What kind of clothing should Christians wear when in public?

[Paprika]

Let us deal with Dan Wallace's argument:

Source: https://bible.org/article/what-head-covering-1-cor-112-16-and-does-it-apply-us-today

Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women--even biblically submissive wives--resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended.

© Copyright Original Source

Wallace in his article ignores Paul's argument from φύσις (or the rough equivalent of nature) and the created order which should immediately raise red neon warning signs and loud blaring sirens. His main argument as quoted above is that head-covering would be shameful in the West.

That is, he argues that since outsiders would view head-covering as shameful we should not do it. But this is just saying that 'we shouldn't do anything shameful against our own cultural norms just because the outsiders will get the wrong message given their infatuation with egalitarianism' which is just utter rubbish.

This 'exegesis' does not even deal with Paul's main arguments from a) the created order or b) φύσις. What it does do is go "herp derp the heathens would view it as shameful today so we don't do it".

[KingsGambit]

I'll respond tomorrow; I have to go to bed now.

[Paprika]

What if this were the case?

Then one of the best texts against homosexuality would be rendered useless.

We can also turn it around: it is patently clear that Paul is referring to the proper state of things when he uses φύσις in Romans. Why shouldn't he be using it in 1 Corinthians as well?

The Nazirite objection has been dealt with. The 'cultural' objection is merely us being influenced by our egalitarian cultures and wanting it to be the norm.

If anything, in 1 Cor 11 Paul clearly states that 'if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God' - the various practices regarding the head was a norm across the variegated cultures of the Church - Jew, Greek, and Roman.

[KingsGambit]

But if Paul is culturally appealing to φύσις it merely means that his appeal to Romans 1 is based on cultural terms, so it means nothing as condemnation. At best we can only used other texts.

What if this were the case?

[Paprika]

The case would be impossible to make because homosexuality is unequivocally condemned elsewhere, without a scintilla of mitigating data.

But if Paul is culturally appealing to φύσις it merely means that his appeal to Romans 1 is based on cultural terms, so it means nothing as condemnation. At best we can only used other texts.

It is likely that Paul himself took a Nazarite vow in Acts 18:18, and given the strength of the invective used in this Corinthians passage, it seems unlikely he would want to make such an argument that would boomerang against himself if meant universally.

One could say the same about the cross and its shame. That shameful acts can be taken on in special cases declared valid by God does not negate the general rule.

By the way, when I have some time in a few weeks, would you be interested in a formal debate on women in ministry?

No. But I may have time for women in marriage.

[KingsGambit]

In which case then should we not say the same for Romans 1, that when Paul proclaims that homosexual relations are 'unnatural' it is merely cultural?

The case would be impossible to make because homosexuality is unequivocally condemned elsewhere, without a scintilla of mitigating data. I do get the logic of you saying this because the readings recommended by my own professors make such a reading. Applying this in the case of hair would lead to something of a contradiction because of other biblical examples of long hair as I've alluded to. [/QUOTE]

So what?

It is likely that Paul himself took a Nazarite vow in Acts 18:18, and given the strength of the invective used in this Corinthians passage, it seems unlikely he would want to make such an argument that would boomerang against himself if meant universally.

By the way, when I have some time in a few weeks, would you be interested in a formal debate on women in ministry? I feel like I did not sufficiently defend my stance in my first attempt two years ago, but that this was somewhat masked due to the incompetence of my opponent.

[Paprika]

The appeal to φύσις nonetheless seems cultural

special pleading to the effect that our time and culture is the norm while what Paul said had to be discounted because it was clearly culturally conditioned

I view his use of the term here similar to Paul's use of typology.

In which case then should we not say the same for Romans 1, that when Paul proclaims that homosexual relations are 'unnatural' it is merely cultural?

It would be difficult to argue that the reference to men having long hair was universally shameful because that would bring shame upon anyone who took the Nazarite vow.

So what?

[KingsGambit]

The appeal to φύσις nonetheless seems cultural; I view his use of the term here similar to Paul's use of typology. It would be difficult to argue that the reference to men having long hair was universally shameful because that would bring shame upon anyone who took the Nazarite vow.

I've read Dan Wallace's article when researching this (unless he wrote more than one) and it was merely special pleading to the effect that our time and culture is the norm while what Paul say had to be discounted because it was clearly culturally conditioned


I wouldn't mind if other people were fine with it. This, of course, doesn't detract from correct exegesis.

Moreover, homosexuality and covering of heads has to do with φύσις, which is much more important than manners of greeting.

[Paprika]

Pointing out background data negates nothing. No less a conservative scholar as Dan Wallace applies this as an admonition for men and women to dress distinctively, if not literally with head differences.

I've read Dan Wallace's article when researching this (unless he wrote more than one) and it was merely special pleading to the effect that our time and culture is the norm while what Paul say had to be discounted because it was clearly culturally conditioned

I assume you're in the business of practicing holy kisses?

I wouldn't mind if other people were fine with it. This, of course, doesn't detract from correct exegesis.

Moreover, homosexuality and covering of heads has to do with φύσις, which is much more important than manners of greeting.

[KingsGambit]

Interesting. In what I've been reading, Craig Keener notes this theory, but says evidence is sporadic so to speak. It might not have necessarily been an association with prostitutes, but it still was very likely the cultural mores of the common people noted being uncovered as improper (with wealthy women less likely to follow that custom; they were more likely to follow the fashion).

I just happen to be writing a seminary paper on the topic this weekend and just happened to write down that in my note taking when I went to the library on Friday. It was from a commentary so not necessarily the most rigorous of contexts. I'm apt to trust Keener as he's conversant with wide varieties of background sources.

[thewriteranon]

Respect cultural mores, too. Scott Nash points out in giving some background to Corinthians that in that culture, a women whose head was uncovered was advertising herself as a prostitute, thus Paul's admonition to women to cover their heads.

Interesting. In what I've been reading, Craig Keener notes this theory, but says evidence is sporadic so to speak. It might not have necessarily been an association with prostitutes, but it still was very likely the cultural mores of the common people noted being uncovered as improper (with wealthy women less likely to follow that custom; they were more likely to follow the fashion).

[KingsGambit]

What a convenient negation of the text for our time.

Paul appeals to φύσις there in 1 Corinthians, just as he refers to φύσις when he condemns homosexuality in Romans.

Pointing out background data negates nothing. No less a conservative scholar as Dan Wallace applies this as an admonition for men and women to dress distinctively, if not literally with head differences. I assume you're in the business of practicing holy kisses?

[Paprika]

Respect cultural mores, too. Scott Nash points out in giving some background to Corinthians that in that culture, a women whose head was uncovered was advertising herself as a prostitute, thus Paul's admonition to women to cover their heads.

What a convenient negation of the text for our time.

Paul appeals to φύσις there in 1 Corinthians, just as he refers to φύσις when he condemns homosexuality in Romans.

[KingsGambit]

Respect cultural mores, too. Scott Nash points out in giving some background to Corinthians that in that culture, a women whose head was uncovered was advertising herself as a prostitute, thus Paul's admonition to women to cover their heads.

[Paprika]

This is a topic that really isn't that clear to me.

Say that you are going to the beach. Should a male be wearing just a boxer shorts or pants leaving his entire top uncovered? Should a female wear just a bikini?

Not everything has to be ruled by 'Thou shalt' and 'Thou shalt not'. And the absence of explicit rules doesn't mean anything goes.

Let the virtues be your guide: prudence, temperance, charity.