Oh Lord Revive Us

Yearning for revival, looking for inspiration at Sermon Audio. Looking specifically for those I know to be Spirit-filled men, I'm tired of hearing good Biblical sermons preached without the anointing of the Spirit. It's terribly depressing. I know Tozer is Spirit-filled, sometimes I feel the Spirit in his preaching, which I suppose depends on how close I've been to the Lord myself.

I'm disgusted with myself really, I'm such a soggy half-dead Christian. The church should be something supernatural and powerful in this world, individual Christians should have supernatural power, rivers of living water pouring from us to bring life to the dead world around us. Nothing could be more obvious than that we don't.

I found this sermon by Tozer on being born again, Begotten Again Unto a Living Hope - I Peter, Part 3 and it was inspiring. I wish there were dozens more on that theme to listen to from him.

He made a very interesting statement in this sermon. He said that the reason we talk so much about revival is that Christians aren't initially born of the Spirit as we should be, and if we were the church WOULD be that powerful agent in the world we hope revival will make it.

Please pray for me, I want to spend WAY more time seeking the Lord than I do, WAY more.

The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. 12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country. 13 And they went away and told it unto the rest: neither believed they them.

14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. 17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen

Why are we to doubt this passage? Don't we know for a fact, from the testimony of scripture itself, that the apostolic generation did have these experiences? Don't we know they cast out demons over and over and over? That they spoke in tongues? That Paul picked up a poisonous viper and shook it off without harm? Don't we know they healed the sick miraculously over and over and over? Why is there any doubt about this passage? Why do the scholars choose to believe the corrupted texts preferred by Westcott and Hort? Answer: They are trusting in their fallible minds instead of in GOD.

Yes, I know the problem with this text comes in with applying it to the church after the apostolic age, but taking it just as written there is no need to insist on that application, since we know it is almost word for word prophetic of the ministry of the apostles. We know mostly of Paul plus some accounts of a few others, but from their experience we shouldn't have any trouble surmising that all the apostles experienced such miraculous powers. Some other time I might even be willing to argue that they are still available today under certain circumstances, but for now just on the face of it this much-disputed passage in Mark ought to be regarded as unimpeachably the word of the Lord.

And then if you read the evidence for its legitimate transmission in the following you should have no more doubts at all. This is a page about Mark 16 from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory which gives historical reasons to accept the passage and gets at the mutilating effects of the fleshly mind on God's word:

Most scholars believe the original ending to Mark's Gospel has been lost. [3] If this is true, the concept of preserving the words of Scripture is forever annihilated. The words cannot be preserved and lost at the same time. However, textual scholars usually call for its inclusion even if they question its originality. Dr. Bruce Metzger departs from the maxim of modern textual critics, Brevior lectio potior (the shorter reading is preferable), and supports the longer ending even though admittedly he does not regard the passage as genuine. He considers it to be a legitimate part of the New Testament because of its traditional significance to the body of Christendom. [4] The passage is not contained in the Alexandrian texts, minuscule 2386, the Syrian Sinaitic Version, and a few other translations.

However, it is in many of the Greek uncials (A, C, D, K, X, D, Q, and P) dating between the fifth and ninth centuries. It is also contained in later dated Greek minuscules (137, 138, 1110, 1210, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1221, and 1582). It is the reading found in the majority of Old Latin texts as well as the Coptic versions and other early translations. Finally, it is cited (at least in part) by many of the early church fathers such as Justin (165 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus (235 AD), Ambrose (397 AD) and Augustine (430 AD). [5]

In 177 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies. In it he cites from Mark 16:19, establishing that the longer reading was in existence at this time and was considered canonical, at least by Irenaeus:

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; " confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein. (3:10:5).

The difference here is extremely important. If we conclude that this passage is not authentic, then we must question what happened to the original ending of Mark. It is not logical that the Gospel would end at this place so abruptly. Nor is it likely, as some scholars have suggested, that the Gospel was never finished, calling biblical inspiration into question. The conclusion held by most textual scholars, whether liberal or conservative, that the original ending has been lost over the passage of time certainly denies the doctrine of biblical preservation.

Seems to me the W&H defenders need to shake off their trust in the scholarly establishment, or more to the point shake off their fleshly intellect and open their spiritual eyes! If you exercise your fleshly mind on these things without immersing yourself in prayer in the fear of God and abiding in Him, you will end up discarding His very word and missing the spiritual riches He has given us.

Doubt about the passage is based completely on accepting Westcott and Hort's text and their despising of the Textus Receptus which was the traditional text on which the KJV was based. It also suggests the liberal prejudice against the supernatural we're so familiar with today. Both inclinations have brought about the mutilation of the Biblical text which had been passed down through the centuries, a mutilation apparently accepted today even by the most conservative scholars, even those who are usually alert to this kind of destruction. Following Westcott and Hort's mugging of the Bible, today conscientious studious pastors of even the most Bible-focused churches determine the canon of Holy Scripture by the flesh rather than the spirit. That is why they have either done away with Mark 16:9-20 or hold it in oh-so-fussy head-proud "doubt."

I know so many sincere Christians who will defend the Westcott and Hort profanation of God's word. Otherwise good preachers trust in their scholarly training and their carnal intellectual strengths for judging God' word. The church is so weak compared to what it seems to me the Bible shows us is possible and desired by the Lord. The flesh can preach the Bible, can even preach spiritual truth (and I am susceptible to the same mistake), but only what is preached in the spirit has value and has power to save.

If men are to remove their hats in church, shouldn't women cover their heads?

Since someone who has a website about head covering (Lisa) recently came along and posted here I've been thinking I need to do more on that subject. In fact I may have to start a separate blog because the topic can get very involved, as you can see if you visit that link and start tracking down other links from that site.

My own focus is strictly Biblical, and I do believe the Bible requires us to cover our heads. It's interesting that more women seem to be discovering this in the last few years, to judge by the number of blogs on the subject that have appeared recently.

I think that the more women spend time praying about this the more we'll see a move in this direction, because the Holy Spirit will certainly bring about that conviction for any who wait on Him for guidance. He would also show the wrongness of the idea that Paul was saying that long hair is the covering, or that he could have had a mere cultural custom in mind that is now no longer in force. I have no doubt about this. The churches understood Paul to be requiring a head covering and enforced it for 1800 years, until feminism came along.

This question, like too many others, has been too often decided by intellectual investigation of the scripture with too little prayer behind it. I'm convinced that serious dedicated prayer and meditation on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 along with diligent research into the history of the question would show that we are required to cover our heads. Research should be based on intimations from the Holy Spirit, it shouldn't itself be the foundation for arriving at a conclusion.

As I read that passage I don't connect it as directly with the other Biblical writings on women's role as many do. Of course it's not unrelated, but just in itself it isn't calling women to submissiveness or to modesty or even particular roles as other passages are, it's making a completely objective statement about the meaning of the head and whether it is covered or uncovered.

Paul says quite a bit about the necessity of the man's head being uncovered as well as the woman's being covered, and the fact that Jewish men did and still do cover their heads for worship helps prove that Paul was giving a specifically Christian directive. Even Roman men covered their heads for worship of their pagan gods.

Paul uses hair as an example for BOTH men and women. He points to the natural state of men's usually having shorter hair, even less hair than women if you consider that baldness is natural to men, as well as the natural state of women's hair being longer. When you recognize that he is addressing both sexes it may be easier to see that his point is that the natural state is to be reflected in men's uncovering their heads in church as well as women's covering theirs. Women's naturally longer way of wearing their hair (universal in Paul's day and in fact throughout history with some striking but rare exceptions) is to be taken as a cue to cover their heads, just as men's shorter hair is a natural cue to uncover.

Therefore: if we ask men to uncover their heads when they enter church, we should also ask women to cover their heads.

But we do the former and don't do the latter.

You'll often find discussions that treat it as a matter of a woman's conscience and advocate leaving it up to her whether to cover or not. Well, as long as church leadership doesn't take a position on it I suppose there's no other choice, but in the spirit of the teaching it's not about individual conscience, it's something the church should simply require of its members. Instead, they obey part of Paul's teaching and ask men to take off their hats while leaving the women's heads to their own discretion. This all by itself ought to show that the teaching has become infected with feminist hypersensitivities and is far from reflecting God's will.

The more I think about this the more I think it's far from a minor little thing, and Paul didn't treat it as minor. He appealed to God's order at Creation, he appealed to nature, he appealed to the fact that angels watch. I'm convinced this is one of the things the church is doing that offends God and has weakened us spiritually and in fact is bringing judgment against the church.

This topic is usually discussed in the blogs in tandem with modest feminine dress, and while I don't think it's specifically related in Paul's thinking in the passage about the head covering, both are certainly Paul's concern and I think there's a lot to be said about how women are pushing the envelope about dressing modestly, even in the conservative churches. I think this is apparent to anyone who gives it any serious thought. I'll take that up soon, or maybe I'll move all this to another blog.

Later: Here's my new blog Hidden Glory.

Maybe we're the apostate church?

This blog is really a record of changes I've been going through. I'm going through a period in which all sorts of things that feel wrong to me, that have bothered me for some time at some barely-conscious level, are coming to consciousness and I'm willing now to argue the point. The question in my last post about living on credit is just one of the latest.

As I say in my Profile I started out at the beginning of 2007 seeking the Lord and through that seeking being led back to a concern I had dropped a few years previous to that, about the question of whether women should cover our heads in church. That was the one that started it all. I'd dropped it because I'd discovered hostility to it -- specifically a jocular mocking of the idea as a few of the women pranced around coquettishly wearing hats for a while, including the pastor's wife (I'd discussed it with him earlier but not with her). After that I rationalized dropping it as being too much of a disturbance to make an issue of it. But some things SHOULD cause a disturbance. Not that it should come from me personally. (Or maybe it should if there's nobody else. I'll have to pray about that more.)

Some two and a half years later, though, at the beginning of 2007, I was clearly convicted of it and had to begin covering my own head at least, no matter what. I also did a thorough study of the question in order to be able to defend the idea to people, covered all the material available to me including a recommendation by my pastor, found many good articles on it on the internet. I started wearing a simple little beret type hat to church, pretty inconspicuous (and not really quite what the Bible requires either, but a beginning compromise since shocking people with anything more than that is clearly not going to be productive), but again found myself frozen out by the women, mostly polite nonresponse but again with some subtle mocking behavior. Six months later I left that church anyway, for a number of reasons, some of them doctrinal. At first it was accidental: For a while I was without a ride to church. I kept letting it slide and then all my disagreements with them started adding up too. I believe it's the best church around here, nevertheless, the best preaching anyway, on most subjects, and the Lord may yet have me go back.

More recently I got involved in the Bible versions question, which I've covered at perhaps tedious length on this blog already. That was also an issue for me some years before that I'd also dropped -- also because it made me the lone defender of an unpopular idea among the Christians I know, coward that I am. On this subject I find myself almost just as much at odds with the King James defenders as with the multiple-version Westcott and Hort defenders. I guess that's because I'm really a Textus-Receptus defender more than a King James-only defender. But I'd like to see the King James preserved as far as possible for a variety of reasons. On this subject it seems even the best churches and best teachers in my opinion are completely given over to the multiple translations and I probably have even less of a chance of convincing anyone I know of this than of the head covering.

Back at the beginning of 2007 I also started pursuing the question why we aren't having revival in the churches, whether we could still, and how it might happen if the Lord would permit it. Time is getting short it seems, things are looking a lot like we're winding down to the Very End. Many signs of it as I discussed early on in this blog. Really wanting to know why we aren't having revival in such a time as this led me into thoughts about how perhaps the churches are simply too far out of God's will by now for Him to be willing to send us a true revival. Perhaps the women's head covering matters more than anyone wants to think? The last major revivals I'm aware of, a century or so ago, were in churches where women still wore something on their heads. I doubt that could be the only reason we aren't having revival now, of course, but after studying it I can't think it's unimportant. It's a creation-based command of God, it concerns his government for his creation, it involves respect for his order in this universe.

As for other reasons, well, even in the conservative churches you'll find Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage compromised. He said, and Paul confirmed it, that there's no reason for divorce except sexual unfaithfulness and no reason at all for remarriage ever, after divorce that is; it's only legitimate if the first spouse has died. None of this was a point of contention a hundred years ago. I've heard it argued that if scripture grants an exception for divorce an exception is granted also thereby for remarriage, but I'm not yet convinced. For one thing it is NEVER stated anywhere that remarriage is permitted. Not that it can't be forgiven once it has been committed ignorantly.

Along with all this compromised teaching in the conservative churches as a reason God might not give us revival, there are plenty of fake revivals going on too, and a real danger that the majority of lukewarm Christians could be drawn into the counterfeits even by a serious seeking for true revival. This is a real possibility because there is so little genuine spiritual discernment among Christians, and because we've all sat under this compromised teaching I'm talking about. Somehow or other the whole church, at least the whole church in the West, is out of step with the Lord. How far out of step? How deep is the problem?

We conservative Christians are used to being able to point to churches we recognize as apostate, all the "liberal" churches that outright deny certain Biblical commands and precepts, on homosexuality for instance. But is it possible that the apostasy is actually closer to home?

One thing that bothers me quite a bit, though I feel bad saying it because it seems so innocent in a way, is all the light sentimental and jokey emails I get from Christian friends. It's just not a Christian tone. I'm also lately getting particularly bothered by the political focus of so many of them -- and I've contributed to that myself. Where is the church that was to be a light to the world? We're just acting like the world. Where is the power? Where is our awareness of the glorious Kingdom and our Lord of glory? Where is the radical self-denial we're supposed to be living? I have to say that I do not see this in ANY church or ANY Christian I've ever known, certainly including myself.

A subject I want to talk about in a blog or two after this is some helpful websites I've discovered and especially what I've learned about the practices of the first couple centuries of Christians. THEY lived what Jesus taught in a way we simply do not. They lived true self-denial, true love of the brethren, true separation from the world in a way that has become sadly foreign to Christians today, sadly and certainly including me.

A call to death to self, to life in Christ, and a note on the handicap of having a false Bible.

As I mentioned a few posts back, I've been appreciating the writings and talks of Zac Poonen, of Bangalore, India. I've listened and read enough now to have encountered some areas I disagree with him about, but overall his main message is so true to Christ I'm going to overlook the disagreements for now. This is exhortation to the Spirit-filled life that we just don't find except in old books, at least as old as A.W. Tozer and Leonard Ravenhill and Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

His main page: http://www.poonen.org/

A page of books you can read online or order for cost: http://www.cfcindia.com/web/mainpages/bookshelf.php

A page of links to topical Bible studies:
http://www.cfcindia.com/web/mainpages/topical_bible_study.php

And along the bottom of the page are links to other pages of sermons and teachings.

His teaching solves for me the problem of the charismatic errors while supporting the basis for genuine Pentecostal and charismatic expectations, my hope for revival, the enlivening of the Lord's true people in these last days. He believes in the gift of tongues for today but judges that some 90% of them are counterfeit. I can go with that -- at least until I have solid reason to think otherwise. He's never been in a charismatic congregation, he simply takes his understanding of the spiritual gifts for today direct from the Bible and because of his strong emphasis on what the Christian life costs, I find him believable.

His denunciations of the prosperity teachings as the complete contradiction of the Biblical message are sharp and to the point. His main message is the Exchanged Life, that is, the giving up of our life for Christ's life within us. The more we die to self the more we live to Him and for Him and through Him. This is more than just getting sin out of our lives, it's also mortifying the flesh in giving up everything we are to Christ. The more we mortify our flesh the more we have of the Spirit. This is classical Christianity, but finding it in the morass of apostasy and confusion these days is not easy. If you have a strong spiritual leading in this direction you can pick out the occasional gems from the muck, but usually it means you need to go to the older writers.

And we need to do this because we need the right kind of spiritual food, the right kind of exhortation, to strengthen us in these days of silly self-indulgent fleshly "Christianity."

I do have to say that it bothers me a lot that Zac Poonen is trusting in the new Bible versions. Clearly he wants a simple English text to get across the simplicity of the gospel, and he thinks the KJV is not accessible to his people. So he goes to the Amplified or the Living Bible at times. I do find it disappointing to hear him quote a well known passage in anything but the KJV wording. It's just another proof of how Westcott and Hort damaged the church. A Spirit-led preacher can still make use of the bad versions, but it's discouraging to hear him make a case for, say, how God's word has "eyes of the heart," going on to explain that this is because it's the heart that concerns God more than the intellect, apparently not knowing that the KJV has "eyes of the understanding." Also, to call the Holy Spirit the "helper" isn't exactly wrong, but "comforter" was the choice of the truly God-inspired KJV writers.

See, most preachers and teachers of the Bible think all the versions are merely different translations of the same basic word of God. They trust the translators to have given them viable options that all express God's own mind and heart, and if they prefer one word over another themselves, it's usually on the basis of what they think their hearers will grasp best. The idea that one is right and another wrong does not necessarily enter into it.

If they try to inform themselves of the controversy and the history of the versions, they usually stop with the apologists for the modern versions. They may be (rightly I think) put off by some of the extreme King-James-only advocates.

You'll hear a talk from time to time on the Reliability of the Biblical Manuscripts which simply never gets into the subject of the different lineages and qualities of manuscripts, or anything relevant to the KJV only position. They'll argue from the great many manuscripts in existence, and from techniques of textual criticism that can establish lineages back to the originals, that our Bible is reliable, as if all our Bibles were basically the same, without ever mentioning that there are whole lineages of corrupted texts as well as trustworthy ones, that also go back to ancient times.

The KJV translators were aware of these textual traditions and rejected those they found to be corrupt in their own judgment, which included the texts that were later preferred by Westcott and Hort and now made the basis of almost all the non-KJV Bibles today. Now the different lineages and traditions are treated more or less as equal, more or less as God's word, but if they get into it at all a modern scholar will simply flatly claim that the Westcott and Hort texts are superior, only because supposedly they are older. (Recently I've run across the assertion that as a matter of fact there are other ancient texts that still survive, even from the lineage that underlies the KJV, texts OLDER than those that underlie the new versions. My argument has been (basically Burgon's I believe) that a text that happened to survive from the 2nd century has no particular claim to being superior to a whole lot of texts that survive from the 4th, 6th or 10th centuries, because all it means is that the older one wasn't used as much, wasn't copied as much, wasn't appreciated by the church. In fact the Sinaiticus text that now underlies the new versions was found in a wastebasket in a ruined monastery. But if there are even older portions of the Bible of the KJV type, that's great to know.)

So preachers in all good faith accept the modern versions, accept whatever rationalizations they've learned from the modern scholars, are probably put off by the shrill and denunciatory tone and outlandish claims of some of the KJV-only camp, and so the church limps on to the Last Day with its sword a tad dull and its shield more often than not dangling uselessly at its side.

Well, I think some good preachers can for the most part rise above the handicap. But they are a rare breed.

Why we haven't had a great revival

Wondering if God might not want to give us a widespread revival in America, pondering what might be the reasons. (I mean the orthodox churches, the ones who adhere to the true gospel. There is no question why the apostate churches will not see revival, those that deny the supernatural for instance, the virgin birth, those that accept homosexuals as not needing repentance, even as pastors and so on; or the signs-and-wonders enthusiasts of the charismatic movement. They have their own "revivals" and they aren't what I have in mind).

Everything we need to be repenting of in our times of prayer for revival can be a barrier to revival if not repented of. When revival comes in great power, according to most of the descriptions I've read, it comes first in a conviction of sin that puts people into an agony of guilt before pressing them to repentance.

How far can we be from His will and still be blessed by an outpouring of His Holy Spirit? Are there areas of our practice in our Christian lives that need repentance, that could inhibit revival, that most of us are not even aware of?

How much does it matter if a church uses the new versions as opposed to the KJV? Could the uncertain sound of the trumpet (as it were) in the new versions keep Him from blessing a church? (see previous entries on this subject). Well, there have apparently been some local revivals in the last few decades where this wasn't an issue as far as I know, but I'd still like to see us go back to the KJV because the new versions have a shaky foundation and at least the KJV translators were many and they were Godfearing men, and they were NOT deprived of the best texts either.

How much does it matter that women no longer cover our heads in church? I have no doubt now that this is what Paul, and therefore God, wants of us. How much is God willing to overlook? Would it affect how susceptible a revival might be to demonic interference in it? If we want to protect a revival from such interference shouldn't we seek to be as obedient as possible even in the small things? And perhaps the head covering really isn't all that small an issue. Paul's exhortation is so specifically about the head I don't see how anybody can turn it into something else, can say that the covering of the head was merely a cultural symbol of female submissiveness in Paul's day, so that we can freely exchange it for any symbol of femininity in our day. I dunno. It's about the HEAD, people. It's about displaying the male head which is the glory of Christ, and covering the female head which is the glory of man, also her hair which is her own glory, in the presence of God. I dunno, but for the last two millennia women covered their heads in church, and out of church as well, which you can see in paintings of various periods in Europe and America, but interestingly, in pre-Christian Greece and Rome they did not cover their heads, at least not consistently. It seems to have begun with Paul's exhortation.

Related to this, does God mind that women have capitulated to the culture in so many other ways too? That we wear makeup and cut our hair short and so on? How far can we go toward dressing as fashionably as possible or as we can afford? How far can we go in accepting cultural standards, taking them for granted, just because they don't mean the same thing in our culture they would have meant a hundred years or five hundred or a thousand years ago? (Keep in mind that the culture of Europe for the last two millennia was strongly influenced by Christianity, and America until the 20th century as well, but the west today can hardly be said to be so any more).

These are just a couple of "little" things that have been different in the last century by comparison to previous centuries, making me wonder if they may be connected with the lack of a major revival in our time.

Another is the growth of the charismatic movement. They claim many revivals, but a great deal of the phenomena in those events are either fake or demonic. Leonard Ravenhill in many books and sermons strenuously exhorted people to seek revival, but he never saw revival himself in answer to his prayers, and in wondering why not I considered the possibility that his acceptance of some of the charismatic phenomena might be a reason.

Just ponderings.

I hope that Kay Arthur's attempt to get people praying for revival across the country will bear fruit.

Women should cover their heads in church

Last year I did a study of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, which teaches that women are to cover our heads in church. It involved reading many articles and online books, and hearing many sermons on the subject.

I had never been in a church that teaches that women are to cover our heads, so it was surprising to discover that there are such churches, and surprising also to come to the conclusion myself from my study that it's certainly what that passage requires of us.

Some churches I'd attended simply taught nothing at all on the subject, though various women in different churches understood the required covering to be long hair, basing this on verse 15 of the passage where Paul speaks of long hair as a natural covering to women. (I've reproduced the passage below so you can check this out there).

My church at the time subscribed to the position of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, http://www.cbmw.org/ which holds that the covering required by Paul is to be understood as merely the cultural symbol in Paul's time of female submission to male headship in the church, and since it doesn't have that meaning today we should substitute whatever conveys that meaning in our time. (However, one thing I found out in my study was that it was NOT the cultural symbol of submission they claim it was, and besides seeing this in pictures on Google Image of pre-Christian Greek and Roman male and female dress, all the proof you really need is the fact that Paul is exhorting them at such length to do this. A secondary point is that there is absolutely NOTHING that conveys that symbolic meaning in our time anyway. We have to learn from Paul that covering the head has that meaning TO GOD AND TO THE ANGELS.) Check out Questions 31 and 32 on this page: http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books/Fifty-Crucial-Questions/Fifty-Crucial-Questions#31

Nevertheless, interestingly, at their website they also offer for online reading a book by Mary Kassian, Women, Creation and the Fall, in which she has a chapter about the meaning of this passage and concludes that it does refer to covering the head and that it applies to us today. http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/women_creation_fall.pdf Go to Chapter 9, page 92, about halfway down the PDF document. You can skip to the end of the chapter to find her conclusion that the head covering is still applicable today and that she would "encourage" women to cover their heads in church.

OK, I found I could copy out the quote. Here it is, from page 104 at the very end of the chapter:

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul exhorts the Corinthian church to adhere to a custom he had taught them: Women were to veil themselves in the public assembly of believers, and men were not. This was a distinctly Christian custom observed out of respect for the principle of headship. The reasons Paul gives for this custom are cross-cultural. They appeal to creation and the laws of nature. This reveals to us how intricately the principle of headship is woven into the created order. Whether one believes that women should veil themselves today (as I would encourage) or that headship could be affirmed by other appropriate forms of dress in our day, the conclusion is the same: The headship principle is so fundamental, so central to the functioning of the local church that it must be be evidenced symbolically in the Christian meeting. Headship is the same principle which underlies marital structure. And this vital doctrine lays foundation for the balance of New Testament teaching on the role of women in the church.

The reason it took me so much time and effort to get to what now seems like a pretty straightforward reading of the passage, is the variety of interpretations held by different branches of the church, and the vehemence with which they are held.

Just recently I discovered a preacher quite new to me whom I appreciate very much, Zac Poonen of Bangalore, India. I'm a bit of a heretic to some branches of the church, particularly the Reformed, in that I'm attracted to the "higher life" teaching, which is often dismissed by them as "mysticism," a word that is badly misused by them in my opinion. That's a whole discussion unto itself, but I mention it because that is Zac Poonen's attraction for me also. In exploring his sermons because of this interest in his basic message, I discovered that he happens to have a teaching on the passage about the head covering and was very happy to find that he agrees with me! And says it wonderfully succinctly: http://downloads2.sermonindex.us/16/SID16538.mp3 (There is no counter on this audio device and he covers the whole chapter, also spending about six minutes at the beginning on the first verse which doesn't apply to this topic, so to get just the part about the head covering see if you can set the pointer about a sixth to a fifth of the way along the track. The message runs about 18 minutes.)

1 Corinthians 11:

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.