Church Fathers Opinion of Hair

[Praxeas]

If Hermeneutics tells us history helps in interpreting scripture....why don't the protestants all go back to the RCC who have more history than they do?

[SeekingOne]

TheLegalist, in my opinion nobody is trying to justify changing the principles of modesty in culture. If you have read any of my posts, you know that I do NOT claim to be a scholar and do not want to get into a debate. I have just recently started studying all this myself. That said, my response is below.

If you read all the "stuff" in other threads and go to some of the links you will see that many believe that Paul was respecting the culture in the Corinthian churches and such. For instance, he spoke against those expecting gentiles to be circumcised and then required Luke, I think it was, to be circumcised because of the "culture" of the area they were going to visit.

So, for some it stands to reason that we need to respect the culture at large that we are visiting and living in. Not to say that we become like the worst of society! I guarantee that my unsaved, smoking and drinking friends know what is modest and what is not modest. (Not according to UPC, but according to the majority of US society.)

They would say that low cut blouses, tight clothing and such are a stumbling block for both men and women. Men know what "turns them on" and so do women. Both know how to dress if they want to get the attention of the opposite sex. ;-)

Now in response to the question for this thread...

Everything goes back to opinion, of course, but I agree that the scriptures they refer to are suggesting that women should not adorn themselves for attention and that trying to change the way God made us to look and the natural aging process that God also caused (due to sin in the beginning in my opinion) is not pleasing to God.

That said, I DO NOT think that we should make heaven or hell issues out of things that God did not make as heaven or hell issues. We each need to pray and be open to God speaking to us personally about what we should wear, where we should go etc.

I am not sure where to mention this in my post, but it still strikes me funny when we discuss the hair issue and don't recognize what Paul is saying about the veils. Just as these articles are saying, a veil is a covering, a complete covering. So if we are going to get into legalism, we need to forget the hair stuff because it would not be seen. LOL

Also, if Paul were saying that women should always wear a veil, then why mention not braiding the hair and putting ornaments in it since nobody would be able to see their hair? Oops, I guess that would be a question for another thread.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by SeekingOne

....

Everything goes back to opinion, of course, but I agree that the scriptures they refer to are suggesting that women should not adorn themselves for attention and that trying to change the way God made us to look and the natural aging process that God also caused (due to sin in the beginning in my opinion) is not pleasing to God.

....

Good post! I agree with everything said but am wondering about the above paragraph?

So you do not think it is ok to look younger (or try to look overall better)?

Actually, maybe we shouldn't get into this since it takes the discussion too far from the original topic..... (A "tangent" to those living in Rio Linda)

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by SeekingOne

TheLegalist, in my opinion nobody is trying to justify changing the principles of modesty in culture. If you have read any of my posts, you know that I do NOT claim to be a scholar and do not want to get into a debate. I have just recently started studying all this myself. That said, my response is below.

If you read all the "stuff" in other threads and go to some of the links you will see that many believe that Paul was respecting the culture in the Corinthian churches and such. For instance, he spoke against those expecting gentiles to be circumcised and then required Luke, I think it was, to be circumcised because of the "culture" of the area they were going to visit.

So, for some it stands to reason that we need to respect the culture at large that we are visiting and living in. Not to say that we become like the worst of society! I guarantee that my unsaved, smoking and drinking friends know what is modest and what is not modest. (Not according to UPC, but according to the majority of US society.)

They would say that low cut blouses, tight clothing and such are a stumbling block for both men and women. Men know what "turns them on" and so do women. Both know how to dress if they want to get the attention of the opposite sex. ;-)

Now in response to the question for this thread...

Everything goes back to opinion, of course, but I agree that the scriptures they refer to are suggesting that women should not adorn themselves for attention and that trying to change the way God made us to look and the natural aging process that God also caused (due to sin in the beginning in my opinion) is not pleasing to God.

That said, I DO NOT think that we should make heaven or hell issues out of things that God did not make as heaven or hell issues. We each need to pray and be open to God speaking to us personally about what we should wear, where we should go etc.

I am not sure where to mention this in my post, but it still strikes me funny when we discuss the hair issue and don't recognize what Paul is saying about the veils. Just as these articles are saying, a veil is a covering, a complete covering. So if we are going to get into legalism, we need to forget the hair stuff because it would not be seen. LOL

Also, if Paul were saying that women should always wear a veil, then why mention not braiding the hair and putting ornaments in it since nobody would be able to see their hair? Oops, I guess that would be a question for another thread.

Who said the veil covered all of the hair? Also who said wearing veils all the time was necessary? The text says praying and prophecying? Otherwise in Spiritual order to God. Thus I think your points lack textual support.

Concerning your other points... They don't deal with text itself. Paul does not give that form or type of reasoning at all. I have read and reasearched the arguments from both sides and been through formal debate after formal debate. To each his own but in the end it is God who we must seek 1st and his will. I cannot justify the reasoning of others that make the text not for today. It doesn't say that nor even hint to such.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Who said the veil covered all of the hair? Also who said wearing veils all the time was necessary? The text says praying and prophecying? Otherwise in Spiritual order to God. Thus I think your points lack textual support.

Concerning your other points... They don't deal with text itself. Paul does not give that form or type of reasoning at all. I have read and reasearched the arguments from both sides and been through formal debate after formal debate. To each his own but in the end it is God who we must seek 1st and his will. I cannot justify the reasoning of others that make the text not for today. It doesn't say that nor even hint to such.

I would think one would want to be able to pray at any time. I can't imagine God removing all the trappings of the OT law that stood between common man and Him, and then replacing it with a law that tells women they can't pray unless they cover their heads. What if no headcovering is available? I suppose a woman could put her hand on her head in order to cover it appropriately....

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I would think one would want to be able to pray at any time. I can't imagine God removing all the trappings of the OT law that stood between common man and Him, and then replacing it with a law that tells women they can't pray unless they cover their heads. What if no headcovering is available? I suppose a woman could put her hand on her head in order to cover it appropriately....

God is merciful! David ate when he was not supposed to of the bread. Did not change the point of order though. Many things ae in our way before God.... We must do as he says and negate the other distractions that would keep us from doing his will and give all to him. God is a God of order and we stand before God anew in this covenant in which we are blessed. Thus as partakers we stand before God unique as never before.

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I would think one would want to be able to pray at any time. I can't imagine God removing all the trappings of the OT law that stood between common man and Him, and then replacing it with a law that tells women they can't pray unless they cover their heads. What if no headcovering is available? I suppose a woman could put her hand on her head in order to cover it appropriately....

Also the righteousness of God was between God and man which was due to man's sinfulness and the weakness of us through the flesh. His "law" was holy, righteous an Good. He did not remove the "trappings" of righteousness! He removed our sin of which the law pointed.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

If Hermeneutics tells us history helps in interpreting scripture....why don't the protestants all go back to the RCC who have more history than they do?

It helps, it's not the end-all. It's one of many: historical context at the time, general history, what did it mean then, what does it mean now, etc...

RCC has been helpful with some historical verification. We use it often as a help for many of our commentaries. Not all are formally RCC, though maybe claimed as such. For example, Eusebius was a historian.

[SeekingOne]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

Who said the veil covered all of the hair? Also who said wearing veils all the time was necessary? The text says praying and prophecying? Otherwise in Spiritual order to God. Thus I think your points lack textual support.

Concerning your other points... They don't deal with text itself. Paul does not give that form or type of reasoning at all. I have read and reasearched the arguments from both sides and been through formal debate after formal debate. To each his own but in the end it is God who we must seek 1st and his will. I cannot justify the reasoning of others that make the text not for today. It doesn't say that nor even hint to such.

Hey, we agree! Most people get off on the veil hair thing and somehow think hair is the covering Paul was talking about, and thus think they have to have long uncut hair all the time, when he was talking about something that covered their head when they prayed and prophesied. It is all so confusing what people do with that scripture I can't even make heads or tails of it to type it out here. LOL

Anything I type that is wrong will be no surprise. I get a lot of things wrong. I am old, forgetful and have a hard time getting a lot of things correct.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

So this reasoning for contempt of scripture is based on what? Paul does not give such reasoning and his foundation is not based on culture in the text but Spiritual prinicples of God witnessed and verified by the Apostle himself. Whether you agree it's hair or veiling or both... Little reasoning can be given to it doesn't apply today from the text. That would be reasoning external to the text itself.

Also who justified changing such principles of modesty in culture was right? If we want to get into warranted reasons for excluding we can also give for modesty and love for inclusion more which are principle based. Even more so in this perverted lustful generation.

Are you sure about that? What makes you certain that his appeal transcended culture?

It most certainly applies today, the question is how. To understand that, one needs to understand what it mean then first and foremost. As I understand it, the principle is that while we are a sub-culture, we ought not be counter-cultural. Additionally, the church should not be associated with things today that general society abhors. The church should co-exist and be a positive in society, not a rival to it. In the world, just not of it (in terms of core values, ideas, beliefs, etc...) We win the world by making disciples.