Head Coverings

@Chelse Brun, good question! I have heard of this topic before, but I am not overly knowledgeable on the subject, so please bear with me if I make mistakes.

First of all, I don't believe this is hypocrisy. There is no unrighteousness with God (Rom. 9:14), so there is no way He could be a hypocrite through His word. However, this does not really answer your question :)

I am not entirely sure on this subject, but I heard a message by Dr. Carl Coke, a Greek and Hebrew scholar, and he mentioned this concept. He said it meant that women were not supposed to participate in church business meetings, like board meetings and the like. I agree with Alex in the sense that I don't think women are supposed to be totally silent in church. While I don't think women should be preachers, I see no problem with them speaking in church, like giving announcements or testimonies. I don't think testimonies are preaching either. Preaching is the minister delivering the message to the congregation, and testimonies are the response of the congregation to the preaching.

I realize this is a bit ramblish and roundabout, but I hope it helps! To God be the glory!

@Chelse Brun, good question! I have heard of this topic before, but I am not overly knowledgeable on the subject, so please bear with me if I make mistakes. First of all, I don't believe this is hypocrisy. There is no unrighteousness with God (Rom. 9:14), so there is no way He could be a hypocrite through His word. However, this does not really answer your question :) I am not entirely sure on this subject, but I heard a message by Dr. Carl Coke, a Greek and Hebrew scholar, and he mentioned this concept. He said it meant that women were not supposed to participate in church business meetings, like board meetings and the like. I agree with Alex in the sense that I don't think women are supposed to be totally silent in church. While I don't think women should be preachers, I see no problem with them speaking in church, like giving announcements or testimonies. I don't think testimonies are preaching either. Preaching is the minister delivering the message to the congregation, and testimonies are the response of the congregation to the preaching. I realize this is a bit ramblish and roundabout, but I hope it helps! To God be the glory!

Just FYI, in the Presbyterian system, all members can vote… so depending on what you meant by "church business meetings," we may differ there… However, only men can be elders (serving on the session, as it's called), but all members (both men and women) vote to select elders.

@Thomas: No, I'm not in any way saying God would be hypocritical!!! But that at first appearance, it's hypocritical to explain away one passage but accept another at face value.
I don't understand how business meetings come in… What do they have to do with "must remain silent IN THE CHURCHES?" (Sorry for the all caps, I can't find italics…) Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

@alex: 1 Corinthians 11:5 does not necassarily have to do with the weekly church service. Someone can pray outside of a church gathering, and someone can just as well prophecy outside of it. Anna was a prophetess who stayed in the temple 24/7, fasting and praying. (see Luke 2:36-7) That doesn't mean she spoke up at the Sabbath meetings.

Verse 37 doesn't make sense if 34-35 were in quotes. "If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command."
Plus, if it's okay to say verses 34-5 are in quotes, we could also decide that 1 Cor 11:3-10 is all in quotes, because that would finally make some sense out of the passage! Just say that verses 11-16 refute the Corinthians' practice of headcovering. Maybe the "I" in verse three was just part of a quote from a leader in the Corinthian church. He'd basically be saying, "You say it's a dishonor for a woman to pray or prophecy without a piece of cloth on her head. Well, in the Lord, neither man nor woman is independent of the other. What do you think: is it okay for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Doesn't nature itself teach you that it's disgraceful for a man to have long hair or a woman to have short? Because long hair is a woman's covering. If anybody wants to argue about this, we just plain don't have any such practice, nor do the churches of God!"

As to testimonies being teaching or not, it depends more on your definition of "teaching." If a testimony testifies to what God has done, then the hearer is learning about what God has done in someone else's life. Therefore, the speaker is teaching the hearer. But again, it depends on how you define teaching. What meaning did the Greek word have when Paul said "I do not permit a woman to teach a man?"
Speaking of definitions, what does it mean to "judge prophecy?" That's an honest question, I've never heard of it before, unless it refers to judging whether a prophet is from the Lord or not.

I'm not saying I believe any of what I just wrote. I might believe some of it, but that's not the point. The point is to demonstrate where some of these arguments lead, like, "he's quoting them," and to pose the question:

Why is it okay to explain away 1 Cor 14 but not 1 Cor 11?

I just got an e-mail from a friend that made me think maybe I'm coming across too harshly… Just wanted to clarify that I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, nor am I convinced of either argument. I'm just taking the opposite side of the issue so I can understand the entire issue, not just one biased side of it. I'm not trying to offend anyone!!! Thank you.

Chelse - John Piper and Wayne Grudem do a better job on this than I ever could. Here's their answer to that question: http://books.google.com/books?id=NHPxcYNV0BwC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=john+piper+1+corinthians+11&source=bl&ots=ysU0vk7zzg&sig=BU91qSsE7pYAvxNINncSR8bS_zo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mxYbUK3XEYHa6wHeq4CoAg&ved=0CGEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=john%20piper%201%20corinthians%2011&f=false

They also address some of your other points if you go back and forward a few pages. It looks like a really good book! I'll have to read it eventually…. Granted, they don't take the headcovering position, but maybe they're right not to. I'm sure they have one of the best arguments for the position they lay out. To be honest, I don't want the headcovering-for-today position to be valid. It's unpopular, and probably considered weird by many in the church.

Hannah - Maybe you could read that link I gave to Chelse also….

Thomas - Would you still be able to answer my earlier question about men wearing hats and how you think that relates to women wearing headcoverings? Thanks!

@alex, sorry for the delay. I will try to do my best, and leave the rest up to the Lord.

First of all, I am not entirely sure. I do wear a hat at times, I am not entirely sure that it is wrong to wear a hat, but one could certainly use I Corinthians 11 as a valid premise. I have not spent much time thinking on the subject, but you have certainly piqued my intrest. I think that some might argue that hats are okay because they are not worn for spiritual purposes, but then there is the issue of removing your hat when you pray. However, this custom may not date back to I Corinthians 11, since it is generally understood to be an act of reverence and respect.

I am sure I am being scattered in my thoughts. I would be interested if you have anything more to say on the subject.

@alex, sorry for the delay. I will try to do my best, and leave the rest up to the Lord. First of all, I am not entirely sure. I do wear a hat at times, I am not entirely sure that it is wrong to wear a hat, but one could certainly use I Corinthians 11 as a valid premise. I have not spent much time thinking on the subject, but you have certainly piqued my intrest. I think that some might argue that hats are okay because they are not worn for spiritual purposes, but then there is the issue of removing your hat when you pray. However, this custom may not date back to I Corinthians 11, since it is generally understood to be an act of reverence and respect. I am sure I am being scattered in my thoughts. I would be interested if you have anything more to say on the subject.

Thanks, Thomas. No problem about the delay!

All I'm looking for is consistency. If you're allowed to wear a hat even while you pray secretly (without even speaking – which I'm sure you do many times a hat on), then why can't a woman do the same? As far as I understand, the argument that women should always have their heads covered is that they should be praying continually, like 1 Thessalonians 5:17 commands. The problem is that men should be praying continually too. Applying the same logic, all men should always keep their heads uncovered so they could always be prepared to pray.

So if you say you're allowed to wear a hat while praying secretly, then I say a woman is allowed not to (if she chooses). And if you say that a woman must/should always wear a hat/covering, then I would think it follows that a man must/should always not wear a hat/covering.

1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his had covered dishonors his head,
1 Corinthians 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God…

@alex, quite right! I believe that our Christian life should be consistent as much as possible.

Personally, I remove a hat if I pray secretly; however, I don't think this command should be taken too extremely. If you have to take off your winter hat in Antarctica to pray, I would be hesitant to do so. I don't think that God intended this command to be burdensome, but I do think that it should be followed. Ultimately, everything we do should be done to the glory of God. Any further thoughts?

Matthew 11:30-"For My yoke is easy; and My burden is light."

I Corinthians 10:31-"Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

So, let's say you're weeding in your flowerbed or garden, and you decide to pray about something. Does your conscience tell you that you need to remove the hat you're wearing merely because you're choosing to communicate with your Heavenly Father?

@COS, I would not want to go so far as to say, "This is right" and "This is wrong" in regards to such a touchy subject. In this case, I would say every man do that which is right in his conscience. As I'm sure you know, your views on every aspect of Christianity may be different from many other Christians. Does that make you less of a Christian than them, or does that make them less of a Christian than you? Absolutely not! God has given us black and white rules for some things, but He also allows us to set our own guidelines for some things.

Hope this helps you! Solo Deo Gloria!

So men get to choose what's right in their conscience, but women don't?

And of course, just because we disagree doesn't mean one is "less Christian" than the other… "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians somewhere…) One body, different ideas of how a cell should work. And different cells do different work, so they probably shouldn't all have the same idea… If a nerve cell tried to act like a muscle cell, it wouldn't be good!

Oh, yes. I understand that. I was just wondering, in that particular case, what your conscience would tell you. I wasn't meaning that that makes it absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

What did the early church fathers say about this issue?
I've been taking Church History this quarter, and remembered that somewhere in my discussions of the headcovering someone said that at least one church father supported it… Now that I'm learning a bit more about the various church fathers, it would be interesting to know more about this. Problem is, I don't remember who! If anybody knows about this, please let me know!
Thanks for the help!

Most/all of the early church fathers seem to have supported headcoverings. I know it's not the best site, but Wikipedia might get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_headcovering#New_Testament There's a list of church fathers and some citations; you could then search Google for various fathers by name with the keyword "headcovering" and probably find quotes.

Some people say that the womens covering is her husband. It makes sense. Even if the passage does mean a literal cloth or something, it is not necessary for salvation. It just said that it is dishonoring.

How important is it what the early church fathers thought?

I'd say it can be very important. Knowing the opinion of those who have spent their lives studying Scripture can be very helpful!

True, but just because someone lived a long time ago doesn't mean they are infallible.

Uh… I didn't say that. But they're sure a lot less fallible than us, right??

(Are you opposed to church fathers for some reason?? :P JK)

I dont see how they would be a lot less fallible than us..

I'm not opposed to the church fathers, but I grew up hearing a lot of crazy stuff and abuse that was justified by a twisted view of the Church fathers

Because of what I mentioned before–they spent their lives studying Scripture! Some of the saints of the past worked for hours and hours poring over the Word to learn what it said. Practically nobody alive today does that anymore. I think that people who have studied the only infallible Book so much would know a lot more than us. Do you agree?

As for the "crazy stuff and abuse" that you say you've heard, would you be okay if I asked you to clarify a little? Perhaps the church fathers you heard this from were not reliable.

Practically nobody? I am trying not to pick. John MacArthur, John Piper, James McDonald, Oz Guinness, Ravi Zacharias all do that.

BTW, you're calling them saints now?

EDIT: Now he's gonna give the verse that every one who is saved is a saint… grr why did I do that…

Well, I guess I generalized a bit too much. But I still think that very few now study the Word quite as much as many back then did. Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I've heard I'm pretty sure that's the case.

Well, I'm calling them saints because all Christians are saints. :P

""Well, I'm calling them saints because all Christians are saints. :P""

Ok I get it now, I thought you were using… the catholic definition.

Oh, not at all! :) Sorry if that's what it sounded like.

This is the topic you were looking for, Amara.

This is the topic you were looking for, Amara.

Yup! Sorry!

I would say they are more reliable not in that they necessarily that they studied more than "the modern church fathers," but because they were closer in time to Jesus and thus less information is lost. For example… We probably have a lot more data about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln than the assassination of Julius Caesar. We have a pretty good idea what happened to Caesar, but our information about Abe is going to be more comprehensive just by the fact it's closer in time. So our opinions about his assassination will probably hold a lil more weight than the opinions of someone studying him 2000 years from now, and that person 2000 years from now will probably hold great respect for our "modern" scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of Abe Lincoln… (If there are any…) In the same way, people like Ravi Zacharias will take into account and hold important the opinions of the early church fathers. That doesn't mean they are infallible. Notice OPINIONS. Just because some of them were incredibly antisemitic, doesn't mean antisemitism is Biblical! But their opinion should be heard because they have reason to know what they're talking about.

Is it okay that I wear a head covering…I encountered some people who disagreed…but its not flashy and doesn't draw attention!

!http://st-listas.20minutos.es/images/2010-12/265328/3106116_249px.jpg?1341768032!

In all seriousness, I'm going to revive this topic. I know I haven't given enough thought to this issue in the past, because I just assumed that the way I had always thought about it was right. And even when confronted about it in different ways, I fell back on arguments that I'd heard used before, without really thinking them through in the context of Scripture.

Recently, I read through 1 Corinthians 11 and really, truly thought through each verse – the way things are phrased, the words that are used, etc. And I started to see a lot of holes in what I've always believed. Then I have this video recommended to me that basically brings up all of the same things I was noticing:

Here are the main arguments presented:

1. The Greek word (and its derivatives) translated "covering" throughout the chapter is different from the word translated "covering" with reference to a woman's hair in v. 15 – a very important point to consider for those who would say that a woman's hair is the covering that Paul is talking about in all of the preceding verses.

2. In v. 6, Paul says that a woman who doesn't cover her head may as well have short/no hair, because both are equally disgraceful. But if her hair is the covering he's talking about, then wouldn't a lack of a head covering indicate that her hair is short/cut? Why make the distinction?

3. Paul is specifically talking about head coverings during times of prayer and prophecy. Why make that specification if the covering is a woman's hair? It's not like she's going to put her hair on during times of prayer and prophecy and then shave her head at other times… So if that's what he had in view, why not just make the general statement that all women should have long hair and stop at that?

4. There are antithetical statements regarding the nature of head coverings vs. long hair on women. V. 10 calls the head covering "a symbol of authority" – i.e., a symbol that a woman is under the authority of God and of man. But v. 15 says that a woman's hair is her "glory" – and this seems to be the thing that must be covered up during acts of worship, to symbolize the authority of man over woman, to put more emphasis on him as her spiritual leader. (This is, in my opinion, a somewhat unnecessary argument, as the others are stronger, and this one is harder to portray as significant.)

5. Church history is almost unanimously on the side of artificial head coverings. Up until the 20th century, any other interpretation was unheard of. And some of the earliest church fathers, those closest to the times of the apostles, testify that head coverings were a common practice in their day. They (and others throughout the millennia of church history) gave no indication that it was a mere cultural institution that would one day be done away with.

Another important thing to realize is that "Christian" homosexual rights advocates like to use head coverings as an excuse for their disregard of Scriptures regarding homosexuality. Their argument goes like something along the lines of this: 1 Corinthians 11 bases the command about head coverings in the natural order, or "what nature teaches us" (v. 14). And the neglect to follow the command results in "disgrace" (vv. 6, 14). In the same way, Romans 1:26-27 tells us that homosexual behavior is "dishonorable" (same Greek word as "disgrace" in 1 Cor. 11) and "contrary to nature" (again, same Greek as in 1 Cor. 11). Therefore, if we can disregard commands about head coverings in their original cultural context, then we can certainly disregard commands about homosexuality for the same reasons. I mean, cummon, we even have Greek words to back us up!

It's a slippery slope. And with all this evidence in favor of artificial head coverings, why would we choose to reject them and thereby give credence to the arguments of those who would claim that God's natural design for marriage can be rejected as well?

Amen!

Amen, Christian!! Totally agree with you =)

Someone with whom I was corresponding by email gave me the objection that v.16 seems to be Paul canceling everything out by saying that no church actually practices these things, as well as that the head covering thing was totally just a cultural necessity due to the fact that prostitutes were required not to cover their heads. This was my response:

All of the pre-1900s commentators whom I briefly looked over on biblehub.com took this verse to mean that Paul is saying, "If anyone wants to argue with us or contradict this practice, they should know that *no one* doesn't do this. This is the practice of all the churches I know of; so it makes no sense that the church at Corinth would be exempt."

Why would it make any sense for him to go through this argument based on things like common sense and God's established natural order and then go on to say, "But, y'know, no one actually does this, so forget about it"? Paul gives no impression that the rules are optional throughout the whole rest of the fifteen verses in the passage. And he also never once grounds the practice in anything cultural! If it were about the prostitutes thing, why wouldn't he just say so? Also, based on some of the sources I've looked at, the supportability of prostitutes being the only ones with head coverings is shaky at best. If it were that obvious that you wore a head covering to distinguish yourself from a prostitute, why would Paul be specifically commanding it like this?

Furthermore, why would he also make commands about men? It was *extremely* countercultural at this time to tell men that they *must not* cover their heads to pray – especially for those coming out of Judaism. It seems that the practice is meant to establish a new Christian culture of male and female distinctions, not to conform with some already-existent practice.

I will point out to you, by the way, that your line of reasoning, Martin (or at least this line of reasoning you've been taught) starts us out down a slippery slope. Because it's the exact same type of argument used against the idea of male-only leadership in the church and exclusively heterosexual marriage. Why? Because passages in the New Testament dedicated to those two topics make sure to ground their reasoning in the natural order established by God, and they also call the opposing practices a disgrace or dishonorable – all characteristics that are also found in 1 Corinthians 11. Matthew Vines, the pro-gay conservative "Christian" champion of the last few years has *specifically* used the argument that, if we can overlook Paul's appeal to natural order in 1 Corinthians 11 with regard to head coverings, we should certainly be able to do so in Romans 1 with regard to [non-heterosexual] relations.

I personally am coming to see that I would need a lot more solid proof that Paul didn't mean what he clearly seems to mean in the passage if I'm going to fully accept that he didn't really mean for all ages of the church to observe this practice. Especially since it was universally a common practice until the last century or so… which also happens to coincide with the rise of feminism and discreet liberalism in the church. =p

Don't know yet. Still have to think about the outworkings of the conclusions that seem painfully obvious from the passage. And I still need to bounce the idea off older and wiser people. In fact, I plan to broach the topic with your dad when your family is in town, because I highly respect his opinion when it comes to theological topics. ;) I wanna say, though, if it's biblical, wouldn't you think that would be what I'd have to do? *Yes* I know you've been raised believing in a different interpretation, and I have, too, but if we've been believing the wrong thing, it would make sense to make the necessary changes, right? Not saying you have to agree with the theology yet, but just saying that if it's the correct interpretation, obviously I would have to obey what the passage says. Now, I don't think I would necessarily go as far as Rachel's family and require head coverings on females at all times, since it seems to me that the whole context of 1 Corinthians, as well as just the general feeling of the passage, is corporate worship time. *So you think, as of now, that head coverings would only have to be worn during a Sunday service or Wednesday prayer meeting of something of that sort, correct?* I know it looks really weird for me to be coming to this conclusion. I get that. Believe me, once my sister gets wind of this, I'm sure she'll be mortified. =p Same with my dad, likely. But my goal is, if I'm going to come to a new understanding of something, I must be able to scripturally back it up. If someone can clearly show me from Scripture how I'm wrong, then of course I will retract. So whatever the Bible teachers is what I'm going to believe. And right now it seems to me that the Bible teaches that women should wear head coverings. But I invite criticism! In this case, I think I want to be wrong, since the implications are so wide in their scope, when it comes to Christian orthopraxy. I mean, obviously, it's not an essential issue, so I would have no serious problem with someone who disagrees at this point. And I probably wouldn't force it on anyone I know, even my wife or children, until I know I have it right. *I myself have not studied this topic...I just know my Dad doesn't think that head coverings are necessary... But beside the verse that says that hair is given for a covering, I don't know why he thinks what he does. It's something I should study more...* P.S. I think it would be a good idea to direct all further questions and answers to the TD forum. ;)

Don't know yet. Still have to think about the outworkings of the conclusions that seem painfully obvious from the passage. And I still need to bounce the idea off older and wiser people. In fact, I plan to broach the topic with your dad when your family is in town, because I highly respect his opinion when it comes to theological topics. ;) I wanna say, though, if it's biblical, wouldn't you think that would be what I'd have to do? *Yes* I know you've been raised believing in a different interpretation, and I have, too, but if we've been believing the wrong thing, it would make sense to make the necessary changes, right? Not saying you have to agree with the theology yet, but just saying that if it's the correct interpretation, obviously I would have to obey what the passage says. Now, I don't think I would necessarily go as far as Rachel's family and require head coverings on females at all times, since it seems to me that the whole context of 1 Corinthians, as well as just the general feeling of the passage, is corporate worship time. *So you think, as of now, that head coverings would only have to be worn during a Sunday service or Wednesday prayer meeting of something of that sort, correct?* _Correct. I suppose that is subject to change, but right now that's what seems most clear to me._ I know it looks really weird for me to be coming to this conclusion. I get that. Believe me, once my sister gets wind of this, I'm sure she'll be mortified. =p Same with my dad, likely. But my goal is, if I'm going to come to a new understanding of something, I must be able to scripturally back it up. If someone can clearly show me from Scripture how I'm wrong, then of course I will retract. So whatever the Bible teachers is what I'm going to believe. And right now it seems to me that the Bible teaches that women should wear head coverings. But I invite criticism! In this case, I think I want to be wrong, since the implications are so wide in their scope, when it comes to Christian orthopraxy. I mean, obviously, it's not an essential issue, so I would have no serious problem with someone who disagrees at this point. And I probably wouldn't force it on anyone I know, even my wife or children, until I know I have it right. *I myself have not studied this topic...I just know my Dad doesn't think that head coverings are necessary... But beside the verse that says that hair is given for a covering, I don't know why he thinks what he does. It's something I should study more...* _Same here. That one verse was always my go-to defense, despite the 13/14 verses before it that seem to say something totally different. But the sole fact that literally 1,900 years' worth of church history has given us the artificial covering interpretation is reason to seriously think about why we interpret the passage the way we do. Especially given the entirely different Greek word that is translated "covering" in v.15. If his argument were that the covering he's speaking of in the first 13 verses is merely a woman's hair, why would he not use the same word that he's been using the whole time? It doesn't seem to fit with the flow of the argument._ P.S. I think it would be a good idea to direct all further questions and answers to the TD forum. ;)

I know it looks really weird for me to be coming to this conclusion. I get that. Believe me, once my sister gets wind of this, I'm sure she'll be mortified. =p Same with my dad, likely. But my goal is, if I'm going to come to a new understanding of something, I must be able to scripturally back it up. If someone can clearly show me from Scripture how I'm wrong, then of course I will retract. So whatever the Bible teachers is what I'm going to believe. And right now it seems to me that the Bible teaches that women should wear head coverings. But I invite criticism! In this case, I think I want to be wrong, since the implications are so wide in their scope, when it comes to Christian orthopraxy. I mean, obviously, it's not an essential issue, so I would have no serious problem with someone who disagrees at this point. And I probably wouldn't force it on anyone I know, even my wife or children, until I know I have it right. *I myself have not studied this topic...I just know my Dad doesn't think that head coverings are necessary... But beside the verse that says that hair is given for a covering, I don't know why he thinks what he does. It's something I should study more...* _Same here. That one verse was always my go-to defense, despite the 13/14 verses before it that seem to say something totally different. But the sole fact that literally 1,900 years' worth of church history has given us the artificial covering interpretation is reason to seriously think about why we interpret the passage the way we do. Especially given the entirely different Greek word that is translated "covering" in v.15. If his argument were that the covering he's speaking of in the first 13 verses is merely a woman's hair, why would he not use the same word that he's been using the whole time? It doesn't seem to fit with the flow of the argument._ *Is there anything to it being the culture...? Because back then that was the culture... Yeah, that doesn't seem to fit...*

*Is there anything to it being the culture…?*

See my above comment, right before your first comment. ;)

Ah, okay. Sorry.

Thanks!

How long should they be and when should women wear head coverings, if they should wear an artificial covering?

There was a family who used to go to our church, and the girls wore head coverings covering most of their hair all the time because people said their hair was pretty, and they said only God should praise you. It's wrong if any person praises you. That's what they said.

Another family from our church, the mom just wears a little thing (like a doily) on the top of her head.

Obviously, if you should wear a head covering, you should wear it while you're praying and while you're prophesying. But what about any other time? Someone said that the Bible says you should only take it off when you're alone with your husband. They said the Bible said the glory of a woman is her hair for her husband.

Huh? Noooooooooooo, it doesn't.

So you do think that women should wear an artificial covering when they're praying?

God's Word doesn't specify, so that's up to the individual.

I don't think that's a legitimate application of the passage. People praise other people all the time in Scripture, so that's a pretty ridiculous conclusion to come to. =P It's also quite irrelevant, though.

Don't have any problem with that. Again, Paul doesn't tell us what kind of covering it should be, so I think that's a matter of personal conviction.

The Bible says no such thing… I mean, someone can have that conviction, but the Bible seems to be talking about praying and prophesying in a congregational setting. Those seem to be the only times Paul said that a head covering was required. I understand people's argument about "praying continually," but I think Paul would have addressed that and specified that women should always wear a head covering if that's what he meant.

If you say that women should always wear a head covering while praying, though, that can end up causing certain problems. Let's say a girl is, for instance, swimming without a head covering (I don't see why you would be wearing one in the water), and a riptide begins pulling her out to sea, where she will likely drown. If the Bible commands that she only pray while wearing a head covering, does that mean it is a sin for her to ask for deliverance, or that God will not hear her cries? Is it dishonorable for her to ask God for aid? I realize this is an extreme example, but if we take the head covering thing as a command for all prayer, that seems to be what we are drawn to say.

The response to this will probably be that 1 Cor. 11 is talking about corporate worship. I do not see where contextually the passage says that with anything near certainty, but assuming that is the case, what if an unmarried woman forgot her head covering on the way to church, or it fell off? Then, during the service, news comes in that a member of the Church is sick unto death. The pastor asks the congregation to pray for the church member. The woman prays for this healing, but without a covering (as she is in the back, no one else notices). Does this make her prayer dishonorable? Does it nullify her attempt to implore God for healing? If so, that would seem to strike against the very foundation of prayer found throughout the Bible. It is hard to assume that every prayer in the Bible by a woman was made by those with head coverings (it is possible, of course, but not very likely). If it doesn't nullify those prayers, then we must question how much of a "command" it actually is. How much of it is simply symbolic and how much does God actually care about for the purpose of prayer and fellowship with Him?

I am mostly bringing this up to probe your position. I have been on both sides of the fence myself at different times. To test a belief, however, you must be able to strain it to the max without it breaking. Extreme examples like this can help make clear what might otherwise be a very blurred understanding. I thought that might be helpful in this case. :)

No, I totally appreciate your willingness to ask the hard questions. That's kinda what I wanted when I revived this thread. In fact, I sorta want to be proved wrong, because obviously, this view is the less popular one to have these days. =P And it's less convenient and comfortable, of course. So it would be easier to believe it was cultural or symbolic in some sense.

Yeah, your first and second examples are a good picture of why I'm not sure about the idea that God will not regard a woman's prayer if she prays with her head uncovered – even if we're only talking about non-corporate worship settings. But the second question definitely raises interesting issues. If we have direct access to the throne of God through Christ, why do women need the extra piece of cloth on their heads in order for the prayers to be effective?

But I think we may be emphasizing the wrong part of this. Instead of saying that a head covering helps the woman to be heard by God, I think the emphasis of the passage is that it distinguishes her from man and shows that he is her authority. If she doesn't have a head covering, I don't think it will hinder her prayers; I think it will diminish the expressed authority that her husband (or father or whatever male authority she has in her life) has over her.

There's also the issues of what it means that this is all "for the angels"… so if we want to have a discussion about that, I guess we can.

But I think we may be emphasizing the wrong part of this. Instead of saying that a head covering helps the woman to be heard by God, I think the emphasis of the passage is that it distinguishes her from man and shows that he is her authority. If she doesn't have a head covering, I don't think it will hinder her prayers; I think it will diminish the expressed authority that her husband (or father or whatever male authority she has in her life) has over her.

^ That. My Dad desires my Mom and I to wear a head covering, so we do. :) But your Dad, Christian, does not have your Mom or Rosie wear one, so if one of them were to put one on, or possibly if I didn't wear one, I think it would defy the aspect of it submission wise, in a sense…just an example that I hope made sense. xD So if someone were to put one on when their authority didn't want it, that wouldn't be right. =P Get what I'm trying to say?

I personally think it's ok to pray without a head covering, but I prefer to pray with one on. =) There are times though where I have prayed without one, and I don't feel like my prayers weren't heard. ;)

Here's the results of my study on the Greek words that relate to "cover" in 1 Corinthians 11. (Ask not, and ye shall receive anyway.)
Yes, it is true that in the first verses of 1 Corinthians 11, the verbal form katakalupto (κατακαλύπτω) and its corresponding negative adjectival form akatakaluptos (ἀκατακάλυπτος) are used, meaning "cover" and "uncovered", respectively. It is also true that in verse 15, "a covering has been given to her", the noun peribolaion (περιβόλαιον) is used.

Etymologically, katakalupto means to cover up, akatakaluptos means not covered up.
Both of these words, used only in this chapter of the Bible, are directly related to kalumma (κάλυμμα), which is only used in 2 Corinthians 3, in a comparison between the "veil" over Moses' face and the "veil" over the Old Covenant.
But more generally, as can be seen in the corresponding verb kalupto (καλύπτω), the root involved simply means to cover or hide. Cover by waves, cover with a basket, asking hills to cover you. Love covers a multitude of sins - all of these are uses of the verb kalupto. So it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a cloth, but necessarily involves "covering".
The word peribolaion means, etymologically, something cast (bole) around (peri). It is only used twice in the New Testament: the verse in question, and Hebrews 1:12, "like a robe you will roll them up". This is also sometimes translated "vesture". If anything, this is the word that should refer to a veil. Perhaps our modern translations should say "hair is given to her for a veil".

But then, with these three words, why would Paul use the first two early on, then suddenly switch to the third? At first glance, this may seem odd. But look, katakalupto, verb (actually, two of three uses are adjectival); akatakaluptos, adjective; peribolaion, noun. Paul needs a noun, and neither of the other two words fit. (That is not to say they could not be so used, as a gerund or substantive adjective.)
We can't stop there, though, because we can still ask why he used a noun that was completely unrelated to the previous two words. Related forms we could expect are katakalupsis (κατακάλυψις) and katakalumma (κατακάλυμμα). (Cf. κάλυμμα and ἀποκάλυψις.) And both of these words do exist, though they are never used in the New Testament. But neither are the other two related words, outside of this passage. Why didn't Paul use either of these two nouns?

Lets first take katakalupsis. This word was used once in De Sublimitate by Longinus. I had a hard time finding a translation, but it seems it is used with the meaning of "concealment". I can't find any other use of this word anywhere. Moreover, the word may have been added in a modern edition, because the place where I found it was an "edition", and the other De Sublimitate I found leaves out this part with the Latin phrase "Desvnt dvo folia": "missing two leaves".
The other word, katakalumma, is used in Exodus 26:14 of the Septuagint. It here refers to a "covering of goatskins". Apparently it is also used in Josephus, referring to grave clothes.
The word peribolaion, on the other hand, is used in quite a few texts, and thus seems to be more common. And of these three nouns, it is (etymologically, at least) the one which seems to specifically refer to a veil, a "vesture", or something "cast around".

So why did Paul use peribolaion? Probably because it was more common. And if his intention is to specifically refer to a veil, he picked the right word. That he used used this form is no evidence against the theory that Paul was saying, "Hair is the covering I'm talking about." It may actually be seen as evidence for that position.
And by the way, the man in covermovement's video probably doesn't understand Greek the way it might seem that he does. He calls "katakalupto" and "akatakaluptos" the same word except for a negative - which they are not. That itself might be excusable (it would be like saying that "uncovered" and "cover" are the same word), but he later asks why Paul didn't call a woman's long hair katakalupto (a verb). He should have asked why Paul didn't call a woman's hair by a related word, such as katakalupsis / katakalumma (nouns).

Also note that the preposition translated "for" in "hair is given to her for a covering" can also mean "instead of". (Cf. Young's Literal Translation.) Should this be translated, "hair is given to her instead of a veil"? Perhaps.

It may seem to be going pretty hard against the artificial covering position. Actually, I sympathize. It at least makes sense, whether or not it is correct. I'm just trying to point out (rather extensively) that the Greek words in the passage really aren't evidence for this position.

Wow! That was fascinating, and well researched. I also agree with your conclusion; the artificial covering movement definitely makes sense, but I don't think it really has full textual support. Thank you so much for sharing. :)

Awesome research, thank you! This is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted. I think I can now say that I'm back to a more "on-the-fence" position than I was when I started the thread. The clarifications about the Greek words certainly make the other sides case more plausible than it initially appeared. I still think the millennia of church history should give us pause, but, then again, tradition ought never to be exalted over Scripture. So I know I wouldn't be willing to impose artificial coverings on anyone as the correct interpretation. I'll just continue to seek counsel about it and gauge people's reasoning behind rejecting an artificial coverings interpretation.

Awesome research, thank you! This is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted. I think I can now say that I'm back to a more "on-the-fence" position than I was when I started the thread. The clarifications about the Greek words certainly make the other sides case more plausible than it initially appeared. I still think the millennia of church history should give us pause, but, then again, tradition ought never to be exalted over Scripture. So I know I wouldn't be willing to impose artificial coverings on anyone as the correct interpretation. I'll just continue to seek counsel about it and gauge people's reasoning behind rejecting an artificial coverings interpretation.

Uh oh, Christian… I think you're falling into a trap. You're actually "on-the-fence" about the issue now? Pretty soon you could be questioning God's design for marriage, and something might put you on the fence about homosexuality!

Okay, people. Two things. First of all, can we stop whipping out this "you-sound-like-a-homo" card whenever a Christian brother says something we disagree with?
Second of all, the Bible couldn't be more clear in its condemnation of homosexuality. It could be way more clear on this issue. And while I agree with Rachel so far (though I have yet to read Caleb's post, which may or may not change things), I don't compare everyone else to homos.

In my opinion wearing Head coverings is a lot like hand washing.
both were commanded, both are no longer commanded, both fell out of practice for a long time, there are practical reasons for them, and so on.

I'm sure most of you know of the orthodox Jewish doctor who made the nurses wash they'er hands under running water between operations (A.K.A. forced people to live under the old law ). When he died his nurses stopped washing their hands and the fatality rate rose again. then the germ theory came out and now people are seen as gross if they don't wash their hands (possibly how head covering was viewed back in Paul's day).

while we don't see any immediate life or death need for head coverings, why not wear them? the Muslims seem to get by with an overboard version of it and People see us as weird anyway.
maybe its not fare toward girls? Well, I'm going to make all my boys wear masks So consider that problem solved.

I'm tempted to just ignore your comment, Nathan, because I feel like you're just trolling now, since it's been weeks since this discussion was active.

But I must point out that this is the first time in a long time that anyone has "whipped out the you-sound-like-a-homo" card, so acting like it happens all the time just to bolster the strength of your comment is just dishonest. No one regularly says that their opponent sounds pro-homosexual around here, so don't act like they do.

I understand that the Bible couldn't be more clear about homosexuality. I was by no means drawing a one-to-one comparison between the two. I was merely pointing out that this passage and those specific verses in Romans 1 are very similar, when it comes to their line of argumentation. Both ground their declarations in an appeal to nature. So to go against nature in one and not in the other is inconsistent. This is specifically pointed out by Matthew Vines, the leading conservative in the pro-homosexual movement, as a point for acceptance of homosexual behavior. His argument is that if we don't understand 1 Cor. 11 to mean that it is unnatural for women not to wear a head covering, then it's no big deal if we don't understand Rom. 1 to mean that homosexual behavior is unnatural.

I made the point that I did because pro-homosexual scholars legitimately make that point in their argumentation. So when we take the position that it's not unnatural to not require women to wear head coverings, it's further fuel for their fire. That was all I was pointing out. I wouldn't say that that means that we can't take that position – only that it helps theirs, in whatever small way. Obviously, other passages of Scripture are perfectly clear (though Vines has arguments against those as well), so it's not like I'm saying that if you're against head coverings, you're making homosexuality perfectly biblically-acceptable. Please do not caricature my arguments.