Alright ladies, your turn!

[ken_sylvania]

Is the addition/interpretation of "uncut hair" in relation to the Biblical principle that "a woman should have long hair" an example of legalism?

I think that interpreting the word "shorn" 1 Cor. 11:6 as referring to cutting the hair is a reasonable interpretation. So I wouldn't call it legalism. Perhaps a better example of legalism would be arguing that it's OK for a woman to cut her hair provided she doesn't cut it short because "it doesn't specifically say that a woman shall not cut her hair."

There are numerous readings in numerous translations relating to "shorn". There are different interpretations of what "shorn" should mean when reading
translations where "shorn" is used. I don't know what is the most accurate terminology.
Here is one translation...

2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, shames his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, shames her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut short. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut short or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man.

I agree that interpretation is also reasonable.

[Heirbyadoption]

the Bible's prohibition against women cutting any hair...

This isn't directed at Josh per se, just a question for anybody since it comes up in this sort of thread. I get overreaching Menno tradition in well-meant efforts to apply principles, but is there anybody here who truly believes (I am not asking mockingly, honest) that the Bible literally teaches that women must have UNCUT hair, and if so, how do you get that out of 1 Corinthians 11 or any other place in Scripture? I'm all for women having long hair, and I get that hyper-logicalism suggests that "uncut hair" is inherently "long, but is there anybody here who is willing to say they literally believe that this teaching is actually Scriptural, and if so, could you explain it to me from said Scripture? While having grown up in an Old Order group, we never had "uncut" hair requirements, only teaching that women should have long hair as opposed to men, so when I started mingling with Mennos it was honestly a bit of a puzzler, as they would always state uncut hair as a Scriptural teaching, rather than anybody ever openly stating that it's just an extra-biblical application requirement rooted in the biblical teaching for women to have long hair...

Wife: It’s from first Corinthians 11:6 I think, and I’m sure the Pentecostals have a good writeup on it. There might also be some historical stuff about it or something. I don’t personally think it means 100% uncut, but I also don’t think it overly matters, and if someone thinks that it does mean that, then they should go off of that.

Thank you for sharing. I share your understanding that it doesn't mean 100% uncut, based on the word translated into "shorn", but I find myself hesitant to say it doesn't overly matter, for this reason - The text itself explicitly refers to long hair, not uncut, and when a regulation is created, taught and enforced (whether through discipline or peer pressure) on the basis that the Bible actually specifically says women must have uncut hair rather than long, it creates a law based upon a dishonest rendering (ie. demonstrable misrepresentation) of the scriptures (and brings several other issues with it as well). If somebody wants to have uncut hair, I wholly concur that is their liberty, but when something is taught from the pulpit, enforced upon the members, and used as a standard of spiritual judgment, yet it is NOT what the Scriptures say, it is the promotion of a legalistic lie, regardless how virtuous the original intent.

Ergo my original question regarding those that believe or are part of a church that teaches that the Word of God explicitly says women must have uncut hair, as opposed to simply keeping it long. For whatever its worth, when it comes to that strong of a position, I believe it actually does matter.