Read Segraves on "letting down hair"

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Karen Harding, Thursday night, March 4, 2010, San Marcos, Texas - "There is power in uncut hair. I was in services with Brother Stoneking in Houston."

This is going to be our modern day Latter Rain Movement!! We will weather this storm.

We have seen people leave, pivoting away from sound doctrine concerning the Gospel message. Anywhere you go, from my observation, something is being preached incorrectly. BTW, His name is Jesus. It is not Father God. That is just so annoying! LOL!

Originally Posted by DAII

Harding said that ... WOW. Not surprised by disappointed.

I agree PO ... this is Branham and friends revisited.

Its a matter of time that audio tapes of the prophet will become part of the liturgy.

Folks, if someone says "there is power in abstaining from fornication", or "there is power in being truthful", these are not stretches, and I think both of you distinguished thinkers would verify that the statement is accurate to a degree. If KH said verbatim "there is power in uncut hair", it is alluding to the same thing, that "there is power in obeying God's word". When KH said what she said, I in no way believe she or anyone who heard her believe that uncut hair in and of itself has magical powers in it's material substance. I agree with you that some of the language some may be using needs to be addressed, but there is no reason to defame inidividual's about this. If Dan Seagraves or DKB, or one of our other accomplished theologians are making incomlete statements, I would be concerned. But that is not the case. While she may be giften in talent and Spiritual gifts, KH is not our leading voice regarding theological matters, and her statement, IF this is what she said "verbatim", should not be given much weight or be a great cause for concern. Preachers need to address the language and understanding so that incomplete understanding is not propogated. And IMO, that will be enough. People should not be slandered, and there was probably no reason to bring KH's name into the picture.

I also want to say that I tend to be more in the camp of DKB's thoughts concerning "letting down hair" than I do DS's. I do not think unconventional acts of demonstration that elevate faith are limited to the instances in scripture of people laying under Peter's shadow, and people taking handkercheifs from Paul. Although these are identified in scripture as things people were doing, there is NO instruction from scripture or the apostles directing people to do these things. There were "unprecedented" acts at the time, and they set a precedent for other "unprecedented" acts that may "focus individual faith". Not only were these acts not instructed in scripture, they were not discouraged either.

Our theologians and Bible students MUST be accurate and thorough in their language and teaching, our preachers MUST endeavor to follow this order, AND our authors (theologians or not) must do due diligence to ensure their phraseology and verbiage is consistent with prevailing theology in our movement, especially regarding doctrinal matters. Problematic or erratic language being used must be addressed, but individual character should be spared in the process. JMHO

Dan, you are credited with HMH semantics, because it was your efforts that made the nomenclature more widely trumpeted. Like it or not, YOU are the HMH Website guy! lol...

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Daniel,
I'm serious. I think all the blood drained out of my face. But, God spoke to me about this later and I understand the passage better.

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.

If we look for anything else in this passage we are looking for a bad, magical Disney movie, IMO.

Excellent assessment sister... that was my take when I heard LS a little over a week ago in CA. His message wasn't even about hair solely, it was about God's order in creation, and our ability to access the authority available by submitting to His order through obedience. 1 Cor 11 is the passage that LS focuses on 1.) because it describes the flow of God's authority through the order he established in creation, and 2.) because 1 Cor 11 deals with a specific instructions, uncut hair for women and short hair for men, as gender-oriented signs of submission to that authority. The fact that in the context of divine authority, Paul appeals to the proper grooming of hair for men and women; when LS deals with divine authority, he properly deals with the acts of submission in proper grooming of hair for men and women. You cannot seperate the hair issue from the flow of divine authority any easier than you can extract 1 Cor 11:4-16 from it's immediate context and put it somewhere else in the scripture.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Folks, if someone says "there is power in abstaining from fornication", or "there is power in being truthful", these are not stretches, and I think both of you distinguished thinkers would verify that the statement is accurate to a degree. If KH said verbatim "there is power in uncut hair", it is alluding to the same thing, that "there is power in obeying God's word".

The problem, IMO, lies in which definition is being used. From what I am seeing and hearing, the word for power being used is - "dunamis"/force or miraculous power. The correct definition - exousia"/authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength. Exousia would be correct in I Cor 11. Dunsmis is incorrect and is stretching and pushing the interpretation in the wrong direction for what was actually intended.

When KH said what she said, I in no way believe she or anyone who heard her believe that uncut hair in and of itself has magical powers in it's material substance. I agree with you that some of the language some may be using needs to be addressed, but there is no reason to defame inidividual's about this.

I agree. It needs to be addressed. The wording is coming off as miraculous power. That is unfortunate.

If Dan Seagraves or DKB, or one of our other accomplished theologians are making incomlete statements, I would be concerned. But that is not the case. While she may be giften in talent and Spiritual gifts, KH is not our leading voice regarding theological matters, and her statement, IF this is what she said "verbatim", should not be given much weight or be a great cause for concern. Preachers need to address the language and understanding so that incomplete understanding is not propogated. And IMO, that will be enough. People should not be slandered, and there was probably no reason to bring KH's name into the picture.

Great reason to bring her up. It is being propagated and needs to be addressed. Besides you can order the CD/DVD, so it would be public knowledge. I am particularly concerned as the Herald lined out our view and stand on this issue as an organization. It appears that it is being ignored. That is not a good thing and it offends me greatly!

I also want to say that I tend to be more in the camp of DKB's thoughts concerning "letting down hair" than I do DS's. I do not think unconventional acts of demonstration that elevate faith are limited to the instances in scripture of people laying under Peter's shadow, and people taking handkercheifs from Paul. Although these are identified in scripture as things people were doing, there is NO instruction from scripture or the apostles directing people to do these things. There were "unprecedented" acts at the time, and they set a precedent for other "unprecedented" acts that may "focus individual faith". Not only were these acts not instructed in scripture, they were not discouraged either.

Yes, BUT, we do have an example of handkerchiefs and Peter's shadow being instrumental in a spiritual demonstration. We have NO example of hair being used in any way to promote spiritual demonstration. Jesus' feet were washed with tears and hair. Nothing but submission, faith, honor and love were displayed in that example.

Our theologians and Bible students MUST be accurate and thorough in their language and teaching, our preachers MUST endeavor to follow this order, AND our authors (theologians or not) must do due diligence to ensure their phraseology and verbiage is consistent with prevailing theology in our movement, especially regarding doctrinal matters. Problematic or erratic language being used must be addressed, but individual character should be spared in the process. JMHO

Agreed!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Excellent assessment sister... that was my take when I heard LS a little over a week ago in CA. His message wasn't even about hair solely, it was about God's order in creation, and our ability to access the authority available by submitting to His order through obedience. 1 Cor 11 is the passage that LS focuses on 1.) because it describes the flow of God's authority through the order he established in creation, and 2.) because 1 Cor 11 deals with a specific instructions, uncut hair for women and short hair for men, as gender-oriented signs of submission to that authority. The fact that in the context of divine authority, Paul appeals to the proper grooming of hair for men and women; when LS deals with divine authority, he properly deals with the acts of submission in proper grooming of hair for men and women. You cannot seperate the hair issue from the flow of divine authority any easier than you can extract 1 Cor 11:4-16 from it's immediate context and put it somewhere else in the scripture.

Here is our difference - I cannot say that I feel comfortable saying, emphatically, "We may need to reach outside of the Greek in order to define "long" as "uncut". I don't see why Paul would have to do that. The order, authority, submission and gender distinction (short hair on men and long hair on women) is clear and I believe that. I just don't believe that you can define the "long" as "uncut". If I was pushed to answer that as a definite heaven or hell - well - I can't do that and feel good about it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Karen Harding, Thursday night, March 4, 2010, San Marcos, Texas - "There is power in uncut hair. I was in services with Brother Stoneking in Houston."

This is going to be our modern day Latter Rain Movement!! We will weather this storm.

We have seen people leave, pivoting away from sound doctrine concerning the Gospel message. Anywhere you go, from my observation, something is being preached incorrectly. BTW, His name is Jesus. It is not Father God. That is just so annoying! LOL!

She was the singer I spoke of at the singles meeting in Visalia "letting her hair down"

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Excellent assessment sister... that was my take when I heard LS a little over a week ago in CA. His message wasn't even about hair solely, it was about God's order in creation, and our ability to access the authority available by submitting to His order through obedience. 1 Cor 11 is the passage that LS focuses on 1.) because it describes the flow of God's authority through the order he established in creation, and 2.) because 1 Cor 11 deals with a specific instructions, uncut hair for women and short hair for men, as gender-oriented signs of submission to that authority. The fact that in the context of divine authority, Paul appeals to the proper grooming of hair for men and women; when LS deals with divine authority, he properly deals with the acts of submission in proper grooming of hair for men and women. You cannot seperate the hair issue from the flow of divine authority any easier than you can extract 1 Cor 11:4-16 from it's immediate context and put it somewhere else in the scripture.

1Cor 11 does NOT teach about "authority available" in any degree. It teaches on Christ being our head, man being the woman's head and FOR THAT REASON the woman is supposed to have a symbol of that authority ON her head.

It has 100% NOTHING to do with having divine authority to do things, let alone summon angels or be protected by angels.

Yes you CAN separate the issue because these verses are not about Divine authority in the hands of men.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Folks, if someone says "there is power in abstaining from fornication", or "there is power in being truthful", these are not stretches, and I think both of you distinguished thinkers would verify that the statement is accurate to a degree.

But they are not saying these things. They are not going around the country preaching those things, making those statements over and over and over.

Why?

Why hair and not these other things?

Apparently because they think there is something particularly special about long hair.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

But they are not saying these things. They are not going around the country preaching those things, making those statements over and over and over.

Why?

Why hair and not these other things?

Apparently because they think there is something particularly special about long hair.

Or then linking these things to miracles in the same message. Are we laying "abstinent bodies" on folks to heal the sick? Or laying "truthful tongues" on our backslidden sons and daughters?


It's just as "unfortunate" that the Mormons preach the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ but also believe the Book of Moroni is divinely inspired.

[TroubleMaker]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

But they are not saying these things. They are not going around the country preaching those things, making those statements over and over and over.

Why?

Why hair and not these other things?

Apparently because they think there is something particularly special about long hair.

Excellent point. And from the landscape I see, it would be far more beneficial to focus on these things rather than centering a movement around a remote verse in the middle of nowhere. And why not focus on morality and honesty? It seems to be those things we struggle with most.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

1Cor 11 does NOT teach about "authority available" in any degree. It teaches on Christ being our head, man being the woman's head and FOR THAT REASON the woman is supposed to have a symbol of that authority ON her head.

It has 100% NOTHING to do with having divine authority to do things, let alone summon angels or be protected by angels.

Yes you CAN separate the issue because these verses are not about Divine authority in the hands of men.

At this point, I can't take him seriously anymore ... first DS was in his camp, now after further review he realizes he's not ... and somehow thought PO was echoing his sentiments. The only thing he and PO have in common are their pleas to tone down the rhetoric by attaching this doctrine to its teachers.

This type of reading to see what lines up with my assertions and inability to read in between the lines ... besets so many.

We know PO is not happy with how LS is presenting this ...