It is in the B-i-b-l-e.
In 1 Corinthians 11:14 the Bible says:
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
According to this verse:
- It is a shame for a man to have long hair
- That nature teaches us that a man having long hair is shameful
Most all Evangelicals believe that homosexuality is a sin, a sin against nature. In Romans 1:26, 27 the Bible says:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
It is clear from Romans 1:26, 27 that when homosexuals engage in homosexual sexual activity they are going against nature. Preachers scream from the pulpit, homosexuality is an abomination. It is unnatural!
The word nature that appears in Romans 1:26,27 is the same Greek word that appears in 1 Corinthians 11:14. According to the Christian Bible, human nature tells us that homosexuality AND a man having long hair is a sin.
Why is it Evangelicals are so focused on homosexuality but rarely say a word about men having long hair? Both are against nature. Surely, the good Bible believers they are, they would not want to neglect preaching about what the Bible calls s-h-a-m-e-f-u-l.
The Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church movement, a subset of Evangelicalism, is not ashamed to preach against homosexuality AND long hair on men.
IFB pastor, Jack Hyles, wrote a booklet titled, Jesus Had Short Hair. Hyles wrote:
I Corinthians 11:14 says, “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” The Greek word for “shame” in this verse is translated elsewhere in the New Testament as “dishonor,” “vile,” “disgrace.” In Romans 1:26 the same word is translated “vile”, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.” You will notice that these “vile affections” have to do with homosexuality. It is very interesting that as the trend toward long hair increases, the acceptance of homosexuality increases. This is not to say that long hair and homosexuality always go together, but it is to note the fact that both are on the rise in our generation. Several of the major denominations have now accepted homosexuals. In some cities there are churches for homosexuals pastored by avowed homosexuals. At least one major denomination has ordained a homosexual preacher and others are considering following suit.
Answering the question, Did Jesus have long hair, Hyles wrote:
The paintings of Christ are simply artists’ conceptions and have no Scriptural authorization. At least one historian of His day described Him as being a tall man with chestnut-colored hair, parted in the middle, with short hair which turned up at the end. In the book, THE MODERN STUDENT’S LIFE OF CHRIST by Irving Vollmer, published by Fleming H. Revell, the author says, “Archeologists object to the conventional pictures of Christ because they are not true to history.” A German painter, L. Fahrenkrog, says, “Christ certainly never wore a beard, and His hair was beyond a doubt a closely cut. For this we have historical proof.” The oldest representations going back to the first Christian centuries and found chiefly in the catacombs of Rome all pictured Him without a beard. All the pictures of Christ down to the beginning of the first century and even later are of this kind. Students of the first century and of Roman history are aware of the fact that the time of Christ was characterized by short hair for men. This author has seen many coins and statues which bear the likenesses of emperors who reigned during and after the time of Christ. Such likenesses reveal that the Caesars and other rulers and emperors had short hair, and of course, the subjects followed the example set by the emperor. The plain simple truth is that during the life of Christ, short hair was the acceptable style. That Jesus wore the conventional style of His day is proved by the fact that Judas had to kiss Him to point Him out to the soldiers. Had Jesus been somewhat different, as a long-haired freak, Judas could have simply told the soldiers that Jesus was the One with the long hair. This, of course, is not true, as Judas had to place a kiss on Him in order to identify Him.
Answering the question, What should a Christian’s attitude be about long hair, Hyles wrote:
The only long haired person other than a Nazarite mentioned in the Bible was Absalom, a son of David. It was he who rebelled against his father. It was he who started a revolution. It is worth noting that even in Bible days rebellion, revolution, disobedience to parents, and long hair were associated.
Now what should the Christian’s attitude be concerning male hair styles? First, we men should follow the admonition of the Scripture and have short hair. It should be short enough as to be obviously contradictory to the revolutionary symbol. Many Christians allow their hair to become longer in an effort not to be identified as fundamental believers. Why shouldn’t a Christian be just as proud of his identity with the Word of God as the hippie is to identify himself with the revolution? Men, let us wear our short hair with pride as a symbol of our belief in the Bible and its Christ.
Parents, start your son with haircuts and short hair when he is a baby. With discipline and, if needs be, punishment, see to it that as he grows up he uses his hair as a symbol of patriotism and Christianity, thereby following the admonition of the Scripture that says in Romans 12:2, “And be not conformed (fashioned) to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”
Hyles’ booklet reflects the standard IFB thinking about long hair on men. As a youth in an IFB church, a student at an IFB college, and an IFB pastor for many years, I heard a lot of preaching against men having long hair. (ironically, I heard very little preaching about short hair on women, which the Bible also condemns)
IFB men are taught:
- Long hair is a sign of rebellion against God
- Long hair is effeminate
- Long hair is worldly
What hair styles are considered godly?
- Hair off the ear
- Hair off the collar
- Tapered, rather than block cut
The preaching against long hair on men finds its impetus in the rebellion against authority of the 1960’s and 1970’s. IFB preachers were alarmed that church youth were being drawn into the hippie culture. Preachers spent many a Sunday preaching against premarital sex, rock music,mini-skirts, rock music, and yes, long hair.
Their preaching did little good.
Fast forward to today. Many IFB pastors still preach against premarital sex, rock music,mini-skirts, rock music, and long hair. And just like their bellowing father’s in the ministry, they find their preaching largely ignored.
IFB preachers who preach against long hair have a real problem on their hands when it comes to suggesting that long hair is a sign of rebellion against God. While some men still have long hair, many of the rebellious worldlings now have short hair or shave their head. This conundrum is what happens when a preacher determines what is Biblical or “godly” based on the whims and trends of culture.
Besides, how l-o-n-g is long? Where does the Bible state exactly how short or long a man’s hair should be? If long hair on a man is “against nature,” why were Nazarite priests forbidden to cut their hair in the Old Testament? Was their long hair a “shame,” against nature? Some of the most revered preachers of the past were men with long hair. Was their long hair a “shame,” against nature?
This whole subject might seem silly to many Christians and most non-Christians. But, let’s not forget, it IS in the B-I-B-L-E.
*IFB preachers often use the same logic to preach against men having facial hair.
I, too, heard many sermons on long hair on men being shameful. Why didn’t they preach against short hair on women?? Afraid to?
In my IFB church the anointed man of God did but no one was listening.
Some did, I know I did, but I suspect they feared riling the REAL power in the church.
As a child of the sixties, I have always been irked by these attitudes toward long hair. I believe in CLEAN hair, period. The most natural thing would be if both men and women had long hair, and men had beards. That is the way nature would have us if we didn’t interfere.
My mother-in-law and sisters-in-law thought men should have short hair, but seemed to think women should, too. They were always irritated by the waist length hair I sported for many years, as it wasn’t “grown up”. (Hubby liked it fine!)
As a teenager, I heard so many old people talking in hateful tones about how they would like to get hold of someone or other and cut his hair off. So what kind of Christian virtue is assault?
Could the real problem people have with hair be that it is a secondary sexual characteristic for both sexes?
I think this does play a part, however, in today’s culture, hair styles vary so much it is hard to say one hair style or another is manly or womanly.
Hi Bruce,
Neither long hair nor homosexuality are against the order of nature. Paul was simply wrong.
About 95-96% of the population are heterosexual and to many heterosexuals it may appear that homosexuality is against the order of nature, but to the 4-5% of the population that has same sex attraction, homosexuality is quite natural.
Long hair is simply something that varies with cultures.
Although Fundamentalists may be faithful to their literal historical hermeneutic of the bible, the Evangelical churches should jetison such an approach and adopt historico- critical hermeneutics.
Shalom,
John Arthur
I grew up in an IFB church and school, and I can tell you that our pastor preached equally against long hair on men AND short hair on women. I (a female) was not allowed to even have my hair trimmed. Oddly enough, the older women in our church kept their short, tightly-permed hairstyles, and no one reprimanded them for it. But if you were under 40, and you dared to cut your hair to, say, shoulder-length, you can bet that you would be gossiped about and looked down on, and the pastor might even have crafted his Sunday sermon JUST FOR YOU!
That being said, I, as a child, was puzzled by the verse in the Bible that says, “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” Being a nature-lover, and a farm kid, and having lots and lots of knowledge about the animal world, I thought to myself, “No, it does not!” The male animal of most species is usually the most attractive, having long, flowing locks or beautiful, eye-catching plumage, while the females of the species are plain and drab by comparison. (Think of lions, horses, peafowl, chickens, etc., even fish, for pete’s sake!) But, of course, I kept my theories to myself. Questions such as this were not welcomed (and were, in fact, punishable) in that society. Being “rebellious” and “showing disrespect toward your elders” was discouraged (translation: if you could not mindlessly accept idiotic answers to intelligent questions, you were therefore publicly shamed and physically punished for being hard-headed).
There are millions of problems in society that these people could honestly tackle and make an impact with, such as homelessness and poverty. They choose to focus on shit like long hair and dress lengths. What a sad group of numbnuts.
Maybe I have missed it in other posts, but seriously what is the definition of sin from an atheistic position? No wise guy comment here .. honestly. The victimless crimes [prostitution especially] are hard to figure out for me.
When I use the word sin I use to from the Christian perspective. This is a matter of writing style and being focused on a target audience. Personally, I don’t believe in sin. It is a religious construct. People do good and bad things, and good and bad is determined by our cultural beliefs and practices. Our culture says getting married at 13 is illegal. Other cultures permit it. Does this make the 13 year old’s can marry culture bad, evil, sinful? No. (at least from my perspective)
Most Christians want to force on our secular, pluralistic culture their moral beliefs. While they are free to live according to the strictures of the Bible, others should not be required to do so.
In our democracy, “we the people” decide that is legal and what is not. Over time our beliefs change. (as we are seeing now with homosexuality) Personally, I try to live by one great truth, don’t harm other people. (or animals, the environment, etc) IMO, what consenting adults do among themselves should not be regulated. This is why I support the legalization of drugs, polygamy (or any form of cohabitation), and prostitution. Police the abuses,and let people live freely as they wish.
Bruce
Pingback: SEVEN DEADLY SINS IN THE PULPIT-STEVE MURREL « Ioan17 – John 17
just please, don’t discuss long hair and rock music in the same topic with homosexuality
Having long hair cannot be a sin simply because it was not so in the old testament. God being prefect and sinless would not allow sin, encourage sin, or promote sin in any way, shape, form or fashion. But what about Samson. Samson was a man but was not only allowed to have long hair by God but was commanded to have long hair by God and to never cut it. Sin, since the day we birthed it baas been what it has been since its beginning
Hi Kolin,
” Having long hair cannot be a sin because it was not so in the old testament.”
So by your logic, this would mean that genocide said to be commanded by God in the OT was not evil. Woman, little children and babies were all slaughtered by Joshua and his armies as they marched through the promised land and whole cites were burnt to the ground. This is simply atrocious behaviour and is something in the OT that cannot be justified.
Capital punishment for adultery, homosexuality, incorrigible children, witchcraft etc. would not be considered evil because the OT supports these punishments. The OT has much barbarism in it (along with some good stuff) and should not be used as a divinely inspired text (The author of 2 Tim:3:16-17 is mistaken)..
Having long hair or short hair is neither moral nor immoral. If you wear long hair and you are okay with it, continue with it. Don’t let any Fundamentalists condemn you.
Shalom,
John Arthur
Thanks for answering this comment, John! Spot on.
Bruce
And not to mention that hair grows naturally and nature would actually encourage long hair, not demote it. You have to defy nature to cut your hair not grow it. Its all about why you have long hair. Is it in rebellion and hate or simply because you like it and its your look? God doesn’t care about your looks so long as you take care of yourself and don’t abuse yourself. God cares about your heart and soul, not your appearance. Plain and simple as that