|
Search this Blog:
Subscribe to Blog:
This blog sponsored by:
The views represented on this blog are not necessarily those of Higher Things, nor does Higher Things necessarily endorse them.
|
|
|
|
Posted At: 7:47pm by Sandra Ostapowich
|
|
I have been asked to give my take on this topic a a few times so here are
my incomplete thoughts and conclusions. Have at it!
The interesting thing about this 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is that it s not primarily about
wearing veils or hats. In a sense,
women have two heads, the one on top of their shoulders, and the spiritual one
given by God to care for her as a father/husband/brother/pastor/elder/etc.
1 Cor. 11 is about keeping the Order of Creation. Covering the head is
not just having something on top of your head, but showing headship and
submission. A man praying and prophesying in church (part of the OHM)
whose head is covered (under another's authority) is not showing his proper
authority as a man and a leader. A woman doing so with her head uncovered
is failing to show submission to those in authority over her.
The principles being explained in 1 Cor. 11 with women's headcoverings are
for woman to show that she is under the authority of her head and modesty (which
itself expresses being under authority). In Paul's time, an uncovered
head and/or "short" hair on a woman usually signified that a woman was
a prostitute. It was apparently popular for high-society women to do
fancy, expensive and time-consuming things with their hair and wear jewelry
which had a tendency to draw a lot of attention to their vanity.
The way that principle, of showing modesty at least, was carried out until
recent decades is to wear a head covering of some sort. For whatever
reason, that tradition has fallen away in much of the U.S. Women in some
LCMS congregations do continue it, and wearing headcoverings of some sort seems
more common in conservative evangelical and Eastern Orthodox churches. It
also seems to be pretty common in churches that are primarily African-American.
I'm not sure why more women don't wear hats in church, but it seems to have
fallen out of fashion about the same time hat-wearing in general (for both sexes)
became less fashionable and feminism began to take hold.
A comparable "sign" of that relationship today might be for a woman
to wear a wedding ring, not nearly as obvious and while it indicates a certain
relationship it certainly doesn't necessarily signify a woman being under a
man's headship in today's feminist society, but that's about as close as we come
now. Wearing a headcovering has different connotations today than it did then.
Submitting to husbandly and fatherly authority itself is rare and
frequently misunderstood, even moreso the public expression of it with a
headcovering.
Do we wear a tasteful hat that matches our Sunday dress and can be worn out
to brunch after the service? Or just keep a lace
mantilla in our purse
to pull out and secure with bobbypins for the service? Or can we artfully
wrap our heads and hair with colorful scarves a la
Erykah
Badu? Or why stop at covering our head in church, why not on a daily basis?
Don't we confess submission to authority every day? If we're really
going to be modest, is the "Little
House on the Prairie"/Victorian 18th century style of dress the
way to go? Or should good, modest Christian women wear a hijab,
which is probably more along the lines of what Paul was talking about anyway?
When we approach this issue as a matter of Law we can err in two major ways:
1. despising the spirit of the Law, being covered under another's
authority, and 2. taking pride in our "pious" obedience of said law.
In my opinon, the point is not to make wearing a headcovering
a law like the Muslims do, but emphasize modesty in dress and
headship/submission in the Order of Creation. In Christ, we are free to
cover our heads with a husband, free to submit to him and trust him to care for
us above himself, and free to dress according to our beliefs and priorities.
So what do you think? Am I wrong? Convince me.
Edited on: October 03rd, 2005 4:30 am
|
Posted On: July 27th, 2005 at 11:27pm by Stan Lemon [ + ] |
If I can I would only recommend the following revision of:
In Christ, we are free to cover our heads with a husband, free to submit to him and trust him to care for us above himself, and free to dress according to our beliefs and priorities.
To the following:
In Christ, we have been given the gift of covering our heads with a husband, we have been given the gift of submission to him and the gift to trust him to care for us above himself, and we have been given the gift to dress according to our beliefs and priorities.
When we speak of freedom we have to be careful, because a word that can be entirely Gospel will run itself in the way of law. We are not "freed" in a liberating sense, but instead we are freed to receieve these bountiful gifts, in Christ. Using the word "free" here is not wrong, but I could potentially see it being taken by a femnist as being liberated from men to choose whether or not we want to be cared by them, etc.
Also, I am curious...
You never quite state whether or not then it is a sin for a woman not to have her head covered? It is a gift, but then is rejecting the gift a sin?
|
Posted On: July 28th, 2005 at 6:32am by Chris [ + ] |
Madre,
Similar discussion could be had in regards to longer hair on a man. Again, the tradition and culture of the Jews prevented this from happening, again denying the order of creation.
Today, this outward physical appearance doesn't have the same cultural baggage. I suppose their is a good deal of negativity attached. Arguably, saving $10 every two weeks on a haircut is being a good steward?
|
|
Posted On: August 03rd, 2005 at 4:47pm by The Fox
|
So, do we or must we or ought we cover our heads? I can remember when it was usual for women to not only wear hats but gloves as well to church-and slacks were never an option. A heavily evangelical close family member is really trying to put me on the spot about this; I don't wear hats of any kind at any time...how do I respond?
|
|
Posted On: August 04th, 2005 at 5:47pm by john pawlitz
|
Borrowing liberally from Madre, I think we (not myself as a male, but with all students considering such a topic from God's Word) can prioritize the notions (which she expressed) of
1) Not despising the spirit of the Law, being covered under another's authority.
2) Not taking pride in pious obedience of said law
Madre, I have to compliment you: for these appealing, useful, and proper principles!
One is tempted to make a bold statement in one direction or the other (as a Machiavellian thinker), simply because the matter seems rather inconsequential. Paul does well to treat it ironically, because he is talking about masculine headship by means of human attire. This does not make the argument for the attire less important, but it emphasizes that the real issue is not our ability to dress a certain way. For this reason, there is freedom, but Paul tells each woman, in her conscience, to look to the natural order of things for how to dress, and not to whatever seems flashy. I would, in my own amateur way, suggest that therein lies the kernel of the issue, and the decision that conscience must make.
|
Posted On: August 04th, 2005 at 11:37pm by Madre [ + ] |
Foxy,
Once again our evangelical friends pick and choose which texts to take literally. Ever notice how the Law increases almost exponentially when they do things this way?
Someone wise once said that when we try to do things in the way of the Law, they never get done. So let's say we must cover our heads. With what? Is a scarf ok? Wrapped like a turban or a babushka or Mammy from Gone with the Wind? Or like a hajib? Can our hair show? How much? What about just a snood? But what if your hair isn't long enough to put in a bun or ponytail? A mantilla? A fine, long, black lace one or a starched white doily? Or a hat...how big? Or a lace covering like the Mennonites?What colors? Goodness, I'd need a lot of hats to match my Sunday outfits unless I wanted to wear the same one each week. How big of a hat? Do I need to wear a scarf with my hat? How old should a woman/girl be before wearing one? Should young girls cover their heads too? Why just on Sundays?
The questions go on and on and on and we never seem to measure up to the standards. And most telling of all, where is Christ in all of this qualifying, all this questioning, all this pricking with the Law? There's something strangely ingrown about submitting to the principle of covering one's head but then obsessing over the actual headcovering...
I'm not going to tell you to wear a hat or a scarf or even how long your hair must be. If you want to wear a hat, do so and confess Christ. If you don't want to wear a hat, don't and proclaim the Gospel.
|
|
Posted On: August 05th, 2005 at 4:09pm by The Fox
|
Thanks Madre for your perspective. Why not include the burka as a possibility, then, while we're at it? At least that way, everything is covered, nobody (except, possibly, the wearer, who will be either excused for being less than thrilled by this particular statement of submission, or labeled disobedient because she does not like it!) can complain, and the Law is well served. 
|
|
Posted On: August 08th, 2005 at 8:36pm by Josh Osbun
|
Verse 6, "For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head."
Why does this mean that she should wear a hat? Consider the following:
Verse 15, "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."
If her hair is given to her as a covering and her head is to be covered, why would she use a hat, bonnet, mantilla, Erykah Badu, or anything else?
And then in verse six Paul speaks to hair length.
Verse 6, "For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head."
My reading of this suggests that only short hair and bald heads were considered disgraceful. Long hair was not. "Covered head" could just be a colloquialism much in the same fashion that "mohawk" is a colloquialism. "Mohawk" doesn't tell you what the haircut looks like, but in your mind you understand. "Covered head" doesn't speak to how it should be covered, but I'm sure the people understood.
Could it be that long hair is the covering to which Paul was speaking? The people in that time considered the neck to be a part of the head. If her hair was long enough to cover her neck, then isn't her head covered? (One of my professors spoke to this point in class one day, so I am not just pulling it out of thin air.) If this is the case, it would not mean that additional coverings such as a hat, bonnet, mantilla, Erykah Badu, or anything else are wrong. It would just mean that if a woman doesn't wear them, then her head can still be covered.
I think it would be beneficial to study the entire passage and all of its components. For example, in verse 14 why does Paul speak to the length of a man's hair? "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him." What impact does this have on a woman's head covering?
I also think it would be beneficial to complete your thoughts before making them public. You may very well have thoughts about verses 14 and 15 and hair length, but since you don't speak to them here -- since you only speak to a few words in verse six -- I would have no way of knowing what your thoughts are on these and other points.
I would certainly never tell a woman that she is wrong for wearing a head covering. I would no sooner tell my male friends at softball that they are wrong for removing their hats when we pray before the game. (I would be a hypocrite in that sense as I always remove my hat when I pray.)
All-in-all, before we encourage women to wear hats or not wear hats or have long hair or have short hair or do whatever they please, we should examine the text in its entirety.
|
Posted On: August 08th, 2005 at 10:31pm by Madre [ + ] |
Thank you Josh for your thoughts. However, as I advertise in my blog title and in this particular post, sometimes my thoughts are incomplete and I am posting them in order to receive feedback to help flesh them out, or even be convinced that I'm wrong and need to rethink things completely.
Do you really think my thoughts on hair length would be different than the ones on hats? Should they be? Is the key the length of the hair or that it is cut in a feminine style? I know a confessional woman who had longish hair (above the shoulders) but when her husband filed to divorce her unjustly, she cut it all off into a pixie style. It was still feminine, just VERY short. Was she sinning?
How long is long enough? What styles are ok then? If her neck is to be covered, can she wear her hair "up"?
|
|
Posted On: August 09th, 2005 at 12:47am by Josh Osbun
|
And hopefully I can help with some of the fleshing. 
A wise woman once said, "In my opinon, the point is not to make wearing a headcovering a law like the Muslims do, but emphasize modesty in dress and headship/submission in the Order of Creation."
The law is a ruler, and I am not about to pull out my very nice metal straight edge so that I can attempt to determine whose hair measures up and whose doesn't. I agree with you in that I am all for modesty.
Right now it is moot to discuss hair lengths as we still don't know what Paul meant by "covered head." You are approaching it from the standpoint that there is a foreign object placed over the head in some fashion. I am approaching it from the standpoint of hair length. Of the two, which is actually spoken about in this passage? I think that should speak volumes right there. Paul doesn't speak of hats. He speaks of hair length, and the hair length is enough to cover her head, whatever length that may be.
I am not going to split hairs on this point (pardon the pun) by answering all of your questions. You are trying to do what you are attempting to avoid, and that is place this under the constraints of the law. It is in your freedom under the gospel that you can choose to wear whatever you want on your head. If it is beneficial to you to wear any of the aforementioned garments, then I strongly encourage and support you in doing that.
|
|
Posted On: August 09th, 2005 at 11:42pm by Matt Simpson
|
Great post, Josh.
I think both you and Sandra brought up some excellent points regarding the covering of women's heads and the length of hair on an individual.
I spent a long time looking at this passage and for awhile I was confused with what both of you were saying: Is it the hair length or whatever is covering the female's head that makes a worshipping woman "proper"?
So after hours of repeatedly banging my head against the wall, I thought of one magic word: Hermeneutics! Scripture interprets Scripture!
Says Paul in 1 Cor. 1:15b:
...For long hair is given to her as a covering.
It is the length of hair that is a covering for the woman!
This may be a "duh" moment for you Josh, but it should be an "Aha!" moment for you Sandra.
I could go on about submission and headship, but I don't want to add more to Scripture than what may be intended. Thanks for the light in a dark room Josh!
|
|
Posted On: August 10th, 2005 at 12:24pm by john pawlitz
|
I suppose I generalized too much above, but when I commented, almost out of nowhere, that in good Machiavellian fashion, one is tempted to reduce this discussion to an article of hair length, this sort of speculation is what I meant. The text is clearly not articulating a doctrine of hair length. Should we add this to our books of doctrine--the length of hair? What about fingernails--the bible doesn't speak to it? It must be adiaphoron;oh, okay, so God cares about hair length but not fingernail length. What an abstruse God!
One might be tempted to draw the conclusion that Paul is saying that he is attracted to women with long hair. But, we would never draw that conclusion, because we are so convinced we know exactly what sort of person and teaching Paul has for us. (If that is the case, why read?) Furthermore, we might notice that such a conclusion is wrong.
As to whether a woman should wear long or short hair, we do not need a Bible to tell us that they should wear long hair. Undoubtedly, and especially as they age, long hair becomes a wearisome burden to them, and this is why Paul suggests a hat of some variety.
The woman head 'covering' (be it hat or hair) is appropriate, because her head is a man, and a man is just not a good enough reason to pray. Prayer requires Christ Himself, who as the head of man, ought not to be covered by man during prayer. He is not saying that women should subject themselves to toil over long hair, but if they "pray or prophesy" without a covering it is inappropriate.
Once again, I think more can be said for this, but starting with conscientiousness about what is worn and then moving to the propriety of the occasion--what proves necessary is faith and not a professional dogma about hair length. That sort of propriety indeed might be meant by "the angels" in 11:10, but this has been left out in the all-encompassing discussions you have given us, Josh.
It is absurd to decree that in Holy Scripture, Paul brings up the topic merely to say it's not important. Why would he not just say: "wear what is beneficial?" Because there is a systematic way of comprehending what is beneficial, objectively. If this seems to bold, at least we can say there are bigger problems (to Lutheran theology) in this text than hair length. But that being said, who is to say that hair length isn't a parcel of those problems?
|
|
Posted On: August 10th, 2005 at 12:57pm by Josh Osbun
|
John,
To infer that Paul was attracted to women with long hair and to infer that Paul suggests a hat of some sort -- to infer these things is to read into the text that which simply is not there. No matter how you slice it, the only thing to which Paul speaks in this section is hair. He speaks of long hair and short hair and no hair (bald), but beyond that there are no specific lengths. From that, one can assume that so long as her head is covered in hair then she is in line with this text. We do not know with certainty whether head included the neck or not, so we do what we can with the text, and that is to make sure that hair is modest and tasteful. With that thinking, we can assume that neither a feminine pixie length nor hair that is worn up do not contradict this passage.
Don't add to Scripture. Take it for what it is.
|
|
Posted On: August 10th, 2005 at 2:46pm by john pawlitz
|
I agree that we should not add to Scripture, as I did not suggest that the text is about attraction to long hair (cf. "such a conclusion would is wrong.")
I was wondering about "the only thing to which Paul speaks in this section is hair." Do you mean he does not speak of hats and in that sense "only" of hair? What about "covering?" What about "the angels?" What about "the glory of man?" What about all these other terms, are they just bystanders in a forum of how long hair should be?
This brings to light the adding problem I have. You single out the term "head" and say that we do not know whether it included the neck or not. You say, "We do not know with certainty...so we do what we can." Isn't "what you can" additive? We take Scriptue + what we can and we have doctrine? Your epistemologically correct theology is disconcerting, first you say we have to know, then you say "take it for what it is."
As puzzling as these things might be, I nevertheless agree with you in general. If I don't agree with the specific method, I still agree we should make sure hair is "modest and tasteful." But here, you are subtracting from the text. the text never says this. I could agree with "modest and tasteful" if I had never read a bible. But what does the bible say?--we do not know so we reduce it to the most agreeable.
That's not to say I didn't find your discussion beneficial, but what can you tell me about the fact that what you are saying in no way requires a text to back it up? Is it just because it's so true that even if the Bible hadn't said it, it would be true? Why would this whole discussion amount to "be tasteful and modest, women." Why even have a Christ? Why discuss prayer here?
I apologize, Madre for taking this off course.
|
|
Posted On: August 10th, 2005 at 4:19pm by Josh Osbun
|
John,
Well, I suppose that if you want to try to misdirect the conversation away from the topic of hat or not hat, then, yes, Paul speaks to many other things in this section besides hair. But seeing as the conversation (or at least the portions to which I have contributed) have focused on hat or not hat, then, no, Paul speaks to nothing besides hair. I would hope that someone who uses 50 cent words such as "epistemologically" would be able to see that Paul speaks to hair and that never once does he speak to hats. However, I shall summarize once again, in case you are unable to see it:
Verse 6, "For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head."
Verse 15, "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."
Notice in verse 15 that her HAIR is given to her as a covering, not a hat.
Now, in typing this post I noticed two things about verse 6 that had eluded me before. The first is that Paul is speaking to wives in this verse, not women in general. Notable? Perhaps. There are implications to this. What they are, however, I do not fully know as I have not had time to consider it as of yet.
Secondly, there could be an argument based on a logical assumption (that is, an assumption made through the use of logic and deduction, not an obvious assumption as the term is often misused) for the use of hats. At the start of verse 6 Paul states, "For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short." The assumption based off of a logical deduction would be that a wife with long hair is refusing to cover her head, therefore she should cut her long hair short on account of refusing to cover her head: therefore, cover here means a physical object placed on the head, not her hair.
Furthermore, backing up to verse 5, "but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven." This would also infer that she has at least hair of some sort and that Paul is exhorting her to put something over it.
I think this is a weak argument in light of verses 14 and 15, but someone might want to run with it.
As far as my stating, "We do what we can with the text," I do not see this as being out of line or problematic as Paul did not set down any length measurements or definitions of what exactly he meant. Therefore, we do what we can with it to the glory of God. The only clues that Paul gives us are ambiguous terms such as, "Long," "Short," and "Covered." Since there is nothing concerning what a wife's head is to look like (other than not shaven) we take the road of modesty and humility, doing what we can to avoid being a stumbling block for our neighbors, and using the text as a guide as much as we are able. The text speaks of hair; that we know to be true. The text might speak of hats, but I believe that there is enough in the text to assume that hats are not what Paul means when he speaks of the head being covered.
Furthermore, what I am saying does require a text to back it up for my conclusions are derived specifically from this text. I'm not just out here stating an opinion without any Scriptural backing. It is on account of the text that my conclusion exists. If anything, the conclusion that Paul is speaking to hats is the conclusion without any textual support.
And since, as you pointed out, the words "modest" and "tasteful" are not written into this text, go back through my posts and every time you see those words, in your mind replace them with "not disgraceful." Has my point changed any?
|
Posted On: August 10th, 2005 at 4:49pm by Madre [ + ] |
I still think this goes back further to v. 3 and the order of creation. Her head is not her own. I'd be curious...are different words used for head in v. 5 - the uncovered one and the dishonored one? v.10 says the covering is a symbol of authority. How is that symbolized today? Does a hat or long hair symbolize the same thing?
|
|
Posted On: August 10th, 2005 at 4:55pm by john pawlitz
|
Josh,
I appreciate the response. I am more comfortable with some of the further conclusions you reach. I'd be curious to pull out a lexicon at some point and look further into "covering" as a Greek term and see what I can find. I do tend to wonder about the your second point, or at least, I am concerned to know if, in that sense, "covering" could be an exterior object placed on her head.
|
|
Posted On: August 10th, 2005 at 5:03pm by john pawlitz
|
Madre, I missed your post because I didn't refresh...yeah I am feeling the itch for the original languages too.
|
|
Posted On: August 12th, 2005 at 1:55am by Josh Osbun
|
You wanted it.....you got it. The Lexicon: Today I shall use (because it's the only one I own) Young's Analytical Concordance, which I believe to be a concordance to the King James Version. (I had been using English Standard up until this point. I apologize for the necessity of the transition.) In addition, I will supplement my answers with Zerwick's, "A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament."
Guess what, kids: the words used in this section appear ONLY in this section.
11:4, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head."
Here we have the Greek phrase, "kata kephalase (long A) echon (long O)" which means, "To have on the head," or, Accoridng to Zerwick, "Have something on one's head."
11:5, "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."
In the Greek, "akatakalupto." The addition of the leading alpha negates the verb, "katakalupto," which I speak to in verse six."
11:6, "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."
There are two Greek phrases here, "katakalupto," and, "katakaluptestho." Both mean, "to cover fully" according to Young. Zerwick points out that it is a conjunction of the verb, "kalupto," which means, "veil." However, in verse 5 Zerwick translates it as, "uncovered," not, "unveiled."
11:7, "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."
Greek, "katakaluptesthai." Young, "cover fully." Zerwick, conjunction of verb, "veil."
11:15, "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."
Here Paul used a different word, "peribolaion." Young, "something cast around." Zerwick, "cloak," though Zerwick points out that it is a form of "periballo" meaning, "put around."
Young seems to be the more ambiguous of the two, and Zewick seems to push towards it being a physical object, but still inconclusive. Seeing as this is the ony place where these words are used, there is no point of comparison.
If someone wants to double-check my work, I wouldn't be offended. I have been known to make a mistake or two in the past.
|
|
Posted On: August 12th, 2005 at 3:36am by john pawlitz
|
It just makes you wonder...if the two words were different, did they have to render them the same? Anyways, it almost seems like the hair is to be regarded as a privileged decoration-a mantle of sorts. That's easy enough to see, at least, on the basis of your sources, regarding how the hair is a covering.
kalupto, as far as I can discern from your post, is the same as the root of apo-kalupto, or apocalypse. Maybe that was obvious. I always associate the apocalypse with the term "hidden-" rightly or wrongly.
It may not matter much, but I once read a saying of Pericles that the greatest virtue of a woman is not to be talked about much. Pericles is not a famous name, perhaps; he was the ruler of Athens at the time of Socrates. Oddly enough, his wife was highly praised for her wisdom. But I suppose the differences between being respectable and provoking discussion need not be demonstrated.
It's almost as if the woman's ability to remain "beneath the surface" so to speak is honorable. Whereas, that would not befit a man.
|
Comment on entry entitled "On covering your head"
|
|
|
|
