Of Great Price
Prices tell us about the value of things. But, sometimes, there would be items that are either overpriced or underpriced. When we get caught up into giving away so much money for goods that should costs less we feel cheated. However, we'll be very glad to pay less for what is of great price.
Nevertheless, there will certainly be a problem when what we consider of great price is seen as worthless by another class, who may be more or less learned than we are; it is the challenge of having different value systems. In modern societies, people are taught to respect the values of others, even though they are different from ours. This places some kind of equality on values that are otherwise not equal. It might be likened to rating a grade one pupil on the same level with a grade six. That would be a false weight. But men have accepted it as fair in order not to be offensive.
Is it not really bad enough to know that "...that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God"? (Luke 16:15). With the contradiction of these two value systems, will it not be proper to have the one that is more excellent? This would save us from the trouble of counting our shame as our glory (Philippians 3:19).
If there should be any real measurement of values, we should give credit to the Creator of values Himself, the Almighty God. It would be foolish to deny His existence in the face of the great designs of His works that we see before us every day. His value system is the most accurate of all systems. In His Holy Book, He asks:
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Mat 16:26). This is His own assessment of values. According to Him, the value of whole world is not a good exchange value for a man's soul. If we fail to accept His counsel, we may turn out to feel cheated at the end to realize that we have spent so much of our lives on worthless things.
He also tells us of a man "who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it." (Mat 13:46). That man must be a wise man. He had the right value system to understand that all his possessions were not worth the pearl of great price. He could easily dispose himself of them all to acquire the most important treasure of his life. Such a man was Paul, the apostle. All the "...things (that) were gain to (him), those (he) counted loss for Christ". Yes, he counted "all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord..." that he might be able to win Christ. (Philippians 3:7,8). The knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord is the most excellent knowledge and the missing link in modern thinking. We have to give up all other knowledge to know the true Lord and be able to have the right value system.
When we have the right value system, we will not pursue outward evaluation of ourselves as much as we pursue our inward purification; rather we would heed the divine counsel that reads: "But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." ( 1Pe 3:4). To possess this priced pearl, we have to exchange it for the outward adornments because they truly detract from the most excellent glory of the soul. The hidden man of the heart is hidden and incorruptible by worldly defilement because it is separate from the world and separated to God. God describes it as an ornament of a meek and quiet spirit and of great price. It was purchased at the cost of a sinless blood. If it is of great price to Him, should it not be so to us, too? Should we value external things above it? Or should we not see ourselves as He sees us: complete in glory, needing no additions to beautify ourselves? The problem with seeking outward beauty is the contradiction of the hiding of the man of the heart. The man of the heart wants to remain hidden and let Christ be known for the excellency that He is. But no, the old man of the flesh, who is subject to the old serpent, his head, seeks to be known rather. This is why we must sell it, give it up, crucify it and exchange it for the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is of great price in the sight of God.
But a certain ruler, when he learnt that he had to sell all these things to gain eternal life became "...very sorrowful: for he was very rich" in earthly things (Luke 18:23). Esteeming earthly things in the mind over and above heavenly things to the extent that we cannot easily dispose of them to gain the excellency of the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His suffering makes us enemies of His cross and Antichrists, even though we profess otherwise. We become enemies of righteousness and the things that are eternal and true. That is why the love of the world is the root of evil. But if we love the Father, rather than fleshly desires, attractive things and the prideful things of the earth, we shall know indeed that He is our great and exceeding reward!
Friday, November 8, 2019
Monday, September 2, 2019
A Report on the Bible Seminar at Port Harcourt, Nigeria (details)
A REPORT ON THE BIBLE SEMINAR OF THE CHURCH OF GOD
HELD IN PORT HARCOURT, NIGERIA
FROM WEDNESDAY, 1ST TO SATURDAY, 4TH OF MAY, 2019
ATTENDANCE
The number of names recorded in the attached list of participants at the event is forty-one. It shows that seven brethren attended from Imo State, four from Delta, two from Akwa Ibom, one each from Edo and Bayelsa, and twenty-six from Rivers State, which includes the host congregation, in Port Harcourt and the other congregations within the State.
ARRIVAL
On the arrival day, Wednesday, 1st of May, 2019, only brethren from Rivers, and Edo State were present for the welcome service. The others arrived after the scheduled date.
ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
The following day, during the first session, minutes of the ministers’ meeting held in Port Harcourt on the 18th of January, 2019 was read by Bro Eric Okhuakhua. Bro Joshua Okike moved for its adoption and Bro Peter Nwosu supported it.
PR0CEEDINGS
The Seminar was in five sessions.
The first session started around 12:40pm and ended at 4:23pm, on Thursday, May 2. The delay was due to the late arrival of ministers from the remaining States. After joyful choruses and singing of ELS 17 and 230, Bro Barth Nwachukwu led the prayers and read the welcome address on behalf of the host church. His admonition was taken from Jude 1:20: “Building up ourselves…” He also added 1Tim4:16 to show the need to take heed to the doctrine that is able to save us and our hearers. Bro Alalibo prayed for the message. After a fervid deliberation, the long reading of the article “Functional Unity” by Brothers Damian Uba and Chinwendu Nwachukwu brought the session to an end.
The second session began at about 8:33pm and ended by 11:08pm on the same day. The discussion was full of passions that almost ended the meeting abruptly. Intermittent objections and counter objections persisted until the latter part of the session when sobriety prevailed, by the grace of God. Two topics were covered successfully to the glory of God.
The third session started by 9:30am and ended around 12:12pm, on Friday, May 3rd, 2019. One topic was handled conclusively. The break period afforded some ministers the opportunity to visit the proposed 2019 camp meeting venue for inspection of its facilities.
The fourth session lasted for about three hours, ending at 5:43pm same day. The topic treated was Head Covering. The fifth and final session kicked off at 7:20pm and closed at 10:49pm on the same day. The fifth topic, Plaiting of Hair, was handled. At the end of the lesson, Bro Francis Anapuwa exhorted the house, showing how Paul was zealous in ignorance until God showed him the light (1Timothy 1:13, 16). He also gleaned from Prov.2:1-9 and 1:23-30, declaring that we do have work to do but our slackness is delaying the Lord’s return.
ISSUES
It would be recalled that Bro Barth Nwachukwu had, in the course of his welcome address for the January 17th to 19th 2019 Ministers’ meeting in Port Harcourt, expressed concern about the state of health of the Nigerian ecclesiastical movement for unity, which was well captured in Bro Ogbonnaya Okike’s article: “Functional Unity”. He called for action to address the issues thrown up in the presentation, so that our much desired unity would work in the Bible way. This call gave weight to the need for a Bible Seminar among the ministers.
The main issue brought to the fore by the paper “Functional Unity” is the different approaches to achieving unity among the churches of God, as we know in this part of the world. The author preferred the approach to unity that allows amicable interactions among the congregations, their doctrinal differences notwithstanding. He opined that the differences in doctrines are actually in minor areas, which are negligible and can be overruled by the major points of agreement, of which a determinate building up of friendly associations will be very useful. This approach appears to gain covert acceptability among some ministers. This group of ministers acknowledges the doctrinal conflicts among the congregations, but they would rather work to strengthen what they consider as major points of agreement than to demonstrate visible support for a clear-cut resolution of the perceived minor differences. Efforts made to stymie the straightforward consideration of the issues, which they judge minor, ranged from overtures before the Seminar and outright confrontations in the course of the programme.
Obstacles
The obstacles faced during the meetings were so enormous that it could only take the mercy of the Lord to surmount them. The first challenge was the late arrival of participants, especially those who came a day behind schedule. It affected the early kick off of the first session, which, in effect, reduced the time available for the meetings. Another challenge was the intermittent disruptions as a result of opposition from those who did not want certain topics to be discussed.
Ordinarily, it is expected that those who profess the same faith ought to believe the same thing and speak the same thing (1Cor. 1:10); having no grey or “no-go” areas in matters that border on their relationship. When this is not the case, sincere efforts are made to understand why things are not how they should be and how they can become what they ought to be. While not a few brethren were fasting and praying for this very purpose, that they all “may with one mind and one mouth glorify God” (Rom. 15:6), it should be a wonder that some others should yet think that every member of the family need not have one mind and one mouth on the same thing that concerns their faith. The witness of conscience should normally kick against such position for those who profess unity of the church; however, in this particular case, they grant that the areas of differences in doctrines are actually non-essential. This argument of non-essentialness would have been tenable if the matters involved had nothing to do with clear scriptural instructions, but based upon such things as vegetables, meat, spoons, or other opinions of men that have no eternal consequences. Men have no authority to conclude any part of God’s word as non-essential because they are pure (Proverbs 30:5) and profitable for doctrine (2Timothy 3:16).
Nevertheless, when the question of non-essentialness is answered, another issue is brought up: misinterpretation and misapplication of the scriptures. This is given as a justifiable cause for differences in doctrines, since not every man may have the proper understanding of the inspired word. If this were truly the case, everyone would have desired a forum where the sincere hearts would wait on the Lord to help the multitude of seekers to arrive at the proper understanding of the Scripture. Thankfully, this is the purpose of Bible Seminars. It is better to address the doctrinal conflicts than to suppress them by shying away from them.
The author of the “Functional Unity” did not shy away from the issues. He addressed them to the best of his ability, with all clarity. However, those who opposed the consideration of the issues touched by the article did not conceal their reasons for doing so. Bro Francis Anapuwa mentioned openly that he had called on Bro Barth Nwachukwu to suggest that the discussion of this particular article should be set aside. Reasons given for this include the opinion that the write-up was a mere academic exercise. It was feared that addressing the issues would lead to needless disputations.
Another reason given for opposing the discussion is the absence of the author of the article. It was argued that since he was unavailable for the defence of his presentation, it should be stepped down to avoid misrepresentation of his views, which he alone can explain. Bro Joshua Okike even opined that the insistence on the discussion of the article was being used as a means of scattering the meeting and the church. This accusation was a cause for no small stir that threatened the continuation of the proceedings as Bro Barth Nwachukwu refused to ignore it but insisted on its recantation. The Lord granted that the intervention of meek brethren should prevail and avail calm for the unsettled brethren.
Bro Winston E. Dagogo stood up in the heat of the discussions and spoke from Paul’s words in 2Cor. 10:12-16 to the end that ministers who have received the body of truth [as delivered from the times of old] ought not to stretch themselves beyond the measure distributed to them by God, so as to reach other men’s labors; since it is the Lord who will declare every man’s work of what sort it is, and ours only is to wait on our own ministering according to the proportion or measure that God has dealt to us. Such a venture (out of measure and into other regions not assigned from above) would only lead to a mix-up of people with conflicting buildups that leave men unwise, measuring or comparing themselves with themselves. Bro Dick Seleiyi recalled that nine years ago some leading ministers from various backgrounds had approached the Port Harcourt brethren to request for the unity of the congregations. They were then given the condition of accepting the light of truth of God’s Word, to which they gave their word of acceptance. But the events down the years have proven the case otherwise.
Fortifications
Meanwhile, the reasons adduced for discussing the article include the following: first, while it was acknowledged that the author was absent, it was also recalled that he had gotten and used ample hours to exhaust his thoughts on the lesson about three years ago. There was no ambiguity in his teaching to warrant misrepresentation. His views were expressed in very plain language and cheered by a number of individuals who were present. It is not actually about him or his personal defence but about the position of the church on the views expressed in the paper in the light of the Holy Scripture. As for his absence, no reason was given; even though he was present at the previous ministers’ meeting where the decision was taken to have this Seminar in order to address the article among other issues. The article raised issues that are too critical to be put aside. The argument that it is a mere academic exercise is not a commendation for the efforts of the writer who should have been received as spiritual brother that is sincerely concerned about the affairs of the church and is desirous of her prosperity.
From the minutes of the previous ministers’ meeting, read and adopted before the commencement of the Seminar, it can be seen that it was decided that this paper, among other issues, should be discussed in the Seminar. It was not objected then, neither was it objected at the reading of the minutes, before its adoption. Surprisingly, it is the same brethren who moved for the adoption that later swelled the number that opposed the discussion. This did not follow acceptable standard and norms.
Finally, the benefit of hindsight has proved unfounded the fears that the discussions would portend grave consequences for the church. The atmosphere of the discussions became serene after those who opposed the discussion ceased from restiveness. At the end of the Seminar, testimonies came from different quarters and appreciation to the Lord for making His truth known to sincere hearts and bringing every apprehension to naught.
HELD IN PORT HARCOURT, NIGERIA
FROM WEDNESDAY, 1ST TO SATURDAY, 4TH OF MAY, 2019
ATTENDANCE
The number of names recorded in the attached list of participants at the event is forty-one. It shows that seven brethren attended from Imo State, four from Delta, two from Akwa Ibom, one each from Edo and Bayelsa, and twenty-six from Rivers State, which includes the host congregation, in Port Harcourt and the other congregations within the State.
ARRIVAL
On the arrival day, Wednesday, 1st of May, 2019, only brethren from Rivers, and Edo State were present for the welcome service. The others arrived after the scheduled date.
ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES
The following day, during the first session, minutes of the ministers’ meeting held in Port Harcourt on the 18th of January, 2019 was read by Bro Eric Okhuakhua. Bro Joshua Okike moved for its adoption and Bro Peter Nwosu supported it.
PR0CEEDINGS
The Seminar was in five sessions.
The first session started around 12:40pm and ended at 4:23pm, on Thursday, May 2. The delay was due to the late arrival of ministers from the remaining States. After joyful choruses and singing of ELS 17 and 230, Bro Barth Nwachukwu led the prayers and read the welcome address on behalf of the host church. His admonition was taken from Jude 1:20: “Building up ourselves…” He also added 1Tim4:16 to show the need to take heed to the doctrine that is able to save us and our hearers. Bro Alalibo prayed for the message. After a fervid deliberation, the long reading of the article “Functional Unity” by Brothers Damian Uba and Chinwendu Nwachukwu brought the session to an end.
The second session began at about 8:33pm and ended by 11:08pm on the same day. The discussion was full of passions that almost ended the meeting abruptly. Intermittent objections and counter objections persisted until the latter part of the session when sobriety prevailed, by the grace of God. Two topics were covered successfully to the glory of God.
The third session started by 9:30am and ended around 12:12pm, on Friday, May 3rd, 2019. One topic was handled conclusively. The break period afforded some ministers the opportunity to visit the proposed 2019 camp meeting venue for inspection of its facilities.
The fourth session lasted for about three hours, ending at 5:43pm same day. The topic treated was Head Covering. The fifth and final session kicked off at 7:20pm and closed at 10:49pm on the same day. The fifth topic, Plaiting of Hair, was handled. At the end of the lesson, Bro Francis Anapuwa exhorted the house, showing how Paul was zealous in ignorance until God showed him the light (1Timothy 1:13, 16). He also gleaned from Prov.2:1-9 and 1:23-30, declaring that we do have work to do but our slackness is delaying the Lord’s return.
ISSUES
It would be recalled that Bro Barth Nwachukwu had, in the course of his welcome address for the January 17th to 19th 2019 Ministers’ meeting in Port Harcourt, expressed concern about the state of health of the Nigerian ecclesiastical movement for unity, which was well captured in Bro Ogbonnaya Okike’s article: “Functional Unity”. He called for action to address the issues thrown up in the presentation, so that our much desired unity would work in the Bible way. This call gave weight to the need for a Bible Seminar among the ministers.
The main issue brought to the fore by the paper “Functional Unity” is the different approaches to achieving unity among the churches of God, as we know in this part of the world. The author preferred the approach to unity that allows amicable interactions among the congregations, their doctrinal differences notwithstanding. He opined that the differences in doctrines are actually in minor areas, which are negligible and can be overruled by the major points of agreement, of which a determinate building up of friendly associations will be very useful. This approach appears to gain covert acceptability among some ministers. This group of ministers acknowledges the doctrinal conflicts among the congregations, but they would rather work to strengthen what they consider as major points of agreement than to demonstrate visible support for a clear-cut resolution of the perceived minor differences. Efforts made to stymie the straightforward consideration of the issues, which they judge minor, ranged from overtures before the Seminar and outright confrontations in the course of the programme.
Obstacles
The obstacles faced during the meetings were so enormous that it could only take the mercy of the Lord to surmount them. The first challenge was the late arrival of participants, especially those who came a day behind schedule. It affected the early kick off of the first session, which, in effect, reduced the time available for the meetings. Another challenge was the intermittent disruptions as a result of opposition from those who did not want certain topics to be discussed.
Ordinarily, it is expected that those who profess the same faith ought to believe the same thing and speak the same thing (1Cor. 1:10); having no grey or “no-go” areas in matters that border on their relationship. When this is not the case, sincere efforts are made to understand why things are not how they should be and how they can become what they ought to be. While not a few brethren were fasting and praying for this very purpose, that they all “may with one mind and one mouth glorify God” (Rom. 15:6), it should be a wonder that some others should yet think that every member of the family need not have one mind and one mouth on the same thing that concerns their faith. The witness of conscience should normally kick against such position for those who profess unity of the church; however, in this particular case, they grant that the areas of differences in doctrines are actually non-essential. This argument of non-essentialness would have been tenable if the matters involved had nothing to do with clear scriptural instructions, but based upon such things as vegetables, meat, spoons, or other opinions of men that have no eternal consequences. Men have no authority to conclude any part of God’s word as non-essential because they are pure (Proverbs 30:5) and profitable for doctrine (2Timothy 3:16).
Nevertheless, when the question of non-essentialness is answered, another issue is brought up: misinterpretation and misapplication of the scriptures. This is given as a justifiable cause for differences in doctrines, since not every man may have the proper understanding of the inspired word. If this were truly the case, everyone would have desired a forum where the sincere hearts would wait on the Lord to help the multitude of seekers to arrive at the proper understanding of the Scripture. Thankfully, this is the purpose of Bible Seminars. It is better to address the doctrinal conflicts than to suppress them by shying away from them.
The author of the “Functional Unity” did not shy away from the issues. He addressed them to the best of his ability, with all clarity. However, those who opposed the consideration of the issues touched by the article did not conceal their reasons for doing so. Bro Francis Anapuwa mentioned openly that he had called on Bro Barth Nwachukwu to suggest that the discussion of this particular article should be set aside. Reasons given for this include the opinion that the write-up was a mere academic exercise. It was feared that addressing the issues would lead to needless disputations.
Another reason given for opposing the discussion is the absence of the author of the article. It was argued that since he was unavailable for the defence of his presentation, it should be stepped down to avoid misrepresentation of his views, which he alone can explain. Bro Joshua Okike even opined that the insistence on the discussion of the article was being used as a means of scattering the meeting and the church. This accusation was a cause for no small stir that threatened the continuation of the proceedings as Bro Barth Nwachukwu refused to ignore it but insisted on its recantation. The Lord granted that the intervention of meek brethren should prevail and avail calm for the unsettled brethren.
Bro Winston E. Dagogo stood up in the heat of the discussions and spoke from Paul’s words in 2Cor. 10:12-16 to the end that ministers who have received the body of truth [as delivered from the times of old] ought not to stretch themselves beyond the measure distributed to them by God, so as to reach other men’s labors; since it is the Lord who will declare every man’s work of what sort it is, and ours only is to wait on our own ministering according to the proportion or measure that God has dealt to us. Such a venture (out of measure and into other regions not assigned from above) would only lead to a mix-up of people with conflicting buildups that leave men unwise, measuring or comparing themselves with themselves. Bro Dick Seleiyi recalled that nine years ago some leading ministers from various backgrounds had approached the Port Harcourt brethren to request for the unity of the congregations. They were then given the condition of accepting the light of truth of God’s Word, to which they gave their word of acceptance. But the events down the years have proven the case otherwise.
Fortifications
Meanwhile, the reasons adduced for discussing the article include the following: first, while it was acknowledged that the author was absent, it was also recalled that he had gotten and used ample hours to exhaust his thoughts on the lesson about three years ago. There was no ambiguity in his teaching to warrant misrepresentation. His views were expressed in very plain language and cheered by a number of individuals who were present. It is not actually about him or his personal defence but about the position of the church on the views expressed in the paper in the light of the Holy Scripture. As for his absence, no reason was given; even though he was present at the previous ministers’ meeting where the decision was taken to have this Seminar in order to address the article among other issues. The article raised issues that are too critical to be put aside. The argument that it is a mere academic exercise is not a commendation for the efforts of the writer who should have been received as spiritual brother that is sincerely concerned about the affairs of the church and is desirous of her prosperity.
From the minutes of the previous ministers’ meeting, read and adopted before the commencement of the Seminar, it can be seen that it was decided that this paper, among other issues, should be discussed in the Seminar. It was not objected then, neither was it objected at the reading of the minutes, before its adoption. Surprisingly, it is the same brethren who moved for the adoption that later swelled the number that opposed the discussion. This did not follow acceptable standard and norms.
Finally, the benefit of hindsight has proved unfounded the fears that the discussions would portend grave consequences for the church. The atmosphere of the discussions became serene after those who opposed the discussion ceased from restiveness. At the end of the Seminar, testimonies came from different quarters and appreciation to the Lord for making His truth known to sincere hearts and bringing every apprehension to naught.
A Report of Bible Seminar Held at the Church of God Chapel, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
DISCUSSION OF DOCTRINES
Topics handled conclusively in the program, by the help of the Lord, include:
a) The means for uniting the church
b) No room for conflicting doctrines
c) The clause “till we all come…” in Ephesians 4:13
d) Head covering
e) Plaiting the hair
a) The Means for Uniting the Church
The discussion was set off by a question read directly from the paper “Functional Unity”: “HOW CAN THERE BE UNITY AMONG THE CHURCHES OF GOD?” The author’s response to this question (as recorded in section 4, subsection 3) is
1. That the differences among the congregations should be accommodated and not discountenanced; just like the unity that exists between two different families who have diverse backgrounds. Nobody expects them to become identical twins overnight.
2. The Deeper Life model of zoning for annual events like camp meeting, etc, should be considered for adoption, “to make things easier for the flock of God”.
3. That each “national ministry” may hold their separate camp meetings while others support them and attend as invitees or guests [just as sister bodies do].
4. That clash of doctrines should be avoided among ministers of different background for the sake of unity.
5. That a minister from another “national ministry” should not set confusion in the camp meeting of a [sister] “national ministry” by preaching doctrines that are yet unsettled among them, if by any chance he is given the pulpit.
6. That unity should be based on love and determination, rather than doctrines.
The premise of his propositions above is that Paul and Peter, being leaders of different “ministries” managed a kind of unity, irrespective of differences in doctrines.
However, when an enquiry was made in the meeting whether any minister was in support of the above stated propositions, there was no affirmation; rather, the crosschecking of the Scripture shows that the true church of God, which is the lamb’s bride, is “the only one of her mother”, having no sister body, family or ministry (Song of Solomon 6:9). The term “national ministry” is foreign to the Holy Writ.
The unanimous scriptural response for the question of how the churches of God can be united is through the words that God gave the Lord Jesus Christ to give to them (John 17:14-21). It is God’s Word of Truth that sanctifies. Sanctification is the real unity of hearts in the perfect love of God. Both the Word that sanctifies and the ones He sanctifies “are all of one” (Hebrews 2:11). Any unity procured by other means than the Word of Truth is nothing but manmade arrangement and it will surely fade away as grass (1Peter 1:24 and 25).
b) No Room for Conflicting Doctrines
The premise that Paul and Peter managed a kind of unity that accommodated conflicting doctrines was refuted from the Scripture. In fact, Peter and a few other apostles had the privilege to cross examine the doctrines of Paul and perceived the same grace of God. With that they gave him “the right hand of fellowship” (Galatians 2:1-9).
c) The clause “till we all come…” in Ephesians 4:13
This clause is not a basis for various congregations, ministers or so-called “national ministries” to hold conflicting teachings indefinitely, even “until the Lord returns”. This holy verse has been very much misunderstood and abused because many people do not endeavor to retain its original context; they pull it out of its place in the chapter and give it an isolated meaning, which the holy apostle never had in his mind when penning down the inspired words.
Paul wrote about one body, one Spirit, one faith and one Lord; not about multiple doctrines/faiths or plural bodies, families, “national ministries”, that are endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit until they come to the unity of the faith. The apostle started by imploring the saints to live a life that is worthy of the gospel for which we are called. Unity of the Spirit is a result of the quickening of our spirits by faith (which comes by hearing the word of the Lord). He makes us one through His blood that cleanses our hearts through the washing of water by His Word and the fellowship of His Spirit. These are three witnesses that bear the same record in the church on earth, all of them agreeing in one (1John 5:8). This is the unity of the Spirit. But we are to endeavor to keep this unity in the bond of peace by walking worthy of the vocation for which we are called, through a life of lowliness of heart and meekness, as well as long suffering, whereby we forbear with one another in love. Next, after showing the oneness of everything pertaining to the gospel of Christ, the apostle writes about the provision God has made for the nurturing of the body of Christ, namely, the ministering gifts for the spiritual growth and development of every member of the body, till we all come to maturity in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God; so that we do not remain children any more who are tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of truth [even, till the Lord’s return!. The ministering gifts are for administering the word of God for the edifying of the body and the perfecting or maturing of the saints. We are to take note that the Bible does not say “till we come to the unity of the faith” as most people assume, but “till we come in the unity of the faith”. The phrasal verb “come … unto” is not for “the unity of the faith”, but for “a perfect (full grown) man” and “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”. The summary of the words above, as the holy apostle concludes, is “speaking the truth in love” that we “may grow into Him in all things…”
We see clearly here that this Scriptures has no resemblance to what many in the world do imagine that it is saying. With this another premise for insisting on accommodating diversity of doctrines in the churches that long for unity has been punctured. Ephesians 4:13 gives no room for conflicting doctrines.
d) Head Covering
In a bid to defend the practice of plaiting of hair among some congregations, a brother called for explanation of 1Cor. 11:1-16. The affirmation is that the first thirteen verses talks about the material veil for head covering, and not the long hair.
Affirmation Objected
The first objection to this affirmation is the opinion that since 1Corinthians 11:15 states that it is the long hair that is given for the covering of the hair, and material veil is not mentioned at all in the passage, it follows that long hair should be the head covering spoken about throughout the passage.
The second objection is the idea that the verses do not read “cover her hair”, but “cover her head”.
Objections Answered
If, truly, long hair is the only covering for the head in that passage, as the first objection supposes, then Paul must have meant that a brother, who does not have long hair but wears a cap when praying and prophesying, does not dishonor his head. Secondly, if it is long hair that is the veil for women, then how would a sister without long hair who wants to pray or prophesy obey the instruction in 1Corinthians 11:5 and 6 to be covered or have her head shorn or shaven? How does she get her head covered immediately? Should she grow long hair at once or what? What about those, whose natural condition is such that they have little or no hair at all, are they barred from praying or prophesying? By the way, “prophesying” has been defined as speaking to men to edification, exhortation and comfort (1Corinthians 14:3).
The holy brother clearly said by inspiration that if the woman is not covered while praying or prophesying, it “is even all one as if she were shaven”. If by covering he meant long hair, why would he compare being uncovered with being shaven? Moreover, why would he recommend that the head be shaven or shorn if it would not be covered, if the covering he meant was the long hair? The option is be covered or be shaven. Thus the one who would not be covered should be shaven. It is clear that these options will not be applicable for a sister who does not have long hair, if the head covering the apostle means in these verses is the long hair. Or, how would she obey the instruction of “EITHER BE COVERED OR BE SHAVEN?” In that case, she would have no plausible option in the instruction apart from to “BE SHAVEN”, since the instruction to “BE COVERED” would not be possible for her at that instance that she has to pray or prophesy.
Furthermore, in the sixth verse, the advice is “if it is a shame to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered”. How would she do that? Please, note that the context is still “when praying or prophesying. The only reasonable conclusion is that this Scripture is referring to covering the head with a material veil.
In 1Corinthians 11:10, Paul states that “the woman ought to have power on her head”; the marginal reading of the word “power” in that verse, as noted by the translators of the King James Version of the Bible, is, “that is, a covering in sign that she is under the power of her husband”. One of the Scriptural references for the verse includes Genesis 24:65. It shows Rebecca using the material veil for covering.
For the second objection, it was shown that Acts 18:18 shows that the head was shorn, but not the hair; just as 1Corinthians 11 talks about covering the head, instead of the hair. The hair is on the head; therefore what covers the head also covers the hair. In this sense, it should be understood that the head could be used for the hair.
It should be noted that 1Corinthians 11:6 does not forbid women from cutting off part of their hair as if they were under the Mosaic law of the Nazarite. It only implies that it is a shame for a woman to be shaven or shorn. The fact that Act 18:18 shows that a person is shorn under the vow, makes being shorn and shaven synonymous words because the vow of the Nazarite is about shaving, that is removing the hair from off the head. See Numbers 6:1-21 and Acts 21:24. It is the baldness of the head, which is a norm for the man that is a shame to the woman.
It was generally affirmed in the meeting that the head covering refers to material veiling. Only Brother Shadrach Okike maintained his objections.
It is noteworthy that Paul in treating head covering, in 1Corinthians 11:3-16, employs seven witnesses to show that it is the woman that should be veiled, rather than the man. The witnesses used are viz:
a) The witness of the pre-eminence of the man over the woman (1Corinthians 11:3-6)
b) The witness that the man is both the image and glory of God, but that the woman is the glory of the man. It is the glory of man that should be covered in His holy temple, not the glory of God (1Corinthians 11:7)
c) The witness that the woman was created out of the man and for the man, but not otherwise (1Corinthians 11:8-9)
d) The witness of the angels who understand the principle of submission to power (1Corinthians 11:10) {in accentuating the preeminence of the man over the woman as proof of who between them should cover the head, the apostle concedes that neither of them was sufficient of themselves without the other (1Corinthians 11:11-12)}
e) The witness of decency or comeliness (1Corinthians 11:13). It is rather comely and decent for a woman to be veiled than for a man.
f) The testimony of nature (1Corinthians 11:14 and 15). Even nature agrees that it is women who need covering of the head; hence she is given a natural covering.
g) The testimony of custom (1Corinthians 11:16). It was not in the custom for women to be uncovered.
All seven witnesses agree with the doctrine that Paul shows in this chapter that it is the woman, and not the man, that should be covered.
(QED)
e) Plaiting the Hair
Bro Damian Uba set off the discussion about the prohibition of plaiting the hair by explaining that it was not a nonessential doctrine that should be maligned along with so-called “doctrines of vegetables, spoons, tie, etc”. He asserted that it is because it is mentioned in both 1Timothy 2:9 and 1Peter 3:3 that we teach it.
Objections to the Doctrine
The following objections were raised:
I. (a) If we forbid plaiting because of the Scripture, why do we not forbid wearing apparel that is also mentioned in the same Scripture?
(b) Why do we not use the same excuse for allowing apparel to allow plaiting the hair?
II. Why do we allow some form of adornment at all, such as bathing, caring for our appearance to look good and acceptable, if outward adornment is completely forbidden?
III. Only elaborate plaiting the hair is forbidden, not every plaiting.
Objections Answered
The Scripture clearly listed the following items as forbidden for outward adornment:
a) Plaiting the hair (1Peter3:3) or braided hair (1Timothy 2:9)
b) Gold (1Timothy 2:9 and 1Peter 3:3)
c) Pearls (1Timothy 2:9)
d) Costly array (1Timothy 2:9) or apparel (1Peter 3:3)
These items are clearly forbidden by the phrases “let it not be” and “not with”. Even those objecting this doctrine acknowledge that wearing necklace and rings or jewellery, such as gold and pearls is by these scriptures forbidden for the believer. It is noteworthy that the same item called plaiting the hair in 1Peter 3:3 is indicated as braided hair in 1Timothy 2:9. Likewise, the item called costly array in 1Timothy 2:9 is called apparel in 1Peter 3:3. This should show us that the apparel mentioned in 1Peter 3:3 is not just the common clothing we use for covering our nakedness. It is talking about the costly kit, which is costly because of their ostentatious worth, rather than their real value. Clothes serve both the purpose of covering the nakedness and for adornment. However, some employ clothes more for adornment than for its primary purpose, which is to cover up our nakedness. They spend much money on clothes that do not properly cover them up, but serve well their purpose to be showy. Apart from clothes, other items listed do not have any other purpose except for outward adornment. Why should wearing clothes be questioned when it is clearly stated that women should adorn themselves in modest apparel? Yes, they are allowed to adorn themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness, sobriety and good works (1Timothy 2:9-10)! While, it is accepted that not all adornment is forbidden, the Bible clearly listed the ones, which are acceptable and marked them out from the prohibited ones. For avoidance of doubt, here are the approved lists for adornment:
a) Modest apparel (1Timothy 2:9)
b) Shamed face (1Timothy 2:9)
c) Sobriety (1Timothy 2:9)
d) Good works (1Timothy 2:10)
e) Chaste conversation coupled with fear (1Peter 3:2)
f) The ornament of a meek and quiet spirit (1Peter 3:4)
The forbidden items are items of pride, used for promoting self and the fleshly glory (so much for the talk about the glory of the hair!). All physical glory shall pass away, but he that does the will of God abides for ever!
Bathing and caring for the body should not be put in the same rank with the items on the forbidden list. In Colossians 2:23, Paul condemns the ascetic practice of neglecting the body, thereby nullifying the second objection.
Another reason given against plaiting the hair is the curse in Isaiah 3:17 and 24 which mentions the infliction of a “scab” and baldness on haughty women who adorn themselves with “well set hair”, among other adornments. It was explained that this condition is observed on those that indulge in plaiting the hair too frequently, whereby the frontline of their hair eventually shifts farther upward after loss of much hair.
As for the third objection, it may sound plausible to differentiate elaborate plaiting from simple plaiting, but the problems lies in the reality check of defining what makes plaiting elaborate. What shamefacedness or sobriety can we perceive from plaiting our African sisters’ hair? Or what is not elaborate in its time consuming and lust inspiring details? A brother describing it as a waste of resources, which include time and money, concluded that there is nothing good in it; health wise, it is risky. It is only pleasing to the flesh and contradictory to the cross of Christ, which we are to deny ourselves and carry. It is but a fearful thing to see that clearly written words are being disputed. What then do we say about those things that are not clearly spelt out in the Bible, such as stylish hair-cut, fixing of artificial nails, what they call “eye-shadow”, artificial eye-lashes, lipstick, skin-bleaching, cigarettes etc?
While some may claim that plaiting helps them maintain the doctrine of having long hair for covering, it was shown that plaiting actually exposes part of the head instead of covering it. A brother compared this exposure with that of exposing the other parts of the body that should be covered. This brings to mind the curse of scab in Isaiah 3:17 by which the secret parts are uncovered. This compares to the shame mentioned in 1Corinthians 11:6.
Finally, a sister appealed that love should be shown to the Lord Jesus Christ by keeping His commandment. If we find this little commandment so burdensome, how then will the weightier ones appear to us?
This topic was also generally affirmed by the ministers present, with only Bro Shadrach Okike dissenting.
REACTIONS
Not a few ministers expressed their delight in the manner by which the Lord helped the church in handling the meetings and the opportunity He graciously granted to learn new things at His feet.
There was also an appeal for any brother not to be set at naught because of their inability at the moment to attain to the same understanding which the Lord in His mercy has allowed us to reach. It is the much we receive we are to work with, with the hope that the Lord will help everyone to stand at the right time, if sincerity is retained in our hearts.
Bro Joshua Okike spoke good words at the end of the meeting, to the end that brethren truly needed to deny themselves even of meat, if need be, so that no one should be offended.
CLOSING
Financial support sent in for the program was acknowledged. It was announced that Sister Crown from Port Harcourt indicated interest to work with the camp meeting committee.
The meeting ended with prayers by Bro Alalibo at 10:49pm, Friday, May 03, 2019.
To God be the glory for ever and ever; Amen!
S/No NAME LOCATION CONTACT
1 Bro O B Alalibo Tombia, Rivers 08071178854
2 Bro Orgwu Josiah Kwale, Delta 07061333164
3 Bro Anapuwa, Francis A Ellu, Delta 07033347494
4 Bro Peter Nwosu Odenkwume Obowo, Imo 07035923368
5 Bro Barth Nwachukwu Port Harcourt, Rivers 08032649049
6 Bro Bartholomew Uzoma Owerri, Imo 07034440022
7 Bro Oremi Macflag Tombia, Rivers 09093379789
8 Sis Korai Emmanuel Port Harcourt, Rivers
9 Sis Chinyere Hannah Eferebo Port Harcourt, Rivers 08135203421
10 Sis Wait Karibopunch Port Harcourt, Rivers 07034724889
11 Bro Okorie Linus C Lagos/Umuguma, Imo 08168621131
12 Bro Shedrach N Okike Uyo, Akwa Ibom 08063996628
S/No NAME LOCATION CONTACT
13 Bro Winston E. Dagogo Port Harcourt, Rivers 08036722882
14 Bro Seleiyi Dick Port Harcourt, Rivers 08037901749
15 Bro Ozuem Elvis Ellu/Ozoro, Delta 08065468410
16 Bro Chinwendu Nwachukwu Bori, Rivers 08038838554
17 Bro Zion Isaac Port Harcourt, Rivers 08126634266
18 Bro Okechukwu Anudike Ogu, Rivers 08061250898
19 Sis Charity Nwachukwu Bori, Rivers 0706798532
20 Bro Ikaebiyun A Appollos Port Harcourt, Rivers 08025390719
21 Sis Mary A Appollos Port Harcourt, Rivers 09091637814
22 Bro Eric O Okhuakhua Benin, Edo 08033819322
23 Bro Joshua Okike Uyo, Akwa Ibom 08109340407
24 Bro Ibifubara Rowland Port Harcourt, Rivers 07085530708
25 Sis Okorinama Keribo Port Harcourt, Rivers 08064186996
26 Bro Damian Uba Warri, Delta 08033811224
27 Bro ThankGod Nathaniel Port Harcourt, Rivers 08055970957
28 Bro Olikili Godwin Yenagoa, Bayelsa 08034863065
29 Bro Nathaniel Abite Abalama, Rivers 08052663160
30 Bro Onumah Victor E Umuguma, Imo 08066840504
31 Bro Benson Oparaji Umuguma, Imo 08036609886
32 Bro Ikpe Augustine Owerri, Imo 08060480655
33 Bro Benibo Garden Brown Port Harcourt, Rivers 08068882693
34 Sis Alolote A Nathaniel Abalama, Rivers 08063893449
35 Sis Martha George Port Harcourt, Rivers 08119059833
36 Sis Hannah Anudike Ogu, Rivers
37 Sis Karinabo Naths Benibo Port Harcourt, Rivers 08037594189
38 Bro Samuel Saturday Port Harcourt, Rivers 07018564014
39 Sis Esther Uzoma Owerri, Imo 08038921421
40 Bro Wisdom Georgewill Port Harcourt, Rivers 07081125417
41 Bro Emmanuel Anapuwa Port Harcourt, Rivers 08037914727
Topics handled conclusively in the program, by the help of the Lord, include:
a) The means for uniting the church
b) No room for conflicting doctrines
c) The clause “till we all come…” in Ephesians 4:13
d) Head covering
e) Plaiting the hair
a) The Means for Uniting the Church
The discussion was set off by a question read directly from the paper “Functional Unity”: “HOW CAN THERE BE UNITY AMONG THE CHURCHES OF GOD?” The author’s response to this question (as recorded in section 4, subsection 3) is
1. That the differences among the congregations should be accommodated and not discountenanced; just like the unity that exists between two different families who have diverse backgrounds. Nobody expects them to become identical twins overnight.
2. The Deeper Life model of zoning for annual events like camp meeting, etc, should be considered for adoption, “to make things easier for the flock of God”.
3. That each “national ministry” may hold their separate camp meetings while others support them and attend as invitees or guests [just as sister bodies do].
4. That clash of doctrines should be avoided among ministers of different background for the sake of unity.
5. That a minister from another “national ministry” should not set confusion in the camp meeting of a [sister] “national ministry” by preaching doctrines that are yet unsettled among them, if by any chance he is given the pulpit.
6. That unity should be based on love and determination, rather than doctrines.
The premise of his propositions above is that Paul and Peter, being leaders of different “ministries” managed a kind of unity, irrespective of differences in doctrines.
However, when an enquiry was made in the meeting whether any minister was in support of the above stated propositions, there was no affirmation; rather, the crosschecking of the Scripture shows that the true church of God, which is the lamb’s bride, is “the only one of her mother”, having no sister body, family or ministry (Song of Solomon 6:9). The term “national ministry” is foreign to the Holy Writ.
The unanimous scriptural response for the question of how the churches of God can be united is through the words that God gave the Lord Jesus Christ to give to them (John 17:14-21). It is God’s Word of Truth that sanctifies. Sanctification is the real unity of hearts in the perfect love of God. Both the Word that sanctifies and the ones He sanctifies “are all of one” (Hebrews 2:11). Any unity procured by other means than the Word of Truth is nothing but manmade arrangement and it will surely fade away as grass (1Peter 1:24 and 25).
b) No Room for Conflicting Doctrines
The premise that Paul and Peter managed a kind of unity that accommodated conflicting doctrines was refuted from the Scripture. In fact, Peter and a few other apostles had the privilege to cross examine the doctrines of Paul and perceived the same grace of God. With that they gave him “the right hand of fellowship” (Galatians 2:1-9).
c) The clause “till we all come…” in Ephesians 4:13
This clause is not a basis for various congregations, ministers or so-called “national ministries” to hold conflicting teachings indefinitely, even “until the Lord returns”. This holy verse has been very much misunderstood and abused because many people do not endeavor to retain its original context; they pull it out of its place in the chapter and give it an isolated meaning, which the holy apostle never had in his mind when penning down the inspired words.
Paul wrote about one body, one Spirit, one faith and one Lord; not about multiple doctrines/faiths or plural bodies, families, “national ministries”, that are endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit until they come to the unity of the faith. The apostle started by imploring the saints to live a life that is worthy of the gospel for which we are called. Unity of the Spirit is a result of the quickening of our spirits by faith (which comes by hearing the word of the Lord). He makes us one through His blood that cleanses our hearts through the washing of water by His Word and the fellowship of His Spirit. These are three witnesses that bear the same record in the church on earth, all of them agreeing in one (1John 5:8). This is the unity of the Spirit. But we are to endeavor to keep this unity in the bond of peace by walking worthy of the vocation for which we are called, through a life of lowliness of heart and meekness, as well as long suffering, whereby we forbear with one another in love. Next, after showing the oneness of everything pertaining to the gospel of Christ, the apostle writes about the provision God has made for the nurturing of the body of Christ, namely, the ministering gifts for the spiritual growth and development of every member of the body, till we all come to maturity in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God; so that we do not remain children any more who are tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of truth [even, till the Lord’s return!. The ministering gifts are for administering the word of God for the edifying of the body and the perfecting or maturing of the saints. We are to take note that the Bible does not say “till we come to the unity of the faith” as most people assume, but “till we come in the unity of the faith”. The phrasal verb “come … unto” is not for “the unity of the faith”, but for “a perfect (full grown) man” and “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”. The summary of the words above, as the holy apostle concludes, is “speaking the truth in love” that we “may grow into Him in all things…”
We see clearly here that this Scriptures has no resemblance to what many in the world do imagine that it is saying. With this another premise for insisting on accommodating diversity of doctrines in the churches that long for unity has been punctured. Ephesians 4:13 gives no room for conflicting doctrines.
d) Head Covering
In a bid to defend the practice of plaiting of hair among some congregations, a brother called for explanation of 1Cor. 11:1-16. The affirmation is that the first thirteen verses talks about the material veil for head covering, and not the long hair.
Affirmation Objected
The first objection to this affirmation is the opinion that since 1Corinthians 11:15 states that it is the long hair that is given for the covering of the hair, and material veil is not mentioned at all in the passage, it follows that long hair should be the head covering spoken about throughout the passage.
The second objection is the idea that the verses do not read “cover her hair”, but “cover her head”.
Objections Answered
If, truly, long hair is the only covering for the head in that passage, as the first objection supposes, then Paul must have meant that a brother, who does not have long hair but wears a cap when praying and prophesying, does not dishonor his head. Secondly, if it is long hair that is the veil for women, then how would a sister without long hair who wants to pray or prophesy obey the instruction in 1Corinthians 11:5 and 6 to be covered or have her head shorn or shaven? How does she get her head covered immediately? Should she grow long hair at once or what? What about those, whose natural condition is such that they have little or no hair at all, are they barred from praying or prophesying? By the way, “prophesying” has been defined as speaking to men to edification, exhortation and comfort (1Corinthians 14:3).
The holy brother clearly said by inspiration that if the woman is not covered while praying or prophesying, it “is even all one as if she were shaven”. If by covering he meant long hair, why would he compare being uncovered with being shaven? Moreover, why would he recommend that the head be shaven or shorn if it would not be covered, if the covering he meant was the long hair? The option is be covered or be shaven. Thus the one who would not be covered should be shaven. It is clear that these options will not be applicable for a sister who does not have long hair, if the head covering the apostle means in these verses is the long hair. Or, how would she obey the instruction of “EITHER BE COVERED OR BE SHAVEN?” In that case, she would have no plausible option in the instruction apart from to “BE SHAVEN”, since the instruction to “BE COVERED” would not be possible for her at that instance that she has to pray or prophesy.
Furthermore, in the sixth verse, the advice is “if it is a shame to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered”. How would she do that? Please, note that the context is still “when praying or prophesying. The only reasonable conclusion is that this Scripture is referring to covering the head with a material veil.
In 1Corinthians 11:10, Paul states that “the woman ought to have power on her head”; the marginal reading of the word “power” in that verse, as noted by the translators of the King James Version of the Bible, is, “that is, a covering in sign that she is under the power of her husband”. One of the Scriptural references for the verse includes Genesis 24:65. It shows Rebecca using the material veil for covering.
For the second objection, it was shown that Acts 18:18 shows that the head was shorn, but not the hair; just as 1Corinthians 11 talks about covering the head, instead of the hair. The hair is on the head; therefore what covers the head also covers the hair. In this sense, it should be understood that the head could be used for the hair.
It should be noted that 1Corinthians 11:6 does not forbid women from cutting off part of their hair as if they were under the Mosaic law of the Nazarite. It only implies that it is a shame for a woman to be shaven or shorn. The fact that Act 18:18 shows that a person is shorn under the vow, makes being shorn and shaven synonymous words because the vow of the Nazarite is about shaving, that is removing the hair from off the head. See Numbers 6:1-21 and Acts 21:24. It is the baldness of the head, which is a norm for the man that is a shame to the woman.
It was generally affirmed in the meeting that the head covering refers to material veiling. Only Brother Shadrach Okike maintained his objections.
It is noteworthy that Paul in treating head covering, in 1Corinthians 11:3-16, employs seven witnesses to show that it is the woman that should be veiled, rather than the man. The witnesses used are viz:
a) The witness of the pre-eminence of the man over the woman (1Corinthians 11:3-6)
b) The witness that the man is both the image and glory of God, but that the woman is the glory of the man. It is the glory of man that should be covered in His holy temple, not the glory of God (1Corinthians 11:7)
c) The witness that the woman was created out of the man and for the man, but not otherwise (1Corinthians 11:8-9)
d) The witness of the angels who understand the principle of submission to power (1Corinthians 11:10) {in accentuating the preeminence of the man over the woman as proof of who between them should cover the head, the apostle concedes that neither of them was sufficient of themselves without the other (1Corinthians 11:11-12)}
e) The witness of decency or comeliness (1Corinthians 11:13). It is rather comely and decent for a woman to be veiled than for a man.
f) The testimony of nature (1Corinthians 11:14 and 15). Even nature agrees that it is women who need covering of the head; hence she is given a natural covering.
g) The testimony of custom (1Corinthians 11:16). It was not in the custom for women to be uncovered.
All seven witnesses agree with the doctrine that Paul shows in this chapter that it is the woman, and not the man, that should be covered.
(QED)
e) Plaiting the Hair
Bro Damian Uba set off the discussion about the prohibition of plaiting the hair by explaining that it was not a nonessential doctrine that should be maligned along with so-called “doctrines of vegetables, spoons, tie, etc”. He asserted that it is because it is mentioned in both 1Timothy 2:9 and 1Peter 3:3 that we teach it.
Objections to the Doctrine
The following objections were raised:
I. (a) If we forbid plaiting because of the Scripture, why do we not forbid wearing apparel that is also mentioned in the same Scripture?
(b) Why do we not use the same excuse for allowing apparel to allow plaiting the hair?
II. Why do we allow some form of adornment at all, such as bathing, caring for our appearance to look good and acceptable, if outward adornment is completely forbidden?
III. Only elaborate plaiting the hair is forbidden, not every plaiting.
Objections Answered
The Scripture clearly listed the following items as forbidden for outward adornment:
a) Plaiting the hair (1Peter3:3) or braided hair (1Timothy 2:9)
b) Gold (1Timothy 2:9 and 1Peter 3:3)
c) Pearls (1Timothy 2:9)
d) Costly array (1Timothy 2:9) or apparel (1Peter 3:3)
These items are clearly forbidden by the phrases “let it not be” and “not with”. Even those objecting this doctrine acknowledge that wearing necklace and rings or jewellery, such as gold and pearls is by these scriptures forbidden for the believer. It is noteworthy that the same item called plaiting the hair in 1Peter 3:3 is indicated as braided hair in 1Timothy 2:9. Likewise, the item called costly array in 1Timothy 2:9 is called apparel in 1Peter 3:3. This should show us that the apparel mentioned in 1Peter 3:3 is not just the common clothing we use for covering our nakedness. It is talking about the costly kit, which is costly because of their ostentatious worth, rather than their real value. Clothes serve both the purpose of covering the nakedness and for adornment. However, some employ clothes more for adornment than for its primary purpose, which is to cover up our nakedness. They spend much money on clothes that do not properly cover them up, but serve well their purpose to be showy. Apart from clothes, other items listed do not have any other purpose except for outward adornment. Why should wearing clothes be questioned when it is clearly stated that women should adorn themselves in modest apparel? Yes, they are allowed to adorn themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness, sobriety and good works (1Timothy 2:9-10)! While, it is accepted that not all adornment is forbidden, the Bible clearly listed the ones, which are acceptable and marked them out from the prohibited ones. For avoidance of doubt, here are the approved lists for adornment:
a) Modest apparel (1Timothy 2:9)
b) Shamed face (1Timothy 2:9)
c) Sobriety (1Timothy 2:9)
d) Good works (1Timothy 2:10)
e) Chaste conversation coupled with fear (1Peter 3:2)
f) The ornament of a meek and quiet spirit (1Peter 3:4)
The forbidden items are items of pride, used for promoting self and the fleshly glory (so much for the talk about the glory of the hair!). All physical glory shall pass away, but he that does the will of God abides for ever!
Bathing and caring for the body should not be put in the same rank with the items on the forbidden list. In Colossians 2:23, Paul condemns the ascetic practice of neglecting the body, thereby nullifying the second objection.
Another reason given against plaiting the hair is the curse in Isaiah 3:17 and 24 which mentions the infliction of a “scab” and baldness on haughty women who adorn themselves with “well set hair”, among other adornments. It was explained that this condition is observed on those that indulge in plaiting the hair too frequently, whereby the frontline of their hair eventually shifts farther upward after loss of much hair.
As for the third objection, it may sound plausible to differentiate elaborate plaiting from simple plaiting, but the problems lies in the reality check of defining what makes plaiting elaborate. What shamefacedness or sobriety can we perceive from plaiting our African sisters’ hair? Or what is not elaborate in its time consuming and lust inspiring details? A brother describing it as a waste of resources, which include time and money, concluded that there is nothing good in it; health wise, it is risky. It is only pleasing to the flesh and contradictory to the cross of Christ, which we are to deny ourselves and carry. It is but a fearful thing to see that clearly written words are being disputed. What then do we say about those things that are not clearly spelt out in the Bible, such as stylish hair-cut, fixing of artificial nails, what they call “eye-shadow”, artificial eye-lashes, lipstick, skin-bleaching, cigarettes etc?
While some may claim that plaiting helps them maintain the doctrine of having long hair for covering, it was shown that plaiting actually exposes part of the head instead of covering it. A brother compared this exposure with that of exposing the other parts of the body that should be covered. This brings to mind the curse of scab in Isaiah 3:17 by which the secret parts are uncovered. This compares to the shame mentioned in 1Corinthians 11:6.
Finally, a sister appealed that love should be shown to the Lord Jesus Christ by keeping His commandment. If we find this little commandment so burdensome, how then will the weightier ones appear to us?
This topic was also generally affirmed by the ministers present, with only Bro Shadrach Okike dissenting.
REACTIONS
Not a few ministers expressed their delight in the manner by which the Lord helped the church in handling the meetings and the opportunity He graciously granted to learn new things at His feet.
There was also an appeal for any brother not to be set at naught because of their inability at the moment to attain to the same understanding which the Lord in His mercy has allowed us to reach. It is the much we receive we are to work with, with the hope that the Lord will help everyone to stand at the right time, if sincerity is retained in our hearts.
Bro Joshua Okike spoke good words at the end of the meeting, to the end that brethren truly needed to deny themselves even of meat, if need be, so that no one should be offended.
CLOSING
Financial support sent in for the program was acknowledged. It was announced that Sister Crown from Port Harcourt indicated interest to work with the camp meeting committee.
The meeting ended with prayers by Bro Alalibo at 10:49pm, Friday, May 03, 2019.
To God be the glory for ever and ever; Amen!
S/No NAME LOCATION CONTACT
1 Bro O B Alalibo Tombia, Rivers 08071178854
2 Bro Orgwu Josiah Kwale, Delta 07061333164
3 Bro Anapuwa, Francis A Ellu, Delta 07033347494
4 Bro Peter Nwosu Odenkwume Obowo, Imo 07035923368
5 Bro Barth Nwachukwu Port Harcourt, Rivers 08032649049
6 Bro Bartholomew Uzoma Owerri, Imo 07034440022
7 Bro Oremi Macflag Tombia, Rivers 09093379789
8 Sis Korai Emmanuel Port Harcourt, Rivers
9 Sis Chinyere Hannah Eferebo Port Harcourt, Rivers 08135203421
10 Sis Wait Karibopunch Port Harcourt, Rivers 07034724889
11 Bro Okorie Linus C Lagos/Umuguma, Imo 08168621131
12 Bro Shedrach N Okike Uyo, Akwa Ibom 08063996628
S/No NAME LOCATION CONTACT
13 Bro Winston E. Dagogo Port Harcourt, Rivers 08036722882
14 Bro Seleiyi Dick Port Harcourt, Rivers 08037901749
15 Bro Ozuem Elvis Ellu/Ozoro, Delta 08065468410
16 Bro Chinwendu Nwachukwu Bori, Rivers 08038838554
17 Bro Zion Isaac Port Harcourt, Rivers 08126634266
18 Bro Okechukwu Anudike Ogu, Rivers 08061250898
19 Sis Charity Nwachukwu Bori, Rivers 0706798532
20 Bro Ikaebiyun A Appollos Port Harcourt, Rivers 08025390719
21 Sis Mary A Appollos Port Harcourt, Rivers 09091637814
22 Bro Eric O Okhuakhua Benin, Edo 08033819322
23 Bro Joshua Okike Uyo, Akwa Ibom 08109340407
24 Bro Ibifubara Rowland Port Harcourt, Rivers 07085530708
25 Sis Okorinama Keribo Port Harcourt, Rivers 08064186996
26 Bro Damian Uba Warri, Delta 08033811224
27 Bro ThankGod Nathaniel Port Harcourt, Rivers 08055970957
28 Bro Olikili Godwin Yenagoa, Bayelsa 08034863065
29 Bro Nathaniel Abite Abalama, Rivers 08052663160
30 Bro Onumah Victor E Umuguma, Imo 08066840504
31 Bro Benson Oparaji Umuguma, Imo 08036609886
32 Bro Ikpe Augustine Owerri, Imo 08060480655
33 Bro Benibo Garden Brown Port Harcourt, Rivers 08068882693
34 Sis Alolote A Nathaniel Abalama, Rivers 08063893449
35 Sis Martha George Port Harcourt, Rivers 08119059833
36 Sis Hannah Anudike Ogu, Rivers
37 Sis Karinabo Naths Benibo Port Harcourt, Rivers 08037594189
38 Bro Samuel Saturday Port Harcourt, Rivers 07018564014
39 Sis Esther Uzoma Owerri, Imo 08038921421
40 Bro Wisdom Georgewill Port Harcourt, Rivers 07081125417
41 Bro Emmanuel Anapuwa Port Harcourt, Rivers 08037914727
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)