* * * * *
It is said that a
picture is worth a thousand words.
Photos of adherents of
Oregon City's Followers of Christ Church have frequent found their way into
newspapers and programs. Selling stories is much easier with grabbing photos of
mug shots or court proceedings. Both sides of the court system know that juries
are often swayed along with the public by first impressions. A defense attorney
asks his client to look the part of a normal every day upbeat true blood
American and the other side leaks and introduces to the court and press the
most vilifying photos. The photos themselves depict whether a person is happy
or stressed, normal or peculiar, and we begin our evaluation of that person
with these impressions.
I belong to a related
church with some differences. And when we see these pictures there is one that
leaps out to us. We don't focus on facial expressions or even much on the
dress. We see the hair. I know my first reaction at seeing some of the
women on trial was, "How do they pray?"
What does hair have to
do with prayer? Let me explain.
In a nutshell we are faith healing sects and rely on prayer for our healing,
for many of us, it is the only recourse. Any hindrance to our prayer could have
serious repercussions. If we have sin in our lives we have to root it out and
confess it. We also have to show ourselves to be subject to the orders God
established.
In I Corinthians 11
Apostle Paul begins with, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of
Christ," It is a plea to some brethren then, and to us today to hear him
out and keep what he says. He continues, "I praise you for
remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed
them on to you."
His
subject is the significance of the head's covering and how it
indicates an order with God. "But I want you to realize that the head
of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of
Christ is God." Then comes Paul's
statement. "EVERY man who prays or prophesies with his head covered
dishonors his head. But EVERY woman who prays or prophesies with her
head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head
shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have
her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off
or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to
cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory
of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was
man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman
ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man
independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of
woman. But everything comes from God."
He reiterates and presents another argument so as to press his point home,
introducing the importance of having a proper relationship with
God. "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray
to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things
teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that
if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a
covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other
practice—nor do the churches of God." NO OTHER PRACTICE...possibly the
Followers Church has overlooked this?
I am not exactly sure how the Followers Church escaped this teaching, but have
an idea. I do know that this doctrine has been a historical bone of contention
among many assemblies, and some have put it aside as if it was an old
coat. Long ago beginning with Charlie Smith women were forbidden to openly pray
in the church. If they are not to pray publicly then their public covering
becomes a moot point. I have heard it said by many men that they preferred
their wives to have shorter hair, for many women it is easier to maintain. The
argument then runs that they are being subject to their husband's will and
therefore in God's order! Hold on a minute, since when were men able to change
God's order? How did man usurp a woman's obligation to pray? How are we – men
or women – to be heard when we have not submitted ourselves to God? How are we
to rely on healing by prayer when we are dishonored by what is or is not upon our
head, or our spouse's?
I would like to see some responses to these questions, perhaps a deeper
discussion is in order.
Darren
Are you saying cotfb women are required to keep long hair but ocfoc can cut their hair short with permission of their husband.
ReplyDeleteIs that picture of foc women?
The COTFB women generally maintain a practice of keeping their hair uncut. There are some assemblies/individuals who feel differently.
DeleteI do not believe personally that men can usurp God's authority to grant their wives permission. It is an argument I have encountere from several.
I do not know where this picture comes from, it was not mine. I do have several old pictures of the True Followers which shows them to have kept long hair. Of course there are also some exceptions, and the fact is 100 years ago it may have been culturally less likely for any woman to shear her hair other than for health issues.
A growing majority of FOC members aren't Babtized, what results should they be able to hope for regarding prayers being answered? If you haven't been born again does it even matter how you wear your hair? I realize that you were asked a question and gave an honest answer, but there are bigger issues. God answers prayers on his terms, not that he won't answer anyone's prayers, it just seems like a silly contention.
ReplyDeleteYes, just as we see in the 8th chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans, that the Holy Spirit intercedes for we do not know how to pray as we should, so how does one receive this gift of the Holy Spirit? Hmmm, The 2nd chapter of Acts tells us that we are to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins in Jesus name and we will receive it! Just think almost a whole congregation of people that continues in number and according to the scripture the're prayers are hindered, because they refuse the plan of salvation that the Lord God almighty has laid out before us! The "way" is already made and it's the same for you as it is your neighbor down the street!
DeleteYou are right, there are weightier matters that need to be addressed concerning salvation. It makes no sense to bind down hair doctrine on a group of unbaptized persons. Then again, why are unbelievers praying? If you are a believer you WILL be baptized. If you desire your prayers to be heard you WILL root out offences in your lives that stand between you and God.Mere mechanical religion saves no one and mechanical prayers fall to the earth.
DeleteDarren
Darren,
DeleteThanks for getting back to the blog, I understand that life happens and there are other priorities that need tending.
Why would an unbeliever pray? Good question, maybe because they understand there is a sovereign creator whose divine attributes are clearly seen (Rom 1:20). The Philippian jailer comes to mind (Acts 16:23). I can find no scripture reference for the inability of unbelievers to pray. Can you?
You seem to be implying that nonmechanical religion saves? Is this right? Can you give more definition to mechanical religion as opposed to nonmechanical.
I can find no scripture reference for prayers falling to the earth. Can you?
Please do not consider this an attack. I am just trying to understand you.
This is my take/experience on prayer: the hair story will be another post :)
DeleteWhile I lived in the OC FOC, I did not consider myself an unbeliever. Im not sure anyone that grows up there does.
I believed in God, Jesus, anointing, healing, prayer, fasting, doing good to others & for others, visiting the widows, sick, & grieving & those that rejoiced....aka...births, brides, etc. within our body of fellow brethren.
(could this be considered mechanical?)
Yet, I was 25 yrs old, not baptized, and felt a need for something more than singing 10 songs and trying to stay out of other people's rumors. God OPENED my eyes, meaning, He showed me outside of the building was life through Jesus Christ.
When we left there, and went to Idaho Falls for a job, I was asked if I was saved.
I Had no idea what that meant. I did grow up singing "Saved by Grace" but didn't know the meaning of it. I got saved, through my prayer to ask Jesus to forgive my sins. I felt new, but not convinced I was going to heaven for sure, so our pastor wouldn't baptize me.
When we found the Marsing branch of the FOC, I got baptized, we moved there, and later left there for a job in WA
While in WA, (now, I believed I was saved and Marsing wasn't the only place to be a believer)
I was told by a woman in a bible study I went to, that before a person is saved, their prayers aren't heard or answered.
That was ridiculous and false in my mind, because I HAD prayers answered as I grew up in the OC church, and had my babies, and anointed them. I couldn't believe someone could say that.
So, I studied up on prayer in the scriptures.
No where could I find, in the New Testament, where unbelievers would pray. I felt what I was reading/studying was directed toward believers. (me, my whole life)
So...what was I when I was growing up? I still don't consider myself as an unbeliever from about 4-25 yrs old, even though I didn't receive His grace and baptism until I was 27 yrs old.
Can someone help me out here?
That passage in Romans says that the Spirit helps us pray, when Peter stood up on the day of Pentacost and said that you will receive it if you are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins was that a suggestion? I do not think so. But somehow we have people telling us to just believe and that baptism is not needed, well it is clear from scripture that the only ones who simply just confessed that he was the Son of God were the devils that he cast out, what was the process in the book of acts as far as salvation? Belief was definitely part of it as much as confessing, but did it ever stop there? No everyone in the early church that we have an account of was baptized, but something doesn't line up from what we are being taught today, we are told to just accept Jesus, now does that fit what the Apostles taught us? The best sermons weren't the ones that told everyone that to accept him, it was the ones that caused them to throw stones, plug they're ears and grit they're teeth, with the idea I get today we should just not baptize, if it doesn't matter then what is the point? I've never read anything in the bible about an outward sign of an inward commitment, but ofcourse the theif on the cross so none of that matters right?
DeleteI've believed many years in baptism for salvation. To go to Heaven. I no longer believe a person will go to hell if the are NOT baptized. I believe if you are a believer, in Christ, Saved, Redeemed, forgiven of your sins, washed by His blood, you will be heaven bound. I also believe a Christian WILL be baptized. They will desire it, and follow Christ's example.
DeleteThe scriptures will be interpreted many ways, we all know this.
I have faith that what God is teaching me through His word IS truth.
Water, being dunked in a pool, river, pond, lake, etc. does not cleanse you from your sins. Only Jesus blood can do that.
Darren, your point is the unfortunate consequence of a poor English translation. The word translated “other” in your version means “such” in koine greek. It’s a demonstrative pronoun (e.g. this, such, thus), and could never really be stretched to mean “other” in the English sense. Read it again with the proper word/idea and see how it changes the overall tenor of the teaching.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, even in those few English versions that inserted the word “other” improperly (due to tradition, no doubt, rather than an honest appraisal of the actual meaning) the same greek word is never translated “other” again. Never. It is a common word, so it’s not like there’s only a few examples to point to.
Traditions can be a blessing, but often they tend to take the place of hard study and deep thought.
Paul didn’t want the church to quarrel about hair since it’s not like the symbolism he teaches was on par with contending for the gospel of Jesus. It’s important enough to discuss how prayer relates to our position in Christ and how our appearance can silently affirm this (for both men and women alike), but Paul clearly doesn’t want us to split up if someone thinks of it all as mere dress code of conformity.
I answered this on the next post. I too use the KJV and am more than OK with using the word "such". Now if you want to keep the argument that that is the better translation then to be consistent you have to ask what custom the "such custom " is referring to? The "such custom" referrenced by Paul is quite obviously the one which Paul is fighting against, the one advocated by a group of Corinthians, that they needed not to use the vail in worship. Any other interpretation of "such custom" would in fact negate every verse prior in the chapter!
DeleteDarren
After fifteen days, I thought you had given up on this thread. It is clear that you are entrenched in your conclusion so I don’t imagine you’ll change now. For the sake of other readers I respond as follows:
DeleteLook, appealing to English translations is a losing argument when we have a certain knowledge of what Paul wrote in the original greek. Even translators can be the victims of devotion to tradition (mandatory hair lengths) when they ought to be honest and let the chips fall where they may. When traditions become commands then real distortions of truth occur.
Let me say it again very clearly: if Paul MEANT that there was no other custom/tradition to keep (as a binding, ageless command) then he would never have used the words he did in the greek. I’ve devoted more time/energy to mastering New Testament greek than any other subject in my life, and this issue of what 1 Corinthians 11:16 actually says is not remotely controversial compared to hundreds of other ‘problem’ passages in translation. Whoever is arguing for your position (and translating it erroneously) does not do so on the basis of what it says, but what they think it should mean.
Darren, it seems like you have decided what the passage SHOULD mean and, therefore, are forcing your interpretation into verse 16. That behavior is what is called eisegesis, or ‘reading into’ a text what you want it to mean. Logic should be submitted to scripture too. And a disciple would do well to first translate a text before seeking its interpretation.
In Paul’s writing, there is a difference between a tradition and a command. For instance, take his teaching back in chapter seven regarding singleness and marriage, and note how he doesn’t foist his own position (singleness) on the whole church as a command (vs. 6-7). His arguments for singleness are good and wise, and yet even Paul admits that its not the rule but rather the exception. But by your own reasoning, this means vs. 6-7 would ‘negate every verse’ on the topic since the teaching isn’t absolutely binding.
I would rather be discussing Paul’s actual teaching on hair (its symbolic power to demonstrate spiritual reality for all submitted to God through Christ). But since you have mistakenly taken this as a compulsory command for all saints of every age then I think it deserves the same caveat that Paul included right there in the passage itself.
Darren, I thought the COTFB was a Kings James version only church, like the FOC in Oregon City is. If you read the verse from the King James, it says "we have no such custom". The FOC would simply say you are following a false translation. "no such custom" is entirely different than "no other practice".
ReplyDeleteYes. The COFB primarily uses the KJV and that is my preferred version. I used the NIV because of it's popularity and that the language is less confusing for most readers. I do have serious complaints as well about the NIV but in it's rendering of this passage it holds to the same meaning that I achieve from the KJV. "No such custom" is in fact interpreted by most COTFB and other translators to mean "no other practice". It is the only translation/interpretation that is consistent with the chapter. For example the Amplified version states, "Now if anyone is disposed to be argumentative and contentious about this, we hold to and recognize no other custom [in worship] than this, nor do the churches of God generally." The word "such" as in KJV may be a better literal translation word for word than "other", but we are translating idioms, groups of words which convey nonsensical meanings when rendered strictly word for word.
DeleteDarren.
Suzi,are you saying that this picture with the long hair is of followers of Christ? if not then why put it on here,and if it is why put it on here,this is extreme dont you think?
ReplyDeleteIf it is of the followers of Christ, then why would you ask her why put it on here? Why is it extreme? If it's what they once believed then why is it being pushed aside? Times change a person might say, well time might change but your God doesn't change, these followers seem to have a real ah whatever view on traditions, I don't think hair is a salvation issue, but maybe it would be good to do everything that the word of God instructs, in family life, in economics, we sure would be a lot better off as a society! But we continue to change until pretty soon we've become ok with big things that are now considered small, abortion is legal most places, you have homosexual perverts walking down the wedding aisles, we are in trouble, but if we turn to God turn from our iniquity and cry out to him he will forgive us! God save America!
DeleteThis is just a picture of some women with uncut hair. I put it here to demonstrate how many/most women in the COFB/FOC churches appear.
DeleteWhat the heck are you talking about suzanne??? No one in th "foc" church looks like that. I have seen many very old photos of the members of our church and no one had hair like that. You just posted that most women in the church look like that. What a weird thing to say. Was that a misprint or are you so set on making the foc into something it's not that you have resorted to completly making up stories? I am fully aware of the argument in the church over hair, but your totally embelishing for your readers.
DeleteYou're right: I meant to say that is how the women who attend the FOC/COFB churches that believe in this practice appear.... but I think that most of those women do not have hair that is quite that long :)
DeleteThe Oregon City FOC women do get haircuts and do not look at all like the picture - the photo is a contrast.
Here is a letter I have. It was given to my mother by Leaha Cunningham something Delbert her husband had I spose.
DeleteIt is tiled "Brother John Hunter's Vision of long hair in 1951"(After being asked by several brothern why long hair had never been preached, I fasted and prayed to God that he would give me more confermation concerning long hair. I had fasted for sometime, and as I was sitting in the station by my self, I felt the spirit of God very strong; I looked up and saw in a open vision in broad day light a woman in a white dress somthing like a nurses uniform. She looked back over her shoulder so I could see her hair. Wich hung down past her hips and it had grey hair in it. I know by this grey hair that it wasn't anything new; that long hair has always been and always would be Gods church. I know that then that long hair was right & no man can change me on this. signed by Bro. John Hunter.)I to am aware of the argument of long hair in the FOC church. Darren Russle had posted a picture on an earlier blog. It reminded me of a picture that my Dad had decribed to me many years ago. I think this is the picture that was taken at the time their was a conference held in Oregon City. I have always been told that one aspect of the conference pertained to the subject of long hair; evidently their was some contention already about the issue of hair and at that time they all agreed that it was not going to be an issue anymore that would cause devision; but later John Hunter had this vision in Peek a boo Idaho; and decided that he could no longer hold to that wich was agreed apon at the conference. Dose anyone have any infomation pertaning to this conference. Would have been before 1951.
Shane, I don't have info on the conference in writing, but I've heard people tell of that dream. Why a nurse outfit if the faith heal?
DeleteBefore my husband and I were baptized in Marsing, we had quite a few discussions with people in the church to explain the hair rule to us.
We didn't realize they held it as part of their salvation.
Ken Alger put it to a group of people as "if you cut your hair, it could always be longer. If you never cut it, it will be long." this was in a conversation brought up by OC FOC attendees asking what is long hair if the Bible says a woman should have long hair?
I was convicted of having long hair, to be more feminine, like your wife's hair...long, but cut.
So, I grew out my hair, but had it permed and cut...when we moved to WA, my husband didn't want me to have long hair, so I cut it again, and the friends I had in the Marsing church couldn't believe I cut it!
Still...to this day...I do not believe if a woman cuts her hair/takes scissors to it/tears it off/breaks it, etc. that she or her husband will go to he'll for that reason.
I asked a close friend in Middleton, if her husband told her to cut her hair, what would she do? She replied that she would divorce him.
That's messed up!!
That's more unbiblical than cutting your hair OR not cutting your hair to get to heaven!
Another friend, in Marsing, didn't want to cut her hair because her dad would be upset...NOT her husband. Weird! Her husband didn't care if she cut it, but her dad tight her not to...she did allow someone to trim It evenly once since we had that conversation.
My cousins have hair almost as long as the women in the picture, it's true, it happens....
You should have called this one "Does Hair Exist" lol joke for the day!
ReplyDeleteDarren the comment June 13th, 5:34pm completely destroys your argument that women should not cut their hair. You should respond to the accusation that you are using a faulty bible version to justify your belief. My opinion is that the COTFB created a doctrine first (no haircuts for women), then looked to the bible to justify it. This is something common in the FOC; they form a belief first then go to the bible (or what Walter said) to justify the belief they want to believe.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The doctrine is definitely biblically based. If not I would see no reason whatsoever for a man to prefer his wife with cut or uncut hair, it would be a purely subjective matter. Also we can emphasize the women's hair if we want, but the COTFB applies these scriptures equally to both sexes.
DeleteDarren
I was a member of the foc church . On two different occasions my hair was wacked off way to short ! The first on accident by a hair dresser who didn't know what trim meant , and the teenage boys even my girl friends made horrible fun of me . I hated My hair and that they acted like that . The second I wanted it short so I had it cut , my husband did not speak to me for about a week , he hated it , and I Hated the treatment from him so I never cut it short again . ! It's sad that that's what the men focus on . Making sure that you have long hair . Men prefer you with long hair so let it grow . What about all the holding men or men with Fat bellys ? Don't women have a say about that ? Oh that's right my bad I forgot women are better seen than heard in that building !
ReplyDeleteConcerning this hair issue my main thrust was that we men and women should worry more about pleasing God than pleasing ourselves or our spouses. Become pleasing to him in all the areas of our lives and we would likely if not surely be pleased with ourselves and our mates.
DeleteDarren.