Long hair on a man

[zoegirl]

How can we ever know for certain how Christ wore his hair, first, and secondly, why should that be any more of a dictate than, for example, wearing sandals? Or had facial hair? Does the fact that he wore standard Hebrew clothing and sandals mean that we should follow that example? There are some things that are just culturally significant, nothing more, nothing less.

[jenna]

I think this has gotten WAAAY out of hand here. I didn't mean that we as women should mimic Christ's outward appearance. Christ was a man, so naturally we couldn't. As far as the "head" signifying a relationship, Judah, I think in my post that I addressed that and agreed.

[zoegirl]

No, I understand that you weren't implicating women and short hair. I'm simply saying that to say that short hair is right because Christ had short hair is simplifying the argument.

[jenna]

Shouldn't everything be simple? In other words, can't we all just be happy?

[Judah]

Yep, it probably is fairly simple if we stop complicating things.

However, I'm wondering how FFC is going to justify his pick-and-mix approach to hair style and dress.

[jenna]

[Judah]

Now Jen, we must give the lad a chance.
Who knows... maybe he does wear his First Century gear when riding his bicycle to work.
That would be quite a spectacle, don't you think?

FFC, you're missing from roll call again...

[jenna]

How many chances, J? Seven or seventy x seven?

[Judah]

Well, let me see... he's pretty resourceful, usually. Not bad on the wit.
He might even manage an apologist's equivalent of a hole-in-one, but if he muffs it, I'd suggest as many chances as there are little hairs on those possibly bare legs of his. What do you say?
Of course, I don't know how many that is. I suspect you are geographically closer... it will need to be you, not me, to pop over to count.
Pax!

Anyway Jen, what thoughts have you since given to that idea of wearing one's hair in a bun, or using a shawl?
I haven't got around to re-reading that lengthy article yet. It does come from a website that believes in sticking to what is Scriptural, but then, there is probably a small matter of interpretation involved too. I like to take what I consider to be an intelligent approach to literalism. For instance, I don't really imagine men lactating and suckling babies like women are set up to do.

[jenna]

I really don't know, if they want to have their in a bun or wear a shawl, I guess that would be a personal decision. It certainly wouldn't be wrong to do it.

[Judah]

Going back to that article I originally linked to, I think that the following bit sums up the situation quite well...

Significance of This Text for Today's World

The significance of this text for the twentieth century must be examined briefly. Am I suggesting that women return to wearing coverings or veils? No.{30} We must distinguish between the fundamental principle that underlies a text and the application of that principle in a specific culture. The fundamental principle is that the sexes, although equal, are also different. God has ordained that men have the responsibility to lead, while women have a complementary and supportive role. More specifically, if women pray and prophesy in church, they should do so under the authority of male headship. Now, in the first century, failure to wear a covering sent a signal to the congregation that a woman was rejecting the authority of male leadership. Paul was concerned about head coverings only because of the message they sent to people in that culture.

Today, except in certain religious groups, if a woman fails to wear a head covering while praying or prophesying, no one thinks she is in rebellion. Lack of head coverings sends no message at all in our culture. Nevertheless, that does not mean that this text does not apply to our culture. The principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership. Clearly the attitude and the demeanor with which a woman prays and prophesies will be one indication of whether she is humble and submissive. The principle enunciated here should be applied in a variety of ways given the diversity of the human situation.

Moreover, both men and women today should dress so that they do not look like the opposite sex. Confusion of the sexes is contrary to the God-given sense that the sexes are distinct. For example, it would be wrong for a twentieth-century American male to wear a dress in public. It would violate his masculinity. Everything within a man would cry out against doing this because it would violate his appropriate sense of what it means to be a man. The point is not that women should not wear jeans or pants, but that in every culture there are certain kinds of adornment which become culturally acceptable norms of dress for men and women.

Finally, we should note that there is a connection forged in this passage between femininity and the proper submission of women to men. The women in Corinth, by prophesying without a head covering, were sending a signal that they were no longer submitting to male authority. Paul sees this problem as severe because the arrogation of male leadership roles by women ultimately dissolves the distinction between men and women. Thus, this text speaks volumes to our culture today, because one of the problems with women taking full leadership is that it inevitably involves a collapsing of the distinctions between the sexes. It is hardly surprising, as the example of the Evangelical Woman's Caucus demonstrates, that one of the next steps is to accept lesbianism.{31} Paul rightly saw, as he shows in this text, that there is a direct link between women appropriating leadership and the loss of femininity. It is no accident that Paul addresses the issues of feminine adornment and submission to male leadership in the same passage.

In conclusion, we should affirm the participation of women in prayer and prophecy in the church. Their contribution should not be slighted or ignored. Nevertheless, women should participate in these activities with hearts that are submissive to male leadership, and they should dress so that they retain their femininity.

In other words, the whole business about dress (including hair style) concerns the message that is given by the wearing of it. We are not to dress to confuse, and women are to dress to show an attitude appropriate to their role in relation to men. It is left up to the dictates of the culture concerned to determine how that message is relayed. I can wear female jeans, but not a man's business suit. A man may wear his hair long, since men these days may do so, but not in a style that is normally regarded particularly feminine - no pretty ribbons or hair clasps or such! And if a woman wants to wear a shawl, or her hair in a bun, then she is free to do so since that is womanly dress. We have been told elsewhere to dress modestly, and the idea is not to present oneself in such a way as to suggest (according to culturally defined messages) that one is of loose morals or whatever. No saucy striptease type gear, in other words. Is that how others read Paul's meaning? Or am I up a gum tree?

[FFC]

I can see that Judah and Jenna are quite the comedy team. Who are the cheeky monkeys now?

If the two of you don't begin to behave I may have to use the "the man is the head of the women" card and shut down this whole operation .

Having said that let me add that I love the two of you and I apologize in advance for anything I may or will say to anger you. I added a rose for Zoe too since she is in Maryland which is much too close for comfort.

See y'all

[jenna]

Nah, we ain't mad! We just don't want your life to go down the drain...

[FFC]

Nah, we ain't mad! We just don't want your life to go down the drain...

I'm paying no attention to you.

[Judah]

FFC, to recover your credibility, your attention to the following is invited...

However, I'm wondering how FFC is going to justify his pick-and-mix approach to hair style and dress.