My Hair Will Keep Me Out of HeavenI got an interesting email in response to my comments about my hair. I'm glad I don't waste a lot of time worrying about stuff like this. His emails are in black, mine are in blue. My annotations are in italics. Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 6:50 PM Greetings Graig, I was looking around for QuickVerse stuff and ran across your home page. Noticed you had a lot of talk about Christianity, especially the "fundamental" type. And while I could relate to many of your questions it appears that going to far to the other extreme is the same error as the fundamentalist. I guess what I am saying, is how do you relate your changes in attitude to 2 Timothy 3:1-5. One can't just throw out the commands of Jesus because others err and are hypocrites in the application. For example, you wrote that you didn't like the command about having a short hair, yet it is a clear command in scripture. The fundamentalist may not know how to apply scripture to movies, but that doesn't mean we can throw away every command. In fact, I have a sermon entitled, "The Problem with Fun" if you are interested that addresses this whole issue. Peace be with you, /signed/ This sounds innocent enough, but look up 2 Tim 3:1-5 to see the horrible things he's calling me. Before launching into him I wanted to make sure I understood his point... From: Craig Rairdin [mailto:craigr@craigr.com] First, let me restate your point so I'm sure I understand it. Let me know if I don't have this right: You saw at my site "a lot of talk" about fundamentalist Christianity. You believe I've responded to a bad experience with hypocritical Christians by "throwing away every command of Jesus". As an example, you cite the "clear command" of Jesus that we are to have short hair. You feel some or all of the following adjectives describe me:
"lover of self", "lover of money", "boastful", "arrogant", "reviler", "disobedient to parents", "ungrateful", "unholy",
"unloving", "irreconcilable", "malicious gossip", "without self-control", "brutal", "hater of good", "treacherous",
"reckless", "conceited", "lover of pleasure rather than lover of God", "holding to a form of godliness, although denying
its power", "he who enters into households and captivates weak women weighed down with sins", "he who is led on by
various impulses", "he who is always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth", "one who opposes the If the above is correct, then I think I have your point. I'm just missing the following: 1) Where you found "a lot of talk" about fundamentalist Christianity on my site. I recall one FAQ question and one or two book reviews. I didn't think it was a significant part of the site, but perhaps I'm missing something. Remind me. 2) Your biblical basis for Jesus' short-hair commandment. I don't recall that one. 3) What I said that led you to heap on me quite a list of negative appellations from 2 Tim 3. Are there two or three at the top of the list or do I pretty much nail every one of them? For each that you pick, can you provide a specific example from what you know of me so that I can address it? Thanks! Craig Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 11:41 AM Greetings Graig, Nice try at making this harder and more sinister than it is - but that smoke screen is easy to see through. Your tone is clear about fundamentalism, to try and back away from it is both unfair and untrue to your position. To declare you only have one or two book reviews does not mean a thing. I may only review one book, but how I review declares all. To whine that you only made one or two comments is a straw dog. You made the comments, stand by them. The hair command. Why do you act ignorant? You no doubt knew it well from your past experience, so there was no need for me to repeat it. You know perfectly well where it is. If you don't, then you had no business bringing up on your web site or seeking to justify a pony tail. Indeed, if you don't know where it is, then you have indeed thrown a lot of commands of Jesus out the window. But I shall quote it again even though you could have pulled up QuickVerse and typed in "long hair." If you can see this command as clear, repent of it, then we should be able to proceed with the others. If not, it would be a waste of your time and only justify in your mind that you have once again been abused by a fundamentalist. 1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests, /signed/ OK now I'm beginning to suspect we're dealing with a pretty hard-core legalist. This isn't going to be a discussion about the risk of overcompensating for legalism, it's going to be all about long hair. It wasn't just an example; it's the whole reason for writing! The following is the sum total of my argument. As you'll see from reading further, he won't address any/many of the points I make. This is the typical response of fundamentalists/legalists: They don't deal well with Scripture. Once they've twisted it to meet their agenda and foisted it on unwary new believers, they can close the Bible and ignore it from then on. From: Craig Rairdin [mailto:craigr@craigr.com] You see smoke screens where there are none. My questions were intended to help you see your email from my point of view. That is, that you cited non-existent commands of Jesus and had called me a whole list of bad names (and this, in your introductory email to me!). I didn't want to go on the attack based on a few potentially misunderstood words in your email, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify. Of course I knew about 1 Cor 11. I wasn't playing ignorant; I just want to understand where you were coming from so I wouldn't jump to unwarranted conclusions. Before pointing out the obvious, I wanted to give you the opportunity to retract the attribution of this verse to Jesus and further to retract the description of this verse as a command. You did neither, so now I know where you stand and can make my point. Paul's observation long hair on men in 1 Cor 11:14 not only isn't a command of Jesus, it isn't even a command. Paul makes several arguments in the passage to make his case in favor of women being covered during prayer. One of his last arguments is that the "very nature of things" demonstrates that it is dishonorable for a man to have long hair. The word translated "nature" has a variety of meanings that can include a sense of propriety as dictated by culture and experience. In the Corinthian culture, men had "short" hair and women had "long" hair (though how "short" and how "long" isn't described). Paul is forming his argument just as you or I might do in some cases. He's saying, "not only is there a Scriptural argument, but your very culture and experience teaches the same thing." We might use this argument to support a law against stealing, for example. That is, not only is it biblically wrong but there's an innate sense of property rights that is either genetically or socially transmitted which is violated by stealing. An argument in this style could be made in the US to support, say, a law against adultery, because it's generally believed that once a person is committed to a marriage relationship, he or she has vowed to be faithful to his or her spouse. But that's not going to be the case in every culture. A missionary couldn't go to certain peoples in South America and say "sex with women you're not married to is not only biblically wrong, but the very nature of things says it's wrong" because for those people, the "very nature of things" teaches the opposite: Men regularly have sex with wives of relatives or with unattached women. A missionary in these cultures would need to first establish the primacy of Scripture as the rule of life, then apply it to their particular situation to get them to change long-standing tradition. Until then, it would be foolish of him to appeal to "the very nature of things". Similarly, Paul's appeal to "the very nature of things" to make the case for long hair on women doesn't work in our culture. It's not dishonorable for women in our culture to have "short" hair and men to have "long" hair. This doesn't invalidate his other arguments, but it renders this particular argument moot for us. I'm not saying the Bible is wrong or that Paul doesn't make his point six other ways. I'm saying this particular argument doesn't hold water except in its historical context. Paul isn't saying that *God* says long hair on men is dishonorable, he's saying that the Corinthian society believed it was dishonorable. He's not *commanding* men to have short hair, nor women long. Instead, he's *observing* that, in Corinthian culture, long hair on women and short hair on men was appropriate. Titus 1:12 says "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." Paul isn't *commanding* Cretans to lie and be evil, but rather he's *observing* that they are that way. When Paul says that Corinthian culture admires short hair on men and long hair on women, he's not commanding it, he's observing it. On another topic: I may not have made my point clear with respect to the
mention of fundamentalism on my Web site. I thought you made it sound like my Web site was practically all about
fundamentalism; I was only pointing out that it's a small part. It's not that I don't stand behind what's said there. I
do stand behind it, just as you stand behind everything that's only mentioned once or twice on *your* Web site. My
point was to get you to see that this isn't a big deal for me, or at least not as big a deal as it sounded like you
thought it might be. I'm sorry if the implication of my question overstated your position. Craig (with a "C") Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:12 AM Greetings Craig, All Scripture, repeat all, are "God-breathed" and the command concerning hair is just as much of Jesus as when Jesus spoke in gospels. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, Well, I can see your are no more soft hearted then you when 6 to 10 years ago when we last dialoged. When you wrote the same long winded whitewash concerning sin and how the church didn't understand the gays. It was my prayer and hope your hunger and thirst for righteousness had increased...but alas it has not. Matthew 5:6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Your blood is off my hands, /signed/ Here we go. Note the loose use of that Bible he otherwise clings to. He's able to attribute quotes to Jesus that were made by Paul. While I don't disagree with the concept that Paul's words are "the Word of God" and therefore the words of Jesus, I think it's natural to assume that when you talk about the "clear commands of Jesus" you expect to find them in the Gospels, not the epistles. Note that he hasn't addressed the issue of whether or not 1 Cor 11:14 is a command or merely an observation. That's the center of his argument, yet he ignores it. I don't remember the email to which he refers concerning homosexuals. I think homosexual acts are sin and that homosexual people are no different than heterosexual people -- all sinners in need of salvation by the grace of God. Well I'm ready to be done with the conversation because we're not making forward progress. There should be a point-counterpoint discussion here but I just get insulted in a different way in each reply. He seems to be flummoxed by my long-windedness, so I'm trying to keep my responses shorter and use simpler words from here on out. From: Craig Rairdin [mailto:craigr@craigr.com] I fear your heart is harder than you imagine mine to be. I've responded to your hate with love; illuminated my position by appeal to Scripture alone; and refrained from responding in-kind to your virulence. You've responded with condemnation. You haven't addressed the issues I've raised. Instead you've misapplied Scripture and elevated your own self-righteousness as if I should be impressed by the fact that you've appointed some small part of your precious time to attack me. You've stumbled over Grace while struggling under the burden of Law. I pray that God might set you free. Craig Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:35 AM Craig, A predictable response, but your lack of obedience, i.e. fruit, proves who is right. Grace is not the freedom to disobey God, but the power to obey. You cannot even obey a simple scripture about hair, and you want to talk to me about grace? Please! OK I've gotta break in here. Is anyone else reminded of the time the formerly blind man was brought to the Pharisees (John 9:34) and when he claimed that Jesus had healed him they said, "You were born entirely in sins, yet you are teaching us?" Am I the only one who finds this sadly comical? "Why, you have shoulder length hair, and yet you are trying to talk to me about grace?" OK, back to the email... God declared that His definition of grace is the power to say "No." By the grace of God say "No" to long hair and we can press onto obeying God in other areas. Titus 2:11-13 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. [12] It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, [13] while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, If you really want grace, true grace, not 2 Timothy 3:1-5 whitewash, then accept God's term of grace. A grace that works obedience, true love and the power to say no to sin and sinfulness. A grace that is full of power, not excuses, /signed/ From: Craig Rairdin [mailto:craigr@craigr.com] You've asked me to obey a command you made up, not one from the Bible. Despite my pleas for you to make your case you've only heaped on more condemnation. Continuing to respond in love and refraining from the pejorative that laces your emails, Craig Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:53 AM Greetings Craig, So why did you put in a made up command in your QuickVerse code? 1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, Again, you want a faith that is not faith and grace that is not faith. For true faith in Jesus produces a rich obedient life to the Holy Spirit. You can't even get a hair cut by the power of the Holy Spirit. It as Romans tells us below an "obedience that comes from faith." Or did you make that up too and put in the code? Romans 1:5 Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. You are missing the real power of Jesus in order to justify your sins, /signed/ Just repeating the verse doesn't prove that it's a command, only that you know how to cut and paste from QuickVerse. :-) From: Craig Rairdin [mailto:craigr@craigr.com] As I've stated before, 1 Cor 11:4 is an observation, not a command. Review my previous emails for the details. I just need you to refute that point, then I'm on my way to the barber. For some reason you have ignored my repeated calls for you to justify your position from Scripture. Craig Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 12:26 PM Greetings Craig, I have given you scripture... You just refuse to call scripture, scripture. Goodness, how do you keep your plane in the sky following directions the way you do? It is a sin for you have a long hair. Here is the scripture one more time. 1 Corinthians 11:14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, Of course running off to get a haircut now wouldn't mean a thing. It has to be done by grace, not the will of man. James 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. Let me close by stating what you are missing. The errors you point out about the fundamentalist are for the most part true. What they, and you are missing is the cross of Christ and the Holy Spirit. You and they do what they want based on their own opinions about the Bible and by their own effort. In short, they love their sin more than God. If you really want answers then you must get your plank out of your eye. But to go around bitter about fundamentalism will not excuse your sins. Hi it's me breaking in again here. I just want to point out that I have no bitterness about fundamentalism. The subject seldom comes up. Now that we're free of it and have figured out that there's so much more to life than to be caught up in the man-made laws of legalism, why would we waste a second in bitterness? We fellowship with our friends who are still in that life. We don't argue with them. We love them just as we did before. Back to the vitriol... When you are ready to hate your own life, (John 12:25), pick up a cross and then follow the voice of the Holy Spirit you will know a grace that can honestly set you free. The question is, do you want to be made well? So far, it does not appear so. Just like the man Jesus asked the same question you have too many reasons, justifications and excuses to find life. John 5:6-7 When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, "Do you want to get well?" [7] "Sir," the invalid replied, "I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me." With that in mind I close this conversation, but if you ever want to really press on to discover a Jesus that will set you free it would be my joy to share with you a power that you do not know. Where I understand gays, but offer more than an excuse. Much grace, and may you be found in His mercy on that great day, /signed/ From: Craig Rairdin [mailto:craigr@craigr.com] Again, you've repeated 1 Cor 11:14, a verse we both agree is in the Bible and both agree is just as valid and applicable as the verses preceding and following it. What you haven't done is explained how Paul's observation that Corinthian society considers it a dishonor for a man to have long hair is a commandment from Jesus that men not have long hair (and women not have short hair). For the purpose of discussion, I'll accept your logic that it's from Jesus since it's in the Bible. What you haven't shown is that it's a *command*. Once you show that, I've asked you to differentiate it from Titus 1:12, which I take to be an observation and not a command. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer: You've attributed attitudes to me that I do not hold, beliefs that I do not believe, and condemnation I have not earned. You have consistently, repetitively, and unexplainably ignored the one single question I've asked you to address and replied instead with more vitriol. If you wish to end the conversation, that's fine with me. I was sitting here minding my own business when you initiated this unprovoked attack. End it, continue it, or whatever; but if you continue it, address my question instead of dancing around me throwing rocks. Craig Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:57 PM Greetings Craig, The explanation is found in the attached file. However, you will never understand even a loaf of bread in the Lord until you soften your heart. There was not need for an explanation because I sited scripture, you gave me cultural history. Who wins? Scripture does and those who obey by grace. /signed/ I'm not including the attached file because I don't want to reveal the identity of this person. Suffice to say that it contains a well-argued justification for women wearing a head-covering during prayer. I'm familiar with the practice and the arguments for and against it. I fellowship at a church that practices it, but I do not require it of my wife because we have a different understanding of this passage. I'm not going to go into that because it's not the subject under discussion here. From: Craig Rairdin [mailto:craigr@craigr.com] The attached file is interesting and I agree with most of it. In particular, I agree that a woman's hair is not her "covering" for the purpose of praying and prophesying. While this flyer doesn't go into depth on verse 14, it appears to say that you interpret "the very nature of things" to refer back to creation, at which time you believe that Eve was created with long hair and Adam with short. Since we're not told in Genesis that Eve had long hair and Adam short, there's a bit of imagination needed to take that interpretation, but at least I understand where you're coming from. Thayer and others understand the Greek in verse 14 a little differently. It's the one place in the passage where we can say for sure that Paul is making an appeal to culture. The "cultural context" argument can be made for the whole passage, but since it's not the topic of our discussion I'm not going to go into it. You make the opposite case very well in your flyer, which is also the position taught in the church I go to. This is not a debate between scripture and culture. When scripture cites culture, then we need to understand the culture to understand the passage. When scripture doesn't cite culture, then it would be wrong to force culture onto it. I believe that Paul is invoking the Corinthian culture to add to his argument. But if you left this verse out, his argument would be made nonetheless. I understand now where you're coming from as you look at this verse. We both agree that Christians should obey the commands of scripture. I don't agree that this is a command, and I believe there's some good scholarship to back me up. I'm content to let this drop. You can interpret that as coldness to the Holy Spirit if you wish; fortunately neither of us will judge the other on that Day. We both stand or fall before our own Master. Craig Sent: Monday, October
13, 2003 4:38 PM Greetings Craig, Well, not sure what you are saying, as you keep going back and forth between the points. Indeed, you missed the whole point of the covering article, while basically agreeing with it. Paul sites Genesis, creation to prove that long hair was given to a woman. But then to repeat myself would be to repeat the publication. That said, your heart was revealed. It is my prayer and hope you surrender to Jesus someday. As I said, you will not understand a loaf of bread in Jesus until you soften your heart. Mark 6:52 for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened. An obedience that comes from faith, (Romans 1:5) /signed/ I thought the point of the covering article was coverings. I didn't say I agreed with the entire article, just parts of it. I'm not going back and forth. I now understand that he sees 1 Cor 11:14 as a commandment because it refers to adhering to God's design -- men are to have short hair and women, long. What I don't agree with is that "the very nature of things" is an appeal to the created order, but rather I believe it is an appeal to culture, as explained in my second response above. Anyway, praise God that I don't have to live with the kind of gut-wrenching guilt that drives people like this to spew their bile on random people they encounter on the Internet. I'm saddened by the fact that this man is the leader of a flock of believers somewhere who share his stockpile of hatred. Having been there and done that -- though not to the extreme represented by this guy -- I can say that it doesn't bring one closer to God. In the end I thought you would enjoy seeing some of what I put up with by putting myself out here in public view. :-) |