. . . - a quick question. In your research travels, have you run across a good answer or comment to the 'argument's that says that God can't really be stating women are to be wearing a headcovering in I Cor. 11 because that is inconsistent with him removing the law and circumcision requirement so as to not be 'under a yoke of slavery' again (largely found in Galations 5.) In other words - many feel that how could God remove 1 form of something 'required' (circumcision) and then turn around and require something else - such as a headcovering. Do you catch my meaning? And then they conclude it's really just about submission of the heart, like circumcision is now, and no 'object' or symbol is required.While I don't myself believe this (and am a full-time practicing headcoverer for 30+ years) - I still come up short with a good response to this prevalent argument. It's become a pretty big deal in my life for reasons I'll be silent on for now and would sure love any help you could give. I think I've read everything out there on the Net - and just am not finding any solid answers to this one.
Please comment here or send me an email if you can. Thank you all again, so much, for your encouragement to me and to each other.
Also, if you have the chance to answer the question asked on the previous entry - "why wear headcovering to a soccer game?" - feel free to answer here as well. I am very behind in my work.
Please check the other Christian headcovering blogs, especially "Free To Cover" for more answers to headcovering questions.