A response to Bernard's views on women's hair: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Top of Page}} | {{Top of Page}} | ||
{{Template:Bernard Legalism}} | |||
= Rebuttal of Bernard's Position on Women's Uncut Hair = | = Rebuttal of Bernard's Position on Women's Uncut Hair = | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
The heart of Bernard's argument is verse 14: "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?" He reads "nature" here as an appeal to the created order, to something God has built permanently into the fabric of human existence. Because "nature" teaches it, the distinction is universal and binding in all cultures and times. | The heart of Bernard's argument is verse 14: "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?" He reads "nature" here as an appeal to the created order, to something God has built permanently into the fabric of human existence. Because "nature" teaches it, the distinction is universal and binding in all cultures and times. | ||
Fee dismantles this reading directly. He writes: "Paul is not arguing that men ''must'' wear their hair short, or that women ''must'' have long hair, as though 'nature' meant some kind of 'created order.'" Fee explains what Paul does mean: "it is a question of propriety and of 'custom' (vv. 13, 16), which carries with it 'disgrace' or 'glory' (vv. 14–15). Hence, this is an appeal to the 'way things are,' which the NIV translators have rightly put into a corresponding English idiom ('the nature of things'), that is, to the 'natural feeling' that he and they shared together as part of their contemporary culture." | Fee dismantles this reading directly. He writes: "Paul is not arguing that men ''must'' wear their hair short, or that women ''must'' have long hair, as though 'nature' meant some kind of 'created order.'" Fee explains what Paul does mean: <blockquote>"it is a question of propriety and of 'custom' (vv. 13, 16), which carries with it 'disgrace' or 'glory' (vv. 14–15). Hence, this is an appeal to the 'way things are,' which the NIV translators have rightly put into a corresponding English idiom ('the nature of things'), that is, to the 'natural feeling' that he and they shared together as part of their contemporary culture."</blockquote>In other words, "nature" in verse 14 is Paul's shorthand for "this is how things are done among us in this culture and it feels right to us." It is not a theological declaration about the created order. Fee adds that "the very appeal to 'nature' in this way suggests most strongly that the argument is by way of analogy, not of necessity." | ||
In other words, "nature" in verse 14 is Paul's shorthand for "this is how things are done among us in this culture and it feels right to us." It is not a theological declaration about the created order. Fee adds that "the very appeal to 'nature' in this way suggests most strongly that the argument is by way of analogy, not of necessity." | |||
The proof that this cannot mean a universal creation principle is sitting right in Acts 18:18. Luke records that Paul himself "had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken." Fee notes this directly: Paul "had apparently worn long hair for a time in Corinth as part of a vow. But the very nature of the vow — both letting the hair grow long and cutting it again — demonstrates the 'normalcy' of shorter hair on men, as is also evidenced by thousands of contemporary paintings, reliefs, and pieces of sculpture." Long hair on men was culturally unusual in the Greco-Roman world. That is what made it feel like a "disgrace" to Paul and his audience. It was a cultural norm, not a creation ordinance. | The proof that this cannot mean a universal creation principle is sitting right in Acts 18:18. Luke records that Paul himself "had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken." Fee notes this directly: Paul "had apparently worn long hair for a time in Corinth as part of a vow. But the very nature of the vow — both letting the hair grow long and cutting it again — demonstrates the 'normalcy' of shorter hair on men, as is also evidenced by thousands of contemporary paintings, reliefs, and pieces of sculpture." Long hair on men was culturally unusual in the Greco-Roman world. That is what made it feel like a "disgrace" to Paul and his audience. It was a cultural norm, not a creation ordinance. | ||
| Line 55: | Line 53: | ||
== Paul Himself Calls This a "Custom" == | == Paul Himself Calls This a "Custom" == | ||
The most decisive point against Bernard's position comes from the verse he rarely quotes in connection with this passage: verse 16. Paul closes the entire argument with these words: "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God." | The most decisive point against Bernard's position comes from the verse he rarely quotes in connection with this passage: verse 16. Paul closes the entire argument with these words: <blockquote>"If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God."</blockquote>Fee's analysis of this verse is important. He writes: <blockquote>"That he is dealing strictly with 'custom' (church 'custom,' to be sure) is now made plain, as is the fact that this argument, for all its various facets, falls short of a command as such."</blockquote>Paul's concluding appeal is not to a creation ordinance, not to a moral absolute, and not to an explicit divine command. It is to what the churches currently do. The word Fee uses is "custom." It is not the language Paul reaches for when he is laying down something as a fixed and universal moral requirement. Compare Paul's language in 1 Corinthians 6:18 on sexual immorality ("flee from sexual immorality"), or 1 Corinthians 10:14 on idolatry ("flee from idolatry"), or Romans 13:13 on drunkenness and debauchery. When Paul is dealing with clear moral commands, he issues them directly as commands. Here, he makes a complex multi-part argument and then concludes by telling the contentious to look at what the other churches do. Fee's observation is apt: this argument "falls short of a command as such." | ||
Fee's analysis of this verse is important. He writes: "That he is dealing strictly with 'custom' (church 'custom,' to be sure) is now made plain, as is the fact that this argument, for all its various facets, falls short of a command as such." | |||
Paul's concluding appeal is not to a creation ordinance, not to a moral absolute, and not to an explicit divine command. It is to what the churches currently do. The word Fee uses is "custom." It is not the language Paul reaches for when he is laying down something as a fixed and universal moral requirement. Compare Paul's language in 1 Corinthians 6:18 on sexual immorality ("flee from sexual immorality"), or 1 Corinthians 10:14 on idolatry ("flee from idolatry"), or Romans 13:13 on drunkenness and debauchery. When Paul is dealing with clear moral commands, he issues them directly as commands. Here, he makes a complex multi-part argument and then concludes by telling the contentious to look at what the other churches do. Fee's observation is apt: this argument "falls short of a command as such." | |||
That does not make it unimportant. Fee is not saying Paul's concern was trivial. He is saying that the character of Paul's argument here is different from his direct moral commands, and that matters enormously for how we apply it. | That does not make it unimportant. Fee is not saying Paul's concern was trivial. He is saying that the character of Paul's argument here is different from his direct moral commands, and that matters enormously for how we apply it. | ||
| Line 65: | Line 59: | ||
== The Cultural Transfer Problem == | == The Cultural Transfer Problem == | ||
Even granting that Paul's instruction about head coverings was binding for Corinth, Fee raises a serious question about whether it can simply be lifted out of that context and applied universally. He writes: "the very 'customary' nature of the problem, which could be argued in this way in a basically monolithic cultural environment, makes it nearly impossible to transfer 'across the board' to the multifaceted cultures in which the church finds itself today — even if we knew exactly what it was we were to transfer, which we do not." | Even granting that Paul's instruction about head coverings was binding for Corinth, Fee raises a serious question about whether it can simply be lifted out of that context and applied universally. He writes: <blockquote>"the very 'customary' nature of the problem, which could be argued in this way in a basically monolithic cultural environment, makes it nearly impossible to transfer 'across the board' to the multifaceted cultures in which the church finds itself today — even if we knew exactly what it was we were to transfer, which we do not."</blockquote>There are two problems Fee identifies. First, we do not know with certainty what the actual covering practice was that Paul was defending. There are genuine scholarly debates about whether he means an external cloth covering, a certain hairstyle, or something else. Second, even if we knew, the cultural dynamics that made the issue significant in Corinth — specifically, what counted as shameful or appropriate for women in that social context — do not straightforwardly translate into twenty-first century contexts, let alone the variety of cultural contexts the church now occupies globally. | ||
There are two problems Fee identifies. First, we do not know with certainty what the actual covering practice was that Paul was defending. There are genuine scholarly debates about whether he means an external cloth covering, a certain hairstyle, or something else. Second, even if we knew, the cultural dynamics that made the issue significant in Corinth — specifically, what counted as shameful or appropriate for women in that social context — do not straightforwardly translate into twenty-first century contexts, let alone the variety of cultural contexts the church now occupies globally. | |||
If the point of the custom was to maintain the conventional appearance of respectable women in worship so as not to bring unnecessary attention or shame on the assembly, then requiring a practice that is genuinely unusual in the surrounding culture does the opposite of what Paul intended. This is exactly the kind of contextual intelligence that Bernard's application lacks. | Fee adds a pointed observation about what happens when literal application is attempted: <blockquote>"it would seem that in cultures where women's heads are seldom covered, the enforcement of such in the church turns Paul's point on its head, by calling unnecessary attention to the women that should be reserved for God alone."</blockquote>If the point of the custom was to maintain the conventional appearance of respectable women in worship so as not to bring unnecessary attention or shame on the assembly, then requiring a practice that is genuinely unusual in the surrounding culture does the opposite of what Paul intended. This is exactly the kind of contextual intelligence that Bernard's application lacks. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| Line 81: | Line 71: | ||
What he never says, anywhere in the passage: | What he never says, anywhere in the passage: | ||
He never says women may not cut or trim their hair. He never sets a minimum length. He never states that any deliberate reduction in a woman's hair length is sinful. He never says this rule applies "regardless of culture," as Bernard asserts. He never frames this as a creation ordinance that transcends cultural variation. | #He never says women may not cut or trim their hair. | ||
#He never sets a minimum length. | |||
#He never states that any deliberate reduction in a woman's hair length is sinful. | |||
#He never says this rule applies "regardless of culture," as Bernard asserts. | |||
#He never frames this as a creation ordinance that transcends cultural variation. | |||
Bernard's prohibition — "women should not trim it or otherwise seek to shorten it deliberately" — is not in this passage. It cannot be derived from what Paul says without filling in a significant gap with an assumption that Fee's careful exegesis shows the text does not support. | Bernard's prohibition — "women should not trim it or otherwise seek to shorten it deliberately" — is not in this passage. It cannot be derived from what Paul says without filling in a significant gap with an assumption that Fee's careful exegesis shows the text does not support. | ||
| Line 91: | Line 85: | ||
What Paul gives us is a culturally embedded argument for maintaining appropriate gendered distinctions in worship, argued through the norms of his specific time and place, and concluded with an appeal to church custom rather than a direct divine command. Fee's summary captures it well: "the very fact that Paul argues in this way, and that even at the end he does not give a commandment, suggests that such a 'church custom,' although not thereby unimportant for the Corinthians, is not to be raised to canon law." | What Paul gives us is a culturally embedded argument for maintaining appropriate gendered distinctions in worship, argued through the norms of his specific time and place, and concluded with an appeal to church custom rather than a direct divine command. Fee's summary captures it well: "the very fact that Paul argues in this way, and that even at the end he does not give a commandment, suggests that such a 'church custom,' although not thereby unimportant for the Corinthians, is not to be raised to canon law." | ||
A rule you can derive from careful reading of this text: maintaining visible distinctions between men and women in worship matters, and in any given cultural context the church should act in a way that honors rather than blurs those distinctions. | '''A rule you can derive from careful reading of this text:''' maintaining visible distinctions between men and women in worship matters, and in any given cultural context the church should act in a way that honors rather than blurs those distinctions. | ||
A rule you cannot honestly derive from this text: women may never trim their hair under any circumstances. | '''A rule you cannot honestly derive from this text:''' women may never trim their hair under any circumstances. | ||
Bernard has elevated a pastoral application for a specific cultural situation into a universal, timeless command binding on all women in all cultures. That is not exegesis. It is the kind of burden-laying Jesus reserved his sharpest words for. | Bernard has elevated a pastoral application for a specific cultural situation into a universal, timeless command binding on all women in all cultures. That is not exegesis. It is the kind of burden-laying Jesus reserved his sharpest words for. | ||