The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Head Coverings

With all due respect Pilgrim, the literal interpretation of the passage is what brings in this insistence of putting a cover over a woman's head. Clearly the literal interpretation marks the woman's head as an object of scorn. There's no ambiguity in the literal interpretation. The "head" is the object that sits on the woman's shoulder and it's being associated with the words of shame and disgrace (clearly this is what "literal" means). If "head" is no longer that, then that passage is no longer taken literally and when you do that then you can no longer find justification from the passage that a woman should cover her head by some cloth (since supposedly this cloth covers what is shameful and disgraceful, as the literal interpretation points out). The literal interpretation teaches that a woman's head should be covered because it is consider an object of shame and disgrace. This is what the headcovering teaches and promotes.

I find this in contradictory to the rest of Scriptures. When God created man and woman, He said it was GOOD. There is nothing external about the woman that should be marked as an object of scorn (which is what head covering teaches) and hence should be covered. One should not be teaching such views of women, which brings harm and persecution to women. I find the figurative interpretation more consistent to what headship is and the rest of scriptures. The woman "uncovered" is the woman who has no authoritative headship over her (as what the context of the passage is all about!). This is why the man serves as her cover. And as Scripture clearly notes, the woman's hair serves as that symbol for what God intended since He created her. So it's quite fitting that the symbol is what the Lord naturally gave to woman --- her hair, because her place under the authority of man is also the natural role the Lord designed her for. Since her hair is that symbol of the man's headship over her, Paul associates her hair with "her glory". When she complies to the ordered headship, she is playing out the role God designed her for --- this becomes her glory.

I agree with Dave that those who promote the headcoverings really do not understand why they practice it. They can't make sense of it because they misunderstood the passage. The figurative interpretation really gives the clearest understanding of that passage on ordered headship.

No such proof. I know many biblical, sound Christians and also experts of the history of the church and they no make such claims that it was always practiced and that the practice has only stopped because of some feminist movement. Someone who is under Dr. Masters' preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, said that Dr. Masters once noted in response to issues of this headcovering, that the puritan men wore wigs during service. A very telling point! I guess the men then didn't have so much trouble "covering" their heads!

As a side note, history should not be used to interpret Scriptures. Scriptures should ONLY interpret Scriptures. For many years the RCC has misinterpreted Scriptures; no one should accept it because of the longevity of the practice. Similarly, the folks who practice headcoverings are not immune to mis-interpretions of Scriptures. They just needed a bit more reforming and a better understanding of Scriptures.