Women's Role

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They are not ignoring what Paul wrote.

11*
1Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.

This is the context. Paul practiced what he preached, and what he is preaching was what he learned by imitating Jesus Christ.

2Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.

He is admonishing us to “hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you”. If there is an important tradition that we should hold fast then he has delivered that tradition to us.

3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Jesus Christ is the head of every man, not Witness Lee or some other wannabe MOTA. The “head of the woman is the man” which indicates the two are one body. The head of Christ is God — Paul was imitating Jesus in how he practiced and taught the matter of headship.

4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. 5But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.

If you allow Witness Lee or any other man to “cover your head” when praying or prophesying you are dishonoring Jesus Christ, your head. If Jesus tells you no lawsuits against Christians but you ignore that because of Witness Lee or some other usurper, that is to dishonor Jesus Christ, the head of the Body. This is equivalent to the church, the Bride of Christ, having her head unveiled. However, if everything in the church is in good order, then the all of the saints would listen to the head, and as a sign that this is the case the women would cover their heads. This is a testimony by the sister that her husband is submissive to Jesus Christ, the head. Therefore it is a simple matter for her to also have her head covered.

6For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.

It is not a shame to stand up to Witness Lee and his profligate son, PL, like JI did. In this case it is better to be shorn or shaved. In the LRC we thought we were nazarite, but once the sordid truth is revealed then the truth is your vow has been broken, you need to shave and start afresh. Today we use the expression “come clean”. JI book was his shaving and being shorn. Likewise with a sister. If she is going to enter the marriage vow it includes submission to her husband. If she decides it is better to “come clean” of that vow then be shaved and shorn — i.e. divorce.

7For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: 9for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: 10for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

It is a glory to the husband that his wife submits to him, this is her honoring her husband. If he is submitting to Christ as head she should have no issue doing this. But, if she has an issue with submitting to him, if she has an issue with honoring him, then not wearing a head covering is that sign, similar to raising the American flag upside down.

11Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord. 12For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.

They both have to under the headship of Christ. The woman’s head covering is a testimony that this is the case with her and her husband. This chapter is a very simple way for a sister to signal that there is a serious problem at home. This tradition empowers the sisters. The husband needs that testimony and it is up to her whether or not she gives it.

13Judge ye [a]in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled? 14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

The male lion has the mane, not the female. Among birds most of the males are the ones with the spectacular plumage. However, in warfare with men they have crew cuts so that the enemy cannot pull their hair during a fight. So, when you see a man with a crew cut you think warrior, whereas when you see a man with long flowing locks you realize “not a warrior”.

15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Women on the other hand very rarely have crew cuts. On the contrary we associate “hair dresser” with women, “getting your hair done” with women, etc.

16But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

If you want to imitate Paul in honoring Jesus Christ as your head you would hold fast this tradition. If this is not your goal, then forget it, we don’t have any such custom. We do not have the custom of women wearing doilies on their head in some meaningless, empty tradition. We do not have the custom of putting little pieces of cloth on your head if there is not also the reality of honoring your head and giving a testimony to the Angels that you and your husband are under the headship of Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

11*
1Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.This is the context. Paul practiced what he preached, and what he is preaching was what he learned by imitating Jesus Christ.

What you wrote seems reasonable to me, except the part about warriors with short hair which is not correct, sort of half true. Although its correct that some armies cut their hair short, there is also a lot that didn't.

Native Americans, Spartans, Vikings, celts, Alexander the Great and ancient Greeks, the Three Muskeeters (lol), Blackbeard the pirate (lol), Chinese boxers, and many others wore their hair long, in battle. Long hair was a symbol, like power and wealth. It seems that the enemy not being able to pull their hair during a fight was not much of a consideration, especially in the age of weapons. Most soldiers would be holding a weapon and shield. I can't imagine much hair pulling happening unless they had lost their weapon and as a last resort.

The Romans cut their hair short however, they were smarter I guess. But long hair could also provide additional cushioning under a helmet, and could provide a psychological advantage - men with big or long hair are scarier. So I think this is why many men kept their hair long, as well as attracting the ladies after the battle.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you wrote seems reasonable to me, except the part about warriors with short hair which is not correct, sort of half true. Although its correct that some armies cut their hair short, there is also a lot that didn't.

Excellent, you must have a better explanation then for Paul's word about how nature teaches us that if a man have long hair it is a shame to him.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Excellent, you must have a better explanation then for Paul's word about how nature teaches us that if a man have long hair it is a shame to him.

You are as bad a Lee at generalizing everything beyond its context.

Paul is speaking into a particular context and culture, not universally. We like to think that everything is generally applicable because we have and read all the letters. But they were not just random writings to whoever saying anything that was universally applicable in all cases. When Paul wrote concerning the customs and norms of certain areas, it would appear that he was concerned that the church should not be iconoclast or weird with respect to things that were of no important moral distinction. So if the custom is short hair on a man, don't buck the trend. If it was otherwise, then that was OK.

In any case, long hair on a man was not always and in all cases a shame to a man. For starters, if it was always a shame, then how could Absalom find anyone to follow him in his rebellion against his father, David, if his very being was a shame to him (as evidenced by the fact that he had enough hair to get it caught in a tree). I guess maybe there could have been a middle-eastern hippie generation at that time with a bunch hanging out at the corner of Haight and Babylon streets in lower Jerusalem.

And if it was not always so, then it is a serious doubt that it became so in the NT. At least as a general rule.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

You are as bad a Lee at generalizing everything beyond its context.

Paul is speaking into a particular context and culture, not universally. We like to think that everything is generally applicable because we have and read all the letters. But they were not just random writings to whoever saying anything that was universally applicable in all cases. When Paul wrote concerning the customs and norms of certain areas, it would appear that he was concerned that the church should not be iconoclast or weird with respect to things that were of no important moral distinction. So if the custom is short hair on a man, don't buck the trend. If it was otherwise, then that was OK.

In any case, long hair on a man was not always and in all cases a shame to a man. For starters, if it was always a shame, then how could Absalom find anyone to follow him in his rebellion against his father, David, if his very being was a shame to him (as evidenced by the fact that he had enough hair to get it caught in a tree). I guess maybe there could have been a middle-eastern hippie generation at that time with a bunch hanging out at the corner of Haight and Babylon streets in lower Jerusalem.

And if it was not always so, then it is a serious doubt that it became so in the NT. At least as a general rule.

So then, if I understand you correctly, the explanation for "doesn't nature teach us that if a man has long hair it is a shame to him" is not referring to nature but tradition, and not to a universal tradition, but one that was narrow both in time and place? The apostle with the ministry to the gentiles. That is your explanation?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, if I understand you correctly, the explanation for "doesn't nature teach us that if a man has long hair it is a shame to him" is not referring to nature but tradition, and not to a universal tradition, but one that was narrow both in time and place? The apostle with the ministry to the gentiles. That is your explanation?

The problem is that such a statement is not really about what nature teaches us, but what culture (certain culture v other culture) teaches us. I am unable to find anything that makes the length of a man's hair a "shame" as a matter of nature.

So no matter how dogmatic many have wanted to be about things over the centuries, it is not "evident" that Paul made a statement that was actually universal as opposed to cultural. Then why did he say that? Because the culture into which he was speaking probably considered their cultural norms to be more a matter of the way of nature than it really was. Do you think Paul would have gained any ground telling them that their culture was just an opinion when they held it as the way it was ordained by nature? That could have been almost as bad as declaring that Caesar was not a god.

Might Paul, at another time, possibly taken time to reason with those same people about how much a belief like that was not grounded in nature, but only in the established patterns of their culture? Especially if they were being confronted with new believers in their midst who were not of their culture and men had long hair. Just like he did with respect to gentiles v Jews.

If long hair on a man was a shame as a matter of nature, then the earliest men were all shames because there was a time when the ability to cut hair was either limited or non-existent. It is facts like this that make broad universal claims based on one comment into a particular culture questionable, at best.

But then some will find arguments that men have cut their hair since the days of Adam, just like they declare that all that wine consumed in the Bible was unfermented grape juice.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is that such a statement is not really about what nature teaches us, but what culture (certain culture v other culture) teaches us. I am unable to find anything that makes the length of a man's hair a "shame" as a matter of nature.

If, as it has been suggested by one or two different posts, nature refers to human nature and not nature as a whole then there is some basis here.

1. Males are larger than females suggesting a role in fighting.
2. Male skulls are thicker and better suited to fighting than female skulls, suggesting a role in fighting.
3. Male hormones predispose males to agression and fighting.
4. Statistically a human population could reproduce and grow much quicker if they lose some males in battles rather than females. Once again suggesting that the male role, in part, is battle.

Yes, Absalom had long hair, but that only proves the point. He died by getting his hair caught in the trees and was a sitting duck for David's men to kill. That death was shameful.

US doctrine on crew cuts for warriors is based on solid analysis for what works best and has nothing to do with culture. We have US citizens from every culture on this planet.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Excellent, you must have a better explanation then for Paul's word about how nature teaches us that if a man have long hair it is a shame to him.

Evangelical, when are you going to give us your insight?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Evangelical, when are you going to give us your insight?

Thanks for the reminder.

It's not that clear what Paul meant by "nature". "second nature" is a likely interpretation and that speaking of a cultural tradition at the time.

I don't think it means anything from the animal world, because there is such diversity and there are little examples to think about where a male has short hair and female has long hair.

Jewish and Greek culture at the time favored short hair. So I think "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?" can be interpreted to mean

"does not even our own Jewish or Greek traditions tell us that having long hair is a dishonor to him".

Nazarites were the exception of course.

[UntoHim]

Ok, I think the whole head covering and hair length thing has run it's course. Lets move on to bigger and better things, shall we?
-

[John]

Since we’ve been scrutinizing biblical requirements for Christian women down to the level of what’s on their heads, maybe we should also take a look at how the men measure up. Since this forum is about the Local Church, what better person to begin with than with Witness Lee?

Question: Does Witness Lee measure up to the requirements in 1st Timothy 3:

• Blameless? No.
• Husband of one wife? No.
• Of good behavior? No.
• Not greedy of filthy lucre? No.
• Patient? No.
• One having his children in subjection? No.
• Of good report of them that are without? No.

I suppose that one could evade by stating that the requirements for an apostle aren’t as stringent as those for an elder. Maybe, but it tells me something when the leader didn’t even measure up to the requirements for an elder (and probably not even a deacon)!