Holiness, long hair, short hair and 1Co 11

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>   [ Originally Posted by Christ Foster <cf01@zeus.odyssey.net> 
                                ^
I hope this does not designate Chris' position on this mailing list :-) 

Hi Chris,

I think the problem with your way of discussing this question is 
obvious in the two first sentences:

First you say:
> I agree so often with you on this simple but profound truth that one 
> must read the scriptures with an eye upon the historical setting.  

And then you nullify the whol argument by countering:
> But I disagree that the cultural development is relative to this 
> discussion. 

If you will argue that cultural knowledge is unimportant for 
interpretation, you will simply end up having some ad hoc hermeneutics 
which fit predetermined ideas.

> Verse 16 of 1Cor. 11 (NIV has the best rendering) is conclusive Paul 
> is very clear that this is the only recognized custom that the 
> churches recognize.

RecognizeD, yes. The point Paul is making, is that women should look 
like women and men should look like men. In a cultural setting where 
woman does not have long hair, it will be wrong to try to enforce such 
a standard. In that case, the sociaty outside the church will accuse 
the christians of being immoral, which was exactly the situation Paul 
would avoid.

In some cultures it is even *impossible* to enforce it, since hair 
cannot get long. Since these ethnical groups are just as much human 
beings as you and me (I trust you will not disagree with that!), it 
cannot be "nature's law" literally. When Paul says "does not the very 
nature of things teach you" he is merely canonizing the current 
convention of those days. If you have to argue with this, you should 
also argue to establish slavery again, since Paul gave clear rules that 
slaves should be obedient to their masters.

> The application Treece makes IMHO is that of Paul's referring to the 
> order of creation, i.e. man made first and the woman made from the 
> man, the woman made for man and not the man made for the woman, 
> verses 7-9.  It seems that this is intended purpose of God for all 
> time.  This 'order of creation' is the focus and not a cultural or 
> social dogma. 

Treece says this, yes, but he's wrong. On the contrary, Paul rejected 
the idea that order of creation made men somehow higher than women. In 
Josephus _Against Apion_ you will find that Jews argued that becuase 
men was made first, they were superiour to women. In v 11, 12 makes 
Paul it very obvious that this is *not* his position, since "all things 
are from God." In these two verses Paul counters an application of his 
words to put men above women, but alas, with, when men *want* to apply 
his words in a certain way, nothing he has written can change that.

> Isn't this a speculation pure and simple.  Cutting refers *only* to
> complete removal?  Where is your source?

Paul uses two words, as Treece says. One means "cutting" and the other 
means "shaving". The first *can* also refer to a normal cutting, but 
since Paul uses these two words together it's obvious what me means. 
The shaving of hair was sometimes customary for men in realtion to 
pagan religious rites.

> >The reason is that this was a custom among homosexuals of the day.  
> >Paul even makes strained reference to man being in God's image. 

> Strained?  

Yes, because according to Gen 2:21-23 *both* men and women is made in 
God's image. Logically, then, Paul's argument is not valid. What Paul 
tries to establish, however, is that men and women were made 
differently, and should be different. Trying to read exact rules for 
hairstyles for the 20th century from this treatise is hopeless.

> Once again the focus is the 'order of creation' 

Again, this is not focus. It is one of three arguments for distinctive 
hairstyles for men and women in the 1st century churches.

>                                                 not an unnatural
> forced stretched out of proportioned reference, but a natural 
> progression  of thought.

Progression of thought is often dangerous, because what is natural to 
one person is unnatural to someone else. 

> >The error of interpretation becomes almost comical when certain
> >denominations demands woman to have long hair hanging down. 
> 
> The error of your interpretation is comical to us who see this 
> passage in the light of the authority God places in His creation.

That causes me no problems, Chris, because I know what shallow research 
is behind your interpretation. It is an interesting fact that in 
churches and denominations who have a certain establishment of trained 
theologists and language scholars, such interpretations does not occur. 
All movements I know that support your interpretation is movements 
with, uh, many extreme views. Much zeal, and that is good, but little 
knowledge. That can be improved over time, as the religion grows more 
mature.

> >When 1Co 11:5 says women should not have "her head uncovered" it 
> >does not mean that she should wear a veil or hat, but that she 
> >should use her hair as a covering. 
> 
> Agreed

Fine.

> >Having "unbound" head *means having unordered hair hanging down.* 
> 
> Your opinion not mine. Cut or uncut, not hanging down or bound up.

Well, you agree with my definition of "bound" but not with my 
definition of "unbound". I will leave the logical implications of this 
to you :-)

The reason is pretty obvious, of course. You have a predefined position 
that you *must* stay on, since this is church policy. This inconvenient 
fact shatters your position completely. Like when the Jehovah's 
Witnesses have done a silly misinterpretation of Acts 15:28,29 and 
therefore prohibits blood transfusions, the game catches you and you 
have to stick with a hopeless position to save face. Better to try a 
little ad hominem, as you do later.

Well, back to topic. It's not merely "my opinion". It's what a person 
who has investigated the question will tell you as a fact. These words 
and expressions meant just what I say they did. There are illustrations 
from the 1st century showing women with long hair wrapped around the 
head in plaits.

> >Yet another lesson not to take Bible texts uncritically out of its 
> >social setting and apply it to our days.
> 
> Again, not the social setting of the first century is in view here, 
> but the order of God's creation and thus the authority God places in 
> the man/woman

And this is where you are wrong. In the creation account, woman comes 
from man. All men comes from a woman. All of us comes from God. This is 
a perfect symmetry, and leaves none of us higher or lower than anyone 
else. If this makes some men uneasy, well, tough on them.

> >It's pretty obvious that Paul does *not* mean that long hair for a 
> >man in itself is wrong, or that short hair for women is wrong. 
> 
> This statement is diametrically opposed to what Paul writes in verse 
> 13-14 when he says, and I paraphrase, you judge, doesn't nature 
> itself teach you the shame of a man having long hair.  How do you 
> arrive at the conclusion that Paul does not mean that long hair for a 
> man in itself is wrong?    

It was wrong there and then, not universally on every place for every 
person to every time. You see, Paul writes a letter to Corinth for a 
purpose. He wants to make sure they do what he says. He build an 
argument for the idea that women and men should look like what they 
are. It's obviously a problem with men having long hair. Women is not 
the problem in Corinth, but Paul uses this as an example to establish 
the symmetry of the rules. 

Paul uses 3 key arguments.  One of these arguments is that "if a woman 
has unordered hair she could just as well be shaven, and we all agree 
that that's bad." This is, paraphrased to modern language, what Paul is 
saying. This, which is really an argument (whether it's logically a 
good one can be argued) in another debate, you snip out of context and 
apply it as a rule in itself. In fact, Paul did not even address hair 
length for women as a problem!

> >The point is that geneder differences should be visible, 
> 
> YES
> 
> >and a local custom emphasizing this is for the good. 
> 
> You missed it, not local custom, God's creative order.

God's creative order is not in question. It was an argument, not the 
conclusion.

> >If it was literally "against nature" for a man to have long 
> >hair, one can wonder why God *required* this from Samson and the 
> >other nazirites in the Law. Is God's laws against the nature? 
> 
> No, God's laws are not against nature.  But the Nazarite vow had to 
> do with a special consecration upon the individual that had taken 
> that vow.  It was therefore unnatural (against nature) for a man to 
> wear long hair and the nazire vow emphasized the point.  

What you are saying here, is that to establish a person as a holy man, 
he had to be somehow against nature. There were three special rules as 
I remember for a nazirite:

1) don't drink wine 
2) don't cut your hair
3) don't touch dead bodies

If your whole argument rests on the assumtpion that holy men thereby 
were "against nature" you are on fairly thin ice here. Were men as 
Samson and John the Baptist "against nature"?

> At the end of the vow they were to cut off the hair and return to the 
> normal way of life or they would be guilty of actions that were not 
> consistent with who they were.

Does the name Samson ring a bell? 

> >It is what follows when men with little knowledge and too much power 
> >tries to force their personal ideas onto others.
> 
> I know of none in the UPC forcing anyone to conform to any standard 
> of living. 

Don't be funny. I know and you know that UPC like many fundamentalist 
groups *enforce* what they call "holiness standards". In the UPC this 
usually means no TV, no movies, no beard, etc, etc. It means long hair, 
no makeup, no jewlery for women. It means, first and foremost, 
obedience to your pastor. I have been reading this group for some time, 
and I have read the messages carefully. If a person does not follow 
these "holiness standards", which are indeed based more or less on thin 
air, he or she is accussed of "not having the spirit" or "being 
rebellious." In the Jehovah's Witnesses the usual scripture application 
is to say you are like Korah. In the Moonies, you are like Cain. Same 
tactics, different names.

>            I do know of many that are searching out the truths that 
> transform peoples lives.  I do not believe this view to be a 
> controlling sexist power mongering personal idea.  I believe it is a 
> sincere look at the scriptures and cognizant way of their application 
> to our lives.

Sincere, I assume so. Certainly mislead.

> I know that you made this last statement because that you believe 
> that we are a cult.  I think it unfair that you paint with a broad 
> brush and call this view of 1Cor 11 'forcing personal ideas onto 
> others.'

First, the expression "cult" is mostly meaningless. It is too 
ambiguous. To a fundamentalist mainstream christian it means someone 
who belongs to a christian denomination that denies the trinity (more 
or less). To a person doing religious studies, as I do, it simply means 
a system of religious rites. To an "exit-counselor" it means a group 
who uses strict information control and behaviour control to ensure 
that people stay loyal. 

It's this last definition that may be useful here. If the group 
encourages or at least accepts critical questions and deviant ideas 
and behaviour, it does not meet these criteria for being a "cult". 

That misogynic interpretations of Paul's letters and other parts of the 
Bible has been used through the ages to appress women is beyond 
discussion. It is an historical fact. It is also a fact that church 
leaders in all kind of religions has used originally mature leaders' 
words against women. Just look at Islam. Muhammad's exalted women in 
his time socially, but once the power-hungry church politicians got 
power it went downhill. Just the same in the christian church. Just 
read Tertullian, and you'll see how directly evil christianity became 
against women in some centuries. 

I don't pass judgment, but if you think your church is immune to this 
development, you will make the same mistake.

> I can be as unfair in my opinion also by saying, 

Well, Chris, this is just an attempt to smear while using a disclaimer. 
You want to use a personal attack against me. If you had been honest, 
you would have said what you say without this first sentence. You are 
talking with both sides of your mouth at the same time.

>                                                  Because you believe 
> that everyone is saved, you are nothing but a philosopher, since it 
> make no difference to you whether or not the gospel is preached, 
> because God is going to 'save' everyone in the end. Therefore why 
> argue the point?  Except to wallow in you own pride of heart?  This 
> would be unfair to you in the same manner that you are being unfair 
> to others.

Unfair, but most of all silly. Your definition of "philosopher" is a 
bit, uh, unorthodox to put it mildly. By what definition of 
"philosopher" does believing in universal salvation make me one?

As I have said already, Paul (or whoever wrote the pastorals) was 
certainly a believer in universal salvation (Tit 2:11; 3:2,8; 1Ti 
2:1,4; 4:10). Your complete inability to counter my last arguments has 
even left me in a position where the last letter on this topic which I 
am permitted to send to the mailing list is still unwritten. So, since 
you are unable to show I'm wrong here, you are having an argument with 
the Bible not me.

> To all that are reading this post, I say, Beware, lest any man spoil 
> you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, 
> after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.

Strange. I was about to say the same thing, except replace "philosphy" 
with a more appropriate term...


Cheers,
- Jan
-- 
          http://home.sol.no/jansh/wteng/jwindex.html