Peculiar Doctrines

Any objective read of the Bible (that is to say, one who is disinterested in sustaining the superiority of his own favored party) upon reviewing Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians, in which he makes mention of the cutting of the hair, would see that the Apostle is merely seeking to quell a dispute between two factions–those requiring women to veil themselves, and those who refuse to do so. He would see that Paul is merely extending charity to both side of the veil argument.

He would see that the mention of hair is little more than illustrative and designed to dismiss the veil issue as unimportant. He would see that Paul specifies no length for either sex, that he forbids no certain practice, and that he designates nothing as sinful.

He would note the absence of any “hair doctrine” among the sayings of Christ or of the twelve. Were he to take the “nature” argument to heart and say, “Well, there is something to it, “he would, if he were intelligent, keep it to himself. If he felt foolishly compelled to reveal his convictions to others for their edification, eh would–if he were charitable–never lay upon them the expectations that they ought to follow suit. If he were sane, he would at the very least refrain from specifying hair lengths or forbidding scissors to those who are unlucky enough to be cursed with his wisdom. And if all these barriers fell before his foolhardily chauvinism, he would certainly accept the Christian responsibility of ultimate restraint; not damning to Hell those whose good sense should set them in opposition to his self-important terms of salvation. Alas that RW Davis displays neither objectivity nor intelligence, neither sanity, charity, nor even the rudiment of Christian responsibility when it comes to the “hair question”

Frankly, there is no “hair question.” The Bible raises no such “question”, specified lengths are strangely missing; and the principles of individual conscience and Christian good will are violated by those seeking to enforce conformity in the name of “obedience”. The law of Moses forbids the wearing of clothing that “pertains’ to the opposite sex. In such cases, any objective reader would assume that some degree of extremity or clarity must be achieved before such adornment could objectively be called “perverse” or “abominable”. Since scripture gives no certain wardrobe to either human gender, then acceptable attire must be determined by anatomy (brassieres for women, underwear with opening in front for men–both of which are usually not seen in public) and by common consent.

Indeed, without scriptural specificity, common consent is all we have. Were I to don a pair of “women’s pants” the shape, cut and fabric would give me away and you would charge me with effeminacy, thus demonstrating the existence, by common consent, of “women’s pants”. RW Davis will complain that they are not modest, demonstrating his willingness to set aside individual liberty in Christ so that he might rule the lives of others in Christ’s stead. This is yet another of many bad doctrines promoted by NTCC, from which they attempt to hide through the means of gradual introduction.

Ultimately, one must obey and conform or else be a second-class Christian. If you have attended one of these “churches” for any length of time and yet have not felt the pressure to conform to a dress code and a hair standard, try increasing your involvement. Ask to play your guitar in church, or to teach Sunday school, or to serve as an usher or any other office of visible participation. The crafty pastor will say, “Let me pray about it.” He is hoping you will conform so he does not have to stifle your enthusiasm. Be prepared to wait for an answer.

NTCC is a Hair-and-Pants church only, accomplishing very little in the way of truly spiritual work, thinking it is something, when it is nothing, RW Davis preaches on the one hand that salvation will free you from sin, yet on the other hand he trusts no one to avoid sin unless he himself is telling them what to do and granting permission to make phone calls.

This article is the third in the series entitled “Farewell Address“.