Marco Esquandolas said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

There are denominations in the U.S. that took this scripture as a command very seriously until not all that long ago. I grew up in one.

Never understood the rationale for throwing this one out. It seems extremely cut and dried, no? Who are we to disregard what Paul taught?

---

Might as well throw in wearing jewelry and speaking in Church while we're at it.

---

The church of christ STILL follows the "women shut up in church" command.

---

Not the Church of Christ we attend. We went through a lengthy study on the subject and have shifted towards the more egalitarian perspective.

PacifistAg said:

---

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

There are denominations in the U.S. that took this scripture as a command very seriously until not all that long ago. I grew up in one.

Never understood the rationale for throwing this one out. It seems extremely cut and dried, no? Who are we to disregard what Paul taught?

---

Might as well throw in wearing jewelry and speaking in Church while we're at it.

---

The church of christ STILL follows the "women shut up in church" command.

---

Not the Church of Christ we attend. We went through a lengthy study on the subject and have shifted towards the more egalitarian perspective.

---

Shocking

PacifistAg said:

---

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

There are denominations in the U.S. that took this scripture as a command very seriously until not all that long ago. I grew up in one.

Never understood the rationale for throwing this one out. It seems extremely cut and dried, no? Who are we to disregard what Paul taught?

---

Might as well throw in wearing jewelry and speaking in Church while we're at it.

---

The church of christ STILL follows the "women shut up in church" command.

---

Not the Church of Christ we attend. We went through a lengthy study on the subject and have shifted towards the more egalitarian perspective.

---

I've never been to one that did. CoC's are pretty squirrely that way. I've only ever been to one that allowed instruments. Zero that allowed women to participate in the service in any way shape or form other than singing. Although they aren't forced to wear hats anymore and they stopped kicking dudes out of church for having long hair (though you could still get a stern reprimand for wearing shorts).

The one commonality among all CoC congregations is that none of them have ever come up with a consistent, coherent way to deal with all the ridiculous stuff Paul said.

Sullys Guy said:

---

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

There is no command for women to wear head-coverings. There is only the reminder of the liberty of each woman to do what she feels best honors God.

Quote:

---

Romans 14:5b - Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

---

Quote:

---

Romans 14:23b - For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

---

Along with this suggestion from Paul:

Quote:

---

1 Timothy 2:9a - I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety

---

and Peter:

Quote:

---

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes.

---

No one has any authority to tell or suggest what Christian women should do with regards to head-coverings. Each woman's own conscience will guide her.

---

This seems in direct conflict with 1 Corinthians 11, quoted above. Seems Paul pretty clearly reserved that authority for himself.

---

Actually, Paul's point is that a woman's hair is her covering.

---

I mean maybe, but in practice entire denominations interpreted to mean "women have to wear hats or scarves in church." That is what people actually did. It was a custom for decades and it was enforced. At some point churches made up some kind of justification for doing away with it. But not the part about women keeping their mouths shut in church. Because Protestants are nothing if not consistent. Patriarchy dies a lot slower than fashion choices.

In any case the justification Paul gives is "because angels" which is absolutely hilarious.

---

That's because patriarchy is a natural hierarchy. The food chain isn't wont to change quickly either.

---

Lol

Understand. We've certainly gone away from some of the "old school" CoC traditions. Women help serve communion. They'll pray in front of church. Lead Bible class. They've preached on Wednesday nights. Heck, they've spoken on Sunday mornings as well. We are still a capella though on Sunday mornings.

1 Cor 11 is the text that refers to head coverings and requires head coverings when women are "praying" or "prophesying". In my opinion this is miraculous prayer and prophesy. Women are to keep silent in the assembly but when God has given them a gift they can exercise it so long as they wear a head covering to show submission to their "head".

There's a really interesting academic paper that examines Paul's argument from nature in 1 Corinthians 11 from the perspective of ancient physiology. Here's a brief summary:

"The apostle Paul wanted women to cover their tresses while praying because he like the rest of Hellenistic culture then believed that the long hair of adult females was the sexual equivalent of male testicles, according to a newly published study.

Citing writings from Aristotle, Euripedes and the disciples of Hippocrates, the "father of medicine," Troy W. Martin of St. Xavier University in Chicago said that Paul reflected the physiology of his time in believing that the hair of adult women "is part of female genitalia." Martin's article appears in the spring issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature.

Modern commentators on the First Letter to the Corinthians have often confessed their confusion over exactly what Paul was telling the Greek church to do. Martin contends that is partly because Paul used a sexual euphemism in 1 Corinthians 11:15 for a word translated as "covering." The word means "testicle" in works by Euripedes and a second-century AD Greek novelist, he said."

https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=271

[url=https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=271][/url]Mike Heiser has a podcast episode on this as well as a link to the paper.
http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-86-the-head-covering-of-1-corinthians-1113-15/

[url=http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/naked-bible-86-the-head-covering-of-1-corinthians-1113-15/][/url]Podcast transcript.
http://www.nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Transcript-86-Head-Covering-1Corinthians11.pdf

I'm not really concerned with what Paul said. I see most Christians here (and most of America) immediately go to articles written in the past 20 years about 1 Cor. 11 to justify not covering. Why?

Create Account said:

---

I'm not really concerned with what Paul said. I see most Christians here (and most of America) immediately go to articles written in the past 20 years about 1 Cor. 11 to justify not covering. Why?

---

My own ill-informed take:

1. Secular culture influences religious practice far more than we give it credit for. I believe Emile Durkheim recognized and wrote about this over a century ago.

2. Post-hoc scriptural rationalizations which reinforce our own cultural biases are easy and comforting.

I think there was a misunderstanding. The "default" position of Americans is of course not cover because of patriarchy. So we find articles about reasons not to cover. Mostly on 1 Cor. 11 and what it really means.

But we're all Americans. Of course we would think that. Is there nobody who can make the argument for covering? And not just from the Bible. Can we not think outside the box?

Quote:

---

1. Secular culture influences religious practice far more than we give it credit for. I believe Emile Durkheim recognized and wrote about this over a century ago.

---

I agree. But as you noted this is nothing new. In fact, most of the "rationalizations" you see are people trying to interpret Paul's guidelines in the context of his secular culture.

Create Account said:

---

A discussion. Are you board moderator?

---

No. I'm just not sure what else you're looking to discuss. I was hoping for more of a clarification than an unnecessarily snarky response.

Quote:

---

But we're all Americans. Of course we would think that. Is there nobody who can make the argument for covering? And not just from the Bible. Can we not think outside the box?

---

So you're asking for a non-biblical reason for women to cover their heads in church?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

But we're all Americans. Of course we would think that. Is there nobody who can make the argument for covering? And not just from the Bible. Can we not think outside the box?

---

So you're asking for a non-biblical reason for women to cover their heads in church?

---

Leaky roof? Bright lights?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

But we're all Americans. Of course we would think that. Is there nobody who can make the argument for covering? And not just from the Bible. Can we not think outside the box?

---

So you're asking for a non-biblical reason for women to cover their heads in church?

---

Not just church. Muslims do it all the time. I'm not arguing one way or the other. Sometimes we get set in our ways and don't question it. Or maybe question it, but find reasons to justify why we think like 99% of people around us.

Create Account said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

But we're all Americans. Of course we would think that. Is there nobody who can make the argument for covering? And not just from the Bible. Can we not think outside the box?

---

So you're asking for a non-biblical reason for women to cover their heads in church?

---

Not just church. Muslims do it all the time. I'm not arguing one way or the other. Sometimes we get set in our ways and don't question it. Or maybe question it, but find reasons to justify why we think like 99% of people around us.

---

A non-biblical reason would be cultural tradition. Perhaps to the individual, they just feel more comfortable having their head covered. I met a woman like that in Palestine. At least that's why she started at first. She converted to Islam later, so it then became a religious issue.

the "orthodox" view on hijab in the Sunni mainstream is an adoption of Sassanid and Byzantine upper class excrement that should be punted back into antiquity where it belongs.

If Muslim women choose to don a head covering, they should do it because they want to, not because their husband forced it upon them. I, for one, am glad that Isma'ili Muslims are clear that the head covering is entirely unnecessary. The only place you see it is middle aged or older women in the masjid placing their shawls around their shoulders and the backs of their heads. Younger women will just drape shawls around the shoulders.