Hair length

Just an observation:

I was at a Christian women's conference at Thomas Road Baptist back in March, and there, I would have been considered as having long hair. My hair barely brushes my shoulders! When I looked at the backs of the head's of the women in front of me, nearly every one had a short haircut. You know, that's short haircut that many women get after they hit 40? It just reminded me of the days of yore when women over a certain age (which was actually fairly young) wore their hair up, lest they be considered wanton. Instead of wearing the hair up, most women just cut their off. It's rare to see a woman over 50 with longer hair (by which I mean chin length and longer).

It made me chuckle when I read this thread, since most of these women had floofier (read: dressed up) styles of a "man's" haircut.

I don't have an answer to the original question, though. I don't view masculinity or femininity in terms of outward appearances. Perhaps I should, and there has been some evidence to that end, but I'm not convinced of it. It's true - there is nothing written to tell us what means "long." Perhaps we can take it to mean that men should have shorter hair than women, but in this culture, what does that mean? Even in one church, how could you make a distinction? Should all men have shorter hair than the hair of the women with the shortest haircut? Is that the measure?

I would have been more than that - I would have been outraged! Regardless of our feelings about hair, no one has the right to cut another's hair without permission, no matter what army they belong to.

By the by, were they ever charged with anything, or is that not essential to this story?

[ August 21, 2002, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: stubbornkelly ]

 

They were charged with intent to incite a riot. I guess those Cajuns in Rayne Louisiana did not like long hair then though I lived in this area for 2 years in the 70's and there were more guys with long hair then not.

 

Thank you for your comments. Let me say, once again, that I did not imply that Paul was linking long hair and homosexuality.

I simply pointed out the fact that the same word was used to describe each. I think homosexuality is wrong. I think long hair on men is wrong. I do not think that every man with long hair is a homosexual. I do not think that every homosexual has long hair.

For example: I hate meatloaf. I also have a very strong dislike for cats. Now, I do not make the assumption that if you like meatloaf you also like cats; nor do I assume that is you like cats you also like meatloaf.

The two are totally unrelated. The same with the quote I presented on long hair and homosexuality. They are not necessarily related.

 

Not likely to happen with me. I'm 6' 4" and weigh 220 lbs. Back to square one.</font>[/QUOTE]Or, in your case, if they mistake you for Janet Reno.

 

Yea, I'm real rebellious. I believe in a pre-trib rapture. I believe homosexuality is wrong and sinful. I believe in monogamy with the same person for life (no divorce). I believe women should be housewives unless circumstances demand they work outside the home. I go to an IFB church.
Oops...I own a motorcycle. Guess I am.
Thanks for your judgement - it means a lot.

 

SmokeEater, you're too funny! 8o)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I had a biblical experience with regard to this
hair thing. I told my hairdresser what I wanted,
and she did it perfectly--exactly what I said--
but when I looked in the mirror, I hated it. Cut
short on the top and layered back to shoulder
length, I wore it that way for quite a while,
each time telling her to do the same thing and
still expressing that something was wrong with
it.

Then one day, it hit me: several women who
were homosexual happpened to cross my
path, and several had the same haircut. Then
I went to a restaurant, and the owner, a male
homosexual, had the Same Hair Cut!

That was it! I went to my hairdresser and told
her to chop it off and give me a "feminine hair
cut," something I would not normally request,
because I am not a feminine woman. But the
last thing I need to look like is an old dyke.

I believe that the Scripture merely means this:
Look like the gender you are and treat that
gender as the gift our God intended it to be.

With regard to another poster who said that he
believes women should be "housewives," for
many of us, that term is horribly derrogatory.
I am a woman who cannot work outside of the
home right now, but I am Not a housewife. I
never married a house, and the house is not my
priority. Blechhhh!

Another poster said that the Nazarite vow was
only "Old Testament." Not quite. Paul took the
Nazarite vow, paid the Temple fee for some
young men to take it, and did the sacrifice in
order to show that he had not thrown out the
Law, and that it was still in practice. It's in Acts.

[ August 21, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

At first I thought you were going to say something about making meatloaf from cats! I know a guy who has a bumper sticker that reads - "So many cats; so few recipes."

BTW, I didn't think you meant that a man having long hair meant he was a homosexual. But I did think you were saying that Paul was connecting long hair on men as possibly a symbol of homosexuality. Thanks for clearing that up.

[ August 21, 2002, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

I agree with Helen, I think that this was the point of these verses. Men should look like masculine men and women should look like feminine women, and what that exactly means varies by culture. Having said that, one could make a pretty strong case that long hair is still considered feminine in this culture, so I wouldn't feel comfortable having it (not that I'd want to anyway...).

Eric

 

hrhema,
What do you question about them?

 

Hi Bob 63. Thank you for the reply. I appreciate your taking the time to offer your comments.

I have re-read your original post. You unquestionably made the connection of “long haired men” and “homosexuality.” You clearly (and incorrectly) introduced the word “homosexuality” into 1 Cor. 11: 14 (where it in no way applies). You are FLATLY wrong in your assumption, and you cannot (and have not) supported your teaching with the Bible.

You made this error because you based your theory on the teachings of a MAN whom you respect - Mr. Rice (James 2: 9, Acts 10: 34, Col. 3: 25). "But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." James 2: 9

You did not base your theory upon the Bible and, as a result, you were teaching the doctrine of a man (Matt. 15: 9, Mark 7: 7) - not the Bible.

latterrain77

 

Not likely to happen with me. I'm 6' 4" and weigh 220 lbs. Back to square one.</font>[/QUOTE]Or, in your case, if they mistake you for Janet Reno.</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the laugh, Smoke-eater! I needed that!

B.T.

 

One reason my hair is longer is because of an inner ear disease! I don't get my hair cut often because it sends me into violent vertigo attacks from the sounds of the clippers. Even scissors can do it from the clicking, and shaving echos so bad in my ears that it does the same. Now, I've been "judged" by some very hypocritical IFB people for having "long hair" and looking like a "backwoods hillbilly" with my beard, but they just didn't bother to find out why...JUDGE, JUDGE, JUDGE!!! No room for grace or love or truth in the way of the Pharisaical, is there?

B.T.

 

I think the overarching principle here is that men and women should be distinctively different in appearance, and that hair length is one factor in this command. What exactly constitutes the proper hair length for each sex is, of course, highly disputed, and varies from culture to culture. I am not qualified to make this judgment for others (my own hair is short, not even touching my collar). I can only observe that there are more women in my church with very short hair than there are men with longer hair, yet no one accuses these women of perversity or rebellion. I wish more women had long hair, but that's just my biased opinion.

 

I beleive the term is "hypocracy"

 

If you see a man with long hair...check his TEETH!!! Maybe he is a locust?!

"...and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions." ~ Revelation 9:7-8

 

As usually the people on this board crack me up... 4 pages of posts on the length a person should wear their hair...lol

My church preaches that a man should look like a man, and a womon like a woman. There are men in my church that have very long hair. There are woman in my church that have very short hair. The scripture sited is a valid arguement for a man to not have long hair. And there are scriptures validating a woman having her hair long enough to be a covering.

Isn't it funny how much attention is spent on appearances? Is it because it's a safe topic? (although a couple of posters did get a little emotionally invested...lol)

Personally... A person's heart is what I try to see. You can't always judge a book by it's cover. I try not to judge the faith of a christian based on their appearance... eyes can easily be deceived. I think God knows the inward thoughts and faith of a person and that each person should do what they feel the Lord leads them to do. If you take this scripture at face value, fine. If you interpret it to mean something outdated and non-applicable to your life, fine. I somehow think that God is more concerned with bigger issues than hair length. But that's just my opinion.

 

As long as a man keeps his nose and ear hair cut short , I'm fine with the "outside" of any person.

[ August 24, 2002, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

In Paul's day the Gentiles cut their hair pretty much like "Conservative" folks of the 50's. A helmet like look. Jews felt a man was proud if he showed his ears. Hence anywhere from Crew Cut to just covering the ears would have been short in his day. Women wore hair long enough to wash Christ's feet and to get overboard in putting silver and gold in their braids.
Homosexuals would do the opposite so hence the "doth not nature itself teach you" and he could have been pointing to the animal kingdom like "go to the ant" where in the animal world the male is highly adorned with manes and such and the women are drab. Since we are not animals, men do not have the "glory", but women do.

This cannot be a cultural issue because 1. Paul made it an across the board standard when he said in our terms, if someone doesn't like it, too bad this is the only practice within the church. Secondly, in context, he first described the eternal relationships of God to angels and men to women and both to God. He then follows with the eternal (or at least until Christ returns) practice of how to properly take the Lord's Supper. Cornith was a carnal baby church and Paul had to straightened them out on everything. Once in awhile they got something right, but most of the two books are teaching and rebuking them.

Also note that the angels are concerned about the role issue. Look at Isaiah 6. The angels in worship cover their face and feet. A woman with long hair can cover her face (in answer to a veil) and if she is wearing proper dress (katastole) when she kneels in prayer her feet are covered. Women in short hair and improperly dressed seems to have perlexed the angels. They may have wondered how women in such a state could properly worship God and fulfill their role to their husband since it is tied in analogy to the role angels play to God.

Men should have short hair and women long and we have the historical records to show exactly what Paul is talking about and we are just too dang rebellious to care and want to explain it away. He did not say he was speaking by permission which means that as with his other writings he is giving the commandments of God. So, when do we start obeying again?

 

By the way, I am old hippie who was threatened many times with expuslion from school due to the length of my hair so I know the drill.

 

Hair? You are discussing how long someones hair should be, oh brother!