When something has been taught to you for many years as a sin, it is inevitable that you will wrestle with even trimming your hair to make it healthier and able in some cases to even grow longer. I have had to help women deal with the sense of lingering guilt that tends to hang on even after someone has accepted that the Bible does not teach that it is a sin. I wish preachers would take time to Scripturally identify what is called sin versus what they have labelled sin. It would certainly make for a healthier walk with God for most women.

I liken this guilt issue to how I used to feel growing up with no TV. Our church preached it was a sin, and my parents did not have one all the years their children were still at home. However, my sister who lived across the street had one so we would go there some evenings to watch Rawhide and other family viewing shows. I never felt one bit convicted about doing so while watching TV. It was only when my father would ask where I had been that I felt any guilt. Or when I went to church and the pastor preached against it, I would once again feel condemnation. I finally came to the conclusion that it wasn't God who was convicting me, but man and discovered for myself that TV in itself is not a sin.

When women figure this out in regards to hair, they get over the condemnation of man and live as unto the Lord and enjoy the blessings of a pure conscience. You don't have to have uncut hair to be in Christ, but you do to be in some churches, so a person has to decide whether they are going to accept the hair issue as a sin issue or not. If their pastor teaches against it, they have a responsibility to live up to his requirements if they consider themselves an active member of his church. Otherwise they need to find a church where it is not an issue.

Since you say you believe the uncut hair teaching, then of course you will experience guilt associated with you violating your conscience, or uneasy when someone else commits what you see as sinful.

Carp,
Is this post a work of the Spirit?
Does it offer its own, alternately-sourced, form of condemnation?

Isn't is possible that along the continum of possible condemning actions, a person who condemns another for judging what they do with their own hair AND another who a makes determination that a nebulous "religious oppression and legalism" is at work, can both be found as having there purpose in bringing condemnation.

IMO, both involve the judgements (subscribing motive) of men against the actions of men.

Descernment and differentiating between what is evil and what is holy is indeed a work of the spirit

My comments were pointed more directly toward the attitudes of the Apostolic culture. The individual who wrote those comments above was only a representative of that culture. This attitude is pervasive throughout the Apostolic movement in my experience.

It is this exact perspective that gives empowerment license to people to think they are God's representatives to exact conviction...when it really is nothing more than oppression and condemnation. Further, I believe that Pastor's encourage this attitude because it keeps them from having to preach standards all the time.

Not exactly sure how we can surgically attack attitudes of an Apostolic culture without condemning the people who choose to continue fellowship within the larger community.

I am trying to understand if your last post is stating that, your earlier post, had NO APPLICATION to people --only attitudes. If so, how is that possible?

I am persistent voice of "we answer to our own master" and "we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling".

If you think my post was a clever, indirect way to advance, centralized government, by men, over men --it was not.

Now, go back and read what I posted. I asked a question. A question is NOT an implication. It is not accusing someone of saying anything. It is a QUESTION. Do you know what a question is? Do you know the difference between a question and a statement? It would seem that you don't know the difference given that you accuse me of receiving something "by implication."

Maybe it's her conscience weakened by wrong teaching that's making her feel that way.

You are saying that the people who are subject to the apostolic community and fellowship actually BECOME the embodiment of that culture and fellowship. The problem is when there is a disconnect between being able to define appropriate biblical tennant and attitudes that are nothing more than gestapo tactics.

I have made the separation between people and the attitudes and concepts designed by organization to perpetuate and preserve itself. How else on earth can you explain someone looking down their nose at someone's wedding ring with a condemning look and then that person removing it under the guise of sovereign conviction? I have never heard something so ridiculous in my entire life.

I couldn't agree more that we are "to answer to our own master" unfortunately some people can't distinguish between principalities and powers from the true and sovereign almighty God.

So, the Bible contradicts itself? (Note that this is a question. Your job is to simply answer the question, not to accuse me of saying you're implying something).

Was Jesus really referring in these passages to what we understand to be salvation? If so, then Paul contradicted Jesus by saying it was grace that saves instead of saying that it was faith that saves. Since we KNOW that the Bible NEVER contradicts itself, the only way to reconcile this is to say that Jesus wasn't referring to salvation here.

In Luke 7:50 and 18:42, the Greek word means:

1. to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health

HO...how can we be saved without grace? That isn't possible. :nah

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Our faith and God's grace have to meet one another.

Oh, I totally agree with you, absolutely.

I've seen a lot of people come and go for various reasons. When they leave because their modest clothing isn't modest enough..well, it's a shame to miss heaven over such a small and unimportant issue.