I have learned a lot from this forum, George, but when I join a forum it's usually because I think I have something to contribute. And yes, I tend to have a lot to say. If I am completely convinced of my understanding of a Bible passage, one that I spent as much time studying as I did the head-covering passage, I'm certainly not going to give it up because half a dozen people come on and give their pat answer that I'm wrong without even considering how I arrived at my conclusion.

I presented that particular argument here because I care about it and think it's important, and was quite willing to give it up when it became a point of contention. It was others who reopened the subject and I have answered them. PERHAPS I should just have let their answers stand although I think they are completely wrong? That's a possibility of course. That might be the wise thing to do, especially here where so many are against me, but as I've been thinking about this business of a woman's place that you've brought up I've also come to be more convinced that contributing to a forum is not usurping anybody's authority, is not putting oneself in the position of a teacher, no matter how strongly I am convinced of my own viewpoint, since anyone can ignore me and disagree with me -- and obviously do. You might consider whether the other female voices here are also "instructing" by their posts.

I may eventually give some time to your lengthy post here, George, BUT I didn't reopen this subject, others did, AND since I studied this passage in such depth -- including carefully considering EACH ONE OF THE VERSES from 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, so you aren't likely to surprise me with a new interpretation I haven't already considered -- I am VERY convinced of my viewpoint and I doubt very much that you will change my opinion. Apparently that's not OK with you that I maintain my viewpoint, and you don't want to hear anything more I have to say about it, but we CAN end the discussion, as I thought had already occurred. If others are going to reopen it I'm very likely to answer them. OR I may just quit this forum altogether since I've come to see that I don't see eye to eye with the majority on some important issues here and there's no point in constantly locking horns.

[George]

You have completely ignored many of my points - You have as much right here as I do, the problem is that no one here is insisting that you give up your conviction. No one here is insisting that you stop your practice. I haven't once intimated that you do that.

Neither am I criticizing you for holding your conviction, and I am not criticizing you for you practicing it. I am criticizing you for calling people names (know-nothings) because they don't hold the same conviction. I am criticizing you for saying that if we don't practice what you practice and believe as you do that we are being led by the devil if we don't agree with you or practice what you do.

If I believed that your strongly held belief on this issue were "heresy" I would have given you the required 1st. and 2nd. admonition and rejected you. But I don't believe that it is heresy. Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; I believe that you have the right to hold your conviction and that you definitely better practice it [James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.]

I have admonished you about your reliance on "commentators" and "commentaries" (especially if they are all one-sided). God didn't command us to study the "commentators" He commanded us to study "the word" [2Timothy 2:15].

The thing that distinguished The Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles from the religious leaders of their day was that The Lord and His Apostles spoke with authority! Our authority today is the Bible, not "commentators", pastors, Seminaries, Bible schools, or "Evangelical" and "Fundamentalist" big shots.

I cautioned you about the fact that since you are a woman that perhaps you should walk circumspectly and be a little more respectful towards the men on this Forum.

Those of us who live in the Western World today are heavily influenced by the subversive and perverse religion called "Humanism". Humanism Is the official (but undeclared) religion of the West. It holds sway over the families, the schools, the sciences, the media, the government, and sad to say, also most of the churches. If you have never read the Humanist Manifestos' (I, II, & III) I would highly recommend that you check them out.

After reading almost all of your 81 posts, your "tentative" reasoning on almost all Bible subjects (except head covering); reveals a heavy reliance on Humanistic reasoning and thinking. Instead of being Biblically centered - you are man centered (Humanism = "man is the measure of all things").

Real genuine Bible study should not be just an academic exercise or a mere intellectual pursuit. Instead, true Bible study should be an honest and sincere search for THE TRUTH. “What saith the Scriptures?” - NOT "What saith the commentators".

What good would it do for me to quote the scripture alone and give my own personal understanding of it? The position here that the Bible is the authority is carried to a point of absurdity since all anybody can give is their own interpretation of the Bible, which ends up with them treating their own interpretation as if it were God's own word.

There wouldn't be a problem if all true Christians always understood it the same, but that is not the case. I consider it humble to consult many other points of view on the Bible passage instead of just flat-out declaring my understanding as if it were the Truth as so many here do.

I'm no humanist, George, I am not man-centered at all, and I rely on the Holy Spirit, not my intellect, to lead me in my understanding of scripture. Nevertheless I'm sure I get it wrong at times. I suspect that some here who give their pat answers as if they were Bible truth may be relying on their fallible intellects more than I do.

I'm sorry for losing my temper. I may not answer some of your posts because I disagree with you and am not sure how to disagree in a Christian spirit.

I have to admit I had a hard time following this thread. My wife and I have discussed this issue before. We settled it with:

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.


She has lovely medium long hair. We decided that would suffice. She is concerned about it turning gray, I'm concerned about mine turning loose.

So, maybe a question was asked of Paul about women wearing some kind of "hat" or something and he was drawing the conclusion that we don't have such customs.

I'm also wondering if Paul was trying to remove yet another thing for the Corinthian church to argue and bicker over. They were allowing incest but arguing over women wearing a "hat".

People haven't changed. Technology has, scenery has, but people are still the same.

Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

It's a hard passage to understand, as your own experience with it testifies, Pastor Mikie. Some parts of scripture are just hard for us today. That's why it became such a prodigious undertaking for me.

The reason I got so involved in it is that I felt the Lord brought it to my attention during a period of fasting and prayer at the beginning of last year. He brought some other things to my attention as well that I've also pursued. I had done a little studying of the head covering passage a few years earlier and decided that it did mean women are to cover our heads in worship and prayer but that it would be too disruptive to make an issue of it so I dropped it altogether, no doubt with a little help from my own preference not to have to put something over my head.

But when it came up the second time during a period of seriously seeking the Lord, I concluded He didn't approve of my just dropping it. So at that point, without further study, I worked at finding something I could stand wearing on my head and made myself a sort of beret out of an old black sweatshirt that worked OK. I didn't want to feel conspicuous and I didn't want to make a big issue of it, and mostly people just thought I was wearing a "cute hat." Eventually I explained it to more and more people and it was not well received, but I didn't make an issue of it.

But I started feeling that if the Lord was telling me this is what the passage means then I should make a bigger effort to persuade others, and that's when I got into studying it in earnest. It took me months before I felt I'd covered enough material to present it to the elders of my church. Well, I wasn't going to push it on anyone. Only one elder responded that he'd like to read it but unfortunately I left the church for other reasons and don't know if he had a response or what it was.

I've found Christians online who do believe in the head covering and enjoyed their websites and forums. But it keeps nagging at me that if we're supposed to be covering our heads and the majority of churches are no longer doing that, it's not an issue to just let drop or confine to a small group who share the same conviction. So at a forum I'm likely to bring it up again as I did here. When there is as much opposition to it as there is here, however, I am content to let it drop, but when people respond with a kneejerk pat answer my Irish temper comes up. And I'm not even Irish.

The way I read it, Paul had advocated women's covering their heads and some were objecting to that, possibly in the spirit of Christian freedom as some have suggested, so that when Paul acts to silence the contention at the end by declaring they have no such custom, he's declaring it a custom decided by apostolic authority. He has to mean that he won't hear any more arguments against the head covering, since he'd used a number of arguments in favor of it and if they won't accept those then they have to accept his authority. What seems to me to make this even more certain is that historically women did cover their heads in all the churches after that up until very recently.

But it is a difficult passage and I appreciate your acknowledging that.

[George]

Connie,

I have 2 questions to ask you:

1. Have you ever read the Humanist Manifestos I, II, & III?

2. And if you have - can you tell me how many "Points" they (the religious Humanists) make in Humanist Manifesto I?

If you haven't read them then you have no idea what they say or why I base my judgment on where you are coming from.

Your last posts to myself and "Pastor Mikie" are illustrative of my point - and I quote from your posts (bold & underlines are mine)

From your post to me:

"give my own personal understanding of it?" {"my own personal understanding" = Humanistic thinking}

"The position here that the Bible is the authority is carried to a point of absurdity" (your "opinion") since all anybody can give is their own interpretation of the Bible," (again-your "opinion") which ends up with them treating their own interpretation as if it were God's own word." (again, your "opinion" - you are your own authority! = Humanism)

"I consider it humble to consult many other points of view on the Bible passage instead of just flat-out declaring my understanding as if it were the Truth as so many here do. (Again - this is not only your personal opinion, but you couldn't "prove" what you just said if your life depended on it, at least in my case since I have never once made such a declaration. You not only refuse to receive instruction - you are given to "exaggeration", "generalization" & "mis-representation".) {"I consider" = Humanistic reasoning}

"I suspect that some here who give their pat answers (again - your opinion) as if they were Bible truth may be relying on their fallible intellects more than I do." {"I suspect" = Humanistic reasoning}

"I'm sorry for losing my temper. I may not answer some of your posts because I disagree with you and am not sure how to disagree in a Christian spirit. (You apologized once before and now we are back to the same point again - I don't believe you for a minute. Brother Sammy and I have a "disagreement" about 1Corinthians 12: 8-12, yet we have remained both "civil" and "respectful" of each other in the spirit of true Christian "charity" without resorting to calling each other names and intimating that the other is being "led by the devil".) {"am not sure how to disagree in a Christian spirit." That's one of the many reasons why God gave us the Bible! So we can find out how to treat each other. Why aren't you sure? Unless the Bible is not your final authority and so you decide issues on how you "feel". = Humanistic thinking again}

From your post to pastor Mikie:

"The reason I got so involved in it is that I felt the Lord brought it to my attention during a period of fasting and prayer at the beginning of last year. {"I felt" = Humanistic reasoning. Christians are not to operate by "feelings"}

"He brought some other things to my attention as well that I've also pursued." {"He brought"? How does God do this today - outside of the Scriptures?}

"I had done a little studying of the head covering passage a few years earlier and decided that it did mean women are to cover our heads in worship and prayer but that it would be too disruptive to make an issue of it so I dropped it altogether, no doubt with a little help from my own preference not to have to put something over my head." {"and decided that it did mean" = Humanistic thinking. Christians are concerned with what God says - Not what He "means"}

"But when it came up the second time during a period of seriously seeking the Lord, I concluded. . . ." {"I concluded" = Humanistic reasoning}

"But I started feeling that if the Lord was telling me this is what the passage means then I should make a bigger effort to persuade others, {"I started feeling that if the Lord was telling me = Humanistic reasoning - there's those "feelings" again & God "telling" you something outside of Scripture}

"It took me months before I felt I'd covered enough material to present it to the elders of my church. {"before I felt" = Humanistic reasoning - "feelings" again!}

Well, I wasn't going to push it on anyone. Only one elder responded that he'd like to read it but unfortunately I left the church for other reasons and don't know if he had a response or what it was. {Since you came on this Forum this issue has been "pushed" on us several times, how do you expect us to believe that you didn't push it before? Hmmm?}

"So at a forum I'm likely to bring it up again as I did here. When there is as much opposition to it as there is here, however, I am content to let it drop, but when people respond with a kneejerk pat answer" ("a kneejerk pat answer" = your opinion - we gave you our answer from the Holy Scriptures and you weren't able to receive it.) "my Irish temper comes up. And I'm not even Irish." {Humanism again - Humanists always get angry when they run into someone who doesn't agree with them! If you don't believe me just go to any college campus in the U.S. A. and try to talk to the average Humanistic professor about anything from the Bible.}

"The way I read it, Paul had advocated women's covering their heads . . ." {"The way I read it," = Humanistic reasoning - purely speculation and supposition on your part}

But why go on? Your last paragraph is peppered with words such as: "possibly"; "suggested"; "He has to mean"; "What seems to me" {Your entire presentation (all of your posts) has been full of Humanistic thinking and reasoning. Just because you can't "see" it, doesn't change the facts: You came here (and I suspect other Forums also) with an agenda; and when it wasn't received, instead of letting it go as you said you would, you persisted in trying to "push" your beliefs on others in the Forum. And since your belief has still not been accepted you have reverted to name calling and cheap shots at some members of the Forum }

All of my life I have dealt with "Christians" like you, and I have found that the only way to deal with you is not to give "place by subjection, no, not for an hour"!

Proverbs 15:32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

I'll try to answer your long post now.

I thought we settled this issue?

I did too.

I was under the impression that the subject was dropped - by you ("Let's be in the peace of Christ and consider this subject ended." - your words, from a former post, not mine) Or am I missing something?

Just that others chimed in after it was supposedly closed and I was caught off guard, couldn't resist the challenge I guess, though I think now it would have been much better if I had.

Christian Liberty dictates that since you hold this conviction so strongly you had better obey it and practice the observance. And since we do not hold the same conviction as you, that we are going to continue on with our Christian lives. (You living by your convictions and us living by our convictions - and neither one of us trying to continually "lecture" the other on who is "wrong" and who is "right". I guess I was wrong!)

Do I really "lecture?" Any more than anybody else does here? I THINK I'm trying to give evidence to support my view, since it's been challenged so strenuously by others. But perhaps my tone is lecturing and I will consider that you might be right about that.

My problem with you is that you either can't or won't let go of this matter. I'm not going to judge you if you choose to "observe" certain meats, drinks, holy days, and "covering" your head with whatever you choose. (More power to you and may God bless).

I won't let go of it, I'm strongly committed to it, until somebody possibly shows me where my error is. But I don't have to continue to argue it here. It will simply take prayer and determination to leave it alone when others challenge me on it.

On the other hand you shouldn't be judging us if we choose not to observe your "choice" of observations. And further you definitely shouldn't be calling us "know-nothings", just because we do not hold the same conviction that you do.

Yes, I'm sorry for that burst of ill will, George. It was not aimed at you, however, but at those who have been giving hit and run answers to me, a line or two utterly dismissing my position even though I may have just finished giving a lengthy post arguing my case. I would agree that holding my peace even then would be the right thing to do, dying to self, bearing the cross, and I'm sorry I fail at that as often as I do.

It isn't about anybody's conviction, however, it's about the casual, almost flippant way it is thrown at me, as if they had some inside track on the meaning of the passage they could just toss out without a second thought although it took me a lot of prayer and study to understand it. HOWEVER, again, I shouldn't react angrily. Very bad of me.

[Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:] Why do you continue to try to "lecture" us about something we have settled in our hearts and minds? {And no woman is going to persuade us differently}

So you wouldn't even give careful thought to anything a woman had to say I guess. So I shouldn't even have spent the time I did trying to understand this passage. I don't think it's a personal thing, like sabbaths and holidays and eating and drinking, I think it's something the churches should have a firm position on. But maybe the Lord is trying to teach me submissiveness.

You are assuming that we haven't researched this matter as well as you have, and you have no way of knowing how much study we have spent on this issue

.

No, I'm not assuming that. All I know is what is posted, and some have said only a line or two basically pronouncing themselves right and me wrong without a shred of an attempt to address any of the issues I raised about it. If anybody's studied it in any depth, it doesn't show in their way of answering me. It looks like the shallowest possible off-the-cuff thought. LOOKS like that, I could be wrong.

Our appeal is to Scripture, and the "plain sense" of the words of God.

Yes, that is your appeal but I don't think your view IS the plain sense of that passage. I think your reading of it is completely wrong, the result of not thinking through the whole passage as a unit. And I think that's because the passage is NOT easy to understand. Not all of scripture is plain. Some is, this isn't. There was contention about it in Paul's day and it's even harder to grasp after nearly 2000 years.

Whereas your appeal is to men; tradition; and your "private interpretation" of history. After all of my warnings about appealing to "authorities" other than the Bible, you come back with a list of men: Calvin; Matthew Henry; Jamieson, Fausette, and Brown (all "Calvinists"); and then John MacArthur; Alistair Begg; Chuck Smith; Ray Stedman; and many lesser known names (all "Evangelicals"? - whatever that means); "my own few commentaries"; "all the commentaries"; etc.; etc Do we now decide doctrine by "counting" how many "great" Christian men supported a particular doctrine and how many "important" Christian men didn't? (or perhaps we should "weigh" the witnesses instead?)

.

I would think it would matter to a man of God what other men of God have had to say about a Biblical passage. You may still disagree with them, and I ended up disagreeing with most of them myself. But it seems to me to be quite significant that the interpretation of long hair appears to be a very recent thing, while two millennia of all the different churches understood it to be about a covering. Seems to me that a "private interpretation" is exactly what you all here are doing, simply taking your own reading is the standard and dismissing what so many others throughout history had to say about it. Even if some teachers are regarded as "heretics" on some point or other, even heretics are usually right about many things so it's plain irresponsible to say that if they are wrong about one thing then they MUST be wrong about this thing. Tertullian is considered by some to have heretical views about some things, but since he lived in the second century and knew firsthand of the practices in the churches in his day, it seems significant that he reported that they ALL required a headcovering for women, and the Corinthian church the most ample headcovering of them all.

You isolate David Cloud as if he were the only "famous" Christian teacher who teaches to the contrary. Is it at all possible that you haven't done a thorough job of checking other sources? But I am not going to fall into the trap of weighing the sources that I know against the sources that you have read. Lets just say you haven't checked all of the sources that I have read.

You may well be right about this since I was more focused on answering the "cultural" interpretation than the long hair interpretation. I was very impressed with David Cloud's discussion of pentecostalism, and credit his study with contributing a lot to setting me free from it. His was the only pro-hair interpretation I found online that gave quite a bit of thought to it. The only other one I found was one guy who gave his opinion in huge screaming multicolored typeface. If you know of pre-20th-century supporters of long hair as the interpretation, especially those who influenced whole congregations, THAT would be very significant.

You say that "Those who conclude Paul means hair is the covering are not rightly dividing the word of truth, and the "vast majority" of commentators recognize that much even if they disagree that we are to cover our heads today as Paul intended in his day (and that's a whole other mistake)." Again, do the vast majority of the commentators (who just happen to be almost all Calvinists, since they spent most of their time "writing books" - instead of witnessing, preaching, teaching and out on the mission field) - Do these men, many of whom believed in: "baptismal regeneration"; baby "sprinkling"; the church replacing Israel; the church as being "the kingdom"; a church hierarchy that was totally unscriptural; the separation between the "clergy" and the "laity"; and on and on. Are we going to let the Majority of these A-millennial baby sprinklers decide doctrine for us? I trow not!

Well, I'm not sure who you are talking about. Begg is Reformed/Calvinist. and MacArthur sometimes speaks at their groups but I don't think he considers himself one of them exactly, I could be wrong. But Chuck Smith is certainly no Calvinist, and I don't know about Stedman, but as far as I know NONE of them is a "baby sprinkler." My own pastor who shares their interpretation of 1 Cor 11:2-16 is a Reformed Baptist, no babysprinkling there. MacArthur doesn't equate Israel with the Church. I don't know about the others. I tried to hear sermons from different denominations but I was limited to what I was able to find, and I wanted to cover the big names because they needed to be answered.

Your generalized comments about: "the normal habit of women"; "WOMEN ALWAYS WORE THEIR HAIR LONG IN THOSE DAYS"; "Clearly, Paul takes it for granted that women wear their hair long"; "It was always a badge of shame or mourning for a woman to cut her hair"; "there's no way he was correcting a problem in the congregation of women cutting their hair when no woman in her right mind would have cut her hair in those days."; "The way Paul phrases it, clearly he expects people to recognize [in both verses 6 and 14] that a woman's hair by nature is worn long and that to cut it would be a disgrace, so obviously he had no reason to tell women to do what they were already doing."; "Doesn't even common sense tell you that long beautiful hair on a woman is SEXY? Wow, Hollywood sure knows that if Christians don't! Does Paul EVER recommend that Christian women present themselves in a sexy way?"; "The sad thing is that there are all these churches where women are doing exactly the opposite of what Paul is requiring of us, displaying their glory which is the glory of man when Paul is telling them to cover it so that Christ's glory will be seen in the assembly."; "UNTIL THE LAST CENTURY OR SO the passage was understood by everyone to refer to an additional covering over the head and hair"; "Does it make sense"; All of the underlines are just GENERALIZATIONS, SUPPOSITION, AND ASSUMPTIONS on your part. Sophistry didn't die in the first and second centuries - it's alive and well in the church today.

Sorry you think that of what I consider to be significant points with good evidence supporting them.

Your comment: "I really find this way of misreading that scripture a terrific puzzle. It seems such a simple little thing but the devil sure has been working overtime over the last century leading people to misread it and disobey it." is not only uncalled for, but is judging those of us who do not hold your conviction on this issue of being led by the devil! Thanks - but no thanks!

I was angry when I said that, BUT if I'm right in my interpretation then that explanation for why the churches no longer practice it seems the most likely, wouldn't you say?

I find it strange, that we are willing to let you believe and hold this conviction (without judging you or condemning you), but you accuse us of being "led" by the devil and of being "know nothings". I repeat what I said in an earlier post to you: "Your reply to my comments are instructive on why a woman should not be trying to instruct (teaching) men." I stand by my statement even more strongly than before because you have had the opportunity to receive instruction by many men on this Forum and you not only have rejected all our our counsel, but have demonstrated contempt for all of those who disagree with you.

Yes, I've acted badly. It's because I have ended up agreeing with OTHER men, pastors and elders and teachers, than those at this board. I wonder how you'd respond to them if they came here and argued the same case.

What is your problem? Why are you "contentious" in this matter? Read the verses:

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
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.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 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.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Do you think that a woman's "covering" is the most important issue in these passages? Have you no discernment?

YES, I think that is what the whole passage is about. Some contention people were raising against women covering their heads in worship. Paul was answering some problem the church leaders raised to him, a practical problem, the covering of the head in worship. In the process he delineated many important theological points as reasons why women should cover their heads. Yes, that is how I read it, and how the vast majority of pastors, elders and teachers I consulted on the subject read it. Of course you have every right to disagree with them, and you may well be right that I've overlooked the best arguments for the hair interpretation.

What about - following Paul? verse 1
What about - keeping the ordinances delivered by Paul to the church? verse 2
What about - the head of every man is Christ? verse 3
What about - the head of the woman is the man? verse 3
What about _ the head of Christ is God? verse 3
What about - the fact that the man being the image & glory of God? verse 7
What about - the woman being the glory of the man? verse 7
What about - Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. verse 8
What about - Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. verse 11
What about - For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. verse 12
What about - Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? verse 14
What about - But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. verse 15

ALL ARGUMENTS FOR THE HEAD COVERING. That is the context, that is why Paul put all those arguments in one place. They are instructive points in their own right, but he didn't just string them there without a purpose and that purpose was to get across the significance of the HEAD in the expression of male headship as defined by God in the Creation. Again, of course you are free to disagree with the majority of the sources I consulted.

What about: 1Corinthians 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. {That goes for women too}

The contentiousness was coming from those who did not want women to have to cover their heads. That's how I read it and how the majority of my sources read it.

By my count there are 12 out of 16 verses where the Lord is talking about a whole lot of things (Some - far more important than the "observance" of a woman "covering" her hair). Why are you hung up on this ONE thing?

Because I see all those other things as being offered by Paul as arguments for why women should cover their heads, one argument after another all to this purpose.

Don't call us names; don't denigrate us; and don't disrespect our convictions - just because you "think" that you have learned some exclusive revelation from God that none of us have had the good fortune to learn.

I'm sorry I lost my temper at a person who entered the thread late and didn't bother to read what I'd written.

Get over it - There are people on this Forum that I agree with almost totally. There are some people that I may agree with about 80% of the time. And there are people that I may disagree with most of the time. I try not to personalize my convictions and force them on other people. I try not to "lecture" people or demonstrate my "learning". (Sometimes I am not as successful at it than at other times - like now!)

That's OK George, I forgive you, I hope you will forgive me.

I have nothing to "prove" personally. I try to edify the brethren and I am often edified by them. If they choose not to believe what I believe, that's just fine with me, since I have never claimed an exclusive monopoly in understanding the "whole" counsel of God.

I think this issue is important for the church, but if I can't persuade anyone of it, then of course I should back off. I'm sorry I get bullheaded at times and push a point way farther than I ought to because I'm so committed to it myself.

Well, I see you've written another post while I was writing my long answer to you. I'm sorry, George, but I'm simply trying to be honest about how I personally arrived at my thinking, while others here wrongly think that by quoting the Bible they aren't giving their own personal interpretation. What you are calling humanistic reasoning I'm calling honesty. The Bible is absolutely authoritative, human beings aren't.

That's all I have time for at the moment, but apparently you don't want more discussion anyway.

"He brought some other things to my attention as well that I've also pursued." {"He brought"? How does God do this today - outside of the Scriptures?}

Usually through the scriptures, causing a passage to stand out, but in the case of the head covering, a Christian friend started complaining out of the blue one day about how some people stupidly think that women are supposed to wear hats in church. I answered her that I also think that's what the Bible says though I had resisted wearing one myself. She asked me to show her the passage. I emailed it to her. She hadn't even known there was anything in the Bible about it, but she also said it was too hard to understand.

That was all it took to convict me of the need to wear a head covering though and got me started on the study I did at such length. I took that as a prompting from the Lord to obey what I believed. Do you disagree?

After I told this friend that was the effect on me of our conversation she started growing her hair out as if in protest to my view of it, although she'd said she couldn't understand the passage. Since I know there are some in the congregation who believe it is about long hair, and a couple have mocked my view of it, I suppose she was influenced by them.