which would mean for a man to pray uncovered he’d have to remove his hair and be bald. the whole hair is a cover is a nonsense interpretation, every other orthodox church has done this since day one, only in 1920s america was this ever questioned. go into any famous monastery and they’ll still ask women to do this and the bishops also remove their head wear during prayer spots in the liturgy. it’s only liberal churches where you find this practice condemned and be honest it’s not because people in the 1920s suddenly became aware of the hair=a type of cover verse it was because culture was telling people that it was wrong for women to wear covers.
now we’ve got folks on the forum who deny the church tradition on this and those who reject the Holy Scripture.
i’m gonna go ahead and follow both.
btw the text in Russian was far less confusing to folks i’ve asked to read it; there’s definitely flaws in the English possibly intentional.
All the tradition in the world, without love for our brothers and sisters, is like the tinkling of a bell.
This division over hair, coverings and male and female is useless. There was something in those earlier letters that we don’t know about.
Was I bought with a price paid by my husband or by Christ?
When I married, years after receiving the Lord, did my husband’s covering “subordinate” the covering that I already had? (Colossians)
If my husband will only attend a church that would find a head covering as disruptive as the Corinthians found a shaved head, am I to leave him and go to another Church - or am I doomed to sin?