I have recently encountered this notion in favor of women head-coverings during the divine Service, and it's been on my mind quite a bit.. I guess for some time I associated head coverings with traditionalist Catholics, but it seems to be a very Protestant idea as well, with this whole website dedicated just to the idea: https://www.headcoveringmovement.com/ Where do we stand on the issue?
I am not aware of any particular Anglican position regarding head coverings. It seems to have been common in most churches at one time, but to have fallen out of use in the 20th century. When I was Orthodox, some of the women wore head coverings, especially if approaching the chalice, but the majority did not. And it was more common among the Russians and Serbs than among the Greeks, Antiochians, etc., at least in my experience. I like the custom, but unless our Church authorities encourage bringing it back, I don't see it coming into vogue again. It is kind of funny; we can read the passages in the scriptures out loud in church where St. Paul basically insists on women covering their heads in church, but the idea that it actually still applies seems to be rejected.
I think the official position within Anglicanism is that head coverings and even full face veils are optional, not by any means compulsory. That is probably why the tradition among women of today has pretty well died out. Though if you attend the average wedding you will see plenty of head coverings in the congregation still. I rather doubt that there is any theological reason behind that though, just fashion and tradition, quite harmless. If I ever hear of a church in the Anglican communion which compells its women to wear head coverings, I would denounce it as heretical and tell its leadership to go and worship at the nearest Mosque. They are very good at compulsion of all sorts in those places, particularly where women are concerned. It may be that the author of 1 Cor.11:3-16 was concerned about the fact that there were both aristocratic 'ladies' and 'female sex slaves' in the Corinthian congregation. The head covering rule then makes sense because it would render them all equal under God, none more 'socially acceptable' than others. Male sex slaves were also compelled to have short hair though, but men wore their hair quite short anyway and even went bald more often than women, so hair style was probably not such an obviously distinguishing feature among men as it was among women. This article shows Roman male and female hairstyles and fashions.
Agreed! I feel like evrryone is trying to resemble the secular culture and the secular fashions, when in truth we must abandon the secular culture and live by the Christian culture, with our own habits and fashions, converting them to us
I don't think anyone has said anything about compulsion... Also, what do the Mohammedans have to do with this discussion?
I mentioned compulsion, I was admittedly the first to mention it, but if we are talking about 1 Cor.11:3-16, then there would be those who see such coverings as an apostolically authoritative command, and therefore compulsory. I was just pointing out that some believers might want it to be enforced in the interests of Biblical obedience. Also, if we are going down the route of 'compulsion', to achieve 'pure religion', then the Mohammedans set an example in compelling women to cover themselves, in certain countries where Islamists have complete control, even compelling their women to wear complete face and head covering, in areas controlled by the ultra religious draconian, Taliban. I would not like to see that kind of oppression practiced in any Anglican church, no matter how 'Biblically correct' its leadership might deem itself to be. There are some 'Christian' sects that insist upon their women covering their heads with a headscarf, even when not worshiping, but simply going about their business in public. Certain orders of nun also wear head coverings, which though not strictly speaking, 'compulsory', nevertheless are 'required to be worn', and are not optional, if they wish to remain in the order.
What exactly is 'Christian culture' and 'Christian fashion', in your view? Do you imagine that the Corinthian Christians practiced 'Christian culture and Christian fashions'? Or that the Ephesian Christians had the same 'Christian culture' and 'Christian fashions' as those of Corinth, or Jerusalem or Rome itself?
My late wife wore a mantilla. She was hispanic and it seemed proper to her - in that regard she was most conservative, even though she had many other views that were progressive. We once attended Church of the Good Shepherd in Corpus Christi, TX. It was a said Mass and the priest was, bluntly, a fag. He complimented that mantilla in the most effeminate voice and words you could ever hear in a church. I have put it in storage for my daughters to wear at their confirmation, if they so choose.
Not sure why you are recalling offensive moments, in a thread about women's head coverings... Can everyone please get back to the question at hand Are women's head coverings Biblical? and historically do we have antecedents to this, either in the recent Anglican history, or in the Patristic times? I need to know where to stand on this issue, and some research would be of help
There is something positive to be said in favor of the head covering. Bp. Hewett makes the case at length in his book "The Dayspring From on High". Do I believe it is a mortal sin for a woman not to cover? No. What shall I teach my daughters? I shall offer them their mother's mantilla, and if they both want to wear it, I will buy a second one.
I would have thought that was obvious. If you were a woman you might be interested to know God's opinion on the issue, so as not to displease him. But if you are not a woman, what the hell has it got to do with you what God expects women to wear. It shouldn't affect you, if you're a man. Unless you enjoy telling others what God expects of them. Some people get a kick out of that, I know.
Does this matter to the question in hand? I mean by way of research. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come. Did anyone notice anything missing? Read it again and see if you can spot it. Then tell me why this might be relevant.
When visiting a few Orthodox monasteries, the veil was required to visit the church for services. I've been to Orthodox churches in parishes which wear them and others do not. Personally, I rather enjoying wearing a head covering to services, so it was actually a relief to be in a community that supported wearing them. For Anglican churches, I tried wearing a small mantilla once to an Episcopal church and it attracted too much attention so I didn't wear it again. I wear it when I visit a local RC chapel for prayers and at home when I pray. I find the practice to be helpful in developing my prayer life and focus on devotions. I wish that I could wear it in an Anglican church, but I don't think that will be happening anytime soon. I hope that head coverings will again catch on in churches, but the main rule in the states is "come as you are" which means nearly wearing PJs, flip flops or tank tops to church services. There has been an overall decline in behaviors, decorum and modesty in Western society and that reflects in the church. I've encountered young women at my job who think "nice" clothing is what they wear to the club and look ludicrous in a professional setting with high heels and short skirts. Most women are being taught that beauty is what is sexy and provocative, not which is uplifting, modest and noble. It does seem that there is a movement of younger women who are embracing head coverings. I follow a few of them including https://www.veilsbylily.com/ who has many beautiful veils for sale and provides some information for other women who wish to cover at church or in prayer.
The idea that men can't have an opinion on something related to women is truly the definition of sexist thinking. That because of someone 's sex they can't have an opinion on a topic (because they may "offend" someone) is the height of liberal hypocrisy . A woman can have an opinion on how a man dresses or presents himself, so why not a man to a woman? It's not like women are special creatures which must be immune from criticism on their ideas or behavior by men. People really need to stop with the notion that men can't speak out about things that relate to women simply because they are men. I may disagree with a man's view on what women wear, but I'm not the PC Thought Police and won't tell him that he shouldn't have certain thoughts. If I don't agree with a man's opinion, I will tell him so and present my own. But, I am not going to say he shouldn't think certain things simply because he is a man.
What everyone wears affects me And what I wear affects everyone “No man is an island” -John Donne Amen, amen, three times amen
Does that also apply the other way about then too? People really need to stop with the notion that women can't speak out about things that relate to men simply because they are women. I may disagree with a woman's view on what men wear, but I'm not the PC Thought Police and won't tell her that she shouldn't have certain thoughts. Does that work OK for you that way round or not? It works OK for me. But then I don't try to tell women what God says they must wear on their heads. I leave it up to them and God what headgear they adopt. It is not as if it is of any importance anyhow. Since the reason given is "Because of the angels", and so far no one has been able to say for sure exactly WHY that is so important, and God has not seen fit to make it clear to us what problem ,"The angels", actually have with women without hats, whatever their hairdo might be like, (though plenty have made guesses), it can't be very important to God. God, in scripture, is pretty clear and unambiguous about why we should do or not do most things, that are of any importance, but not that particular one, it would seem. It all seems a bit legalistic and controlling, if it is about men deciding for women that women should wear something on their heads, "because of the angels", when men or women neither, know for certain, even what that actually means. So headgear for women should be given the benefit of the doubt, as far as I'm concerned. Totally optional and the women should be the ones to decide for themselves.