Read Segraves on "letting down hair" - Page 40

BobDylan · #**391** 03-15-2010, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Edward,
I've carefully followed his posts and I see him wavering because elements of both are making sense to him. He isn't going to let go and support any one view until he is sure. That is how I'm reading what he is saying and doing here.

I hope anyone could appreciate the prudence of reserving judgment until all the evidence has been submitted and weighed out!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I just do not have the right words to express the subtility of this teaching. I was standing next to a woman who was buying into that. She was viewing the "uncut" as "submission" and not realizing that she is placing more emphasis on herself and her power with the angels, which really overrides her husband's authority. She is thinking her focus is on Jesus Christ, but it really isn't. I just don't have the words to express what I am trying to convey. I feel so frustrated. I see the mindset, the feeling, the understanding, but I can't put words to it.

I see what you are saying...

rgcraig · #**392** 03-15-2010, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

Ok, this just happened to me Saturday-

I was at a conference here in town, the church was not UPC. But Keith I saw someone we knew from when we attended a UPC church.

She relayed this story to me as to why she left: She was somewhere (leaving that part out) and they had just preached this message, just like jfrog is saying, miracles from obedience to uncut hair-
She was one of the few present with obvious cut hair. The pastor's wife comes up to her and says "If you stop cutting your hair, God will put back together your marriage." Well she didn't have any marital problems to begin with! Then they had all the women with uncut hair come to the alter and pray for the sick. You could not come forward to pray for others if you had cut hair.

To a visitor this stuff must look crazy!

It should look crazy to non-vistors too!

Pressing-On · #**393** 03-15-2010, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I hope anyone could appreciate the prudence of reserving judgment until all the evidence has been submitted and weighed out!

BD,
The evidence has been submitted, weighted out and it is found wanting! There is nothing else to look for save a correction.

rgcraig · #**394** 03-15-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

BD,
The evidence has been submitted, weighted out and it is found wanting! There is nothing else to look for save a correction.

EXACTLY!!!! We are all there.

I think BD is still trying to get there.

Michael Phelps · #**395** 03-15-2010, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobDylan

No...

I believe a saved woman, converted according to Acts 2:38 that is moving in the direction of christian maturity, whethor or not she has recently cut her hair, has authority in the spirit realm because of the obedience and submission she has in her life at that point.

As a woman is directed by the Spirit to 1 Cor 11, either through preaching, discipleship, or her own consecration and study (after conversion), and she rejects the admonitions of order of creation compliance, including uncut hair from 1 Cor 11, the authority she has in the spirit realm will wane. If she (or a man who refuses to keep his hair short) continually rejects these scriptural instructions, it will only affect them adversely spiritually...

I didn't answer your question the way you worded it, but I hope you can understand the sentiment behind my verbiage.

You answered my question quite well, actually.

Here's my take on the situation - when we say that the "uncut hair" contains the power, we open a can of worms. I'm not saying that YOU are saying this, but several do.

Here are the problems:

*If there is power in uncut hair, then that power would be doled out to all females with uncut hair, even witches.

*If there is power in uncut hair, then a new convert who still trims her hair, even though her heart is pure, will never have the power.

*If there is power in uncut hair, a backslidden Christian who is living in sin, but who's hair is uncut, WILL still have the power.

*And, then, as PO mentioned, who even knows if "long" means uncut? I know the meaning has been stretched to make it mean that in our circles, but study doesn't really bear that out.

Bottom line - forget the hair as a talisman, let's just call a spade a spade - the power in a believer's life comes from prayer and fasting, THAT is scriptural. If you, or anyone else, can provide ANY scripture that connects the power of a believer with "their works" other than prayer and fasting, and not "God's favor", I would love to see the references.

Pressing-On · #**396** 03-15-2010, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobDylan

If women are shaking hair, laying hair, or whatever as a means of focusing faith to believe for miracles, I have no problem with that. These effusive acts aren't alarming to me any more than people laying in Peter's shadows for healing, or sending Paul's handkercheifs and apron is alarming to me... I guess Peter's and Paul's followers were putting their faith in the object of Peter's shadow, or Paul's handkerchiefs, rather than in "God"??? I guess these people were worshipping "Peter" rather than the creator? HILARIOUS!!!

...

I don't believe it would be advantageous to word what you are saying in this way. It only comes across as promoting the action. No good can come of that.

We have examples, as we've stated already, of handkerchiefs and aprons. We do not have examples of hair being used accept to wipe the feet of Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

David K. Bernard: There have been reports of women letting down their long hair as part of making a specific, urgent prayer request. If the idea was to obligate God to answer prayer or to create a new method of praying, then this action was misguided. If instead it was a spontaneous act to confirm their consecration, then it could have been a legitimate means of expressing and focusing faith.

The part I highlighted in red, while I don't necessarily disagree, I certainly wouldn't promote this act.