|
Post by Peacemaker on Jul 17, 2007 14:08:50 GMT -5
Re the position on the head for the bun- Dear old Andrew Drummond - (he is deceased now) once told a lady that someone looking at her from the front shouldn't see the bun higher than the top of her head - so 'position' must have also been important to some?? I nearly cracked up at the comment about gravity--- Oh I can sure remember how it would get 'loose' and you'd feel the thing losing out to gravity --..............and you'd wonder if you could make it to the 'repair shop' in time.......... sharon Is the hair bun thing peculiar to North America? It seems very strange to me, a non american. These stories about the hair buns are not only incredible but are somewhat hilarious. Just imagine that you are an American female, you have reached the "Pearly Gates" but Michael or Gabriel the archangels would not let you enter; so you asked the reason why and you are told: " you wore your hair bun on the wrong side of your head.'
|
|
|
Post by Will on Jul 17, 2007 14:46:44 GMT -5
I distinctly remember a woman in Sunday morning meeting in Iowa giving her testimony about Mary washing the feet of Jesus with her hair (John 12). This woman in meeting was in tears at the thought of Mary letting her hair down from her bun to wash Jesus' feet. I am not making this up!
|
|
|
Post by TMS on Jul 17, 2007 16:37:12 GMT -5
HAIR IS A BIG ISSUE OR WAS TO ME..I WAS RAISED THAT IT WAS A "SIN" TO CUT YOUR HAIR IF YOU WERE FEMALE. IT WOULD OF BEEN EASIER TO SLEEP AROUND LITERALLY THAN TO CUT YOUR HAIR, THAT IS HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS TO THE WORKERS AND THE MAJORITY OF THE FRIENDS.
IF YOU CUT YOUR HAIR EVERYONE COULD SEE YOUR "SIN" BUT IF YOU LIED, STOLE OR HAD PREMARITAL SEX, NO ONE WOULD REALLY KNOW IN GENERAL.
BUT YOU COULD NOT HIDE THE SIN OF CUTTING HAIR...
I THINK THAT IS WHY THE CHURCH DID SO MUCH DAMAGE TO WOMEN INTERNALLY BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THEIR WORTH WAS BASED ON HOW THEY COULD KEEP THE MANMADE "STANDARD" OF BUNS, NO MAKEUP, PLAIN JANE APPEARANCE.
I FELT UGLY AND EVEN UGLIER GROWING UP BECAUSE I COULD DO NOTHING TO MYSELF, THAT PULLED HAIR BACK LOOK IN A TIGHT BUN DOESNT BECOME EVERYONE, ESP IF YOU HAVE BIG EARS, A FUNNY SHAPED FACE, OR A SMALL HEAD OR HIGH FOREHEAD..
ITS AMAZING WHAT THE RIGHT HAIRSTYLE AND BROW WAX CAN DO FOR A WOMAN SELF ESTEEM.
|
|
|
Post by plainjane on Jul 17, 2007 17:41:33 GMT -5
TMS,
Don't you just love my "handle"? Yes, the whole idea behind buns has more to do with demoralizing women in our day and age than it has to do with spirituality. Maybe it was enforced during the 60's so that we wouldn't be so attractive to the opposite sex (?) And then we might become sister workers (?) Hmm... maybe...
One person told me that the bun was to keep us humble. Humble? Is a poor self-image a sign of humility?
Dollface, I asked the very same questions that you did (once upon a time) and one sister worker actually said she wished Jesus would have mentioned the long hair and bun because then people wouldn't be asking this question.
Jesus made a big mistake when he didn't mention how important it is that we wear buns on the "right" side of our heads didn't he? I can't believe he left out the the most important instructions for women. Now we're a lost cause....
Honesty is admitting to myself that I didn't like being a religioius martyr in this manner....even if at first I didn't admit this to others.
Oh and my "sins" will live with me as long as I live because I too have that dreadful bald spot from where the hairpins and bobby pins sat so long........
Waaah!
Jane
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Jul 17, 2007 17:50:31 GMT -5
I do think that hair is a symbol of a bigger control issue for many women in the 2x2 fellowship, not only control between workers and friends, but within a family as well. It's funny how this thread turned into a mini therapy session! Here are a few memories that this thread dredged up for me...
I remember when I was in my mid teens, my mom asked a sister worker who was in our home to talk to me about why I should where my hair up instead of down. The worker had no scripture to provide, but said something vague about Jezabel and hair worn down being a symbol of "loose women". Believe me - I looked anything but "loose" - incredibly geeky would have been a better adjective at that time! It didn't seem to bother either my mom or the sister worker that there was no scripture to back up their point.
Also in my mid teen years, I came up with a pony-tail hairdo that was easy to comfortable that I was quite proud of and asked my dad what he thought... his response was "when are you going to start wearing your hair in a bun?".
We also had an interesting incident on the way to gospel meeting over the issue of my hair when I was in my early teens. My mom had put my hair up into an elaborate bun thing that I absolutely hated. On the way to meeting, I was in the back seat messing with it trying to take it down. My dad almost ran the car off the road trying to smack me. Gospel meeting was a real treat that night!
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Pinn on Jul 17, 2007 18:22:11 GMT -5
;D Something about Mary drying the feet of Jesus with the hairs of her head-----I have heard tell that if her hair would have been in a bun, Jesus' feet would have drip-dried by the time she would have taken out all of the bobby pins! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kathy Lewis on Jul 17, 2007 18:57:33 GMT -5
Dear Peacemaker,
No the hair thing wasn't just an American/Canadian problem. It was in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, England, Scandinavia and other places too.
I heard of a German woman about 2 years ago who finally cut her hair and her old father threw a hysterical fit and told her she was going to hell. She hadn't even been going to meeting, but he still wanted her to wear a bun.
I would like to know where you live that you don't have the long hair rule. I am sure that rule could be arranged for you. We wouldn't want you to miss out on the misery.
|
|
|
Post by TMS on Jul 17, 2007 19:01:41 GMT -5
I do think that hair is a symbol of a bigger control issue for many women in the 2x2 fellowship, not only control between workers and friends, but within a family as well. It's funny how this thread turned into a mini therapy session! Here are a few memories that this thread dredged up for me... I remember when I was in my mid teens, my mom asked a sister worker who was in our home to talk to me about why I should where my hair up instead of down. The worker had no scripture to provide, but said something vague about Jezabel and hair worn down being a symbol of "loose women". Believe me - I looked anything but "loose" - incredibly geeky would have been a better adjective at that time! It didn't seem to bother either my mom or the sister worker that there was no scripture to back up their point. Also in my mid teen years, I came up with a pony-tail hairdo that was easy to comfortable that I was quite proud of and asked my dad what he thought... his response was "when are you going to start wearing your hair in a bun?". We also had an interesting incident on the way to gospel meeting over the issue of my hair when I was in my early teens. My mom had put my hair up into an elaborate bun thing that I absolutely hated. On the way to meeting, I was in the back seat messing with it trying to take it down. My dad almost ran the car off the road trying to smack me. Gospel meeting was a real treat that night! I KNOW - ISN'T IT INTERESTING THAT IN THE NAME OF "RELIGION" AND "BEING IN THE TRUTH" CAUSES A FATHER TO SMACK HIS DAUGHTER IN HER TEENS FOR TAKING DOWN HER "BUN-HEAD". INTERESTING WHAT RELIGION DOES TO PEOPLE, ISN'T IT? I DONT READ ABOUT JESUS GOING AROUND SMACKING PEOPLE FOR NOT HAVING THEIR HAIR IN BUNS OR TELLING FATHERS TO DO IT. VERY VERY INTERESTING.
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Jul 17, 2007 20:26:19 GMT -5
TMS:
Thank you for your indignation on my behalf! ;D. The system does seem to give people inclined to legalism lots of ammo. I must say though, that my parents would have had control issues with or without the 2x2 religion being in the picture. I think mixing control problems with religion is especially potent though, because it brings the extra threat of hell, and it kind of scars you as far as your view of God goes. It's a service based on fear, not on love. I'm happy to say that my parents have come a long way since this (and are still hearty 2x2's!).
Juli
P.S. I LOVE your fiestiness... you crack me up!
|
|
|
Post by stilllong on Jul 17, 2007 20:41:42 GMT -5
Hair in bands from the time the hair was long enough to have bands put in-and stay. Tiny pony tails sticking up like whale spouts. Chunks of hair ripped out as toddler daughter pulls out her bands and barretts-again. The hair that doesn't stop growing, mid-back, waist, hip, thigh, calf-when is it going to STOP growing?? Fungus growing because the hair is so thick, heavy and long it is very hard to dry completely. Oh, that bun is SO cute! spoken by a worker when the newbie was first able to pull her short hair back into a little bunch on the back of her head. Allergy to the metal of the pins and barretts. Plastic hair pins which poke holes into your head and snap in two under pressure. Gouges as the pins slip and your hair comes undone. The lop-sided head from where the kid in school cut off one of the braided tails. Currently looking for a new "do".
|
|
|
Post by ali on Jul 17, 2007 20:56:48 GMT -5
;D Something about Mary drying the feet of Jesus with the hairs of her head-----I have heard tell that if her hair would have been in a bun, Jesus' feet would have drip-dried by the time she would have taken out all of the bobby pins! ;D[/quote :DThat's REALLY funny. What a mental picture. At least women have more choices now...it's not just bobby pins that are available! I'm quite fond of the headbands that are so currently popular
|
|
|
Post by Kathy Lewis on Jul 17, 2007 23:40:23 GMT -5
When I was a little girl many, many years ago, I remember my Mom talking about outsiders who had attended a meeting.
I asked Mom, "How did you know they were outsiders?" She answered "because they didn't have Bible bags."
Since that time I learned that workers are very sensitive to who is "inside" or "outside" and those they may not be able to trust.
The workers actually used to have a little code in their address booklists that signified who was professing, who had divided homes, etc. I assume that was so they would not say anything in a conversation that they didn't want an outsider to know or be offended by.
However, back to the main message. The head workers and senior workers are control freaks. Younger workers are not usually. The younger workers are still the ones who are being controlled. Control freaks live in fear. They fear what they cannot control.
So it becomes very important to them to know WHO THEY CAN TRUST. They do this by various means. They look carefully to see whether people conform to the rules. They look for:
1. Those who follow the appearance rules. This is why the women's appearance and hair is so important to them. This shows who is willing to be dominated by the workers.
2. Those who give the workers plenty of compliments and rave reviews in their testimonies and conversations.
3. Those who don't ask questions.
4. Those who don't talk.
5. Those who give them money.
6. Those who are willing to have them drop in at any time or all the time.
Right now the workers are very nervous because they know people are not happy. They have seen what is being discussed on the internet and they are trying to figure out how to control the situation.
You can help these workers. Pray for them. Be kind to them. Ask them questions very kindly about how they feel. Try to get the younger workers away from the older workers to give them a break from the control.
Give the younger workers money instead of the older ones. Befriend them. They need real friends they can trust. Give the younger worker a copy of the 1 Cor. 11 essay.
|
|
ann
Senior Member
Jesus did NOT say follow people .. He said follow ME!
Posts: 267
|
Post by ann on Jul 18, 2007 0:29:03 GMT -5
Excellent suggestions, Kathy
|
|
my parents were bizarre
Guest
|
Post by my parents were bizarre on Jul 18, 2007 2:24:44 GMT -5
my parents used some sort of twisted interpretation of scripture to imply that only prostitutes cut their hair--then kept hammering it home that if I cut my hair I would be mistaken for a prostitute. My father says this about many stupid things--like wearing perfume--he says that is something that only propstitutes do (to cover up their bad smell) and that if I wear it everyone will think that i am a prostitute. He is very obsessed with prostututes. He has two daughters (we are both quite gown and on our own now) but whenever we did something he didn't like he wouold sing a little song about working girls to humiliate us. He and my mom are strange. But of course no one in the world loves me the way they do. Thank god!
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Jul 18, 2007 4:13:42 GMT -5
I really am shocked in a way to hear that anything went on as far as HOW the women were to wear their hair up; this is not to say I don't believe it - I do. But...not only do we have to wear our hair up, but in a *specific fashion* ? There is a lot I have respect for, but concerning this issue, all I have to say iS WOWWWWWWWWWWWW. Just UP wasn't enough??? > *flabbergasted* M.
|
|
|
Post by Whatever on Jul 18, 2007 8:55:11 GMT -5
wanttobewithgod-----Where are you from? Seems odd you know nothing about anything on here that is known almost world over.
|
|
|
Post by Peacemaker on Jul 18, 2007 10:38:36 GMT -5
Dear Peacemaker, No the hair thing wasn't just an American/Canadian problem. It was in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, England, Scandinavia and other places too. I heard of a German woman about 2 years ago who finally cut her hair and her old father threw a hysterical fit and told her she was going to hell. She hadn't even been going to meeting, but he still wanted her to wear a bun. I would like to know where you live that you don't have the long hair rule. I am sure that rule could be arranged for you. We wouldn't want you to miss out on the misery. Hi Kathy I was b&r in the Caribbean where the majority of friends wore hats and still do, especially the older folks. I believe that there was a problem in the past with plaited hair though.
|
|
|
Post by sharonhargreaves on Jul 18, 2007 10:40:51 GMT -5
Dear My parents were bizzare- Perhaps your father had read something somewhere to arrive at that idea. I urge you to go to the website I have referred to on my post: www.2x2church.comthis study is from from www.mmoutreach.comand www.strivetoenter.com AND PRINT OUY THE ESSAY ON 1 Corinthians 11:It is a bit of a long read but I feel it is ESSENTIAL to understand the issues for Jewish women - praying or prophesying - regarding head coverings - these 'laws' were from the Talmud - additional Jewish laws more than the God given laws of Scripture. There were two reasons for a woman to have her head shaved. One a very bad one - she was a prostiute the other a very good one - she had completed a Nazarite vow. THE HEAD COVERINGS WERE MAN MADE LAWS -If you will take the time to read this article you will find VITAL understanding on how head coverings - the hair issue - long and/ or short - have been twisted into a 'control issue' among 'religious' people over the centuries. Our experience has been very like the Mennonites - Hutterites - Amish and many Eastern cultures. etc except in our expereince - "the bun" - and "done up" has had the same 'control value " as the white cap or black caps, and/ or veils for them. Paul was not a ranting odd ball as someone rather suggested on this thread - if you will read this essay you will see that Paul was extremely kind, very astute and wise, and dealt marvellously with this very difficult postion women were in in Corinth. He in fact understood very well the cultural pressure Jewish women were under - laws that WERE NOT GOD GIVEN - but in fact, if a woman in their case did not wear the head covering she was in a very difficult position in her culture. We - thankfully - don't live in a country where head coverings are an issue for us. And you will learn also from the essay that the head coverings - to them - indicated both shame and modesty but never subjection. Shame because they blamed the woman for bringing sin into the world and modesty as they approached God in prayer- A head covering idicating shame is a slap in the face to our Saviour who took our shame and nailed it to His Cross because it is dishonouring to our Spiritual Head - who is Christ. To a believing Christian who understands the Finished work of Christ on the Cross 'the veil is taken away' and we can approach God with boldness. In their culture, it did not indicate subjection, which is the other huge mis- twist that 'religious' people have given it - that is why I said in my letter that the workers have 'subverted the head covering issue to long hair, and further, long hair 'done ' up' in a BUN or some such 'up bunch' --- It has become a mark of submission - but not submission to God - but rather submission to a false authority. The - 'bun' - & "done up" in our expereince, has become like a 'cultural item' called a "standard" with the workers - a 'requirement' THAT IS NOT GOD GIVEN. Reading the essay will open YOUR EYES WIDE TO VERY IMPORTANT ASPECTS THAT - FOR ME ANYWAY - WERE AMAZING. Praise God for LIBERTY IN CHRIST. It is not about long - or short - hair - with God - for men or women. Blessings in Liberty sharon hargreaves
|
|
|
Post by a survivor on Jul 18, 2007 16:30:26 GMT -5
Thank-you so much for the essay on 1 Corinthinians 11 from mmoutreach ministries. THAT IS JUST AWESOME...WHAT AN EYE OPENER!!!!!!!!!!!
I would like to share it with every worker I know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a must read!!!!!!
Guest
|
|
Sharon Hargreaves Guest
Guest
|
Post by Sharon Hargreaves Guest on Jul 19, 2007 10:38:25 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 11 Transcription from a message @2006 Cheryl Schatz www.strivetoenter.com/wim mmoutreach@gmail.com (Used with permission) First Corinthians 11 has been a difficult chapter throughout church history. there are some things that are hard to understand about this passage. But examining and understanding the Jewish mindset will help us unravel Paul's reasoning. Let's start at verse 3. "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man and the man is the head of the woman; and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head." Paul says that Christ is the head of every man and the man is the head of the woman; and God is the head of Christ. Every many who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head." Paul has just told us that the head of every male is Christ. So, this dishonoring of the male's head would be dishonoring of Christ. John Lightfoot gives us a glimpse into the mindset of the Jewish culture of that day. Lightfoot was a Hebrew scholar who lived from 1602 to 1675; and during his day there was a revival of the study of the Hebrew Bible as well as other Jewish works. Lightfoot's scholarly writings produced several volumes called "Commentary on the New Testament, From the Talmud and Hebraica." In these books, Lightfoot ties in the Jewish culture and traditions from the Talmud with the scriptures that helps us understand the culture in the history of the Bible. Lightfoot says, "It was the custom of the Jews, that they prayed not, unless first, their heads were veiled, and that for this reason, that by this rite, that they might show themselves reverent and ashamed before God, and unworthy with an open face to behold Him. Men, therefore, veiled themselves when they prayed, partly for a sign of reverence before God, and partly to show themselves ashamed before God and unworthy to look upon Him." Paul had already instructed the Corinthian church in verse two to hold firmly to the traditions that he had taught them, and he wanted them to discard traditions that were not Christ honouring. Covering the head because of our shame was not honouring Christ who had died to take away that shame. It put the emphasis on our sinful position before God instead of honouring our position in Christ our Saviour. In Christ we are able to come before God with unveiled faces, because of the completed work of Christ, who is our righteousness. But, what about women? Paul then goes on to the dilemma of the woman and her head covering. Verse 5 --"But every woman that has her head uncovered, while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off, but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off, or her head shaved, let her head be covered." Paul understands something in this passage that our culture has a difficult time understanding. Paul understands that the woman is the only one who has two heads. Christ is her spiritual head, as Christ is the spiritual head for every one in the body of Christ. But the husband is also called her head. We will be discussing the meaning of head shortly, but for now let's just discuss the veiling and the hair issue. Paul also understands that the woman is in a difficult position in regards to veiling. If she veils for the purpose of her shame, then she would be dishonouring her spiritual head which is Christ. However, if she unveils herself in public, she would shame her husband. "It was the custom of the women, that prescribed them, under severe canons, that they should not go abroad, but with their faces veiled. Let not a woman go with her head uncovered." The Jewish law was that women who were married were required to cover their hair. The Talmud interprets this custom as a sign of the woman's shame -- guilt for Eve's sin. Lightfoot elaborates: "And they fetched the shame of the woman thence, that she, first, brought sin into the world." And that was their view -- that the woman brought sin into the world and her veiling at her marriage was a sign of shame, because the woman led the man into sin. The Talmud said that as a result of Eve's curse, women must go about covered as mourners. In the Jewish culture, when a woman got married, from that day on, she was under compulsion to veil herself, and if found in public, without her veil, the Talmud prescribed strict consequences. "Should a woman walk bareheaded in the street, her husband could divorce her without payment of her dowry." Although the Greek women also wore head coverings, the tradition for the Jewish women caused more problems because of the severe punishment for the wife that was found unveiled in public. Paul understood that the veiling was a cultural tradition that dishonoured Christ. But an unveiled wife also dishonoured her husband in that culture. If Paul insisted that she unveil herself in public worship -- she honoured her Spiritual Head which is Christ, but if she unveiled herself in public worship she put herself in the position of shaming her non Christian Jewish husband, If she was forced to unveil, she could be divorced without support and thus left destitute. Paul identifies her dilemma, "Every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved." Paul gives the cultural view in verse 5, and the reason for shaming the husband is found in the Talmud. "Some rabbis considered the exposure of a married woman's hair to the exposure of her private parts, since they felt that a woman's hair could be used for erotic excitement; they forbid the reciting of any blessings in the presence of a bareheaded woman." Paul says that for a married woman to remove her veil in public was equivalent in the culture to the shame a husband felt whose wife was unfaithful. Additionally, in Paul's day, there were only two reasons why a woman had her head shaved. One was a very bad reason, and the other was a very good reason. The bad reason was that a shaved head was the sign of an adulteress. Also, the only ones who appeared in public without their veils were prostitutes. So, Paul is saying in verse 5, that a woman should be allowed to wear a veil, if, by not wearing the veil she shames her husband. This would especially be true for a Jewish husband who was ot a believer in the finished work of Christ and not open to the removal of the veil. Paul now switches to the reason why a woman could be allowed to wear a veil to keep from experiencing her own shame. This second reason why Paul allows a woman to wear a veil is the second reason why a woman would have a shaved head. There was an honourable reason for having a shaved head. It was necessary when she had completed a Nazarite vow to God. The completion of a Nazarite vow required her to shave off her hair and offer her hair as a sacrifice to God.
|
|
Sharon Hargreaves Guest
Guest
|
Post by Sharon Hargreaves Guest on Jul 19, 2007 11:17:16 GMT -5
Many women were allowed to take a special Nazarite vow. Those who took this vow had to abstain from wine, and strong drink, and they must not cut their hair during the entire time of the vow. When the vow was complete the person must shave off his or her hair and sacrifice it as a peace offering.
"The Nazarite shall then shave his dedicated head of hair at the doorway of the tent of meeting and take the dedicated hair of his head and put it on the fire which is unto the sacrifice of peace offerings."
A Jewish believer was allowed to take a Nazarite vow and Paul himself took this vow on at least one occasion. "Paul having remained many days longer took leave of the brethren, put out to sea for Syria, and with him were Priscilla and Aquila and in Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow." Acts 18:18
If a Jewish woman who was a believer wanted to take a Nazarite vow, she was allowed to do so and at the end of the vow she would have to shave off her hair. In that culture this may have caused her shame to appear in the congregation with no hair and no veil, because of the connection a shaved head had with an unfaithful wife.
Paul gives her permission to veil herself, IF it is a shame for her to appear with a shaved head. "For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off. But, if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off, or her head shaved, LET her cover her head." 1 Corinthians 11:6
If the woman had the freedom to appear in the worship service without her head covering, Paul says she is also free from the custom of long hair.
Paul uses the words of permission "Let her." He says, "Let her wear the veil or let her have her hair cut." The inspired word is one of permission not of restriction. Paul is NOT telling the Corinthians that a woman MUST cover her head. He could not do that -- after all, he had just told them that the covering of the head shamed Christ! Wearing the head covering that symbolizes shame for sin is not a Christian custom -- but, on the other hand, Paul could not tell women that they must uncover their head. That would violate the sanctity of many of their marriages. Jewish women presented a different dilemma in the congregation because of the custom of that day.
It would be wonderful if all women could follow men into the full uncovering of their heads and honour Christ, but many couldn't--- and Paul respects women and the customs of that day that stopped them from having full freedom of an unveiled head in Christ.
Today for the most part, we don't have these cultural mandates that require women to have a head covering.
Let's go on to the short summary that Paul gives for head covering, starting in verse 7. "For a man ought NOT to have his head covered, since he is in the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man." The inspired word usage here is very revealing. Paul says that a male ought not to have his head covered; the Greek word means ' to be under obligation to'.
What Paul is saying is that men do not have an obligation to have their head covered. There are no serious repercussions for a man to go without a head covering in the Christian community. and a man will not suffer loss by being divorced, if he does not cover his head. His only obligation is to Christ. A man who takes a Nazarite vow, and then shaved off his hair is not shamed by having a bald head. Paul says that there is no reason at all for a man to be under obligation to cover his head. Next, Paul introduces the fact that the man's glory is his creation in the image of God. This was another reason to remove the veil. Paul brings out a very important fact that the woman is the glory of man. Note, that Paul does not say that the woman was made in the image of God or that she is the glory of God. His omission does not mean that the woman is not the image of God or that she is not the glory of God. Paul reminds in 2 Cornithians 3:18, "But we all with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord."
All humans are made in the image of God and all Christians display the glory of God. Male and female are in the image of God. Yet there are those who deny that the woman reflects the glory of God.
Man has the glory of God and so does the woman. However, the woman is the only one to be created with two glories. She is the glory of God and the glory of man.
All of the body of Christ bears God's glory. It is not limited to the men. When Paul focuses on the second glory he was focusing in to make a point. Her first glory is that of God as she is made in the image of God. Her second glory is that she was made from the man and he can glory in her.
Paul focuses on the glory of man because the head covering dilemma has to do with the social obligation for a certain modesty required of married women only.
To say that 1 Corinthians 11 denies that the woman is the glory of God is to take the chapter out of context. Paul never says that the woman is not the glory of God just as his omitting saying that the woman is in the image of God does not mean that she does not have God's image.
What is implied is that the woman has to consider both her heads when making a decision. Paul then explains the natural order of creation. "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man. For indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake."
The origin of the woman is through the man. She was made for the man to complement him and to complete him, and to rule with him. "Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels."
Verse 10 has been a difficult verse to exegete because most people now have no idea what Paul is getting at in this verse.
Let's take the verse apart and study it word by word to understand Paul's logic.
The words "a symbol of" are not to be found in the Greek. The original says the woman has authority OVER her head.
John Lightfoot fully agrees in his commentary: "That which commonly here obtains, is that power is understood by a veil --- a sign of power above her or of her subjection, but it is to be inquired whether to have power does not properly, yea always, denote to have power in one's own hand, not a power above one."
John Lightfoot says that the "authority is in the woman's hands." Nowhere else is the word for authority used as a symbol of a veil. Paul is not talking about "the veil" in this verse, but the "right or authority of a person to do something." John Lightfoot also says that THE VEIL IS NEVER A SIGN OF SUBJECTION. "Where I beseech you, is a veil propounded as such subjection? It is indeed but a sign of true modesty." Genesis 24:65 and of disassembed modesty Genesis 38:14 But where is it used as a sign of subjection?"
Paul says the woman has authority over her head to make a decision whether she wears a veil or whether she doesn't wear a veil. She has a right to cut her hair, or shave her head, or leave her hair long.
|
|
Sharon Hargreaves Guest
Guest
|
Post by Sharon Hargreaves Guest on Jul 19, 2007 11:58:49 GMT -5
Paul insists she has the right to make her own decision over her own head because of the angels. Now, many have speculated what Paul means by saying "because of the angels" but to understand the inspired reason, not a mere speculation, we need to go back into Paul's letter.
In Chapter 5, Paul talks extensively about juding in the body of Christ. He says that we must be able to make righteous judgments. "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do we not judge those who are within the church?"
Paul continues on the subject of rightous judgment in chapter 6: "Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbour, dare go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that you will judge angels --- how much more, matters of this life?"
Paul is saying, 'Look! Grow up, stop being immature and passing on these matters to the worldly system! You need to learn how to judge for yourselves! Don't you know that in the next age we are going to be judging the world? Don't you know that we will be judging the angels?!'
'Learn how to make your own decisions.' So, the reference to the angels is about judgment and decision making. Let's put that information into the proper context in 1 Corinthians 11. Paul is saying the women have the authority to make their own decisions as to what they do or don't wear on their head because in the next age they will be judging the angels.
If a woman is going to judge the angels in the next age, surely a woman should be allowed to make her own decision on the relatively little matter of head coverings.
Even though a woman has the authority to make her own decision and will also be judging the angels in the next life, Paul says that the woman is not independent of the man.
"However, in the Lord, neither is the woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman, for as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman, and all things originate from God."
Why does Paul put women first here? Because he has just told us, that women have authority to make their own decisions. Yet, in the Lord, Paul says there is equality and interdependence.
What started out with the preeminence of the man, being the origin of the woman, moved to the importance of woman as the origin of all men, but, ultimately all things have their beginning, their origin, in God, so all are equal in the Lord. Now Paul tells the Corinthians to make up their own mind from the example that he has just set.
"Judge for yourself, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?"
Paul is asking is it right, or proper, for a woman to pray to God without the veil that symbolizes her sin.
By this point, in Paul's argument, they should be able to judge that, yes, it is right for a woman to go unveiled before God because, she too, has her sins forgiven. Next, there is another judgment call.
"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonour to him, but if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her. For her hair is given to her for a covering."
The Greek was written without punctuation.
The International Standard Version gives the rendering without the question mark. "Nature itself teaches you neither that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair, nor, that hair is a woman's glory for hair is given as a substitute for coverings."
Now let's think about Paul's argument. Nature can teach you a lot of things but can it teach you that there is a standard for length of hair for a man and a different standard for a woman?
To understand Paul's argument let's consider our arm hair -- What does nature teach us about our arm hair. We all have arm hair but it doesn't grow very long. Why? Because nature teaches us that arm hair is designed to grow to a certain length, and then stop. Now if we compare our arm hair to our head hair what does nature teach us about the difference between our arm hair and our head hair?
Nature teaches us that our head hair was designed to keep on growing and growing until we cut it. Our arm hair is different. It was designed to grow a certain length and then stop. Now let's apply this to Paul's argument. What does nature teach us about the hair on the head of little boys, and the hair on the head of little girls?
Is there a difference? No. Both of them have hair that grows. Paul is asking the Corinthians to reason, and then to decide. Does nature teach you that there is a difference between the hair on the head of a male and that of a female that necessitates a rule that one can cut their hair and the other one cannot? NO.
Paul says because not even nature teaches us that there is a difference.
Next Paul is asking the Corinthians to reason another way. Is it a shame for a man to have long hair? The answer has to be, NO. Why? Because God Himself required some men to leave their hair long. A man who took a Nazarite vow did not cut his hair and God wanted it that way.
In a similar way, the most orthodox Jews did not cut the sides of their hair...the longer the hair on the sides of their head, the more spiritual they were thought to be.
Was it a shame for a man to have long hair? No, it wasn't. And the religious Jewish men proved that. Paul himself would have had to have long hair at one time because he took a Nazarite vow. If Paul let his hair grow because of the vow, how could he tell the Corinthians that it was a shame for a man to have long hair?
It wasn't a shame. And what Paul is saying is, 'Look, the customs surrounding hair are not from God. You can't appeal to nature for the cusom because nature doesn't distinguish between male and female. You can't appeal to shame because God required both male and femail Nazarites to grow their hair and then later to shave their hair equally.'
Paul is saying, 'Look, think, the customs surrounding hair are not God's customs -- they are man's.'
Paul gives another argument. "For her hair is given to her for a covering."
In the original Greek, the inspired Word doesn not say "given to her" but "given to one's own self" male or female. Nature has equally provided to all of us hair for a covering, and nothing additional is needed.
"But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God."
Paul's last argument against customs dealing with hair is his statement that neither do we, the apostles, nor do the churches of God have this custom.
Now let's go back and finish off the last piece of the puzzle to what used to be a difficult passage.
Let's look at Paul's usage of the term -- "head." The word for 'head' means "a head literally or figuratively."
|
|
Sharon Hargreave Guest
Guest
|
Post by Sharon Hargreave Guest on Jul 19, 2007 12:33:09 GMT -5
Cyril of Alexandria, one of the early church fathers, said the "head" meant "source" in 1 Corinthians chapter 11. "Thus we can say that the head of every man is Christ, for He was made by Him as God. But the head of woman is the man because she was taken out of his flesh; likewise the head of Christ is God, as He is of Him, by nature."
As the God-man, Christ already had God's nature. But He lived His human life by relying on His Father as His "source," instead of exercising His right to act independently as God. He did this so that He could live fully as a man here on earth.
Both John MacArthur and the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood say that "head" in this passage means "a hierarchical order" --- yet there is nothing in the context that implies "rulership." Head coverings are not a sign of subjection but a sign of modesty and humility because of the shame of sin.
For a man to wear a head covering does not show subjection and honour, but the very opposite. It shows dishonour.
John Lightfoot, a Hebrew scholar and expert in Jewish history said that the head covering was never a symbol of subjection. In this entire passage we found not even one verse that speaks about Christ's authority over the male. Odd, don't you think for a passage that is supposed to be about the levels of authority? We also found no verse that speaks about the authority of a man over a woman. The only mention of authority is in verse 10, where Paul says that the woman herself has the authority over her own head. Now isn't that strange? A passage that is supposed to be discussing authority and subjection has nothing to say about authority or subjection. What we do find in this passage is teaching on wise decisions, authority over one's own head, source or origin, and our interdependent equality.
Verse 16 ends the passage by saying that the apostles and the churches of God do not have a custom that requires head coverings. Our covering is Christ, and because He is our sin bearer, we need no other covering.
Let's go through some of the conclusions on this passage.
Paul is not saying that the woman SHOULD wear a veil, but that he ALLOWS her to wear the veil. Remember, Paul said "LET HER wear the veil. That's permission, not restriction.
If the covering is a divine symbol of submission, why isn't the man told to wear a head covering to symbolize his submission to Christ?
Instead, he is told he must not wear the covering. Why? Because the head covering is not a divine symbol of submission. It is a symbol of the shame of our sin and not appropriate for Christians who are freed from sin. I can understand that while complementarians* want 1 Corinthians 11 to be about man's preeminent rule over woman -- they cannot create a meaning for a veil that isn't historic. The veil for man and woman was only for modesty and because of the shame of sin.
There is no purpose of submission in the custom; and I repeat John Lighfoot's challenge, "Show me where the veil was a symbol of subjection."
The Bible says absolutely nothing about short hair being a symbol of divine domininion. That is reading into the passage something that is not there.
If God's principal is that men and women must have distinct hair lengths, how do you explain God's ordinance that commands men and women alike, who take the Nazarite vow, to stop cutting their hair, then later, both of them, to shave their hair? There is no commandment by God on the length of hair, except for the Nazarite vow.
If it is a mandate from Creation to wear a head covering while praying, let the complementarians* be consistent and keep their women's head covered. You can't have it both ways. Is it a mandate from creation or not? Am I following scripture now -- is God demanding this of me?
Let's be consistent in our interpretation and understand the inspired words in context.
There was a Jewish population in Corinth. Their oral laws required both the men and women to wear head covering. Both men and women wore a covering and because it signified the shame of sin. Paul put a stop to this tradition.
Scripture does not say that the man's hair must be shorter than his wife's. Paul had long hair and no hair at different times because he also took a Nazarite vow.
Paul said that not even nature teaches us that God has a rule for the length of our hair. If God hasn't given us a standard for the length of our hair, then to judge one another by how long or short the hair on our heads sounds suspiciously close to a legalistic MISinterpretation of Scripture.
Now, let's summarize this section with some questions.
In 1 Corinthians 11, did Paul ever demand that women wear a veil? NO
Did Paul ever say that the husband's hair MUST be shorter than the wife's? Or that short hair is a sign of divine dominion? NO.
Does Paul tell us in this passage, that the woman does not have the glory of God? NO.
How does Paul's discussion of the origin of man and woman show that all things ultimately originate with God?
What custom does Paul say that all the churches of God DO NOT HAVE?
If 1 Corinthians 11 is about chain of command, why are there no verses discussing the chain of command?
*************
* The word "complementarians" refers to those who discuss or debate various meanings of biblical words and theology.
|
|
|
Post by trigger on Jul 19, 2007 16:44:43 GMT -5
I've really enjoyed everyone's contributions to this post - I've laughed, smiled, gotten angry, and almost cried over what yu ladies have shared. I was only professing for 5 years, from agen 14 to 19, but like pretty much every professing female I endured my own trials with my hair. I always had bangs. My mom cut them on me when I was really really little for some unknown reason, perhaps because of my high forehead or large-ish ears - I don't know - but we lived in a rather "slack" area and she had bangs so I got them too and I think because I always had 'em no one ever said anything. Up until I was about 14 or 15 my hair was fairly long, not super-long, but mid-back and that seemed to be good enough. I think I was let off a little easy, though, because I came from a divided - and later divorced- home and I was kind of later in professing so everyone kind of tip-toed around me. Shortly after I professed my mom took me to the salon to get my hair "trimmed" (she wouldn't say "cut") because of the damage a bad perm had done to it (her idea as well, she thought I would look good with curly hair - mine was stick straight and lifeless - and I guess a perm was less evil) some of it was totally dead so she had the stylist cut that part off however it was more than she expected and I came out with hair to my collarbones. It felt great! After that taste of freedom my hair length fluctuated - I would grow it out to mid-back and then cut it, and so on. I recall one time when I had it cut particularly short ( just below my earlobes) I arrived at Sunday meeting with it down and people were aghast. The elder of the meeting would not even shake my hand. I felt absolutely horrible! The next Sunday I somehow, with the help of spray and pins and 2hrs in front of the mirror, managed to get my hair up and ya know what, everyone was so nice to me, even the wicked elder, he was all smiles and everything was cool. I was treated much better than I had been when I had long hair that I wore down. That's when I realized that it's not about truth, it's about appearance. Shortly after I quit going to meeting I cut my hair off really short, like 4 inches all over my head. It was so easy to do, I loved it, but I missed having long hair so started to grow it out again. Now it's about to my bra band and I want to keep growing it until it's to my waist or so, whatever feels comfortable. I've now come to see that my hair has nothing to do with my soul or my relationship with God - unless of course it's more important to me than God and spiritual things, which it was when I was professing - even when it was short it ran my life because I was always worried about what people would think, and when it was long I was proud of it and very vain, so I'm much better off now! My mother-in-law and sisters-in-law are professing so I still have a little window into that side of the hair issue. Mom-in-law has some of the prettiest hair I've ever seen, it's well down past her bum and the most lovely shade of silver, it's just gorgeous, and the 'do she winds it up in isn't bad, but she has that awful bald spot from the pins that just makes me want to weep when I lok at it. She's not a stickler for anyone else following "the rules", she pretty much minds her own business and does what she feels is right for her which I admire, but she is really stuck on the hair thing and eventhough I try to just respect that it's hard to understand. I guess a lot of it is just that she's always worn her hair like that and it's all she knows. I think she'd look great with it some other way, and I think she'd like it too, but it's none of my beeswax. My sisses-in-law both wear their hair in simple buns for everyday and more complex ones for Sundays but they're more modern in style and look pretty good. The one sis-in-law sometimes wears her hair down with the top piece up but not around other professing people, she buns it up right away in front of them. I feel really bad for these girls, especially the latter one, I hope that they will somehow come to their own conclusions and just be themselves. I myself now wear my hair up a lot because it's hot out and really annoying on the back of my neck and in my face all day. I also have grown my bangs out, so with them gone and my hair up and my lack of makeup (I just kind of got sick of it - plus I began to see my natural beauty and like it more than how I looked made up) I look quite professing except for my jeans and shorts and tank tops and jewelry. Hope no one thinks I'm making a comeback!
|
|
|
Post by scissor girl on Jul 19, 2007 16:52:40 GMT -5
I find it so interesting what is acceptable and what is not. For example, a professing girlfriend of mine in excellent standing has actually quite short hair but she is able to craft it into a bun that makes it look like so much more. The first time I saw her hair down I was shocked! Where was it all?!??!!! Her sister has the same thing down, her hair is no longer than just below her shoulders but the way she whips it up it looks really long and everyone thinks she is such a shining example. Crazy.
|
|
tms
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by tms on Jul 19, 2007 19:02:34 GMT -5
I find it so interesting what is acceptable and what is not. For example, a professing girlfriend of mine in excellent standing has actually quite short hair but she is able to craft it into a bun that makes it look like so much more. The first time I saw her hair down I was shocked! Where was it all?!??!!! Her sister has the same thing down, her hair is no longer than just below her shoulders but the way she whips it up it looks really long and everyone thinks she is such a shining example. Crazy. that is exactly the opposite of what Jesus wanted, he did not want the saints to judge each other by the outward appearance of things, yet that is EXACTLY what the friends and workers do ALL the time. I have yet to meet a friend from the friends and workers group who does not judge others by their outward appearance. didnt jesus talk about this issue with the parisees? I dont see how the Truth people are so blind to some scriptures that are so common that even non Christian people can understand them. Is this the blind leading the blind? Where in the Bible does it say, God will judge us by our bun or hair style/length? Please inform everyone,
|
|
Claire
Senior Member
Posts: 489
|
Post by Claire on Jul 20, 2007 3:08:05 GMT -5
... as she still is unable to go to a salon after all that bondage in her earlier years. how about getting a hairdresser to come to your home? that's what I've started to do, and so far it seems worth the extra expense... /c
|
|
|
Post by ali unlogged on Aug 24, 2007 20:44:45 GMT -5
This is kind of cute, so I'll share it. This summer we were spending some time with one of my professing relatives. I asked my little daughter.."How long do you think -----'s hair is? She replied (with a look of surprise)..."Her hair is short!!!" No, I said , "it's pinned up, it's actually very long!" Well, you should have seen her eyes pop out when she got to see how long this hair was that she had thought was short!
|
|