***Districts begin to enforce Bernard Doctrine ***

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Funny how they say "long hair on women" but not "Short hair on men"..

Or how it says "long hair on women" when what they really mean is "uncut hair on women".

Why not just say what they mean?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Justin

Or how it says "long hair on women" when what they really mean is "uncut hair on women".

Why not just say what they mean?

for years "long hair" on women in Pentecostal lingo just meant "longer than the current men's style." It hasn't always meant "uncut" although there have been those through the years that said, "Long is just as long as God lets it grow" implying that it should not be cut, broken off, burnt off, or have the length altered in any way.

[harleypreacher]

If the letter indeed comes from the Maryland District, it's worthy to note that the part of the UPCI manual dealing with holiness and organized sports was not addressed, could it be that the District Superintendent loves football and has pictures of him and his family attending a Navy college football game on His FaceBook.

[rgcraig]

The inconsistencies are what makes it all look so silly.

[Pressing-On]

Apostolic Identity. We are thankful for the tremendous revival and growth that we are experiencing. At the same time, we must acknowledge that a few ministers have begun to question some of our Apostolic distinctives, particularly some aspects of holiness in outward appearance and possibly some aspects of the doctrine of salvation. The District Board unanimously and firmly believes that we must maintain our Apostolic identity on these biblical doctrines of the new birth and holiness, while continuing to press for revival and growth. As a District Board, we take seriously our responsibility to ensure that all our ministers adhere to these scriptural teachings. The District Board has adopted a plan of action and has asked me as district superintendent to follow up on these matters. We understand that the local church is self-governing, that the pastor has authority and responsibility to lead the local church, and that there is room for diversity of opinion and application in many areas. We also understand the need for wisdom, patience, and tolerance in both evangelism and discipleship, proclaiming the life of faith and not legalism. However, we expect that those who are used in public leadership, such as preaching, teaching, and leading in worship, will reflect the values of the New Testament church as understood and proclaimed by the UPCI. If some ministers are seeking direction on these issues, we are available for personal discussion and guidance, and we will provide tools and forums for further study. We don’t want anyone to leave our fellowship, but if some have made a definite decision that they do not believe and will not implement these teachings, then they are no longer in harmony with the UPCI, and the most consistent decision is for them to withdraw.

Daniel,
I don't have a problem with this. If the majority of any group feel strongly about how they view any passage of scripture, or what they deem the Bible is demanding, they will form an organization in support of that view.

Even if we do not agree on every area, they have a right to separate themselves. Others who have left have, in essence, done the same thing - separated themselves to their view of what they believe the Bible is demanding/teaching. There is no difference, IMO.

In DKB's position paper, The Bible’s Teaching about Hair Length:
Culture or Command?, you get a feel of where he is coming from. Gender distinction and modesty is important to him. Gender Distinction is very important to him. If others agree with that, they will join up. If some do not, they will leave. We need to follow whatever direction we feel led of God.

Philippians 1:18 "What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

Conservative scholar Robert Gundry: “Paul’s instructions on the head-covering of women are traditionally understood in terms of veiling (though not with the kind of veil that covers the face as well as the head). On the other hand, he never uses the specific Greek word for a veil; and he says that a woman’s long hair is given her for a covering. In either case his concern is to maintain a visible distinction between women and men with respect to long and short hair.”6

Social scientists Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey: “It is impossible to overestimate the importance of honor and shame in the socialization of males and females in the ancient Mediterranean world…. To know the gender of someone was already to know a whole set of norms to which they must conform if they were to be honorable in that society. Such expectations formed clear cultural norms about what clothes (Deut. 22:5), hairdos (1 Cor. 11:4-14), and sexual partners (Rom. 1:26-27) are appropriate to males and females.”7

Liberal critic Bart Ehrman: [B]“Paul maintained that there was still to be a difference between men and women in this world.To eradicate that difference, in Paul’s view, was unnatural and wrong…. It is quite clear from Paul’s arguments that women could and did participate openly in the church alongside men—but they were to do so as women, not as men.”8

Feminist Edith Castelli: “Paul is quite concerned with the careful maintenance of gender differences in appearance (justified in part by the … argument that ‘nature’ affirms the conventional practice of men wearing their hair short and women wearing their hair long) not simply because he thinks it is a good idea, but because he thinks that the created order demands it…. Like 1 Cor 11:2-16, Rom 1:18-32 interweaves its indictment of a particular human practice [homosexuality] with theological propositions. Both texts argue that the human behavior in question—whether it be abandoning conventionally gender-linked appearance and dress (in general or in certain contexts) or engaging in certain apparently non-normative sexual practices—is a violation of a worldly order that is grounded in a cosmically, divinely willed order. Gender differences, according to these texts, are not the mere fruits of social conventions, but are God given and divinely warranted.”9

6Robert Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 365.

7Bruce Malina and Robert Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 182.

8Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 368.

9Edith Castelli, “Paul on Women and Gender,” in Women & Christian Origins, ed. Ross Shepard Kraemer and Mary Rose D’Angelo (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 228-29.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Daniel,
I don't have a problem with this. If the majority of any group feel strongly about how they view any passage of scripture, or what they deem the Bible is demanding, they will form an organization in support of that view.

Even if we do not agree on every area, they have a right to separate themselves. Others who have left have, in essence, done the same thing - separated themselves to their view of what they believe the Bible is demanding/teaching. There is no difference, IMO.

In DKB's position paper, The Bible’s Teaching about Hair Length:
Culture or Command?, you get a feel of where he is coming from. Gender distinction and modesty is important to him. Gender Distinction is very important to him. If others agree with that, they will join up. If some do not, they will leave. We need to follow whatever direction we feel led of God.

Philippians 1:18 "What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

Does Bernard teach that the "covering" which is mentioned three times in 1 Cor 11 is hair, or an actual veil?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Justin

Does Bernard teach that the "covering" which is mentioned three times in 1 Cor 11 is hair, or an actual veil?

He believes it is the hair. I agree with him.

According to verse 15, long hair is the symbolic covering that God has given her.

Verse 15. A woman’s hair is given for her glory and for a covering to satisfy the requirements of the preceding verses.

Salvation is not based on hair length but on a continuing relationship of faith in Jesus Christ. “The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17). In this saving relationship, we will grow in grace and knowledge (II Peter 3:18), grace will teach us how to live righteously (Titus 2:11-12), and we will partake of and pursue God’s holiness (Hebrews 12:10, 14). If we deliberately and persistently disobey God’s commands, our actions call into question the reality of our relationship of faith in God. Obedience indicates faith, while disobedience indicates lack of faith. (See Romans 1:5; 10:16-17; Hebrews 11:7-8.)

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Daniel,
I don't have a problem with this. If the majority of any group feel strongly about how they view any passage of scripture, or what they deem the Bible is demanding, they will form an organization in support of that view.

Even if we do not agree on every area, they have a right to separate themselves. Others who have left have, in essence, done the same thing - separated themselves to their view of what they believe the Bible is demanding/teaching. There is no difference, IMO.

In DKB's position paper, The Bible’s Teaching about Hair Length:
Culture or Command?, you get a feel of where he is coming from. Gender distinction and modesty is important to him. Gender Distinction is very important to him. If others agree with that, they will join up. If some do not, they will leave. We need to follow whatever direction we feel led of God.

Philippians 1:18 "What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."

I happen to agree with PO on this one.

I don't agree with the UPC's standards, which is why I left. I voted with my feet.

However, it is the right within any organization to make rules and enforce them Right, wrong or indifferent, the concept of "tightening up the rules' is not a foreign one, and it is not indigenous to religious organizations.

I may think it's sad that the UPC cannot be a more inclusive organization, but then again, I'm quite sure they don't think much of my opinion any more, if ever at all. In fact, I think the elimination of inclusion is the end goal, and in that spirit, they are doing a very fine job of "thinning the herd".

However, as I stated earlier, if I don't want to be a part of it, I don't have to be.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I happen to agree with PO on this one.

I don't agree with the UPC's standards, which is why I left. I voted with my feet.

However, it is the right within any organization to make rules and enforce them Right, wrong or indifferent, the concept of "tightening up the rules' is not a foreign one, and it is not indigenous to religious organizations.

I may think it's sad that the UPC cannot be a more inclusive organization, but then again, I'm quite sure they don't think much of my opinion any more, if ever at all. In fact, I think the elimination of inclusion is the end goal, and in that spirit, they are doing a very fine job of "thinning the herd".

However, as I stated earlier, if I don't want to be a part of it, I don't have to be.

Apparently.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

...the concept of "tightening up the rules' is not a foreign one, and it is not indigenous to religious organizations....

When there was a regime change in Israel, Rehoboam the new king, decided to tighten up the rules. Ref 1 Chronicles 10. Maybe DKB is just trying to follow his example to show that the "old man" before him had gotten loose and lax.