Head Coverings...

[steve95054]

I think this is the first article I've ever come across that actually explains the head covering thing in a way that makes theological sense and actually shows that the practice -exalts- women, rather than being a sign of inferiority.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/headcoverings.aspx

(Note: This is written by a woman, not a man, and one who, as she says in the article, persists in the practice -in spite of- peer pressure, not because of it.)

What do you think?

[boymom]

Angelology makes a lot of assumptions.

[Bob M]

I read the article and she does put a lot of stock in the presence of Angels.

[steve95054]

Well, so does Paul. It is, after all, the only reason he gives in the command. "Because of the angels."

I'm not saying it makes sense to the modern/post-modern mind, which rejects the notion of angels entirely. But I am saying it makes sense within the context of the passage -- i.e. a firm belief in angels.

And it's the first article I've read that has it making sense in a way that a) doesn't denigrate women, and b) doesn't reduce Paul to a culturalist.

[Historian]

Mmmm, angels are not "the only reason he gives the command." Verses 4-10 give a lot of reasons why he's saying that.

My problem with her analysis is that it focuses on a lot of assumptions about angels, while ignoring the context. Paul starts his whole argument from 10:23: “'All things are lawful,'” but not all things are helpful. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up." Then he talks about how eating meat offered to idols depends on the circumstances of the case. Eating it in a temple implies religious significance and should be avoided; buying or trading for it in the market stripped away that meaning and makes it no problem. When we go on past the headcovering verses, we see the same ideas in the larger context: "Here's how you order yourselves around the Lord's Supper so as to avoid division and be unoffensive." I Cor 10-14 are all about the general principle of good public order.

In that context I see I Cor 11:2-16 addressing a headcovering practice which was culturally acceptable to the Corinthians. It that context it seems to be teaching that the Corinthian Church is not to be offensive or divisive about needlessly altering the customs of the culture. Instead do what edifies and contributes to unity. I don't think the moral nature of covering or uncovering one's head is the main issue here. When he discusses the men/women and creation aspect, I think he's here laying down the principle of leadership as God has established it for the church, and explaining how the Corinthians are violating it when men cover their heads and women uncover theirs–not because men must always pray uncovered and women covered everywhere, but because in the Corinthian culture of the day such a thing communicated a certain message that implied a reversal of God's authority structure.

Also, in both I and II Cor Paul also tells them to greet each other with a holy kiss after discussing unity and love: a practice he doesn't discuss with other churches, and that I've yet to meet a head-covering enthusiast who is adamant about promoting. If they failed to greet one another with the kiss of friendship and unity that even the heathens practiced, it would, in the culture, be tatamount to denying brotherly love. Further, Paul leaves these things to the good judgement of the Corinthians in I Cor 11:13-16.

Ultimately, if this is a divine command for all women everywhere, based on creation order and God's placement of men and women into their unique roles, why didn't Eve have a head covering in the garden?

[Mominator]

Hephzibah House was into wearing head coverings. They didn't make us wear one, but the women in their church did.

[myotch]

I like to see the little old Italian women wearing the traditional veils to mass. It reminds me that Christianity is a lot older and more widespread than my own perspective.

[Ricardo]

In "Reading Lolita in Teheran" the author mentions that her mother, a pious Muslim is pissed at the Iranian government for forcing all women to wear a veil, something that her mother was doing to show her religiousness. So now wearing a veil in Iran is not a show of Faith but of Fear of the Government.

[elfdream]

I sometimes wear a hat to church....or an extra wide headband. That covers about as much as a chapel veil....but its not a big thing with me nor do I think its a practice that anyone should adopt unless they feel led to do so.

[steve95054]

@Ricardo: That's fascinating. I'm going to have to read that.

@myotch: Yep, same with the little old Russian and Greek and Arab ladies.

@Historian: First, the holy kiss is not only mentioned to the Corinthians (I 16:20 and II 13:12), but also to the Romans (16:16) and the Thessalonians (5:26). Additionally, Peter (I 5:14) tells the entirety of the Turkish penisula (I 1:1) to do it, and it is a practice preserved to this day in the Eastern Churches, as in this icon of Sts. Peter and Paul greeting each other, called, appropriately, the Greeting of the Apostles: http://www.bostonmonks.com/product_info....cts_id/912

So your exegesis is faulty there.

Furthermore on this point, one did not (culturally) kiss another except to show deference, or for romantic reasons. Paul's saying "greet one another with a holy kiss" overturns this entirely, in the first highlihted phrase making all equally submissive (as he also commands the Ephesians), and in the second clarifying that he is not speaking of carnal kissing.

Secondly, regarding the "cultural" context of eating meat sacrificed to idols, I have explained elsewhere (I thought it was on here, but I seem to have lost track of the particular post...I'll look for it and link it if I can find it) how that Paul's exhortation on this matter is actually a pastoral leniency, due to culture, yes, but definitely not in support of it. The custom of the culture was to eat whatever they wanted. Christ's command (Rev. 2:14, 20) is unanimouly supported by the Holy Spirit and all of the Apostles (Paul included!) in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:28, 29; 21:25). The discussion of it in I Cor. 10 is not a command not to upset the cultural practices, but rather a command to do exactly that.

Additionally, regarding the Lord's Supper: the cultural context to was to eat whatever you wanted, whenever you got there. Paul says, "No, that's wrong; don't do it that way."

So we see that this turns your "cultural context" argument on it's head.

Thirdly, Paul is clearly trying to convince them that head coverings are good. Wearing them, by the way, was specifically not a cultural practice in either Greece, Israel, or Rome. That's why, like with the meats thing, he has to convince them. If it were a cultural practice only, he would have used the same argument he used in chapter 10, except without the sarcasm, viz: "We know it's OK to not wear head coverings, but let's bear with them who don't get that yet."

But he doesn't say that, does he? Rather, he says, "Everybody get on board with this command: here are the theological reasons why. Don't cause division pursuing your own opinion based in your faulty cultural practices." (This is exactly, by the way, the same argument he is actually using in 10 regarding the meats, once you take the command of Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Apostles -- including Paul -- into account. It is also exactly the argument he gives for his command about the Lord's Supper.)