Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

You're right. We can't keep saying it's only about obedience and submission, and then focus on hair.

We obey and submit in many, many ways. Why the hoopla about the hair part of it?

To me it's a trick of the enemy to focus on what people do on the outside- it's too bad folks are falling for it.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

You're right. We can't keep saying it's only about obedience and submission, and then focus on hair.

We obey and submit in many, many ways. Why the hoopla about the hair part of it?

There are millions of sermons preached on the other areas of submission and obedience. This one particular passage from 1 Cor 11 specifically deals with hair arrangement on the head of men and women. That IS an area of submission that must be addressed by preachers in their sermons, as a compliment of all the other areas.

IMO, the reason all the "hoopla" about the hair part of it, is not so much from the people who are preaching uncut hair for women and short hair for men from 1 Cor 11, but the hoopla is from the people who oppose that message from this passage!

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

To me it's a trick of the enemy to focus on what people do on the outside- it's too bad folks are falling for it.

Agreed, but how scary is that?

Shouldn't those saying it be cognizant of that?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

One thing you overlook about angels, is that they inhabit the same "realm" that demonic spirits inhabit. It can be suggested that Paul is referencing that realm in 1 Cor 11:10. LS rightly uses exousia, and defines it "freedom, liberty, authority". The word translated "because [of the angels]" is also translated "through, by, or with" in other NT passages (I used Englishman's concordance to find this, as well as fundamental Strong's definition).

LS interpretation of 1 Cor 11:10 is succinct: A woman ought to have [freedom, liberty, authority] on her head [through, by or with] the [spirit realm]...

I am not certain that his interpretation is wholly inaccurate, as I have stated before.

I couldn't accept that interpretation. That would be, solely, addressing the authority a woman has in the spirit realm and not addressing the man's part in it as well. In other words, if it addressed both the male and female, I might think it more plausible. But, God wouldn't give a women more authority in the Spirit realm than He would a man.

There are a threefold objection that I have observed to LS's teaching here.

1.) Consider a woman who is "under authority" through obedience and submission... she then HAS authority in the spirit realm. And the same is true for men who are "obedient and submissive". The detractors of this position are LS statements that women have authority "because of their uncut hair". I tend to think LS is equating, from the context of 1 Cor 11, uncut hair with submission and obedience. Another objection arises when LS implies women have access to "wisdom and authority" that men cannot access. My response to this is that women inhabit a position in the kingdom of God that men cannot inhabit, and vice versa. Men are instructed in positions at the helm of leadership in the church in roles women are not commissioned to fill. However, women are commissioned specifically in other areas. Women are to be in "subjection", not "teach or usurp authority over men", "keep silence in the churches", be "chaste, keepers at home", "teach the younger ladies", etc. etc. etc. So to say that a woman has a unique position before God because of the nature of her gender is not a stretch, as do men. LS could clarify here, and it would help his case.

Well, first of all, the passage is not clear that the hair is uncut. To say that it might be necessary to reach outside of the Greek in order to say "uncut" is not working for me. I don't know why it would be necessary for Paul to reach outside of the Greek for this.

Secondly, verse 10 starts out with "for this cause". You have to look back to see what the subject is to find out what the "cause" being discussed in verse 10 is. It is not pointing toward the angels but back to verse nine. "The man was created for the woman, not the woman for the man." It is an order of creation and has nothing to do with the angels, except possibly their observance.

That is where LS totally got off the mark. You need to look at that more closely. It's really just using our "diagramming" skills from English.

I can't go further with LS on that because he did not run well with this interpretation at the get go.

DS and DKB don't even agree with LS on that.

2.) Anectodes LS appeals to, of occult references and stories of women laying out their hair can be clearly objectionable. Primarily the first issue more than the latter. LS's reference to occult resources is unnecessary and unfortunate. However, the only time I have heard this is in the Memphis sermon from two years ago. He did not make this reference when I heard him a little over two weeks ago. The anecdotes of women laying out hair and having prayers answered, I know from one instance I am acquinted with specifically, a young man was miraculously healed. I am not totally against unprecedented acts that demonstrate or focus faith. IMO, this is akin to laying in Peter's shadows, or taking aprons or garments from Paul to people for healing. No apostle or passage in scripture instructs people to do this, they took it upon themselves. And in doing this, faith was focused and miracles ensued.

He did say that in the message he just recently preached in Houston, Texas - Bro. Macey's church. I listened to it myself. Also, I transcribed a message from 1996 that he preached in Houston, Texas. I can see, now, that he has been heading in this direction.

I would never promote someone laying their uncut hair as proof of submission, but if in some circumstance a woman feels that it helps her faith, she has a right to do that. If she shared that with me, I would try to get her to see that her faith would have brought on the same result. I can do that because I've been there and I understand. I learned in that instance that my faith in God would carry me through and not my long, uncut hair.

I also wonder the percentage of those growing up in the UPCI as opposed to those that didn't who would be more apt to pull the card on the uncut hair for answers, etc? I'm thinking those that grew up in the UPC would be more apt to do it.

3.) The phenomenon of women laying hair out all accross the country that is spreading "virully", and the attribution of special powers directly to the fact of having uncut hair, is an effusive spread of "folk theology" that may find it's source, unintentionally, in some of LS's statements. Clarification and more thorough theological development of LS positions during his sermons would go a long way to remedying this. Also, more thorough local teaching and individual study would aid in correcting inaccuracies in individual misunderstanding....

Clarification and more thorough theological development of LS' positions would help? No, they wouldn't because he started out wrong - "For this cause". I can not stress the importance here. He needs to find out about that first. He's throwing it to the end of verse 10, when it should be identified in verse nine.

His interpretation makes the text put power/authority with angels, when it is not supposed be read that way. That needs to be fixed first before any change can come from his messages.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I agree that a man's submission and obedience carries as much weight in the spirit realm as a woman's. I agree there is more to obey than 1 Cor 11:4-16, however from the context of LS message on that passage, that is the primary emblem of submission and obedience that is presented by Paul. So you cannot seperate that instruction from that passage...

Saying "my uncut hair is a spiritual weapon" if a "folk theology" misunderstanding, and is not based in studious theology or sound teaching. However, obedience and submission ARE INDEED spiritual weapons, which in the context of LS preaching of 1 Cor 11, has clear application in a woman having uncut hair and a man having short hair.

Are they spiritual weapons that you can use to bargain with God? "God, I've done this, so you need to do that"?

Is that the way we dialog with God?

Let's say you believe that the Bible teaches that a woman should be a 'keeper at home'. (it does say that, of course, the application of it is what people debate) So, I cleaned the toilets today, that's keeping my home. Now, can I use that to bargain with God? "God, please keep my son safe on his half-pipe, I cleaned the toilets!!"

I don't have to continually remind God of my obedience. Or use my obedience to bargain with him.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

IMO, the reason all the "hoopla" about the hair part of it, is not so much from the people who are preaching uncut hair for women and short hair for men from 1 Cor 11, but the hoopla is from the people who oppose that message from this passage!

And you are COMPLETELY wrong about that.

I couldn't possibly oppose that message more, and I've never cut my hair in my entire life.



eta: I no longer believe that the passage commands uncut hair, but I opposed the 'power with angels' doctrine just as strongly when I did believe it. And the people I fellowship still do believe that the passage teaches uncut hair, and they oppose it just as strongly, too.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

To me it's a trick of the enemy to focus on what people do on the outside- it's too bad folks are falling for it.

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Agreed, but how scary is that?

Shouldn't those saying it be cognizant of that?

Both, the inside and the outside are important:


2 Cor 7:1
7 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Matt 23:23
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

There are millions of sermons preached on the other areas of submission and obedience. This one particular passage from 1 Cor 11 specifically deals with hair arrangement on the head of men and women. That IS an area of submission that must be addressed by preachers in their sermons, as a compliment of all the other areas.

IMO, the reason all the "hoopla" about the hair part of it, is not so much from the people who are preaching uncut hair for women and short hair for men from 1 Cor 11, but the hoopla is from the people who oppose that message from this passage!

How many pages is this thread?

The problem isn't people who teach uncut hair on women or short hair on men, or those who have it right and don't care.

The problem is people who preach witchcraft from the pulpit to give credence to a dying viewpoint.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I couldn't accept that interpretation. That would be, solely, addressing the authority a woman has in the spirit realm and not addressing the man's part in it as well. In other words, if it addressed both the male and female, I might think it more plausible. But, God wouldn't give a women more authority in the Spirit realm than He would a man.


Well, first of all, the passage is not clear that the hair is uncut. To say that it might be necessary to reach outside of the Greek in order to say "uncut" is not working for me. I don't know why it would be necessary for Paul to reach outside of the Greek for this.

Secondly, verse 10 starts out with "for this cause". You have to look back to see what the subject is to find out what the "cause" being discussed in verse 10 is. It is not pointing toward the angels but back to verse nine. "The man was created for the woman, not the woman for the man." It is an order of creation and has nothing to do with the angels, except possibly their observance.

That is where LS totally got off the mark. You need to look at that more closely. It's really just using our "diagramming" skills from English.

I can't go further with LS on that because he did not run well with this interpretation at the get go.

DS and DKB don't even agree with LS on that.


He did say that in the message he just recently preached in Houston, Texas - Bro. Macey's church. I listened to it myself. Also, I transcribed a message from 1996 that he preached in Houston, Texas. I can see, now, that he has been heading in this direction.

I would never promote someone laying their uncut hair as proof of submission, but if in some circumstance a woman feels that it helps her faith, she has a right to do that. If she shared that with me, I would try to get her to see that her faith would have brought on the same result. I can do that because I've been there and I understand. I learned in that instance that my faith in God would carry me through and not my long, uncut hair.

I also wonder the percentage of those growing up in the UPCI as opposed to those that didn't who would be more apt to pull the card on the uncut hair for answers, etc? I'm thinking those that grew up in the UPC would be more apt to do it.


Clarification and more thorough theological development of LS' positions would help? No, they wouldn't because he started out wrong - "For this cause". I can not stress the importance here. He needs to find out about that first. He's throwing it to the end of verse 10, when it should be identified in verse nine.

His interpretation makes the text put power/authority with angels, when it is not supposed be read that way. That needs to be fixed first before any change can come from his messages.

Excellent - PO!!

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Agreed, but how scary is that?

Shouldn't those saying it be cognizant of that?

I think Dan Segraves is, but I think they are so emerced in this type of thinking they are blind to it.