Cheryl Schatz

Mark,

“We can’t agree here at all because my point is that the “cultural practice” of the head covering is an ungodly practice and Paul states so by saying that it shames Christ.”

Yes, for the male. Not so however for the female. The opposite is true…

Not true at all. The meaning of the head covering was the same. It symbolized shame of sin and humility or modesty before God (with the addition of modesty before man for the woman). It was an equally ungodly humanistic cultural practice. It was never, ever mandated for women in the Jewish congregation through a command by God. That is where I challenged you to show that it was.

“but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head UNCOVERED dishonours her head” verse 5
“for a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.” verse 7

Therefore the head covering of the woman is a cultural way of showing her respect for her husband.

You are forgetting something. The woman had two heads and each head is dishonored in a different way. Christ is dishonored when she covers because of shame and her husband is dishonored if she doesn’t cover. Paul never says that the woman has only one head. She has two heads that have opposing issues of shame if her one head is an unbeliever. When both were believers there shouldn’t be an issue. The Corinthian women were ones who showed their hair and showed their braids and they did not cover because they were freed from the cultural issue of shame. It was not an issue for most but just for some married women whose husbands were not enlightened to God’s freedom in Christ.

I agree, but where does Paul say it is shameful for the WOMAN to cover her head?

He doesn’t have to say that to them since they knew the culture. We are the ones who need to be enlightened as to the culture of that day. The Jewish writings of their traditions reveals their humanistic traditions.

Where does he say that the WOMAN covering her head shames Christ?

The covering of the head for the shame of sin shames Christ. This was the tradition that was being knocked down by Paul and Paul did not need to repeat the issue of the shame based head covering. The same issue that shames Christ with the man, is the exact same cause of shame for a woman. We are to come boldly before the throne, not cover up in shame as unworthy servants. Christ has made us worthy by His precious blood.

My point all along has been that the head covering of the woman is a culturally appropriate way (and indeed encouraged) of showing her respect to her head, her husband.

But her other head (Christ) deserves respect and her fleshly head needs to come to an understanding that humanistic traditions that are not based on God’s principles are fighting against the gospel that includes the one who took our sin and became our shame bearer. It is an ungodly principle to force a woman to place her fleshly head above her spiritual head by making her wear the sign of her shame.

This whole ‘practical’ concept is grounded on a theological OT principle in the creational order.

This is boldly stated by you but has no basis whatsoever in the creation account nor does wearing a head covering have anything to do with creation order. It is a shame based symbol, not a creation order based principle. There is not a single document that you can point to that makes a woman wearing a head covering as a sign that she was created second. It is shame based. Shame. Not honor.

This principle remains, where as the practice may change depending on the culture.

Women are told to honor their husbands but women are NEVER told in the Scriptures that they must show this honor by wearing a badge of shame. While they were not forbidden to wear the badge of shame because of the weakness of their husband’s ego, they were never, ever told that God requires them to wear this sign.

Do you in your congregation now stop men from entering your church with a baseball cap on?

Do you? Do you know if the baseball cap is the same thing as a shame based head covering?