How to counter the cultural-copout accusation on verses

Discuss topics raised by callers on the radio program
Post Reply
jpat1975
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:14 am

How to counter the cultural-copout accusation on verses

Post by jpat1975 » Fri May 13, 2016 8:46 am

Steve,

How do we know if we are WRONGLY dismissing/redefining parts of the bible we don't like by relegating a passage to that of a specific culture, and therefore not applicable today?

For example, the passage on headcovers or longhair. When Christian men have long hair, or women opt not to cover their heads, and the reason given is this was only applicable to an ancient culture - there will be those who will take exception to that, and accuse us of cherry picking and tossing out the parts we don't like.

That's certainly NOT what I would want to do. So how do we avoid this?

As for long hair: What could Paul have possibly meant by it being a "shame" for men to have "long" hair? No where does it say HOW it is shameful, nor does it anywhere specify the LENGTH or even style of hair (e.g. pig tails, braided would seem to cross the line... maybe even a "man bun" :-) ).

I believe your take on these sorts of passages is these are only mentioned ONCE in the bible, and are not as clear to everyone as say drunkenness and adultery passages are (which in contrast have MANY similar or illustrative examples to clarify). So these are open to interpretation and cannot be violated so easily. These might even be just cultural for another time and place, and at best have a parallel application today to something more clear like MEN who say, dress or act like women. There's no question from other parts of scripture that God would not support that.

So how can we best understand "shame" and "long"?

My take on it is for a man to be effeminate is shameful for him as a man, and being mistaken as such would do that. But if the guy acts like a man, and has some facial hear, and looks manly enough regardless of the length of his hair (e.g. rugged) - I don't see how this would apply even to people in an ancient culture as such. Certainly not today.

Any how, I believe we already touched on some of this before. My main question is more for you to define some guidelines to avoid accidental dismissing a passage, reasoning how times have changed, etc.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: How to counter the cultural-copout accusation on verses

Post by steve » Fri May 13, 2016 10:27 am

Hi jpat1975,

On the specific question of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 (the matter of gender differences and head coving/hair length), I have written extensively to show how a passage like that might responsibly be exegeted. You can find the article here: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/ta_headcoverings.php

Briefly, "shame" refers to the cultural reaction and social opprobrium associated with certain gender-style norms in the Greek culture (i.e., that of Corinth). In verse 16, I believe that Paul disavows any adoption of such norms in his own culture. In fact, Paul had a Nazarite vow while he was in Corinth, which would have forbidden him to cut his hair until it was completed (Acts 18:18). "Long" is admittedly an entirely "relative" term with reference to hair, and is never defined. It was unnecessary, because the Corinthians knew what length of hair, in their culture, was normative for men. From surviving statues of Greek men, we might deduce that men wore closely-cropped hair—considerably shorter than many conservative American men wear their hair. But then, Paul was not writing about conformity to American culture, but Greek.

Since American culture commonly accepts without discomfort almost any length of hair on men or on women, we have no "instinct" (i.e., no "nature" teaching us—1 Cor.11:14) precisely what length hair must be in order to qualify as "long." When the Beatles became popular, in the 60s, they were noted for their scandalously "long" hair. Today, it is neither scandalous, nor surprising, to see hair on respectable businessmen, pastors, doctors, lawyers (even presidential candidates!), and other professional people that is longer than the Beatles originally wore their hair—and it is not even regarded as "long" hair today. If Paul had written to us with similar concerns, he would have had to define the length of hair that he was objecting to—but not in ancient Greece, where men's hair styles were fairly standardized.

Paul, in the passage, does not actually express concerns about the Corinthian men's violation of local "custom" (v.16) by wearing long hair, because, in all likelihood, men were not deviating from the cultural norm. He is writing because there were women defecting from the cultural norm, and Paul felt that this practice would send inappropriate signals to observers (as we might say a modern Christian woman in the attire of a prostitute would be sending inappropriate messages). We may not realize how cultural some of these matters are. An American woman walking about in public bare-chested would definitely be thought to be sending a message that a Waorani woman in Ecuador would not be sending by the same behavior. The problem of Christians sending the public inappropriate messages, by a controversial expression of their Christian liberty, is, in fact, the burden of Paul's instructions in the preceding section (chapters 8-10).

But your larger question is, "How do we decide whether passages of this sort are universally applicable, or simply cultural accommodation? The best answer is that each passage must be taken case-by-case. In most cases, making the following inquiries about a passage would seem helpful:

1) Does the duty suggested embody some actual moral or spiritual principle, or is it related only to cultural norms (e.g., "Does the master thank his servant because he did the things command? I think not"—Luke 17:9)?

2) Does the same, or a similar, concern find confirmation elsewhere in scripture? (e.g., Are we to "baptize for the dead" if we find a sole reference vaguely alluded to without explanation?)

3) What is the author's core concern? Can the concern be accommodated with some flexibility in detail, or not? (e.g., when Paul asks that we greet with a holy kiss, would a warm hug or handshake suffice to accommodate his actual concern?)

4) Do the instructions contradict other instructions found in scripture (e.g., If it is universally shameful for a man to have long hair or cover his head while praying, then why did God command Nazarites, like Samson, to never cut their hair? And why were priests ordered to wear a turban while conducting their worship duties?)

5) Does the command begin and end with concerns that are merely "externalistic," having nothing to do with the state of the heart (e.g., Paul's flexibility in abstaining from "unclean" foods when with Jews—1 Cor.9:19-20—even though he was aware that "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth"—Matt.15:11)." Observing the general principle that "man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart"—1 Sam.16:7—will go a long way toward distinguishing between universal and transient behavioral requirements.

jpat1975
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:14 am

Re: How to counter the cultural-copout accusation on verses

Post by jpat1975 » Fri May 13, 2016 12:12 pm

Thanks for the good response Steve! This is helpful, and I trust for others as well!

Post Reply

Return to “Radio Program Topics”