Women’s Headcoverings

[Mor Ephrem]

First of all we didnt say anything here about being in communion with the catholic church. Why you went berzerk with that conviction I dont know.

I do know why he "went berzerk", and you stepped right into it. You haven't noticed how much he's been trolling us lately?

To be fair, before yesterday, the last time Jovan posted at all was about nine months ago.  It's quite possible he hadn't noticed. 

 

[Jovan]

First of all we didnt say anything here about being in communion with the catholic church. Why you went berzerk with that conviction I dont know.

I do know why he "went berzerk", and you stepped right into it. You haven't noticed how much he's been trolling us lately?

To be fair, before yesterday, the last time Jovan posted at all was about nine months ago.  It's quite possible he hadn't noticed.

I think it´s gonna be nine months between each post from now on xD

 

[Trevorthodox]

We have a few different nationalities and a mainly young population in our parish so

In our parish

Our Russian and Ukrainian women wear folded square headscarves.
Most Romanian women wrap a light 'pashmina' over their head
The Greeks and Cypriots don't cover their heads in church
English enquirers,  catechumens and converts usually do.

Most Orthodox I know are here for work or education so we typically do not have very many retired people for me to draw conclusions as to what an older generation typically does.

FWIW I like to see our women with headcoverings on. I'm a fan of the scarf. I don't have any say in who does and doesn't wear one. That's between a husband and wife and their spiritual father isn't it?  Sometimes I give an approving (but modest) complement to the wearer.. I can do no other.

 

[Agabus]

FWIW I like to see our women with headcoverings on. I'm a fan of the scarf. I don't have any say in who does and doesn't wear one. That's between a husband and wife and their spiritual father isn't it?  Sometimes I give an approving (but modest) complement to the wearer.. I can do no other.

Of course many of the young women wear them loosely for most of the service, and then tighten it up when approaching for Holy Communion, which I have to say I find a turn on.  In fact these scarves in general, especially when worn in the Russian manner, are aesthetically pleasing, perhaps distractingly so, but only in the church. 

Sorry to objectify women, but doesn't a headscarf make a girl soooooo much more attractive, or is that just me?

Well to be fair... I think headscarves can be kind of hawt too lol...

Did I miss anyone?

 

[Volnutt]

Did you miss anyone what? I'm in favor of women being able to choose to wear one or not, I did not mean to give the opposite impression.

I think dress codes that go beyond basic modesty are kind of silly in this day and age. Is there really any developed, nominally Christian culture left on earth that honestly thinks a woman is naked or a whore because you can see her hair (besides, apparently, backwoods Romania based on some of the anecdotes in this thread)? I would hate to force this stumbling block on a woman for no good reason.

 

[Alxandra]

I think dress codes that go beyond basic modesty are kind of silly in this day and age. Is there really any developed, nominally Christian culture left on earth that honestly thinks a woman is naked or a whore because you can see her hair (besides, apparently, backwoods Romania based on some of the anecdotes in this thread)? I would hate to force this stumbling block on a woman for no good reason.

"As to the fatalism of those who believe that man must be a slave to the "spirit of the age " ,it is disproved by the experience of every christian worthy of the name - for the christian life is nothing if it is not a struggle against the spirit of every age for the sake of eternity "  Fr. seraphim Rose

I think modesty and head coverings have a larger importance and meaning than we realize because we are unfortunately influenced by this age. As I said previously, it reflects an attitude of the heart and this effects a women's family and children. Small traditions are important even if we can't see why

 

[Maria]

I think dress codes that go beyond basic modesty are kind of silly in this day and age. Is there really any developed, nominally Christian culture left on earth that honestly thinks a woman is naked or a whore because you can see her hair (besides, apparently, backwoods Romania based on some of the anecdotes in this thread)? I would hate to force this stumbling block on a woman for no good reason.

"As to the fatalism of those who believe that man must be a slave to the "spirit of the age " ,it is disproved by the experience of every christian worthy of the name - for the christian life is nothing if it is not a struggle against the spirit of every age for the sake of eternity "  Fr. seraphim Rose

I think modesty and head coverings have a larger importance and meaning than we realize because we are unfortunately influenced by this age. As I said previously, it reflects an attitude of the heart and this effects a women's family and children. Small traditions are important even if we can't see why

Post of the Month Nominee!

 

[vamrat]

I think dress codes that go beyond basic modesty are kind of silly in this day and age. Is there really any developed, nominally Christian culture left on earth that honestly thinks a woman is naked or a whore because you can see her hair (besides, apparently, backwoods Romania based on some of the anecdotes in this thread)? I would hate to force this stumbling block on a woman for no good reason.

"As to the fatalism of those who believe that man must be a slave to the "spirit of the age " ,it is disproved by the experience of every christian worthy of the name - for the christian life is nothing if it is not a struggle against the spirit of every age for the sake of eternity "  Fr. seraphim Rose

I think modesty and head coverings have a larger importance and meaning than we realize because we are unfortunately influenced by this age. As I said previously, it reflects an attitude of the heart and this effects a women's family and children. Small traditions are important even if we can't see why

I think you make a good point.  It is like the Doolittle Raid of Spiritual Warfare.  It didn't really do much physically, because seriously, if the sight of woman with her head uncovered gives you a case of the naughty thoughts, the mere contemplation of the existence of beings lacking in Y chromosomes probably has the same effect...at least, it does for me.  But it can be the small  seemingly useless gesture that signals the greatest resolve.  (In-group signalling, yo!)

 

[mike]

Even though the Serbian church has not experienced any internal schism

Macedonia, Artemius...

 

[Jovan]

Even though the Serbian church has not experienced any internal schism

Macedonia, Artemius...

Look into each case if you are interested, Macedonia, Montenegro etc. Then see if it´s because of political reasons rather than any teaching or tradition. It´s not a coincidence these divisions occurred after the fall of Yugoslavia, when regions wanted to claim authority and exclusion of the Serbian church. Remember that in Macedonia, Montenegro, Croatia and the Serbian republic there are no ancient monasteries/churches that are not serbian. My point is: During the course of our history with the orthodox church on the balkans, anyone who was born Macedonian,croatian, bosnian was still part of the serbian orthodox church. Period, end of discussion.
Therefore there are still active bishops in these countries on the behalf of the serbian church. Ask any serbian clergy and they will not say that macedonia nor montenegro are in heresy, just that a few bishops have gone wild about the thought to govern their own autocephalous churches with serbian property.

How the calendar, western/eastern rite, popes role etc has effected our beloved Greek and Romanian orthodox church internally is not the same as what has happened in Serbia and our surrounding regions. I don´t say that to be proud, I have not contributed anything to call myself serbian orthodox, but our forefathers have. I would say the same thing about arabs demanding a autocephalous governing over the ancient greek orthodox churches in Jerusalem or Palestine. Even if a monastery have been serving the liturgy in arabic for 1000 years somewhere in Palestine, it is still greek orthodox.

Pray for me and forgive me

 

[Volnutt]

I think dress codes that go beyond basic modesty are kind of silly in this day and age. Is there really any developed, nominally Christian culture left on earth that honestly thinks a woman is naked or a whore because you can see her hair (besides, apparently, backwoods Romania based on some of the anecdotes in this thread)? I would hate to force this stumbling block on a woman for no good reason.

"As to the fatalism of those who believe that man must be a slave to the "spirit of the age " ,it is disproved by the experience of every christian worthy of the name - for the christian life is nothing if it is not a struggle against the spirit of every age for the sake of eternity "  Fr. seraphim Rose

I think modesty and head coverings have a larger importance and meaning than we realize because we are unfortunately influenced by this age. As I said previously, it reflects an attitude of the heart and this effects a women's family and children. Small traditions are important even if we can't see why

And how do you know head coverings are really tradition and not just the spirit of those past ages? After all, not all Orthodox cultures even use them as has been pointed out in this thread.

This is the kind of logic would lead to destroying printing presses and microscopes because they didn't have them in 400 AD.

Traditions may be the most desirable state but that doesn't mean they still can't be judged on their usefulness. In this day and age, head coverings can be negative in that they can make the woman wearing them very self-conscious and detract from worship, they can cause a sense of Pharisaic pride in the wearer in not being like the "worldly whores" and far from being modest and sexually neutral can actually take on an aspect of perverse fetishism due to their unusual nature in this society (that was rather the tone that many on here saw Fabio's thread gaining), and they can send the wrong message to outsiders that Orthodoxy is a cult or that Orthodoxy is somehow the same as Islam.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Traditions may be the most desirable state but that doesn't mean they still can't be judged on their usefulness. In this day and age, head coverings can be negative in that they can make the woman wearing them very self-conscious and detract from worship, they can cause a sense of Pharisaic pride in the wearer in not being like the "worldly whores" and far from being modest and sexually neutral can actually take on an aspect of perverse fetishism due to their unusual nature in this society (that was rather the tone that many on here saw Fabio's thread gaining), and they can send the wrong message to outsiders that Orthodoxy is a cult or that Orthodoxy is somehow the same as Islam.

I don't have much of a conviction either for or against head coverings, but I must question your logic here, for it seems quite specious. How might head coverings send a message to outsiders that we're a cult? How might head coverings send a message that we're somehow the same as Islam, especially when our head coverings may not look anything like a burka?

As far as fostering a Pharisaic pride, any pious practice can do that. We're called to tithe of our income. We're called to fast two days a week. We're called to pray several times a day. Yet even though the Pharisee did all these things and should be commended for doing so, did these not all become themselves a cause for pride and his downfall? Why, then, should we eschew our traditional forms of piety just because they might tempt us to become prideful and self-conscious? I'm sorry, but that's a very poor argument.

 

[Alxandra]

I think dress codes that go beyond basic modesty are kind of silly in this day and age. Is there really any developed, nominally Christian culture left on earth that honestly thinks a woman is naked or a whore because you can see her hair (besides, apparently, backwoods Romania based on some of the anecdotes in this thread)? I would hate to force this stumbling block on a woman for no good reason.

"As to the fatalism of those who believe that man must be a slave to the "spirit of the age " ,it is disproved by the experience of every christian worthy of the name - for the christian life is nothing if it is not a struggle against the spirit of every age for the sake of eternity "  Fr. seraphim Rose

I think modesty and head coverings have a larger importance and meaning than we realize because we are unfortunately influenced by this age. As I said previously, it reflects an attitude of the heart and this effects a women's family and children. Small traditions are important even if we can't see why

And how do you know head coverings are really tradition and not just the spirit of those past ages? After all, not all Orthodox cultures even use them as has been pointed out in this thread.

This is the kind of logic would lead to destroying printing presses and microscopes because they didn't have them in 400 AD.

Traditions may be the most desirable state but that doesn't mean they still can't be judged on their usefulness. In this day and age, head coverings can be negative in that they can make the woman wearing them very self-conscious and detract from worship, they can cause a sense of Pharisaic pride in the wearer in not being like the "worldly whores" and far from being modest and sexually neutral can actually take on an aspect of perverse fetishism due to their unusual nature in this society (that was rather the tone that many on here saw Fabio's thread gaining), and they can send the wrong message to outsiders that Orthodoxy is a cult or that Orthodoxy is somehow the same as Islam.

It is biblical and Orthodox elders and saints have said it is important. They are much wiser than us, and they preserve the truth. When they see something that is not truth like "the evil eye" or other superstitions they dismiss them as nothing. This is not the same, this is an important tradition of our faith.  If some cultures in Orthodoxy said its okay for women to be priests (which is happening) should we follow and dismiss tradition as unimportant? Of course not, we need to listen carefully to the wisdom of our elders to preserve the faith, and not listen to the world.

Also, how can we call ourselves Christians if we can't walk In truth because we care what we look like to the world ? And just because some people view headcoverings in a wrong way, does not make them any less important or good.

Orthodoxy is not about picking and choosing which aspects to follow or not because some are inconvenient or not fashionable in this age. Truth is truth, even when its hard or not popular.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I think dress codes that go beyond basic modesty are kind of silly in this day and age. Is there really any developed, nominally Christian culture left on earth that honestly thinks a woman is naked or a whore because you can see her hair (besides, apparently, backwoods Romania based on some of the anecdotes in this thread)? I would hate to force this stumbling block on a woman for no good reason.

"As to the fatalism of those who believe that man must be a slave to the "spirit of the age " ,it is disproved by the experience of every christian worthy of the name - for the christian life is nothing if it is not a struggle against the spirit of every age for the sake of eternity "  Fr. seraphim Rose

I think modesty and head coverings have a larger importance and meaning than we realize because we are unfortunately influenced by this age. As I said previously, it reflects an attitude of the heart and this effects a women's family and children. Small traditions are important even if we can't see why

And how do you know head coverings are really tradition and not just the spirit of those past ages? After all, not all Orthodox cultures even use them as has been pointed out in this thread.

This is the kind of logic would lead to destroying printing presses and microscopes because they didn't have them in 400 AD.

Traditions may be the most desirable state but that doesn't mean they still can't be judged on their usefulness. In this day and age, head coverings can be negative in that they can make the woman wearing them very self-conscious and detract from worship, they can cause a sense of Pharisaic pride in the wearer in not being like the "worldly whores" and far from being modest and sexually neutral can actually take on an aspect of perverse fetishism due to their unusual nature in this society (that was rather the tone that many on here saw Fabio's thread gaining), and they can send the wrong message to outsiders that Orthodoxy is a cult or that Orthodoxy is somehow the same as Islam.

It is biblical and Orthodox elders and saints have said it is important.

Volnutt does bring up an important point, though. How do we know that St. Paul was preaching eternal truth and not just speaking to the spirit of his age when he advocated the wearing of head coverings by women in church?

They are much wiser than us, and they preserve the truth.

Do we not have the same Holy Spirit? How, then, can we recognize our elders as infallible?

When they see something that is not truth like "the evil eye" or other superstitions they dismiss them as nothing. This is not the same, this is an important tradition of our faith.  If some cultures in Orthodoxy said its okay for women to be priests (which is happening) should we follow and dismiss tradition as unimportant? Of course not, we need to listen carefully to the wisdom of our elders to preserve the faith, and not listen to the world.

Listen carefully to the wisdom of our elders, yes. But that doesn't mean we just shut off our brains and defer to them in blind, unthinking obedience. We, like them, are also called to acquire the Spirit of discernment.

Also, how can we call ourselves Christians if we can't walk In truth because we care what we look like to the world ? And just because some people view headcoverings in a wrong way, does not make them any less important or good.

And how do you know what is the wrong way?

 

[biro]

I haven't heard of any "cultures in Orthodoxy" saying it's okay to have women priests.

 

[Jonathan Gress]

I think Alexandra has a good point: if the Zeitgeist urges us to question the tradition of headcoverings so vehemently, perhaps we should question this same spirit?

I feel uncomfortable as a layman ordering women about and telling them to cover their heads in Church; I think pious women like Alexandra have more authority to speak in that regard. To me, the operative principle is humility. For women, a sign of that may be covering the head. For men, it could be baring the head or something else. What seems most important is to not distract or give scandal to your Orthodox brothers and sisters in church.

I agree with PtA about excessive adulation of "elders", though I think these elders often have good things to teach us in the world. But we should try to stand on our own two feet and think for ourselves. At the same time, if we're going to plow ahead and overthrow the customs that have been handed down, we should have pretty good reasons ourselves.

 

[Volnutt]

Traditions may be the most desirable state but that doesn't mean they still can't be judged on their usefulness. In this day and age, head coverings can be negative in that they can make the woman wearing them very self-conscious and detract from worship, they can cause a sense of Pharisaic pride in the wearer in not being like the "worldly whores" and far from being modest and sexually neutral can actually take on an aspect of perverse fetishism due to their unusual nature in this society (that was rather the tone that many on here saw Fabio's thread gaining), and they can send the wrong message to outsiders that Orthodoxy is a cult or that Orthodoxy is somehow the same as Islam.

I don't have much of a conviction either for or against head coverings, but I must question your logic here, for it seems quite specious. How might head coverings send a message to outsiders that we're a cult?

By fostering comparisons to groups like the FLDS polygamy cult (they don't have head coverings, but they do like they're straight out of the 19th Century).

There's a handful of highly conspicuous women on my campus who dress in headscarves and floor length skirts. They definitely stick out and I don't think they're Orthodox or Muslim.

Also, don't forget the Amish comparison. I'm not saying the Amish are a cult, but with all due respect to Porter they don't exactly have a good public image with regards to things like shunning.

How might head coverings send a message that we're somehow the same as Islam, especially when our head coverings may not look anything like a burka?

Common mistake in terminology.

Burka:

Niqab:

Hijab:

Orthodox headscarf:

It's the hijab, not the burka that would become the comparison.

As far as fostering a Pharisaic pride, any pious practice can do that. We're called to tithe of our income. We're called to fast two days a week. We're called to pray several times a day. Yet even though the Pharisee did all these things and should be commended for doing so, did these not all become themselves a cause for pride and his downfall? Why, then, should we eschew our traditional forms of piety just because they might tempt us to become prideful and self-conscious? I'm sorry, but that's a very poor argument.

Fair enough.

 

[Volnutt]

I think dress codes that go beyond basic modesty are kind of silly in this day and age. Is there really any developed, nominally Christian culture left on earth that honestly thinks a woman is naked or a whore because you can see her hair (besides, apparently, backwoods Romania based on some of the anecdotes in this thread)? I would hate to force this stumbling block on a woman for no good reason.

"As to the fatalism of those who believe that man must be a slave to the "spirit of the age " ,it is disproved by the experience of every christian worthy of the name - for the christian life is nothing if it is not a struggle against the spirit of every age for the sake of eternity "  Fr. seraphim Rose

I think modesty and head coverings have a larger importance and meaning than we realize because we are unfortunately influenced by this age. As I said previously, it reflects an attitude of the heart and this effects a women's family and children. Small traditions are important even if we can't see why

And how do you know head coverings are really tradition and not just the spirit of those past ages? After all, not all Orthodox cultures even use them as has been pointed out in this thread.

This is the kind of logic would lead to destroying printing presses and microscopes because they didn't have them in 400 AD.

Traditions may be the most desirable state but that doesn't mean they still can't be judged on their usefulness. In this day and age, head coverings can be negative in that they can make the woman wearing them very self-conscious and detract from worship, they can cause a sense of Pharisaic pride in the wearer in not being like the "worldly whores" and far from being modest and sexually neutral can actually take on an aspect of perverse fetishism due to their unusual nature in this society (that was rather the tone that many on here saw Fabio's thread gaining), and they can send the wrong message to outsiders that Orthodoxy is a cult or that Orthodoxy is somehow the same as Islam.

It is biblical and Orthodox elders and saints have said it is important. They are much wiser than us, and they preserve the truth. When they see something that is not truth like "the evil eye" or other superstitions they dismiss them as nothing. This is not the same, this is an important tradition of our faith.  If some cultures in Orthodoxy said its okay for women to be priests (which is happening) should we follow and dismiss tradition as unimportant? Of course not, we need to listen carefully to the wisdom of our elders to preserve the faith, and not listen to the world.

Which elders are we talking about it? St. Hippolytus and (and perhaps St. Peter) said that Christian women must call their husbands "lord" and never by their first names. The elders of the Council of Nicaea forbid going to Jewish doctors. As far as I can see, it's never been the practice of Orthodoxy to take all the recommendations of the Saints wholesale, but rather to sift them and decide which would do more harm than good to keep at certain times.

A bared head simply does not have the same connotations now as it did then. If women can be modest without head scarves, and I submit that they easily can, then it's just an unnecessary stumbling block.

 

[Salpy]

Well Jackie looked quite nice in her lace mantillas:

https://brownpaperpackagestiedupwithstrings.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/jackie-style-volume-iii-1960s-the-kennedy-years-day-wear


Women covering their heads during worship is a two thousand year old tradition.  Some of the other things saints said we should or should not do fell by the wayside, but head coverings existed universally throughout the Christian world for two thousand years before being jettisoned by some churches in the late twentieth century.  Something that was used that long and that universally seems like it's more than just a "tradition of man."  That's especially so when the first saint to recommend it was someone as important as St. Paul.

I don't condemn those who don't cover.  But I do like my mantillas. 

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I think dress codes that go beyond basic modesty are kind of silly in this day and age. Is there really any developed, nominally Christian culture left on earth that honestly thinks a woman is naked or a whore because you can see her hair (besides, apparently, backwoods Romania based on some of the anecdotes in this thread)? I would hate to force this stumbling block on a woman for no good reason.

"As to the fatalism of those who believe that man must be a slave to the "spirit of the age " ,it is disproved by the experience of every christian worthy of the name - for the christian life is nothing if it is not a struggle against the spirit of every age for the sake of eternity "  Fr. seraphim Rose

I think modesty and head coverings have a larger importance and meaning than we realize because we are unfortunately influenced by this age. As I said previously, it reflects an attitude of the heart and this effects a women's family and children. Small traditions are important even if we can't see why

And how do you know head coverings are really tradition and not just the spirit of those past ages? After all, not all Orthodox cultures even use them as has been pointed out in this thread.

This is the kind of logic would lead to destroying printing presses and microscopes because they didn't have them in 400 AD.

Traditions may be the most desirable state but that doesn't mean they still can't be judged on their usefulness. In this day and age, head coverings can be negative in that they can make the woman wearing them very self-conscious and detract from worship, they can cause a sense of Pharisaic pride in the wearer in not being like the "worldly whores" and far from being modest and sexually neutral can actually take on an aspect of perverse fetishism due to their unusual nature in this society (that was rather the tone that many on here saw Fabio's thread gaining), and they can send the wrong message to outsiders that Orthodoxy is a cult or that Orthodoxy is somehow the same as Islam.

It is biblical and Orthodox elders and saints have said it is important. They are much wiser than us, and they preserve the truth. When they see something that is not truth like "the evil eye" or other superstitions they dismiss them as nothing. This is not the same, this is an important tradition of our faith.  If some cultures in Orthodoxy said its okay for women to be priests (which is happening) should we follow and dismiss tradition as unimportant? Of course not, we need to listen carefully to the wisdom of our elders to preserve the faith, and not listen to the world.

Which elders are we talking about it? St. Hippolytus and (and perhaps St. Peter) said that Christian women must call their husbands "lord" and never by their first names. The elders of the Council of Nicaea forbid going to Jewish doctors. As far as I can see, it's never been the practice of Orthodoxy to take all the recommendations of the Saints wholesale, but rather to sift them and decide which would do more harm than good to keep at certain times.

A bared head simply does not have the same connotations now as it did then. If women can be modest without head scarves, and I submit that they easily can, then it's just an unnecessary stumbling block.

But is modesty the only reason women have traditionally been encouraged to wear head coverings in church?

 

[Volnutt]

I would argue it's the only reason that still exists. Few people today would understand the married vs. unmarried or the "this woman is not a prostitute" symbolism.

 

[Volnutt]

Well Jackie looked quite nice in her lace mantillas:

How does that qualify as a "head covering" when you can still see her hair? That's as far from the spirit of the tradition as those women in Russia who wear their head coverings with short skirts and bustiers.

Women covering their heads during worship is a two thousand year old tradition.  Some of the other things saints said we should or should not do fell by the wayside, but head coverings existed universally throughout the Christian world for two thousand years before being jettisoned by some churches in the late twentieth century.  Something that was used that long and that universally seems like it's more than just a "tradition of man."  That's especially so when the first saint to recommend it was someone as important as St. Paul.

I don't condemn those who don't cover.  But I do like my mantillas. 

I'm not saying it's a tradition of men, I'm just saying that some traditions are sensitive to the time period in which they were given. Matthew 19:18 is an example of God giving a nonpermanent ordinance based on the human context. Permitting married men to become bishop is perhaps another.

Head covering was right and good in those times and cultures in which a woman who did not cover her head was automatically suspect, which was true for most of human history in Europe. That is not as true nowadays.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I would argue it's the only reason that still exists.

On what evidence?

Few people today would understand the married vs. unmarried or the "this woman is not a prostitute" symbolism.

And where are you getting that?

 

[Asteriktos]

If we all followed the advice of Shiny and wore robes with hoods, this wouldn't be an issue. I'm just saying...

 

[Volnutt]

I would argue it's the only reason that still exists.

On what evidence?

Few people today would understand the married vs. unmarried or the "this woman is not a prostitute" symbolism.

And where are you getting that?

I know for example that the translators of the ESV render gune in 1 Corinthians 11 as "wife" and claim that the veil was a sign of being married in that culture. St. Paul also says that a woman praying with her head uncovered might as well shave her head because the hair is the woman's glory. So there's obviously some consideration of social status going on there.

The translators of the NET Bible do allow that the exousia may be a symbol of the deference of the woman to the male leadership in the church, and if that is one of the arguments being put forth for it within Orthodoxy, then I guess I have no recourse. I've not seen anyone use that argument in this thread, though.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I would argue it's the only reason that still exists.

On what evidence?

Few people today would understand the married vs. unmarried or the "this woman is not a prostitute" symbolism.

And where are you getting that?

I know for example that the translators of the ESV render gune in 1 Corinthians 11 as "wife" and claim that the veil was a sign of being married in that culture.

And why do you grant the translators that much authority? On another concurrent thread we have allegations that the translators of a version of the Bible added their own spin to the text. How do you know that's not going on here?

St. Paul also says that a woman praying with her head uncovered might as well shave her head because the hair is the woman's glory. So there's obviously some consideration of social status going on there.

Is it really that obvious? If it is, why have so few people seen it?

The translators of the NET Bible do allow that the exousia may be a symbol of the deference of the woman to the male leadership in the church, and if that is one of the arguments being put forth for it within Orthodoxy, then I guess I have no recourse. I've not seen anyone use that argument in this thread, though.

How many threads have you read on this subject?

 

[Volnutt]

I would argue it's the only reason that still exists.

On what evidence?

Few people today would understand the married vs. unmarried or the "this woman is not a prostitute" symbolism.

And where are you getting that?

I know for example that the translators of the ESV render gune in 1 Corinthians 11 as "wife" and claim that the veil was a sign of being married in that culture.

And why do you grant the translators that much authority? On another concurrent thread we have allegations that the translators of a version of the Bible added their own spin to the text. How do you know that's not going on here?

It is entirely possible, yes. Just citing them as one example of that kind of historical argument.

From what I can tell, even today whether a head covering marks a woman out as married or unmarried seems to vary by culture. I would not be surprised if it was similar in the ancient world. I think that would rather support my contention that it's not an eternal, unalterable commandment.

St. Paul also says that a woman praying with her head uncovered might as well shave her head because the hair is the woman's glory. So there's obviously some consideration of social status going on there.

Is it really that obvious? If it is, why have so few people seen it?

It seems obvious to me, at least. Is truth determined by majority?

The translators of the NET Bible do allow that the exousia may be a symbol of the deference of the woman to the male leadership in the church, and if that is one of the arguments being put forth for it within Orthodoxy, then I guess I have no recourse. I've not seen anyone use that argument in this thread, though.

How many threads have you read on this subject?

It's been quite some time. If it was in another thread, I don't remember it.

 

[hecma925]

If we all followed the advice of Shiny and wore robes with hoods, this wouldn't be an issue. I'm just saying...

Buck nekkid underneath too.  To keep things honest.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I would argue it's the only reason that still exists.

On what evidence?

Few people today would understand the married vs. unmarried or the "this woman is not a prostitute" symbolism.

And where are you getting that?

I know for example that the translators of the ESV render gune in 1 Corinthians 11 as "wife" and claim that the veil was a sign of being married in that culture.

And why do you grant the translators that much authority? On another concurrent thread we have allegations that the translators of a version of the Bible added their own spin to the text. How do you know that's not going on here?

It is entirely possible, yes. Just citing them as one example of that kind of historical argument.

From what I can tell, even today whether a head covering marks a woman out as married or unmarried seems to vary by culture. I would not be surprised if it was similar in the ancient world. I think that would rather support my contention that it's not an eternal, unalterable commandment.

So all you have is hasty generalization from what you see today, together with the conjecture of "what if". Not very convincing.

St. Paul also says that a woman praying with her head uncovered might as well shave her head because the hair is the woman's glory. So there's obviously some consideration of social status going on there.

Is it really that obvious? If it is, why have so few people seen it?

It seems obvious to me, at least. Is truth determined by majority?

No, but "obvious" means by definition that it's clearly visible for ALL to see. If you are the only one who can see the "obvious", then it's not at all obvious, is it?

The translators of the NET Bible do allow that the exousia may be a symbol of the deference of the woman to the male leadership in the church, and if that is one of the arguments being put forth for it within Orthodoxy, then I guess I have no recourse. I've not seen anyone use that argument in this thread, though.

How many threads have you read on this subject?

It's been quite some time. If it was in another thread, I don't remember it.

So you comment on something about which you've read virtually nothing. How convenient. :

Seeing the gross weakness I see in your arguments, I really have to ask why this debate on women's head coverings is so important to you. You're not even one of us yet.

 

[RobS]

If we all followed the advice of Shiny and wore robes with hoods, this wouldn't be an issue. I'm just saying...

Buck nekkid underneath too.  To keep things honest.

You sure about that? It could be a smokescreen or smoking gun...

 

[Volnutt]

I would argue it's the only reason that still exists.

On what evidence?

Few people today would understand the married vs. unmarried or the "this woman is not a prostitute" symbolism.

And where are you getting that?

I know for example that the translators of the ESV render gune in 1 Corinthians 11 as "wife" and claim that the veil was a sign of being married in that culture.

And why do you grant the translators that much authority? On another concurrent thread we have allegations that the translators of a version of the Bible added their own spin to the text. How do you know that's not going on here?

It is entirely possible, yes. Just citing them as one example of that kind of historical argument.

From what I can tell, even today whether a head covering marks a woman out as married or unmarried seems to vary by culture. I would not be surprised if it was similar in the ancient world. I think that would rather support my contention that it's not an eternal, unalterable commandment.

So all you have is hasty generalization from what you see today, together with the conjecture of "what if". Not very convincing.

I'm not generalizing anything. I'm just discussing possibilities and am open to being proven wrong.

St. Paul also says that a woman praying with her head uncovered might as well shave her head because the hair is the woman's glory. So there's obviously some consideration of social status going on there.

Is it really that obvious? If it is, why have so few people seen it?

It seems obvious to me, at least. Is truth determined by majority?

No, but "obvious" means by definition that it's clearly visible for ALL to see. If you are the only one who can see the "obvious", then it's not at all obvious, is it?

Now you're just being pedantic.

The translators of the NET Bible do allow that the exousia may be a symbol of the deference of the woman to the male leadership in the church, and if that is one of the arguments being put forth for it within Orthodoxy, then I guess I have no recourse. I've not seen anyone use that argument in this thread, though.

How many threads have you read on this subject?

It's been quite some time. If it was in another thread, I don't remember it.

So you comment on something about which you've read virtually nothing. How convenient. :

Seeing the gross weakness I see in your arguments, I really have to ask why this debate on women's head coverings is so important to you. You're not even one of us yet.

It's important to me because I despise as arbitrary and oppressive all forms of patriarchy that are not based on reason. Of course there are parts of the Bible that I dislike for the same reason, so I'm likely also looking for things to flagellate myself with.

 

[orthonorm]

I would argue it's the only reason that still exists.

On what evidence?

Few people today would understand the married vs. unmarried or the "this woman is not a prostitute" symbolism.

And where are you getting that?

I know for example that the translators of the ESV render gune in 1 Corinthians 11 as "wife" and claim that the veil was a sign of being married in that culture.

And why do you grant the translators that much authority? On another concurrent thread we have allegations that the translators of a version of the Bible added their own spin to the text. How do you know that's not going on here?

It is entirely possible, yes. Just citing them as one example of that kind of historical argument.

From what I can tell, even today whether a head covering marks a woman out as married or unmarried seems to vary by culture. I would not be surprised if it was similar in the ancient world. I think that would rather support my contention that it's not an eternal, unalterable commandment.

So all you have is hasty generalization from what you see today, together with the conjecture of "what if". Not very convincing.

I'm not generalizing anything. I'm just discussing possibilities and am open to being proven wrong.

St. Paul also says that a woman praying with her head uncovered might as well shave her head because the hair is the woman's glory. So there's obviously some consideration of social status going on there.

Is it really that obvious? If it is, why have so few people seen it?

It seems obvious to me, at least. Is truth determined by majority?

No, but "obvious" means by definition that it's clearly visible for ALL to see. If you are the only one who can see the "obvious", then it's not at all obvious, is it?

Now you're just being pedantic.

The translators of the NET Bible do allow that the exousia may be a symbol of the deference of the woman to the male leadership in the church, and if that is one of the arguments being put forth for it within Orthodoxy, then I guess I have no recourse. I've not seen anyone use that argument in this thread, though.

How many threads have you read on this subject?

It's been quite some time. If it was in another thread, I don't remember it.

So you comment on something about which you've read virtually nothing. How convenient. :

Seeing the gross weakness I see in your arguments, I really have to ask why this debate on women's head coverings is so important to you. You're not even one of us yet.

It's important to me because I despise as arbitrary and oppressive all forms of patriarchy that are not based on reason. Of course there are parts of the Bible that I dislike for the same reason, so I'm likely also looking for things to flagellate myself with.

Is patriarchy ever based on reason, reason in the sense I think you mean it?

 

[Volnutt]

If women really were naturally weak and stupid(er than men) as Sts. Peter (1 Peter 3:7) and Paul (1 Tim 2:14) seem to argue, then yes it would be entirely reasonable for men to have all the authority in both Church and State.

As it is, I begrudgingly accept some facets of patriarchy since I don't have much of a choice if I'm ever going to belong to any conservative religion. But I'm hoping to minimize the amounts of it that I have to accept.

 

[orthonorm]

If women really were naturally weak and stupid(er than men) as Sts. Peter (1 Peter 3:7) and Paul (1 Tim 2:14) seem to argue, then yes it would be entirely reasonable for men to have all the authority in both Church and State.

As it is, I begrudgingly accept some facets of patriarchy since I don't have much of a choice if I'm ever going to belong to any conservative religion. But I'm hoping to minimize the amounts of it that I have to accept.

If conservation is important then I guess you will end up reconciling yourself to much of the baggage of yesteryear, which usually is rather horrific.

I am not sure than Orthodoxy is patriarchal as such. But to argue this here would upset too many men and likely women as well.

One thing I know, most places where women are kept from having access to power alongside men end up being rather queer and disturbing places, not that the inclusion of women is a sufficient safeguard against the worst humanity can dish out, but it seems to be a necessary one.

 

[Volnutt]

If women really were naturally weak and stupid(er than men) as Sts. Peter (1 Peter 3:7) and Paul (1 Tim 2:14) seem to argue, then yes it would be entirely reasonable for men to have all the authority in both Church and State.

As it is, I begrudgingly accept some facets of patriarchy since I don't have much of a choice if I'm ever going to belong to any conservative religion. But I'm hoping to minimize the amounts of it that I have to accept.

If conservation is important then I guess you will end up reconciling yourself to much of the baggage of yesteryear, which usually is rather horrific.

I am not sure than Orthodoxy is patriarchal as such. But to argue this here would upset too many men and likely women as well.

One thing I know, most places where women are kept from having access to power alongside men end up being rather queer and disturbing places, not that the inclusion of women is a sufficient safeguard against the worst humanity can dish out, but it seems to be a necessary one.

Conversation isn't important to me per se, it's just that I remain convinced of Christianity due to the person of Christ and I have little intellectual respect for the liberal churches. I'd much rather bite the patriarchy bullet than go down that road.

 

[Alxandra]

I'm sorry but from everything I'm reading Volnutt, I think it would be good to abandon some of your wordly ideas and pick up Christ's. Of course if we look at Christian headcoverings from a wordly point of view we see opression and that its not needed, but that is just not true, its so much more than that. When we open our hearts to Gods way we see the reasoning and beauty behind every detail in our faith. We have to be humble enough to silent the noise and reasoning in our heads that's comes from the false ideas in the world, and be ready to follow Christs narrow path no matter how different it is from society. Some modern human rights are not even in the best interest of peoples soul, so how can we judge our faith with that ideology? True freedom is God and struggling for Him

 

[Alxandra]

“Excessive care about worldly matters is characteristic of an unbelieving and fainthearted person, and woe to us, if, in taking care of ourselves, we do not use as our foundation our faith in God, who cares for us! If we do not attribute visible blessings to Him, which we use in this life, then how can we expect those blessings from Him which are promised in the future? We will not be of such little faith. By the words of our Savior, it is better first to seek the Kingdom of God, for the rest shall be added unto us (see Mt. 6:33).”
St. Seraphim of Sarov


This is a nice link
http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/headcoverings.aspx
"A scarf may be a small matter, but obedience often hinges on small things, small choices. My scarf is seen by men, but to me it signifies obedience to God, a way of living my womanhood. It is my feminine “I am” reflected outwardly. In putting on my head-covering I mean to say to God, “Behold your handmaiden, be it unto me according to Your word—Your will, not mine.”

"In Orthodox worship the angels were even more in evidence. The Divine Liturgy is full of references to the various ranks of angels, emphasizing our participation with them in the joyous worship of the Holy Trinity. St. John Chrysostom (d. A.D. 407), in a sermon at the Feast of the Ascension, spoke both of angels and the veiling of women: “The angels are present here...Open the eyes of faith and look upon this sight. For if the very air is filled with angels, how much more so the Church! ...Hear the Apostle teaching this, when he bids the women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels.” Origen, another early Church Father, said, “There are angels in the midst of our assembly...we have here a twofold Church, one of men, the other of angels...And since there are angels present...women, when they pray, are ordered to have a covering upon their heads because of those angels. They assist the saints and rejoice in the Church.” Instructions for catechumens in The Apostolic Tradition, probably written in the second century by St. Hippolytus of Rome, include this: “Moreover, let all the women have their heads veiled with a scarf...” And St. Cyril of Alexandria, commenting on I Corinthians, wrote: “The angels find it extremely hard to bear if this law [that women cover their heads] is disregarded.”


"Mary, the mother of our Lord—and of the Church which is His Body—made our salvation possible by obeying God’s will. If she whom we hymn as “more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious beyond compare than the seraphim” is always seen in icons wearing her head-covering, it certainly cannot be a sign of “inferiority to men”

The Theotokos is encouraged as woman's best example and role model


As I wrote before I think a woman's outward modesty and obedience to God effects her family and children, so it's more than just men not seeing hair in church. The way a woman chooses to dress is an attitude of the heart.

 

[hecma925]

I don't get how angels can't handle a woman's hair.  If you believe in them, guardian angels put up with a lot more than that.

 

[NanaDeborah]

I would love to see this more in our western churches
Do young women in your churches wear head coverings?


"What is the Scriptural and Patristic evidence for this tradition, and why is it important?"
https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/womens-headcoverings/

I like prefer when women wear head scarves in a Church.
When I go to Russian Orthodox here in England almost all women wear a head scarf, it is Biblically correct.


1 Corinthians 11:3–16
"3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife1 is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife2 who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6"

1 Cor. 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering

 

[Volnutt]

I'm sorry but from everything I'm reading Volnutt, I think it would be good to abandon some of your wordly ideas and pick up Christ's. Of course if we look at Christian headcoverings from a wordly point of view we see opression and that its not needed, but that is just not true, its so much more than that. When we open our hearts to Gods way we see the reasoning and beauty behind every detail in our faith. We have to be humble enough to silent the noise and reasoning in our heads that's comes from the false ideas in the world, and be ready to follow Christs narrow path no matter how different it is from society. Some modern human rights are not even in the best interest of peoples soul, so how can we judge our faith with that ideology? True freedom is God and struggling for Him

And which human rights are you talking about? Women having access to pain relief during childbirth? Forced conversions? Female genital mutilation? Slavery?

I'm not saying that head coverings are comparable to these things or that these things are traditions of the Church. I'm saying that you can theoretically justify a whole lot of crap by appealing to blind faith in tradition (or Scripture).