Women's Hair and Racial Exclusion? )! Corinthians 11:14-15)

[MysticMissMisty]

In my opinion, you might just be over thinking it a bit too much, for the most part based on one simple word.

Totally don’t mean to be disrespectful. You seem to be coming from a good place here. However, we must remember that people chose to use particular words for particular reasons, even ifthese reasons may be completely “unconscious” (in the sense of more natural/below-the-surface mental processing). Whether we are completely conscious of our word choice or whether we are more conscious of the whole thought and less so of the individual words chosen, still, our mind chooses them for some reason. So, I believe, each word is quite important! I speak as both a student of (classical) literature and an “amateur” student of human nature with a passing knowledge of basic psychology informed to varying degrees by my own experience and that of others, ancient and modern.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Nature is not necessarily universal. Some things relate to the nature of men and women, for example, and one could also derive from the nature of authority.

With your reference to the nature of men, I do believe that you’re making the same or at least a similar point as the previous poster. It indeed seems that we’re at least coming to somewhat a consensus (at least here) as to our understanding of the passage.

 

[ericc]

Why I did may, in fact, be a simple misunderstanding of the word “nature” here, which is easy enough to do. For, “nature”, without qualification, very often signifies Nature, as in the whole of the world and its natural laws or, at least, what we today refer to as the “natural” (non-man-made) world.

Paul’s understanding of “nature” is dependent on his societal upbringing and environment. One can not project his understanding of “nature” to be universal. Another culture , another race even at similar time frame as Paul will not have the same understanding universally. There are other races/cultures where males do have long hair. Paul couldn’t have meant or known that universally that man must have short hair and women long in order to be proper. He would have been very wrong then. Even where cultures where both men and women wears long hair, the two sexes do differentiate the sexes via hairstyles thus making themselves distinguishable.

Modern folks may take offense at some of Paul’s words but if read and understood situationally, Paul word’s would not have cause any offense. Choice of words must be understood relative to the audience, time, culture. It remains true today.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Paul’s understanding of “nature” is dependent on his societal upbringing and environment. One can not project his understanding of “nature” to be universal. Another culture , another race even at similar time frame as Paul will not have the same understanding universally. There are other races/cultures where males do have long hair. Paul couldn’t have meant or known that universally that man must have short hair and women long in order to be proper. He would have been very wrong then. Even where cultures where both men and women wears long hair, the two sexes do differentiate the sexes via hairstyles thus making themselves distinguishable.

Modern folks may take offense at some of Paul’s words but if read and understood situationally, Paul word’s would not have cause any offense. Choice of words must be understood relative to the audience, time, culture. It remains true today.

You are seeming to say that Paul’s writing is here influenced by a misconceived notion that what was actually a cultural issue he erroneously makes a universal. Wouldn’t this call into question the inerrancy of Scripture? After all, his (albeit disciplinary) statement about women veiling is based on “nature” (whatever that may mean) “teaching” us that a woman’s long hair is her glory. What are we, then, to do about the inspiration of this text?

 

[spiderweb]

You are seeming to say that Paul’s writing is here influenced by a misconceived notion that what was actually a cultural issue he erroneously makes a universal. Wouldn’t this call into question the inerrancy of Scripture? After all, his (albeit disciplinary) statement about women veiling is based on “nature” (whatever that may mean) “teaching” us that a woman’s long hair is her glory. What are we, then, to do about the inspiration of this text?

It seems possible that what Paul was saying could be indeed both culturally and universally true to the people that he was writing to at that time, which was specifically the people in Corinth and possibly the surrounding geographical areas. This does not mean that it was necessarily culturally or universally true for all people everywhere in the world even at that time.

As Catholics, we look at the literal interpretation as meaning the idea that the author was trying to convey. With that understanding, there is no problem with the inspiration of this text.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

As Catholics, we look at the literal interpretation as meaning the idea that the author was trying to convey. With that understanding, there is no problem with the inspiration of this text.

Ahhhh. Having read so many statements speaking of Paul’s statement as culturally-relative, I was starting to wonder if I had a correct understanding of how Catholics viewed this kind of thing in terms of their definitions of inspiration/inerrancy. Now, this is starting to make more sense! Indeed, this actually allows for much more “wiggle room” when it comes to other controversies similar to this kind.

So, then, just to be clear, what you are saying is that, even though Paul himself may have thought the notion of women having long hair to be a universal thing, it didn’t have truly to be universal for the general idea of the passage to hold true, and, thus, for inspiration / inerrancy(?) to hold? Indeed, is the definition of Sacred Scripture’s “inerrancy” seen in a similar light as is how you are seem to be defining “inspiration” above?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Might St Paul be talking about the fact that women take care of fheir hair and do things with it to make it more beautiful? That seems to me to be the nature part: that it is a woman’s nature to do things wjth her hair.

OTOH, men ought not to fuss wjth their hair–they should keep it short. Why? Possibly because it is in men’s nature to fight, for example, if a man and a woman are tgether and they are attacked, the natural thing is for the man to fight and the woman to be protected. So men do 't really have the luxury, because of their nature, to have long hair because an enemy can grab it in a fight.

Plus, most people would think that a man who is even only half as fussy about his hair as the average woman is a bit woman-ish, no?

So I don’t think it is the length of hair per se that St Paul is talking about, but the fact that a woman’s hair adds to her beauty and when men have long hair, it takes away from their maculinity.
Consider what was said to those long-haired hippie men in the 1960s

This may have been a sort of real-life example he was using to convey some idea rather than a “rule” in and of itself. Women should hang back more in church than men–why? Because it is men’s nature to act and not to reflect, reflection needs more development in men because it doesn’t come as naturally to them. When I consider how the men have disappeared from our churches since we started treating men and women more the same, it makes me think maybe St Paul had a point there!

I want to mention that St Paul does not seem to have said long flowing locks, just long hair for women as opposed to short hair for men. Older women often have a lot of trouble with maintaining any sort of length to their hair, and there are women who go bald as well as men. This is why I think that he was, in a way, not really talking about hair lenth as the measure of beauty or feminity, but using it as an example for something more internal.

Jesus had long hair, John the Baptist had long hair. It was considered manly to have long hair back then. Also in the Nazarites were forbidden to cut their hair. Samson lost his power when Delilah cut his hair.

In Paul’s time it was fashionable for men to have short hair and women to have long hair in the Greek culture he was in. It all boils down to the culture and fashion of the times.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Ahhhh. Having read so many statements speaking of Paul’s statement as culturally-relative, I was starting to wonder if I had a correct understanding of how Catholics viewed this kind of thing in terms of their definitions of inspiration/inerrancy. Now, this is starting to make more sense! Indeed, this actually allows for much more “wiggle room” when it comes to other controversies similar to this kind.

So, then, just to be clear, what you are saying is that, even though Paul himself may have thought the notion of women having long hair to be a universal thing, it didn’t have truly to be universal for the general idea of the passage to hold true, and, thus, for inspiration / inerrancy(?) to hold? Indeed, is the definition of Sacred Scripture’s “inerrancy” seen in a similar light as is how you are seem to be defining “inspiration” above?

I don’t think Catholics think the Bible is inerrant. We believe in a lot of tradition too. (And common sense which you seem to be lacking )

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I don’t think Catholics think the Bible is inerrant. We believe in a lot of tradition too. (And common sense which you seem to be lacking )

Totally get that you weren’t trying to be malicious or anything when making the comment.

Still, sometimes I think so-called “common sense” is quite over-rated. To me, “common sense” reflects, to a large degree the various cultural/societal norms of a particular time and the great degree of influence they have on the majority of people living in that time. Sometimes, I think, such influence can blind us more than give us insight. Over on another thread, I was discussing demonic influence and largely got criticized for not having so-called “common sense”. It does seem that, today, due to the influence of secularism/rationalism, even many Christian communities downplay demonic influence in the world. Majority so-called “common sense” in and of itself does not necessarily make an idea correct. Many, many examples can be cited to back this up. Let us not use “common sense” as exclusive or even the most important evidence in defending our positions. Let us look at stronger evidence, say, from logic, texts and traditions.

Again, not trying to be mean. I wouldn’t’ve brought this up had I not thought it was a good point to make here and would be good for us to keep in mind, especially when discussing controversial issues. Let us not dismiss someone’s questions just because they seem to violate so-called “common sense”.

 

[spiderweb]

I don’t think Catholics think the Bible is inerrant. We believe in a lot of tradition too.

That depends on what you mean by the word inerrant.

The doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council in Dei Verbum, is that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Totally get that you weren’t trying to be malicious or anything when making the comment.

Still, sometimes I think so-called “common sense” is quite over-rated. To me, “common sense” reflects, to a large degree the various cultural/societal norms of a particular time and the great degree of influence they have on the majority of people living in that time. Sometimes, I think, such influence can blind us more than give us insight. Over on another thread, I was discussing demonic influence and largely got criticized for not having so-called “common sense”. It does seem that, today, due to the influence of secularism/rationalism, even many Christian communities downplay demonic influence in the world. Majority so-called “common sense” in and of itself does not necessarily make an idea correct. Many, many examples can be cited to back this up. Let us not use “common sense” as exclusive or even the most important evidence in defending our positions. Let us look at stronger evidence, say, from logic, texts and traditions.

Again, not trying to be mean. I wouldn’t’ve brought this up had I not thought it was a good point to make here and would be good for us to keep in mind, especially when discussing controversial issues. Let us not dismiss someone’s questions just because they seem to violate so-called “common sense”.

Not trying to be mean either. But you do seem to cherry pick lines out of the Bible and try to apply much more significance to them than they warrant.

It’s pretty obvious that Paul thought the style of the day in Greek culture was the best style. He seems to have rather oblivious to the rest of the world, which is totally understandable.

 

[MarkInOregon]

All good points.

I would still appreciate an answer as to why Paul (seemingly) appeals to “nature” (physis). Nature is made by God. Nature is universal. Thus, when nature is invoked as an argument, it is invoked with a view to its universality and to its universal laws as created by God, not with a view to some culturally-relativist notion. (Not to say that this is always a bad thing.) Nevertheless, I still have a problem with his appeal to “physis”.

What answer shall we give to this point specifically?

But we live in a fallen world.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[ericc]

You are seeming to say that Paul’s writing is here influenced by a misconceived notion that what was actually a cultural issue he erroneously makes a universal. Wouldn’t this call into question the inerrancy of Scripture? After all, his (albeit disciplinary) statement about women veiling is based on “nature” (whatever that may mean) “teaching” us that a woman’s long hair is her glory. What are we, then, to do about the inspiration of this text?

There is no inerrancy. It is a true statement of Paul’s time and culture. There are many other verses that we no longer observe but does not make the Scriptures inerrant such as:

1 Cor 11:13
1 Cor 14:34-35
2 Cor 13:12

What was read to the Corinthians in around 55AD does not mean that mean that it must be true universally or for all times, especially for cultural related verses. After all, we should not expect head coverings to be valid worldwide and for all times and for all cultures.