From Anguish Languish to English Language: Trains-lading debt Furry Tail avowed Beers into a Fairy Tale about Bears

 It's been decades since I first posted Furry Tails to this blog, and since most of my readers are from countries other than the one in which Anguish Languish was first published, I thought I'd do them the favour of translating this one into Standard English. Here, then, is Goldy Locks and the Three Bears:

Wants pawn term dare worsted ladle gull hoe hat search putty yowler coils debt pimple colder Guilty Looks. Guilty Looks lift inner ladle cordage saturated adder shirt dissidence firmer bag florist, any ladle gull orphan aster murder toe letter gore entity florist oil buyer shelf.

Once upon a time there was a little girl who had such pretty yellow curls that people called her Goldy Locks. Goldy Locks lived in a little cottage situated at a short distance from a big forest, and a little girl often asked her mother to let her go into the forest all by herself. 

“Guilty Looks!” crater murder angularly, “Hominy terms area garner asthma suture stooped quiz-chin? Goiter door florist? Sordidly NUT!”

“Wire nut, murder?” wined Guilty Looks, hoe dint peony tension tore murder’s scaldings.

“Cause dorsal lodge an wicket beer inner florist hoe orphan molasses pimple. Ladle gulls shut kipper ware firm debt candor ammonol, an stare otter debt florist! Debt florist’s mush toe dentures furry ladle gull!”

Wail, pimple oil-wares wander doe wart udder pimple dum wampum toe doe. Debt’s jest hormone nurture. Wan moaning, Guilty Looks dissipater murder, an win entity florist.

"Goldy Locks!" cried her mother angrily, "How many times are you going to ask me such a stupid question? Go to the forest? Certainly NOT!"

"Why not, mother?" whined Goldy Locks, who didn't pay any attention to her mother's scoldings.

"'Cause there's a large and wicked bear in the forest who often molests people. Little girls should keep away from that kind of animal, and stay out of that forest! That forest's much too dangerous for a little girl!"

Well, people always want to do what other people don't want them to do. That's just human nature. One morning, Goldy Locks disobeyed her mother and went into the forest. 

Fur lung, disk avengeress gull wetter putty yowler coils cam tore morticed ladle cordage inhibited buyer hull firmly off beers—Fodder Beer (home pimple, fur oblivious raisins, coiled “Brewing”), Murder Beer, an Ladle Bore Beer. Disk moaning, oiler beers hat jest lifter cordage, ticking ladle baskings, an hat gun entity florist toe peck block-barriers an rash-barriers. Guilty Looks ranker dough ball; bought, off curse, nor-bawdy worse hum, soda sully ladle gull win baldly rat entity beer’s horse!

'Fore long, this adventurous girl with her pretty yellow curls came to a modest little cottage inhabited by a whole family of bears--Father Bear (whom people, for obvious reasons, called Bruin), Mother Bear, and Little Boy Bear. This morning, all the bears had just left a cottage, taking little baskets, and had gone into the forest to pick blackberries and raspberries. Goldy Locks rang a door bell, but, of course, nobody was home, so the silly little girl went boldly right into the bear's house!

Honor tipple inner darning rum, stud tree boils fuller sop—wan grade bag boiler sop, wan muddle-sash boil, an wan tawny ladle boil. Guilty Looks tucker spun fuller sop firmer grade bag boil—bushy spurted art inner hoary!

“Arch!” crater gull, “Debt sop’s toe hart—barns mar mouse!”

Dingy traitor sop inner muddle-sash boil, witch worse toe coiled. Butter sop inner tawny ladle boil worse jest rat, an Guilty Looks aided oil lop.

Dingy nudist tree cheers—wan anomalous cheer, wan muddle-sash cheer, an wan tawny ladle cheer. Guilty Looks set darn inner ladle cheer, bushy worse toe bag ferret, ant soddenly bustard.

On a table in the dining room stood three bowls full of soup--one great big bowl of soup, one middle-sized bow, and one tiny little bow. Goldy Locks took her spoon full of soup from a great big bowl, but she spit it out in a hurry!

"Ouch!" cried the girl, "That soup's too hot--burns my mouth!"

Then she tried the soup in a middle-sized bowl, which was too cold. But the soup in a tiny little bowl was just right, and Goldy Locks ate it all up. 
Then she noticed three chairs--one enormous chair, one middle-sized chair, and one tiny little chair. Goldy Locks sat down in a little chair, but she was too big for it, and it suddenly busted. 

Clamming upper stars tutor beer’s bet-rum, Guilty Looks dish-cupboard tree bets—wan grade bag bet, wan muddle-sash bet, an wan tawny ladle bet. Failing torrid, shay flunker shelf honor ladle bet, an, jester cobbler menace letter, worse sunder slip an snorting.

Climbing up a stairs to the bear's bedroom, Goldy Locks discovered three beds--one great big bed, one middle-sized bed, and one tiny little bed. Feeling tired, she flung herself on a little bed, and, just a couple minutes later, was sound asleep and snoring. 

Inner ladle wile, donors offer cordage cam beck firmer barrier-pecking extradition, currying baskings fuller rash-barriers. Whinny entity darning rum, Fodder Beer stuttered snuffing an gruelling tomb shelf.

“Warts ban goring earn hair?” crumpled dole beer, “Conjure small psalm-sing deferent a boarder horse?”

“Crashes!” crater murder beer, ashy castor quack glands adder tipple, “Hose ban muddling wet debt sop?”

Ladle Bore Beer stuttered crayon.

“Jest locket mar ladle boiler sop—oil garbled dope! An locket mar itchy pitchy cheer—oil bustard!”

In a little while, the owners of the cottage came back from their berry-picking expedition, carrying baskets full of raspberries. When he entered the dining room, Father Bear started sniffing and growling to himself. 
"What's been going on here?" grumbled the old bear, "Can't you smell something different about the house?" 
"Gracious!" cried mother bear, as she cast a quick glance at the table, "Who's been meddling with that soup?"
Little Bear started crying. "Just look at my little bowl of soup--all gobbled up! And look at my itty-bitty chair--all busted!"

Locking adder bustard cheer, Murder Beer bay-gander gat historical, an stuttered hurling tore horsebarn:

“Brewing! Brewing! Way gut BURGHERS inner horse. HORSE BURGHERS! Quack! Coiler place! Wail, dun stun dare lacking end-bustle during nosing! Coiler Place Deportment, quack!”

“Harmer garner coiler Place Deportment wen way dun heifer toiler-fun?” resplendent Brewing, inner trampling verse. “Set darn, worming, an cape quoit! Yore oil-wares thanking dare burghers inner horse!”

Oiler shame, Brewing worse jesters scarred aster udders; infect, haze niece war shagging.

Finely, Fodder Beer gutter grade bag short-gum, Murder Beer gutter muddle-sash haunting raffle, an Ladle Bore Beer gutter tawny ladle pestle, an oiler beers crypt upper stars, ware Guilty Looks worse line honor bet, sunder slip an snorting. Herring door beers, shay weakened, lipped otter door windrow, an dished aware harm jesters fascist shagged scrabble.

Looking at a busted chair, Mother Bair began to get hysterical, and started howling to her husband:
"Bruin! Bruin! We got BURGLARS in the house, HOUSE BURGLARS! Quick! Call a police! Well, don't stand there like an imbecile doing nothing! Call a Police Department, quick!"
"How am I gonna call a Police Department when we don't have a telephone?" responded Bruin, in a trembling voice. "Sit down, woman, and keep quiet! You're always thinking there are burglars in the house! 
All a same, Bruin was just as scared as the others; in fact, his knees were shaking. 
Finally, Father Bear got a great big shotgun, Mother Bear got a middle-sized hunting rifle, and Little Boy Bear got a tiny little pistol, and all a bears crept up a stairs, where Goldy Locks was lying on a bed, sound asleep and storing. Hearing the bears, she wakened, leaped out of the window, and dashed away home just as fast as she could scramble. 

Oiler beers tar darner stars, an ntoe locker doers an windrows.

“Fodder,” aster ladle bore beer, finely, “Wart worse debt discussing crasher honor bet? Wart worse debt ogling ammonol wet oil debt yowler far honor had, an hoe dint half nor far atoll honor beck? Wart worse debt hobble lurking crasher, Fodder?”

Fodder Beer shuttered.

“Comb hair, mar bore. Heresy gut lessen furrier! Debt discussing crasher worsen HORMONE BANG! Kipper ware firm debt candor ammonol! Dare nor gut! Warts mar, are dun wander catcher goring entity florist oil bar yore shelf. Debt florist’s mush toe dentures furry ladle beer!”

All a bears tore down a stairs, and started to lock a doors and windows. 
"Father," asked a little boy bear, finally, "What was that disgusting creature on a bed? What was that ugly animal with all that yellow fur on her head, and who didn't have no fur at all on her back? What was that horrible looking creature, Father?"
Father Bear shuddered. 
"Come here, my boy. Here's a good lesson for your! That disgusting creature was an HUMAN BEING!
Keep away from that kind of animal! They're no good! What's more, I don't want to catch you going into the forest all by your self. That forest's much too dangerous for a little bear!"

I translated this as literally as I could, exposing the weakness of the author's use of articles: he failed to distinguish between the definite and indefinite articles, sometime even confusing them with possessive pronouns. I gave him as much latitude as I could in a strict translation (probably even more, by translating 'sop' as 'soup'); using dynamic equivalence-- along the lines of the NIV--would make such inconsistencies disappear entirely. And there could be some dialect of English out there in which they wouldn't be phonemically distinct anyway.

A new twist in the Linda Stoltzfoos Kidnapping/Murder Saga

I wrote earlier about Linda Stotzfoos, who was kidnapped and murdered by a fellow member of the Mennonite community where she lived in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. There's a new chapter to the story: her murderer, Justo Smoker (a Costa Rican who had been adopted by a family in the Mennonite community), confessed to the murder, and as a condition of his plea arrangement he promised to show the authorities where he buried her body. This link probably won't be valid forever, but for now you can watch the authors of a new book on the story--Justo's relatives by adoption and marriage--tell how the event impacted them, and how it ties into the Nickel Mines hostage-murder.

Indiana Revival Report: Days 47-50

Fourteen baptisms on Day 48, nineteen on Day 50. As Kyle says, when you're doing discipleship, you're going to have a lot of baptisms. One boy had his leg in a cast, so the dipping was a little creative. It's interesting to see some who got baptized a few days earlier, now administering baptism.

Day 47 was the regularly scheduled training night, but Gary and Tony had finished their course, so Kyle did some training on how to pray for healing. This mostly involved about a fourth of the audience coming forward for prayer. But beforehand, Monica stood up and testified how she had come into the meeting in a wheelchair three weeks earlier, unable to stand up without intense and lingering pain. Heather (who flew in from Germany for the first week and still hasn't left) shared how she and at least a dozen others had "prayed relentlessly" for her until Monica finally got the faith to respond to their repeated urgings to "stand up!"  When she finally did, she proceeded to walk all the way up the aisle.

Heather has been in contact with her ever since, and even drove the 3 hours to see her. Monica met her at the door dancing! There weren't any spectacular results this night, other than a 28-year old woman who ran to the front and threw down a pack of cigarettes and a lighter, declaring that for the first time in 16 years she was free of her addiction.

Day 48 included a touching video of Bill Lantz, whom Kyle and his team had prayed for weeks earlier, just before Bill was hospitalized for his terminal illness. But that week, he was released to home hospice care, and Kyle was invited back to pray for him again. Kyle told him that God was keeping him alive until he was ready to say "Yes" to Jesus, to which Bill responded, "You're scaring the heck outa me. Does that mean I'm going to die today?"

Basically, yes. Bill did give his life to Jesus, and by the end of the next day he was in heaven.

Day 50 started the wind-up to the Day of Jubilee on Wednesday. A record crowd filled the overflow, and a cry went out for more children's workers. Kyle began a 3-part series on growth, based both on the first half of Acts 16 and a vision his sister Janae Werner had about hair follicles. His cousin was back from Canada to paint another picture, this one slightly abstract to illustrate "Breaking out of your box." Kyle urged the audience, and specifically his brother Shannon (manager of Ace Hardware in Middlebury), "Don't go back to your box."  There are still over 200 names of contacts waiting for discipleship, which will kick into gear beginning on Day 53. Here is what was sent to REVIVE's email subscribers:

When Old Becomes New...

What do we do when we have new patterns of living, of walking in the Spirit, of eating together, and of frequent worship in community? Today is Day 50 of Revive Indiana.  On Day 52 we will March Forth and we will move into yet another phase of life. For me, the last week has been a flurry of activity in itself and I am tired. When we have lived with this revival for 52 days, the new can become old.  But as God changes our lives, we wonder how these changes will carry forward as we return back to our old lives. Here are some ideas to make this transition:

1. Don't Go Back at All. Some of you may look at what it means to go back and realize that if you do go back, you will lose everything you gained. For you, it may be important to find a new job, a new place to live, or moving to a new community. Ask God what new thing He has for you and earnestly seek it. 
2. Go Halfway Back. If you are married, live honorably in your marriage vows. If you have minor children, be the parent God asks you to be. But even within these commitments, there is space to make changes as God invites you into new things. Perhaps you will make some radical shifts in your social life and hobbies. Don't automatically start
3. Embed in a New Way. This may be the most difficult choice. We have all kinds of triggers around us that remind us how we used to be, and shame can shut us down and temptation can pull us back. But perhaps you can shift all the parts of your life to effectively live differently where you are.

No matter which direction God leads you, don't just go back. Don't go back to the old habits; binge watching, eating or drinking. At the core of all of these changes is a continued attentiveness to God and the Holy Spirit's guidance to have everyday encounters with people. Remember the joy that has been given you and continue to engage in activities that feed that joy. Intentional practices of prayer, worship, gathering with believers, and going out into the streets together will sustain and support your continued joy. 

We also need places to cross over and gather with believers from other churches. Last night we gathered with about 60 people from variety of ages and churches to have ice cream, worship, sharing, and games at Clinton Frame. We will continue to do that each Sunday at 5 with a continued welcome for everyone to attend. Perhaps there will be other ways these kinds of gathering will continue on a regular basis. Revive Indiana will have monthly gatherings in April and May with a week long outreach effort in June. Pastors will continue to meet every other week for fellowship and prayer. God has brought us great joy by bringing us together. Let's live in that joy.

John M Troyer
Pastor of Youth & Young Adults
Clinton Frame Mennonite Church

Indiana Revival Report: Day 43

The long-suffering staff at the fabric and variety stores have found themselves visited again and again by Revive teams. Generally they follow the policy and shop at the store first, so it's been good for business. But the ecumenical spirit exhibited by Revive has been a trial for them. The lady at the fabric store keeps a pile of 1 Corinthians 11 tracts ready to hand out to any woman who attempts to pray for her without being religiously covered.

This week is a big push to share the gospel at several of the biggest RV factories in the area. Workers haven't all been receptive, but the Revive team is there for the ones that are.

Saturday, Kyle was invited to the home of an Amish woman who had been fasting the whole 33 days. And she was there that night. That morning, an Amish woman had given her life to Christ right in the morning meeting.

Saturday Kyle also unveiled Revive's discipleship book, containing 52 Bible stories with study questions. It's hot off the press and will be first used for following up on the hundreds of contacts from these 52 days.

Attendance at the evening meetings, still always over a thousand, is no indicator of the level of interest. Churches as far out as an hour away are opening their doors for simulcast showings of the meetings, with people driving another 40 minutes farther out to attend them. Among the various venues where the evening program is being live-streamed are the jails in Elkhart and South Bend. A congregation of ex-Amish in Parke County, several hours away, have been coming one vanload at a time after hearing about the meetings on a visit to Valparaiso. And of course, people are tuning in to one of the 3 radio frequencies or the internet livestream, which also carries the morning meetings. Audios or videos, respectively, of all evening meetings are archived at either maplecitychapel.org or clintonframe.org.

Headcoverings and History: an update

Head Covering and History

Should Christians be baptized in the nude?

My readers may wonder why I've started out an article on head covering with such a startling question. What reason, they may further inquire, could there possibly be for such a practice?

Well, this is an important question to keep in mind as we consider the historical ramifications of The Head Covering. Because you see, it is recorded in Church History that the early Christians practiced Nude Baptism. Despite a widespread desire to return to the practices of the Early Church, I know of no such practice today among adult Christians--in fact even the most modesty-obsessed sects today practice Mixed Baptism, as opposed to the practice of our spiritual forefathers who were accustomed to being surrounded only by members of the same gender when they emerged from the baptismal waters in their Birthday Suits.*

No Nude Baptism? Then we cannot use the practice of the Early Church as an infallible guide for own own. But how about the beliefs of the Church Fathers--can we not use them as a guide to understanding Scripture?

Is it of any significance that the women of the Early Church covered their heads in prayer, and that it was universally believed that such a covering must consist of something other than their own natural covering of long hair?

As it turns out, an entire treatise on the subject has come down to us from antiquity. Let's take a look at it. It's by Tertullian, who wrote around the turn of the 3rd century, and it's called On the Veiling of Virgins.

Let's establish a few things right off the bat:

1) By veil, Tertullian refers to a cloth covering coextant with the unbound hair:
The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled.

2. In Tertullian's world, all Christian women recognize a need for such a distinct covering, although they are not always consistent in wearing one of sufficient size:
(who) even when about to spend time in prayer itself, with the utmost readiness place a fringe, or a tuft, or any thread whatever, on the crown of their heads, and suppose themselves to be covered?

3. It can be seen from the above quote that the recognized primary purpose of the Head Covering was to comply with the specific requirements of 1 Corinthians 11, although Tertullian's main point in this tractate was to urge the use of the Head Covering for reasons of modesty as well.

Tertullian assumes three basic points about the Head Covering; these are the undisputed facts, universal custom based on Scripture:

1) It is to characterize, along with long hair, the feminine gender
2) It is to be worn in conjunction with public worship and prayer
3) It serves two purposes: not only as a symbol of headship, but also as a protector of modesty.

Building on these assumptions, Tertullian makes the following applications, which he realizes are not universal in the Church, but supposes that they should be:
1) All females who have reached puberty should wear this sign of their gender--not just wives.
2) Women should customarily wear their hair completely covered so as no not have to grab for any old thing to plop on their heads when circumstances arise to require it.
3) Women should keep their hair out of view, not only among strangers, but also in the relaxed confines of the church.

Did Tertullian's applications establish an obligation for Christians of all time? No, he was giving his opinions and was certainly entitled to them, but they do not reflect the direct teaching of Scripture, nor the universal understanding of the Church.

But do Tertullian's writings serve any other purpose? Yes, they certainly do. They demonstrate that the undisputed interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, among those who were in the best position to know, did not allow for the modern notion that Hair is the Covering. Whatever else it may have going for it, this interpretation flies in the face of two millennia of Church History.

Should we baptize in the nude? We have no reason for it, nor has any enduring sect of Christians seen any need to resurrect this ancient custom. It is not so much as hinted at in the New Testament, and goes against so much of what we do find there.

Should we cover our women? We have every reason to: the direct teaching of the Apostle, the testimony of saints of every age, and the unbroken custom of Christian women down through the centuries. Should it militate against the customs of our age, so be it; since when can any feature of Christianity be made comfortable to the unrepentant?

Postscript on Febuary 3, 2010:
Philip Payne posted the following interesting, but very misleading list of patristic quotes on the topic:

Macarius Aegyptius (d. c. AD 390), Homiliae spirituales 12.18, explicitly identifies the covering: “Question: Why is it said, ‘a woman praying with uncovered head?’ Answer: Since in the present apostolic time they have been permitted hair instead of a covering.” He specifically interprets 1 Cor 11:5 as referring to hair, not to a veil. Cf. See H. Dörries, E. Klostermann, and M. Kroeger, Die 50 geistlichen Homilien des Makarius (PTS 4; Berlin: DeGruyter, 1964.

Ambrose (c. AD 339–397), Duties of the Clergy 1.46.232, writes, “Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered; doth not nature itself teach you that ‘If a woman have long hair, it is a glory unto her’? It is according to nature, since her hair is given her for a veil, for it is a natural veil.” NPNF2 10:37.

Chrysostom (c. AD 354–407) quotes 1 Cor 11:6b followed by 11:14b–15. He notes in hom. 26.4, “he said not, ‘let her have long hair,’ but, ‘let her be covered,’ ordaining both these to be one … he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one. . . But with regard to the man, it is no longer about covering but about wearing long hair, that he so forms his discourse. ‘Every man praying or prophesying, having any thing on his head, dishonoreth his head.’ He said not, ‘covered,’ but ‘having any thing on his head;’ signifying that even though he pray with the head bare, yet if he have long hair, he is like to one covered. ‘For the hair,’ saith he, ‘is given for a covering.’”

Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11, writes, “It is enough for women to protect their locks, and bind up their hair simply along the neck with a plain hair-pin, nourishing chaste locks with simple care to true beauty.” ANF 2:286.

A detailed commentary by John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 11 can be found here. Clue: It can't possibly refer just to hair.

And as for Clement, he writes in the very same treatise,
"Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence, possessing unfeigned love, pure in body, pure in heart, fit to pray to God. Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled."

*UPDATE JULY 2014
It has come to my attention that the audiences at Christian baptisms were not this restricted.

 "Another Syrian woman, a servant called Mahya, was also stripped naked at her trial, but instead of feeling ashamed, she responded by saying:

It is to your shame … that you have done this; I am not ashamed of myself … I have been naked in the presence of men and women [referring to baptism] without feeling ashamed, for I am a woman – such as was created by God."  --Brock, S.P. and S.A. Harvey, 1987, Holy Women of the Syrian Orient, Berkeley.

However, I don't believe it. I looked up this quote, stripped of all the ellipses, and there is no reference to baptism--just to a loud, boisterous, and masculine woman who bragged of having been publicly naked many times.

*UPDATE SEPT 2018
Here is a video of an Ethiopian Orthodox infant being baptized in the nude, as part of the annual Tikmat purification ceremony that hearkens way back to their Jewish origins. 

Head Covering and Modesty

Cynthia Gee writes:
-----------------------------------------
Here in Central PA the Mennonites wear black tights because flesh colored tights or pantyhose look like skin and so are “less modest”. The Amish (there IS a difference) wear flesh-colored tights or pantyhose, because colored stockings are not as “plain” and thus are less modest.

The Mennonites wear flowered dresses because a pattern is thought to distract the eye from the contours of the body and so is more modest than a solid color. The Amish wear solid colored dresses because prints attract attention and thus are less modest than solid colors. (The younger Amish women also wear black bib-aprons that wrap almost all the way around their bodies. Some of them wrap the apron so tightly that they look like they are wearing a spandex dress with contrasting sleeves! 8o )

In the US, some women put their hair up in a bun and cover the bun, because they think that hair is immodest, whereas in Japan, it was once believed that only immodest women showed the ears and the nape of the neck.

And when I was a teenager, women who were on the make and who wanted to attract men would get gussied up in a dress. Pants were considered to be more modest than long skirts, and women who wore skirts when pants would do were show-offs at best, and at worst, they were, well…..

I could go on and on.
----------------------------

The White Man's comments:

Perhaps a basic black-and white woodland camouflage pattern would work. Oops, no, that would be worldly.

The point is that immodest women can always manage to advertise their wares, no matter what the rules of the culture may be. Certainly the harlots who hung around Jesus were dressed distinctively enough to be readily identified even by those who had never been their customers.

Unfortunately, once rules enter the picture, modesty often goes out the window. No woman really wants to look like a prairie muffin, so the tendency is always to accentuate one's assets in whatever way works. Then other women, who aren't particularly wanting to advertise, fall for peer pressure and wear the same styles just to look nice.

Women in Western (i.e. 'immodest') dress in Saudi Arabia can expect to get their bodies pinched, poked, or groped when they go out in public. We're a bit more refined than that here in the USA, but many women wearing the conservative garb of their order would be shocked to realise the eye candy they are providing some men.

Head Covering and Symbolism: The Challenge

In the previous post I asked if hair length "is even hinted at as a gender-distinguishing trait anywhere else in Scripture." The Apostle John's testimony in Apocalypse 9:8 is offered in defense of the affirmative.

"And they had hairs as hairs of women, and the teeth of them as of lions were"

First of all, this testimony will serve as no precedent for Paul in First Corinthians, as it was written far later. Secondly, notice that the word here usually translated "hair" is not komh, the "long hair" of 1 Cor. 11:14-15 (and nowhere else), but trixas, the accusative plural of the feminine word qrix--the same word used, but in the nominative, in 1:14 for the hair on the head of the Resurrected Christ. So whatever feature it is that characterizes the hair on these monsters, it is not specified as being length. There's nothing to indicate, for example, that their hair was any longer than the Risen Christ's.

So my challenge stands. Long hair as a distinctly feminine trait is not so much as hinted at outside the Headship Symbolism Passage.

Head Covering and Symbolism

Blogger's note: I recognize here, as elsewhere in this blog, that the English language has changed in my lifetime, and the word 'gender' is now used to refer to what the word 'X35' (read upside down & backwards) used to. This is also for the benefit of screening programs which might otherwise make this blog inaccessible.

It's time to consider some problems with the Figurative approach to interpreting and applying 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, the Headship Symbolism Passage.

First of all, it is apparent on its face that in this passage, the Apostle is giving instructions on how to symbolize the headship relationship between:

- God and Christ
- Christ and the man/husband
- The man/husband and the woman/wife

This is foundational, as Paul mentions it before getting into any actual instruction.

Is there any symbol common to these three relationships? If not, why would Paul put them all together in the introductory verse?

To begin with, let's look at some of the symbols depicted in Scripture and see if any of these apply.

1. Clothing. This is one of the first symbols encountered in Scripture. Clothing, we are told in Isaiah 61:10 and Revelation 19:8, can symbolize righteousness and/or salvation. God provided clothing to Adam and Eve, inter alia, for the reason of demonstrating their own lack of righteousness and external need for salvation.

What sort of clothing did Jesus wear? Well, to begin with, he was wrapped in swaddling clothes. The reasons for this are not given in Scripture, but it's apparent that this was the customary attire for a newborn in that culture, and God's approval was on Jesus' initial conformity to the clothing norms of his culture. Does this specifically symbolize in any way the Headship principle? Not apparently. Nor at any time, in mentioning Jesus' clothing, do the Scriptures hint that what he wore was at all extraordinary or meant to symbolize in any way his unique relationship with God; contrast this with the specific mention of his cousin John's unusual clothing and dietary habits.

So there's nothing inherent anywhere in the Scriptures to support the idea of a symbol that is part of one's clothing being used to depict the Headship principle. This is significant, given that clothing is a large part of the Tabernacle cultus described in such minute detail in Exodus and Leviticus.

2. Painful Childbirth and Arduous Agriculture are given in the same chapter of Genesis as symbols of a sort; symbols, like clothing, of mankind's new sinful state. Unlike clothing, which does not appear as gender-specific in its first mention, these symbolic curses were directed at the woman and the man respectively. But could these represent in any way the Headship principle? No, because, being intricately related to the curse of sin as they are, they can't represent the sinless unity between God and His Son.

3. Marriage, which has its origins in the first chapter of Genesis, is later depicted as a symbol of the relationship between Christ and his Body, the Church. Now we're getting close, because in Ephesians chapter five, Paul directly compares the unconditional subjection of a wife to her husband to the unconditional subjection of the Church to Christ. But note that this symbolism does not directly parallel that of 1 Corinthians chapter eleven; the church is not at all in view in that passage. In fact, the usage of 'man' and 'woman' in verses 11-12 clearly shows that more than just the marriage relationship is in view here; men and women as entire gender classes are the subject. Correlating with Paul's prohibition just three chapters later against women teaching men*, woman in general are depicted here as being in subjection to men in general, not just each woman to her own husband. So marriage, which is not the universal experience of either gender class, can't be the symbolism being portrayed here. Neither, then, could it be any symbolism particular to marriage, such as a bridal ring or dress.

4. Hair is an interesting symbol in the Bible, as it too is not gender-specific in its first mention–which doesn't come until the third book of the Bible, where in Leviticus 13:29-33, shaving off the hair is prescribed for any person, male or female, diagnosed with a leprous spot on the head or chin. In the next chapter it even specifies shaving off the eyebrows! Contemporaneous with the Torah narrative, Job is said to have shaved the hair off his head in mourning for his great loss (Job 1:20). Women are categorically commanded to shave their heads in the case of a slave concubine, in Deuteronomy 21:12.

At this point we must digress, as the question arises as to whether hair length is even hinted at as a gender-distinguishing trait anywhere else in Scripture. The first mention of long hair is in Numbers chapter six, in the instructions for a Nazarite–remember, these are specified in verse two as applying to men and women indifferently. The Nazarite is to let his or her hair grow long during the duration of his or her vow, and shave it off for a burnt offering at the completion of the vow. If there is no difference here between man and woman, how could hair length symbolize a difference between the genders?

We now come back to First Corinthians Eleven. Paul clearly feels here that there is should be a gender-based difference in the hair length of men and women respectively, and he considers the reasons behind it to be patently obvious.

Whence obtained Paul such an opinion? Certainly, as it has been shown, not from Scripture.

What, then, could Paul point to as a symbolism of the relationships between God and Christ, Christ and man, and man and woman? He uses a head covering: the visible presence of it for the ultimate relationship, and the visible absence of it for the penultimate relationship--both pointing, in a symbol, to the invisible submission of the Son to the Father within the Godhead.

*8/09/2110 I erred in writing this. Like many patristic authors, I quoted from memory. Lest any read into this a new interpolation in 1 Corinthians 14, I should have specified the location of this prohibition as 1 Timothy 2:12.

Head Covering and inconsistency

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 could be called the Headship Symbolism Passage. Herein (and nowhere else) the Apostle Paul informs the Corinthians (and, by extension, every Christian) of the need to symbolize, in an outwardly visible way, the Headship Principle. There are many different interpretations of the specifics in this passage, but they broadly fall into three basic approaches, here listed with the usual application of each interpretation immediately following:

1) Cultural: Paul expected the Corinthian women to wear something on their heads for cultural reasons specific to that time and place. Therefore women should enhance their femininity by adorning themselves in ways appropriate to the culture in which they live.

2) Figurative: Paul explained that to properly depict the created headship order, women should have long hair, and men should have short hair. Therefore men should keep the hair on their heads cut short, and women should keep the hair on their heads at its full natural length.

3) Literal: Paul is teaching here a basic New Testament principle that women should have a covering on their heads, and that men should not, whenever prophesying or praying. Therefore Christian women should customarily wear their hair under a distinctive covering of a sort which Christian men never wear.

Now, all three approaches have their problems, but the main problem in approaches #1 and #3 is internal inconsistency. Let's look at these two individually.

Approach #1, to begin with, focuses on the women, even though men and women are equally the topic of discussion. What is a man to not wear in order to comply with his culture and proclaim his masculinity? Well, a hat, if he is preaching, praying, or pledging in virtually any culture that isn't Jewish or Muslim. But where does that leave the woman--must she put on a hat, just to be fair? Then we're right back to Approach #3. It's very difficult to remain Cultural and still apply the interpretation equally to both sexes.

Approach #3 suffers from the same inconsistency, in that the standard is applied unequally to women. Men can fit right in with their culture, as above, by removing their hats to preach, pray, or pledge. Women, on the other hand, have to wear their coverings all the time. In fact, the men even have a hard time complying with the requirement to always pray bareheaded; it just isn't practical sometimes. Nor, for that matter, is it practical for the women to always get the official covering on their heads before launching into prayer at any time of the day or night. These are not rare problems, but common ones.

Now looking again at both approaches, we see that they are not internally consistent. Approach #1 works great for women, but it has to appropriate some of the literalness of Approach #3 in order to apply at all to men. In the same way, Approach #3 has to appropriate from Approach #1 the requirement to comply with the expectations of the culture. An internally consistent application of Approach #3 would require of the men only that they never wear their wives' prayer coverings, which is really no requirement at all.

Approach #2 may have other problems, but internal inconsistency is not one of them. Every man is able to have short hair all the time, and every woman is able to have uncut hair all the time (with some obvious rare exceptions that Paul scarcely need mention in depicting the general principle). This does take work, with both sexes under the equal responsibility to maintain their respective coiffures.

And indeed it is men who by nature tend to loose the hair on their heads, not women; thus the requirement is even by nature equally enforceable to both sexes. Just consider the typical reactions of a man and woman, respectively, who loses all his or her hair. The man more often than not just takes it in stride as a natural by-product of his masculinity; the woman, on the other hand, goes to great lengths to hide her shame. It's natural, folks. God made it that way.

This view, far more than the other two, is rooted in a created difference between the sexes. Do not all drawings of Adam & Eve correctly depict them with short and long hair respectively? And from the earliest age of cognition, boys and girls can proclaim the created order with their respective hair lengths whether awake or asleep, dressed or undressed; and they need not await attaining the age of accountability, much less adulthood.

Women have long hair and wear dresses

--At least according to the new walk signals on the streets of Madrid, Spain.

This, despite the fact that the ethnic group most likely to put their women in dresses (Muslims) do not present a clearly distinct profile between their men and women; other than that a man is more likely to wear pants rather than a robe, and a woman is more likely to wear a dress over her pants than pants without a dress; also, that a man is much more likely to appear without his head wrapped up than a woman would, and a woman so appearing is still more than likely to have long hair.

Sound confusing? It is, but no one is confused by a profile of a figure wearing a dress to the knees: It's the universal symbol for a female.

Even in cultures where the women normally wear pants.

UPDATE APRIL 2016: This is finally changing. I received a report of a unisex bathroom in South Africa that depicted two profiles side by side: one with narrower shoulders and wide hips, the other with wider shoulders and narrower hips. There was no discernible difference in hair or dress.

"Letting your hair down"--what does it mean biblically?

The thought came to me today that I could use Google to research idiom usage in both formal and informal language; something that would have taken thousands of hours in a university library ten years ago can now be done in a couple of minutes at an Internet computer terminal anywhere in the world. I began by asking myself, "What are the social connotations of the idiom "let your hair down"?

This is what I discovered, and it opened a world of understanding to the interpretation of a very difficult passage of Scripture.

1) First of all, the phrase has a base literal meaning of taking long hair that had been artificially confined at the top or back of the head and releasing it to hang freely down the back of the neck and shoulders. Thus, the hair is restored to a natural state of being from a temporary state that was imposed on it for reasons not implicitly utilitarian. This meaning survives, but is only a tiny fraction of the uses. Most uses are idiomatic, but all are based primarily or secondarily on the basic literal meaning.

2) Closely tied to the literal meaning, the secondary usage of this idiom refers to literally changing from professional to casual attire. The idea behind this usage is that long hair is to be confined when in professional mode, but can be released for relaxation. This in turn leads to the third meaning, which is purely symbolic.

3) The tertiary usage of this idiom simply represents a change in demeanor, behavior, or relationship from the forced and professional to the natural and casual. Often the meaning is simply to give way to "being yourself" after struggling to meet someone else's expectations. This is something that can only be done when among friends, who are neither impressed nor fooled by such pretenses.

Now, the question is, how does this all relate to the notion that some people have that any woman without her hair up is, to whatever extent, not fully clothed? Let's look at the threefold implication of this threefold idiom:

1) Confining the hair is done for non-utilitarian reasons: that is, it serves a purpose beyond just that which benefits the hair itself. One must therefore ask, what are these reasons, and are they important? In First Corinthians Eleven, The Bible speaks of a woman's hair as a God-given covering, using the Greek prefix peri- which denotes that which wraps around. Some interpret this to mean that the hair must be wrapped up at the back of the head. If this were so, it would indicate that the natural, God-given purpose for women's hair is to be wrapped up at the back of the head. This idea is antithetical to the basic idiom, and seems to be purely the product of ad hoc reasoning. The logical interpretation of this use of the word seems to require that the usual state of a woman's hair be such that it is allowed to fall both forward and back, enveloping the shoulders as a covering--which, incidentally, is how Eve's hair is typically shown by biblical artists, literally serving as a modesty-covering in conjunction with strategically placed foliage. I don't know of any artist who has ever depicted our First Mother with her hair in a bun--either before or after she adopted clothing!
The Bible speaks elsewhere of a woman who obviously had her hair down--she used it to wipe Jesus' feet. That she was a prostitute and probably wore her hair that way professionally is a given, but the point is that Jesus commended her behavior, something he could not have done had some element of it been sinful. Her loose hair does hearken back to the trial of jealousy in Numbers 5, where something shameful is done to a woman's hair. Precisely what is not certain, as the hair itself is not mentioned, but the passage can be understood to refer to a forced, public uncovering of hair that is already down. Taken en toto, biblical references to woman's hair seem to indicate that there is nothing unnatural about woman's hair being down, thus lending credence to the inherent truism of the idiom. What is specifically noted as being unnatural is SHORT hair on a woman (1 Cor. 11:15), which reinforces the idea that visibly long (i.e., down and flowing) hair is the natural state. In contrast to this, a woman with moderately cropped hair can successfully conceal it by keeping her hair up and confined under an opaque covering, thus circumventing the shame that would otherwise be associated with cropped hair.

2) The above passages do hint at a symbolic reason for confining a woman's hair; the emphasis, however, is on confining it under a covering, rather than in a bun. An uncovered woman is said to be as shameful as a woman with no hair at all, which would seem to indicate that the hair itself, in its full length would be shamefully visible were the covering removed. The idiomatic meaning of "letting your hair down" always connotes casualness, never shame. The shamefulness of an uncovered woman, therefore, has nothing to do with whether her hair is up or down, but whether or not it is covered.

3) The idea of "just being yourself" has interesting implications. I have been in the homes of several women who treat putting up and covering their hair as a natural part of getting dressed. Should you catch them at home in the hour or so after they bathe, however, it becomes clear that they do not consider wearing their hair down as a modesty issue to the extent that they would consider running around the house in their underwear as a modesty issue. They remove their clothing, including the head covering, to bathe themselves, but they typically leave their heads uncovered when they emerge from the bath to dress, and continue to leave it loose while it dries, without any fear that they are exposing their nakedness to their guests.

What conclusions can I draw from this? First of all, while the Bible has nothing to say on the topic of whether or not a woman should wear her hair up or down, it does strongly discourage wearing it braided (I Timothy 2:9, I Peter 3:3), in a context of ostentatious adornment. While I do not understand exactly what Scripture means by such a seemingly senseless prohibition, I find this item interesting because when I joined the military, a decade after the regular military ratings began to open up to women, there was still a distinct difference in the way men and women were expected to dress, which included how they wore their hair. Women were allowed skirts; men weren't. Women were permitted to wear their coverings during prayer; men weren't. Women were even required to wear a distinctive covering which allowed for their volume of hair, a volume which was expected to be considerably greater than a man's. Women with long hair, however, were required to wear it up when in uniform. And braids were forbidden! Despite this item in the grooming standards, women typically braided their long hair, and inspectors were once heard to wonder, during a uniform inspection, why this would not be allowed, as it seemed to be the most sensible way to put hair up under a covering. In the military, then, "letting your hair down" could only be done off duty, out of uniform, whether or not the hair was braided. On a practical note, hair that is braided is not truly 'let down,' as this unnatural state will already have begun to unravel by the end of the day.

One of the principle by which we interpret Scripture is to test any interpretation of application by its universality. Since some women's hair is naturally short, and some naturally long, the shame mentioned in I Corinthians 11:6 must refer, not to the amount of hair that is showing, but to its nature: has it been cut, or allowed to grow to its full length? By wearing a woman's hair up and under a covering, it is impossible to expose one's hair to the scrutiny that would allow for such shame to occur.

It appears, then, that grooming style most fitting with the Scriptures is for a woman to wear her hair loose and down, but available at all times to be covered with a cloth that closely approximates the extent of the hair itself. In fact, the anti-braiding passages associate any arrangement of the hair beyond that which is purely natural with a level of ostentation totally unsuitable for a Christian woman. Having observed the practice of believers from India, I understand that this is how they have lived for centuries, except that they generally braid or otherwise confine their uncut hair which would otherwise become unmanageable at such a length. The major question in my mind is not whether or not they are less conservative then Scripture demands, but whether their practice will influence the rest of Christendom, or vice versa. It is not uncommon in my experience see the pastor's wife as the only woman in an Indian church not following this practice, if her husband has imbibed the draughts of Western Theological Education.

In Summary:

In General, a Christian woman can always feel free to have her hair down; she typically needs enter no situation where professional expectations on her require her to deport herself unnaturally. Her hair is to be covered while prophesying or praying, because then she has an audience of angels; at other times, she needs only to deport herself modestly, whether among friends or strangers. Even her obviously uncut hair, worn unostentatiously, is a constant reminder to her audience of her submission to Christ.

UPDATE JULY 2014
This, the first post, has continued to pull in viewers for a decade, averaging over two a month. I now offer the first update:
The difference between a Muslim woman and a Christian woman: the former can never let her hair down.