Hi Heydave. (Nice to "meet" you.)

You wrote:
"However you cannot insist on women being covered without the man being un-covered, because it is the same argument put forward by Paul. It's just illogical."

Strictly speaking, the apostle was inspired by the Spirit of Jesus to say "WHEN you pray or prophesy..." He did not specify WHERE, (take another look and recall that the chapter breaks, headings, and even the paragraphs in your Bible were [EDIT: "not"] in the inspired original.) Necessarily therefore, according to the laws of logical deduction, that would mean the apostle means "WHENEVER you pray or prophesy..."

Now consider if you will dear Brother, that there are approximately 115 waking hours in a week. We know we are to "pray without ceasing", and that opportunities to prophesy abound. Regarding our dear Sisters therefore, according to the LETTER of the text here before us, our dear Sisters must at least, if they are to be pleasing to their Lord, wear the headcovering whenever they pray or prophesy.

As you can see, having to carry around a shawl or other kind of covering, and be putting it on and taking it off all day long would be rather cumbersome. would it not? Of course it would, and it would seem like a silly burden as well. But simply wearing it, keeping it on, removes that difficulty.

You continue:
"So, any man who insists that a woman has her head covered at all times in public, you also dare not cover your head at the same time!"

This is a "non sequitur", i.e., this conclusion does not necessarily follow, for the very reasons I gave above.

Also, life and health are factors in this discussion as well. Our good Lord, who knows how to give good things to us, does not condemn the "accidental" covering of a conscientious man, where there is a true necessity for warmth, or the need to protect from the sun, just as He does not condemn the uncovering of a conscientious woman, due to the "accidents" of wind or dire poverty.

You conclude:
"I do think that this is not such a big issue with the LORD as we make it."

This particular apostolic practice is, my dear Brother, such a big deal that the Holy Spirit chose to breath it out, and preserve it for it almost two thousand years, until it made its way into the book of 1 Corinthians in the very Bible in your hands.

This same Jesus, the One who spoke through His apostles, yet speaks today. A profound thought for us all to seriously meditate upon.

Be well dear Brother,
Doug

Hi Brother!

You wrote:
"Heydave writes...... "Another article on Head covering! :)"

Yeah, makes you wonder."

I don't wonder; I know. Brother Greg has already told us many times why he sacrifices his time, and risks the scorn and abuse to speak out on unpopular issues. The WAY upon which he walks is, of necessity, less popular at times, if he is to walk in true love toward the rest of us.

With anguish of soul, such a one must not only encourage his fellow believers, but also at times, must warn them as well. Not many understand this, but the one giving the "bitter medicine" is often as troubled in soul, as the one receiving it... Brother Greg pays a price.

I sense that you know this to be true, my dear Brother.

You continue:
"I agree that this tradition existed for at least 1800 years, yet the doctrine, in fact the central doctrine that burns at the heart of Catholicism, has existed for at least 1200 years, transubstantiation. I wonder if the author believes that this established doctrine is correct? Remember, those who believe this long practiced doctrine believe that they have Scriptural authority based on John 6..........brother Frank"

My Brother, your argument to discredit the writer's argument from antiquity does not follow, for your proof is incorrect. The dogma of Transubstantiation was only promulgated by Rome in 1215 A.D. by the Fourth Lateran Council. It was a rather late invention of the Roman Church (no longer truly Catholic at this point), with not only no basis whatsoever in Scripture, but no true basis in the early ante-nicene Church either.

What does have a basis in Scripture, and what we see the early Christians believing, was the doctrine of the True Spiritual Presence. That is, we do partake of Christ "Spiritually" in Communion. This is by faith alone. Please look at John 6:63 in particular. Notice, he says, his words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, that they are "Spirit" and "Life", spiritual and living?

Therefore, saying that arguments that the antiquity of the headcovering practice can be dismissed, because after all the Roman Church believed in transubstantiation too, is a non-sequitur, it does not follow.

All of this is spoken in Faith and in Love. I pray you take it so, my friend.

Be well,
Doug

I n all respect I still must propound this question. Why are you debating the appropiatness of wonan praying or prophesying in the church since neither is done?

Brother Greg I am asking in all sincerity, do you believe the gift of prophesy still operates in the church today? It seems pretty backward to argue about externals when very little prayer and certainly no prophrsying is taking place in our churches. If you have no life of the Spirit then all you have is dead religion.

In respect,

Blaine

Greetings to you also brother.

You will have to forgive me if I am a bit slow to follow, but I cannot see your logic and you have not answered the question.

The scripture clearly says that for a man to cover his head when praying or prophysying is a dishonour to his head (Christ). It also says that for a women to pray and prophesy without covering her head she dishonours her head (man). So then both can dishour their respective heads when praying or prophysying - one by covering the head and the other by not covering. The obvious conclusion is that the only way to honour your head is that the man does not cover his head and the woman does.

Now this is where you have to decide does it mean all the time or just in corporate gatherings. If it is all the time, it MUST apply to both man and woman. Unless I missuderstood you, it seems you were very generous to the man if he put a hat on by accident - how you do that I don't know :) - or has to for warmth, but do not use the same 'measure' for a women. i.e if it is too hot.

So if it is a big deal, please answer the question - Should a man always be without a covering on his head (save a situation he cannot avoid)? What about protection from the sun or safety helmet?

Edit: Is Verse 5 a bigger deal than verse 4?

_________________
Dave

Dear Brother Blaine,

You wrote:
"Why are you debating the appropiatness of wonan praying or prophesying in the church since neither is done?"

Dear Brother, I am not debating the appropriateness of women praying or prophesying in the meeting of the Church.

Please read my first explanatory post above.

You continue:
"Brother Greg I am asking in all sincerity, do you believe the gift of prophesy still operates in the church today? It seems pretty backward to argue about externals when very little prayer and certainly no prophesying is taking place in our churches. If you have no life of the Spirit then all you have is dead religion."

What is "prophesy", according to you, dear Brother?

I am no "Cessationist", and I know "prophesy", according to Scripture to mean, (among other things): to speak to spiritually edify, exhort, and comfort another soul. See here:

"But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." I Corinthians 14:3

Such prophesy can and should be exercised by both men and women at all hours of the day, and where practicable. We all can use "a word in season", even when it isn't the Lord's Day.

Be well Brother,
Doug

_________________
Lisa

Hi Brother,
Thank you for your response.

You said:
"Unless I missuderstood you, it seems you were very generous to the man if he put a hat on by accident - how you do that I don't know :) - or has to for warmth, but do not use the same 'measure' for a women. i.e if it is too hot."

No, no. By "accidental" here, I mean it's alternative definiition: "nonessential, incidental." I.e., the conscientious man ONLY wears a hat when he absolutely has to. No, my friend, God doesn't require any less obedience from men than he does from women.

You wrote before this:
"Now this is where you have to decide does it mean all the time or just in corporate gatherings. If it is all the time, it MUST apply to both man and woman."

The apostle's headcovering tradition applies all the time. It applies to both men and women, whenever they pray or prophesy.

You wrote:
"So if it is a big deal, please answer the question - Should a man always be without a covering on his head (save a situation he cannot avoid)? What about protection from the sun or safety helmet?"

Out of respect for His Saviour, he should avoid covering his head, unless there is some necessity, like needing to protect his life or his health.

Does this make sense to you, dear Brother?

You conclude:
"Is Verse 5 a bigger deal than verse 4?"

No, both verses are of equal validity and importance.

Be well,
Doug

Hi brother Doug, you write......

"I sense that you know this to be true, my dear Brother."

Well brother, your senses are slightly off today :) I guess its better to just stick to what we each write that way there would be less confusion, on that I am sure you would agree. I believe that my dear brother is caught up in this and believes that this outward sign is an inward sign of holiness. I have stated before, and I will state again, I do believe ( and hopefully this answers Lysa's question) that when a woman prays or prophesies in the church, her head should be covered. I have heard others argue that the hair is the covering or that it was an effort not to needlessly cause controversy because of that culture and the need to reach that culture, much like circumcising Timothy, and I believe that has some merit, yet I personally still come down to a lady covering her head in gathering where she would stand up and pray or prophesy, and I can accept your definition of prophesy for this discussion.

What I object to, and have witnessed, is the dangers of self-righteousness and how it typically rears its head on matters of externals. I am interested in not only someone doing as they are commanded, but I am interested in why they do what they do, the motivations of their hearts, which of course, ultimately, only God can know.

Let me use an exaggeration to try and prove the point. I live in Kansas, and on most highways the law says you cannot drive faster than 65 miles an hour, and if you do, you will be fined a certain amount. Okay, lets say the punishment is death for speeding ( because a small fine does not seem to put many people off speeding:) Now, I guarantee you that speeding would almost certainly all but disappear overnight. Why are people not speeding? Because they do not want to die I imagine. They are law-keepers because of the consequences of breaking that law. Question, are they law keepers in their hearts? Are they secret speeders? What did Jesus say to the Pharisees? Did He commend their hearts? They were law keepers. Yet, Jesus knew their hearts and tells the men who proudly proclaim that they have never committed adultery that He knows their hearts and that they have committed adultery in their hears therefore they are hypocrites. Why are they hypocrites? Because they announce their righteousness by pointing to their outward appearance and yet, God has considered the inside of the cup, God is more interested in why you do something that what you do ( which is why so much of our " works will be burned up when we stand before Him and many more will be cast out despite their works for He never " knew" them)

And so a major sign for me that hypocrisy is lurking here, is that there is no consistency among those who claim that it is there in Scripture so it must be obeyed despite what we thing( I actually agree with that) If a man thinks a woman should cover her head at all times, he must, and I repeat, must have his head uncovered at all times if he is to be consistent. I am sorry brother but your own explanation about accidents and making exceptions for weather and so on is just slightly strange :) And the same must also allow the sisters to stand and pray publicly and prophesy if he is to be consistent in his reasoning and his conviction ( whether he is right or wrong)

Finally, you write..........

"My Brother, your argument to discredit the writer's argument from antiquity does not follow, for your proof is incorrect. The dogma of Transubstantiation was only promulgated by Rome in 1215 A.D. by the Fourth Lateran Council. It was a rather late invention of the Roman Church (no longer truly Catholic at this point), with not only no basis whatsoever in Scripture, but no true basis in the early ante-nicene Church either."

Dear brother, In my opinion, I think your answer lacks the fundamental knowledge that before the fourth lantern council, this was widely practiced and had become tradition, which to the Catholic holds the same validity as Scriptures. Dogmas were introduced only after hundreds, if not more, years of tradition. The matter of infallibility of the Pope is a good example of this. I enjoy our discussions brother, iron sharpening iron, may the Lord bless you Doug............brother Frank

I was thinking along these lines all morning and then I came here and see that there is this article on men covering their heads. Talk about the Holy Spirit inspiring people! Awesome!

What made me think a lot more about it is the question Questor asked on the other thread about men covering their heads - this is what generated questions in my mind, so here goes...

It seems as though in our community whenever you have a public meeting like at a farm meeting/supper, college graduation or whatever there is prayer. Always, whenever prayer is about to be said the men will reach up and remove their hats. Every time. This even happened at our son Jonathan's graduation exercises at Mississippi State University where there were several hundred grads participating. But not one of the female students removed her cap!

Males naturally remove their caps/hats when public prayer is about to said. But, I wonder, do they know why they do it? Is it just a natural thing to do? Is it instinct? On the other hand, I have seen pic of a street preacher who wears a hat and in my spirit it does not sit well...

Do males realize the power that is on their uncovered heads when praying or prophesying?

I wonder, if they give no credibility to the covered/uncovered principle does this weaken their authority?

When I was in a situation where I had to minister to a male and the Holy Spirit told me that since I had the symbol of authority on my head and that I am to use it, does this follow as well for males who understand this principle and act on it, like I did?

Questions, and more questions, I admit....

_________________
Sandra Miller

Hi Brother, and thanks for taking the time to respond.

First, I want to apologize for assuming. I guess we don't see Brother Greg's ministry the same way.

Also, I understand there is a danger in focusing on externals. Understand too though, that there is also a danger on focusing on "internals", when Jesus said "you will know them by the their fruit." Fruit as you, is not only "the fruit of the Spirit", but also "the obedience of faith." We ought to meet in the middle on this one, and just agree that BOTH extremes should be objected to, brother Frank.

Also, I have been VERY consistent. Please re-read what I have written: I have never argued that women MUST wear the headcovering "all the time." You have erecting a straw man here, my friend. You then call my reasoning "strange", and I would agree that this is literally true, if you've never seen the argument that I have been very carefully presenting here.

Regarding women speaking in the Church: Paul literally says "no." Taken together with His requirement for women to pray and prophesy covered, that would logically mean, (deductively), that women do their praying and prophesying during the 165 other hours out of the 168 total hours that are in a week. Of course, we are all free, for now, to come up with some other interpretation of the literal texts here, if we feel this is still too restrictive.

Finally, regarding tradition and dogma, Christians, such as they were, were not forced to accept Transubstantiation until 1215. I understand that many did accept it before, but your argument here misses the point in either case. The original article that Brother Greg posted said that the headcovering was practiced from the earliest times up to the 19th century. Transubstantiation was not.

Yes, iron does sharpen iron. It also creates heat. My dear Brother: I am no hypocrite, and I never implied that you were anything other than genuine either. I pray there is no offense created from my writing these things to you.

Be well my Brother,
Doug