Christianity and Head Coverings

[GamezRule]

1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

You know, reading the first verse, I seriously wonder how the early Christian Church could take Paul seriously, but the rest is just plain ridiculous. However, I would like to see at least all fundies no longer criticize the burka, unless they denounce this passage.

I will leave the rest for discussion.

 

[Miles Teg]

It was entirely reasonable for the time, and no crazier or more demeaning to women than any of the other local religions. That's not saying much though.

 

[Bill3000]

Head coverings were traditional wear until the 20th century. As for the fundies, fundamentalists are just as much a product of the modern age as liberals are, their interpretations coaxed with and a reaction to modern culture.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Here in Orthodox Russia, women are expected to cover their heads in churches.

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

The fact that it isn't so in the West reveals that True Christianity left the We$t long ago

 

[Ahovking]

If i under stand the question right (long story short men superiority over women) then i found this quote

In the Bible it does say that women must submit to their husbands. Men are to be the spiritual leaders of the family. Many women are caught up in power and are afraid of submission but it is because I am a powerful woman of God that I can submit to my husband. Submission is not laying down and having someone walk all over me -- that is our modern interpretation. Instead, submission is the active decision to yield to my husband. Now this does not mean that I am a doormat and he bosses me around. I cannot lose my power as a woman through submission to my husband because my power comes from God. My spiritual gifts and what I am called to do as a woman of God are empowering and support my equality with man. Women and men are different and we are called to do different things to fulfill God's plans for us yet we can still be equal. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Women-s-Issues-3086/Biblical-teachings-role-women.htm

 

[GamezRule]

It would be great if it worked out that way every time, unfortunately there are many fundie sects that have submission in the way we think of it. Some types of Baptists for example. Christian denomination's can get hard to discern because Baptist no longer is a universal blanket for all things with the name Baptist. I think pretty much every fundie sect has liberalizing factions.

 

[Miles Teg]

Y'know, that quote makes the woman sound like she'd fit extremely well into a BDSM lifestyle. The prattle is pretty much identical about submission being strength is very similar in tone to what you hear from people who are really into submissive lifestyles.

 

[Elrohir]

You know, reading the first verse, I seriously wonder how the early Christian Church could take Paul seriously, but the rest is just plain ridiculous. However, I would like to see at least all fundies no longer criticize the burka, unless they denounce this passage.

I will leave the rest for discussion.

I'm not sure why. This passage, if taken literally and authoritatively, demands a certain amount of body covering for women while engaged in religious activity (Which seems large by today's requirements, but probably wasn't seen as terribly high in the ancient world). The burka is a significantly larger imposition, especially by today's standards, and applies when women are outside of their houses in any context, religious or otherwise. So what exactly is your logic here -- if you impose burden of severity X in context Y, in order to be consistent, you must favor the imposition of severity of X+? in context Y+? Why should that be the case?

Honestly, this seems like arguing that if you favor requiring people to have drivers licenses on them when they drive, then you must favor identification whenever people use any form of transportation outside. (Better get that bicycling license ready for the bikecops!) Perhaps both are goods ideas, perhaps one is and the other is not, or perhaps both are terrible ideas -- but I don't see why one necessarily implies the other. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

[Karalysia]

Just the clarify, the burka isn' required by the Quaran. Women are asked to dress modestly. Where much of the more, shall we say restrictive things comes from are the Hadith's the sayings of Prophet Muhammad which are not required to be followed by Muslims since only the Quaran was through divine revelation.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Head coverings were traditional wear until the 20th century. As for the fundies, fundamentalists are just as much a product of the modern age as liberals are, their interpretations coaxed with and a reaction to modern culture.

It wasn't until the '70s that my grandmother stopped wearing a kerchief whenever she went shopping or visiting. I myself was expected to wear a bonnet or kerchief when going into town. Thank goodness that nonsense stopped when I started school.

I can remember reading a "beauty advice" book for teenage girls that was published sometime in the '50s or '60s, and it stressed that when going out shopping, to the movies, or other public places, a well-bred young lady should not only wear a dress or skirt, but also gloves(!). And remember all those old reruns of "I Love Lucy" where you see the dresses, hats, and stuff Lucy and Ethel wore? That wasn't just Hollywood, guys - in some places, that's just the sort of thing women were expected to wear.

 

[Holycannoli]

That whole passage is emphasizing the cultural norms of the time. Men wore their hair short (relatively) and women long. Men should look like men and women like women.

The covering of her head in church is a sign of subordination. These were ancient times, and this subordination does not mean what it does today. Theologically, men have a direct relationship to God and so should not cover their head in church, while women have a direct relation to their husbands and so should cover their head. There's something strange about angels in there too that is hard to clarify.

Ultimately that comes down to the cultural custom of the time in Greece and.

My cousin was married with vows that reflect this theological relationship between man and woman btw. Her vows affirmed that her husband was to be head of the family and that she was to submit to him. Strangely enough, they are the happiest couple I know, but that's partly because the theological definition of submission is not the same as the modern day definition. It's no different than marriage was a few decades ago, but seems so alien now.

 

[Formaldehyde]

However, I would like to see at least all fundies no longer criticize the burka, unless they denounce this passage.

Good luck with that. I've brought this topic up before in threads relating to the criticism of Muslims covering their own heads.

There are still fundamentalist and Eastern Orthodox sects in the US which require their female practictioners to cover their heads. The Catholic Latin Rite required it from 1917 until 1983. Many traditional Catholic women still do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Headcovering

Headcovering, at least during worship services, is still promoted or required in a few denominations and among the more traditional Catholics. Some Anabaptist denominations, including the Amish, some Mennonites, the Old German Baptist Brethren,[19] the Hutterites,[20] and the Apostolic Christian Church; some Pentecostal churches, such as the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, The Pentecostal Mission, and the Christian Congregation in the United States; the Plymouth Brethren; and the more conservative Dutch Reformed churches. Though most Protestant denominations have no official expectation that women cover, some individuals choose to practice headcovering according to their understanding of 1 Corinthians 11.

Within the congregation, a female Jehovah's Witness minister may only lead prayer and teaching when there is a special need, and must do so wearing a head covering.[21][22][23] Outside a congregation setting, a female Jehovah's Witness also wears a head covering when teaching a Bible study course in the presence of a baptized Witness male or in the presence of her husband (regardless of whether or not the husband is baptized). Female head covering is not required when evangelizing or when participating in congregation meetings or Bible study courses being led by another, or any aspect of Christian or family life.[24]

Jehovah's Witnesses males are instructed to remove headcoverings when they represent even a small group in public prayer. A male Witness may or may not choose to remove his headcovering while praying privately or listening to another's public prayer, according to "the dictates of his personal conscience".[25]

I can remember reading a "beauty advice" book for teenage girls that was published sometime in the '50s or '60s, and it stressed that when going out shopping, to the movies, or other public places, a well-bred young lady should not only wear a dress or skirt, but also gloves(!). And remember all those old reruns of "I Love Lucy" where you see the dresses, hats, and stuff Lucy and Ethel wore? That wasn't just Hollywood, guys - in some places, that's just the sort of thing women were expected to wear.

I believe the AAA guide to Manhattan suggested that male tourists always wear suits, and even suggested wearing hats, up until the 70s. It certainly still did so in the 60s, long after it was it was considered taboo to not do so. And there are still a number of restaurants in the US that won't seat you without at least a sports coat.

 

[JollyRoger]

Y'know, that quote makes the woman sound like she'd fit extremely well into a BDSM lifestyle.

And man as a feminine sub towards God.

That whole passage is emphasizing the cultural norms of the time.

Well, that could be said about a lot of Paul's ramblings.

 

[Holycannoli]

Well, that could be said about a lot of Paul's ramblings.

And it would be true. I think sometimes people read more into his writings than what's actually there.

 

[classical_hero]

It would be great if it worked out that way every time, unfortunately there are many fundie sects that have submission in the way we think of it. Some types of Baptists for example. Christian denomination's can get hard to discern because Baptist no longer is a universal blanket for all things with the name Baptist. I think pretty much every fundie sect has liberalizing factions.

This passage does not say once that she should be fully covered, it is just about the head. Whether it means just the head needs to be covered with just her hair of an additional covering is up in the air, since both can be taken from that passage. That main problem I have some of the Muslim garbs are the ones that cover the whole body. I have some Muslim co workers and the most they wear is a head covering and nothing more. There is nothing wrong with that, but the burqa is most definitely wrong.

 

[warpus]

I see non-Muslim women with head coverings here from time to time. I always assumed they were from some sort of obscure Christian sect. Could be wrong..

 

[JollyRoger]

This passage does not say once that she should be fully covered, it is just about the head. Whether it means just the head needs to be covered with just her hair of an additional covering is up in the air, since both can be taken from that passage. That main problem I have some of the Muslim garbs are the ones that cover the whole body. I have some Muslim co workers and the most they wear is a head covering and nothing more. There is nothing wrong with that, but the burqa is most definitely wrong.

The bolded statements are hard to reconcile. The Christan standard, according to a Christian, is up in the air. The Muslim standard, according to a Christian, has clear limits.

 

[Bill3000]

That whole passage is emphasizing the cultural norms of the time. Men wore their hair short (relatively) and women long. Men should look like men and women like women.

Don't be a moral relativist.

 

[_random_]

Here in Orthodox Russia, women are expected to cover their heads in churches.

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

The fact that it isn't so in the West reveals that True Christianity left the We$t long ago

I know you're being completely sarcastic, but I really do love your posts.

 

[timtofly]

The fact that it isn't so in the West reveals that True Christianity left the We$t long ago

Maybe the west could capitalize on that market....