I don't understand what you don't follow. The equation of head-covering with sexual sin, or the notion of "ritual purity"?
Either way, I count both as ritual purity, and the reason I equate them is that (to the world) they would both seem to be "victimless" crimes. To the natural man, they would seem to have no effect in the "real" world.
Like not eating blood, or strangled things.
All of the acts of ritual purity Christians are commanded to observe are carried over from Judaic law and Judaic ritual and order.
Keeping women silent in the Temple and the Synagogue, and head-covering, are practices that had been part of Jewish worship since its inception. Orthodox synagogues to this day don't even allow women to sit with the men, they have their own space- just like they did in the Temple. Women had to cover their heads, and do to this day in Orthodox synagogues.
It wasn't a practice that was particular to Corinth. It was practiced in all the synagogues. Which is where Paul, and all the apostles and their disciples, went first in every city and town they went and where nearly all the first believers were found.
What is particular about Corinth is that there were some who were disputing the traditional Jewish practice.
Its a symbol. Size or style doesn't matter, as long as it's designed to cover the head.
In other words, how can a head-covering be called a headcovering when it might only cover one little spot on the back of the head ? Does that speak to angels as a headcovering ?
My conscience is more comfortable with the full-immersion method. But if someone was baptized in the Sahara deasert, I would hope God would accept the token of a sprinkle (as the Priests would sprinkle the blood of a sacrifice over the people). So, I'm comfortable saying that if your conscience is good with the method of baptism you receive, I am.
What puzzles me is that some who wear some sort of headcovering, be it ever so small that it covers little of the head, will also be baptised in water by sprinkling when water baptism means immersion and symbolically as Paul says in Romans 6:4 symbolizes being dead to sin, buried and rising to new life.
Full-immersion baptism for ritual cleanliness was also available at the Temple in Jerusalem I have heard.
If that's what your conscience tells you to do, do it that way. As long as the law is fulfilled in practice, your conscience can be trusted.
Just saying, if our practises are going to be more literally applied would it not seem to be more obedient to have a first century head covering that really did cover most of the head and a water baptism by immersion that pictured what Romans 6:4 says ?
And, obviously, so were some in the first congregations. The Gentile converts had not been raised to Jewish discipline in worship.Regarding women prophesying. What does this look like in today's Anabaptist church. When I was a youngster in a Pentecostal church women, at times, would stand up in the congregation and pass on some words they believed the Holy Spirit was giving them to deliver.
Jesus didn't only teach in the Synogogues, did he?
So, really they were instructing both men and women with these words. One can't both keep silent and prophesy, right ? And also, does wearing a headcovering not allow women to lead in prayer or only pray silently ? I find this too a bit confusing in how it is practised.