Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Saying that you disagree with someone is not disrespectful unless it's done disrespectfully. One of the things I really appreciate about my mother (and my father, too, when he was alive) is her ability to have a conversation with me and not get upset if I question the "sacred cows." She doesn't get mad and act like I'm going to backslide just because I want to talk about something. Unfortunately, that IS the reaction of many elder ministers when young people have questions, and it's the WRONG reaction. It actually makes the problem worse, because then that younger generation will go elsewhere for answers. I don't do that to my children--if they ask me a question, I answer it as best I can, no matter how shocking the question. You know that a lot of ministers get angry when the question is posed--they don't care about the motivation. IMO, that's a combination of pride, and a fear of the question.

Bottom line, if a person fears to have his views questioned or examined, he'd better start questioning and examining his views himself.

You're exactly right. I hit that wall often - the "don't question" wall. My children know that I will be honest with them, and I don't mind them questioning anything, as long as the questions are framed respectfully. I've learned many things from my children and their questions. They've made me think. One generation doesn't have the monopoly on knowledge, and they are very wise when they acknowledge that.

[Falla39]

2Tim. 3:12-17

12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Yes, we must be equipped with the Word that we might be profitable to the kingdom
of God.

1Peter 3:15
15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Eph. 4:11-16

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Hugs,
Falla39

[Pressing-On]

Then the Bible goes on to say, "For this cause, ought the women to have power on head because of the angels." That is a fascinating and intriguing study. "For this cause, ought..." "Ought" in the Greek means to "owe or be indebted". "For this cause, ought the women to have power." The word "power" means, "authority, ability, authority, rule". "...on her head because of the angels." The word "because" is translated to mean, "through, by or with". So, if you put it together, what I Cor II:10 is saying, "For this cause ought the women to have power on her head because of the angels." Therefore, the women is indebted or owes her authority on her head with the angels.

I question Stoneking's reasoning here that "For this cause" is referring to the angels and not referring back to verse 9. If I read verse 10 and it says, "For this cause", I'm going to back up and find out what that cause would be. "For this cause" indicates that something has been said previously that I need to pay attention to. I think that is where the disconnect has come in on this issue.

It seems to me that if she "owed authority on her head" to anyone, it would be the man. Even though we have equality in Christ, the word does speak of submission and it does have an order.

Col. 3:18; Eph 5:21-25. Notice Eph 5:21 opens with submitting ourselves one to another. It then goes on to explain how we handle our individual responsibilities to accomplish that.

We are admonished to submit ourselves to our elders in I Peter 5:5, YET, the Word also instructs BOTH to be subject one to another being clothed with humility.

Hebrews 13:17 instructs us to "Obey then that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves." But, we remember in verse 7 that we have been instructed to "remember them which have the rule over you....whose faith follow, considering (look again, attentively) the end of their conversation (behaviour).

That allows me to know that even though I have freedom and equality in Christ Jesus, there is still an order that must be in place. I am not bound to follow the wrong, but submit to the things that are right.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I question Stoneking's reasoning here that "For this cause" is referring to the angels and not referring back to verse 9. If I read verse 10 and it says, "For this cause", I'm going to back up and find out what that cause would be. "For this cause" indicates that something has been said previously that I need to pay attention to. I think that is where the disconnect has come in on this issue.

It seems to me that if she "owed authority on her head" to anyone, it would be the man. Even though we have equality in Christ, the word does speak of submission and it does have an order.

Col. 3:18; Eph 5:21-25. Notice Eph 5:21 opens with submitting ourselves one to another. It then goes on to explain how we handle our individual responsibilities to accomplish that.

We are admonished to submit ourselves to our elders in I Peter 5:5, YET, the Word also instructs BOTH to be subject one to another being clothed with humility.

Hebrews 13:17 instructs us to "Obey then that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves." But, we remember in verse 7 that we have been instructed to "remember them which have the rule over you....whose faith follow, considering (look again, attentively) the end of their conversation (behaviour).

That allows me to know that even though I have freedom and equality in Christ Jesus, there is still an order that must be in place. I am not bound to follow the wrong, but submit to the things that are right.

Exactly ... this disconnect leads to confusion even in understanding Paul's line of reasoning.

The context of 11:10 is found in the 3 previous verses ... I agree!!!

... this part of the passage is showing order of creation ... the cause is not the hair on her head or a license to exercise a unique authority over angels... but directly linked to his proposition of the order of creation

and I'll even accept the reluctance to say that "hair is a sign" interpretation ... since the word symbol or sign is not necessarily in the orginal Greek ...

but to claim that somehow Paul is going off on a tangent saying the her obedience regarding uncut hair in verse 10 effectuates an authority over the spiritual realm is a huge leap in sequence and logic even within the grammar and syntax of the previous Pauline thoughts. It requires us to force an interpretation ... and that's just not sound ...

I must accept something that he never clarifies or addresses again?

Then, of course, we have to assume that he even is commanding uncut hair. A separate issue ... at least in the context of this thread discussion.

11:10 is speaking of headship ... not hairship.

A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, ....

It goes back to DS remark that we can't get dogmatic about one verse. It's poor hermeneutic and unsound.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

So if he is only speaking of obedience, why did he make this statement:

"I've watched this year. I know some men that are powerful in the Spirit. Powerfully used by God. But, I've watched a couple of them, even this year, they came up against a problem and they could not find an answer to. They couldn't come to any kind of an answer, but the wife, who is in the background, usually, they had never cut their hair. One day he walked in just twisting his hands, one of them in particular, and she came to him and she said, "This is the answer here." And she mapped out an answer that was so perfect, he staggered at the wisdom in it. Do you know why she got a hold of that and he didn't? Because ladies, among us, who do not cut their hair are entangled with angels and the wisdom and power of angels that men are not connected to and they cannot be connected to it."



He has stated numerous times that women have a power that MEN DON'T HAVE, because of their long hair.

That is not problematic for you????

Yes, he continually asserts it's problematic language and unfortunate but not false doctrine.

The end is teaching on submission and obedience (which consequently is the aim of any teaching) ... justifies the means (faulty hermeneutic, problematic language, whacky demonstrations, frustrated believers).

I refuse to be castrated.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by DAII

Exactly ... this disconnect leads to confusion even in understanding Paul's line of reasoning.

The context of 11:10 is found in the 3 previous verses ... I agree!!!

... this part of the passage is showing order of creation ... the cause is not the hair on her head or a license to exercise a unique authority over angels... but directly linked to his proposition of the order of creation

and I'll even accept the reluctance to say that "hair is a sign" interpretation ... since the word symbol or sign is not necessarily in the orginal Greek ...

but to claim that somehow Paul is going off on a tangent saying the her obedience regarding uncut hair in verse 10 effectuates an authority over the spiritual realm is a huge leap in sequence and logic even within the grammar and syntax of the previous Pauline thoughts. It requires us to force an interpretation ... and that's just not sournc

Then, of course, we have to assume that he even is commanding uncut hair. A separate issue ... at least in the context of this thread discussion.

11:10 is speaking of headship ... not hairship.

[B]A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, ....

It goes back to DS remark that we can't get dogmatic about one verse. It's poor hermeneutic and unsound.

Agree!!! Especially with the last two paragraphs.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by DAII

Yes, he continually asserts it's problematic language and unfortunate but not false doctrine.

The end is teaching on submission and obedience (which consequently is the aim of any teaching) ... justifies the means (faulty hermeneutic, problematic language, whacky demonstrations, frustrated believers).

I refuse to be castrated.

Now that would be a very loooooong thread discussion!

Daniel A - Led as a Sheep to the Slaughter!!

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

So if he is only speaking of obedience, why did he make this statement:

"I've watched this year. I know some men that are powerful in the Spirit. Powerfully used by God. But, I've watched a couple of them, even this year, they came up against a problem and they could not find an answer to. They couldn't come to any kind of an answer, but the wife, who is in the background, usually, they had never cut their hair. One day he walked in just twisting his hands, one of them in particular, and she came to him and she said, "This is the answer here." And she mapped out an answer that was so perfect, he staggered at the wisdom in it. Do you know why she got a hold of that and he didn't? Because ladies, among us, who do not cut their hair are entangled with angels and the wisdom and power of angels that men are not connected to and they cannot be connected to it."



He has stated numerous times that women have a power that MEN DON'T HAVE, because of their long hair.

That is not problematic for you????

Similar statements could be made about men. Consider the passage:

1 Cor 11:3
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.

1 Tim 2:12
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

It could be said, and it would be scripturally accurate, that, "a man can hold a place of position and authority in the Church that a woman cannot have, and will never be able to attain unto..." There is a place in the kingdom and Church that is unique to each gender, that the other gender cannot fill. The "head of man is Christ", but that is contropsed with the "head of the woman is the man". These are two unique positions in the Church that the other cannot fill. The head of the man is not the man... and the head of the woman is not Christ. The genders cannot supplant one another in their various roles and positions in society, in nature, and in the Church. It just so happens that 1 Cor 11:10 states:

1 Cor 11:10
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

This passage is directly dealing with women. According to LS's interpretation of this passage, he seems to believe this indicates that a woman who is under the authority of Christ through obedience and submission, especially in the context of 1 Cor 11 by being faithful in not cutting her hair, has authority in the spirit realm and influence with angels. You disagree with this interpretation, and that's fine. But this principle, that individuals who are obedient and submitted to God's order of creation have authority in the Spirit realm IS a biblical assertion.

1 Cor 11:10 deals with the unique position of the woman regarding this, whereas 1 Cor 11:3 deals with the unique position of the man. In this message that LS preaches, he is primarily dealing with the authority women have, and their unique position. There are other sermons and messages he can preach where he can deal with the unique position of authority and influence a man has, but that is not his message at this point. If I am preaching a message about the necessity of water baptism and the new birth, I am not going to spend much time, if any at all, dealing with the beattitudes. It's not part of my message at this moment in time.

If LS is directing a message to a particular demongraphic in the Church, and focusing on the unique position of that demongraphic, and the authority they have in the spirit realm, it's natural that he not spend time dealing with other areas. He has a message to preach at this moment in time, and he's not going to beleaguer that message with other messages that do not directly apply. When I heard LS preach this message almost two weeks ago, he did in fact make mention of the unique position men have because of their submission to God's order of creation in keeping their hair short. But this was not the focus of his message. We can nitpick this to death, but there is nothing specifically problematic in his focus on women's position in this part of this message.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Now that would be a very loooooong thread discussion!

Daniel A - Led as a Sheep to the Slaughter!!

Seriously ... that's what this mess leads to within the sub-culture ....

it's like the little boy that this poster on Everyone's Apostolic spoke about:

My son(he’s 12) has memorized scriptures on our Glory, he’s pray every night no matter what for Lexi’s and my hair…he has told me many times that he prays for our hair, not for the length, but for the power!!!

I can look back on the last 2 years and the trials and can’t imagine having made it through to my victory without the power. To hear a man have this revelation is not a mistake, God has given it to you to share…thank you so much for sharing it with me, I think it would be a beautiful Blog too! If you ever preach it, I’ll be right there with my halelujah’s!…

Leigh

http://holymagichair.com/wordpress/?p=12

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Similar statements could be made about men.

So this statement does not bother you:

"And she mapped out an answer that was so perfect, he staggered at the wisdom in it. Do you know why she got a hold of that and he didn't? Because ladies, among us, who do not cut their hair are entangled with angels and the wisdom and power of angels that men are not connected to and they cannot be connected to it."


I find that mind-boggling.