-
Professing Christian woman have several different reasons for why they do not cover. I'll go over a few of them here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A commenter said: "I praise God I am covered by my husband and don't require all of these outward signs to show others I am walking with the Lord. ... Like I said, I am covered by my husband, he is covered by God and that is how simple it is for us!!"
Let's see if that works with the scriptures. First, the original verses:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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."
Now let's insert what the commenter said and see if it makes sense:
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered [by Messiah], dishonors his head [Messiah]. But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered [without a husband], dishonors her head [her husband].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another comment: "You do not have to cover to be a Christian. How is wearing something on your head going to make you a christian? It isn't!"
Let's see what Paul says towards the end of the first letter to the Corinthian church (and "all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord"):
"If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I [Paul] write unto you are the commandments of the Lord."
Now let's read what the Lord has to say:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment"
And how does the Lord know that we love him?
"He that hath my [the Lord's] commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."
According to this commenter, we do not have to obey to be a Christian. Some could argue that covering is not in the Old Testament, so it's not actually a command. I see their point, but I do not necessarily agree ... especially because Paul just said he's writing the commandments of the Lord. I'd like to hear other's thoughts on that one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another common reason: "My hair is my covering."
Let's see if that works with the scriptures. First, the original verses:
Now let's insert the above reason and see if it fits or not:
Every man praying or prophesying, having [hair], dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth [without hair] dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she [had a shaved head]. For if the woman [has no hair], let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her [have hair]. For a man indeed ought not to [have hair on his head], forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
No. It just does not work and it makes Paul sound like a nutter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another common reason: "It was a cultural thing. We don't have to do that today."
In my opinion, this one is partially correct. It is a cultural thing. It's a Godly Kingdom cultural thing. And, according to Paul in vs. 16, this was the practice of all the churches of God. When we dress in the morning, we are either representing the kingdom of this world (which belongs to Satan) or the kingdom of The Father.
More on vs. 16. In the KJV it's worded a bit strange (as is common for the KJV):
KJV 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Let's see how a few other versions word it:
NASB 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
EOB 16 But if anyone wishes to dispute these things, we have no other custom, and neither do God's Churches.
NIV 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another reason I heard when I first started researching the covering: "People might mistake you for a Muslim!"
Speaking bluntly here - this is by far the lamest reason I've heard yet, and it was given to me first by a professing Christian (and several times ever since). I believe this is a response from the flesh. I'd rather be mistaken for a Muslim because I am dressing modestly and covering my head than be mistaken for a non-believer / person of the world because I am not dressing modestly and covering my head. If you love the Father, you will obey him regardless of how it makes you look. Don't allow fear to control you or be your master.
And another thought I can't resist:
I wonder if the people who have this excuse use the same line of thinking for other women as well? For instance, if they see a professing Christian woman dressed in a mini-skirt, a skimpy top, and high heeled shoes, do they tell her she looks like a prostitute?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another reason: "My husband does not want me to."
Here is the ONLY reason I can see that might be legitimate. If your heart's desire is to wear a covering but your husband does not want you to, then the Lord will not hold you accountable for not wearing one ... you are obeying your head as the Lord has commanded. However, if you are THANKFUL that your husband does not want you to wear one, you are wrong. (Ananias and Sapphira come to mind.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One I forgot 'til the other day (it's 8/1/13): "That's for the Old Testament. We are living in the New Testament times now." or "I don't follow the Old Testament."
Response: Read the bible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Response: Read the bible.
Ironically, the opposite of the last excuse is another common reason: "It's not a command in the Torah, so I do not have to do it."
Response ... this is not my response but one I heard elsewhere: "Neither is baptism." [well, some could argue about that, too]
Another thought on that ... as I said already, Paul was sharing the commandments of our Messiah. I am not saying I totally understand all of this, but it is definitely something to consider if "it's not in the Torah" is your reason for not covering. No, it's not a direct command, but it is definitely a practice ... if it was good enough for "them", it's good enough for "us".
Another thought on that ... as I said already, Paul was sharing the commandments of our Messiah. I am not saying I totally understand all of this, but it is definitely something to consider if "it's not in the Torah" is your reason for not covering. No, it's not a direct command, but it is definitely a practice ... if it was good enough for "them", it's good enough for "us".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Added 12-22-13
“But Jesus didn't rebuke the woman for showing her hair when she wiped his feet! She must not have had a covering on!”
and
“But Paul tells women not to make their hair up all fancy! This proves women did not cover their heads because obviously Paul could see their hair. If they had a covering on he would not have been able to see their hair!”
and
“I don't wear a covering outside of church meetings because it draws unnecessary attention. The Pharisees did things to be seen of men and wearing a covering outside of church meetings is the same thing.”
Response ... the first 2 comments are assuming the covering is some sort of ritual like it is today for most folks. Get up in the morning, head straight to the bathroom or vanity, brush your hair, put it put up nice and tidy, put on a covering, secure it with clips, and go about your day. It never falls off and your hair never shows because everything is so nice and tidy and sterile and so on. Or if you are some kind of anabaptist that wears the coffee filter looking cap things, imagine all of the time that goes in to making them!! Yikes. No thanks. I do see this as bondage, though obviously not everyone agrees with me on that.
For the record: I see nowhere in scripture where it says a woman cannot show her hair and a headcovering must look like "XYZ". Do you?
I think it was much more simple than what we make it out to be today. It might have looked something like this: Get up in the morning, do various things, and as part of getting dressed for the day you would wrap or drape part of your dress (think: Indian Sari ... the traditional kind, not the fancy kinds many wear today) or a separate length of cloth over / around your head. I assume the hair was probably left down, maybe tied back in some simple way for practicality's sake. If it were in some kind of bun, it would be done very simply. The fancy hair was probably very time consuming and I assume it was costly. Who had the time and resources to do something like that "back then"? I mean, seriously, no running water, no bathrooms, no mirror (or not a very good one), no modern contraptions like irons, good brushes and combs ... use your imagination here ... nothing like today. Things have changed so much and we cannot see these things with today's lens ... we must try to see things as they probably were "back then", as best as we can of course. Part of modesty is simplicity and practicality.
For the record: I see nowhere in scripture where it says a woman cannot show her hair and a headcovering must look like "XYZ". Do you?
I think it was much more simple than what we make it out to be today. It might have looked something like this: Get up in the morning, do various things, and as part of getting dressed for the day you would wrap or drape part of your dress (think: Indian Sari ... the traditional kind, not the fancy kinds many wear today) or a separate length of cloth over / around your head. I assume the hair was probably left down, maybe tied back in some simple way for practicality's sake. If it were in some kind of bun, it would be done very simply. The fancy hair was probably very time consuming and I assume it was costly. Who had the time and resources to do something like that "back then"? I mean, seriously, no running water, no bathrooms, no mirror (or not a very good one), no modern contraptions like irons, good brushes and combs ... use your imagination here ... nothing like today. Things have changed so much and we cannot see these things with today's lens ... we must try to see things as they probably were "back then", as best as we can of course. Part of modesty is simplicity and practicality.
As for the 3rd comment ... unnecessary attention ... do I really even need to address this thought? One could go in so many directions with it.
Did I miss any? If so please let me know.
Added 04-12-21
Is it a salvation issue? You'll have to decide that for yourself :) I used to think I knew the answer to this, but now I believe it's between the woman, her husband, and the Father. It's none of my business really. I just want to be an encouragement.
