Women's Role

[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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

5 sentences and a list of 4 items, none of which actually address what I said. The fact that crew cuts work best for modern soldiers has nothing to do with whether it is a shame for a man to have long hair.

And rather than proving the point, the fact that Absalom died because of his long hair (indirectly) does not say anything about long hair being a shame. To say otherwise is strictly spin.

[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)!

[ZNPaaneah]

I think it is an excellent comparison that everyone should measure up to. Yes, you can still be a prophet or apostle or evangelist if you were a major failure in this area, but one would hope that your repentance was central to your ministry, which of course it was not with WL.

Everyone values "the vision" over these qualifications. That is why they are easily deceived. If your wife has a testimony against you, or your kids, or those in the community why are you ignoring that? Because of the siren song of the sales pitch -- "vision of the age", etc., etc.

[Evangelical]

I think ZNP is wrong that an elder must be married because of this:

https://www.gotquestions.org/unmarri...con-elder.html

The issue is not the elder’s or deacon’s marital status, but his moral and sexual purity.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by 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)!

Even Abraham, Moses, David or Solomon would not measure up.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Even Abraham, Moses, David or Solomon would not measure up.

The comparison is only partial. At least they repented of their sin.

Lee lived it and defended it. Lee was like David being confronted by Nathan and having Nathan executed for daring to speak up.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Even Abraham, Moses, David or Solomon would not measure up.

Moses? Why? Because 40 years prior to God speaking to him he sinned?

There is absolutely no way to imply that Paul was saying that sinners saved by grace were ineligible.