To me a woman only had authority covering her when she had someone between her and Christ. I apply it the same way to a man. For example the man is to be uncovered. Does that mean that God and Christ are not his authorities? I say no. A woman is to be covered, does that mean that God and Christ are not her authorities? I also say no. The way a woman is covered is by someone(not God or Christ) holding authority over her. I apply to the same way to a man.
I don't see Christ as covering or not covering the man or woman although He most certainly does hold authority over all things.
How do I see a man being covered? The Catholic church is a great example where they say you must go through their authority to get to God. Many religions hold these same views. Another interesting thing is that if a woman takes the lead in her house then the man is covered by her and she in uncovered! Talk about backwards.
To me nature shows that a man shouldn't have long hair being the glory of God, and a woman should being the glory of man. God made man to not be covered by man. And God made woman to be covered by man. The difference in how He created our hair to be shows this difference in how apply it. Nature does not teach us that a man shouldn't wear a cloth while praying, it teaches us that he is to be the head of woman and no man is to be his head. The same for woman, how does nature teach me that a woman shouldn't pray or prophesy while wearing a cloth (physical covering) but nature teaches us that woman is the weaker vessel, easily deceived. And that she needs to have authority to match the covering that God gave her.
Man intended to have short hair with no covering. His short hair symbolizes his need to be uncovered
Woman intended to have long hair and to be covered. Her hair symbolizes the need to be covered.
