|
Post by Short Hair Worker on May 6, 2008 7:58:11 GMT -5
Some sister workers now have quite short hair. They still wear it "up" but seem to cut it frequently. This is new.
|
|
|
Post by degem on May 6, 2008 9:49:48 GMT -5
And brother workers also have short hair. This is not new.
|
|
|
Post by Sensible on May 6, 2008 10:29:25 GMT -5
Can we have a sensible discussion?
|
|
sensible discussion
Guest
|
Post by sensible discussion on May 6, 2008 12:57:35 GMT -5
any topics you would like to sensibly discuss?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 6, 2008 16:33:53 GMT -5
Wait Gem, I thought it was a rule that brother workers had to have long hair! It must be that the rules are different in different places!
|
|
|
Post by degem on May 6, 2008 19:22:56 GMT -5
Well now calleduntoliberty! I must be "behind the times" I was thinking that generally speaking brother workers hair was kept short and neat. Mmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 7, 2008 0:55:56 GMT -5
Nope, that's the old rule! Now the problem is it takes time for the hair to grow so they're all temporarily breaking the rule.
|
|
|
Post by Short hair on May 8, 2008 21:51:53 GMT -5
any topics you would like to sensibly discuss? Yes, Sister Workers who have short hair. The reason for the post is that, as is well known, pressure is put upon women to grow their hair, particularly before baptism. It is sometimes set down as a condition for elegibility to be baptised. Therefore it is questionable why some workers keep their hair just long enough to pin up and in fact it is not long at all.
|
|
alana
Senior Member
Posts: 267
|
Post by alana on May 10, 2008 3:12:09 GMT -5
Some women may have thinning hair, split ends (through lack of regular trimming) which cause the hair not to grow and to appear shorter. This could be why sister workers can appear not to have long hair.
|
|
|
Post by no hair needs hats on May 10, 2008 6:52:26 GMT -5
Until a noticeable point within the last 20 years sister workers in England always wore hats, especially when they preached
The habit was removed instantly overnight, presumably upon a change of overseer
Would rather see someone in a hat than half balding hair upon an elderly female, but only a minority, a very small minority do that
|
|
|
Post by Hats off on May 10, 2008 8:50:28 GMT -5
Until a noticeable point within the last 20 years sister workers in England always wore hats, especially when they preached The habit was removed instantly overnight, presumably upon a change of overseer Would rather see someone in a hat than half balding hair upon an elderly female, but only a minority, a very small minority do that Same happened in Ireland but I remember one year at Craigavon Special Mtgs a number of years ago, three girls in one family all stepped out wearing hats. I don't think anything was said to them but plenty was said about them just being "fashion plates". What changed when only a few years before, the sister workers were wearing hats? It's not so long ago that I remember Hilda Landen wearing a shocking blue suit with a shocking blue hat of the very same shade when preaching in a mission.
|
|
|
Post by ex-teenager on May 11, 2008 3:56:58 GMT -5
Until a noticeable point within the last 20 years sister workers in England always wore hats, especially when they preached The habit was removed instantly overnight, presumably upon a change of overseer Would rather see someone in a hat than half balding hair upon an elderly female, but only a minority, a very small minority do that Same happened in Ireland but I remember one year at Craigavon Special Mtgs a number of years ago, three girls in one family all stepped out wearing hats. I don't think anything was said to them but plenty was said about them just being "fashion plates". What changed when only a few years before, the sister workers were wearing hats? It's not so long ago that I remember Hilda Landen wearing a shocking blue suit with a shocking blue hat of the very same shade when preaching in a mission. LOL. Hilda has said about not liking having to wear the hats...!
|
|
|
Post by No change Overseer on May 11, 2008 8:27:12 GMT -5
The hats disappeared gradually in England, young friends refused to wear them, but workers continued wearing them and they were a requirement for females in the work up until lmid eighties.
A few elderly workers carried on wearing theirs.
They were much hated but endured. Another ridiculous control tool just to make females feel restricted.
If they ever had a bearing on Scripture they would still be enforced, so the whole thing was a big mistake, another untrue aspect preached as truth.
|
|
|
Post by ever heard on May 12, 2008 12:27:48 GMT -5
Who has ever heard wearing a hat being preached about?
Surley this is not true!
What a silly post! Can you think of something more original?
|
|
|
Post by ever heard on May 12, 2008 12:29:24 GMT -5
Who has ever heard wearing a hat being preached about?
Surley this is not true!
What a silly post! Can you think of something more original?
|
|
|
Post by usually hatted on May 13, 2008 1:57:27 GMT -5
When I was a child in the 60s and 70s sisters (friends and workers) invariably wore hats to Sunday morning meetings to one anothers homes. The only ladies not wearing hats were the ones already living in that home (or the sister workers if they were staying at that place the previous night). Hats were not removed during the meetings, whatever the weather even if coats, jackets were taken off for temeperature control.
Although the habit has ceased in all but a minority of cases, we still know who are the strict baptists because their women walk or drive to their services wearing hats (many of which would look excellent at a royal event). Brethren women also tend to wear headscarves, not just on Sundays, but like a symbol of their religion all other days as well (In some of the stricter sects of Brethren the men never wear neckties)
|
|
Claire
Senior Member
Posts: 489
|
Post by Claire on May 13, 2008 8:19:09 GMT -5
my memories from convention in nireland in '92 are that sister workers didn't wear hats unless they were due to speak in that meeting.
|
|
|
Post by Mission on May 13, 2008 12:46:57 GMT -5
my memories from convention in nireland in '92 are that sister workers didn't wear hats unless they were due to speak in that meeting. I'm pretty sure Hilda Landen was wearing her shocking blue ensemble, complete with shocking blue pill-box hat in 1992/1993. I think the following year she was attired in a tasteful sage green ensemble, again with the then obligatory hat. She did pretty well with her wardrobe, given the confines within where she had to work.
|
|
|
Post by aileen on May 14, 2008 9:32:27 GMT -5
I don't know any sister workers who don't conform to the scripture examples stated by Paul et al, re hair lengths for men and women.
The scripture doesn't prescribe the measurement of length, nor the wearing style.
|
|
|
Post by buns away on May 15, 2008 6:58:12 GMT -5
The scripture doesn't prescribe the measurement of length, nor the wearing style.
Then why do professing ladies behave as if it does? Isn't that a mistake? A BIG mistake?
|
|
|
Post by aileen on May 15, 2008 10:35:14 GMT -5
The scripture doesn't prescribe the measurement of length, nor the wearing style. Then why do professing ladies behave as if it does? Isn't that a mistake? A BIG mistake? Your tone seems to imply a statement rather than a question, but to answer... No, I don't think this is a mistake of any dimension, big or otherwise. I don't actually think that we behave as if buns were a scriptural prescription. I see almost as many loose long haired women at meetings, conventions etc as bunned nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by Guest 1 on May 15, 2008 17:43:14 GMT -5
Sorry to bother you Aileen, but some more questions.
If buns (and other lookalike updos) were not believed to be expected then why..........
1. ...would a young wag walk into a convention meeting and describe ' a sea of buns..' ?
2. .....would two young brother workers comment that newcomers to a gospel felt as if they were walking into 'the fifties'?
|
|
|
Post by aileen on May 16, 2008 1:42:35 GMT -5
Guest 1. You're confusing what exists with why it might exist.
Having long hair can be often more easily handled by having it in a bun or roll or similar. Its convenient (at least i find it so, and I know many share that view). But the bun isn't the requirement, the long hair is. The bun is merely a way to make it convenient to comply with the scripural requirement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2008 5:41:06 GMT -5
Aileen, regarding long hair done up in buns. I am not picking holes, raising any objections, but just sharing some thoughts and observations on this issue.
In Victorian Britain long hair worn up in buns was originally considered daring, a sexy fashion, which exposed the neck and ears of a woman, in those prudent times. Eventually it was adopted by virtually all of female society during that era and no doubt this is the origins of this fashion in professing women today.
Now I agree the Bible gives guidance that a woman's hair is her glory and is given to her for a "covering" (of the head). Now long hair worn down certainly covers the head and to me this fits well with Paul's "advice."
However, long hair worn up in a bun is a hypocritical appearance, for during the time it is worn up, it is not long. It is "worn short" and it certainly is not a covering for it exposes the areas of the head and neck that it is meant to cover. In a sense it is like getting the best of both worlds.
A covering for the head is quite simpl that. A covering for the head, the whole head and not just the top. The bun is a lie !
FWIW I don't mind how a girl wears her hair, long, short, medium or whatever as long as it suits her and her man is glorified in it.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 16, 2008 10:38:45 GMT -5
aileen, don't forget verse 16 of the "scriptural requirement".
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 16, 2008 10:43:25 GMT -5
However, long hair worn up in a bun is a hypocritical appearance, for during the time it is worn up, it is not long. It is "worn short" and it certainly is not a covering for it exposes the areas of the head and neck that it is meant to cover. In a sense it is like getting the best of both worlds. Technically it's still long, but it sure doesn't seem long. And where's the glory in it being long but seeming short?
|
|
|
Post by degem on May 16, 2008 10:44:21 GMT -5
Hey calleduntoliberty-have the rules about hair changed again? Gem
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 16, 2008 10:49:23 GMT -5
1. ...would a young wag walk into a convention meeting and describe ' a sea of buns..' ? Certainly shows where he was looking, eh? Probably has a lot more to do with the modest dress than with a hairstyle. (Incidentally, high prevalence still does not indicate the existence of a requirement, rule, or even an expectation, despite repeated efforts to obscure this fact of logic.)
|
|