BTW, my wonderful hubby doesn’t “approve” my wardrobe selections either. If I’m not mistaken, I believe I read that C.J. inspects his wife’s wardrobe. Can someone confirm this?

I am going to repeat you comment under the ongoing discussion about comp/egal.

There were a few women who wore head-coverings. I remember when Wendy Virgo came to speak a long time ago — and she said it was up to our husbands whether we covered our heads or not.

My neighbor asked me just recently if I still attended CLC and said she had visited it recently. I told her I didn’t–and that I could not in good conscience recommend it to anyone, primarily because of the hyper-authoritarian control, extra-biblical requirements, and CBMW.

Although I will admit I do agree with them on this subject.

But why would a woman cover today? That is the big question. Does she think it makes her more Holy to cover? Is she covering like the Jews did to show her shame for sin before God? If so, then that mocks Christ and His sacrfice.

My response was more from wondering what their understanding of the Word is. If they are covering, they are free to do so but I would hope some brother or sister who loves them would ask why and point them to the Word and explain. If they still want to cover then no problem. But stuff like this can spread like a legalistic cancer and women especially can have a false sense of being Holy because of a hat.

If I have mocked, I apologize. But I find that sometimes a few think serious debate is mocking. I find this with pastors a lot who do not like being challenged at all.

” In fact, after reading comments from Deb, Dee, and Lydia, I would argue that if you were in positions of spiritual authority, you would likely handle yourselves in the same way as the pastors that you so harshly criticize. Just look at the way that you have circled the wagons over my comments. This is just some food for thought, as I think that their is some latent bitterness that is coloring every post and comment on this blog.”

This could not happen because I could never be in a “position of spiritual authority”. That is reserved for Jesus Christ alone. As a matter of fact, thinking one is in a position of “spiritual authority” is the firt step to spiritual abuse. If we are really true believers, no matter what our function in the Body, we know we are lowly servants in that function.

I have to wonder what those who believe in HUMAN “spiritual authority” understand what is the function of the Holy Spirit?

But why would a woman cover today? That is the big question. Does she think it makes her more Holy to cover? Is she covering like the Jews did to show her shame for sin before God? If so, then that mocks Christ and His sacrfice.

My response was more from wondering what their understanding of the Word is. If they are covering, they are free to do so but I would hope some brother or sister who loves them would ask why and point them to the Word and explain. If they still want to cover then no problem. But stuff like this can spread like a legalistic cancer and women especially can have a false sense of being Holy because of a hat.

Interesting, my home church in the UK where I grew up in the charismatic era (similar to SGM in many ways) strongly taught headcovering and abstinence from alcohol as absolute non-negotiables. Any husband whose wife didn’t cover her head in worship stood no chance of any leadership role in the church.

The SGM church I attended in the UK scoffed at this, freedom to drink alcohol and not wear hats was seen as “grace”.

Thanks for the info and kind comment.There were three ladies with coverings, all of them were under 40 and all seemed and none of them had accents. Perhaps it is part of the culture of the individual church we attended last year. This church was in NC. Glad to hear it isn’t a “thing” at all of the other churches, however.

I’m thinking that at the church in question, those who were wearing headcoverings may have brought that tradition with them from another church culture. Once, when I visited the mothership in Gaithersburg, I noticed quite a few people dressed in native costumes from other countries, and some of these included headgear of some sort. But this would not be unusual in an area with such an international flavor as Gaithersburg, Washington,DC, and Northern Virginia.

However, when I grew up in the Methodist church, proper church ladies always wore hats. Pure fashion — pure tradition. When I worshipped in a military chapel, a couple of ladies wore the Mennonite style caps that look like kitchen strainers, simply out of their own choice and tradition.

So, the headcovering thing is not something I’d consider worthy of discussion in regards to SGM. However, plenty of other things ARE worth discussing. And my comment to those who allege that TWW exaggerates is this: When it comes to SGM, no exaggeration is needed. There’s plenty to be prayerfully concerned about, and you don’t have to look far beneath the surface to find it. But you will have to dig a little. You’ll have to wade through major word plays and translate lots of official answers out of SGM-ese and into plain English. Go ask some questions of your leaders. Go ask some questions of your friends who’ve finally left and are no longer under the gag order disguised as cautions against gossip/slander. How I wish it were not true. How I WISH SGM would repent, apologize, ask forgiveness, right some wrongs, and move on. They had so much going for them — how I’d love to see their vision, their ministry, their government restored! No — TWW has not exaggerated.