“(14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her…”

If you were to visit practically any gathering of the general population wherever they may assemble – a restaurant, a shopping center, a sporting event, or any venue of public concourse, it’s quite probable that most of the people in attendance are not Christian (at least not ICor. 11: 1-16 level Christian), and even less would concern themselves with Paul’s hair admonition even if they knew of it. Yet, there they are, short-haired men and long-haired (in relation to men) women. Just where do they get this idea? If your answer is, “It’s just nature”, you would be correct, God’s nature (It is instinctual, it is in the human DNA).

Still, what is the conscious reason why men cut their hair (short)? You can’t tell me all of the male population of the world would grow their hair long but for their willful deference to the biblical restraint – (“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” ICor. 11:14). Of course there are exceptions, but for the wide majority of men the world over, short or shorter/cut hair is the norm and considered to be characteristically masculine. WHY IS THIS??? If you were to acknowledge them concerning their biblical appearance, bringing glory to their head (Christ), many if not most would be dismissive at least.

And what about women? Why do completely unchurched women who literally have no clue about ICOR. 11: 1-16, and further, no interest in it, grow their hair long, longish, or at least longer than men’s hair? Why is this considered to be a natural female characteristic and what compels them to do this?

Concerning gendered hair lengths, there are secular theories having to do with the historically different roles males and females engaged in with regard to physical activities and work performance, with shortened hair being preferred by men as this better suited his more physical function in society. As a utilitarian behavior this is certainly plausible and “natural”, however faith practitioners should be careful not to confuse the cause (nature) with the effect (functionality).

In a previous post I mentioned the unique nature of the apostle Paul’s letters to the church at Corinth. Unlike the other church epistles, the letters to the Corinthians bore the intimate and detailed tone of a caring pastor. What, with his own involvement and admonition concerning their conflict and division issues, guidance concerning specific sexual deviance and promiscuity issues, legal issues, detailed and pragmatic marital issues, ministerial/church support issues, extensive instruction on spiritual gifting and church function, and sadly forced to appeal for proper respect from them for their own good, etc.

Perhaps Paul’s special affection for, and relationship to the church in Corinth is revealed in ICor 4:15 “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel”. Only to Corinth would Paul seemingly set aside his “Apostle of the Gentiles” hat and say things like “But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” ICor. 7:6 and “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:…” ICor. 7:12, and “…I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.” ICor. 7:25 and “I speak not by commandment…” IICor. 8:8, demonstrating his personal attachment, attending to their affairs as if he were family. Unlike the many other regions and cities Paul visited on his missionary journeys, he, with the direct encouragement of God, remained in Corinth for an extended period of time (year and a half, Acts 18: 9-11) founding their church, this no-doubt also accounting for his special fatherly interest in their welfare.

Perhaps geography played a role in the character development of the church at Corinth. Judean and even the northern assemblies were positioned more-or-less within a geographical sphere of influence of the primary church centers of Jerusalem and Antioch. However distant Corinth, situated on the far side of Athens, would not have historically been overly influenced with the traditional culture of Judea, but with the secular culture and traditions of Athens. As such it appears Corinth didn’t wrestle so much with the legalism of the Judaizers like the other churches, but with the perversions and idolatry of the “philosophers” and “intellectuals” of a historically heady and subtly toxic culture and the lunacy which that can produce. This condition of “distance” as mentioned above, could account for Paul’s special care of the church there; maybe the primitive church in Corinth needed leadership from a cultural “outsider” who could boastfully say “…the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” ICor. 3:19. Recall that Paul also contended with the “man’s wisdom” issue head-on in ICor. ch.’s 1, 2 and somewhat in 3.

One of the issues that Paul addresses exclusively with the Corinthians, at least in the biblical record, is the issue of God’s natural order concerning headship (ICor. 11:3 “…the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”). Paul details how this natural scheme is reflected in the differing lengths of men’s and women’s hair, and particularly when engaging Christ (“praying or prophesying”), thus subordinately acknowledging one’s head, that is, the one above them in God’s natural order (ICor. 11: 8-9).

It is asserted by highly regarded and godly men, Bible scholars, older, wiser and more studied than myself, that in writing to the Corinthians about the headship/hair length issue, Paul was responding to certain specific conditions on the ground in Corinth regarding various idolatrous practices infiltrating the church there. Apparently one of the effects of this infiltration was demonstrated by the disregard of one’s proper hair length appropriate to their gender role in the natural order (headship) and particularly with regard to church/devotional behavior (praying/prophesying).

Giving us wider insight into the spiritual conditions present in the church in Corinth, it’s instructive to reference another notable situation there, this involving sexual deviancy. Paul declared, “Now, it is actually being said that there is sexual immorality among you so terrible that not even the heathen would be guilty of it. I am told that a man is sleeping with his stepmother!” ICor. 5:1, (GNT). I mention this passage to indicate that, along with other conditions present in the Corinthian church which demonstrate a deficiency of godly spirituality, unique and even outlandish conditions existed there. With this being the case, it is not a stretch to imagine that such eccentricities could be observed in their unnatural, head-disrespecting hair lengths.

Whatever the case in Corinth, it is a little curious that such an item would rise to “The” apostle’s level. However, perhaps seeing the unseemly deviation from proper, natural norms, but unable to reference any sound resource with which to regulate it, local leadership punted. This is conjecture, but if so, Paul returned said punt for a touchdown.

ICor. 11:1-16 “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. (2) Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. (3) But 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. (4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. (5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. (6) For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. (8) For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. (9) Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (10) For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (11) Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. (12) For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (13) Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? (14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (15) But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. (16) But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”

Apropos for our times, Paul’s instruction is also a discourse on, among other things, gender distinction. Just as God created two genders, so the natural instinct regarding hair length of each gender, in accordance with the Creator’s design, inherently manifests and should be respected. And as we have already mentioned, this being a natural expression of authentic gender identity, most are unwittingly in compliance with God’s natural ordinance. That is, Paul’s instruction, correcting an aberrant behavior does not introduce a new and uniquely exclusive church doctrine, but a correction restoring to nature’s norms. As demonstrated in ICor. 5:1, the carnal and libertine Corinthians were capable of unconventional behavior, even by the world’s standards.

The above scripture selection (ICor. 11: 1-16), addressed to the “free spirits” at Corinth, represents the only biblical text addressing what appears to be an exclusive, excessive, and rare situation. And again, it appears that Paul was simply addressing a localized behavioral deficiency in Corinth, rather than instituting a unique church doctrine. However, the hair issue is such an inordinate obsession in much of today’s Apostolic Pentecostal church that one would think it was addressed in chapter one, verse one of every New Testament epistle. Of course, the opposite is the case, it being mentioned singularly, addressing an aberrant behavior in what appears to be a somewhat shallow and carnal church (ICor. 3: 1-3). One would also think that with the absence of any mention anywhere else within the Bible, doctrinaires would take pause as to its lesson, however there are many of the “concision” who never met a fleshly surface issue they didn’t like; with a Pharisee’s scrutiny and a Pitbull’s ferocity accusers patrol, measuring tape in hand.

(To be continued)