AssemblyBoard

I'd like to know what other people think about having the women wear head coverings.
Cor 11: 14b-15 'If a man has long hair it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.'

After looking at this verse thousands of times during the Lord's Supper, I began to think...why do I have to wear this thing that keeps slipping off on my head if I already have a lot of hair to 'cover' me ??? Isnt it saying you should only cover your head with something else if you are a nearly bald woman?
Am I being too far out or has this already been addressed somewhere here?

I think the teaching was that this was a reversal of the Jewish tradition where the men wore the head coverings.

I knew many visitors that connected head coverings with being Catholic.  Many people grew up with this being the norm in non-evangelical churches.

What I always thought was so strange was that women that grew up in the assembly were prohibited from wearing head coverings before they were baptised even though many had a closer walk with the Lord than those that had been baptised.

So, baptism became a "status symbol" with head coverings standing out as a proof of it.

Brent has a good article on it that explains head coverings, including four main positions on I Cor 11.  I wonder if he will share it with us.  I think I have a copy, too.

This is something that i actually have studied at great length so i will comment.  ::)

If you sit down to study this with a Strongs Concordance, you will see that the meaning for covering is completely different in the verses.  {do not have that study by me at the moment, so i will let you do that study for yourself}

We left the assembly 20 years ago {age 16} and after i regained my relationship with the Lord, i said i would never wear "one of those things".   Guess we should never say never, huh?  

The "cultural argument" for not wearing a covering is not a valid one if you look at the scripture closely.  In verse 3 it begins.  {NKJV}  "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. "  Is that only a cultural truth or does it still hold for today?  Yes, it is very much still a truth.   vs 7-10 "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.  For man is not from woman, but woman from man.  Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.  For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."   Is this a cultural truth or still the truth?    {not to mention "because of the angels.  still not 100% about what that means}

I also believe that this was a "tradition" of God's people that was taught in all the churches not just this isolated assembly because of specific problems there.  It was and remains a timeless godly principle.  vs 16 "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."   That says to me, if someone wants to argue this so they don't have to cover, we have no set way to deal with them.

Ok, next.  This is a very interesting thing to me.  The cultural argument which is so common is so silly to me.  Paul is speaking current truths that we would all accept up to the end of chapter 10.  Then he speaks a silly principle we no longer have to follow because he was speaking only to them at that time, then in the last half of chapter 11 and from then on, he speaks current truths again?   Does that make sense to you?  It doesn't to me, unless you, like me for so many years, are trying to escape the truth as Paul presents it.

Ok, now we get to the other part of this that i could not reason or make sense of until i gave in to accept headcovering as a current principle.  In verse 5 it says when a woman is to cover: during prayer or prophesy.  Now here is the point at which i realized when I, personally, had the conviction to cover.  {i covered only during meetings for over 2 years}  I could never reconcile the verse in Ch. 14:34 "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."
If we cover only for meetings but a woman is not permitted to speak during a meeting, then is she necessarily praying or prophesying.  Praying, i understand can be done in silent, but prophesying?   So, then, there must be other times in which it is ok to prophesy, which means there are other times when we should be covering.  

{back to the verse on being silent and submission. i know, them are fightin' words.    And i totally understand that if you are in an abusive relationship, or in an abusive "fellowship" the word submission makes you want to revolt and scratch someone's eyes out.    Remember, i have been out of the assembly for 20 years so, i am far removed from the "control" issue. }  
Submission for me was a long journey which i am still on.  It is not being dominated or overborn. {is that a word? ;)  }

Ok, back to covering.  At the point that i realized i was to cover full time, that is when all these verses started to make sense.  The word says we are to pray without ceasing.  As a person with a prophetic and intercessory bent, i pray so often in my spirit.  I also would have people stop by who just wanted a hug because they were having such struggles in their lives.  When i would hold one of these dear sisters and pray with her, all i could think of is "where is my covering, where is my covering".  Now, grant it, i could put a covering in my pocket and pull it out when i prayed, but that would be so stinkin inconvenient, considering the amount i pray.  So, i just wear a kerchief covering or a snood, all the time.  When i am not praying in the evening or something when i know i will not be praying, i do remove it.  This is not a legalism for me, it is a sweet obedience that i give to my God.  I see it, i obey, period.

All that said, i would never expect a sister to cover because I said so, that would be legalism.  I know that covering is a part of a process and you will know that you know when you are to put "that thing" on your head.    

I also believe that this is not a matter of salvation.  Neither are a lot of things we are called to be obedient to in the word of God.   It is not something i do FOR salvation, but it is BECAUSE of salvation.    

Thank you for letting me speak so long.  ;D   This is the one subject that causes so many feathers to be ruffled that i know there is much to it in the spirit realm.  So very much.  This is an obedience to a great spiritual principle.  One of submission.  Satan does not like it.  That was a big sin of his.  He did not want to submit, he wanted to be as God.  He does not like God's creation and does not like it a bit when we are doing the thing he could not do.  It enrages him.  Believe me, i know first hand, through the spirit realm warfare and nasty nasty comments from women and sometimes men.  The spirit behind their comments is so clear to me.  

Anyway, i close again.  Please know that this is not something i wish to debate, i only wanted to say "my peace" on the subject.  Thanks for allowing that to happen.
many blessings and much peace

Hi auntiefluffy, well said and a lot to think about.  Something I want people to think about as well.  

I know it is being practiced less and less these days which I think is sad, but the principle of men taking hats off when praying or a pray is being said.   This all steems from you know were.

Also I like autiefluffy a lot of non-western churches still practice head covering, in fact I know of sisters (never had anything to do with the assembly that wear them at home and wherever they can when they pray).  I bring this up not to say you have to wear them, but to not disregard this teaching so lightly.  The majority of us fellowship were this is not practice (in fact for the most part the reason it is not is the culture reason which auntie so clearly pointed out is wrong).  If you find yourself in one of these places do not make a scene over it, you walk before the Lord and let you brothers as well (pray for them, God is faithful, and there is Grace).

Lord Bless,
G

A standard interpretation of this verse is to not let women pray or worship out loud in the church.

So, how is the letting women sing "keeping silent"?

I guess that is why I thought it was hypocritical to apply this to anything but preaching doctrine.  I would never apply it to "prayer or prophesy" nor to giving testimonies, announcements, distributing the Lord's Treasury or being a greeter (door keeper).

But I also consider it hypocritical for husbands to treat their wives as if they do not have a brain.  I believe this is a command for husbands to discuss spiritual things with their wives and to be open for their input.

Bob,
Please know that i, in no way, wish to step over my bounds and enter into "teaching".  I believe it is inappropriate for me to do so.  So, please forgive me if i cross that line.

We could hypothesize all day about what was meant by the word "speak" or we could go to the Strongs and study it.
The number is 2980 in the original Greek.  It meant "form of an otherwise obsol. verb; to talk, ie. utter words:-preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter.  Comp. 3004

3004 says "a prim.  verb; prop. to 'lay' forth, ie. (fig.) relate (in words [usually of systematic or set discourse; whereas 2036 and 5346 generally refer to an individual expression or speech respectively; while 4483 is prop. to break silence merely,and 2980 means an extended or randam harangue]) by impl. to mean: -ask, bid, boast, call, describe, give out, name, put forth, say (-ing,on) shew, speak, tell, utter."
i will not type in all the referenced numbers as you could just as easily look them up for yourself.

I will let the Holy spirit speak to you what it means, which is between you and the Father.  My comments and take on it are not important.    Furthermore, my reference to I Cor. 14:34 was my merely stating what the Lord has shown me as to when i am to cover.  Even if you disagree with it, it does not negate the original topic which i was replying to.  That still speaks for itself.

<<But I also consider it hypocritical for husbands to treat their wives as if they do not have a brain.<<

Wow, "why do you insue venom upon me" {line from Princess Bride}  :D     Please know that i in no way shape or form have ascribed to this nor would i say that it would be ok for a husband to do this.  If you will note my original writing i said,  "Submission for me was a long journey which i am still on.  It is not being dominated or overborn. {is that a word?   }"      

I know that not everyone can understand when i speak of submission.  We are all at different places and must allow that.  But for me, it is easy to speak of submission and my journey, because i have a gentle godly husband who strives, as i do, to obey God and all that He has given us to do.    And again, that was not the original topic.

I thought this was a discussion of headcoverings.  I so absolutely do not wish to argue or defend my position.  I have done enough of that to last a lifetime.  If someone is really searching and wishes to ask questions, by all means, i am open to that.  But, if you are just wanting to argue,  i will probably not address it, for it is pointless and fruitless.  When i was growing up my mom had a favorite quote, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".  


Many blessings and much peace to you, Bob.
a-fluff

Auntiefluffy:

I don't believe Bob was attempting to argue with you.  I think it is simply his style and he wanted to make a point regarding submission.  I don't think he answered re: headcoverings (please forgive me Bob, I don't want to speak for you dear brother.)

BB's are difficult to dialogue such sensative topics, as they can be volatile and you can't use nuances such as tone of voice and body language to communicate a real desire for fruitful communication.

Knowing Bob as I do, he is a godly man and I don't believe was trying to drive a point home with "venom".  Please know, Auntifluffy, that you have been out for 20 years, many of us for a VERY short period of time (for Bob's family and mine 2 and 3 months respectively.)  It might be reflective in our writing, we are still searching over these difficult issues and have not yet arrived at the conclusions you have come to.  Remember it is a process, have mercy on us.

Kimberley

I absolutely do not judge but have mercy.  I remeber what it was like to be fresh out.  There is nothing to judge.  It takes a while to get over the hurts and thought processes.  But, at the same time, if i feel i am being misunderstood, it is in my nature to correct it.  

I am unfamiliar with boards and have only used email lists so, this is, indeed a peculiar mode which i am trying to get use to.

I thought that if a subject were brought up, the replies should ahere to the topic???  Perhaps not.

I merely tried to address the issues he requested of me and to bring it back to how it relates to the topic at hand.
Or, what my original intents or comments were.

anyway.........  :)
many blessings,
a-fluff

Auntiefluffy:

I looked back at my post and I do need to apologize.  It can be read as a personal attack since I cut the verse out of your posting.

By hypocrite I was pointing to myself and what I recently came out of (actually it has only been 4 weeks).

I do appreciate your willingness to share.  Please do not allow differing opinions (or even venom) :) hold you back.

I appreciate your response, as it is in my nature to respond, as well, etc.  Although the threads may have a topic, just by the mere fact that it is a dialogue, just as human conversation evolves and meanders to a different topic, so too a thread may take a different direction. Many of us are here because we are wanting to be involved in understanding what is right and what is wrong in our thinking.  Many of us, in fact have developed friendships through the BB, and we welcome your contributions and that of others, as it will stimulate our thinking and dialogues together.

Keep posting. :)

Since my normal computer days are Mondays and Fridays, I will now completely bow out of this discussion.  If i do not, the pull back to the computer will be too strong and my home will be neglected and so will my homeschooled daughter.   ::)

happy searching to you all,
many blessings and much peace,
a-fluff

Thank you, Kimberley for  the "keep posting".   :)
I actually posted my last reply and as it was posting, i saw your post.  

I will probably keep posting on other topics.  But, as to this one, i think i may be done.  

If anyone has a gentle spirited question and is really searching out this subject, i would be happy to converse with them through private IM.  That may be a little easier for me than the boards.  {it also allows my own schedule and timing}

again, off to my life i must now away. ;D
laundry and teaching are calling to me.
blessings and peace,
a-fluff

For the over 27 years that I was in "The Assembly" I have never felt that they properly let women exercise their spiritual gifts.  

Many sisters have suffered from the "blame Eve" syndrome, like as if Adam's only sin was in listening to his wife.  
Gen 2: 12  Then the man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."

I believe Adam's great sin was his failure to protect his wife
Gen 2:15  Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. (Literally guard, keep watch and ward, protect)
1 Pet 3:7  Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel (i.e. it is his job to protect), and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

Too many brothers require the first half of this verse (keep silent) and ignore the second half (let them ask their own husbands at home).  If they would see it is their job to protect their wife and take the time to "listen to them" to find out how they need to be "tended and kept", things would have changed a long time ago.

What I was saying is that this verse needs to be interpreted in the clear light of the rest of scripture.
#1 Prayer
The Holy Spirit specifically points out that prayer is "with the women."
Acts 1: 14  These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
In 1 Tim 2:9 Yes, men especially are suppose to pray, but "likewise the women" refers as much to what come before (prayer) as afterwards (learn in silence).

#2 Prophesy
Acts 21:9  Now this man (Philip) had four virgin daughters who prophesied.
I do not believe they were not to exercise their gift in the church.
1 Cor 14:4b he who prophesies edifies the church.
5b  I wish . . . even more that you prophesied; . . . that the church may receive edification.
12  Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

#3 Testimonies, Announcements
This is not exercising authority over men nor teaching doctrine to men

#4  Distributing the Lord's Treasury (diakonos)
The apostles set an example that Elders should be above reproach and specifically not over the distribution of tithes and offerings
Acts 6:2  Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.
Rom 16:1 I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant (diakonos) of the church in Cenchrea,

#5  Greeter (door keeper)
Acts 12: 12  So, when he had considered this, he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying.
13  And as Peter knocked at the door of the entry, a young woman named Rhoda came to answer.

well, i know i said i wouldn't say any more on this subject,  :-X but the Lord brought to mind one last thing i needed to pop on here and post.  It is a link for a very thorough study of this subject.  It has quotes from many well known church fathers and is part of the truthinheart.com web site.  {which i have not really checked out at all}  The booklet is called "....let her be veiled" edited by Tom Shank.  It is complete online at:   http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Doctrine/BeVeiled.htm#Chapte

It goes verse by verse with original word studies in the Greek, too. {it actually covers the different uses for the word "covering"}

ok, i'm off again.
blessings once more,  ;)
a-fluff

also, during the time period of the new testament churches, it was social custom or punishment, whatever, that the women prostitutes shaved their heads.  The church, deciding to separate themselves, required women to have their heads "covered."  (The simplest cover of course would be their own hair).  So, it doesn't say that *another* cover is needed.  That's how I feel about the whole "head covering" thing.

david

Hey Dave, right on!

Has anyone bothered to look at what the word submission ACTUALLY means?

sub·mis·sion
(click to hear the word) (sb-mshn)
n.

The act of submitting to the power of another: "Oppression that cannot be overcome does not give rise to revolt but to submission" (Simone Weil).
The state of having submitted. See Synonyms at surrender.
The state of being submissive or compliant; meekness.  

The word does not  at all imply a loving relationship-- submitting the POWER of another:
power is defined as:

The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively.
A specific capacity, faculty, or aptitude. Often used in the plural: her powers of concentration.
Strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted; might. See Synonyms at strength.
The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.

the third and fourth definitions are telling as to the patriarchal cultural context of submission. You cannot finesse this by saying that it needs to be a loving relationship, because the very act of submission implies inequality and eros naturally kicks against this. Sure, you can say that husbands need to love their wives, but this is eesentially putting wives at the mercy of what their husband feels is love. Maybe he feels its love to not allow her to work or drive a car-- how do we contest that in light of this verse? I have struggled with this issue a long time and can only conclude that taking it to its literal conclusion can only lead to the horror stories mentioned on this website. The exceptions to this rule, the gentle husband that auntie fluffy mentioned are only good husbands to the extent that they DONT follow these instructions. Please do not feel as if I am attacking anyone's marriage as oppressive because they submit to their husband. It is their choice, some of the time. I only want them to be aware that these scriptures simply cannot serve as a guide for the marriage relationship.
                                         peace and blessings,
                                                     Nate

 
 

So.....we submit ourselves in humility and meekness before God, and that is a relationship of Love.  I am not at all condoning the abuse of a spouse, nor am i encouraging a husband to force submittion on their wife.  Just offering a counter-point where submittion DOES happen in Love.  Needless to say, a holy matrimony should be centered in God - meaning everything WOULD be done in love, including whatever compliance the wife would have to the husband.

I would agree that the greatest example of submission motivated by love is the relationship of Jesus Christ with His Father. He always did those things that please the Father. Just because we have so completely misapplied and failed at this example, does it invalidate it for any application? As G.K. Chesterton said (I paraphrase): 'The Christian life has not been tried and found wanting, the Christian life has been found not wholly tried..'
I speak from scripture and also from experience: 23+ years of marriage to a woman whom I love more than ever (Nate's mom) and who stands in respect of my decisions, not blindly, but in a way that makes me more effective as a husband and dad. We have 23+ years learning this, and it is still a goal, we have not arrived, yet I know we are moving in this direction as a Christ-like model. I have to respectfully disagree with my son, and can only say the models to represent the blend of submission with love are flawed, except one: Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel like having a piece of cloth on my head ever made a difference.  I feel that as long as my life backs up with I believe, then God isn't gonna send me to hell for not wearing a piece of material.  

maybe we should check the original Greek  ;) on what the greek word that was translated to "submission" really meant.  

not a bad idea

Toni and all,
I have to admit there were times when wearing a head covering seemed very extreme ie. during seminars when Mr. G preached,  or during a wedding. I was told once that sisters should not take off their head coverings until all the announcements were made on Sunday morning or until the brother closed pre-prayer with comments. Why? Never got a good answer on that one.

Nate,  Remember that in Ephesians 5:21, the verse preceding the one about wives submitting, it says " and submit to one another in the fear of Christ."- indicating a mutual submission for the good of the relationship. It works.
Love you,
 Mom

Did I say marriage was not trouble? It's also work, but that's not all bad either. Did you get "all goofy about your wife?"  ;)
What do you mean by "the trouble piece that you got."
from,
'the bigger trouble"
p.s. maybe it would be better if you pm me on this :)

Dave,
Just a question in light of your earlier post.


If this is so.. then in the preceding verses.. are we supposed to take this one....

1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.

to mean that all men should shave their heads so they are not 'covered'?
because by implying that the only covering Paul was talking about was hair.. then you would have to come to that conclusion.

Joseph R

I truly don't see where this is an issue that would decide if you have fellowship with other believers or not.  It appears that there are and will continue to be many opinions...and who really cares??  It's not that big a deal really !!!

In the Darby translation, 1 Cor 11:14-15 says 'Does not even nature istself teach you, that man, if he have long hair, it is a dishonour to him? But woman, if she have long hair, [it is] glory to her, for the long hair is given [to her] in lieu of a veil.'

...Which I would interpret as meaning that men should have short hair, and women's hair is their 'headcovering' which is why they shouldnt chop it all off :).

Thanks mom and dad!
 
  I love you guys!
  And because I have to have the last word...I'll just raise the question of how we know whether or not to take things literally. Sure, loving relationships grow in the context of submission and love. But happy relationships and equally happy marriages grow in the context of non-submission all the time. I frequently submit to my girlfriend. She sometimes does not submit to me. We have a loving relationship. And amybe you say, oh you're young and in love and you dont know. But I honestly believe some of you have the idea that a happy and successful marriage cannot happen without submission.
 
                                                      peace,
                                                           Nate

 :) thanks for your contribution- well, my point there wasnt about what Darby thought, rather, that was the translation I had on my desk  :). And as to replacing the word veil in other places in the chpt., it cannot be done, for it is only written that one time.
 in the new american standard it reads 'for her hair is given to her as a covering.' to me thats the same thing..

But John,

This is the modern age.  We know more now.   We have superior knowledge... :-\  :-X  ;)

But John,

This is the modern age.  We know more now.   We have superior knowledge... :-\  :-X  ;)

You might notice that after being in a place where I was told what to believe and never to think and question what I was being told that I would now want to do so...whatever conclusion I may come to now on this subject is no reason for you to ridicule me (have I done so to anyone here?)..In fact, I am more adverse to seeing your point of view. >:(

The early church also thought that wearing makeup was a carnal sin and that earrings were the 'badge of the devil'.
_____________________________________________________________________________

It seems to me that this thread has gone to pot. Maybe it already was pot but anyways I will not be posting in it anymore, and I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, so if I'm wrong, Lord please convict me!

There is a really good article found about this topic at:
www.bible.org -->  
In the left hand column about 1/2 way down the page is 'Search Studies Area."  
Click this and then at the next page type in 'Head Coverings.'  
The search will provide a list of articles.  The one I am referring to is article #5 entitled "What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today?"

John, John, John...easy Mister.  

I can see what Nate is saying.  In any relationship there is deference to the other.  I think Nate was using "submission" in a more relational sense rather than a strict Ephesians 5 context.  

Also, Nate probably knows a lot about what makes a happy marriage grow.  He's the son of a very strong help-mate/Mom to his father.  I know Wayne listens to his helper/Patty...And, he's wise to do so.  They've got a great marriage, I'm a witness to that.  

So, Nate's got an opinion, he's entitled to it, and even qualified to give it.

All the best, Chuck

Gentleman,
Could we take these posts about our marriage to a private venue? Thanks.
a sweetheart?

Pat, my opinion about John and Nate going at it?   Well, I see John's point about my not "giving Nate his opinions"....However, I've said it before to John  - "What's the purpose in jumping on people?"  I see being harsh as a back step.  Doesn't accomplish anything...All you do is cause a sigh and a roll of the eyes.  It's all about fishing for men and being winsome.

Our intereactions have got to edify, to teach, to build-up, to enlighten, to lead or to encourage.  The bible says "with gentleness correcting."

There's a time YES! when we rebuke with strength and vigor...However, I hardly believe Nate has qualified in this instance to be assailed.  Bullying is an unwelcome thing.  I think John's points are relevant, but they lost so much in the delivery.  It's truth and truth served in love.

To the degree that Nate's ideas are wrong or immature - and who doesn't have some stupid ideas? I certainly do -  Every person appreciates being treated with dignity, not like they're a two-bit imbecilic idiot.

A spoon-full of sugar makes the medicine go down...."A gentle tongue breaks the bone."

Nate, if you want to be on this board you're going to have to deal with the big dogs, and they aren't all friendly.

Your Uncle Chuck

Pat, if you're speaking about John and Brian and their tussle...Wow!  that's one dog's ears I don't want to even think about touching.  

I think both sides have a lot of bad will toward the other...

Guys, I encourage everyone to deal with this over the phone, off-line.

"Love believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...Love never fails."

Hoping for more goodwill, Chuck

Chuck,
I totally agree. John just does not get the part about dignity, love, a gentle tongue, etc. and he'll quote you verses to prove it. He has made that obvious on and off this board.
Pat

WHOA, what happened to my post?

Chuck,

  Thanks for the good word. I have to concur with you that everything on this website must be done in a spirit of respect and exchange of opinion. though my theological opinions differ widely from yours (and John's) I love you and John as my brothers, and you as my uncle. Agreeing to disagree on these issues is part of breaking away from assembly groupthink, which says we cannot have fellowship unless we are all in line theologically.
 Oh, and I have referred to the Bible as much as possible John, (read my post on slavery and Christianity). I'm sorry if I havn't used it enough. I am on a journey just like you and Chuck and the rest of us on this website. Jesus loves you John, and so do I, even if I don't always agree with you.
 
                                 in love and humility,
                                                  Nate

Bob - I was reading the posts a few pages back and I just have to tell you that you are really encouraging!  For only being out of the group for 4 weeks, you're hitting a lot of points right on the head (no pun intended).

I was only in the group for 4-5 months back in 2000 (in SLO) and to hear such things from someone who has been in the group for much longer really makes me smile.  

Keep seeking Him (It sure seems you are!)

Nate PM me sometime and tell me where we differ...Maybe, I have something to learn or perhaps both of us do.  My views are constantly going through cycles of upgrade.  

Take care, Chuck

Nate and I have gone to PMs...But, here's a couple things for you Mr. Knucklehead.  


I can learn something "substantial" from anyone - Even from you Mr. Knucklehead.  Do you realize Mr. Knucklehead that your words above just violated about half the New Testament.  You may know the bible, but from what I can see you don't KNOW the bible.


Hey, if there's hope for me there is hope for anyone!  The fact that you have little to no hope for Nate violates another half of the New Testament.  And, if you have no hope for Nate - Then how is that I could give you hope for him?  Putting me in God's place that's idolatry, isn't it?  Lot's of non-biblical stuff here, Mr. Knucklehead.

Hey, Love believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...Love never fails.


You know my Mom used to wash my mouth out with soap for saying or writing "crap"...which I did once by tracing the word onto our old '65 Dodge Polara. You know Jesus says it's not what goes into a man which defiles him, but what comes out of him.

Nate's not going to gain confidence in the scriptures by being belittled...You can't make a person have confidence in the bible by brow-beating.  It's a God thing, a prayer thing. He needs loving admonishment, and an example.  I've learned from one of my own sons - you can't put in what God left out - like a high regard for the scriptures - that's a grace thing.  Encouragement goes a lot farther than threats and bitterness.


Man, that's a big slam!  Nate has "some excellent takes"...I like his view of God's bias for the poor, the forgotten, the lonely, the weak ( 'takes'...that's a John Malone expression - bible interpretation as 'takes'...Mr. Knuckehead are you John Malone? Your email is bgates@malone.net ...hmmmm?  Be careful from the fountain that you're sipping from, my friend.  Good Bible and Good Christian don't necessarily go together, ever heard of J.N. Darby?)


Hey, I'm always up for help!  I need it and I'm not ashamed to admit it, either.  Not only is God not done with me yet - He's just getting started.

Blessings To You! ....uh.....you Mr. Knucklehead

John, you didn't answer any of my points, you just went after me personally, ....If I'm wrong show me where.  I'd love to be corrected.  I have no fidelity to error (that I know of).  Agenda?  I have no agenda.  I got involved in all this stuff reluctantly...I look forward to my withdrawal from this whole situation as God gives me leave.

Forgive me for the carelessness, I thought at first it was Garth Xander at first - maybe that's also wrong...I have nothing against you or anyone who associates with you; except that one needs to be godly in persuasion and not come off as proud.  Let's be clear - Yes - I think you do and whoever "Knucklehead is" dropped the ball when it comes to successfully "fishing for men" and it has nothing to do with his association with you or not.

ad hominem = He who has the son has the life.  I don't see pride, brutal attacks, believing the worse about others as being biblical.  So, don't flatter yourselves or others that this is scriptural.

I look forward to any biblical correction or instruction you'd like to provide, so far I see none....Just rantings of a frustrated man.

Love you John, Chuck

John, forgive me for saying your response were the "rantings of a frustrated man."  I fell into an unseemly provocation.  My words were gratuitous and unecessary.  I would like to ask you forgiveness for my unChristlike attitude.

Chuck Vanasse

John, forgive me for saying your response were the "rantings of a frustrated man."  I fell into an unseemly provocation.  My words were gratuitous and unecessary.  I would like to ask you forgiveness for my unChristlike attitude.

Chuck Vanasse

Yikes,

   This is turning into a giant slugfest! I am sorry my posts caused everyone so much grief, though I do appreciate folks coming to my defense. I am trying to ask these questions in a spirit of inquiry and honest humility (Thanks for your email Chuck!) and my only hope is that they will be answered that way. Or, if not, let us agree to disagree! May the love of Christ constrain us. Or as my favorite prophet Micah says, These things does the Lord God ask of thee: do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God.

                       love and blessings,
                                   Nate

John,
Please forgive me for my sarcastic and unloving attitude. "Love...does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered." I Cor. 13:5.  "Love never fails."  I. Cor. 13:8. I'm sorry.  I have much to learn about the love of God.
Pat

Both.

Garth, the clever put downs only defeat you and others...But, mostly you and your credibility.  You're very intelligent you could be a huge help to people here.  

Pat is Nate's Mom, I'm his uncle - Deliberately provoking Pat, Nate and I accomplishes nothing.  You simply distance yourself from those you would hope to assist.  If indeed that is what you'd like to accomplish.

Patty was simply seeking to get her attitude right.  Hey, wherever we stopped being civil - Can we turn the clock back?  Nate's fairly easy to reason with from the scriptures - I've done it. I don't think he - or anyone for that matter - responds well to provocation.  Why don't you PM Nate and lay-out your case?  I think he is quite entreatable...Or, email him and copy me at chuck@vanant.com, we can work together.

My point - That's what Christ would do.  He would be direct, yet His way and manner would be seasoned as with salt.  That's the half of the bible I'm talking about, "As the Father has sent Me, so I send you."  We are His ambassadors.

All the best to you, Garth...Sometime when you have some time I'd like to chat with you by phone.  913.488.1046.  Kimberly, gave me your number a while back would you mind me calling you.   I don't write that well, nor do I type very fast...I deal better speaking with someone.

And, if I've pushed your button...I apologize and let's start thinking about the best of each other and start over?  Fair enough?  

Your Pal in Kansas, Chuck

Did I miss something?  Where did Garth come into this?  Garth X?

Back to head coverings folks, I got questions! This is one of those things that I started asking questions about before I left. For example, if a woman is praying or prophesing then she should wear a head covering. However, at a wedding or funeral she is not, then why is she wearing a head covering? Also if she doesn't want to and the end of that verse says "if anyone has a problem with this then we don't do it" (my paraphrase) Then why are women pressured into wearing one?

Story for you: Imagine Rachel's wedding (SLO). I am sitting next to a nice christian couple, we are talking. The ceremony begins and I pull out my head covering. They wouldn't talk to me the rest of the night. Did I just create a division? YES  Did I bring them closer to Christ? NO

Heide

Andrea, here's my non-answer answer...

There are some huge issues in your and Joe's lives right now that are of a far greater imporance than getting the "head-covering" issue right.  Think about it.  Move on the big areas, and then you'll probably have some light to start on issues like head-covering.

"The wise man knows the proper time and procedure."

I remember inviting girls from the campus to the Assembly for worship, and dreading the fact that she's be asked to put on a head covering, and all the questions that would surface as a result.  It seemed to take the focus of the worship from Christ to "Why do I have to wear this thing??" :-\

[/b]

If I were you I'd forget the head-covering gig...Get back to the joy of the Lord!  That's a much more worthy subject for your excellent mind, Andrea!  

Think of me holding a picture of you holding a head-covering with a question mark over your head....Got it?!  Now think of me with an even bigger question mark over my head!

Andrea, the shackles are off, get back to dancing!

Hey, Andrea I met you...You have long hair, forget the cloth.  Hey, 100 years ago how many woman studied the scriptures?   Does that mean you should stop? If God's leading you and your husband to have you put a head-covering on - Put it on girl! Stop the navel gazing....In fact, being the only one in a church of no women with head-coverings may be one of your first acts of faith.  Whatever you do - Do it by faith.  There's liberty lady!  Just proceed by faith...There are no slick answers on this one.  

Hey, here's a BIG subject...Jesus talked more about this than any other subject after His death and resurrection...The great GO! commands...Why don't we practice that one?....Now there's something worth pondering.

Or, why do most churches' money go for building morgages and staff salaries rather than for helping the poor, the widows, for strangers and those who work hard at preaching and teaching?

Let's solve the big issues...on the little issues go forward in faith....And, meanwhile, dance!

[/b]

Hey, here's a BIG subject...Jesus talked more about this than any other subject after His death and resurrection...The great GO! commands...Why don't we practice that one?....Now there's something worth pondering.

Or, why do most churches' money go for building morgages and staff salaries rather than for helping the poor, the widows, for strangers and those who work hard at preaching and teaching?

Let's solve the big issues...on the little issues go forward in faith....

I am with you Chuck....while 100 million are dying of AIDS in Africa we are quibbling about non-essentials, note I did not say non-important. There is a great article in this months Christianity Today about Bono and his mission to Africa and AIDS. Praise God for Franklin Graham and his wakeup to these issues. Time to wake up to the souls in desperate need around us, not to emulate Nero's fiddling while Rome is burning.

Hi Andrea,
Since I will pray for Africa, and have not the time or the money to go there myself or to finance someone else's journey, and since discussing/wearing a headcovering does not keep me from dancing/rejoicing, or preaching the gospel, I'll tell you what someone else told me years ago when I was still attending a church where no one else wore headcoverings. If the custom of the church did not include women wearing headcoverings, I was free to worship uncovered. But you are doing current research about it and I like to hear your conversations, so keep talking.....It's a new day.  (By the way, have you read John Malone's discussion of headcoverings?)

The real question to headcovering is? All those woman that were invited out, wore headcoverings. Did even half those women come back? NO

So by wearing a headcovering I teach the angels but lose the women....

Sounds right to me, NOT (sarcasm)

I grew up in the Catholic church. We always covered our heads - either with a hat, or a scarf, or even one of those lacey head coverings. I used to love Easter Sunday because we always got a new hat to wear.  I remember in high school scrambling to find something to cover my head if I forgot my "chapel veil" (we called them )so I could attend mass with my classmates.  It was not uncommon to see girls with kleenex on their head at mass.  As the Catholic church modernized in the late 60's or early seventies (after Vatican II I think) this practice stopped, at least in American Catholic churches.
Does anyone know why the Catholic church stopped this practice?
As an aside, you should have seen the goofy headcoverings we used in Omaha in the beginning of the assembly...they look like little nun veils complete with embroidered crosses on them...very chic. :P

Andrea, you know me well enough that you know I'm a bit of a stinker...I think it'd be cool to see a sister have a conviction about head-covering in a church that didn't have the custom and then for her to go ahead and wear the head-covering.  What would really be wonderful, would be if the church was fine with that and that she was fine with her peers not wearing the head-covering.  Neat double liberty, conviction, and obedience.  Probably too much to hope for.

"Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves."   Or..."Happy is she..."

Hey Pat,

You brought up another question. How come women were never encouraged to wear hats as opposed to head covering lacey things that always slipped off?

Heide

Look, if the Bible says wear head-coverings, you wear
head-coverings. In our church everyone rides Triumph
motorcycles---it clearly says in the Book of Joshua
"Joshua's Triumph was heard throughout the land". I wouldn't be caught dead on a Yamaha---it's just not biblical.

Hi Andrea,

I think what bothers me the most is 1 Cor 11:16 "But if any one think to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God." So therefore my interpretation is that it is a custom but Paul gives a way out. Unlike the assembly...

In going back on Sunday to hear Jeff's apology I didn't wear a headcovering. I felt great liberty that I had been set free and wasn't under any kind of law. I guess I viewed my head covering as submitting myself to the assembly.

How many women currently involved with the assembly would have such a great liberty as to not wear a headcovering and get away with it?