Appropriateness of Women's Headcovering (page 4)

FlyingHighNow

Hi Flyinghighnow,

>Whenever I would have a differing opinion from my ex, he would get very rude and sarcastice with me, especially in front of our children and call me Boss or say, "Okay, Boss. You're the boss. You're always trying to step out of your place." I cringe when I think of the way his voice sounded, so haughty and so cruel.

Rex

Hi RexI love your name. I did remind him, but then he just used the boss thing again. I finally had to stop riding with him in the car at all. He would drive in such a way as to scare me on purpose. When I would cry out in fear, he'd pick a, "You're trying to be the boss." fight and he'd turn around and take the kids and me straight home. How can being genuinely frightened become a headship issue?

I learned after my daughter grew up that her stepfather pulled many cruel physical and psychological abuses on her. We were looking at school pictures of her recently. You could see how lovingly I had styled her hair, helped her choose her jewelry and clothing. At first you see a well cared for child. Then she brought one of the pictures to me and showed me two thumb bruises on her upper arms. From her stepdad naturally. He would get her alone and grab her by the arms like that and say very cruel things to her, low enough for me not to hear in the next room. She told me that he did that to her the morning before she went to school and had that picture taken. She didn't tell me about the abuse at the time because she thought I was the one who needed protecting. I grieve for that child. One reason he pulled some of the crap is that certain brothers in his congregation told him he would never control Carrie. That was during our courtship when she was a lively two year old. Well of course he wasn't going to let them be right.

Gill

Here's a subject that always manages to wind me up!

My father told me that he is ' the Head' and that my mother is 'Under him' in subjection. Only Christ and God are above him and so his wife MUST wear a head covering to pray in HIS house!

Don't you just WANT to smack your parents sometimes.

I asked him, even though he is more stupid than Mum, why should he be the head of her.

Apparantly, because 'God says so'!

So, one day, my mother asks me to take the kids round for dinner and stay myself. Dinner arrives, she disappears for a few minutes and turns up with a STUPID purple head scarf. The kids and I look totally agog at eachother and she proceeds to pray in a falsely humble, bloody stupid 'I am a humble woman' voice.

I ask what all that was about and apparantly she was showing how humble she is!!!

I explained I felt she was showing how stupid she is and making a total spectacle of herself.

Apparntly, I would since I 'am worldly and not of Jehovah's Organization'.

Women who cover their heads to show 'subjection' are basically STUPID!

It is nothing to do with religious freedom it is totally to do with fear of others of the same religion and the consequences of not Obeying their controling rules and in the case of others, (ie mum) sheer daftness.

There is no need to burn your bras ladies--- NO! It's time to BURN YOUR HEAD COVERINGS!!!!!!!!

Gill

Hi FlyingHighNow!

So sorry to read of your daughter's terrible experiences with her step father.

But there is the problem - control!

What is this need for men to control women? Why do women need to be controlled? Surely, history and life would show us that it's a lot of men (by NO means all) who need to be controlled.

Religions that preach subjection and inferiority of women just suit such men who are mentally incapable of living as an equal with their fellow men, never mind their fellow women.

I hate religion and it's crimes so much! There is NO religion that really preaches equality and tolerance. It's all a control freaks paradise.

I hope your daughter is happier now, FHN!

peacefulpete

1Clem 21:6
Let us fear the Lord Jesus [Christ], whose blood was given for us.
Let us reverence our rulers; let us honor our elders; let us instruct
our young men in the lesson of the fear of God. Let us guide our
women toward that which is good:

1Clem 21:7
let them show forth their lovely disposition of purity; let them
prove their sincere affection of gentleness; let them make manifest
the moderation of their tongue through their silence; let them show
their love, not in factious preferences but without partiality
towards all them that fear God, in holiness. Let our children be
partakers of the instruction which is in Christ:

I don't see any connection with 1 Corithians. The silence comment above is not in any congregational context but appears to me to be general advice to have control of the tongue.

JosephMalik

A few Pauline examples of the rhetorical connection represented by è = or.

Narkissos,

Back to this again? It changes nothing does it? Pauls message comes through regardless. He was protecting women from such outrages in all his territory. We all should know that words like, God, Lord, worship, heaven, world, all, spirit, and many more are contextually driven and their meanings can change radically with use. So it is with this particle. Am I to be overwhelmed with the way it is used elsewhere? No! And the KJV translators were not dummies were they? They worked with what they had available to them and did a pretty good job despite their biased views. Other translations teach the very same thing do they not? Such Truth can still be gleaned from them. For example: 11:3 "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". Sounds good and is still taught today but this is not truth. This is a Corinthian doctrine. Paul corrects such thinking with: 12 "For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God". This is the real truth instead. Equality for man and women with God over all things. The churches that teach Corinthian lies like the WT and most major denominations have something to answer for as Paul brought out. Let the readers be aware of this and decide for themselves. Grammar and how the particle was used elsewhere is not going to do it.

Joseph

OldSoul

Joseph,

In my opinion, absorbing Paul's writings as a whole should inform one's view of particular verses that seem to conflict with the body. The case discussed in this thread is, in my opinion (sixofnine ), a perfect example. How can a writer who is consistently drumming up the concept of all Christians being equal, regardless of gender or status, be suddenly regarded as an authoritarianist?

I give as Witness the purported understanding Paul had regarding slavery. Philemon 15 and 16 informs my view of 1 Corinthians. Paul seems to recognize the legal status of Onesimus as subordinate to Philemon, but he stresses the spiritual status of equality throughout the letter. The same is true of his views expressed regarding women. He acknowledges the existence of the fleshly pecking order (for want of a better term), but stresses the spiritual equality.

Just my two cents, I agree with you.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

Narkissos

Joseph,

I should have made clearer that my response was to Leolaia's lexical/syntactical comment. I wouldn't try to convince you of anything. I hope you can bear with some conversation going on after you have spoken.

TheListener

Wow. This is great. All the comments are great. Except for the abuse of headship some have discussed. I hate that. Whether headship is right or not abuse is never ok.

I can see how Joseph and OldSoul feel by their posts.

but, Narkissos & Leolaia,

How do you feel the verses should be applied? Should women wear headcoverings per the scriptures? If not, why?

Narkissos

How do you feel the verses should be applied? Should women wear headcoverings per the scriptures? If not, why?

TheListener,

As I said a number of times I am not a churchgoer anymore and so I am not personally interested.

But in view of the evident diversity of the NT I think any church has to be "heretical" in the etymological sense, that is choose within the NT what really matters and what doesn't (drawing "a canon within the canon" if you will). Practically everyone does that, and the only responsible attitude imo is to do it consciously (Luther's pecca fortiter comes to mind) -- much better than twisting the embarrassing Bible texts to make them appear politically correct if you ask me.

And yes this is the end of "Scriptural authority".

To put it clearly: I have the greatest respect for modern believers who choose to build on the "neither male nor female" principle a non-discriminatory church structure and consequently shelve the discriminatory texts reflecting part of the early church ecclesiology in the museum of Christianity.

jgnat

Narkissos, can I borrow that? You have expressed very well what I've been trying to convey for weeks.

Choose within the NT what really matters and what doesn't...practically everyone does that, and the only responsible attitude is to do it consciously ... much better than twisting the embarrassing Bible texts to make them appear politically correct...

And again,

To put it clearly: I have the greatest respect for modern believers who ... shelve ...discriminatory texts reflecting part of the early church ecclesiology in the museum of Christianity.

Shelve in the musuem of Christianity. Yesssss. I wonder how many modern Christians would admit that their attempt to return to traditional values has a lot more to do with the 1950's "ideal" than with infant Christianity 2000 years ago?

Appropriateness of Women's Headcovering

Share this