Both progressive and traditional types of Christians blatantly disobey the Bible... and this example about men and women proves it.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
This is not about fashion nor food... but liturgy and proper worship.
Correct.

Now let us look at what Liturgy is:

liturgy n: prescribed ritual for public worship.

There are many rituals and sacraments prescribed for purposes of commemoration and remembrance and teaching of certain spiritual truths. They all have one thing in common: They are symbols symbolic of deeper, more important spiritual things. None of these rituals are salvational and they should NEVER be used as a basis for judging fellow believers.

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]:
2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

These things you speak of are only profitable so long as they are not abused or misused.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
My guess is that Paul is answering questions put to him about whether they should teach the new converts not to wear head coverings.
Paul was explaining how we should not attempt to change the culture of the converts we make in other lands.

It is called Cross Cultural Missions in Bible College. We don't try to get them to dress like us or insinuate that they must change their ancient dress or other cultures that make no difference as it relates to Faith in Jesus and salvation.

However it is not a rule for all churches and should not be communicated that it is. There is no such custom in the churches of God.
But if that local culture does that, let them. It is not good to tell local cultures that they must change these things to be a Christian.

My coming from a culture that considers this sort of thing to be a token of being fake, and religious pride, would not want to adopt this custom and to tell them that they must would be a hindrance to the Gospel and pollute the Gospel message.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
Scholars abound on this platform, but it's encouraging to encounter honest ones now and then among all the supercilious dictatorial text authoritarians. And however superfluous that might sound, I think it necessary in illustrating the reality of the general environment we often find ourselves in when visiting the study forum in particular.

So, believing that it is your character to offer an honest, well thought out, and impromptu response rather than any expertly rehearsed answer whipped out of a pre-stocked arsenal, I'm interested in reading your opinion of the character of Paul's statement.
That is when Paul offers this (is it a hypothesis? I can't ascertain exactly), "If it is a shame that a woman prays with her head uncovered, then let them be shorn." I see it as uncharacteristic of Paul that he would order or even authorize the (holding down and?) shaving a woman's head if she is found praying without a head covering, but this seems to be what an alarming bulk of commentators insist, even if only implicitly, to be the case. Again, the exact characteristic of this statement currently alludes me. I just know there's something there I'd like to distinguish for a better understand of Paul's actual intent.
I haven't done the work necessary to present this opinion in a scholarly format but this is my current leaning as to Paul's intent;

My guess is that Paul is answering questions put to him about whether they should teach the new converts not to wear head coverings. We don't see what they asked him and Paul refers to it in brief.

Paul was explaining how we should not attempt to change the culture of the converts we make.

It is called Cross Cultural Missions in Bible College. We don't try to get them to dress like us or insinuate that they must change their ancient dress or other cultures that make no difference as it relates to Faith in Jesus and salvation. Many did that in early missions history but they shouldn't have and they offended untold millions of potential converts insinuating that their culture was more Christian than the one they were trying to convert. If the converts in Corinth practiced this culture, let them. Don't try and pressure them to do things that would make them feel shame or uncomfortable.

However it is not a rule for all churches and should not be communicated that it is. There is no such custom in the churches of God.

But if that local culture does that, let them. It is not good to tell local cultures that they must change these things to be a Christian.

My coming from a culture that considers this sort of thing to be a token of being fake, and religious pride, would not want to adopt this custom and to tell them that they must would be a hindrance to the Gospel and pollute the Gospel message. Where I come from they are more likely to not meet with us if this is required. Whereas in Corinth they were more likely to not meet with them if they were told they had to stop this custom.

The Preacher of the Gospel must be able to communicate the Gospel in every culture, befriend the people and get into their culture as it stands. Wear their type of clothes, eat their food, understand their customs. Then he can communicate the Gospel even using these customs like the head coverings to talk about Jesus authority.
 
Jun 1, 2022
26
11
3
South US
I already responded. I don't agree with these writers who think that women must wear head coverings.

I don't agree that Tradition is authoritative. I am against most traditions and won't have anything to do with them.

If I were to walk in a church where women were all wearing head coverings I would turn around and leave.

Why? Because t gives me bad vibes of "ignorance, cult, legalism, outward ceremony substituting inward reality, bad hermeneutics, leaven of Pharisees" feelings.

You could say I was biased but I would say I am Spirit lead and I will not ignore that inward check. The reason that many are deceived is because they ignored that inner check. I've been there and I learned my lesson. I don't do that anymore.
I already responded. I don't agree with these writers who think that women must wear head coverings.
I don't believe Paul taught that men should take off their hats in church. That is just Bad hermeneutics.

I don't care if men wear hats indoors or in the place where we meet together. Neither do the people I fellowship with. They are not of that older culture who had those rules. I would take off my cowboy hat in church so that it does not block someone's view sitting behind me. See that has the right motive God is interested in. Not some formal liturgy that means whatever you say it means but is questionable as to whether God agrees with that meaning.

Jesus taught about prayer. He never once told women to cover their heads. And this following parable reveals the heart of faith He wants to find when He returns and there is no hint that this widow is covering her head to be heard from on high. Luke 18

1Now he told them a parable on the need for them to praya always and not give up.b 2“There was a judge in a certain town who didn’t fear Goda or respect people. 3And a widowa in that town kept coming to him, saying, ‘Give me justice against my adversary.’

4“For a while he was unwilling, but later he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or respect people, 5yet because this widow keepsa pestering me,A I will give her justice, so that she doesn’t wear me outB by her persistent coming.’ ”

6Then the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7Will not God grant justicea to his electb who cry out to him day and night?c Will he delayd helping them?A 8I tell you that he will swiftly grant them justice. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes,a will he find faith on earth?

He does not say "will He find women covering their heads when they pray?" He is looking for FAITH and not just any kind of Faith, THIS KIND of faith that calls out to God to deliver justice and avenge her of her adversary. There is a lot to say about this but it has NOTHING to do with whether the woman is following the liturgy of head coverings. Let's keep the focus on the things that matter to God and not those that men think are important.

The problem with most liturgies in church history is that they are liturgies not Spirit and Truth. Not even the Lord Supper was supposed to have been turned into the ceremony liturgy that the ancient traditions turned it into.

And that is the only ordinance besides full immersion baptism that I believe in observing. But I don't like how it is observed today. Tradition and liturgy has made it something other than the fellowship meal observance it started as.

So I reject all these traditions and liturgies and outward ceremonies and costumes and man made efforts to feel religious. This is why Pentecostalism is spreading throughout the world. People are drinking from the fountain of the Holy Spirit and giving up liturgy for reality.
The serpent was the first to use hermeneutics . Adam and Woman liked it too, at first.

I like when Jesus said to take up your cross and hermeneutics and follow me... and don't forget your vibes and feelings.

Remember that time that Satan tried hermeneutics on Jesus three times, and struck out.

Cowboy hats in church, that's worse than sodomy.

Okay, I will be serious now. You need to talk to someone smarter than me. So, I will share these words from C.S. Lewis:


1656369537985.jpeg
"I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions — as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else.​
It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall, I have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into the room you will find that the long wait has done some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling.​
In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of service?" but "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?"​
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. This is one of the rules common to the whole house."​
- C. S. Lewis

I guess that is good advice, for you and me both.

I grew up in a pentecostal, charismatic style church, and still have very strong connections with one, actually two, due to family and friends. Even so, my primary church now is liturgical, the worship style is high church, even though it indeed has its charismatics, me being one of them. The Holy Spirit certainly moves there in that liturgical church, to me in a powerful way. When you have the charismatic along with liturgy, worship comes alive . Even reading the Bible becomes an act of worship & devotion. And with the prayers and hymns, it is like a whirlwind, or an accent, or something like that. I wish I could take you to church with me one day.

I do rightly criticize so -called christian progressivism, because it revolves around false teaching and justification of sin, and very much it also revolves around pain and brokenness. And, I see that pentacostals, charasmatics, non-denominationalists go too far in throwing out the Church Fathers, Tradition, the Creeds, and go way overboard with their criticism of such. Way overboard. I know. I lived it. But I agree with C. S. Lewis too.

Taking from what Lewis wrote , being in a room in the house of the LORD, that is what is most important. I guess ChristianChat is like a hallway.

+++
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
The serpent was the first to use hermeneutics . Adam and Woman liked it too, at first.

I like when Jesus said to take up your cross and hermeneutics and follow me... and don't forget your vibes and feelings.

Remember that time that Satan tried hermeneutics on Jesus three times, and struck out.

Cowboy hats in church, that's worse than sodomy.

Okay, I will be serious now. You need to talk to someone smarter than me. So, I will share these words from C.S. Lewis:


"I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions — as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else.​
It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall, I have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into the room you will find that the long wait has done some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling.​
In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of service?" but "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?"​
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. This is one of the rules common to the whole house."​
- C. S. Lewis

I guess that is good advice, for you and me both.

I grew up in a pentecostal, charismatic style church, and still have very strong connections with one, actually two, due to family and friends. Even so, my primary church now is liturgical, the worship style is high church, even though it indeed has its charismatics, me being one of them. The Holy Spirit certainly moves there in that liturgical church, to me in a powerful way. When you have the charismatic along with liturgy, worship comes alive . Even reading the Bible becomes an act of worship & devotion. And with the prayers and hymns, it is like a whirlwind, or an accent, or something like that. I wish I could take you to church with me one day.

I do rightly criticize so -called christian progressivism, because it revolves around false teaching and justification of sin, and very much it also revolves around pain and brokenness. And, I see that pentacostals, charasmatics, non-denominationalists go too far in throwing out the Church Fathers, Tradition, the Creeds, and go way overboard with their criticism of such. Way overboard. I know. I lived it. But I agree with C. S. Lewis too.

Taking from what Lewis wrote , being in a room in the house of the LORD, that is what is most important. I guess ChristianChat is like a hallway.

+++
Good post. Most of it. :) Sounds like you have found a good church.
 
Jun 1, 2022
26
11
3
South US
Correct.

Now let us look at what Liturgy is:

liturgy n: prescribed ritual for public worship.

There are many rituals and sacraments prescribed for purposes of commemoration and remembrance and teaching of certain spiritual truths. They all have one thing in common: They are symbols symbolic of deeper, more important spiritual things. None of these rituals are salvational and they should NEVER be used as a basis for judging fellow believers.

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]:
2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

These things you speak of are only profitable so long as they are not abused or misused.
Agreed. Thank you for that, brother.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
The serpent was the first to use hermeneutics . Adam and Woman liked it too, at first.

I like when Jesus said to take up your cross and hermeneutics and follow me... and don't forget your vibes and feelings.

Remember that time that Satan tried hermeneutics on Jesus three times, and struck out.

Cowboy hats in church, that's worse than sodomy.

Okay, I will be serious now. You need to talk to someone smarter than me. So, I will share these words from C.S. Lewis:


"I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions — as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else.​
It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall, I have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into the room you will find that the long wait has done some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling.​
In plain language, the question should never be: "Do I like that kind of service?" but "Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?"​
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. This is one of the rules common to the whole house."​
- C. S. Lewis

I guess that is good advice, for you and me both.

I grew up in a pentecostal, charismatic style church, and still have very strong connections with one, actually two, due to family and friends. Even so, my primary church now is liturgical, the worship style is high church, even though it indeed has its charismatics, me being one of them. The Holy Spirit certainly moves there in that liturgical church, to me in a powerful way. When you have the charismatic along with liturgy, worship comes alive . Even reading the Bible becomes an act of worship & devotion. And with the prayers and hymns, it is like a whirlwind, or an accent, or something like that. I wish I could take you to church with me one day.

I do rightly criticize so -called christian progressivism, because it revolves around false teaching and justification of sin, and very much it also revolves around pain and brokenness. And, I see that pentacostals, charasmatics, non-denominationalists go too far in throwing out the Church Fathers, Tradition, the Creeds, and go way overboard with their criticism of such. Way overboard. I know. I lived it. But I agree with C. S. Lewis too.

Taking from what Lewis wrote , being in a room in the house of the LORD, that is what is most important. I guess ChristianChat is like a hallway.

+++
If I visited your church and saw all those women in head coverings I'd probably stick around to find out more after hearing all that you just said about it.
 

Mem

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2014
7,230
2,208
113
I haven't done the work necessary to present this opinion in a scholarly format but this is my current leaning as to Paul's intent;

My guess is that Paul is answering questions put to him about whether they should teach the new converts not to wear head coverings. We don't see what they asked him and Paul refers to it in brief.

Paul was explaining how we should not attempt to change the culture of the converts we make.

It is called Cross Cultural Missions in Bible College. We don't try to get them to dress like us or insinuate that they must change their ancient dress or other cultures that make no difference as it relates to Faith in Jesus and salvation. Many did that in early missions history but they shouldn't have and they offended untold millions of potential converts insinuating that their culture was more Christian than the one they were trying to convert. If the converts in Corinth practiced this culture, let them. Don't try and pressure them to do things that would make them feel shame or uncomfortable.

However it is not a rule for all churches and should not be communicated that it is. There is no such custom in the churches of God.

But if that local culture does that, let them. It is not good to tell local cultures that they must change these things to be a Christian.

My coming from a culture that considers this sort of thing to be a token of being fake, and religious pride, would not want to adopt this custom and to tell them that they must would be a hindrance to the Gospel and pollute the Gospel message. Where I come from they are more likely to not meet with us if this is required. Whereas in Corinth they were more likely to not meet with them if they were told they had to stop this custom.

The Preacher of the Gospel must be able to communicate the Gospel in every culture, befriend the people and get into their culture as it stands. Wear their type of clothes, eat their food, understand their customs. Then he can communicate the Gospel even using these customs like the head coverings to talk about Jesus authority.
Although I may have failed to convey my question as peculiar to Paul's apparent command, "...let them be shaved," thank you for your time and response. To be honest, it was not the answer I had anticipated but perhaps I've mixed up your thoughts on the subject with that of Runningman's commentary which had intrigued me. It is a bit difficult to keep timely pace once the thread gets very far ahead more than a couple of pages. No worries, Nehemiah's response helped me to sort my wondering into a more succinct thought on the subject.

Don't try and pressure them to do things that would make them feel shame or uncomfortable.
The standing interpretation suggests that a woman should be shamed, if it is indeed a shame for her to pray with her head uncovered, by shaving her head. And as Nehemiah explained this is the standard interpretation of it. However, imo, it is absurd to claim Paul is suggesting that women that pray without a head covering should actually be shaved. If this were so, there would have been at least a few accounts of zealous posses on mission to shave noncompliant heads.
 

SomeDisciple

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2021
2,377
1,082
113
If this were so, there would have been at least a few accounts of zealous posses on mission to shave noncompliant heads.
IIRC they supposedly shaved the head of Joan of Arc before putting her to the torch. The "church" had condemned her for wearing a armor, and cropping her hair; among other things.

I don't see it as a command for the church to shame, or do anything to anyone; it's just saying a woman may as well have no hair if she's going to walk around uncovered. On another thread- I think it was Kaylagirl- was talking about how certain women grow out their hair to infinity, to comply with corinthians but then they just "wind it up" on their heads to show off their neckline and whatnot. To me, they might as well just cut it off, because it's doing the opposite of what it's supposed to be doing when it's piled on top of your head. If the hair is "given to her as a covering" and it's not worn as a covering, then there's no point. It's like wearing your underwear on the outside of your clothes.

With respect to "shaming"; I don't really see how it's possible for someone to actually preach the Gospel without someone being feeling conviction and shame at some point... realizing you're a sinner and need Jesus is kind of part of being saved. If people don't already realize that there is something wrong with all of mankind's "culture", then they aren't going to be saved anyway; what do they need to be saved from, if the "culture" they live in is right?
 
P

pottersclay

Guest
This may of been said in this thread already but this is what ive come to know...

It was and is believed today by both some jewish and muslim faiths that women that adorned there hair back in noahs day is what attracted the Nephilim.
Also in the culture certain hats and scarfs worn by males also shown society status and rankings among the sects.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
Paul doesn’t seem to be talking about literal fabric head coverings. Which verse proves they’re fabric? It says the head is the image of God so don’t cover your head. Is Paul saying God has a human head?
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
Although I may have failed to convey my question as peculiar to Paul's apparent command, "...let them be shaved," thank you for your time and response. To be honest, it was not the answer I had anticipated but perhaps I've mixed up your thoughts on the subject with that of Runningman's commentary which had intrigued me. It is a bit difficult to keep timely pace once the thread gets very far ahead more than a couple of pages. No worries, Nehemiah's response helped me to sort my wondering into a more succinct thought on the subject.



The standing interpretation suggests that a woman should be shamed, if it is indeed a shame for her to pray with her head uncovered, by shaving her head. And as Nehemiah explained this is the standard interpretation of it. However, imo, it is absurd to claim Paul is suggesting that women that pray without a head covering should actually be shaved. If this were so, there would have been at least a few accounts of zealous posses on mission to shave noncompliant heads.
So if they shaved their heads does that mean they no longer have to wear the head covering?
IIRC they supposedly shaved the head of Joan of Arc before putting her to the torch. The "church" had condemned her for wearing a armor, and cropping her hair; among other things.

I don't see it as a command for the church to shame, or do anything to anyone; it's just saying a woman may as well have no hair if she's going to walk around uncovered. On another thread- I think it was Kaylagirl- was talking about how certain women grow out their hair to infinity, to comply with corinthians but then they just "wind it up" on their heads to show off their neckline and whatnot.:eek: To me, they might as well just cut it off, because it's doing the opposite of what it's supposed to be doing when it's piled on top of your head. If the hair is "given to her as a covering" and it's not worn as a covering, then there's no point. It's like wearing your underwear on the outside of your clothes.

With respect to "shaming"; I don't really see how it's possible for someone to actually preach the Gospel without someone being feeling conviction and shame at some point... realizing you're a sinner and need Jesus is kind of part of being saved. If people don't already realize that there is something wrong with all of mankind's "culture", then they aren't going to be saved anyway; what do they need to be saved from, if the "culture" they live in is right?
The NECKLINE? What SHAME! :eek:
 

SomeDisciple

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2021
2,377
1,082
113
The NECKLINE? What SHAME! :eek:
The 'shame' is that it's half-compliance: and if you are correct, then it's half-compliance to something that doesn't even apply to them in the first place.
 

Mem

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2014
7,230
2,208
113
So if they shaved their heads does that mean they no longer have to wear the head covering?
hmm, MAYBE, a shaved head is less shameful than no head covering at all. And yes, I definitely being cheeky here :p

Paul doesn’t seem to be talking about literal fabric head coverings. Which verse proves they’re fabric? It says the head is the image of God so don’t cover your head. Is Paul saying God has a human head?
I'm too lazy, or it might be only the perception of mine being pressed for time but, something you said struck me as interesting. It was only the lines of something like, paraphrasing, ' if God is the head of Christ, and he doesn't cover his head, and Christ is the head of man, and he doesn't cover his head...then it would follow that a woman shouldn't cover her head since man is the head of woman...' Forgive me if I totally misconstrued your intent but whether I took it rightly or wrongly, this reflects my thoughts precisely. Christ is of God, man is of Christ, and woman is of man, who is of Christ, who is of God so, she has a glory of her own given her even if she was 'last in the line' to receive it. Why should she be shamed in approaching His throne as His beloved female child anymore than His male children and His only Begotten who made they way for His female children as much as His male children?

Paul is definitively addressing head coverings, that I cannot deny, such as was the common custom to require of women at the time, a custom that persist still to this day.

IIRC they supposedly shaved the head of Joan of Arc before putting her to the torch. The "church" had condemned her for wearing a armor, and cropping her hair; among other things.
Do you believe this to have been a righteous judgment placed upon her?
 

SomeDisciple

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2021
2,377
1,082
113
hmm, MAYBE, a shaved head is less shameful than no head covering at all. And yes, I definitely being cheeky here :p



I'm too lazy, or it might be only the perception of mine being pressed for time but, something you said struck me as interesting. It was only the lines of something like, paraphrasing, ' if God is the head of Christ, and he doesn't cover his head, and Christ is the head of man, and he doesn't cover his head...then it would follow that a woman shouldn't cover her head since man is the head of woman...' Forgive me if I totally misconstrued your intent but whether I took it rightly or wrongly, this reflects my thoughts precisely. Christ is of God, man is of Christ, and woman is of man, who is of Christ, who is of God so, she has a glory of her own given her even if she was 'last in the line' to receive it. Why should she be shamed in approaching His throne as His beloved female child anymore than His male children and His only Begotten who made they way for His female children as much as His male children?

Paul is definitively addressing head coverings, that I cannot deny, such as was the common custom to require of women at the time, a custom that persist still to this day.



Do you believe this to have been a righteous judgment placed upon her?
I don't see anywhere that Jesus said to burn people at the stake. Technically she was handed over to a civil authority that did it: but I still don't see where Jesus said there should be inquisitors that hand people over to be burned either.
 

Mem

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2014
7,230
2,208
113
I don't see anywhere that Jesus said to burn people at the stake. Technically she was handed over to a civil authority that did it: but I still don't see where Jesus said there should be inquisitors that hand people over to be burned either.
I've only been acquainted to Joan of Arc, and not at all familiar. Did these authorities think they were doing God service?
Jesus wouldn't as much as stone an adulterous so, I find it peculiar that Paul says, "let her be shorn..." the same way all the other verses that come up when "let her be" is entered into a bible search tool. Something is off and I think it must be the interpretation that has become standard among the 'church fathers,' and I mean that term to be understood in the loosest sense. I do consider Paul among the church fathers, that commended his daughters/sisters' faith, and spoke of noble adornment in terms of character rather than dressing.
 

SomeDisciple

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2021
2,377
1,082
113
I've only been acquainted to Joan of Arc, and not at all familiar. Did these authorities think they were doing God service?
Probably. It goes beyond her just wearing men's clothes and cropping her hair, though. Claiming divine inspiration while leading troops is kind of a good way to get targeted by church and government authorities. They were intially going to let her go, until she persisted in wearing men's clothes. (but some people ask; if she was in their custody, why did she even have access to men's clothes?) A lot of the story doesn't make sense. I don't know why they shaved her head either; it may or may not have had to do with scripture.