SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Access over 100,000+ Sermons from Ancient to Modern
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : SermonIndex Announcements : The Head Covering Movement

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )


"And, the very fact that you tie it to submission, tells me that you cannot help but judge those who don't wear it as being unsubmissive. No matter how much you deny that, the very fact that you believe wearing a head covering proves that a women is submissive, then conversely, is an indication to you (and others I am sure) that those who do not wear them are rebellious. how could you not think that? Either you think others are rebellious who refuse to wear one after they have receive the "teaching" or you think others are just ignorant and must not have had the "teaching", yet." allaboard

Whatever benefit there may be to a sister wearing a head covering when the church assembles together is no doubt something for the sister to decide herself. If she sees benefit in it then it is for her a benefit. As for the hypocrisy of anyone making assumptions as to another sister who sees no benefit thereby "proving" her rebellion is of course legalistic. As to who has the power to comprehend why a sister does or does not wear a covering on her head, or as to why any one does or does not see it as error is hidden unless it is openly stated. My wife Helen does not wear a head covering in the church. Yet she has never stood against me before our children, nor whispered in private nor gossiped in public against me. Yet I believe in head covering in the church for those sisters who are minded to speak openly in the church by way of prayer of prophecy.

Most people do not believe me when I bear witness of my wife's good attitude. They imagine I am joking in some way. However it is the plain truth. Apart from that no man should instruct another mans wife or his children in contradiction to the head of the household.

 2013/6/16 8:08

Joined: 2011/8/20
Posts: 1936


If God has given Head covering and submission to wife as a commandment to man then I will cover my head and submit to the decisions of my wife, no matter what the world follows. I will do it because I want to please God.

Head covering is a new covenant command unlike other external commands of old covenant. There are very few new covenant commands that are external. One such command is water baptism. Most of the Churches practices it as a sign for born again life. They do not discourage people saying born again is an internal thing and you do not need an external sign. But when it comes to head covering we see people discouraging others from following God's command.

My second point is in regards to submission. Bible says husbands should love their wives like how Christ loves the Church. Anyone who understands the depth of Christ's love for the Church will acknowledge that it is humanly impossible to love their wife with such a love. I acknowledge the same and I need God's grace to produce divine love in me. Same way any women who understands the depth of submission like how Jesus submitted to his heavenly father will acknowledge that it is humanly impossible for them to submit the same way to their husbands, hence they will seek God's grace in this area. Now if there is any commandment that is given as a sign for husbands to love their wife then I will immediately follow it because I do not want God's grace to be hindered because of my rebellion to his command. Same way if any women truly acknowledges that she needs God's grace to submit everyday to her husband then she will cover her head so that God's grace will not be hindered in this area.


 2013/6/16 8:22Profile

 Re: Sred

Brother, very respectfully and in his Spirit, I invite you and others to address the issue of foot washing. I have opened up a thread on that very topic under "And what of John 13:1-20". Not to take away from this thread. But if we are going to speak of New Covenant commands then maybe we need to take a look at the example if the Son of God himsrlf.

It seems to me that Jesus is teaching something that applies to both brother and sister A practice that takes far more courage for one to practice because it takes a crucified life to wash one's feet.

My question to the sisters who wear the head covering. And this asked out of Spirit filled respect. You have the courage to wear the head covering, but do you have the courage go wash someone's smelly feet?

In the New Testament two women washed the feet of Jesus and with tears and perfume no less. One was the woman who lead a sinful life and came and repented. She washed the feet of Jesus with her tears and perfume . The account is found in Luke 7:36-42.

The other account is Mary, the sister of Martha, pouring perfume and annointing Jesus feet. This account is found in John 12:1-8.

So as to not hijack this thread I invite you to respond on the thread I have opened up on "And what about John 13:1-20".

Submitted in the Spirit.


 2013/6/16 9:33

Joined: 2011/5/28
Posts: 100


Apart from that no man should instruct another mans wife or his children in contradiction to the head of the household.

Completely agree.

Head covering [women] or uncovering [men] is scriptural and there is no argument with that, It is men and women. It is outward and it is visible, which is its meaning and purpose. It is for the angels and not principally for the man.

Do not agree. There is a difference of opinion ("argument") otherwise this thread would not exist. It exists because some think it is scriptural and some think it was cultural (per Corinth).

Personal observation: I was at a well known speaker's conference (he is from India) and I noticed that the women that wore head coverings did not associate with those who did not. Maybe it was also because they did not like the fact that some of the women without head coverings wore slack/pants. Do women feel slighted? Is this sectarian and speak of a air of superiority? We would have to ask the "inferior" women how they felt about that.

Ignoring other saints over traditions/disciplines SHOULD concern us far more than whether everyone is complying with traditions/disciplines or not.

I believe some deep repentance is in order and all saints who name the name of Jesus should be welcome in our hearts and not just with words. I see too much of this in real life gatherings. It is sickening and grievous.

 2013/6/16 10:06Profile

Joined: 2011/5/28
Posts: 100


Greg - I am more partial to encourage the "re-thinking" of this practice in the church and therefore am not ashamed to encourage the consideration of it.

I did want to thank Greg for giving us permission to "re-think" this issue. Especially since past threads have not ended so well. We certainly have been rethinking this issue but it seems that the result is the same as past threads in which there is a camp that believes it is a commandment from the Lord and a camp that believes it is cultural. If propagated as a commandment, it seems to create sectarianism in the Body.

So, what is the way forward if we are to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? (Eph 4:3)

Greg, since you started this thread, do you have any comments?

 2013/6/16 11:40Profile

 Re: The heart of the passsge.2 Cor

1 Cor. 11:4-5
Every man who PRAYS OR PROPHIES with his head covered dishonors his head but every wife who PRAYS OR PROPHESIES with her bead uncovered dishonors her head.


 2013/6/16 12:15

Joined: 2005/11/5
Posts: 124


Dear Bear...i agree with the footwashing. I take the 'Ought' to wash one another's feet as a command as well as the headcovering for services. As everyone has well put, its all about the inner reality then just the physical manifestation. If we don't have that, we're still in the OT as far as life. But, we do see the Outer in the New Covenant in the Wine/Bread, Footwashing, Headcoverings, What is the benefit? I believe it is also a witness to unbelievers since they are overtly external as well as regular reminders to us to humble and submit ourselves to each other. If God were to say men wear yellow dotted ties, we should do it even if we don't see the benefit of it. I don't think its a 1st Century only/Custom of the area thing. As an observation, i have never met a married sister who wears a covering and has divorced in my small world. I'm single and notice these kind of things. (Off-course i'm sure there are those who have divorced and maybe their marriages have arguments continually. The cloth does not make a Spirit-filled marriage as well as the many Godly marriages where women do not wear the cloth at services)

james thorpe

 2013/6/16 12:36Profile

 Re: The heart of the passsge.

1 Cor. 11:4-5
Every man who PRAYS OR PROPHIES with his head covered dishonors his head but every wife who PRAYS OR PROPHESIES with her bead uncovered dishonors her head.

1 Cor.11:13
Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a wife to PRAY to God with her head uncovered.

Acts 2:18
In those days I will pour out my Spirit and THEY SHALL PROPHESY.

....Caps are for emphsasis only....Cannot underline.

Brothers and sisters if we are going to rethink this issue. Then I respectfully suggest we do it in the context of the passage under discussion. The issue is not the external covering. The issue of tbis passage is the praying and prophedying of saints in the church meeting. Particularly of Christians sisters. This is the heart of the matter.

I ask the sisters, respectfully, who wear the bead covering, do you pray or prophesy in your church meetings? I mean do you pray of prophesy in the public church meeting. I ask you brotbers, respectfully, who advocate the head covering, do you pray or prophesy in the church meeting? Presumably with your head uncovered.

My brother or sister who advocate the head covering, if you cannot answer yes to the above questions then I gently say you are pursuing dead religion. For this is merely not submission. But the body praying and prophedying in the Holy Spirit.

As one brother said to me. I am more interested in what the sister is doing under the covering. What is she praying or prophesying?


 2013/6/16 12:43

 Re: The Head Covering Movement

Do not agree. There is a difference of opinion ("argument") otherwise this thread would not exist. It exists because some think it is scriptural and some think it was cultural (per Corinth). allaboard

By saying that head covering is scriptural I am simply agreeing with the OP. Especially the point made about exegesis. In this instance the exegetical formula is grammatical and syntactical and not cultural.

Daniel Wallace is one of the leading textual critics and the founder of the “Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts”. To say this brother knows the Greek text well would be quite the understatement. He said this about the “actual head covering” view (the position I’m advocating) which I think many can relate to:

The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically………..

I think this element of the OP is intended to put to bed any notion that the passage of scripture from Corinthians has a grammatical or syntactical opt out clause and therefore the possibility of claiming that it doesn't carry an apostolic meaning. If it were simply a symbolic expression used by Paul to instruct this particular church then of course some would say that this teaching was weighed in that balance and may not have meaning for every other church. This is in a sense what has happened and still happens. Hence the claim that what Paul taught the Corinthians in this instance is just for the Corinthians. To put it into context it would be the same as saying that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were just for the Corinthian believers. Likewise it would be conversely the same as saying that there were believers in every church who were fleshy because the Corinthian believers were given an explanation as to why some of them were dying prematurely. In short the deaths at Corinth are local, and needed an explanation. If they were not local at that time in the authority of Paul's apostleship of many churches, then he could have made reference to the other churches who had the same problem. He didn't and so exegetically the issue of the Corinthian believers fleshy lives was a basis for an explanation of their problem, and not a basis for saying all the churches were fleshy. Whereas the head covering issue was not intended to be a local explanation. Hence the phrase "we have no other tradition". i.e. the same thing is done everywhere.

In this light I agree with the OP. What else I may think is irrelevant.

 2013/6/16 14:07


Then Andrew if you are going to agree with the OP you will have to agree that the issue is the praying and prophesying of the Christian sisters in Corinth.

If we are going to carry this command today to have women where a head covering in the church meeting then the women and the men will have to be allowed to pray and prophesy. And tbis may be in the language of tongues.

This is the issue I am raising and I do it respectfully. If one is going to insist that the head covering be binding as a New Covenant commmand. Then one is going to have to allow for the New Covenant gift of prophesy to be exercised.

You cannot separate the head covering issue from what Paul is addressing in the passage. Mainly the way in which men and women were to prophesy in the Corinthian church.

But if this command is to be binding today. Then one must allow for the gift of prophesy.


 2013/6/16 14:57

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy