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 ]