed each other's feet with water and dried them with towels.

But the church we attend now, Heritage RBC, does not practice feet washing. I think the reason most churches don't practice it is because it wasn't reiterated by Paul in his epistles. Both baptism and the Lord's Supper were emphasized by him in several places, but he says nothing about feet washing. Thus, the church only has two sacrements, not three.

Plus, when Jesus said that we should wash one another's feet, He most likely did not mean literally, but that we should serve others in humble submission, no matter what their or our status is.

Our church practices feet washing at our annual Lord's Supper (communion) service in April.

@COS: "…the church only has two sacrements, not three." Are you implying by this that foot washing is wrong?

No, but I don't think it's a sacrament of the church that Jesus meant to institute for all ages, as in the cases of baptism and communion. Traditionally, over these 2000 years of church history, it's generally only been those two sacraments–especially if we're talking about Protestantism.

OK. It just kind of sounded like that might be the case. Thank you for clarifying. Our church practices foot washing, not necessarily because we feel Jesus straightly commanded us to do it, but to remind us of the spiritual duty He did set upon us in John 13:14.

This is a good one, COS. I will try to be brief.

No matter how you butcher the text, head covering means head covering. It doesn't mean hair. It means head covering.

But I think a look at the historical context helps explain this text.
Certain women were not allowed (by law) to wear veils, such as prostitutes, divorced women, and etc. Paul's aim was to include the women who were by Roman law not allowed to use veils (head coverings), and to let them be seen as respectable women in the church. Uncovered hair was seen as suggestive in that time, so it makes sense that Paul would tell the churches to allow ALL women to wear head coverings.

Even if they are still applicable today, I feel no conviction for head coverings because Paul says that he himself doesn't enforce that practice (the last verse in the passage). Besides, I'm not a woman, so….

You aren't, Octavia? Huh, could have fooled me……..

You can count on Sam to bring something like that into a conversation like this… :P

I'm a woman and wear a head covering because this article convinced me: http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html

Recently, I have been beginning to have doubts that it's an absolute command. Still, there's no harm in wearing a head covering. There's no reason not to. And it doesn't hurt to have a reminder that we are spiritually beneath men. Plus, for me, it just reminds me that I belong to God and stuff like that.

Talia, I have a tendency to get on a limb and then saw it off, but here I go.
I totally respect your views on head coverings. If you like it, do it, and if it brings you closer to Jesus that's great! But I wanted to discuss something that is a bit off topic, something you mentioned about being less spiritual then men.

Sure, woman have their duties as wife's to be submitted to their husbands, them being the head of the house hold and what not, everyone has a part to play in practical and materiel matters.
(Although I have seen some woman who could run a house hold way better than a man)

But when it comes to the spiritual matters, God is no respecter of persons.

Woman can surpass a man in spiritual ministries.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I found it pretty cool to see examples in which God used woman.

1. Mary Magdalene was the first person Jesus showed himself to.

2. when all disciples took off (except John) faithful woman stood by him at the cross.

3.In Romans 16 :1-2 Paul commended them unto Phebe and told them to assist her in whatever she had need of them.

1. Priscilla was mentioned by Paul first out of respect. Rom 16:3-4 Also see act's 18:2,18

5.judges 13 1-10 An angel appeared to manoas wife , twice, later to him.

6.God slew Nable but honored his wife Abagail 1 Sam 25:38-39

7.2kings 8-37 The " great woman of Shunem" was the honored one in this story, not her husband.

8.Archangel Gabriell appeared first unto Mary and then 3 months later to Joseph.

9.Miriam the Prophetess. Exodus 15 :20-21

1. Elizabeth and Mary prophesied.

2. Anna a Prophetess served God day and night. Lk 2 36-38

12.Deborah a Prophetess judged Israel. Judges 4:4

1. Ruth!…… Esther !

Act's 2 :17 Says, I will pour our my spirit unto ALL flesh and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.

Don't sell yourself short. If you have a calling and you excel in a spiritual ministry that outstrips your husbands, well, I would obey God rather then men. And it is his duty to humble himself and support you.

That's my view, and I have witnessed it many times.

If you have a special talent, Don't smother it by belittling yourself. Know this, that God wants to use you. that your not as good as a man spiritually, is nonsense, just be a witness for him, and see what God does!

Yeah, John Project, I think I'd have to agree with you here. There's nowhere in Scripture to indicate that women are "spirtually beneath men." Of course, the man is the head of his wife, and the wife is to submit to him, but that in no way makes her any more "spiritually inferior" in God's eyes…

That was I who made the comment above. I mistakenly posted while my brother was still logged in. ;)

@john Project, I would like to clarify something here. While I do not think that women are "spiritually inferior to men", meaning that they cannot live as dynamic spiritual lives as men can, I do not believe that is what this passage is talking about. In I Corinthians 11, Paul is reminding the Corinthians of the headship order in creation, which is God, then Man, and then Woman. Although women are not "inferior" to men, they are to be submissive to men and allow them to be the leaders and initiators. For instance, I do not think that women should be pastors, partially because God has created the man to be the priest of his home, and partially because the man is the head of the woman. I think that the headship veiling is a beautiful illustration of this principle. Our church practices the headship veiling, and I believe it is right. It specifically says that a woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her own head. Why then would women argue that they are not to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying? Also, it says that if a man prays or prophesies with his head covered, he dishonors his own head. If this is not for us today, why do men remove their hats to pray? I think this is important, however the headship principle behind it cannot be neglected. I think the reason that many women are leaders is because us as men have not done our job in being the initiators, which is to our shame.

Our church practices the headship veiling as well.

1 Corinthians 11:14 says that a woman is given long hair as her covering.
Our church doen't do head coverings, but we don't have anything against those who do. As John project mentioned up near the top, who really cares? Romans 14 really applies here.

Are you saying a woman's long hair is her covering?

Yes I am. The Bible sure seems to say so.

I think I would agree with that as well. Not only does the text say that, but it's pretty widely known and accepted that men have short hair, while women have long hair. Proverbs says that a man's long hair is a disgrace to him. So that would seem to indicate that a woman's glory is her hair. And I think we would all agree that generally all women look better with long hair, rather than short hair. ;) Same with men–they generally look nicer when sporting short hair, not long hair. :P

@COS You are right when it says that a woman's hair is given her for a covering. However, our church gets the veiling part from verses six and ten in I Corinthians 13. Verse six says, "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 shave, let her be covered." Also, verse ten says, "For this cause [that the woman was created for the man and not man for the woman] ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." The word "power" is not translated as physical might or strength, but rather the sign of a husband's authority over her wife. My Bible had an alternate translation of the word that said "i.e. a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband." Based on these verses, I would draw the conclusion that the veil should be a physical symbol that the woman wears to show submission to her husband/father, or any other authority in her life.

Sorry if i seemed to imply that I was disagreeing with you. I merely was wondering what your take was on that subject

…"who really cares?" Are you kidding? Of course we want to take what our Lord and Saviour who died in our place has commanded us to do very seriously! Just like any other passage in the Bible, let's not say "who cares", but rather seek the will of God.

I personally do not find the cultural arguments against head coverings compelling – Paul appeals to a creation argument instead of a cultural argument – so I guess I'm for head coverings (though I think no women in our church but one may wear a hat for this reason). I don't know what "the angels" (verse 10) have to do with it, but I don't think they've stopped having anything to do with it… Yet I also agree this is a Romans 14 issue and every man should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Also, I will just mention that head coverings for all times/cultures seems to be the general understanding of the church through the ages.

Good discussion.

After almost two years of casual research on this issue, I'm still confused… On one side, it seems that Paul isn't saying it's hair, (I mean, it doesn't make sense to say that "if a woman has short hair, she should cut it all off," see verse six.) And cultural doesn't fit with angels.
I'm not sure which meaning verse 16 takes on. Some translations say that if someone wants to argue "we have no other practice," and others say "we have no such practice." Opposite meanings…
Verses 14 and 15 confuse me, too. He says "does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory" (NIV). (Some translations say "nature itself.") Please hear me out, but to me, that's a very cultural argument. I grew up among native Americans, and in this tribe's culture, long hair is a good thing. They only cut their hair if someone died, (including the men.) Long hair has nothing to do with guy/gal, it has to do with mourning. If nature itself taught us something, you would think you would find it in nearly all cultures in the world. Rather, many more examples can be found of long hair on guys and short on girls being a cultural norm. Also, in Jewish culture of the time, long hair on a guy meant that he took a long time to fulfill a vow he made to God.
Finally, my biggest question is, if this is such a serious mandate, even though the OT never mentioned it, why are such things as Sabbath observance, Circumsision, and not eating meat sacrificed to idols not a total mandate anymore? (For meat sacrificed to idols, see 1 Cor 10:23-33, RIGHT NEXT TO the headcovering passage, and also chapter 8. For circumsision and sabbath, I can find the passages later if anyone wants. But I need to go right now…)
Thank you for starting up this discussion!!!

Thanks for sharing, Chelse.

That's neat you grew up among native Americans!

I'm no expert on this topic, and I may change my view, but I'll try to interact with your thoughts…

• Verse 16 translation differences: I can't see how it could be translated "we have no such practice"; how would that line up with what Paul says in the previous verses? Do you know how people who hold that it means that address the previous verses? (Again, I'm new to this so I don't know.)

• "the very nature of things" – does sound to me like a creation/natural argument, not cultural… But then I'm not sure why the native Americans are different (as well as some other groups), so… I don't have a good answer for you. So you're saying it would never be viewed as disgraceful, right? Hmm…

• Men of God having long hair: We know Paul even had long hair, because he had taken a Nazarite vow and then we're told in Acts that he shaved it off. I'm wondering if long hair, though, wasn't the norm, and instead was a disgrace, but one that Paul (and maybe Jesus also) endured? I'm not saying God's men shouldn't have long hair, and I don't think Paul is either.

• OT: I'm not sure why it would bother us that the OT never mentioned a head covering. It doesn't seem like an OT issue (just like the Lord's Supper wasn't an OT issue), but maybe I'm wrong. I only see this in 1 Corinthians 11 and can't think of other passages that would help interpret this one.

With a passage like this, where I'm not convinced that it's a cultural issue, I feel it's better to err on the side of obeying something that might not be a command of God relevant to us today than to disobey a command of God that is relevant to us today. However, I'm a guy so obviously I'm not going to be wearing a covering even with such an interpretation :)

Edit: Here's a letter from John Murray on the topic: http://www.reformedreader.net/2011_12_01_archive.html

Interesting topic. My dad believes that hair is the covering for women; which is why we don't wear head coverings.

Alex - Where is the passages that you have to prove that Paul had long hair…and Christ? You mentioned somewhere in Acts, but if you could give the specific reference, I'd appreciate it :)

I should have given that. It's Acts 18:18.

Thanks, Alex.

And then, why would you think that Christ had long hair?

Good question. I don't necessarily think Jesus had long hair and haven't researched it. I just said that maybe he did… (Some seem to argue that he didn't because of this passage…)

You may wish to read the letter I linked to in an earlier reply.

"I just said that maybe he did…" which means that there's just as much chance maybe He didn't :)

I would strongly hold that Christ did not have long hair. Do you think that He would do something that Paul strongly says is a disgrace for a man? And we do have a stronger point to our side because of that passage, whereas those who would say that he did have long hair, have no passage at all…

So then…if you're thinking (at least for right now) that women should wear head-coverings, would your parents hold to that view as well?

"I just said that maybe he did..." which means that there's just as much chance maybe He didn't :)

OK, you're right. I found a good explanation on the topic of Jesus' hair: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-long-hair.html They explain he wouldn't have had hair longer than what was masculine in his culture. I agree with that, in light of the Corinthians passage in focus. I believe that before Paul cut his hair in Acts 18:18, it was not longer than the culturally expected masculine maximum hair length, if you will. This doesn't mean that Paul's hair length would seem normal for us today. If it was too long by our standards, then had he lived in our culture, I don't think he would have worn it that long.

I should have said that Jesus may have had long hair compared to American standards.

Um, no, I don't think they would. It's a conclusion I've just arrived at recently (and still somewhat tentatively).

Well, after reading the article that you put up, we should define what "long" means :)

The article said "Could His hair have been shoulder length? Possibly." When I hear the words "shoulder length" I automatically think 'long hair!'. Though, if it was the custom back then for men to have hair that went to the shoulder, then that is what Paul would have based his "disgrace for men to have long hair" off of…meaning, that anything longer than shoulder length hair, for a man, is classified as "long hair". So, yes, if men in Christ's time always had shoulder length hair, I'm assuming that Christ did too…though, then, when Paul mentions long hair for men, he must have meant, like, really long hair!

What I think is interesting, is that in the drawing that someone drew of Christ and the disciples, Christ has long hair, while the others (well at least most of the others, it's hard to tell for some of the disciples) have short hair….[but I guess that is kind of besides the point….]

That's what I thought =)…regarding your view and your parents :)

As I remember my Grandpa's viewpoint on v 16, (he sees it as a cultural issue,) Paul meant that it is something that should be done, but it's not worth arguing over and if someone wants to argue about it, "fine, we don't have any such practice, nor do the churches of God." A short list of the translations that say "we have no such practice," would be KJV, ESV, ISV, ASV, ERV, and lots more, (look it up on Biblos if you want…) God's Word Translation even says "If anyone wants to argue about this [they can't, because] we don't have any custom like this-nor do any of the churches of God." So, I'm still not quite sure what it means.
No, long hair on a man would never be a disgrace in the local Ojibwe culture. Short hair is reserved for mourning. From what I understand, when a close family member dies, even the women shave their heads. (Don't take my word as infallible though…) Either way, to me culture dictates whether a person looks manly or womanly much more than anything. I mean, if it's an older guy in a more outdoorsy-looking outfit, (like a trapper,) with a long beard, I usually don't blink at his shoulder-length hair, it just fits. Or, if it's summertime and I see a Black woman with a buzz cut, it's normal. And what about dreadlocks? Or ponytails for the Chinese? Granted, much of the differences come from their religion as well, but still, if "nature itself" taught humans something, you would still expect to find it in a majority of cultures.
As to OT issue or not: if Paul did appeal to nature itself in a broader sense, (and not as a cultural issue,) and if women were still suppose to submit to their husbands in the OT too, "and because of the angels," I would expect at least SOME mention of it in the OT… That's what bugs me about it. If it's not cultural, but eternal, then you would expect that it would have been a command back then, too. The other thing that bugs me about it is that it just doesn't make sense to say, "it's okay to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but you HAVE to wear a piece of cloth on your head."
And as to erring on the side of obedience, yes, it would be nice if it were that simple, and if there weren't any reprocussions for just doing it "because I'm not sure yet." However, My family is fairly opposed to the idea. My parents have told me not to for now, but that when I turn 18 I can do whatever I've decided is right. So, for right now I know what to do, (even if I were convinced that the Bible mandates it, it would be totally hypocritical to rebel against my authority in order to wear a sign of submission to authority…) But, since I only have three months to go, I need to get it figured out soon! If I were to put on a covering, it would cause a lot of ripples in the family, esp. the Christian side. I respect my grandparents very much, and believe that they are doing what they believe God wants them to do. Same with my parents, and my great-uncle, a pastor that I also respect a lot. I would offend all of them if I were to decide to put on a covering. (Trust me, I've already tried it! About a year and a half ago I put it on because I wanted to err on the side of obedience. It lasted about a month, until we moved again and my Mom told me to take it off. There was no more "err on the side of obedience," becuase that made it pretty clear what I was suppose to do!)
That being said, whichever I do, I really want to be sure about it. If I start veiling without being completely sure of it, I'll be much worse off than if I don't veil until I'm 100%. Not to mention that there's way more chance that I'll go through with it! And it'll be a lot easier to stand up to family members.
Question out of Curiosity: how do you all think the "I have become all things to all men" passage fits in with this?

@Chelse: In answer to your first comment about it being a cultural thing, this is certainly true of our culture now. Almost nowhere do you find women that cover their heads in public or when they are praying. However, I think you should research why this is not true now. We covered this topic when we were having a class for aspiring church members. My dad was teaching, and he said something to the effect that fifty or sixty years ago, this passage was not even contested. Indeed, all throughout church history up until about fifty to sixty years ago, women would cover their heads, whether it was by a veiling, hat bonnet, etc. Obviously, as I said before, our culture has changed to the point where this is no longer practiced. However, the change in which women began to uncover their heads in public was birthed, I believe, in the sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies. So, even though I am not against culture changing and Christians changing as well, if culture changes simply as a sign of rebelion, we as Christians should be hesitant to follow their lead.

In answer to your second question about Paul saying he has become all things to all men, I think he was talking about adapting to culture in order to enhance evangelism. I believe he was talking about this in relation to evangelism in I Corinthians 9 anyhow, so this is what it would seem like to me.

Solo Deo Gloria!

@Thomas: What about hair? I have heard the argument about why cloth covering is no longer used, but my question is in verses 14&15: if "nature itself" teaches that women should have long hair and men short hair, why do we not see this as a rule in many cultures in the world, (not just American!) It is this that makes me think that "nature itself" refers more to cultural context rather than an eternal command. Does not nature itself teach you that you ought to TIE your shoes before wearing them around town? But not everyone does so, (think no-tie laces and skateboard shoes.) In the same way, as I understand it, in Paul's day long hair on a man usually meant that he took an outstandingly long time to fulfill a vow to the LORD - which had better be considered a disgrace!
Also, if women took off cloth head coverings only fifty or sixty years ago in America because of the sexual revolution, why are head coverings absent in so many other Christian groups around the world?

About evangelism: if "he was talking about adapting to culture in order to enhance evangelism," and the group you are ministering to is turned off by the headcovering, why not take it off in order to enhance evangelism? It's true that we're suppose to be different and all, but I don't see the point in suffering for anything but the Gospel. That's why I'm so hesitant about putting on a headcovering. If God wants me to do it - so be it. I'll do it. But I want to be totally sure that He actually wants me to, and that I'm not suffering for nothing.
Please don't take my arguments as offensive. If the majority on this site opposed headcoverings, I would support them. But since the majority supports headcoverings, I pose arguments against them in order to understand all sides of the issue. I have not yet decided what side to take in the long run!
Thank you all for your answers!

I meant, it's not really an issue that decides who's saved and who isn't.

With regard to the evangelism issue, I don't think many people who would take the 1 Corinthians text to mean that women should literally wear head coverings would say that women are to always be wearing the coverings. Many would merely have the women cover their heads in the church, based on the context of the passage. Thus, it would be a non-issue in witnessing.

I suppose that makes sense… My best friend always wears a headcovering because, as the passage says, women are to wear it while praying or prophecying, and we are also to "pray continually." So, if we're always praying, we should always cover… Although, how does the "only in church" fit with verse 13, "judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" Pray to God. Doesn't say what context, just that she's praying to God. Doesn't matter with whom, just to Whom.
Thank you for pointing that out though! The "only in church" part is something I'd overlooked in the past, probably because of the people I know who always cover. If nothing else, I should look into it more! (I'm thankful for the range of ideas on this forum! Although they have a lot of good things to say, it helps to have a range of pro-covering opinions other than Mennonite! Thank you all for the help!)

@Chelse Brun, thanks for your reply. You have certainly given me something to think about. I hope this helps in your searching.

First of all, when Paul mentioned "nature itself", you said this was refering to a cultural context. However, I don't believe that this is what Paul was trying to say. By saying "nature itself", Paul was saying that it should be normal for women to have long hair. This is not just a cultural thing; in my opinion, it is widely accepted that women have longer hair than men do. Furthermore, Paul mentions that long hair on a woman is a "glory" for her. The word glory is the Greek word doxa. One of the definitions of the word is "majesty, a thing belonging to God." In other words, long hair on a woman is a mark of her ownership by God. In light of this, the reason many cultures may not choose to practice this is because they have not been given the gospel, and therefore do not know any better.

As to your second question on why many Christian groups around the world do not wear head coverings, many chose to abandon the practice because they did not feel it was important, decided to forsake it as a thing of the past, or some other reason. Historically, Christian woman wore head coverings for hundreds of years. As another question of whether or not headcoverings are purely cultural, how many cultures do you know of that practiced the headcovering without exposure to the gospel and/or Westernization? To my knowledge, there are none, Now I could be wrong, but I certainly would not say that the majority would practice it. If you want more information, here is a link to an article written by David Bercot on the subject. http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/head-covering-history.html

As to your question about evangelism, if the headcovering is seen as important, I do not think that it should be abandoned. Even though Paul "became all things to all men", he did not abandon his principles. He may have adapted to the culture around him, but I don't think he did so by sacrificing to the emperor. Also, if it is understood that a person is wearing a headcovering out of submission to the men in authority over them, I would be inclined to think it would be taken better.

Finally, if the headcovering is irrelevant today, why do men remove their hats whey they pray? If women do not have to cover their heads when they pray, why must men remove their hats to pray? Just a thought!

To God be the glory!

Here is another article by Dr. Robert Spinney that you may find insightful. http://www.monergism.com/Spinney,%20Robert%20-%20Should%20Christian%20Women%20Wear%20Head%20Coverings%20Today.pdf

Finally, if the headcovering is irrelevant today, why do men remove their hats whey they pray? If women do not have to cover their heads when they pray, why must men remove their hats to pray? Just a thought!

That's a really good point…

What do you think in regard to some people say women should wear a covering all the time and other just in church meeting or prayer meeting where men are in attendance? (or other variations of the same idea)

I'll check that out. I also just found a list of quotes from people like Augustine, Luther, Watchman Nee, Charles Spurgeon, and even RC Sproul on the subject: https://sites.google.com/a/thoughtsofhans.com/what-i-have-learned/christian-living/woman-s-head-coverings

@Marie, good question. I certainly can respect those who put on a scarf or hat to pray if they think that is fulfilling the command in I Corinthians 11. I don't know if there is an absolute right and wrong on this subject, but I would incline more towards wearing a covering all the time. This is due to several factors:

-First, the way I have been raised. Mom almost always wears a head covering all the time all day, so it is what I am used to, though this may not exactly be a credible reason :)

-Second, the command to pray without ceasing. I don't believe that this means we are to pray every waking moment of every day, but I do believe it has significance for us today. I have heard this scripture interpreted as living in an attitude or spirit of prayer. We should always be ready to pray, so I think women should wear it all the time so they are always ready to pray if need be.

-Thirdly, the symbolism in the command. A woman who covers her head is not only showing respect for the commands of God, but also respect and submission toward her husband/father, or whoever may be in authority over her. Doing so all the time is a public declaration of this submission. (Do not think that submission means servitude or inferiority. I do not believe that at all!)

-Finally, it shows a dedication to modesty and upright moral standards. I don't know about you, but I usually equate a head covering with modesty. While I do not believe a head covering is the definition of modest dress, it certainly enhances the concept. Also, since the head covering is a demonstration of submission to authority, it also shows obedience and loyalty. This would likely deter temptations that may otherwise show themselves. Finally, the head covering creates greater responsibility for the woman. Because it is a symbol of submission to authority, a woman who rebells against God's law is publicly disgracing and rebelling against the very authorities she is submitting to by wearing her head covering.

As a final note, the responsibility cannot lie solely with the woman: she must also be supported by men for her submission. Thus, we as men have the responsibility to show support to a woman who chooses to wear a head covering.

Just a few thoughts. Solo Deo Gloria!

-Second, the command to pray without ceasing. I don't believe that this means we are to pray every waking moment of every day, but I do believe it has significance for us today. I have heard this scripture interpreted as living in an attitude or spirit of prayer. We should always be ready to pray, so I think women should wear it all the time so they are always ready to pray if need be.

I was thinking about this today… What if I'm working outside with a hat on and start praying? Do I need to take my hat off? Or is this only when praying aloud and in public? How would this relate to your interpretation of a woman's covering?

Ok, just to throw another question out there: How do you think this relates to the dresses vs pants debate? I have heard both sides of the arguments :) (remember to use Scripture to back up your ideas, that is one thing I love about these memverse fourms is that most people use Scripture to back up their ideas:) )

I'm curious to see how you all would answer this one… How do you think 1 Cor 14:33-35 fit with all this?
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV)
The word that NIV translates as "remain silent" quite literally means "no sound." If you're going to say that women ought to wear headcoverings, it would properly follow that women ought not to sing in church, because that's sound, too. If you try to explain this passage away, it gives room to explain chapter 11 away, too. But rather, I haven't seen this rule practiced at all! Even the Mennonite church that I attended for several months, (while I lived in town, and yes, they practiced headcovering) not only allowed their women to sing, but also to give testimonies as long as they didn't start to sound like they were teaching anyone. (Because Paul didn't permit women to teach men… But then again, why were they giving testimonies if not to "teach" someone?)
So, what am I missing? Because this is either hypocrisy or I'm totally missing something! (which isn't too far fetched… I am blonde…;-P )

@Marie Morris: If you take the passage to promote modesty, it could relate one way, and if you take it to mean that men should look like men and women like women, it could relate another… In some cultures, women wear dresses and men wear pants. But what about other cultures? Are kilts, togas, and royal robes - women's clothing? Absolutely not! What about the period clothing that Jesus and His disciples would have worn? What we would now consider a "dress" was very much men's clothes at the time. And now, in our time, some women wear jeans. I'm not advocating skinny jeans or jeans with built-in holes in the backside or any such nonsense, but there are jeans and pants that are very much feminine, (and would be really, really strange on a guy…) So, jeans aren't universally men's clothing, and skirts/dresses aren't universally women's clothing. Stay modest, but remember that modesty also includes not drawing unnessecary attention to oneself. Also remember that, just because it's a dress, doesn't mean it covers you any better than jeans and a t-shirt. Most dresses, even full-length ones, show WAY more skin and way more curves than simple jeans and a t-shirt!
Did I even address what you're talking about?

I'm curious to see how you all would answer this one... How do you think 1 Cor 14:33-35 fit with all this? "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV) The word that NIV translates as "remain silent" quite literally means "no sound." If you're going to say that women ought to wear headcoverings, it would properly follow that women ought not to sing in church, because that's sound, too. If you try to explain this passage away, it gives room to explain chapter 11 away, too. But rather, I haven't seen this rule practiced at all! Even the Mennonite church that I attended for several months, (while I lived in town, and yes, they practiced headcovering) not only allowed their women to sing, but also to give testimonies as long as they didn't start to sound like they were teaching anyone. (Because Paul didn't permit women to teach men... But then again, why were they giving testimonies if not to "teach" someone?)

From 1 Corinthians 11:5, we know that Paul is not forbidding women to speak in church at all. That's pretty obvious, I hope. Scripture interprets Scripture.

Some views that I'm aware of are:

1) Since the context is prophecy and orderly worship, and since Paul mentions how the "others [should] weigh what is said" (13:29), he may be talking about women judging prophecy. This view is espoused by Wayne Grudem and John Piper.

2) Paul is saying that women should not teach men, like he says in 1 Timothy 2:12. I'm not sure how common this interpretation is, but I know it is espoused by Ligon Duncan (per the ever-trustworthy Wikipedia).

3) Paul is quoting the Corinthians in verses 34 and 35 and then rejects their idea in verse 36. (The Greek manuscripts don't have quotation marks like we have in English, so sometimes it's hard to know when people are talking and when they're not. There is, for example, dispute about whether Paul is still talking to Peter in Galatians 2:15-20 or whether that is just what he is writing to the Galatians and not something he said to Peter.)

4+) I'm sure there are other views.

I would probably hold the first view. As I understand it, then, Paul is telling the Corinthians that women can "prophesy" (1 Cor 11:5), but not judge prophecy.

As far as giving testimonies, I don't think giving testimonies is teaching. If giving a testimony were teaching, I don't think anyone but ordained elders would be able to give a testimony in my denomination (PCA)! And yet we have had people give testimonies of God's grace many times, especially during our Thanksgiving dinners. I think a "testimony" "testifies" to something God has done. It should serve to the edification of God's people to hear what God hath wrought. But I don't see it as the same as teaching.

Nor do I think a headcovering view necessitates that women not speak; in fact, none of us (that I'm aware of) think that precisely because of 1 Cor 11:5 (from the "headcovering" passage!).