Submission? Or Power and Control?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by ILG

The only thing that really concerns me is when teachings hurt people. You didn't outright answer my question though. Are women who cut their hair sinning in your opinion?

So, your solution is to combat one teaching which you believe is hurting people by hurting people?

OK, I see.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by houston

I don't want to seem to be contentious, but how do we know that Paul is not addressing a cultural issue?

Paul gave several reasons in support of the action he wanted men and women to take. None of those reasons were cultural. Instead, the reasons were based on Scripture, the angels, and a supporting argument from nature.

Therefore Paul's instructions are not limited to the local culture at that time.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul gave several reasons in support of the action he wanted men and women to take. None of those reasons were cultural. Instead, the reasons were based on Scripture, the angels, and a supporting argument from nature.

Therefore Paul's instructions are not limited to the local culture at that time.

But that supports the argument for a veil, not uncut hair. The contention was over the requirement for women to be veiled. Which, I just noticed that the text requires women to be veiled, even today. And this kinda upset me.

Rambling here. Been up since 10:30pm last night. Anyway.
If any seem to be contentious, we (Apostles/elders) have no such custom of women praying or prophesying unveiled...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

He did, in 1 Corinthians 11. Whether you accept it or not, it's there. We go by the Word, not just some internal feeling.

Except that you have factions who don't agree, and only your side is definitive because that is how you interpret it personally.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by houston

I don't want to seem to be contentious, but how do we know that Paul is not addressing a cultural issue?

Right! There is a saying that in the mouths of two or three witnesses every word should be established. This is mentioned in one place and is hard to understand.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, your solution is to combat one teaching which you believe is hurting people by hurting people?

OK, I see.

Who am I hurting by discussing the issue and quoting a published booklet and saying I disagree?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by houston

But that supports the argument for a veil, not uncut hair. The contention was over the requirement for women to be veiled. Which, I just noticed that the text requires women to be veiled, even today. And this kinda upset me.

Yes, Paul is teaching that Christian women are to wear head covering when praying or prophesying. You do not need to be upset, why would this upset you?

If any seem to be contentious, we (Apostles/elders) have no such custom of women praying or prophesying unveiled...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Except that you have factions who don't agree, and only your side is definitive because that is how you interpret it personally.

Nobody interpreted it any other way until the early 20th century-late 19th century. Other interpretations can be demonstrated to be inconsistent or irrational and thus error. I believe what I believe about this because it is the plain reading of the text.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by ILG

Right! There is a saying that in the mouths of two or three witnesses every word should be established. This is mentioned in one place and is hard to understand.

Where else is it taught that tongues are to be accompanied with interpretation otherwise the tongue speaker is to be quiet and speak to himself and to God?

Where else is it taught that evangelists are a gift to the church for the perfecting of the saints?

Where else is it taught that if we eat the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner it produces negative spiritual and even physical consequences?

This is not hard to understand at all. Just hard for lots of western women to obey.

[votivesoul]

If long hair on a woman is a "glory" to her, is it not reasonable to assume that covering it with a veil is given by Paul because it can be a source of pride and vanity in that woman, while also being a source of lust and sexual attraction in men?

Think about it.

If someone not in the faith went up to an Apostolic woman and seeing her long, uncut hair, styled for service or whatever, said something like "OMG. Your hair is so beautiful, it's simply glorious!", isn't it obvious that the complement being paid has nothing to do with the divine order of Headship (God-Christ-Man-Woman) but instead has everything to do with outward appearance, one that, let's all face it, draws an inordinate amount of attention toward an Apostolic woman?

In Created to Be His Helpmeet author Debbie Pearl addresses this topic and one of the things she mentions is how her long, flowing hair drives her husband wild (you know what I mean here, I think).

So, it's likely that many a man, and probably even a few women, are likewise driven wild by long, flowing, even uncut hair on an Apostolic woman, sufficient to make the person so enflamed to sin.

This being the case at least some of the time, isn't it reasonable to think that Paul would urge a veiling of such a thing to help the woman not be a stumbling-block to other people? Isn't that what modesty is all about? Protecting other people from their own carnal instincts and weaknesses?

So, if a woman is to be "shame-faced", having a glorious head of hair for the world to see and admire and potentially lust after would mean a veil covering all of it, so only the husband has access to it, seems a just position to take. Otherwise shamefacedness seems rather difficult to maintain.