Hair: to cut or not to cut

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

Hi Chris

> Jan let's agree to disagree on this :-)

No problem.

> Are you saying that the culture of which a Christian finds himself, 
> sets the standard of conduct?  Rubbish.  

As we say here, it's a difference between shaving your beard and 
cutting your head off :-)

I'm not saying that culture *sets* the standards or the principles. 
Society and culture merely guides how the eternal christian principles 
are manifested in the world.

A few examples should illustrate the point:

* Polygamy is considered unchristian, unlawful and immoral by 
practically all christians today. Yet, the Bible actually accepts it. 
You will not find a single Bible scripture forbidding polygamy. It's 
our culture that forbids it, and christianity has seen that this 
cultural taboo is a valid manifestation of christian ideals that are 
implied, but not explicit, even in the NT.

* That a man is living with a woman without being married would be 
considered gross immorality by the majority of christians. Yet, again, 
the marriage as we know it did not exist at the time the Bible was 
completed. The way what the Bible calls marriage was implemented, was 
simply when a man and a woman arranged to live together (somehow 
simplified; they had some arrangements involving money but they are not 
considered appropriate today).

* Cannibalism has been considered one of the worst crimes imaginable in 
christianity. The Bible does not touch the subject at all. Yet, 
christians has deemed it appropriate to accept society standards.

* Suicide is considered an unforgivable sin in christianity. This is 
taken out of thin air, and not based on the Bible at all. Again, it's a 
society standard adopted by Christianity.

You get my point, I assume. Even if you should have an argument with 
one or two of my points above, you should concentrate on the large 
picture. 

What do I mean? That society and culture has been imperative in the 
formation of what we believe is christianity. Christianity is 
indistinguishable from the society it exists in. Even the protestant 
battle cry "the Bible alone" is logically indefensible. The New 
Testament certainly does *not* consider itself inspired. Yet, tradition 
has caused it to be considered the word of God alongside (even above) 
the Old Testament.

>                              Enforcing a standard would be unethical,
> setting a standard and leaving it up to an individual choice would be
> more the Christian norm.  But to leave every issue up to a societal 
> ethic would be, in my way of thinking, to make Chrisitianity a farce.

It can be argued that christianity has become a farce, but that aside, 
I agree with you. Christianity must be a corrective, moral force in the 
world, to change it for the better. Historically, alas, it has only 
done this to a minor degree.

If Christianty is to be a truly positive force, it must leave this 
endless nitpicking over minor and often speculative rules behind. What 
is the asset of Christianity over the Mosaic Law if it's just a new 
body of laws? Does not these "touch not"/"do not"-rules ("human 
precepts and doctrines"; see Col 2:21,22) make the Sacrifice of Christ 
a mockery?

> >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. 
> 
> You have forgotten Treece's statement that he was not saying that the 
> man was somehow better or higher than the woman.  The argument is not 
> who is higher, stronger, more apt, more inteligent, etc. the argument 
> is that there is an orderly arraingment.  When Paul admonishes wives 
> to be submissive to thier husbands he is not saying that they are 
> second class citizens but that they can embrace a position that will 
> bless the union of man and woman. The order calls for the woman to 
> submit to the man, not because she is the lesser.

This does not make sense. I know this kind of rhetoric can be found 
anywhere among christians, but it is nevetheless completely nonsense. 
If woman is supposed to submit to man, he is superiour and she is 
inferiour. Period. This follows from the very definition of the words 
"submit", "inferiour" and "superiour". It's just like saying "woman is 
inferiour" and "woman is not inferiour" at the same time. The stuff 
around is just rhetoric used as a cover for a reality people don't want 
to stand up for. 

You must look closely at the context. When Paul says wives should be 
submissive to their husbands, it is in the same context as slaves is to 
be obedient to their masters (Col 3:18-23). Obviously, then, if you 
mean that Paul meant that women should submit to men in any time or 
situation, then you should also argue that we should reestablish 
slavery today. 

Paul is preaching comformity to society standards: 

 The christians should all obey Caesar. 
 The slave should obey the master. 
 The wife should obey the husband. 

This was the culture he was living in, and the christian should not try 
to start any revolutions. Today, we've *had* revolutions. In our parts 
of the world at least: Caesar had to give his power to democracy, 
slaves are freed and woman and men are equals (that's theory, I know). 

Do not misuse these words to force women to be submissive to their 
husbands.

> >Paul uses two words, as Treece says. One means "cutting" and the 
> >other means "shaving". The first *can* also refer to a normal 
> >cutting, 
> 
> *can* not *only* exactly my point :-)

Used together, it's another story. Examine context, Chris. You are 
building your doctrinal house on sand if you depend on a merely 
possible interpretation against the probable interpretation. A strict 
law, as you try to make it, can only be valid if it is based on an 
unchallenged interpretation. You have the burden of evidence, in fact.

> >> 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. 
> 
> I guess I just don't get it, Paul invalidates his own argument?

Paul says that man should not bind up his hair, *because* he is made in 
God's image. (11:7)

Now I ask you, Chris: Is woman made in God's image? (see Gen 1:27) The 
answer is obvious. Since she is, then, *from a purely logical point of 
view* she should not bind up her hair either. But that was not Paul's 
point, was it. His point was the man was created from dust, woman from 
his rib. They were created differently, thus they should stay 
different.

>                                                               Here is
> where we really do not get along at all.  You would have Paul to be
> strained and logically invalid.  

I said *purely logical*. Paul is not writing a philosophical treatise 
or a mathematical proof. He's trying to get Corinthians to behave 
themselves.

If you mean Paul is strictly logically consistent, I would be thankful 
if you can demonstate to me that he is.

> >Progression of thought is often dangerous, because what is natural 
> >to one person is unnatural to someone else. 
> 
> Is it Paul's progression of thought that is strained, invalid, and 
> now unnatural?

That was a *general* comment. Don't misuse it. I meant that what you 
call "progression of thought" is the dangerous application of Paul's 
words that has lead to very misogynic rules and regulations.

> >> >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 :-)
> >
> Your statement I agreed with uses the KJV's word uncovered.  The 
> statement of unbound and your susequent defining of it is what I 
> disagree with.  Is that somehow illogical?

Verse 7 says that man should not bind up his hair. We agree so far, 
right?

Verse 6 says "for if a woman is unbound, let her be shorn" (NJBC p809). 

Verse 15 says her long hair is given to her as a wrapper.

The problem has arisen because some have interpreted modern hairstyles, 
with long, unbound hair for women, into the text. Some translations 
make it look like the hair is a veil, but Paul said *wrapper.* She 
should use it to cover her *head*, not the back of her neck.

It follows that a woman having a long, unbound hair hanging down is 
violating the exact letter of Paul's command to Corinth. You don't like 
this, of course, for this is exactly what a certain religious group 
*requires* women to do, misunderstanding and misapplying the text.

> >> >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. 
> >> 
> >It was wrong there and then, not universally on every place for 
> >every person to every time. 
> >
> My turn :-), First you say Paul does not mean that long hair for a 
> man is wrong, 

Bzzzt! Misquote. You omitted "in itself". It was not the physical 
hairstyle that Paul warned against, but what it represented in the 
society. You mix up the physical and symbolic characteristics.

>           now you say he was saying it only to the then and there 
> men?  I will leave the logical implication of this to you ;-) (i'm 
> kidding around)

Indeed. I have answered your objection nevertheless.
 
>                I do not see any qualifying time statement, only a 
> universal statment by Paul in verse 16.

You haven't been paying attention then! Paul wrote:

  1 Co 1:2 "To the church of God which is at Corinth,"

You are reading a letter sent to somebody else, Chris! Shame on you ;-)

Seriously, though, while I will not go so far as to say it does not 
apply to us, I will say we must use a certain portion of critical 
thought before applying it today.

If you should take it 100% literally, you would have to *not* apply it 
at all to yourself, since, as you can see: it's not written to you!

>                        But now I am accused of attacking you
> personally, smearing you, dishonesty, and having ulterior motives. 
> :-(

You did say what you said, Chris. If you didn't really mean it, well, 
it would be difficult for me to know...

>                                                               I do 
> not consider anyone that is critical of my understanding an enemy.   

Neither do I. I do appreciate many comments you make. I suggest we both 
leave such personal biting out of our messages. 

Of course, I could observe you had left my main arguments unanswered. 
You did not answer how men of God like Samson could be "against 
nature," as an example. You also didn't answer how come God created 
women who could not grow long hair if it was "against nature" for them 
to have short hair.

An even heavier argument against you:  In your argument, you assume 
that it is God's unchanging, eternal law that men should have short 
hair and women long hair. Am I understanding you correctly? I, on the 
other hand, argue that this is *not* eternal rules but simply local 
manifestations of what *is* God's law and nature's law, namely that men 
shall look like men and women shall look like women, and that the 
physical manifestation of this rule is more or less in the eye of the 
beholder; ie according to the standards of the society the christian is 
living in (within some limits).

Here comes the argument: How can we find out what interpretation is 
correct? If I am correct, we should expect Paul's rules about 
hairstyles to fit exactly with the current social standard in the city 
of Corinth around 54AD. Since there have been an enormous amount of 
different hairstyles for men and women in human history in different 
places, it would be a remarkable coincidence if God's eternal 
unchanging laws by accident should fit *exactly* that of the pagan 
society of Corinth at that time. In fact, if Paul's words should fit 
Corinth's hairstyles for this time, it would seriously undemine the 
interpretation that these rules are eternal and existed with God from 
the moment of creation.

I think you see where this leads us...

> >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). 
> 
> Jan, I would love to move on to this topic and shall in my next post 
> as this one has become too long.

I'm looking forward to it.


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