The Christadelphian; Feb. 1, 1872, Page 87.
IS IT A SHAME?
"The ecclesia of which I am a member meet at a private house, where reside several sisters. Is it 'a shame' for them to attend our meetings without bonnets? One sister declared she would not break bread with us if we were bare-headed. Her authority is 1 Cor. xi. 5, 6. --W."
ANSWER--Paul treats the matter as one of taste purely. Probably there was need: for though matters of taste are not so vital as those of principle, they are indirectly related to the higher aspect of things. The position of woman appears to have been submitted to Paul's judgment and advice, in the same way as other questions related to her in 1 Cor. vii. 1. If a Party among the Corinthians shared some modern tendencies on the subject, they might encourage the sisters to insist upon a position of equality, and in token of it to appear in the assembly of the brethren bareheaded -- the covering of the head being among the ancients as among the Jews at the present day, a token of reverence. Paul distinctly condemns this. He says a man ought not to cover his head at such times, because he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of the man, and ought for that reason to conform to the token of her position -- (verse 7). This is Paul's view of the matter, which he sustains by an appeal to natural sense: "Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Finally, he dismisses the matter as one of no practical moment. "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God." As much as to say, the man who is disposed to debate the question on some theory of abstract equality, don't debate it with him: the apostolic churches recognise no such custom as that advocated for by the champion of "woman's rights." In the Lord, "neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man." -- (verse 11). In a sense, they are both equal: for in Christ there is neither male nor female; yet there is in all things a fitness which requires a recognition of woman's beautiful place, at the hands of both man and woman. The privacy of a house alters the case. Paul is discoursing of public assembly only, in which the rules of propriety are different from those applicable to domestic surroundings. It is good always to be zealously affected in a good cause; and the cause of apostolic precept is a good cause; but zeal must go hand-in-hand with discernment, or it will lead us into mistakes.
The Christadelphian -- April 1891, Page 65
--(H. E. S.) (1 Cor. xi. 4-10). -- If you will read "the appointment of" after the words "Because of," you will get Paul's idea: Paul is referring to the original position of woman as a reason for the covering of her head in public assembly. This original position was regulated by the ministry of the angels in whose image Adam was made. In Oriental custom the covering was a token of deference, as illustrated to this day in the Jew keeping his hat on in taking the oath in public courts; and as the "woman is the glory of the man," "created for the man," and out of the man, Paul contended that the liberty contended for by some in his day who were in favour of woman appearing on a level with man, in appearing bareheaded with him in acts of "praying and prophesying," was inconsistent with the originally-expressed will of God by the angels, and contrary to natural decency. The matter has little application in our day, except in so far as it discredits the foolish tendencies to put woman on a par with man.
