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.

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.     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

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.

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

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.

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

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.