Head Coverings in the Day of the Internet
1 Cor. 11 for an online generation.
July 18, 2013

Displaying 1–10 of 10 comments

Karen

July 31, 2013  11:06pm

In the Orthodox Church with its roots deep in the NT era, this practice has been upheld until very recent times because woman and wife is understood to be a symbol or spiritual image in marriage and in the Church of the Church as the Bride of Christ. The head-covering is the symbol of her submission to Christ. I have found the attitudes about this in the Orthodox Church are very different, however, than that of many of those in Protestant head-covering movements and the perhaps closely related "complementarian" movement in marriage. It is quite unselfconscious (for traditional Orthodox–can't say this is always true for converts from conservative Protestantism coming into the Orthodox Church) and certainly not a self-righteous practice. Nowadays, the Orthodox Churches based in the Middle-East eschew the practice because of how it was taken into Islam and perverted there. Orthodox Christian women in the Middle-East do not want to be identified as Muslim. It is still quite common for Orthodox women in the Slavic countries to wear scarves not only in church, but all of the time. Here in the U.S. among Americans who are Orthodox, it is not as common and not required. Certainly what Bonnie says points to what is most important.

Report Abuse

sheerahkahn

July 23, 2013  1:33am

"I'm sure that a part of the appeal of a head covering is an attempt to live up to all that the Bible asks of us - to live what the Bible would call a holy life. We generally feel that if the Bible mentions something we're not doing, perhaps we should be. And that can be a healthy attitude. However, I think a part of the appeal is a wish to revert to a time in the past where we imagine that outward appearance demonstrated inward reality. The flaw in that kind of thinking is believing that it actually worked (or works) that way – that a person's holiness is determined or increased by something on the outside." Ah, so that is what it is! Well, even though my post got deleted, this is a good explanation of why I'm having that conflict of this head-covering issue appealing to me so much...even though the appeal bugged me intellectually. Thank you so much Bonnie, this helped me tremendously resolve this issue for me, and now I can put this in a proper perspective.

Report Abuse

BonnieM

July 22, 2013  5:13pm

Galations 3:27, 28 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Is that verse true or is it not? If it's true, then there isn't a need for a male/female distinction in church. We are all equal. No one is above or below anyone else, and no superficial identification is needed. The New Testament directions addressed specific local and cultural issues. But the fact that there was a particular cultural practice in place at a certain time of history doesn't mean that practice must continue to be a part of culture – even church culture – at this time in history. I'm sure that a part of the appeal of a head covering is an attempt to live up to all that the Bible asks of us - to live what the Bible would call a holy life. We generally feel that if the Bible mentions something we're not doing, perhaps we should be. And that can be a healthy attitude. However, I think a part of the appeal is a wish to revert to a time in the past where we imagine that outward appearance demonstrated inward reality. The flaw in that kind of thinking is believing that it actually worked (or works) that way – that a person's holiness is determined or increased by something on the outside. Being a Christian – understanding and acknowledging Christ's authority, or even accepting a husband's authority – is a matter of the heart, not the hat. It's a little like what Paul had to say about circumcision – it has to be circumcision of the heart. In Paul's thinking, once we understand that, then the outside is irrelevant. Circumcision of the flesh is not a spiritual need. A head covering that shows other people my submission and respect is not a spiritual need. It may not even be telling the truth. And are angels really that easily fooled? What's important is for my heart to be respectful and in submission to God whether I have something on my head or I don't.

Report Abuse

Dan from Georgia

July 19, 2013  9:14pm

@SallyB...well put! I think in a lot of these movements, there is an element (sometimes a HUGE element!) of pride. Hence my very sarcastic comment above.

Report Abuse

SallyB

July 19, 2013  11:21am

Latter-day Amish. No thanks. It's for freedom from such outward rituals (and the pride that they generate) that Christ died.

Report Abuse

Dan from Georgia

July 19, 2013  1:53am

Jarrod, don't forget the "we won't kiss until our wedding day" movement.

Report Abuse

Dan from Georgia

July 18, 2013  8:22pm

At the risk of burning in hell, is this another fad where some Christians will separate themselves from other Christians and think that they are more holy than their brothers and sisters?

Report Abuse

Reader

July 18, 2013  4:37pm

Jarrod- I am all for the first two. I don't understand the third (because we aren't given any information beyond that it happened) and am mildly terrified of the fourth. Trev- It is serious. It is very very serious. And run by a man, as far as I can tell.

Report Abuse

Jarrod

July 18, 2013  3:27pm

And next, let's launch a "foot-washing movement" (John 13:14) and a "wear no gold or expensive clothes movement" (1 Tim. 2:9) and a "baptism for the dead movement" (1 Cor. 15:29-32, Matt. 16:19) and a "let's handle poisonous snakes movement (Mark 16). Sheesh.

Report Abuse

trev

July 18, 2013  1:22pm

I'm so afraid this isn't a joke that I refuse to go to the website...don't think I could bear it if serious.

Report Abuse