In reply to:
We enter into the mindset of the Taliban when we press our women to do something that is contrary to our culture and has nothing to do with the SPIRIT of worship. As for Pilgrim's mention about Baptism, that is an ordinance established by our Lord, as is the Lord's supper. I didn't see anywhere where our Lord established the rule about head coverings.

Culture is not a happenstance situation, it is prepared by God. Cultural does play a significant part here in the decision. We must also be ever mindful that there is a culture of the world and a culture of the church. Your cultural/Taliban switch and bait does not comb out very well. [Linked Image]

James Hurley has an interesting interpretation of the veil and covering of women (Man and Woman In Biblical Perspective). His interpretation goes like this: there is insufficient evidence that the women in this culture (Jewish or Graeco-Roman) would have worn head coverings. This fact, coupled with the actual language of the text, is better interpreted to mean coiffure. The wearing of the hair "up" was a sign of honoring one's husband. For a woman to let her hair flow down her back was a sign of repudiation and such a woman should shave her hair off which would dishonor her. This is important because it demonstrates truly what is cultural here, the prevailing hairstyles and their significance, versus that which is timeless, the honoring of the husband. This passage does not only refer to the man's headship in the home, but in the church as well.

As William Rodgers points out, one final issue here is the issue of Paul's foundation for the timeless principle; the Creation. Feminists argue that Paul is arguing from the Fall and so this "curse" has been lifted by Christ's redemption. But, Paul is not arguing from the Fall here, but from Creation which has not been negated.


Reformed and Always Reforming,