Diane wrote:

_________________
Sandra Miller

_________________
Diane

_________________
Ron Bailey

Last night I listened to the sermon, [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=9313]The Doctrine of Headship[/url] as suggested earlier, and would like to share my observations:

The preacher explained that the woman’s hair is the glory of man. He pointed out, from Scripture, that she must cover her head at all times in order to cover the glory of man (revealed in her hair ) when praying in the presence of God. Since she might be praying at any time of the day, she must cover her head at all times, not just in church.

He also explained that any woman with short hair is living in rebellion, and may as well shave her head, it’s that bad. He illustrated his point ( I suspect, I couldn’t see it) by pulling a wig off of a mannequin so all could see just how repulsive a woman looks in a bald head.

He said he sees an “Ichabod” hanging over the head of any woman with cut hair. Essentially he views her as a prostitute, in a state of rebellion.

According to him the only reason that man and women need each other is to reproduce.

I felt that he was locked in concrete thinking. He seems to believe that the head covering has a special power in itself. While he presented a compelling argument, he failed to set it in the wider context of the Word. He is still living according to law, and has no idea of the work of Christ within the heart.

Clearly he has no concept of women (or anyone) submitting to the Lord, and sees her only calling is to submit to a man. In fact, in his conclusion, he exhorted the women by saying, “Now women, which is more important, that piece of cloth, or submitting your heart to a man.” His final instruction was for every women to “submit your heart to a man”. If she was single, she should submit her heart to her father, and if he was too infirmed or not around, she should submit her heart to her pastor.

I pity the pastor who happens to be good looking - for he could find himself with a lot of lonely single women all submitting their hearts to him. Of course that could make him feel reeeal good (!) Seriously, I wonder how many affairs or abusive situations are harbored in this kind of environment. Of course it would be hard to tell because of the silence barrier.

I have come to believe that the danger in any false teaching is not so much in what is actually spoken but what is NOT spoken. In this case the pastor never once spoke about surrendering to Christ, or about the need to mature in the Lord, or about trusting God. He essentially drives all the women (and men) AWAY from Christ, and attempts to keep them in a state of immature dependency – especially on him. (a formula for a multitude of relational/emotional problems)

This cultist-style leader reminds me of the “hired man” that Christ speaks about. He has no love for the sheep, but steals them from the Shepherd. He heavily controls their minds using shame, but yet leaves them exposed to the enemy. Instead of turning people to Christ, he sends them into eternal darkness - all under the thin covering of “Biblical teaching” .
For that reason, I believe we must reject this man's teachings, and frankly, him as a spiritual authority. He is promoting a destructive heresy.

Diane

_________________
Diane

_________________
Ron Bailey

Has anyone read what Zac Poonen has written concerning this subject.
http://www.cfcindia.com/web/mainpages/articles.php?display=article24

Let me know what you think about what he says.

Although the speaker makes some good points, especially for this day and time, [b]I personally agree with Diane.[/b]

I listened to The Doctrine of Headship this morning and some of what this man is teaching troubles me. And I quote him "When a woman comes into the presence of God with the glory of man unveiled it is repulsive to God. Just like when I first saw that shaved woman"

It troubles me to think (if I take this man's word literally) that every time I have come into the presence of God I have repulsed Him because I have been unveiled. I was actually brought to tears. :cry: A woman is usually bald due to sickness, disease, or stress? How about just simple old age. Women can inherit baldness. :-)

Having gone through a bout of cancer and chemo, I saw women weekly with "bald heads" and they were not repulsive, and I was not shocked. They were beautiful.

A single woman if not married and has no father, is to be subject to the pastor? Been there, done that. Not good instruction, but I won't even go there.

Also, is a wig considered as a head covering?

One other thing, the speaker says women should have long hair. Speaking as woman of African decent, some of our women have a hard time growing their hair long. It gets to a certain length and that is usually it. How long is long?


Any comments.

Dee :-)

_________________
Dyanne

Hi, Ron, Thank you for the link. It’s exciting to read an article that expresses many of the same truths the Spirit himself has been teaching me. He also parallels headcoverings with the ordinances. He even presents an observation that came to me recently, regarding the practice of religious leaders wearing special headpieces while dispensing the ordinances. I believe their headpieces are symbolic of their view of their own authority: they have attributed to themselves an authority that is not theirs – and in that way they have, though likely unconsciously, refused the headship of Christ (as the author pointed out).

I agree with the author that rebellion towards headship filters down through the relationships – even to the children. You see that in family life and in church life, in human institutions. You’ll never fix the troubles of rebellious teens without going back to the existing authorities (even as far up as the gov’t leaders)

Let’s admit, the church (I speak of the modern day church institution in general) has usurped the glory of God and has preferred to display man’s glory: via the music, the buildings, the traditions, etc etc. Man (including women) crave for status in the church, position, etc to glorify themselves not the Lord. Side note: If I were to honestly symbolize the modern day church I would be best to keep my head covered and have short hair. A headcovering would be a mockery in that sense. (Hang on..)

Regarding gender distinction he says: “Equal but not the same” I embolden that for a reason. Herein, I believe lies a fundamental truth. The women’s role is to represent the Bride of Christ, and that certainly is very exciting. Do we not stand in awe of the marvel of the Church – the workmanship of our Lord?
No, we can't as long as we view it as a product of man's efforts!

I agree that when we lose the gender distinctions we also muddle the distinction between man and God – we mix the two together. So man tries to play God and man makes God in his own image. We humanize God’s attributes. We try to save our own souls with our own efforts.

In fact, when I deal with unbelievers or those who are disillusioned with the church, I consistently discover that in their minds they have equated God with the church. They have muddled the two together. So I find myself needing to unravel that before we can go on in any discussion.

It cannot be argued that as our society drifts further from God, it also melts down female and male distinctions. Fashions is one obvious example. It is not merely about females refusing to wear hats. (In my experience they rather like covering their heads, even from childhood).

The entire headcovering/hair doctrine seems to underscore the absolute distinction between the two: The Church and Christ – and for this reason I see the importance of pursuing this topic.

However we will not come to an understanding of it all apart from coming to the bed-rock foundation of our faith – rooted in authentic salvation. When we get that right, the rest should fall nicely into place, And the outcome is magnificent: “She becomes a better woman and he becomes a better man.” All for the glory of God!

Meanwhile headcoverings will always turn into an issue of custom or fashion, while viewed as a spiritual virtue. The author’s caution is worth noting: “ The practice of headcovering does not mean that a church is spiritual”

Certainly without the proper function of praying and prophesying (IN THE SPIRIT) in the church, the headcovering hardly has any meaning. After all, (a) man is really running the show, not the Spirit.

The author points out that a women must put herself under the authority of men – even if he is carnal. There is a sense in which this principle works – even in the nature of things. I see it applied in a very practical way as a musician in the community. I am at times under the authority of a director who makes a poor leader, both in his musical skills and his leadership ability. I have seen musicians stomp off in frustration. Yet, there are those who see the value of submitting for the sake of the bigger picture. And so, in spite of poor leadership a great work of music is produced. A good example is the Handel’s Messiah every Christmas. God has received the glory and the prophetic word has been proclaimed, even a man takes his glorious bow at the end. God’s name was glorified because enough people surrendered to a man IN THAT CAPACITY OF LEADERSHIP (not in any other way!)

The same goes for any other kind of relationship with church authority. I refuse to submit to the humanistic/feminist/liberal etc position of my denominational leaders at the top of the hierarchy. Yet I submit to those in my own local church lovingly, and it is clear to them that Christ is my Lord and my ultimate authority. (EDIT NB: They permit me that freedom at this time.)


Regarding my earlier comments about the preacher. Perhaps I could have tempered my words and given him more benefit of the doubt. Of course he means well, and wishes to see his flock adhere to the word. Yet, we could say that most in the RC, JW, Mormon C, etc also mean well. Also, any segment of them can take on cultlike qualities if the conditions permit it.

While this man may be less deluded than some, the outcome is potentially just as serious. God must be clearly given headship, not man. To live according to law in a Baptist or Brethren church is just as damning as it is in the RC church.

EDIT: Upon reconsideration of my earlier sermon evaluation, I admit, I cannot rescind any of my words (based merely on what I heard). However, in all fairness, the bigger picture is best assessed by listening to more sermons, and actually examining the congregational life. After all, the proof is in the pudding. There may be enough spiritual strengths within the Body to keep the ship from drifting entirely into cult-land.

Diane

_________________
Diane

_________________
Ron Bailey

_________________
Diane

_________________
Ron Bailey