hummm....remembers to pack dollies to wear incase she visits mfblumes church in Ca...
You must also know that I think, like Sam, it was a localized issue -- but I see it as the entire middle east, whereas he mentioned it as Corinth alone. Everyone over there in the middle east -- and the far east -- knew that veils meant submission, or covering the woman's head because her husband was her head -- and there is only one head on a body while her and her husband are one flesh. So in North America it is irrelevant. I will not be preaching for women to wear them in our church because everyone here does NOT see it as a sign of submission like they did in the middle east.
You must also know that I think, like Sam, it was a localized issue -- but I see it as the entire middle east, whereas he mentioned it as Corinth alone. Everyone over there in the middle east -- and the far east -- knew that veils meant submission, or covering the woman's head because her husband was her head -- and there is only one head on a body while her and her husband are one flesh. So in North America it is irrelevant. I will not be preaching for women to wear them in our church because everyone here does NOT see it as a sign of submission like they did in the middle east.
Now you have messed up my new shopping trip to Swarmees Middle Eastern Turban Barn.I was gonna maybe bid on one like Daniels on E-Bay.
You must also know that I think, like Sam, it was a localized issue -- but I see it as the entire middle east, whereas he mentioned it as Corinth alone. Everyone over there in the middle east -- and the far east -- knew that veils meant submission, or covering the woman's head because her husband was her head -- and there is only one head on a body while her and her husband are one flesh. So in North America it is irrelevant. I will not be preaching for women to wear them in our church because everyone here does NOT see it as a sign of submission like they did in the middle east.
This is a departure of sorts of what you have said in the past - right?
PS whats happening in CA?
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
This is a departure of sorts of what you have said in the past - right?
Yes it is. I maintained the wearing of coverings for women in the past, but something hit me regarding purpose of symbol. The same chapter deals with the symbols of the communion, and they are all well known in the church. They are symbols amongst us. But the issue of covering is simply unknown to be that of submission in North Am. So the message is never related anyway. And since the entire point is submission, THAT is the main thing to be maintained anyway.
I am always praying for God to correct me should I be mistaken in issues.
Quote:
PS whats happening in CA?
I am starting a church with another brother. Yucaipa area.
Really, my church is UPC. My wife does not cut her hair. However, I can read and study the bible and I don't get uncut out of it.
Now if you take the stance that this is not cultural and that it applies to christians of today the only thing I get is that longer hair might possibly be more please and respectful towards the husband. Am I reading this wrong?
UPC ministers and saints usually draw the conclusion "uncut" from verse 5 or I Cor 11: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven." and also from verse 15: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." Verse 15 follows the verse which begins, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
People argue about old testament prophets like Samson, but don't stop to think, that was an actual vow he took that set him apart (the Nazarite vow). Everybody didn't look like him. So men (except Nazarites) usually cut their hair in the OT.
So, really, the UPC stance on uncut hair comes from verse 5 and verse 15. They see verse 15 as explaining verse 5. Other apostolics who wear hats or bonnets or doilies or something see it as actual head covering. I, as an apostolic woman raised UPC, personally have uncut hair. But I believe you should keep in mind as you consider all this the principle behind the practice. The principle is submission.
As a man, your head is Christ as per I Cor 11:3 and the head of Christ is God. What does that mean? You are answerable to Jesus Christ, the One who bled and died for us all. Your wife is answerable to you. Your head should be uncovered, your wife's should be covered. That covering/uncovering status is an outward expression of your inward submission to God's plan and order. And there are a lot of Apostolics who do not understand this and get hung up on how it "looks". If your heart is lined up with this principle, you will "look" the way GOD wants you to look. So will your wife. And you will radiate HIS love.
The UPC and ALJC churches have been blessed with great power and demonstration of the Holy Ghost and that power comes when we worship God in spirit and in truth. Our women have been covering their heads for decades, not simply because they're told to, but because of the desire to be submitted to God and His Order, His Will. James 4:7 says "Submit yourselves to God; resist the devil and he will flee from you." THAT is why the Holy Ghost is pleased. When we submit. The uncut hair is our women's covering. Another organization may see the hat or doily as being such. But uncut hair is what OUR women have been called to do. God wanted us set apart and unique, so here we are.
Yes it is. I maintained the wearing of coverings for women in the past, but something hit me regarding purpose of symbol. The same chapter deals with the symbols of the communion, and they are all well known in the church. They are symbols amongst us. But the issue of covering is simply unknown to be that of submission in North Am. So the message is never related anyway. And since the entire point is submission, THAT is the main thing to be maintained anyway.
I am always praying for God to correct me should I be mistaken in issues.
I am starting a church with another brother. Yucaipa area.
The loss of understanding about the head covering issue is a recent development in Western History. Victorian era women had long, usually uncut hair and wore hats on a regular basis. The trend toward cutting women's hair coincided with the flapper era of the 1920s. People who were in church (pre-Azusa street revival and/or women's suffrage movement) used to understand what long hair and hats meant. The 20th Century pop culture trends were so widespread and insistent, however. People used to understand that a woman with long hair wearing a hat was submissive. The 20th Century turned the word "submissive" into a bad word partly because of the way Victorian men ignored women when they insisted on being allowed to vote. That whole thing was manipulated to pit men against women, is the best I can conclude. The hat and submission went out the window and women got out their scissors and "retaliated", you could say.
So now, in the 21st century, Christians are left with the pieces left over from these various cultural revolutions, including the Sexual Revolution of the 60s, which in addition to re-visiting flapper fashion trends, supposedly gave women permission to half-dress themselves and still go out in public and be accepted, even to the point of wearing miniskirts to the office. We all know the resulting fallout: erosion of family values and more disrespect between the sexes.
I don't have any simple answers. What I do know is that those families who followed the leading of the Lord Jesus Christ through these situations were kept out of these pitfalls and lived to tell about it. They avoided immodest dress, and continued to demonstrate submissive demeanor, and if that meant avoiding scissors, they avoided scissors. They were blessed. Yes, always keep the main principle, the "point" of it all in mind. But examine these old-fashioned rules carefully in light of God's Word. There's a reason God has blessed and kept those who have followed them.
Linear Mode
