Hair length

[Terry_Herrington]

I have stated, in another thread, that I believe men should have short hair. This was based on 1Co 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

I have read that some people say that this is a cultural thing and does not necessarily apply to us today.

I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong on this. I would like to hear comments, pro and con, concerning this. I really do not have a hidden agenda, but I would like to see what the consensus is hear on this board.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Terry Herrington:
I have stated, in another thread, that I believe men should have short hair. This was based on 1Co 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

I have read that some people say that this is a cultural thing and does not necessarily apply to us today.

My understanding is that the pagan temple prostitutes wore their hair long in the style contrary to the culture of the day. The women cut their hair very short and the men wore their hair long. It is my understanding is that the principle Paul is teaching is not to wear the symbols of paganism in our hairstyles, clothes, jewelry or body.

I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong on this.

That’s good to hear. I wish everyone would have this humility.

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Not that it happens very often, but if a man comes around me with long hair, I will offer him one of hairbow-ribbons & one of my housedresses. That usually does the trick.

 

[Circuitrider]

I'm with you Granny! A literal interpretation of the passage seems better than a cultural pass. I say get out those clippers and cut it off.

 

[rlvaughn]

That the apostle Paul built his argument on permanent facts (e.g. - headship, God's order in creation, etc.), rather than cultural norms (e.g. - length of hair of temple prostitutes, etc.), incidates that Paul did not intend for the hair argument to be framed in a cultural context.

Also, I always find it somewhat humorous to hear people say things like, "O, she got her hair cut short, didn't she?" and "Wow, look how long his hair is!" and then when they begin to talk about I Corinthians 11 suddenly they do not know and cannot tell what is long and short.

[ August 20, 2002, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

[Optional]

I have hair that is about mid-back which I often wear in a pony tail. I also have a full beard. It's never come up with anyone in my church and noone seems to have a problem with it.
I, also own a landscape design/architecture company. Never once had a problem.
Must be my conservatism in other areas.
It's funny how the verse right after this one is ignored here.
What does verse 16 say?
Also, it seems most commentaries agree this was directed only to the church at Corinth for cultural reasons and did not extend to other regions or churches.

You guys remind me of the old joke:
Son - Dad, when am I going to get a car?
Dad - When you cut your hair.
Son - But Jesus had long hair!
Dad - Yea, and Jesus walked everywhere He went.

[ August 20, 2002, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Optional ]

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Circuitrider:
I'm with you Granny! A literal interpretation of the passage seems better than a cultural pass. I say get out those clippers and cut it off.

So, who sets the standard on what's long and what's short, and how short is short, and how long is long?
My hair is halfway over my ears. Is that considered long? And would some of the touted preachers of old be welcomed in our churches today??? Some of them had long hair...so, please, pray tell, what is long?

B.T.

 

[Don]

Tony, I think the only real measure for that would have to be--if you turn around, and people mistake you for a woman....

 

[Optional]

Originally posted by Don:
Tony, I think the only real measure for that would have to be--if you turn around, and people mistake you for a woman....

Not likely to happen with me. I'm 6' 4" and weigh 220 lbs. Back to square one.

 

[ChristianCynic]

Since scripture does not define 'long' and 'short,' can we deduce that all men should keep their heads shaved and that all women should never cut their hair? After all, that's the reasoning behind complete abstinence from alcoholic drink, as scriptural restriction is only from drunkenness and being "given over" to it. In both cases, of course, there were differing rules for the 'Nazarites.'

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Terry,

The verse you referenced is a very important verse on this subject.

1Cor. 11:14 " Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him ?"

The Greek word for "shame" is " atimia." It is translated in other passages as, "vile," "dishonor," "disgrace," and "reproach."

Romans 1:26 uses this same word.
" For this cause God gave them up unto vile (atimia) affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: "

This passage has to do with homosexuality. Dr. John R. Rice says, "It is very interesting that as the trend toward long hair (on men) increases, the acceptance of homosexuality increases." Emphasis mine

Dr. Rice also states, "Radical revolutionary Jerry Rubin says in his book DO IT, 'Young kids identify short hair with authority, discipline, unhappiness, boredom, rigidity, hatred of right, and long hair with letting go...Wherever we go, our hair tells people where we stand on Viet Nam, Wallace, campus diruption, and dope. We are living TV commercials for the revolution...Long hair is the beginning of our liberation from sexual oppression that unerlies the whole military society.'"

As for me, I do not want to be identified with this crowd. Since we know that short hair on men is accceptable, but long hair is still in question, I choose to play it safe.

 

[Justified]

If they want long hair, give them a dress. Why stop at the hair?

"It is always better to stand up for conservatism, then to fall into liberalism" Justified Version

 

[Helen]

LOL -- man have we been through this on the women's side in our forum! Guys, as long as you look like men in the culture you are in, and as long as women look like women in the culture they are in, isn't that the point?

There are times when I have looked at someone and honestly not known if they were a guy or a gal. That should be avoided!

Personally, I prefer short haired, clean shaven men. My personal preference.

Long hair up until the age of airplanes and bombs was a distinct liability in hand-to-hand combat -- it gave the enemy something to grab onto. It also was, as mentioned above, something used to identify men of a certain pursuasion/occupation.

Today none of that applies. Short hair won't save anyone from a bomb or anthrax, and heaven knows the folks in San Francisco have all kinds of hair lengths!

 

[Grasshopper]

Yea, when I get to heaven the first thing I'm going to find out is how short should my hair have been.

 

[latterrain77]

Hi Bob 63. I don’t know who “Dr. Rice” is, but he sure sounds pretty ridiculous if he said what you quoted. Long hair on men has nothing to do with “homosexuality” at all. Quite the opposite is more evident in that community! Many homosexual men wear their hair VERY short, in crew cut style. They are mostly “hyper masculine” in appearance.

You say you do not want to be identified with “this crowd.” Then you better start growing your hair long. Because the crowd you do not wish to be identified with mostly wears their hair SHORT!

1 Cor. 11: 14-16 has nothing to do with long hair on men in “fashion” per-se. Paul’s commentary referred to a particular Old Testament custom or practice, and that is why the Bible uses the word “custom” in verse 16. At issue, was the Jewish custom surrounding “Nazarite” tradition (Judges 13: 5, Judges 16: 7, Numbers 6: 1-8, etc). Those Old Testament customs DEMANDED that such men wear their hair LONG (i.e Sampson). This “custom” was creeping into the church at Corinth and Paul was addressing this.

You mentioned "sexual repression" in your post. I'm not sure how that fits in with the subject of men wearing long hair. Nevertheless, freedom from “sexual repression” is a wonderful thing, provided it occurs in the marriage union exclusively. Sexuality is wonderful and “undefiled” in the marriage bed (Hebrews 13: 4). The Bible is very clear that such intimacy is to be explored aggressively in the marriage union (1 Cor. 7: 1-5). What can be wrong with that? (even if the husband has LONG HAIR!).

Long hair on men is NOT a trend that leads to homosexuality (as you indicated). Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton (to name a few), all had LONG HAIR. I would say they were pretty straight forward guys (pun intended).

Rethink this one Bob 63. You are not on sound Biblical ground.

latterrain77

[ August 20, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

[DocCas]

It always bothers me when the eternal truth of God's word is sacrificed on the altar of cultural conformity.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
Dr. John R. Rice says, "It is very interesting that as the trend toward long hair (on men) increases, the acceptance of homosexuality increases." Emphasis mine

Dr. Rice also states, "Radical revolutionary Jerry Rubin says in his book DO IT, 'Young kids identify short hair with authority, discipline, unhappiness, boredom, rigidity, hatred of right, and long hair with letting go...Wherever we go, our hair tells people where we stand on Viet Nam, Wallace, campus diruption, and dope. We are living TV commercials for the revolution...Long hair is the beginning of our liberation from sexual oppression that unerlies the whole military society.'"

Back in the 1960s-1980s, this quote held more weight. It is much more interesting to read it now when short hair is in fashion. Many teens and college kids are shaving their heads or wearing their hair extremely short. Does this mean homosexuality is not accepted and young people are joining the John Birch society?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by latterrain77:
Hi Bob 63. I don’t know who “Dr. Rice” is...

Dr. John R. Rice was the long-time editor of The Sword of the Lord publication. He was an author and a conference speaker. He passed away around 1980. He was a Fundamentalist although not strong on the KJV.

Long hair on men has nothing to do with “homosexuality” at all. Quite the opposite is more evident in that community! Many homosexual men wear their hair VERY short, in crew cut style. They are mostly “hyper masculine” in appearance.

That is not what the quote said. It said "... as the trend toward long hair increases, the acceptance of homosexuality increases." He was pointing out the decline of morals in our society.

Of course I disagree with your interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:14. The Nazarite vow was not a lifetime vow most of the time.

Num 6:5 All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.
6 All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body.

Num 6:18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

You mentioned "sexual repression" in your post.

No Maam. Dr. Rice quoted what Jerry Rubin wrote in his book. He mentions sexual opression. What he wanted was free sex outside of God-given boundaries.

The Bible is very clear that such intimacy is to be explored aggressively in the marriage union.

Hallelujah!!!!

You say you do not want to be identified with “this crowd.” Then you better start growing your hair long. Because the crowd you do not wish to be identified with mostly wears their hair SHORT!

I do not want to be associated with the homosexuals. But not only them; I do not want to be associated with the hippies who advocate drugs, rebellion, free sex, and an amoral society. Predominately, these have long hair.

Rethink this one Bob 63. You are not on sound Biblical ground.

I think I am. But, if not, It wouldn't be the first time I've had to make a change.

Thank you for the kind demeanor of your post.

Pastor Bob

 

[Optional]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
Terry,

The verse you referenced is a very important verse on this subject.

1Cor. 11:14 " Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him ?"

The Greek word for "shame" is " atimia." It is translated in other passages as, "vile," "dishonor," "disgrace," and "reproach."

Romans 1:26 uses this same word.
" For this cause God gave them up unto vile (atimia) affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: "

This passage has to do with homosexuality. Dr. John R. Rice says, "It is very interesting that as the trend toward long hair (on men) increases, the acceptance of homosexuality increases." Emphasis mine

Dr. Rice also states, "Radical revolutionary Jerry Rubin says in his book DO IT, 'Young kids identify short hair with authority, discipline, unhappiness, boredom, rigidity, hatred of right, and long hair with letting go...Wherever we go, our hair tells people where we stand on Viet Nam, Wallace, campus diruption, and dope. We are living TV commercials for the revolution...Long hair is the beginning of our liberation from sexual oppression that unerlies the whole military society.'"

As for me, I do not want to be identified with this crowd. Since we know that short hair on men is accceptable, but long hair is still in question, I choose to play it safe.

This has to be the largest crock of crap I've heard in a long time. There's no way you can know any of those things from hair length. I think I've shown my conservatism often enough to rebuke this garbage.
Also, as pointed out, gay men wear their hair very short and neatly trimmed for the most part (of course there are exceptions). Wonder what folks think of you?
Excuse me if I scome across angry - I am. There is absolutely no Biblical basis for what you posted.
I have been married for 31 years with 4 kids and 8 grandkids. Gee, there goes the stereotype in your own mind.

 

[rlvaughn]

I guess it just seems too simple to me that if Paul meant that we should not wear the symbols of paganism (or that we should look like men and women in the culture we are in), he would have just said that.

The context of I Cor. 11:14 is important. The first sixteen verses of the chapter (especially 3-16) seem to fix mainly around the proper display of headship exhibited through a woman's head covering and a man's lack thereof during prayer and devotions. The length of men's and women's hair is not the primary focus, but is rather brought in view as supporting Paul's argument for the head covering. If Paul did not have in mind man's hair short enough that it did not appear to be a covering, and woman's hair long enough that it did, to me it seems that his point would be lost. The apostle gives six reasons supporting the woman's need for a covering:
1. The headship of man, verses 3-6
2. God's order in creation, verses 8,9
3. Because of the angels, verse 10 (possibly their presence? I'm not sure)
4. A sense of propriety, verse 13
5. The very nature of things, verses 14,15 (including the distinctions between male & female, and the woman's natural head covering)
6. The practice of all the churches, verse 16

Verse 16 has been problematic to many, and especially when applied to the issue of long hair on men. When I was a hippie teenager, I interpreted it this way - "If any would dispute this, I really didn't mean to set a custom for the churches." It seems a number of people have that or similar ideas, such as - "If any are likely to contend about this, realize that I really just wasted a couple of paragraphs, both paper and ink, and a lot of my time writing what I just said; there's really no such custom intended for the churches. Cancel what I just said!" Isn't it more likely that the person who had just spent his time making the argument of verses 3-15 would not just strike it all out in a sentence? Could he more likely have meant - "If any want to contend about this, let them remember that we have no such custom of dispensing with the head covering, nor do any of the churches of God."

Finally, I think those who favor long hair for women and short hair for men also err by bringing in arguments that Paul did not bring up. For example, if he had meant to connect long hair on men with homosexuality, he could have done it quite easily.

Why not just stick with the reasons that Paul did give??

[ August 20, 2002, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]