Alison

Cheryl, you’re very welcome. If only convincing some were easier….(sigh).

My facetious answer to “does a woman need a spiritual covering” is “no more so than a fish needs a bicycle”.

Snarkiness aside, I think the whole idea of spiritual covering is ridiculous on its face, especially when it’s used to dominate or control, as if women were inherently incapable of making their own decisions, much less being held accountable for those decisions. I love what you’ve said here:

“Those who appoint themselves as a spiritual covering over their wives may be tempted to keep her under their own control instead of lifting her up to be a mature, functioning member of the body of Christ with full authority in her own gifts. Staying under a “covering” may be a comfortable place for a woman who has been taught to believe that she bears no responsibility whatsoever as long as she is obeying her “head”. However the Scriptures never offer such a teaching. All of us are responsible for our own actions and God shows this clearly in the way that he called both Adam and Eve to account for each of their personal actions”.

Exactly. I don’t think I could have said it better. If “covering” a woman is merely the shell for keeping her down, then that’s a serious sin–the man is attempting to hinder (quench) the Holy Spirit, something that we’re explicitly told NOT to do. I just don’t get how the comps don’t seem to understand that. The excuse of “I was just following my covering; I didn’t know action X would be wrong!” doesn’t hold water, nor does the idea that Jesus is insufficient spiritual cover for a woman (funny how He’s sufficient for a man, IMO).