# 1 Corinthians 11:14



## ServantofGod (Mar 24, 2008)

*Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,* 1 Corinthians 11:14

A woman at church rebuked me with this verse. I have longish hair(a little past my shoulders). Is this a command to have it cut? And to what length? What is long and what isn't?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 24, 2008)

That is the question...what is considered long for men in modern era has not been so for much of history. Long would have meant LONG like a woman (that generally doesn't cut her hair) has. It might also have to do with how a man wears his hair as well. A queue isn't all bad, but some men have downright gorgeous ponytails that women would be envious of, kwim?

Now I have to say, Ian...I need to see a picture, because you didn't have "longish" hair awhile back  (and if you are overly worried, we'll have to dig up some old pictures of the PB Bouncer before he shaved his head  and you can always ask  )


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 24, 2008)

ServantofGod said:


> *Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,* 1 Corinthians 11:14
> 
> A woman at church rebuked me with this verse. I have longish hair(a little past my shoulders). Is this a command to have it cut? And to what length? What is long and what isn't?




me too Ian. It happens very frequently with me


----------



## ServantofGod (Mar 24, 2008)

Oh alrighty. I just have no clue how to put a picture up.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 25, 2008)

photobucket.com...you load a picture there and then you can place the code into the post.

I was teasing though, you don't have to put one up unless you want to.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 25, 2008)

I actually cut my hair short because of this verse.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 25, 2008)

Grymir said:


> I actually cut my hair short because of this verse.



By the look of it (is that your avatar?) seem to have little choice (in case you wondered I am getting there myself).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 25, 2008)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/1-cor-11-hair-length-11073/


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 25, 2008)

Your hair must be exactly 1/4 inches away from the top of the ear. It must be tapered in the back and not touch the collar of your shirt, and you need to have two fingers of space between the top line of hair and your eyebrows. Is that clear enough?  (I am not serious, but it reminds me of my days in a certain fundamentalist university.)


----------



## ServantofGod (Mar 25, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> Your hair must be exactly 1/4 inches away from the top of the ear. It must be tapered in the back and not touch the collar of your shirt, and you need to have two fingers of space between the top line of hair and your eyebrows. Is that clear enough?  (I am not serious, but it reminds me of my days in a certain fundamentalist university.)



 I must be on my way to hell!


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 25, 2008)

ServantofGod said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > Your hair must be exactly 1/4 inches away from the top of the ear. It must be tapered in the back and not touch the collar of your shirt, and you need to have two fingers of space between the top line of hair and your eyebrows. Is that clear enough?  (I am not serious, but it reminds me of my days in a certain fundamentalist university.)
> ...



If that's the case then there is going to quite a crew following close behind you.


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 25, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> ServantofGod said:
> 
> 
> > JBaldwin said:
> ...



Seriously, I think hair is a cultural thing, and it goes back to the idea of a man looking like a woman. I have a friend, an old hippy, who wears hair all the way down his back, so does his wife. He does not look in the least bit feminine, and she certainly does not come off as masculine. However, I think a lot of it has to do with the way he wears the hair. 

What I can't stand to see on a man is hair that looks like a girl. Nor can I stand to see a woman with hair cut to look like a man.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 25, 2008)

ServantofGod said:


> *Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,* 1 Corinthians 11:14
> 
> A woman at church rebuked me with this verse. I have longish hair(a little past my shoulders). Is this a command to have it cut? And to what length? What is long and what isn't?




"I declare that neither Pope, Bishop, nor any man, has the power to impose the smallest matter on a Christian, except by His own consent..." -- Martin Luther

On May 14, 1521, Luther wrote to Spalatin:

"After being captured I was stripped of my own clothes and dressed in a knight's cloak. I am letting my hair and beard grow so that you would hardly know me...Now I am living in Christian liberty."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 25, 2008)

Luther, as usual, is a cool cat.


----------



## ServantofGod (Mar 25, 2008)

Here you go Mrs. W. :





[/IMG]
Me and Grandpa in California.


That was back in June. It's a bit longer now.

As soon as I pick up my new car(2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee!!!!!) I'll get a new pic of my longer hair with my baby!


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 25, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Luther, as usual, is a cool cat.



Leave it to Martin Luther to tell it like it is!


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 25, 2008)

Ian, there's no chance of anyone mistaking you for a woman!


----------



## Grymir (Mar 25, 2008)

ServantofGod, you hair ain't long. Mine was well below my shoulders. When I got my hair cut, my co-workers said it looked good because I didn't look like a metalica reject anymore.


----------



## tdowns (Mar 26, 2008)

*Do they get it at all?*

I hate to say it, but, when people in the "Church", are actually worried about shoulder length hair, on a man, etc...are they really getting what being a Christian is all about?

I fear far more--spiritually speaking--for the person, who is hung up on long hair or clothing styles (I'm not talking modesty), than I do about those who are wearing such.

With so many issues of the day, post-modern thought, man centered righteousness, the elect still in need of a clear gospel message, etc.; for someone to actually focus on the length of hair...seems like they are missing it!

In my study of the Emergent Churches, I find error after error, but it is the very fact, that people can and will be judged for hair length, that those movements have been born. When the Church becomes a place of rote ritual, and rules about hair, it's no wonder, they want to re-invent it.

Let's keep it real, let's keep it about Jesus, the Holy God, King of Kings...let's keep it about sound doctrine...hair length is not what it's about...really sad actually.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 26, 2008)

tdowns007 said:


> I hate to say it, but, when people in the "Church", are actually worried about shoulder length hair, on a man, etc...are they really getting what being a Christian is all about?
> 
> I fear far more--spiritually speaking--for the person, who is hung up on long hair or clothing styles (I'm not talking modesty), than I do about those who are wearing such.
> 
> ...





Is taking the verse that says "Be not drunk on wine" to mean that we shouldn't get drunk turning the Church into a place of rote ritual? The verse says that it's wrong for a man to have long hair. If you want to argue for a particular interpretation, fine, but to say that someone who derives from this verse its most surface-level meaning is "not keeping it about Jesus" is silly. No one, at least on this board, is getting unnecessarily "hung up" on verses which at least seem to be clearly implying something. 

I've heard some argue for headcoverings based on the fact that Paul uses arguments from nature in this passage, not cultural relevance. If this is so, how can the statement about long hair be taken as culturally conditioned?

"How long is 'long'?" one might ask. I don't know. How drunk is drunk? That questions such as this can be asked does not deny the reality of the principle, if that is what Paul is teaching. That the line between "a nice buzz" and "drunkenness" can be blurry does not abrogate the principle of not getting drunk.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 26, 2008)

I think the answer is found in 1 Corinthians 10 by principle. While we have great liberty in Christ, we must always be mindful of not allowing our liberty to cause others to stumble. If this is just one persons opinion, I wouldn't worry to much about it - but if you are getting this a lot, then I would cut my hair. Hence, we shouldn't allow fashion to be a cause of the weaker brethern to stumble. It is no different in principle than partaking in alcohol. I can imbibe freely with my Reformed brethern and enjoy the pleasures of spirits without it causing them or me a conscience problem. But I wouldn't drink in the presence of many Baptist brethern because they tend to see it as sin, so I curb my liberty in respect for my brother's conscience and put them before myself on Christ's account.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 26, 2008)

Hippy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 26, 2008)

Goodness, Ian! That is NOT long hair (unless you are asking someone in the military). In fact, I saw several boys sporting that style AT your church when we were there! And with that beard, I'd say you have nothing to worry about.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 26, 2008)

Davidius said:


> tdowns007 said:
> 
> 
> > I hate to say it, but, when people in the "Church", are actually worried about shoulder length hair, on a man, etc...are they really getting what being a Christian is all about?
> ...



As someone who does hold to the covering today, I'm not saying that long/short hair being a shame/glory isn't for today. I did say that we can't always say that "this is long" when, due to lack of scissors and buzzers, through most of history, what was considered "short" people nowadays consider "long". So we must be careful to context as to what is really short and what is really long. Basically, given knowledge of times and context of most of history, I cannot in good conscience rebuke a gent with shoulder length hair.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 26, 2008)

GET A HAIRCUT AND GET A REAL JOB!


You're squinting in your picture because your shaggy mane is falling down into your eyes Follow your grandpa's lead, he's got a real clean cut.





[sarcasm, of course.....I always wanted to shout HIPPY at someone...now I have the chance...really, it's not very long though]


----------



## Vonnie Dee (Mar 26, 2008)

I am a woman who covers for corporate worship. I went round and round with one of my sons that wanted to grow his hair out. I told him that he could grow it but it could not be longer than mine. As the only woman in my home, I want to have the longest hair.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 26, 2008)

EVON?! WHoohoo! It's Evon!

(Does the happy dance)


----------



## tdowns (Mar 26, 2008)

*Rebuked!*



Davidius said:


> tdowns007 said:
> 
> 
> > I hate to say it, but, when people in the "Church", are actually worried about shoulder length hair, on a man, etc...are they really getting what being a Christian is all about?
> ...




The point is, He was rebuked...for having long hair...I think that's missing the point, completely, of why we are in church.

I'm not saying the discussion is irrelevant, but, to actually, rebuke someone for it? To discuss it, and understand the verse is fine. I'm speaking, to the state of the Church...that people, feel the need to rebuke someone for it.

I'm saying, we are missing the point, If we think that's what it's about, rebuking people for stuff like long hair.

Getting drunk vs different length of hair?

If anything, I see Jesus, rebuking the people, who are worried about long hair, while inviting the drunkard, into his presence.

Sorry you are not getting that.


----------



## ServantofGod (Mar 26, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Hippy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I get that a lot. Along with Bigfoot, Sasquatch, John the Baptist, Caveman...

Remember, that is last June. It has grown a bit since then...


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 26, 2008)

What is the appropriate response to such a rebuke...to rebuke them back. Say, "Same to you but more of it..." or "I'm rubber and your glue?"

Seriously, should we rebuke someone for sticking their nose into our personal choices?


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 26, 2008)

I thought most of the people here thought that this passage isn't about hair>>???


----------



## Davidius (Mar 26, 2008)

tdowns007 said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > tdowns007 said:
> ...



You can use as many ellipses as you want, but your amazement that such a thing could happen still rests on the assumption that the verse isn't meant to rebuke men with long hair, which is the point which must first be decided before you can say that the one would rebuke is wrong. 



> I'm not saying the discussion is irrelevant, but, to actually, rebuke someone for it? To discuss it, and understand the verse is fine. I'm speaking, to the state of the Church...that people, feel the need to rebuke someone for it.



Again, would you rebuke someone who is in sin? If the verse means that men with long hair are sinning then it's perfectly reasonably for someone to rebuke them. 



> I'm saying, we are missing the point, If we think that's what it's about, rebuking people for stuff like long hair.



What is the point? What is "it"? The Word of God is for teaching, correcting, and rebuking. Church is therefore a perfect place for someone to be rebuked if they are in sin. Your incredulity still rests on presupposing that men with long hair aren't sinning. 



> Getting drunk vs different length of hair?



Apparently seeing a real argument is confusing for you, but try to follow me.

If getting drunk is a sin, the fact that being able to tell when a person is drunk does not mean that the precept should be thrown out.

If it is a sin for a man to have long hair, the fact that defining "long" may be difficult does not annul the precept.

What you must prove, before saying that someone who would rebuke a man for having long hair is being a pharisee, is that the verse doesn't mean that having long hair is a sin. Would you rebuke a person who walked into church drunk? At these point the idea that the two are different cases is merely your assertion.



> If anything, I see Jesus, rebuking the people, who are worried about long hair, while inviting the drunkard, into his presence.
> 
> Sorry you are not getting that.



Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for adding to the law. If the verse means that men shouldn't have long hair, then no one is adding to the law and the pharisee analogy is out of bounds.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Mar 26, 2008)

Romans922 said:


> I thought most of the people here thought that this passage isn't about hair>>???



 It's about submission to authority. In context, head coverings. 

And it seems there is a submission to authority kind of problem in the opening post.



> 1 Corinthians 11:14
> 
> Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 1 Corinthians 11:14
> 
> A woman at church rebuked me with this verse.



A single verse ripped out of context. The context begins at 11:2 and goes through verse 16. I find it interesting that those who use verse 14 to rebuke men for their "long" hair never bother to read verse 16.



> 1 Cor. 11:16
> But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.



I find it even more humorous that it was a woman who rebuked him. 

I would point her to 1 Cor. 14:34-35:


> Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.



I mean if the goose can wrench a single verse out of context, I believe as they say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."


----------



## tdowns (Mar 26, 2008)

*Not worth the effort....*



Davidius said:


> tdowns007 said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius said:
> ...



That's a big IF...

Have fun rebuking.


----------



## Mushroom (Mar 26, 2008)

Yeah, PD, I had the same thought. The woman presuming to teach a matter of doctrine seems more significant than the hair. And I agree that many people seem to miss the following verse. Seems that Paul is telling us its nothing to get in a snit about, just because *the hippe seems contentious about it.* 

But I do confess to getting uptight in an old codger kinda way when the ushers take up the offering wearing ponytails. Just doesn't seem right....


----------



## satz (Mar 26, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> I find it even more humorous that it was a woman who rebuked him.
> 
> I would point her to 1 Cor. 14:34-35:
> 
> ...



I don't see what is the problem, unless she rebuked him during the service itself.

Should women never ever speak up about sin or doctrine?


----------



## Mushroom (Mar 27, 2008)

> Should women never ever speak up about sin or doctrine?


Sure. All Christians should, but in the appropriate way. Isn't rebuking someone on a point of doctrine a form of teaching? Should women members presume it upon themselves to 'straighten out' men who are in their view errant in their practice? I think the biblical channel would have been through a male relative of hers or a Church officer. But I'm probably just an old fuddy-duddy.


----------



## satz (Mar 27, 2008)

Brad said:


> > Should women never ever speak up about sin or doctrine?
> 
> 
> Sure. All Christians should, but in the appropriate way. Isn't rebuking someone on a point of doctrine a form of teaching? Should women members presume it upon themselves to 'straighten out' men who are in their view errant in their practice? I think the biblical channel would have been through a male relative of hers or a Church officer. But I'm probably just an old fuddy-duddy.



Absolutely, everything should be done in an appropriate way. I agree that generally it is best for a man to straighten out other men, but there is no bible prohibition on women teaching men in an informal way.

I don't know what caused this particular woman to approach this manner directly instead of going to another man. I do believe that as a general principle, if sin can be dealt with by involving a minimum of persons, that is preferrable to getting more people involved. If a woman can gracefully raise an issue of sin with a man and obtain repentance and changed behavior, I do not believe the bible would consider that presumptuous of her.

In any case, the main issue is, as Davidus pointed out, the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:14. Attacking the gender of the person who was making the argument is, I would humbly submit, really besides the point, as whether something is true or not really has nothing to do with the messenger.


----------



## ServantofGod (Mar 31, 2008)

Here it is long. 





[/IMG]


----------

