1 Corinthians 11:14

[ServantofGod]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[LadyFlynt]

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]

I actually cut my hair short because of this verse.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

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]

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

 

[JBaldwin]

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]

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]

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!

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

 

[JBaldwin]

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!

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

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]

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]

Luther, as usual, is a cool cat.

 

[ServantofGod]

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]

Luther, as usual, is a cool cat.

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

 

[JBaldwin]

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

 

[Grymir]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[LadyFlynt]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

EVON?! WHoohoo! It's Evon!

(Does the happy dance)

 

[tdowns]

Rebuked!

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?