prophet said:
Boomer said:
I believe that the Bible draws the line at modesty withing cultural acceptance. What I mean by that is that a Christian's attire ought not to draw special attention to his/her body in inappropriate ways. This modesty also must be interpreted in the context of the culture in which you live.
Example: The church in Corinth had a modesty problem. The ladies were going to church without their head coverings. Some of the men wore long hair. These things were immodest in Corinthian culture (No head covering on a lady was a sign of rebellion against her husband or father while long hair was worn by male temple prostitutes).
Today, I don't expect my wife to wear a head covering every time she exits the house. A head covering is not in and of itself modest or immodest. It depends on the culture in which you live.
Our culture does permit clothing that is certainly immodest (sexually alluring). Certainly Christians should avoid such.
--The biggest problem in this area is whether or not women should wear pants. People interpret Deuteronomy 22:5 to mean that a lady should not wear pants because pants are a man's clothing. I think that is an incorrect application of a good principle. The principle (that cross-dressing for the purpose of appearing like the opposite sex is an abomination) is good. The application to women in today's culture is inconsistent.
Today, nobody is confused about the gender of a woman who is wearing women's pants. In ancient Asian cultures, women have always worn pants. The problem with saying that pants are a man's garment, and women can't wear them is that pants aren't the only man's garment that has been adapted to women in our culture. If you apply this principle consistently to women, then they cannot wear T-shirts, boots, and many more garments that were first designed for men.
To those who argue that a woman in pants is wearing a man's garment, I challenge you to go to the women's section at Kohl's, purchase a pair of Blue Jeans, and wear them in public (They are a man's garment after all, right?).
The "head covering" is the woman's hair.
There can be no other interpretation of this.
How can that be a valid interpretation? Paul is writing this section partly to tell the ladies that they should not even pray without a veil (verse 10). Verse 15 is part of Paul's argument that women in Corinth ought to wear veils (head-coverings).
"We should follow the suggestions of Nature. If a woman has naturally long hair, which is given to her as a covering for her head, the covering of her head can be no shame to her; therefore let her wear a veil. The will ought to correspond to Nature.â€
(Ellicott)
"The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have power, that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. . . . . . It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so."
(Matthew Henry)
"For a covering - Margin, "veil." It is given to her as a sort of natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her wearing a veil."
(Albert Barnes)
"her hair … for a covering—Not that she does not need additional covering. Nay, her long hair shows she ought to cover her head as much as possible. The will ought to accord with nature [Bengel]."
(Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)
"for her hair is given her for a covering; not instead of a covering for her head, or any other part of her body, so that she needs no other:"
(John Gill)
"In my ministry in different parts of the world, I have noticed that the basic principle of headship applies in every culture; but the means of demonstrating it differs from place to place. The important thing is the submission of the heart to the Lord and the public manifestation of obedience to God's order."
(Warren Wiersbe - commenting on 1Cor. 11) - Full disclosure, Wiersbe saw the long hair as being instead of a veil, but he makes the
point that dress standards, etc. should be culturally adapted.
My whole point in bringing this up is that to demand that women never wear pants on the grounds of them being "men's clothes only" is not sound biblical application. Tee shirts were men's clothing only 100 years ago, yet none of the "no pants" crowd plants their flag on that hill. The point of Deuteronomy 22:5 is that cross-dressing is an abomination. In today's culture, a woman wearing women's pants is not cross-dressing. Nobody in our culture would look at her and say, "She's wearing a man's outfit!"