House Church Talk - speaking

Tim Poole pooletim at
Sat May 15 21:08:18 EDT 2004

Bruce said,
"Nor can the covering that a woman is to have on her head (when
 she prays or prophesies) and which a man is not to have on his head (when
 prays or prophesies) be THEIR HAIR!  All you need to do to see how
 ridiculous such a position is is to insert into the text the phrase "hair
 on" in place of "covered" and  "hair off" in place of "uncovered"!!!"

In response,
Niv 1Cor. 11: 7 footnote (vs. 4)  Every man that prays or prophesies with
long hair dishonors his head.  (vs.5) And every woman who prays or
prophesies with no covering (of hair)on her head dishonors her head-- She is
just like one of the "Shorn Women" (vs.6) If a woman has no covering. Let
her be for now with short hair. But since it is a disgrace for a woman to
have her hair shorn or shaved. She should grow it again.(vs.7) A man ought
not to have long hair.

Sorry, scripture trumps your opinion. In Christ, Tim

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Woodford" <bwood4d at>
To: <House Church Talk  at>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: House Church Talk -  speaking

> Hi Tim,
> In response to my e , you wrote:"Its obvious that you will be able to find
> justfication for your position and continue in what you want to believe.
> My Opinion, I Cor 11:5 Paul has already assumed the right of women to pray
> or prophecy publicly (11:1-16); here he probably is emphasizing the right
> women to judge prophecy, something restricted to the male leadership of
> church. As well, women (or men for that matter) shouldn't be disrupting
> meetings with questions or chatter . I see coverings in that it was an
> of hair, long for women short for men. A cultural issue. This will not
> change anyones mindset if you cannot change. I feel the real issue is
> insecure men afraid of what their wives might say about them in the
> meetings, revealing who they really are. Isn't it just old fashioned
> CONTROL? Its so much easier to control by the flesh then to submit to one
> another. As C.S. Lewis said. "Who needs a head if you can walk in
> agreement." In my opinion, if you cant walk in agreement, you cannot lead,
> you can only control by being a dictator."
> Dear brother, I think you should know that my wife takes a vocal part in
> house church gatherings and I encourage her to do so! You see, it is NOT a
> control issue as you suspect!  I believe scripture is quite clear that
> are scripturally free to conduct themselves in a house church gathering
> as they are free to have conversations in any other setting (in which
> conversation is appropriate) with or without men present. On this list, I
> have actively and repeatedly advocated the scriptural nature of our
> vocal participation in all house church gatherings and I have repeatedly
> cited scriptures where first century Christian women did just that! THE
> CHURCH GATHERING OF A CITY. I have also cited a number of actual whole
> church gatherings in the book of Acts where all the speakers were males
> no mention is made of any vocal participation of women. Such a gathering
> a unique situation in that it is the only context where scripture also
> requires:
> (1) that speakers speak one at a time,
> (2) that if tongues speakers speak, it is to be by two or at the most
> (3) that no one is to speak in tongues if there is no interpretter,
> (4) that 2 or three prophets may speak and other prophets are to judge,
> (5) that a prophet who is speaking is to hold his peace if something is
> revealed to another prophet who is sitting by,
> As to the asking of questions:  very good questions and edifying answers
> often spoken by godly women in house church gatherings!  But city wide
> church gatherings are not a suitable place for "question and answer
> sessions" or for conversations!  I Cor.14:35 does not deal with the issue
> DISRUPTION caused by women asking questions in a whole church meeting, it
> deals with the fact that women are to be silent and not to speak in such a
> gathering!
> Re. the covering question of I Cor.11, it cannot be a "cultural issue" for
> Paul's instructions to Christian men ran totally counter to his very own
> Jewish culture in which men always covered their heads to pray or
> prophesy!!!  Nor can the covering that a woman is to have on her head
> she prays or prophesies) and which a man is not to have on his head (when
> prays or prophesies) be THEIR HAIR!  All you need to do to see how
> ridiculous such a position is is to insert into the text the phrase "hair
> on" in place of "covered" and  "hair off" in place of "uncovered"!!!
> Finally, relative to the subject of headship, I won't comment on your C.S.
> Lewis quote as I do not know the context in which he was speaking. But
> what scripture says about headship, the reason for it is NOT because
> are not able to walk in agreement! God the Father and Christ have always
> walked in agreement and perfect unity, but God is the head of Christ (I
> Cor.11:3),  Christ submitted himself to the Father's will
> does nothing but what He sees the Father do! (John 5:19,20)  So when God,
> Himself reveals that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the
> man and man is the head of the woman, I would find it difficult to argue
> with God and say that "a head is unnecessary if you can walk in
> This sort of philosophy reminds me of the feminist slogan popularized many
> years ago, " A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle!"   Such a
> philosophy comes from people who do not know Christ and the God of the
> Bible! I Cor 11:7-12 makes very clear that both men and women are
> on and complementary to each other!
> Godly headship has nothing at all to do with dictatorial control!
> Your brother in Christ,
> Bruce
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE*


House Church Talk is sponsored by the House Church Network.

House Church Talk has been renamed. These discussions, via the web, now occur at the Radically Christian Cafe.