Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I have horses.

I gave my saddle away. I'll have to borrow one of yours. LOL!

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

I completely agree. God responds to people's faith. He frequently works in spite of error. Too often people think that we must be right just because God touched us, or responded to us. Nope.

Yes, exactly!

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

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.

No argument that both are important, but we are talking about FOCUSING on the outside - not saying it's not important too.

So, in fact, you proved the point. BOTH are important!

So, don't let the enemy convenience you otherwise!

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

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.

Although you are a voice, I do not think you are the source of the hoopla.... I do not have a single problem with those who take issue with specific staments of LS, his methodology, or the repurcussions of his presentation... I do think we should give LS the benefit of the doubt regarding is intentions, give him space for correction, and realize the biggest detractors of his ministry are those who oppose the 1 Cor 11 uncut hair teaching, who have commandeered the support of moderate and conservative apostolics by overemphasizing and misrepresenting aspects of LS preaching on the subject coupled with reports of effusive individual responses. Again, JMHO...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

What about a man's? Seems like we focus so much on the what the woman is suppose to do. Sorry there is more to obey and not to supposedly obey than 1 Cor 11:6.

I have seen God do so many things and it had nothing to do with my hair! Pure rubbish that my hair is a spiritual weapon.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Although you are a voice, I do not think you are the source of the hoopla.... I do not have a single problem with those who take issue with specific staments of LS, his methodology, or the repurcussions of his presentation... I do think we should give LS the benefit of the doubt regarding is intentions, give him space for correction, and realize the biggest detractors of his ministry are those who oppose the 1 Cor 11 uncut hair teaching, who have commandeered the support of moderate and conservative apostolics by overemphasizing and misrepresenting aspects of LS preaching on the subject coupled with reports of effusive individual responses. Again, JMHO...

Bob - this isn't a "new" thing just because you have just started hearing it. As many have stated, this has been going on for years now. His benefit of doubt is over-extended.

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

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.

Sorry where is the scripture that we need to judge each other spirituality by the outside?

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Although you are a voice, I do not think you are the source of the hoopla....

It doesn't matter who is causing the hoopla. Error is error and needs to be corrected.

[Pressing-On]

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.

If he is going to talk about the woman's uncut hair having authority in the spirit realm, he better start talking about a man's short hair too.

No, wait, don't talk about it at all. It doesn't make sense.

Jesus Christ was born, walked this earth healing and delivering many, was persecuted, crucified, rose from the dead, said it was expedient for Him to go away so that the Comforter would come - YET - the deal is off if my hair is cut? That just makes no sense.

The power is in the death, burial and resurrection. The long and short hair is simply gender distinction - nothing more or less.

[jfrog]

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. 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.

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.

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....

1.) There is nothing major wrong with saying that obedience in general grants special spiritual authority. I would probably attribute such authority to Jesus and faith on him, and say that both obedience and authority should be a direct result of that faith. But that's really just semantics because regardless of how its said, the same thing is happening. Faith is followed by obedience and authority.

But then beyond the general case is this specific one of "obedience to uncut hair". Now I agree with the argument so far that there is nothing wrong with correlating this obedience to power and authority in Jesus. However, I disagree when it is said and implied that obedience to uncut hair somehow grants more authority than obedience to anything else. This is exactly what is being done too. When stories of miracles happening for women with uncut hair are told the message is clear. That message is that keeping your hair uncut may give you these same miraculous happenings in your life. Now there is no other form of obedience that is taught with anecdotes of miracles. That alone sets this teaching apart from any other teaching about obedience.

So what has been done by LS is that he has taken the general teaching of obedience leading to authority and added miraculous happenings to the authority that comes from this one particular kind of obedience. Since miraculous things are not spoken of as happening when obeying anything else then he has given obedience to uncut hair a place of higher esteem than obedience to anything else.

To further cement this point he has said that men cannot have this same kind of authority and wisdom that is given from God by obedience to uncut hair. Now the important question for us to ask is why is he saying men can't have the same authority and wisdom? If I'm not mistaken and I'm sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but LS ties the answer to this question not into men being men and women being women, but he ties the answer into uncut hair. That is his reason for why men can't have the same authority and wisdom.

[BobDylan]

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.

This is a good response PO. Thanks!