The bible states that when 2 or 3 are gathered together in Jesus name there
he is in the midst of them. So whenever my wife and I are in the same location: Ie home, church building etc Jesus is with us as well. We are therefore a church.
Does that mean that wives should always wear a head covering when they are together with their husbands wherever they are or does it just mean
when they are in a specific location?

Hi All
This came to me last night while in the car.
Jesus said in heaven their is “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven
My conclusion that this issue will is not any long term pattern that will be present in heaven and is not in Gods Plan for the future.
I think this teaching is just going to confuse non christians and has no grace in it.It will not bring about revival which is a stated aim of this website and widespread use of a headcovering is just not going to happen whether Greg who we all have great time,love and respect for likes it or not,
If you are going to be honest with those you are going to witness too tell them about headcovering and see how far you get.
Yours Staff

_________________
Sreeram

staff

Good response! I think you have covered the topic quite well.

I respect your conviction and position on this matter, but also have to disagree on all points.

Sometimes it is hard, as we read/study the bible, to distinguish eternal biblical truths from cultural paradigms. I believe it should always be our goal to extract the spiritual truth out of the text, taking into consideration the culture in which the text was written to do so.

The crux of the issue that Paul is addressing regarding head coverings is in v.10:
"It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels."

This verse clarifies the previous statement that appeals back to creation. It isn't that since the beginning God intended for women to cover their heads, but that they are intended to "have authority over her head".

Therefore, head coverings for women is not longer an issue for the church since head coverings has no cultural meaning anymore. 2000 years ago it did, as it was a symbol of woman's expression marriage. Lets not superimpose a 2000 year old cultural practice into the modern day.

To further note, just because something has been practiced throughout Christendom doesn't always make it right.

Here is an excerpt which gives further insight, written by Pastor William Carrol:

“HEAD COVERINGS” SEEN IN CULTURAL CONTEXT
(1 CORINTHIANS 11:1–15)
The issue of head coverings for women is no longer a point of contention or controversy for most Christian denominations. However, the issue of mutual respect between husbands and wives remains. And it’s this deeper and essential truth that is at the heart of the head covering issue. In that culture, a head covering would have been a sign of the distinctions between male and female. Thus, the lack of a head covering would have been a confusing statement. While it may have signaled liberty for the woman, it would have shamed her husband; and in an honor/shame culture, that would have been a poor testimony to the liberty found in Christ Jesus. As the covering of the head lost its significance in society, the issue of whether or not women should wear covers became less significant. However, the issue of mutual respect remains in full effect in every culture at all times.

So, in order to interpret the Bible accurately, we must consider the cultural context in which it was written. And in order to apply it correctly, we must consider the changes in culture. However, we must persist in addressing the culture with the eternal, essential, objective and absolute truth of Scripture."

I doubt whether anyone of you who opposes Paul's teaching about head covering has actually taken the pains to listen to the teachings Greg posted in the beginning.
There is a pastor who did not believe in headcovering for today who did word for word study through the book of Corinthians. He was very honest and did an extremely scholarly and detailed study on the text and came to the conclusion that it indeed must be for today. As it was not generally practised in his church, he carefully and lovingly explains this to his congregation fully aware that this is a very loaded subject in our day and age.

Have you ever wondered why this topic always receives so many posts here? It is not just about a piece of cloth, but it reveals a much deeper issue: Are we men willing to submit to the headship of Christ and acknowledge our role as the head of the wife and are our women willing to submit to her husband as her head in God's economy.

It is easy to pay lip service and say I can serve God just as well without a head covering, what's the fuzz about it? The putting on of a head covering actually reveals the true state of one's heart. All scholars up to the 20th century agree that it was a command for today. Only with the rise of feminism did this teaching fall into disrespect.

A couple of scriptures that I have always seen and known about stood out to me this time because of the context of head coverings. I never really saw this connection before.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Col 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Col 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

What we have in Ephesians and in Colossians is the ordinance for wives to, "submit yourselves unto your own husbands". Identical statements in both books but conspicuously missing to the church in Ephesus and Collossae is any connection between wives submitting themselves to their husbands and the sign of submission (that we have been hearing about), namely head coverings.

Now, in 1 Cor 11, there is no reference to the word, "submit", but in this thread there are a lot of posts making the connection of submission and head covering. If that is the case, why didn't the apostle Paul connect head coverings with submission in Eph 5 and Col 3?

I don't believe there is a connection and the sign of submission should be manifested in a person's behavior and character just as a sign of loving his wife, should be manifested in a man's character and behavior.

The conclusion I have come to FOR ME and MY family, is the following:

1) Some people see head covering as a physical cloth over short hair if a married woman desires to pray or prophesy in a congregation (no mention of single women). And, there is no mention of submission to their husband.

2) Other people see the covering as long hair for a women's hair is her covering. 1Cor 11:15 "...for her hair is given her for a covering."

3) And there are people that believe a married woman should be covered regardless of the length of her hair when she prays or prophecies in a congregation, only.

4) I believe there are others who believe a woman should be covered at all waking moments because we are to "pray without ceasing", and she may pray spontaneously.

With all of these in mind, I don't see submission as part of the text and the true evidence of submission, which comes from the heart is manifested in the character and behavior of a person.

And finally, because there are several understandings related to what being "covered" is I think it is only Christlike if we extend to each other their own liberty in Christ to follow their conscious as whatever is not of faith is sin and we don't want anyone doing something because of others expectations.

I think the biggest thing for me is that Paul and Peter and James combined, talked about submission about 7 or so times and never connected it to the head covering. And then of course the head covering is only referred to in 1 chapter in Corinthians and listening to and reading the posts from the Body, one meaning is clear cut in many minds, while also another altogether different meaning is clear cut in other minds.

What are we to do, to "Endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace", (Eph 4:3) except to walk in love with one another.

I am completely at peace with my decision and respect other's decisions to walk with the Lord as they see fit.

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Rom 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

If I take Julius21 conclusion Paul could have said, I give you the ordinance of head covering but in order to avoid church splits and contention, let everyone do as he or she deems right.

As reasonable as this sounds, however, Paul says in

1 Cor 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul in fact DID take action again a dithering application of the apostolic standard for head covering that he and his fellow workers once established.

This suggest that Paul and the other apostles managed to set an universal standard for all the churches of God.
I do not think that he used force or compulsion but simply instructing ordinances that were taught by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is the same Spirit that brought unity as mentioned in

Eph 4:3-4 ...Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling...

The problem lies not in holding up the apostolic standard, but how to deal with those opposing it in a spirit of truth, meekness and humility without ketou-ing to compromise.
Paul addressed some very thorny issues throughout the 2 Corinthian letters without bowing to pressure and without being unreasonably harsh or disproportionate in correction.
These letters are true masterpieces and outstanding examples of how to deal with contentious issues. In the end they were leading to correction in a godly fashion in the presence of false apostles who were working hard to undo what God did there.

Anybody who like Paul stays on course with biblical teaching is predestined for opposition and contempt by religious folk and even persecution and sufferings of various kinds.

2 Corinthians 11:26-28 (KJV)

26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

No wonder why men of God who teach these ordinances are in a diminishing minority because most of us shun adversity and suffering in our Laodicean generation. Not for long, God will turn the tables and a remnant will go through suffering and persecution like our 1st century brethren did.