It's different in there: McCotter & Headcoverings

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[theresearchpersona]

What's interesting about that question, at least regarding the text's statement, is that it merely acknowledges, as an accepted fact among people by nature, that hair length of someone of this or that sex, does matter: that one is a shame, the other is not; it doesn't, however, call one or the other (at least explicitly) sinful; perhaps, however, it could be in one sense or another, dishonoring to God.

It does distinguish between that and the covering, though (if she won't be covered, let her be shorn to shame her); I think that in Biblical terms it probably matters...but that it's not something we're necessarily authorized to dogmatize over. I would never think it acceptable, for instance, to go to Africa and tell the inhabiting women to grow their hair out because otherwise it is shameful (they often shave their heads throughout Africa to keep lice and other nasties at bay).

Anyway, I'm interested in a response from EAS myself regarding your question, you? : )