revival

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:42:56 -0400, you wrote:

>In a message dated 96-09-23 10:47:00 EDT, you write:

>>> What do you do with women that don't have the texture or length of hair to wear a 
>>> poof or a bun?

now... my stupid answer, meant to answer in kind, the original
question:

><< They can be saved in the tribulation, losing their heads. Otherwise
> hair weaves are expensive but helpful. >>
>
>Thank you, Bro Bassett!!!!!!

Since there was some unexpected reaction, let me take the time to
address this from a serious standpoint.

There are some who have taught, and believe they can find Bible
support for the notion that the Corinthian women actually used a
double covering.  I cannot find the same support. There are some in
our fellowships who have held to this and in certain areas it is
concentrated. Among dark skinned people the practice is more
prominent, and therefor in organizations that are primarilly dark
skinned, the practice is more likely to be assumed, but otherwise, it
is more likely to be questioned. We therefor see the practice more
often in more remote areas.

Now, division over this practice has historically been the cause of
*some* problems, so I must carefully qualiify the comments I will make
below.

1. These assertions are my opinion.
2. The fellowship and people in general have handled the potential
division very well.
3. What is most important is that the scipture says that the women is
given hair for covering, and the covering is of significance, as it is
significant that a man NOT defile his head by refusing to uncover it
in the presence of God.

OK... with that out of the way....

I believe that the idea of the "double covering" originates with
ministry. Some who have been called to minister to black people in
missionary works (whether mixed or not) have faced the realization
that hair texture and strength does not allow *comparatively long*
hair.

It is not uncommon for some black women to virtually never cut their
hair and yet it would appear to whites and asians as though they had
cut it routinely. As we receive cultural edification, this is becoming
more clear. But, in the earlier days, the situation presented a
confusing problem to some missionaries. Being faithful believers in
the message of 1 Cor 11:3-16, they taught that womens hair ought be
LONG. Perhaps they even understood that this means uncut, but in
actual presence of a majority of black women whose hair appeared short
to them, they sought to emphasize the covering. 

When the people came together multiracially, the wearing of the hat
probited people from making ignorant comparisons or comments on how
the black skinned people did not, or had not been taught to observe
the need to cover. Since they might have said, if she is no covered
(vs 6) it is "even all one as if she were shaven. " Being in some
dispute as to what was "covered", and under the social pressure
mentioned above to equalize treatment in mixed company (or perhaps
with personal disdain for those whos hair would not grow long - yes we
see some of that among Pentecostals, to our shame), the wearing of
hats was adapted.

One thing that started me thinking about this was the realization that
a former official in the Carribean (though now in an area with a very
limited black population) is one significant advocate of the practice.
I began to wonder if the practice began with attempts to reconcile the
issue with "real people propblems".


While we realize from verse 3 that this principle is primarilly one of
reflecting the order of creation, and in so doing honoring God, the
specifics are plain:

4  Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered,
dishonoureth his head.  5  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.  6  For if the woman be not covered, let
her also be  shorn : but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn  or
shaven, let her be covered.  7  For a man indeed ought not to cover
[his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the
woman is the glory of the man. 
14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long
hair, it is a shame unto him?  15  But if a woman have long hair, it
is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering. 

First, the GIVER of the hair is GOD. However he gave it, it is "a
covering".  We question of the sense of need to suppliment the pattern
of God's work. 1 Cor 11:5 indicates the need of the covering, in the
order of God.  Does she need an additional  covering besides that
which vs 15 says God gave her ? We see no evidence in scripture.

Now, when is the covering inadequate? This is quite simple. It is when
it has been destroyed by shearing or shaving.

The confusion may enter where one could ask, "Why does verse 5
indicate that a woman might dishonor her head being dishonored "as if
she were shaven ?", and then we find that in verse 6 the dishonor of
shearing or shaving is the same, removing the covering.  So then, in
verse 6 "why does it say 'if she be not covered, let her also be
shorn' ?"  What lack of covering is being discussed IF the idea of
shearing is more extreme than the original uncovering which was aluded
to ?

I will simply relate back to verse 4: "4  Every man praying or
prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head."

The man is not told to SHAVE his head. The man's head is covered only
when UNCUT (or long ...). A man uncoveres his head by continung to
remove the covering, though hair grows. Similarly, and woman covers
her head by allowing the covering God gave her to continue growing. 

With that in view, look at verse 5 again. Paul says that shearing
might just as well be shaving.. The uncovered woman was uncovered by
shearing.. And Paul says (in a manner remnicent of Rev 22:11), let the
women who would uncover herself, go ahead and cut her hair. But (vs
6), if there is no difference really between shearing and shaving (the
extreem), LET HER come into order and BE COVERED. As we have already
pointed out, this is by HAIR, her God given coverning.

I hope this is of some help.

----


Without ANY implication toward the excellence of the ministry of any
person who one might have imagined when reading my comments, let me
add generally:

It hurts EVERYONE when the pulpit fails to teach authoritatively and
exhaustively. Only the residence of the word of God, understood and
applied can yeild the harvest of a victorious church without
weaknesses, and ready for the conquest which the church was built for
in these last days. As much as we enjoy and appreciate revival
preaching (and us preachers are excited and mindful of God's will in
doing it),  many of us are looking for the climate of long term
TEACHING revivals to strengthen the church.

When the people of God got to be just a weak bag of bones in Gods
eyes, Ezekiel was told to SPEAK the WORD to them. For those who are
fired up about UNITY bear this in mind: The word of God will renew out
lives and straighten out our problems, as we become conformed to the
PERFECT MAN, the WORD of GOD through it's washing.

-mwb