Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by DAII

The irony of it all ... while claiming to adhere to the divine order of creation it emasculates and castrates men .... I would hope this isn't the ulterior motive.

This is a serious non sequitor... This is a conclusion you have arrived at, but is not the necessary flow of logic. It could be seen as a way to empower men, who choose faithful, godly women as their spouses, rather that sensual, vain ones... A man who finds a wife has found a good thing, and "obtaineth favor of the Lord". A good, godly, submissive, and obedient wife is an asset to a God-fearing man, not a source of "emasculation". Again, your argument is non sequitor... an illogical conclusion.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Edward Anglin

Bob, your friends are trying to help you.

Thanks Ed!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I guess, that since we do in actuality have Biblical precedent of laying people in apostles shadows, should we "promote" our sick laying down so that pastor's, missionary's, evangelist's, or modern day apostle's shadows can pass over them for healing? I think some are missing my point... although these are cited in scripture as things believers do to "focus faith", these were at the time "unprecedented" and uncovnentional acts, therefore setting a precedent of other "unprecedented" and "unconventional" acts that may focus faith. We have preachers who teach and encourage handing out handkerchiefs, why not laying in preacher's shadows? And why not letting down hair? If faith is focused, miracles are following, why not? (I say this assuming the "worshipper" understands the biblical significance of uncut hair as an issue of obedience and submission based on a life of faithfulness, and not because the act of uncut hair in itself grants special angelic powers).

I have been in one service where I understood what it felt like to have a shadow pass by and bring healing. Very powerful feeling and experience.

I don't understand the handkerchief and apron thing. DS said we probably don't do this like the beginning of the NT Church. I don't know what he meant by that as he didn't elaborate. I find it uncomfortable. Two of my sisters suggested we have a cloth prayed for and put it under our father's mattress because we didn't want him to die lost. I told them to do whatever they wanted as I attended church in another city. Well, we put the cloth under his mattress and he died lost. So, I guess that's not working for me. It wasn't working before, but it really seems superstitious to me.

You keep stressing uncut hair. I need more than, "It might be necessary to go outside of the Greek" to define this. I want to know why and when would it be necessary.

When I left that meeting, I was clearly upset. I pulled onto the highway and immediately I had stammering lips. I knew God wanted to speak to me. This is what He told me, words to effect. This is the first time, since I've been in church that God, specifically, spoke to me on this subject.

We have order as in - the head of every man is Christ, head of woman is man and head of Christ is God.

If we do not maintain unity and submission in that order, we have no "power" - exousia: privilege,freedom, right and strength. It is not dunamis: force, specifically miraculous power.

I Peter 3 goes into this further - our prayers can be hindered. My husband is only as strong behind the pulpit as my support for him and vice versa.

We then get into gender distinction. In the book of Genesis God made male and female and He called that good. He wants a distinction. It is important. That is the point on the hair.

When I got home and this thread was started, I read DKB's position paper as I had already read DS's on another thread. DKB also referenced I Peter 3. While I don't agree with everything, God already showed this to me and so I have to agree with it.

It is a gender distinction and we are making it into superstitious witchcraft.

[EA]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

This is a serious non sequitor... This is a conclusion you have arrived at, but is not the necessary flow of logic. It could be seen as a way to empower men, who choose faithful, godly women as their spouses, rather that sensual, vain ones... A man who finds a wife has found a good thing, and "obtaineth favor of the Lord". A good, godly, submissive, and obedient wife is an asset to a God-fearing man, not a source of "emasculation". Again, your argument is non sequitor... an illogical conclusion.

I can hear it now.

LS at the next singles conference.

"Young men, look for a woman with uncut hair. Let her lay her hair over your resume. You will get more preaching engagements if you marry a woman with this special power."

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Sorry guys, I agree with Bernard here, not Seagraves...

I'm not sure that DKB was meaning that he would stress or encourage this act. I just don't think he would do that. Mainly, because he stresses that we shouldn't do that to manipulate our prayers. That is pretty much why most do it. It is really the underlying purpose if you think about it.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

This is a serious non sequitor... This is a conclusion you have arrived at, but is not the necessary flow of logic. It could be seen as a way to empower men, who choose faithful, godly women as their spouses, rather that sensual, vain ones... A man who finds a wife has found a good thing, and "obtaineth favor of the Lord". A good, godly, submissive, and obedient wife is an asset to a God-fearing man, not a source of "emasculation". Again, your argument is non sequitor... an illogical conclusion.

This coming from a guy who claimed not to be debating ....

You continue to be the butt of the joke.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm not sure that DKB was meaning that he would stress or encourage this act. I just don't think he would do that. Mainly, because he stresses that we shouldn't do that to manipulate our prayers. That is pretty much why most do it. It is really the underlying purpose if you think about it.

PO ... it's classic Bernardian double speak ... he has done this on many occasion and for various issues ... He's non-commital for a reason ... Personally I think he has "witnessed" a hair miracle close to him.

When I queried him the very first time in the summer of 08 ... what we published was very much what he said in the 2009 symposium paper with the "focusing faith" statement being the novelty...

Here are my (DKB) thoughts:

1. We are saved by grace through faith, not works. Our faith issues forth in obedience, so that as we walk by faith we will endeavor to obey God’s Word. God’s grace, which we receive through faith, is God’s work in us. He progressively transforms us so that we have the desire and power to do His will. Of course, we have the responsibility to let God’s work be manifest in our lives. (See Philippians 2:12-13; Titus 2:11-12; Hebrews 12:10, 14.)

2. We cannot earn favors from God through our works. Likewise, we are not exempt from the trials of life simply because we serve God. (See I Corinthians 10:13; I Peter 5:9.) At the same time, God does honor our faith in many ways, so that by our prayer of faith we can receive many miraculous answers, avoid many unnecessary temptations, and receive divine supply for many needs. (See Matthew 6:11-13; Philippians 4:19.)

3. Regarding hair, and specifically the reference to angels in I Corinthians 11:10, below is an excerpt from my book, In Search of Holiness, rev. ed. 2006.:

New Testament teaching - We now turn to the New Testament teaching on hair as found in I Corinthians 11:1-16. Most denominational churches ignore this passage, concluding that it does not apply today. Some interpret it to mean that women must pray with some type of cloth on their heads. Most conservative churches at one time taught women to have long hair, and some continue to do so today.

All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God (II Timothy 3:16). We should not ignore any passage of Scripture, for each is precious and important. We should especially heed instructions to the New Testament church, for we are part of that church. Let us analyze this passage of Scripture in that light.

Verses 1-2. Paul admonished believers to follow him and to keep the ordinances or teachings that he had delivered to them. Among these ordinances is his teaching concerning hair in the subsequent verses.

Verse 3. God is the head of Christ. As a human, Jesus submitted to the eternal Spirit of God that dwelt in Him, thereby setting an example for us. Christ subjected His flesh to the plan and purpose of God, even unto death (Philippians 2:8).

Similarly, Christ is the head of the man, and the man is the head of the woman. God intends for the man to be the leader of the family. He is to be the spiritual representative of the home. In the beginning, God held Adam primarily accountable for human sinfulness. The sins of fathers particularly affect children (Exodus 20:5). Moreover, a woman is to respect the leadership of her own husband (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; I Peter 3:1).

Verse 4. A man should not have his head covered when he prays or prophesies. If he does, he dishonors his head or leader, namely, Christ. Prophesying includes any anointed preaching and testimony.

Verse 5. A woman who prays or prophesies (including preaching and testimony) with her head uncovered dishonors her head or leader, which is the man. In other words, the sexes should not try to change places. The woman’s covering is a sign of her role in God’s plan. According to verse 15, long hair is the symbolic covering that God has given her, and according to verse 6 it should be unshorn or uncut.

Verse 6. If a woman is not going to cover her head (by letting her hair grow long), then this is equivalent to cutting off her hair. But this is a disgrace or a shame to her. It signifies the taking away of her glory in God’s sight. Since it is a shame for her hair to be shorn (cut) or shaved, she should be covered (let her hair grow long).

Verses 7-9. Adam was created in the image of God and subsequently Eve was also (Genesis 1:26-27). The man is the representative of the family before God, with the authority and responsibility to provide for his family, protect his family, and lead his family spiritually. As a sign of his position, his head should not be covered (with long hair, verse 14). The woman originally came from the man (Genesis 2:22). She is his partner, a helper comparable to him (Genesis 2:20), who respects his position and follows his godly leadership. Woman is the crowning glory of man. To demonstrate this relationship, her head should be covered (verse 6) with her glory, which is her long hair (verse 15). In short, male and female are equally important in God’s plan, but their roles are distinct, and God wants this distinction to be displayed and preserved outwardly by their hair.

Verse 10. The angels are involved with this subject, as they observe the obedience or disobedience of humans to God’s plan. The angels desire to look into our salvation (I Peter 1:12). Pride and rebellion caused the fall of Satan and many angels (I Timothy 3:6; Isaiah 14:12-15). Thus, a woman should have “power” on her head on her head as an example to the angels. The Greek word here is exousia, meaning “authority,” and in this context it indicates a mark or sign of authority. The angels look to see if women have the sign of consecration, submission, and power with God, or if they are rebellious like Satan. Women’s hair shows the angels whether or not the church is submissive to Christ, the head of the church.

Verses 11-12. Women are not inferior to men, and men are not complete without women. Both depend on each other. This principle of complementarity and interdependence is especially true in the church. The roles are different, however, and God has designated the man to be the leader of the family.

Verse 13. Paul used a question as a part of his teaching method. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered? His answer is no; it is a shame for her to do so (verse 5).

Verse 14. Nature, not just custom, teaches a man to have short hair but a woman to have long hair. Since God is the Creator of nature, the teaching of nature in this situation comes from God. God’s purpose is to make a distinction of the sexes in this area.

Verse 15. A woman’s hair is given for her glory and for a covering to satisfy the requirements of the preceding verses. This verse does not mention any other covering such as a hat or scarf. It would be difficult for a woman to put on a scarf every time she prays or witnesses to someone, especially if she prays without ceasing (I Thessalonians 5:17). This verse explains that a woman does not have to wear a veil of cloth; her hair is sufficient covering.

The Greek word for “have long hair” here is koma¯o, which means “wear long hair, let one’s hair grow long”3 or “wear tresses of hair.”4 The word for “covered” in verse 6 is katakalupt¯o, meaning “to cover wholly, i.e., to veil.”5 The word for “covering” in verse 15 is peribolaion, which is “something thrown around one, i.e., a mantle, veil.”6 Thus, verses 5-6 teach that a woman’s head should be covered wholly or veiled. Verse 15 says her hair is a mantle or veil; it is a symbolic article of apparel for the head. Clearly, long hair is the covering that meets the requirements of verses 5, 6, and 13.

Verse 16. The people of God are not contentious. The church has no custom of being contentious over the teachings of God’s Word. It has no custom regarding hair other than what Paul had just described. Some say this verse means that if anyone disagrees with these teachings then obedience is not required. If this were true, however, then Paul’s entire teaching in this section would be in vain, and he would be condoning contention and disobedience. Paul would not say, “If you do not have such a custom, then you are not required to obey the Word of God and the ordinances of the church.” Reading verses 2 and 16 together, the message is that we should obey these teachings instead of being contentious.

http://holymagichair.com/wordpress/?p=25

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

PO - is this the article you are referencing from DS?

http://holymagichair.com/wordpress/?p=25

It is his position paper that is referenced on the first page of this thread, I believe. I don't normally go to websites like the one linked above. It's just depressing to listen to so much negativity. Nothing against Dan the Man. It's just that I get enough of that reading here. LOL!

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It is his position paper that is referenced on the first page of this thread, I believe. I don't normally go to websites like the one linked above. It's just depressing to listen to so much negativity. Nothing against Dan the Man. It's just that I get enough of that reading here. LOL!

The link is what Dan posted above from DKB.

Dan, I added (DKB) so others realize that was from him and not you.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by DAII

PO ... it's classic Bernardian double speak ... he has done this on many occasion and for various issues ... He's non-commital for a reason ... Personally I think he has "witnessed" a hair miracle close to him.

When I queried him the very first time in the summer of 08 ... what we published was very much what he said in the 2009 symposium paper with the "focusing faith" statement being the novelty...

I've read what he writes and I see his point of view or where he is coming from. You have to see that he believes in uncut hair. So does DS. Neither of them believe anything like LS.