Long hair on men

OK... Every now and then I get faced with an issue that I never thought was a big deal, but then the Holy Spirit challenges me. Personally, this is not an issue I deal with because I still sport a "high & tight" like I had when I was a in the Marines. In fact, sometimes when people meet me they assume I make my living in law enforcement... which I dont.

Anyway, I was asked about this issue, and at first my response was "God looks on the inside", which is still true. I've known believers who had a pony tail who spiritually had it more together than many who made an issue of hair.

But in scripture we read: [b]1 Corinthians 11:14[/b] [i]Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?[/i]

While I dont see a definate command here for all Christian men to cut their hair short, it is definately implied that even in the natural long hair is not considered "normal" for men.

Matthew Henry, in his beautiful commentary on the Bible says: [i]He enforces his argument from the natural covering provided for the woman (1Co_11:13-15): “Judge in yourselves - consult your own reason, hearken to what nature suggests - is it comely for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Should there not be a distinction kept up between the sexes in wearing their hair, since nature has made one? Is it not a distinction which nature has kept up among all civilized nations? The woman's hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy.” Note, It should be our concern, especially in Christian and religious assemblies, to make no breach upon the rules of natural decency.[/i]

In America long hair, at least in this past 100 years, was a sign of rebellion (the 60's).

I'm not really sure where I stand on this. My goal is [b]not[/b] to run around and tell other Christian men to go get a hair cut. But if there is an obedience factor involved here, then I want to teach the truth of scripture (the whole councel) to those who may sit under my teaching. You know what I mean?

Besides, there is nothing more relaxing than hanging out in the barber shop on a Saturday morning talking sports... lol. Especially in the Andy Griffith town I live in.

Is long hair on a man a stumbling block? Is it a pride issue? Is it a "hanging on to the world" issue?

In today's rock-n-roll entertainment church, long hair and tattoo's are becoming the norm. Not juding anyone's heart, just wondering if we're ignoring something in scripture. Are we not ignoring seperation from the world, perhaps?

What do you all think?

Krispy

For some reason this subject always evokes strong debates. Since this happens, one should consider what forces are at work that evokes such strong reactions. Seems to me there is a whole lot more to it then what we really realize.

I think strong reactions from both sides may be a result of pride. Sometimes some Christians want to make cookie cutter Christians... you have to look like this and wear that, and the emphasis is more on the extremities instead of the heart. On the flip side, some Christians dont want anyone to tell them what to do... even when it's quoted straight out of scripture. Or they point to Samson (which does raise an interesting point).

Sometimes pride is involved on both side.

Some want to dismiss it but fail to take into account this has been the common practice of the Christian Church for over 1900 years and in some places up to this very day. And if it is irrelevant why did the writer spend so much time teaching it?

Whats interesting to me is when you see paintings of famous preachers from the 1500's to 1800's many times they had what we would consider to be long hair. Or sometimes they had short hair, but sported long haired wigs.

And actually, the writer spent very little time discussing hair. One verse quite particularly about short hair on men. I think if he had spent a considerable amount of time writing about it (as you suggested he did), then there wouldnt be that much controversy about it.

Krispy

Now Steven, You who've been in the military sure know how to pick your artillery. :-P. And then to actually set it off with, "What do you all think?"

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

Question: The source that he is talking about is from nature, but what part of nature?

Is he referring to Animals, or Vegetation? What part of nature is teaching us?

I have had longer hair, but not long hair, it never did touch my shoulders, however, I felt no shame in it. Besides, how can anyone feel ashamed of thick wavy hair :-P

Is long hair on a man a stumbling block? Is it a pride issue? Is it a "hanging on to the world" issue?

The question that I have on this is, who sets the standard of length?

I know that when I see a woman with really short hair, from behind she looks like a man, er...a.. sometimes in the front she looks a man. :-P

Sorry guys, I am having fun with this post.

But no, I've seen men that I thought were women because of their long hair. So yes, in that regard it is a stumbling block. Guys who are believers who have very long hair (I mean beyond their shoulders) can cause a problem. People have this thought in the back of thier mind, "is this guy in rebellion", "is he straight". And who needs that kind of thinking going on. Guys who continually justify their long hair are being condemned by their own heart. To him, having long hair is a law, however with that law, he is constantly justifying it, thus being condemned. We who have received Christ are dead, we need not justify ourselves because we are dead and the dead do not justify any such matters. If we do, then we are not dead. And if we are being judged on it, then we should cut it down so that other believers are not stumbled by our pride.

I changed the way I looked when I got saved. I didn’t want to look like the world I had just left behind. Nobody told me or mentioned a thing…I just wanted it gone.

And is this maybe the issue? In the church today it seems the emphasis is "you dont have to change... you can still be 'normal'". In other words, the church today wants to make Christianity "cool", and so very few people are really chasing holiness, but rather looking like the world to show everyone that being a Christian is "cool".

But being "cool" is not what we're called to. You know what I mean?

You're outside change, TJ, reflected your inward change. And whats interesting is that Holy Spirit told you to change, not another believer. Makes me question someone who says they got saved, but they "look" no different. How much emphasis should be put on the outside?

People say "well, God told Samuel not to look at the outside appearance when he saw David"... but he wasnt looking at David's clothes and hair. He was looking at his stature and youthfulness. He was sure that David's older, bigger and stronger brothers were more fit for kingly duties. It wasnt the same thing. Scripture was not talking about David having a "wordly" appearance.

Thats just another fine example of ignorant Christians taking something easily understood completely out of context and twisting it to make it fit into whatever they want it to mean.

Krispy

I say: "Yes". Because, for one thing, it blurs the line of gender distinction. God made us all either male or female and called it very good.

Who sets the standard of length?

Now Steven, You who've been in the military sure know how to pick your artillery. . And then to actually set it off with, "What do you all think?"

Actually, this is something I've never considered much. But now I just want to learn from folks here... really not trying to start controversy. :-)

And who needs that kind of thinking going on. Guys who continually justify their long hair are being condemned by their own heart. To him, having long hair is a law, however with that law, he is constantly justifying it, thus being condemned. We who have received Christ are dead, we need not justify ourselves because we are dead and the dead do not justify any such matters. If we do, then we are not dead. And if we are being judged on it, then we should cut it down so that other believers are not stumbled by our pride.

Yea, thats good stuff.

Krispy

Who sets the standard of length?

Exactly... how long is too long? Personally, I think it should be short enough that you dont question it in your own heart.

Yet, on SI's homepage right now is a pic of the cover of Old Paths... check out that dude's hair. We look at that and think nothing of it, yet if he were here now today we'd all think his hair was quite long.

Why the difference?

Ginny... thanx for your post, and you bring up some good points. The Watchman Nee article was ok, but I'm not in agreement with most of his conclusions concerning head coverings. What I dont want is for this to turn into another thread about women and head coverings. Hopefully we can all stay focussed.

Krispy

on SI's homepage right now is a pic of the cover of Old Paths... check out that dude's hair. We look at that and think nothing of it, yet if he were here now today we'd all think his hair was quite long.

It seems that if you are important enough spiritually and you have effected alot of people, hair on these men look glorious, especially white hair. Do a couple of miracles and healings and your looks will be forgotten. (Not benny hinn style, I mean hands on silver and gold having I none miracles and healing). If you can get masses of people to repent, your outward appearance means little.

Proverbs 16:31 The hoary head is a crown of glory, if it be found in the way of righteousness.

It seems that if you are important enough spiritually and you have effected alot of people, hair on these men look glorious, especially white hair. Do a couple of miracles and healings and your looks will be forgotten.

[b]Act 10:34[/b] [i]Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons...[/i]

... yet we are. We'll overlook certain things if we deem someone as important or special enough.

Thats true for a lot of things, not just hair. Look at Peter Popoff. He's been proven a fake over and over again, yet he still has a following even today.

Krispy

Krispy, I've been discussing I COR in another thread and I think it's imperative that we keep Paul's words in context of who he was, and who he was speaking to. He was a Roman citizen speaking to Roman citzens. The "Mr. Spock" haircut was all the rage - and I've seen photos of paintings of Paul - and he's always got the same "Ceaser-style"... not "Israelite style" at all.

Now, if you're going to take I COR as the irrefutable Law of God, please go back 3 chapters:

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord... (I COR 7:12)

"I 'suppose' therefore that this is good for the 'present distress'... (I COR 7:26)

"But she is happier if she so abide, after 'my judgement'... and I think also that I have the Spirit of God." (I COR 7:40)

I know I'm going to get roasted on this, but these are letters written by Paul to specific churches for specific purposes. It isn't law. It was never intended to be.

And please consider that many Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish men sport longer hair by tradition, and, by tradition, they wear tzeniuts, tallits, and other head coverings when they pray to God.

Lastly, consider the most "manly-man" of the Old-Testament, Samson.

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall seperate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to seperate themselves unto the LORD:... All the days of the vow of his seperation 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 his hair grow..." (NUMBERS 6:1-5)

"There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any other man." (JUDGES 16:17)

Corey, you bring up some great points, and thanks for bringing them up.

I would caution you, tho, to be careful with the "Paul was talking to a specific people" because the implication is that perhaps the particular piece of scripture does not apply to us today. When we start to do that, then we open ourselves up to applying that way of thinking to any scripture we want to ignore because it makes us uncomfortable.

This kind of thinking is what is used to justify women pastors.

If we're going to do that, then I propose that perhaps adultry via lusting in my heart really doesnt apply today... so I can gawk all I want.

I know thats an extreme example, but when we being to dismiss scripture by saying it wasnt written for us... where does it end? Who decides what is relevent and what isnt? I do... and for you, you do... because your truth may be different than mine. It's basically almost a "new age" relevence type of thinking.

Krispy

I find [i]this[/i] is interesting... most churches that make a large issue out of men's hair length will sometimes have a picture of Jesus hanging in the church somewhere portraying Jesus with long hair.

Now, I think we're all smart enough to figure out that Jesus probably looked nothing like all the portraits. We have no idea how long his hair was. He might have been balding, who knows?

But I think it's humorous that some will judge a person by hair length, and hang up a picture of Jesus... with long hair!

Krispy

Krispy said

Corey, you bring up some great points, and thanks for bringing them up.

Yay! I did something right!

I would caution you, tho, to be careful with the "Paul was talking to a specific people" because the implication is that perhaps the particular piece of scripture does not apply to us today. When we start to do that, then we open ourselves up to applying that way of thinking to any scripture we want to ignore because it makes us uncomfortable.

Context is at the very heart of gospel truth and errancy. If you want to burden your congregation with new laws, created by Paul's suggestions to a church deep in the Roman Empire... you might as well burden them with the 600+ laws from the Old Testament, too.

Paul was advising what he thought best for a church fresh out of Diana pagan worship in the heart of the empire. He was not a prophet. He was not adding to the Law. He was trying to preach the gospel to the heathen in their own language and customs. Consider:

"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." (LUKE 16:16)

And if you think Paul would appreciate the modern "Pauline" view on Christianity - you know, where we preach 70% epistles and 10% gospels, consider:

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Appollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul...? For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to [b]preach the gospel[/b]: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (I COR 1:12-17)

This kind of thinking is what is used to justify women pastors.

Where's it said that a woman can't proclaim the gospel?

"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." (I COR 14:34)

Yet, "...Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgement." (JUDGES 4:4-5)

And she prophesies that the honour of killing the general of the great host will go to Jael, a woman.

"Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be, blessed shall she be above women in the tent...She put her hand to the nail, and her right hand to the workmen's hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera, she smote off his head, when she had pierced and stricken through his temples. At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he bowed, there he fell down dead." (JUDGES 5:24-27)

Yet we persist in believeing in this illegality of a woman having authority over men. There is a time coming, however...

"How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man." (JER 31:22)

... and now is...

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (GAL 3:28-29)

How could I have a problem sitting down meekly in the congregation while a Deborah, or a Jackie Pullinger, or a Helen Roseveare preaches the gospel to me with scripture like these backing them up?

But, you say, they are the "weaker vessles" and destined to bow to the wills of us manly-men (un-Samsonish hair, notwithstanding). To this I respond:

"God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of this world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: [b]That no flesh should glory in his presence.[/b]" (I COR 1:27-29)

If we're going to do that, then I propose that perhaps adultry via lusting in my heart really doesnt apply today... so I can gawk all I want.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying we ought to do what Jesus taught us and [b]preach the gospel[/b], not the epistles.

I know thats an extreme example, but when we being to dismiss scripture by saying it wasnt written for us... where does it end? Who decides what is relevent and what isnt? I do... and for you, you do... because your truth may be different than mine. It's basically almost a "new age" relevence type of thinking.

I'm not after "my truth" or "your truth". I'm after "the truth".

"Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ: As obedient children, [b]not fahsioning yourselves according to to the former lusts in your ignorance:[/b]" (I PET 1:13-14)