S2S Sisters: "God’s Design for Headcovering: My Search for Answers" by Renee Miles
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2024
- July 6, 2024
Strength to Strength welcomed Renee Miles to discuss how God’s instruction for sisters’ headcovering compliments His design for womanhood.
There is an agreement among Christians that the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 are talking about a head covering, but this is where the agreement ends. Beyond that there is much debate and differences of opinion:
Is it a practice for today?
Is it an actual item to wear?
Do we wear it all the time?
What should a head covering look like?
The journey to discovering solid answers to the many questions and arguments in this area was a long one but worth the effort. Renee will share the experience of what she and her husband learned that led to their conviction.
An interactive question-and-answer period follows.
Resource: More-detailed testimony by Renee Mills, 2023 (audio MP3). strengthtostre...
strengthtostre...
Got me teary eyed in Idaho
Praise God! This was a beautiful blessing to listen to 🙏❤️ much love from Australia 🇦🇺 ❤️🙏
Loved this!
Renée your testimony could have my name on it!
❤
Thank you for sharing. I really enjoyed listening ❤
Hello! I'm encouraged by this! And happily surprised that I have learned new things and aspects! Praise the Lord!
I've struggled with knowing what to do with my hair whilst swimming, I'd appreciate what Scripture-based advice can be shared! Please!
1 thing im stuck on is why do you believe women are to cover always if men are allowed to wear hats? what if a man is wearing a hard hat at a construction job and wants to pray? or its winter and he is out with his family and wants to be silently praying out in a snowstorm with a hat on? if women are expected to always be covered are men expected to never have a hat on?
Good point
it also applies to women with long hair- whats the need of long hair if nobody can see it and it’s covered all the time
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
Thank you for this video I enjoy listening to the talks. I’m not anabaptist but wish to learn more. I struggle with head coverings and have done so on and off for yrs now. I am feeling that I need to be covered so this has come at a great time. Any and all info on this subject and modesty are appreciated.
Also how do I get informed about live talks if I wish to participate.
If you contact strength to strength on their website, they can send you the link to groups to be on to hear of the next talk
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
Several comments and honest questions that I'd really appreciate an answer to... not sure if these comments are read by S2S Sisters or Renee (the speaker in this video) or not. For context - I am a headcovering Believer of anabaptist persuasion that covers from getting dressed in AM till bedtime. And yes I have real convictions to this end - hasn't been just habitual etc.
1. Curious why Renee is so opposed (comes out even more in the linked audio which I also listened to) to 'teaching' on headcovering? I'm puzzled why that is a problem since in both this video and in the audio - the intended audience is to be just other women. What am I missing as to why she feels so strongly about that? It almost comes across as this is just something she does (headcovering) for herself - and wants to not tell other Christian women it's for them too.... Which would again puzzle me.
2. And... do we all really believe that if your husband doesn't feel it's for today or necessary or whatever reason he may give to not be on board with the practice - then we as his wife shouldn't practice this biblical command. Really? I just really struggle with that conclusion. Submission order - yes! But... are we called to believe and practice the same things are husbands do in the name of submission? That gets pretty tricky! Essentially, he would be in 'unbelief' in this area... and we're to join in that? Again - I'm struggling to conclude that.
3. And 1 more - just a comment by way of info..... Many conclude that headcovering was just for the Corinthians in part because they interpret the introduction in Chapter 1 to the Book of Corinthians differently. they would see the phrase 'together with all the saints' as just a descriptive phrase of the Corinthians... that they are part of the saints. As well as being holy and sanctified as also descriptives of them stated in that verse. So, if we'd like to use that intro sentence proof that I Cor. was written for all people in all time - we'd need to speak to that understanding of the sentence structure a bit . :). It gets sticky for sure. So so many reasons against it out there.
Thanks for any input that you can give!
I am not affiliated with S2S but thought I'd just give my opinion...
1) Perhaps this is just her level of comfort, and she feels very convicted about not teaching because that is reserved for men? Our personalities are all different as well as what we are comfortable with. For example, I would have had no problem calling out "lace doilies" as being insufficient as a head covering (though I would have to pray for humility to find the right words to do so), but she was not comfortable with doing that. I do understand how it can almost feel puzzling to hear people not wanting to be specific, because I think is necessary at times, as well as older women being called to teach younger women, yet doing so online can be a bit tricky. Any thoughts?
2) I was a bit surprised by this as well, but that doesn't mean it was wrong in her situation. As you said it is tricky. We should all seek God for guidance and older women in our lives if anyone is in that situation and do so with a gentle spirit. She did make a good point in that we could become prideful about it.
3) I never even thought at all about the intro, because I never thought it was needed as "proof"
Thanks! I was incredibly blessed by this talk and found Renee's enthusiasm to be infectious and beautiful to see!
@@janeEyreAddict thanks for sharing your thoughts. As to the 'teaching'... it seemed she was opposed to teaching on head covering period... but maybe she was just opposed to teaching specifics about it. That part I could understand... but it didn't come thru quite that way unless I missed something... and I surely could have! Usually doing other things while I listen :)
@@quiltednestvintage6347 Agreed! It's a very vulnerable thing to be online like that!
Paul , the Apostle taught on that.But he also taught that we do not argue about it. And he said, if one does not understand , let him not understand. It's should not be the topic of passionate persuasion . I see it as an Apostolic tradition that should be followed. But How it should be followed - it's up to our consciousness
David Bercot also taught that it is really hard to be alone without Anabaptist church around. That was one of the reasons we moved to Ohio , because in the state we used to live were barely any Anabaptists
I am really curious about something Renee said in the video about her husband expecting her to be quiet in church… this seems to me a very extreme view and stance you would take in interpreting Paul’s address to women. If that were to be the way Paul meant it, does that also mean you would not sing or converse with others during the church gathering?
I think we need to be so careful that we don’t put ourselves in bondage is such a way where the world looks on and wants nothing to do with our so called “freedom” in Christ.
Hi Lisa, this is a great question! I was wondering the same thing. I can’t answer for Renee, but as a conservative head-covering Anabaptist myself, I can at least say that this view is uncommon among us. We would be very hesitant to take one passage like 1 Cor 14:34-35 and let it nullify other passages like Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 which instruct all Christians to participate in public worship. Many of us would also be open to women praying or prophesying in a mixed church gathering (not that much “prophesying” usually happens in our circles at all). In my circles, in the off chance that we have a mixed prayer meeting, women are often welcome to pray. Many of us don't see an indication in the head covering passage that “praying or prophesying” is a strictly private affair for either men or women.
Taken the whole context, we’d probably see 1 Cor 14:34 as pertaining specifically to publicly questioning a man’s teaching (hence the instruction to ask husbands at home instead) and making public judgement on someone else’s prophecy, as indicated by the verses immediately preceding (esp. 1 Cor 14:29).
I appreciate your reply, thank you! I’m glad to hear that you have a more balanced view of what Paul is saying here.
Paul wrote that in a time and place where drunk women were wandering in from the next door temple to Dionysus & disrupting while he was preaching
@@ApocalypseChill That’s an interesting story but I’m not aware of any historical sources for such a claim. Also, it would be strange for Paul to tell these women to ask their husbands questions about church at home, since the husbands of such women probably wouldn’t be present or know the first thing about Christian doctrine.
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
This topic is important. Please also add the Romanian subtitles.
Very interesting video! Thank you. I have wondered if I should wear a head covering. How do we know how much of the head should be covered? I see your whole head isn't covered and I've seen Mennonites' head covering and they only have partly - covered heads.
1 Corinthians 11:15
Her hair is given to her for a covering.
And the 16th verse: " if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice and neither does the church of God."
@helenunrau6468 Paul is saying that he and the church are NOT contentious, and that is not their way.
Can you add romanian subtitle??
You can curse your head while wearing one too can’t you?
a 2 hour video on headcovering when every 10 seconds someone passes away and most of them are going to hell. this is a neurotic waste of time, I'll be out doing and focusing on what Jesus told us to do. this is some "sleeping church" behavior
@Apocalypsechill. And yet you are here watching for two hours instead of doing out reach 🤔
Actually, anyone can see the total length of this video without watching it.
@@crazychicken4063🤯
@@crazychicken4063 🤯
You should have seen the comment where someone was giving advice to a woman WORRIED about not wearing a head covering in the shower.
Neurotic is accurate.
If your hair is to be covered, than why is some of your hair showing. If what you are sharing is true, shouldn't all your hair be covered?
Head* not hair. ❤
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.