The head covering was an outward symbol of a woman's submission to authority, including and especially to her husband. To say it was only cultural is weak and speclative if not downright totally incorrect: however there are many woman even today who wear the covering and go home and bear rule over their husbands with an iron fist. Men look at the outward symbols, God looks at the dispostion of the heart, not the symbol. A gracious and godly woman needs neither braided hair to demonstrate her beauty nor the symbol of submission to prove her submission because her virtueous disposition is the greatest evidence of her submission to both God and husband. In fact that display is so powerful that it can be the means to save her husbands soul. This, no head covering can do... I agree that if it is your conviction do it, but if you do it, you had better be prepared to be judged if your conviction doesn't match your conduct. Better not to wear the symbol than to live in such a way as to disgrace the meaning of it. Hypocrisy is always sinful...
I am reading Richard Baxter's Christian Directory. It was written in the 1600s, well before feminism. Baxter says head coverings are a cultural issue, so as head coverings are a associated with Islam in my country, I don't wear one.
Absolute..false doctrine. The reference to women not speaking church is addressing the church of Corinth, where women weren't versed in Hebrew and couldn't understand what was being preached so they would yell across the church floor to ask their husbands for interpretation.
